Learn about stress, burnout, and resilience among novice early childhood administrators—stress is common, but hope and professional supports can sustain them.

INTRODUCTION Research has established the vital role administrators play in the success and sustainability of high- quality early childhood care and education (ECEC) programs (Doherty et al., 2015; Lower & Cassidy 2007; McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership, 2010, 2022; Rohacek, et al., 2010). However, many center-based program administrators assume their leadership roles by being promoted from a teaching position (Abel et al., 2018; Douglass, 2019; Kirby et al., 2023; Kelton & Talan, 2023; McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership, 2018). Consequently, while they may assume their administrative role with a strong background in teaching young children, they often lack the specific education, specialized training, and experience needed to successfully lead and sustain a high-quality ECEC program (Abel et al., 2018; Bloom et al., 2013; Kelton & Talan, 2023; McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership, 2018; Talan et al., 2014). In fact, a recent study found that 71% of program administrators reported feeling unprepared for the issues they faced (Kelton & Talan, 2023).  Adult learning theory, as well as research across many workforce sectors, including early childhood education (e.g., Raduan & Na, 2020; Dall’Alba & Sandberg 2006; Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986; Fukkink & Lont, 2007; Kinchin & Cabot, 2010) highlights the need to align professional development opportunities with career development stages. In 1997, Paula Jorde Bloom created The Directors’ Role Perceptions Survey (DRPS) to examine the perceived roles and work history of 257 center administrators (Rafanello & Bloom, 1997; Bella et al., 2017). For nearly 30 years, the DRPS and, more recently, the Administrator Role Perception Survey (ARPS) have used self-perceptions of mastery of key early childhood program leadership competencies, rather than years of experience to categorize ECEC center-based administrators into three distinct career development stages—novice, proficient or capable, and advanced or master (Abel et al., 2019; Bloom, 2007, 2019; McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership, 2018; Rafanello & Bloom, 1997). Predictably, specific differences in the training and coaching needs of administrators for each stage have emerged in the literature (e.g., Bloom & Bella, 2005; Bloom et al., 2013; Kelton & Talan, 2023; McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership, 2018). Further research has shown that professional development, tailored to the needs of administrators at different career stages, leads to individual improvement in self-efficacy and mastery of leadership competencies as well as organizational gains in program quality and organizational climate (e.g., Bloom et al., 2013; Doherty, 2015; Kelton & Talan, 2023; Talan et al., 2014). This highlights the importance of considering career development stages when designing and delivering professional learning opportunities for administrators. Yet, many professional learning experiences for administrators are broadly approached with a one-size-fits-all mentality, placing little emphasis on the different competencies, experiences, and needs of administrators at various career stages. As Douglass & Kirby noted, “ECE leadership development and practice needs more empirical evidence to inform the supports and systems that are necessary to strengthen leadership at all stages of its development” (2022, p. 11). While McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership’s work (2018) provided broad profiles of administrators’ role perceptions and self-identified professional development needs by career development stage, this Research Brief aims to expand on that work by providing an in- depth profile of the largest career development stage group: the proficient administrator. Building on the established characterization of proficient administrators as those who shift from struggling to juggling responsibilities, focus on improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and fit into the conscious competence learning stage (Bloom, 2007, 2019), this study examines their perceived alignment between current and ideal work experiences, career origins, current role perceptions, levels of self-efficacy, and mastery of critical leadership competencies. METHOD This study included 103 center-based administrators whose ARPS profile scores identified them as in the proficient career development stage. The ARPS is a self-report measure completed by early childhood program administrators to measure perceptions about their roles, leadership competency, and professional development needs aligned with the McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership’s Whole Leadership Framework (Abel et al., 2019; Bella et al., 2017). The sample included ECEC administrators from nine US states (KS, IL, IN, MI, MN, NJ, OK, TX, & WA). The majority (61%) of the sample identified their current role title as director, 15% as assistant director, 13% as owner-director, and 12% as executive director. Seventy-two percent indicated that they shared their administrative responsibilities with at least one other person, and 20% indicated that their job description included regularly assigned classroom teaching. The majority (62%) of the sample identified as White or Caucasian, 15% as Hispanic/Latinx, 11% Black or African American, 5% Asian, 4% as Multiracial, 2% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 2% selected other. The sample predominantly identified as female (94%); 6% identified as male. The majority (86%) of the sample reported having earned a college degree. See Table 1 for a detailed breakdown. Of 89 respondents who reported having earned a college degree, 65% majored in child development or early childhood education. Thirty-three percent of the sample had an early childhood teaching license, and 14% had an elementary teaching license. Comparatively, only 28% of the sample had a state or national administrator or director credential, and 4% had a principal endorsement. Eleven percent reported having previously participated in an early childhood leadership academy.

