What Are the Implications of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Reauthorization For the Field of Early Childhood Education? | Policy [M]atters, Episode 1

This video chat was recorded on June 30, 2015, by the McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership at National Louis University. This is episode one of Policy [M]atters, an early childhood education policy video chat series featuring Susan Ochshorn of ECE PolicyWorks and Teri Talan of the McCormick Center.


In this episode, Susan and Teri discuss the implications of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization for the field of early childhood education. They call for collaboration between those at the policy table, which they say should include early childhood education (ECE) professionals. They also call for ECE administrators to get involved, voice their expertise, and attain a bachelor’s degree so they can be on a level playing field when they get to the table. Teri shares a story from her days as an early care and education center director, while Susan provides several anecdotes from her interactions with ECE administrators.


Below are resources Susan and Teri have provided to encourage all ECE professionals to be proactive rather than reactive. 


B.U.I.L.D. Initiative

Child Care Aware

Children’s Defense Fund

Council for Exceptional Children

DEY Project/Defending the Early Years

Docs for Tots

ECE PolicyWorks 

First Five Years Fund 

McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership

NAESP

National Black Child Development Institute

Network for Public Education

New America Ed Central

Reconceptualizing ECE 

Systems Thinking in Schools

Zero to Three 


TRANSCRIPT


VOICEOVER: This video chat was recorded on June 30th, 2015 by the McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership at National Louis University. This is episode one of Policy [M]atters, an early childhood education policy video chat series featuring Susan Ochshorn of ECE PolicyWorks and Teri Talan of the McCormick Center.


In this episode, Susan and Teri discuss the implications of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization for the field of early childhood education.


TERI: Hello Susan, it’s really a pleasure to have this opportunity to chat with you about policy and knowing that ECE policy matters. The first question we’re going to deal with has to do with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act better known as ESEA. So what’s your perspective having to do with how this is going to play out for those who are on the ground working in early care and education.


SUSAN: You know Teri, I just want to say I’m delighted to be here, and I was asked, by then Governor Jean Shaheen in 2001 to join her advisory council for an initative that which she spearheaded at the Education Commission of the state, on early learning. And it was a great, very joyous occasion. The reason there was that I had authored the report called “Partnering for Success,” which documented 68 partnerships between early childhood program, Head Start, child care, comparisons teachers where we had started and the public school district.


And in the report that I wrote for the Child Interaction Campaign what we said was, and this is the premise; that until the United States begins to consider early childhood education as a foundation for the k-12 system, we are not going to get that.


Fast forward a bit, to now. It was great that early childhood was acknowledged as the foundation of the k-12 system, but the problem and the advantages of that, was it confirmed the kind of legitimacy on early childhood education, and also gave the promise of sustainable and reliable funding, which are things that have been missing for early childhood.


It was a Faustian bargain because we also, by joining the system, were now beholden to the kinds of policies and ed reforms that were damaging to children. So, historically education is seen as a way of perfecting the future. Kind of a silver bullet for all of society’s ills. And this is the case with No Child Left Behind, which is the modern version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is the foundation of all the reforms today.


But the issue is that as early childhood became part of this standards-based accountability, suddenly early childhood educators were really under the gun. This is a workforce that was marginalized, many living in poverty, really under-educated. And so to meet all of these requirements was a very heavy lift. And the other thing is that the early childhood teachers were nowhere near the policy tables at this time, and that’s a major problem because this is legislation that has a profound impact on their professional course.


TERI: So, it sounds to me Susan like you’re really pleased with the opportunity for early childhood to have a voice in the continuum of education. At least beginning with preschool, and that it really belongs in its own recognized title, perhaps within this act, and essentially

institutionalizes funding for early childhood education in a way that we haven’t had previously.


