Peer Learning Teams: Where to Begin

There is a good amount of enthusiasm among early childhood educators to create more opportunities for teachers to learn and grow within their program. As Rick DuFour so aptly states, “The best staff development is in the workplace not the workshop.” There is plenty of evidence to support this notion. According to a research study by Fixen, Naoom, Blasé, Friedman & Wallace (2005), “One thing we can say with certainty is that workshops are not effective if building skills and dispositions is the desired outcome.” Our own personal experiences probably support this evidence. I’ve had many experiences attending a great workshop, but by the time I returned to my classroom on Monday morning I could not fully recall, much less fully implement, all the lessons I had learned. I enjoyed the opportunity to network and have a professional development opportunity at a conference, but it was not easy to transfer the learning into my everyday practices with children. So what can we do if we want our teachers and staff to learn and grow in the workplace? The answer to this question may lie in peer learning teams.

Peer learning teams, sometimes known as communities of practice, are a great way to bring learning into the workplace. The problem is that as a program leader you can’t simply announce, “Starting this week we will be having weekly peer learning team meetings.” Instead, in the book Inspiring Peak Performance: Commitment, Competence, Collaboration, my coauthors and I developed the steps below to better prepare your teachers and program for successful peer learning teams.

STEP 1: DETERMINE TEAM READINESS

Not all programs are a good fit for implementing learning teams. Before launching into this approach, first assess your program’s level of readiness to engage in peer learning teams. Here are a few critical questions to consider in determining whether this model of professional development is a good fit for you and your staff:

Do your teachers demonstrate an interest in continued improvement and the joy of refining their craft?
Does your organizational climate promote a high level of collegiality? Are your teachers friendly, supportive, and trusting of one another?
Do teachers have a shared understanding of your center’s core values?
Do teachers exhibit a deep and genuine interest in children’s learning?
Are you willing to modify work schedules so teachers have time to meet on a regular basis?
If you can to answer yes to these five questions, there is greater likelihood you’ll experience success in implementing learning teams in your program.

STEP 2: ARTICULATING A RATIONALE

The second step is to communicate to your teachers a rationale for doing this work and inviting them to participate. It includes articulating a clear and compelling message for the use of peer learning teams in your program. There are many reasons why directors implement learning teams at their centers. Here is an exercise to help consolidate your reasons for pursuing this kind of work.

Read through the following reasons and select the two that best describe why introducing peer learning teams at your center might be a good strategy for continuous quality improvement.

To create a collaborative culture that focuses on thinking more deeply about children’s learning and interests
To provide an ongoing support system for teachers to help them learn and grow
To help teachers build leadership skills like group facilitation, active listening, probing for understanding, and providing feedback in a respectful way
To help teachers make meaning out of early learning standards, assessments, and data
To foster a collective commitment to the center’s core value of continuous improvement.
To strengthen centerwide collegiality
To encourage intentional teaching practices that link theory to practice

STEP 3: DECIDING ON STRUCTURE

The third step in getting started is to determine group size, composition, and the frequency that the peer learning teams will meet. Being intentional about allocating time is essential. Remember the secret to success in this small-group work is that the groups meet regularly over an extended period of time. Engage your teachers in brainstorming possibilities for when groups could meet, or consider allocating time at your regularly scheduled staff meetings for learning team work. Ideally one hour a week every two weeks would be devoted for learning team meetings. This may seem like a big commitment at first, but once teachers experience firsthand the power of being part of a learning team, they become invested in finding time to meet.

Once you have completed these steps you will be well on your way to launching a successful opportunity for teachers to gather together to deepen their knowledge of young children’s learning and improve their classroom practices. It is important to note the need for some structure in guiding the peer learning teams’ work. This often works best by inviting someone to facilitate using a protocol with guided questions to navigate the group’s learning.

To learn more about peer learning teams, the role of facilitator, and ideas for guided questions and protocols, check out these resources:

Bloom, P. J., Hentschel, A., & Bella, J. (2013). Inspiring peak performance: Commitment, competence, collaboration. Lake Forest, IL: New Horizons.