Learn how targeted professional development boosts novice administrators’ leadership skills, retention, and program quality in the critical first years.

Explore strategies for meeting the need for intensive, cohesive professional development to support educators and leaders during challenging times.

Nationally, early childhood education leaders are working to define the profession and establish a unified professional framework for the workforce. The “North Star” vision for all lead early educators is a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education (Friedman-Krauss, Barnett, Weisenfeld, Kasmin, DiCrecchio, & Horowitz, 2018). While this offers clarity to the field regarding teachers and pedagogical leaders, it does not address issues regarding the requisite professional preparation and continuing education of program administrators responsible for the administrative leadership of early childhood programs.  Consideration of early childhood program administrators has been noticeably absent from much of the recent discussion about the workforce crisis, including the preparation, ongoing support, and compensation needed to stabilize the profession. Bearing in mind the impact on organizational climate, program development and sustainability, as well as the influence of directors, family child care professionals, and school principals on teaching and learning, it is reasonable that site-based program leaders should be factored into a reimagined and transformed workforce. Minimally, general education requirements should include a bachelor’s degree, specialized education and training in early childhood education and child development, and specialized education and training in program administration. Requisite qualifications for early childhood program administrators should at least match, if not exceed, those of early childhood teachers. EARLY CHILDHOOD LEADERSHIP GAP There is a lack of consistent policies and supports for improving the qualifications and competencies of those who lead early childhood programs, resulting in a leadership gap. The gap is most evident between early childhood center administrators and elementary school principals serving Pre-K children (Abel, Talan, Pollitt, and Bornfreund, 2016; Lieberman, 2017). In addition, with recent advances in the requisite qualifications for publicly-funded early childhood teachers, a qualifications gap is beginning to emerge between teachers and center-based administrators. It is essential that the qualifications for program administrators keep pace with those of teachers and that program administrators also receive specialized education and training in leadership and management. Four years ago, the McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership published a report on the status of early childhood leadership in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. The report included information about five policy levers that identify the minimal qualifications for administrators in child care licensing standards, state administrator credentials, principal licensure, quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS), and state-funded Pre-K programs. Closing the Leadership Gap: 2017 Status Report on Early Childhood Program Leadership in the United States (Abel, Talan, and Newkirk, 2017) highlighted the extent of the leadership gap and reported on key policy differences that brought the problem center-stage. The current 2021 study provides an updated report on the status of early childhood program leadership in the United States. Specifically, this study looks at whether there have been any changes to states’ ratings on the five policy levers indicating a more unified professional framework for site-based program leaders since the initial study was conducted in 2017. HOW DATA WAS COLLECTED The research team studied documents available electronically on the websites of state legislatures, administrator credentialing programs, QRIS initiatives, departments of education, human services, and early childhood development and learning, as well as the QRIS Compendium and the New America Pre-K Policy Scan. The data collected from these sources were used to update each of the five policy lever rubrics for each state on the L.E.A.D. Early Childhood Clearinghouse (McCormickCenter.nl.edu). Based on these updated rubrics, each state was given an overall policy rubrics score which was examined for changes from 2017 to 2021. THAT WAS THEN (2017) National Profile While the early childhood education profession was moving toward acceptance of the BA in early childhood education as the standard for lead teachers, there was no agreement about early childhood program leaders’ requisite competencies and education. Instead, federal and state regulatory systems had created a wide array of standards for individuals leading programs for children, birth through age eight. Professional preparation standards for elementary school principals were consistently more robust than those for center- or home-based program leaders. While the vast majority of states required elementary school principals to have a graduate degree in education, only New Jersey required a licensed center director to have a bachelor’s degree. However, this requirement applied only if the program