Closing the Leadership Gap: 2021 Status Update on Early Childhood Program Leadership in the United States

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.

This brief summarizes changes in state policies regarding program leadership since the findings from the cross-sector policy scan were first disseminated in 2017.

If you find errors in how your state is represented in the updated policy scan, we welcome your input! Please contact teri.talan@nl.edu to provide additional information about your state’s policies concerning the professional preparation and ongoing support of early childhood education and care (ECEC) program leaders working in schools, centers, and homes. Our team will keep updating the L.E.A.D. Early Childhood Clearinghouse database with new information from your responses. Information you provide will greatly aid our efforts to track progress toward the “North Star vision” of a unifying professional framework for ECEC program leaders.

References

Abel, M. B., Talan, T. N., & Newkirk, M. K. (2017). Closing the Leadership Gap: 2017 Status Report on Early Childhood Program Leadership in the United States. Wheeling, IL: McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership, National Louis University.
Abel, M. B., Talan, T. N., Pollitt, K. D., & Bornfreund, L. (2016). National principals’ survey on early childhood instructional leadership: Executive summary. McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership Publications. Paper 1. http://digitalcommons.nl.edu/mccormickcenter-pubs/1
Build Initiative & Child Trends (2019). A catalog and comparison of quality initiatives (data systems). Retrieved from http://qualitycompendium.org/on 11/11/2021.
Friedman-Krauss, A.H., Barnett, W.S., Weisenfeld, G.G., Kasmin, R., DiCrecchio, N., & Horowitz, M. (2018). The state of preschool 2017: State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.
Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (2015). Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Lieberman, A. (2019). Preparing principals for Pre-K in Illinois. Washington, DC: New America. Retrieved from https://newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/preparing-principals-pre-k-illinois/
Lieberman, A. (2017). A tale of two pre-K leaders: How state policies for center directors and principals leading pre-K programs differ and why they shouldn’t. Washington, DC: New America.
Masterson, M., Abel, M., Talan, T., & Bella, J. (2019). Building on whole leadership: Energizing and strengthening your early childhood program. Lewisville, NC: Gryphon House.
McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership. L.E.A.D. Early Childhood Clearinghouse. Retrieved from https://mccormickcenter.nl.edu/lead/closing-the-leadership-gap/
New America Pre-K Leader Policy Scan. Retrieved from https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/pre-k-leaders/pre-service-requirements/

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Measuring Organizational Conditions for Improving Quality