Curtis, D., Lebo, D., Cividanes, W., & Carter, M. (2013). Reflecting in communities of practice: A workbook for early childhood educators. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

McDonald, J. (2007). The power of protocols (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Examining the Role of Employer Benefits and Turnover in Center-based Child Care

By Robyn Kelton, M.A. • June 27, 2025

INTRODUCTION Turnover rates in child care are among the highest in education, with over 160,000 workforce openings predicted annually (Bassok et al., 2014; Doromal et al., 2022; Joughin, 2021; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2025). While some turnover is expected and even necessary, the levels of turnover experienced in the field of early childhood education and care (ECEC) are not only alarmingly high but deeply problematic. In 2021, a national survey conducted by the National Association for the Education of Young Children found that over 80% of child care centers were experiencing a staffing shortage, with the majority of those programs reporting one-to-five open roles, but 15% reporting between six and 15 open roles (NAEYC, 2021). Staffing shortages result in lost revenue, financial uncertainty, and program instability, often forcing administrators to operate below capacity and/or under reduced hours (NAEYC, 2021; NAEYC, 2024; Zero to Three, 2024). Limited enrollment slots and classroom and program closures lead to increased waiting lists (Zero to Three, 2024; Carrazana, 2023). In turn, families are placed in a highly vulnerable position of needing to leave the workforce to stay home with their child or turn to potentially unsafe or unregulated child care. Moreover, increased turnover in classrooms interrupts continuity of care and disrupts the relationships built between children and their educators (Reidt-Parker, J., & Chainski, M. J. (2015). Research has begun to highlight some of the programmatic and personnel characteristics predictive of increased staff turnover in ECEC programs. Low wages are most commonly identified as a strong predictor of turnover (Amadon et al., 2023; Bryant et al., 2023; Fee, 2024; Guevara, 2022; Totenhagen et al., 2016). However, workforce advocates and some researchers have begun to expand conversations on compensation to explore the impact the profession’s general lack of benefits such as paid time off, access to health insurance, and retirement benefits has on retention (e.g., Amadon et al., 2023; Bryant et al., 2023; Fee, 2024; Lucas, 2023). While informative, this body of work has typically approached benefits as binary variables (i.e., have or do not have) rather than reflect the spectrum on which benefits are commonly offered (e.g., the number of days off, the percent of insurance covered by the employer, and levels of retirement matching funds). This Research Note aims to expand on previous work investigating the relationship between benefits and turnover by exploring the possibility of a more nuanced relationship between the variables to determine if the level of benefits offered impacts turnover rates. METHOD This study used data collected via formal Program Administration Scale, 3rd Edition (PAS-3) assessments conducted by Certified PAS-3 Assessors between 2023 and 2025. To become certified, PAS-3 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. PAS-3 national anchors reviewed the completed assessments for consistency, accuracy, and completeness. The study analyzed data from 133 PAS-3 assessments collected during the certification process across 12 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Mariana Islands. Measures Data for this study were collected using the PAS-3, a valid and reliable tool used to measure and improve Whole Leadership practices in center-based programs (Talan, Bella, Jorde Bloom, 2022). The PAS-3 includes 25 items, each composed of 2-5 indicator strands and scored on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = inadequate, 3 = minimal, 5 = good, and 7 = excellent). Item scores are averaged to determine a mean PAS-3 score. Of particular interest to this study is Item 5: Benefits. Item 5 measures employee access to health insurance and considers what percentage of the cost is paid by the employer, the total number of paid time off days within the first and fifth years of employment, access to a retirement plan, and the percentage at which the employer will match the employee’s contribution. Last, Item 5 explores provisions made to cover the costs of staff’s professional development. Non-applicable is allowed as a response for indicators related to health insurance and retirement if there are no full-time staff employed by the program. Sample Program enrollment ranged in size from four children to 285, with a mean enrollment of 65 and a median of 55. Total program staff for the sample ranged from two to 44 staff, with an average of just under 14 staff (13.93) and a standard deviation of 8.80. Table 1 below provides a detailed breakdown of staff by role and full-time and part-time status.