served more than thirty children. Advancements in standards for administrators of child care programs, primarily seen in voluntary state QRIS and state-funded Pre-K, had not led to substantial improvements in the basic qualifications of early childhood program administrators. In 2017, no state scored higher than six (out of ten) on their state-specific, overall policy levers rubric. Three states—California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania—achieved the highest overall policy levers score (range of 5-7). Table 1 provides the scoring rubric used to determine each state’s overall policy levers score. Policy Levers States’ policies regarding the professional requirements for early childhood program administrators were assessed on five policy levers: Administrator Qualifications in Child Care Licensing Standards Administrator Credential Principal Licensure Administrator Qualifications in QRIS Administrator Qualifications in State Pre-K Programs The five policy levers were derived from the recommendations of the 2015 National Academy of Medicine report, Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth through Age 8 (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2015). This report called for a unifying foundation for all lead educators—inclusive of center directors, principals, and family child care professionals—having a minimum of a bachelor’s degree with content knowledge and competency in child development/early childhood education. Additional competencies, depending on role, were also required. The five policy levers and the scoring rubrics addressed the need for early childhood program leaders across sectors to have a BA degree and competencies in both child development/early childhood education and program administration. The goal of reporting each state’s overall policy levers score was to encourage thought leaders, policymakers, and advocates to tear down the silos and take a cross-sector, systems approach to improving the qualifications, competencies, and ongoing professional development of early childhood program leaders. Administrator Qualifications in Child Care Licensing Standards (2017) No state required a bachelor’s degree of directors in its child care licensing standards for all programs regardless of size. Only New Jersey required a bachelor’s degree for directors of licensed child care programs serving more than thirty children. Only five states (Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island) and the District of Columbia required an associate degree (or its equivalent number of college credits) for newly-hired directors. Administrator Credential (2017) There were voluntary early childhood administrator credentials offered in thirty states. Only two states required a minimum of a bachelor’s degree (New Jersey and West Virginia). Only six states required a minimum of an associate degree (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, and Pennsylvania). Principal Licensure (2017) Forty states required a graduate degree for school principals. Only nine states (Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) included Pre-K content in their licensure requirements. Only Illinois included a Pre-K practicum or field experience in licensure requirements. Administrator Qualifications in QRIS (2017) In sixteen states, a bachelor’s degree was required of early childhood administrators at the highest level of their QRIS. Ten states (Arizona, California, Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington) required twenty-one or more college credits in early childhood education or child development college coursework at the highest level of QRIS. Only three states (California, New York, and Hawaii) included any college credit in business or administration at the highest level of QRIS. Administrator Qualifications in State Pre-K Programs (2017) Sixteen states and the District of Columbia required a bachelor’s degree or higher of administrators in state-funded Pre-K programs. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia required administrators of state-funded Pre-K programs to hold a principal license in school-based programs. Only five states (California, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania) required administrators of center-based Pre-K programs to have earned an administrator credential. This is now (2021) National Profile Today there is consensus on a unifying framework for the early childhood profession. The Unifying Framework for the Early Childhood Education Profession (PowerToTheProfession.org) clearly defines the standards, qualifications, roles, compensation, and supports for members of the early childhood profession working with children from birth through age eight. While this unifying framework is inclusive of instructional or pedagogical leaders, it does not encompass the requisite competencies, education, compensation, and supports for early childhood program administrators—those with overall responsibility for leading early childhood education and care programs situated in child care centers, family child care homes, and elementary schools. Professional preparation standards for elementary school principals continue to be far more robust than those for center- or home-based program leaders. There is still only