By McCormick Center • May 13, 2025

Leaders, policymakers, and systems developers seek to improve early childhood programs through data-driven decision-making. Data can be useful for informing continuous quality improvement efforts at the classroom and program level and for creating support for workforce development at the system level. Early childhood program leaders use assessments to help them understand their programs’ strengths and to draw attention to where supports are needed. Assessment data is particularly useful in understanding the complexity of organizational climate and the organizational conditions that lead to successful outcomes for children and families. Several tools are available for program leaders to assess organizational structures, processes, and workplace conditions, including: Preschool Program Quality Assessment (PQA) 1 Program Administration Scale (PAS) 2 Child Care Worker Job Stress Inventory (ECWJSI) 3 Early Childhood Job Satisfaction Survey (ECJSS) 4 Early Childhood Work Environment Survey (ECWES) 5 Supportive Environmental Quality Underlying Adult Learning (SEQUAL) 6 The Early Education Essentials is a recently developed tool to examine program conditions that affect early childhood education instructional and emotional quality. It is patterned after the Five Essentials Framework, 7 which is widely used to measure instructional supports in K-12 schools. The Early Education Essentials measures six dimensions of quality in early childhood programs: Effective instructional leaders Collaborative teachers Supportive environment Ambitious instruction Involved families Parent voice A recently published validation study for the Early Education Essentials 8 demonstrates that it is a valid and reliable instrument that can be used to assess early childhood programs to improve teaching and learning outcomes. METHODOLOGY For this validation study, two sets of surveys were administered in one Midwestern city; one for teachers/staff in early childhood settings and one for parents/guardians of preschool-aged children. A stratified random sampling method was used to select sites with an oversampling for the percentage of children who spoke Spanish. The teacher surveys included 164 items within 26 scales and were made available online for a three-month period in the public schools. In community-based sites, data collectors administered the surveys to staff. Data collectors also administered the parent surveys in all sites. The parent survey was shorter, with 54 items within nine scales. Rasch analyses was used to combine items into scales. In addition to the surveys, administrative data were analyzed regarding school attendance. Classroom observational assessments were performed to measure teacher-child interactions. The Classroom Assessment Scoring System TM (CLASS) 9 was used to assess the interactions. Early Education Essentials surveys were analyzed from 81 early childhood program sites (41 school-based programs and 40 community-based programs), serving 3- and 4-year old children. Only publicly funded programs (e.g., state-funded preschool and/or Head Start) were included in the study. The average enrollment for the programs was 109 (sd = 64); 91% of the children were from minority backgrounds; and 38% came from non-English speaking homes. Of the 746 teacher surveys collected, 451 (61%) were from school-based sites and 294 (39%) were from community-based sites. There were 2,464 parent surveys collected (59% school; 41% community). About one-third of the parent surveys were conducted in Spanish. Data were analyzed to determine reliability, internal validity, group differences, and sensitivity across sites. Child outcome results were used to examine if positive scores on the surveys were related to desirable outcomes for children (attendance and teacher-child interactions). Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to compute average site-level CLASS scores to account for the shared variance among classrooms within the same school. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to group the scales. RESULTS The surveys performed well in the measurement characteristics of scale reliability, internal validity, differential item functioning, and sensitivity across sites . Reliability was measured for 25 scales with Rasch Person Reliability scores ranging from .73 to .92; with only two scales falling below the preferred .80 threshold. The Rasch analysis also provided assessment of internal validity showing that 97% of the items fell in an acceptable range of >0.7 to <1.3 (infit mean squares). The Teacher/Staff survey could detect differences across sites, however the Parent Survey was less effective in detecting differences across sites. Differential item functioning (DIF) was used to compare if individual responses differed for school- versus community-based settings and primary language (English versus Spanish speakers). Results showed that 18 scales had no or only one large DIF on the Teacher/Staff Survey related to setting. There were no large DIFs found related to setting on the Parent Survey and only one scale that had more than one large DIF related to primary language. The authors decided to leave the large DIF items in the scale because the number of large DIFs were minimal and they fit well with the various groups. The factor analysis aligned closely with the five essentials in the K-12 model . However, researchers also identified a sixth factor—parent voice—which factored differently from involved families on the Parent Survey. Therefore, the Early Education Essentials have an additional dimension in contrast to the K-12 Five Essentials Framework. Outcomes related to CLASS scores were found for two of the six essential supports . Positive associations were found for Effective Instructional Leaders and Collaborative Teachers and all three of the CLASS domains (Emotional Support, Classroom Organization, and Instructional Support). Significant associations