One of the things that I would say, is that I’m struck by the amazing movement forward in integrating the disparate sectors of early care and education that have been made during this administration, and that I see early learning being a part of the reauthorization of ESEA, as an opportunity to really make the implemented long term, and not just be part of one administration’s vision for how to help children be successful. But I have some concerns, and I think that one of the things that concerns me has to do with the lack of attention to what leaders need when it comes to being able to implement this effectively.


When I use that term “leaders,” it’s really about school leaders, and Head Start leaders, and community based leaders. That we don’t include the acknowledgement that piece in this act. We have to make sure that workforce is bigger than just the teacher. So what do you think about that?


SUSAN: I mean I think that’s a terrific point and I’m with you on that. When we did Partnering for Success, which looked at collaborations in 68 communities across the nation, between early childhood programs and public school systems, we found that principals and superintendents were the prime movers in making them successful.


After the report was published, we brought together superintendents mostly from New York State, from the main cities, but also from South Carolina, and Vermont, to talk about how they could really establish early childhood education as the foundation for their district’s school system I remember one from Brattleboro Vermont, and he told us that when a child is born in the school district, the district would send the family a welcome letter to say welcome to the class of whatever, 2018.


Obviously I’m ecstatic to hear their super point is so well taken, on the other hand out, and I also think let me just, I think there’s been incredible progress. I mean, the Association of Elementary Schools, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, as you know Teri, has taken up this cause, that’s really important.


But what I see as really critical in moving this agenda forward, is to get early childhood teachers who work directly on the front lines, with parents who know what’s best for kids, as part of the conversation. They need to be really vociferous, they need to talk to parents, to policymakers, and tell them what the research says, what we know works best for kids’ early learning and development.


TERI: So agree with that, I think that the whole issue of collaboration in communities, with community programs, with the elementary schools, is something people talk about, but really haven’t thought very much about what the competencies are for collaborating. And I also think there hasn’t been enough attention to the foundational knowledge that partners that collaborate, truly collaborate, not just collaborate, not just sit around a table together, but truly collaborate, really have to have.


And so one of the things that has struck me is that we want to jump right now to helping program leaders at Head Start community-based centers, principles of professional development together, which I think can really be a very successful model, if we have an even playing field. But if directors don’t have a degree, if they come to the table feeling that they really are a different place, and an unequal situation, it’s very hard for that to be a true collaboration.


And I’m gonna share a story with you from my own experience, when I was a center director, because I think that so much of the policy reform that’s happening now is very well-intentioned,

very exciting, but it’s in the implementation that things go amiss. And one of the things, and it’s been awhile since I’ve been a center director, but I was director of a community-based program, and had an earlier version of Preschool for All. I had a different title then, but I was blending funding streams with tuition, parent pay, childcare subsidies, and the State Board of Education’s funding for at-risk children.


And the district decided that it wanted to introduce a program to prepare children to be more ready for kindergarten was called “Jumpstart Kindergarten,” and without really collaborating with its community the community-based organizations that were providing the pre-K program according to district guidelines.


This policy basically said that children would be picked up by a bus at the childcare center and taken to their local school for a part-day program, brought back to the child care center. And without any consideration as to; One, what would they be getting that they weren’t already getting in a program that had Preschool for All, and two; what was the message that families get, that if you really want to prepare children for school it can’t happen in that community-based program. And there was such difficulty with the staffing and the issues of scheduling, and children falling asleep on the bus, and it really was in my opinion, not a very well thought-out implementation of a desire to help with transition planning for children to kindergarten.


And so I think that a program director in the community, doesn’t he have the knowledge, the background, the chutzpah to say to the superintendent, “let’s think together about what would make the most sense for preparing children for kindergarten given that we’re delivering your program already.”


These children need to transition, it’s not the same thing as children who have had no high-quality preschool experience. So it’s that kind of collaboration where you meet, talk, and as equals, that really can’t happen if we don’t have well-educated, well-prepared center directors to engage with principals about what children need from their perspective. So to me this is sort of the unsung, under the surface, big gap that needs to be addressed.


