Role of the Facilitator: A Personal Perspective

This document may be printed, photocopied, and disseminated freely with attribution. All content is the property of the McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership.

“The Master doesn’t talk, he acts. When his work is done, the people say, ‘Amazing, we did it all by ourselves.’ ”


– Lao Tzu, from the Tao Te Ching


I have had the pleasure of facilitating peer learning teams for two years now. I enjoy it immensely and find it very different from my day-to-day role as an assessor. As a facilitator, I play the roles of a guide, timekeeper, cheerleader, and summarizer. Observing the interaction of the peer learning group as they move toward a common goal is very rewarding because I get to witness the collaboration process in action. It’s exciting to be a part of that process. And, the meetings are a success! How do I know this? I know because I see the participants walk out of the room energized and equipped with an agreed upon protocol for productive future meetings, action steps for independent work, and a system for moving forward.


Of course, a facilitator does not work in a vacuum. The peer learning team is also held accountable in making the group successful and productive. Ideally, the team takes responsibility to do their own work—to construct their own knowledge and take what they’ve learned back to their own teams. They interact and collaborate with each other while thinking about and analyzing their work. Active engagement is key while participants strive to understand their colleagues, reflect on past successes and failures, and apply new information in innovative ways.


The facilitator’s job then, in the simplest of terms, is to support and guide the team’s work to achieve the outcomes they desire. To that end, I’ve found these basic tips help the team achieve their goals:


  • Communicate the team’s purpose for each meeting.
  • Reinforce agreed upon ground rules as a method for encouraging an atmosphere of mutual respect and collegiality.
  • Prompt rich discussion by asking provocative questions and clarifying key points. Some key phrases to use include:
  • What I hear you saying is…
  • I’m curious about your interpretation of… Could you say more?
  • Could you tell me more about…?
  • What do you think you will do about this situation?
  • Can you offer an example of that?
  • It seems as if…
  • Listen and pose questions to broaden the discussion’s scope.
  • Encourage participation from team members who are perhaps more introverted or are less likely to share.
  • Guide the team’s focus to ensure efficient use of time and to adhere to the agreed upon timetable.
  • At the end of the meeting, summarize key points and future action steps.


The facilitator is not expected to be the expert. In fact, it works quite well when members of the learning team take turns being the facilitator. The important thing is to assure that at the start of each meeting someone is clearly identified as the facilitator. So, the facilitator’s role is one of servant-leader—to use the term coined by Robert K. Greenleaf. The facilitator serves the team so they may grow professionally, move toward organizational goals, and grow their own capacity for leadership within the structure of the peer learning team and beyond.


“It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead.”


– Robert K. Greenleaf.

< 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.
Show More