one state, New Jersey, that requires a licensed center director to have a bachelor’s degree (if the program serves more than thirty children). One emerging trend in child care licensing is the bifurcation of the administrative role into two required positions (depending on the number of children served), one responsible for pedagogical leadership and one for administrative leadership (Delaware, New Jersey, and Rhode Island). In 2021, only Illinois, scored a seven (out of ten) on the state-specific, overall policy levers rubric. Only two states—Illinois and Pennsylvania—scored between five and seven on their overall policy levers rubric. While the national picture shows little variation over the past four years, zooming in to specific benchmarks within each state’s policy rubrics reveals small changes in required standards or policies, suggesting subtle movement toward increased professional qualifications and supports for early childhood program leaders. Tables 2-6 provide counts, percentages, and lists of states that meet each of the benchmarks found within the five policy lever rubrics. Below are some highlights from the 2021 policy scan. Administrator Qualifications in Child Care Licensing Standards (2021) There is still only one state (New Jersey) that requires a bachelor’s degree for directors of licensed child care centers, but this requirement applies only to centers serving more than thirty children. Rhode Island requires a bachelor’s degree for the pedagogical leader (called a Head Teacher) for all licensed child care centers, in addition to a Director responsible for administrative leadership. In small programs, these roles may be filled by the same person. Four states (Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, and Pennsylvania) and the District of Columbia require an associate degree (or the equivalent number of college credits) for newly-hired directors in their child care licensing standards. Only Pennsylvania requires thirty or more college credits in early childhood education or child development; Illinois, Indiana, and Rhode Island require at least twenty-one college credits in early childhood education or child development. Only Vermont requires at least seven college credits in business or administration. Administrator Credential (2021) Thirty-three states offer an early childhood administrator credential (a gain of three states, New Mexico, Texas, and Vermont, since 2017); the majority (55%) of administrator credentials are competency-based. Twenty-one states recognize the Aim4Excellence™ National Director Credential, and six states recognize the National Administrator Credential in their state’s Early Childhood Professional Development System. Two states require a minimum of a bachelor’s degree (New Jersey, and West Virginia). Seven states require a minimum of an associate degree (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, New York, and Pennsylvania), a gain of one state since 2017. Principal Licensure (2021) Forty-three states require a graduate degree for their school leaders, a gain of three states. Thirty-six states require three or more years of teaching experience for school leaders. Only nine states (Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) include Pre-K content in their licensure requirements. Only Illinois requires a Pre-K practicum or field experience in licensure requirements. Administrator Qualifications in QRIS (2021) In fifteen states, an administrator credential is embedded in QRIS at one or more levels. Only Delaware requires a bachelor’s degree at the lowest level of QRIS. Only Illinois requires a minimum of twenty-one semester hours of college credit in early childhood education or child development at the lowest level of QRIS. No state requires a minimum of nine semester hours of college credit in business or administration at the lowest level of QRIS. Administrator Qualifications in State Pre-K Programs (2021) Twenty states and the District of Columbia (four more than in 2017) required a bachelor’s degree or higher of administrators in state-supported Pre-K programs. The number of states (thirty-eight) that require administrators of state-funded Pre-K programs to hold a principal license or endorsement in school-based programs remains the same as in 2017. Six states (California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania) require administrators of center-based Pre-K programs to have earned an administrator credential—a gain of one state since 2017. Only seven states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan) and the District of Columbia require 18 or more college credits in early childhood education or child development. Only five states (Connecticut, Illinois, New Mexico, Texas, Vermont) and the District of Columbia require nine or more college credits in business or administration. DISCUSSION Taking a macro view, the early childhood program leadership gap is just as large in 2021 as it was in 2017. The overall policy levers score went up in six states and down in seven states. In four years, no state achieved an overall policy levers score in the top quartile (range of 8 – 10). Zooming in to the micro view, however, there were small advances toward a more unified professional framework for program leaders working