SUSAN: Right, I’m with you, that is wonderful, and zooming in on chutzpah, I’m a nice Jewish, New York girl, what’s most important is that early childhood teachers feel that they have a voice, that they can sit at policy tables, and that they can articulate what’s best for young children, what best practice looks like, what families need, and how the current education policies are not often in sync with all of the above. I was in research for my book, I was honing in on the North Fork of Long Island, which is the epicenter of the movement in New York State.


And I talked with kindergarten and first grade teachers, and one of the first grade teachers after our conversation came up to me, and she was in tears. She said to me, “Susan, I can’t do this anymore. My wisdom is not honored.” This is a woman who had a master’s degree, was certified in teaching first grade, and to me that sounded off. Another of her colleagues, who herself is staff

developer, and a kindergarten teacher is working in a school where they honor play, of course, but she said we fight to keep it like a desperately needed coffee break.


So, what you were talking about, these collaborations are critical. But there’s another layer to it, and that is educating everybody about stuff that we know that you know, is about why the early childhood workforce, and in particular the leaders, and the directors, need to own their expertise, and need to be voicing what they know is best for children.


Because in the story that you told, Teri, children were not at the center as they need to be, nor were families needs. In the ecosystem of child development that is critical, and that has to be the heart of collaboration.


TERI: Yeah I mean, I see the move towards–with the whole preschool development grants for full school year, “full days” meaning full school year day for Pre-k, for kindergarten. But is that really meeting the needs of working parents, who I mean a six hour day is a lot better than a two and a half hour day, but we still really need to understand that parents sometimes need more than that, and so we’re going to need the child care sector, we’re going to need there to be the consistent standards, and implementation, and qualifications, and curriculum support ,and teaching support in all of our speakers.


And I think we’re getting there but it’s like the policy might be coming first before we have all the pieces of impact.


SUSAN: Yeah, exactly, you know couple of years ago a terrific cross-sector, collaborative professional development initiative in California, and as your degree was working on it, and it was amazing! It was great, not only early childhood educators and directors ,but people across all sectors, you know occupational therapists, and social workers, because we need to have a holistic view of the children.


You know, we live in a society that tolerates the child poverty rate. That is obscene. One out of every four children in the United States is living in poverty. And that rate is even higher in communities of color across the country, on Native American reservations. And we are, that’s a third world nation, that’s not a first world nation.


So all of this is related because we cannot go forward without the kind of collaboration that you’re talking about, without the kind of cross-sector reaching out, and without the kind of education, you know, that all of these folks need to be able to collaborate. Or maybe that’s the heart of it.


TERI: I want to close with a phrase that’s been on my mind and that is that we have to be careful not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And I do think that there are many things that need to be in place to make this the most effective coordinating source of funding for early learning, but I also think this is a huge venture and opportunity.


And we can’t not move forward with it, because it’s not yet perfect. And so to me, I think I remind myself of that statement, and realize that our voices need to be heard to help improve the implementation and some of the details, but we should definitely embrace this as really good policy.


SUSAN: There’s a great book I discovered when I was doing my research for Squandering America’s Future, it’s called “Tinkering Toward Utopia” by David Tyack and Larry Cuban, they’re former professors at Stanford. And they say that we are always sort of searching to protect society through education reform policy, yet those reforms can never live up to aspirations operation.


So, I agree with you Teri, although I’m a little more radical on the spectrum in terms of what we need to do to move this forward.


What I see as the the answer, is to really raise the profile and voice of those who have the expertise, and those are early childhood professionals who need to be at the table when these policies are implemented, and in future discussions.


TERI: You know, I just want to say one more thing and that is that I think we both are talking about voice, and we’re both stressing the importance of having the experts at the table when these policy decisions are made, and oftentimes it seems to me that people are reactive rather than proactive, and so one of the hopes I have is that they’ll be people who will tune in to this video chat and think, “oh my goodness, I need to know more about, this can really impact me, how do I get involved?” So if it does have that impact then I will feel like this was really a worthwhile experience for us to be initiating here.

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.
Show More