with CLASS scores were not found for the Supportive Environment, Involved Families, or Parent Voice essentials. Ambitious Instruction was not associated with any of the three domains of the CLASS scores. Table 1. HLM Coefficients Relating Essential Scores to CLASS Scores (Model 1) shows the results of the analysis showing these associations. Outcomes related to student attendance were found for four of the six essential supports . Effective Instructional Leaders, Collaborative Teachers, Supportive Environment, and Involved Families were positively associated with student attendance. Ambitious Instruction and Parent Voice were not found to be associated with student attendance. The authors are continuing to examine and improve the tool to better measure developmentally appropriate instruction and to adapt the Parent Survey so that it will perform across sites. There are a few limitations to this study that should be considered. Since the research is based on correlations, the direction of the relationship between factors and organizational conditions is not evident. It is unknown whether the Early Education Essentials survey is detecting factors that affect outcomes (e.g., engaged families or positive teacher-child interactions) or whether the organizational conditions predict these outcomes. This study was limited to one large city and a specific set of early childhood education settings. It has not been tested with early childhood centers that do not receive Head Start or state pre-K funding. DISCUSSION The Early Education Essentials survey expands the capacity of early childhood program leaders, policymakers, systems developers, and researchers to assess organizational conditions that specifically affect instructional quality. It is likely to be a useful tool for administrators seeking to evaluate the effects of their pedagogical leadership—one of the three domains of whole leadership. 10 When used with additional measures to assess whole leadership—administrative leadership, leadership essentials, as well as pedagogical leadership—stakeholders will be able to understand the organizational conditions and supports that positively impact child and family outcomes. Many quality initiatives focus on assessment at the classroom level, but examining quality with a wider lens at the site level expands the opportunity for sustainable change and improvement. The availability of valid and reliable instruments to assess the organizational structures, processes, and conditions within early childhood programs is necessary for data-driven improvement of programs as well as systems development and applied research. Findings from this validation study confirm that strong instructional leadership and teacher collaboration are good predictors of effective teaching and learning practices, evidenced in supportive teacher-child interactions and student attendance. 11 This evidence is an important contribution to the growing body of knowledge to inform embedded continuous quality improvement efforts. It also suggests that leadership to support teacher collaboration like professional learning communities (PLCs) and communities of practice (CoPs) may have an effect on outcomes for children. This study raises questions for future research. The addition of the “parent voice” essential support should be further explored. If parent voice is an essential support why was it not related to CLASS scores or student attendance? With the introduction of the Early Education Essentials survey to the existing battery of program assessment tools (PQA, PAS, ECWJSI, ECWES, ECJSS and SEQUAL), a concurrent validity study is needed to determine how these tools are related and how they can best be used to examine early childhood leadership from a whole leadership perspective. ENDNOTES 1 High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 2003 2 Talan & Bloom, 2011 3 Curbow, Spratt, Ungaretti, McDonnell, & Breckler, 2000 4 Bloom, 2016 5 Bloom, 2016 6 Whitebook & Ryan, 2012 7 Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010 8 Ehrlich, Pacchiano, Stein, Wagner, Park, Frank, et al., 2018 9 Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008 10 Abel, Talan, & Masterson, 2017 11 Bloom, 2016; Lower & Cassidy, 2007 REFERENCES Abel, M. B., Talan, T. N., & Masterson, M. (2017, Jan/Feb). Whole leadership: A framework for early childhood programs. Exchange(19460406), 39(233), 22-25. Bloom, P. J. (2016). Measuring work attitudes in early childhood settings: Technical manual for the Early Childhood Job Satisfaction Survey (ECJSS) and the Early Childhood Work Environment Survey (ECWES), (3rd ed.). Lake Forest, IL: New Horizons. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Curbow, B., Spratt, K., Ungaretti, A., McDonnell, K., & Breckler, S. (2000). Development of the Child Care Worker Job Stress Inventory. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 515-536. DOI: 10.1016/S0885-2006(01)00068-0 Ehrlich, S. B., Pacchiano, D., Stein, A. G., Wagner, M. R., Park, S., Frank, E., et al., (in press). Early Education Essentials: Validation of a new survey tool of early education organizational conditions. Early Education and Development. High/Scope Educational Research Foundation (2003). Preschool Program Quality Assessment, 2nd Edition (PQA) administration manual. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press. Lower, J. K. & Cassidy, D. J. (2007). Child care work environments: The relationship with learning environments. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22(2), 189-204. DOI: 10.1080/02568540709594621 Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Talan, T. N., & Bloom, P. J. (2011). Program Administration Scale: Measuring early childhood leadership and management (2 nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Whitebook, M., & Ryan, S. (2012). Supportive Environmental Quality Underlying Adult Learning (SEQUAL). Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California.