across sectors. In child care licensing, administrative intensity is beginning to be addressed. Additional administrators (variously called Education Coordinator, Head Teacher, or Group Teacher) are required based on the number of children served in the licensed child care program. This position, not to be counted in teacher: child ratios, provides pedagogical leadership and has the same or more stringent educational requirements as the Director. The additional administrative role, regardless of title, creates a “leadership bench” to ensure adequate capacity to carry out essential leadership functions. Momentum in administrator credentialing also appears to be growing: three more states offer a voluntary administrator credential (New Mexico, Texas, and Utah), one more state requires a minimum of an associate degree (New York), and the majority of state administrator credentials are now competency-based. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY Three policy recommendations are emerging from the updated L.E.A.D. Early Childhood Clearinghouse data. First, there is a pressing need for a unifying foundation of administrative qualifications and competencies reflecting a whole leadership approach across sectors. A competent early childhood program leader working in a school, center, or licensed home needs core knowledge and skills in child development, early childhood pedagogy, leadership essentials, and program administration. Second, the silos of program standards by sector for early childhood administrators can best be eliminated by considering the five policy levers together. Third, attention to leadership capacity—multiple and differentiated leadership positions based on consistent criteria—will need to be addressed in future policy scans of early childhood program leadership.

Over the past decade, researchers, policy makers, and practitioners have increasingly come to recognize the importance of quality in early care and education. Along with this recognition is compelling evidence that sound administrative practices help ensure high-quality learning opportunities for young children. 1, 2, 3 Since its first publication in 2004, the Program Administration Scale: Measuring Early Childhood Leadership and Management (PAS) has been used across the country to reliably measure and improve center-based leadership and management practices. In 2011, the second edition of the PAS was published and included updated national norms and refinements reflecting best practices in early childhood program administration. 4 Data collected by the McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership since 2011 are examined here to provide the most current picture of the administrative practices of a large, national sample of center-based programs.  SAMPLE AND METHODOLOGY The PAS includes 25 items clustered in 10 subscales, which measure both leadership and management practices of center-based early care and education programs. 4 Each item is scored on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing inadequate quality, 3 representing minimal quality, 5 representing good quality, and 7 representing excellent quality in administrative practices. Items are comprised of 2 to 5 indicator strands. Each indicator is aligned with the 1-7 Likert scale and rated as either Yes orNo based on the program’s ability to meet the indicator criteria. The PAS assessments included in this analysis were conducted by certified PAS assessors. To become certified, PAS assessors must first achieve reliability (a score of at least 86%) on a test conducted after four days of training on the tool. Next, they must conduct two PAS assessments within three months of reliability training. The completed assessments are reviewed by PAS national anchors for consistency, accuracy, and completeness. The data for this study consisted of approved PAS assessments collected during the certification process from 693 center-based early care and education programs representing 31 states and the District of Columbia. FINDINGS The average PAS item score for this sample was calculated at 3.40, with a standard deviation of 1.12. Mean individual items’ scores ranged from 1.61 (Benefits) to 6.44 (Community Outreach). Overall, the results of the data analysis suggest that most programs do not have well-developed administrative practices in place to support program sustainability and long-term quality. Table 1 provides the means and standard deviations for all item scores as well as the average PAS item score. As noted in the table, the majority of programs scored between the good and excellent range on Family Support and Involvement and Technological Resources, but most scored below minimal quality for Compensation, Benefits, Internal Communications, Program Evaluation, Strategic Planning, as well as all four roles contained within the Staff Qualifications subscale (Administrator, Lead Teacher, Teacher, and Assistant Teacher/ Aide). OUTCOMES What are the strengths of programs? To better explore aggregated strengths, data were examined at the indicator level to see in which areas programs demonstrated practices at the level of quality consistent with administrative effectiveness and program sustainability. Specifically, we looked at indicators where at least 75% of the programs received a positive (Yes) rating at the 5 or good level of quality. Out of 316 total PAS indicators, only 16 in the sample met this criterion. Program strengths are summarized below: Administrators understand the importance of professional development (PD) and support their staff by allocating time and resources for PD. Fully 87% of programs provided on-site or paid for off-site staff development for all teaching, support, and administrative staff.In addition, 92% of programs had information regarding publicly-funded professional development opportunities posted and/or communicated to staff on an ongoing basis. Overall the facilities are well managed. Fully 89% of programs demonstrated at least two examples of routines for maintenance of the facility; 91% of programs had space with adult-sized furniture provided for staff use during breaks, meetings, conferences, and preparation time; and 91% of programs had separate administrative office space available on-site allowing for private conversations and meetings with staff and families. Some aspects of risk management are strong. Specifically, 84% of programs had information about individual children’s chronic medical conditions kept in the children’s classrooms, while 90% of programs had at least one staff person certified in CPR and First Aid assigned in each classroom. Administrators demonstrate commitment to family support and involvement. Fully 93% of programs invited families to visit in the classroom at any time, and 87% of programs offered at least five family supports (such as book and toy lending library, information and referral services for families, adult classes, family meetings and support groups, home visits, family resource center, and convenience services). Technology—both technological resources and use—supports effective program operations. Fully 89% of programs had multiple computers that were available for teaching and administrative staff; 96% of programs provided Internet access for teaching and administrative staff; 97% of programs had administrative staff who used technology for internal and external communications; and 84% of programs had teaching staff who used technology in their work with children and families at least once a week. What are the areas in need of improvement? To understand where programs would benefit from increased resources and support, data were examined at the indicator level to see in which areas programs consistently demonstrated practices below the minimal level of quality. Specifically, we looked at indicators where less than 75% of the programs received a positive (Yes) rating at the 3 or minimal level of quality. Out of 316 total PAS indicators, there were 27 that met this criterion. Areas for improvement are summarized below: Staff orientation is an area in need of support. Almost half (43%) of the programs did not have an orientation for new staff that included receiving a job description, employee handbook, parent handbook, and personnel policies; 53% of the programs did not have written orientation procedures; and 40% did not consistently implement staff orientation. Compensation and staff benefits are inadequate to support staff well-being and reduce turnover. Just over half (53%) of the programs did not have a written salary scale differentiated by role, education and specialized training; 40% of programs did not provide all employees with a salary increase within the past two years. The vast majority (68%) of the programs did not provide all employees with 6 or more paid sick/personal days within the first year of employment; 65% of the programs did not provide all employees with 5 or more paid vacation days; 53% of the programs did not give all full-time employees the option of contributing to a retirement plan. Further, only 50% of the programs gave all full-time employees the option of purchasing a health insurance policy with the employer paying a portion of the cost. Internal communications do not foster inclusive leadership, productive meetings, or collaborative teaching teams. More than a third (35%) of programs did not involve staff in planning center-wide staff meetings; 38% of programs did not keep minutes of topics discussed and decisions made at staff meetings; and 47% of programs did not have a written conflict resolution policy regarding the handling of staff disputes. Fiscal practices—both budgeting and accounting—need strengthening to achieve program sustainability. Over a quarter (26%) of programs reported that the Administrator was not even minimally involved in developing the program’s operating budget, while almost a third (32%) of programs did not have a current year operating budget, quarterly income and expense statements, or even one example of an accounting practice serving as a fiscal check-and-balance. Program evaluation by staff and families is lacking. Nearly half (47%) of programs did not have an assessment tool used by staff to evaluate the overall program; 30% did not have an assessment tool used by parents to evaluate the overall program; and 66% did not include staff and parent evaluations in programmatic decision making. Strategic planning is an area for potential growth. Two-thirds (66%) of programs did not have a written business plan or strategic plan that included a needs assessment, plan for services, short- and long-term goals, and strategies to achieve goals. Staff qualifications are consistently low. For example, while 85% of programs had an Administrator with a minimum of an associate’s degree, 34% of Administrators had less than 21 semester hours of college credit for early childhood education coursework and 54% of Administrators had less than 9 semester hours of college credit for leadership or management coursework. DISCUSSION Not surprisingly, many programs appear to be struggling with organizational practices that require significant financial resources, like offering salary increases, providing retirement benefits and enough sick/personal and vacation days to prevent staff burnout, or hiring staff with sufficient specialized education and training in early childhood education to achieve mastery of competencies. However, there are also other administrative practices that many programs do not have in place that require little financial investment but do require specialized knowledge and skills in organizational leadership. These include undertaking a phased orientation and onboarding process for new staff; implementing strategic planning and program evaluation with key stakeholders to assure program sustainability and long-term quality; creating a transparent and equitable salary scale; utilizing communication processes and structures that support inclusive leadership and shared decision-making; implementing sound budgeting and accounting practices; and creating a more comprehensive risk management plan to reduce the center’s liability. and minimize harm. While most programs provide professional development for staff, few programs take a systemic view and provide support for career development by providing salary increases linked to credit-bearing professional development or the attainment of professional credentials. Taken as a whole, this window on administrative practices over the past decade highlights many strengths in program management while identifying the specific areas in program leadership that should be targeted when designing opportunities to support the professional growth of program administrators. Table 1 PAS Item Means and Standard Deviations 2010-2021 REFERENCES 1 Institute of Medicine and National Research Council . (2015). Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation. The National Academies Press. 2 Kirby, G., Douglass, A., Lyskawa, J., Jones, C., & Malone, L. (2021). Understanding leadership in early care and education: A literature review. OPRE Report 2021-02. Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 3 McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership . (2010). Connecting the dots: Director qualifications, instructional leadership practices, and learning environments in early childhood programs. Research Notes. McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership, National Louis University. 4 Talan, T. N., & Bloom, P. J. (2011) . Program Administration Scale: Measuring Early Childhood Leadership and Management (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press. Dr. Teri Talan, J.D., Ed.D, holds the Michael W. Louis Chair and is senior policy advisor at the McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership and professor of early childhood education at National Louis University (NLU). She promotes action by state and national policymakers on early childhood workforce and program administration issues. Previously, she led a child advocacy organization and an early childhood program accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). She holds a law degree from Northwestern University as well as a master’s degree in early childhood leadership and advocacy and a doctorate in adult and continuing education from NLU. She is coauthor of the of the Program Administration Scale ; Business Administration Scale for Family Child Care ; Escala de Evaluación de la Administración de Negocios ; Who’s Caring for the Kids? The Status of the Early Childhood Workforce in Illinois ; and Closing the Leadership Gap . Robyn Kelton, M.A., is a Quality Training Specialist for the McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership at National Louis University (NLU). Robyn conducts training and research on the Business Administration Scale for Family Child Care (BAS) and the Program Administration Scale (PAS) and serves as a national reliability anchor for both tools. In addition, Robyn reviews BAS and PAS assessments for the assessor certification system. Robyn holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology from the University of Kansas and a Master of Arts degree in psychology with an advanced certificate of study in organizational psychology from NLU. Robyn is currently a doctoral student in the brain, behavior, and quantitative science psychology program at the University of Kansas. Prior to joining the McCormick Center, Robyn spent three years as a lead teacher in a kindergarten classroom for an after-school program. Robyn’s research interests include leadership in early care and education, family child care, child development, and autobiographical memory.

Learn how assessing organizational conditions can drive continuous quality improvement in early childhood programs.