McCormick Institute for Early Childhood

BY Teri N. Talan, J.D., Ed.D. | September 21, 2020

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

Research is clear—leadership matters when it comes to high-performing early childhood education programs (Early Childhood Leadership Development Consortium, 2016; Doherty, Ferguson, Ressler, and Lomotey, 2015; Dennis and O’Connor, 2013). Sustainable program quality is hindered, however, by a lack of consistent standards, policies, and supports for the professional qualifications and competencies of those who lead early childhood programs. The leadership gap is most evident between center administrators and elementary school principals serving Pre-K children (Abel, Talan, Pollitt, and Bornfreund, 2016; Lieberman, 2017). While a master’s degree in educational leadership is the norm for elementary school principals, only a handful of states require a minimum of an associate degree for directors of child care centers. No state requires a degree for administrators of licensed/registered family child care programs (Abel, Talan, and Magid, 2018).


The Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation Report (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2015) made a recommendation to strengthen the capacity of early childhood program leaders. The report set forth the need for common language, clearly defined priorities, and cohesive direction to support the initial preparation and ongoing professional development of site-based program leaders. In response to this seminal report, the McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership developed the Whole Leadership Framework (Masterson, Abel, Talan, and Bella, 2019). This framework is unique in conceptualizing three interdependent domains of early childhood education (ECE) program leadership: administrative leadership, pedagogical leadership, and leadership essentials.


In spite of what is known about the impact of effective leadership on program quality, leadership development systems are fragmented and there is a lack of sustained, systematic oversight to guide the ECE program leadership profession (New Venture Fund, 2018). Goffin (2013) notes that a clear consensus about the role, definition, and development of leaders is lacking, and advancing cohesiveness in early childhood leadership capacity as a profession is critical.


The McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership, with the support of the Foundation for Child Development, recently conducted a study to determine whether there was consensus among ECE leadership stakeholders about the need for a unified professional framework for onsite administrators of early learning programs. Whether leaders are in schools, centers, or licensed family child care homes, is there consensus on the core competencies needed to sustain learning environments in which children, families, and staff thrive?


METHODOLOGY


For this study, there were four waves of data collection, comprising a total of fourteen virtual sessions. Each virtual session was 90 minutes in duration. Participants in each of the first three waves (total of nine virtual sessions) considered a series of questions related to one or more key areas of a unified professional framework for ECE program and site leaders. Participants in each wave were asked the same questions and the highest ranked responses were then added to the choices ranked in subsequent sessions in the same wave. Participants in the fourth wave (total of five virtual sessions) responded to a draft report synthesizing the findings and five recommendations generated from the first three waves.


This iterative process was facilitated by the Advance Strategy Center, utilizing an online platform (Advance Strategy Lab) in which participants provided simultaneous and anonymous responses to both structured and open-ended questions. The anonymous responses were immediately visible to all participants in the session. Participants were asked to rate the responses using a 1-5 agreement scale or 1-10 significance scale. The highest ranked responses were then included in the responses of subsequent sessions in the same wave. This unique methodology, while similar to focus group research, creates an inclusive shared space in which all voices are equally powerful.


SAMPLE


A total of 207 ECE leadership stakeholders, from 32 states and the District of Columbia, registered to participate in one or more of the four waves of data collection. The national sample provided representation from three ECE stakeholder groups: program and site leaders (22%); higher education faculty and leadership developers (38%); and national and state system leaders (40%). Figure 1 provides detail on the racial and ethnic diversity of those who registered for one or more of the virtual sessions.

Pie chart showing race and ethnicity of 207 participants.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS


Wave 1

  • Is there a need for a unified professional identity for onsite leaders of early learning programs?
  • What are the obstacles to creating a unified framework for program and site leaders across settings and sectors?
  • What are the advantages to a unified framework for program and site leaders across settings and sectors?


Wave 2

  • What are the core competencies shared by program and site leaders working in schools, centers, and homes?
  • Can the three domains of the Whole Leadership Framework be utilized to organize the core competencies of program and site leaders? If so, what is missing? What does not belong?
  • For what child or program outcomes are onsite leaders (e.g., principals, directors, FCC providers) accountable?


Wave 3

  • What are the minimum educational requirements for program or site leaders?
  • Should there be multiple levels of education and specialized knowledge and skills? If so, should they build on the foundation of the Early Educator I, II, and III (established in Power to the Profession)?
  • What criteria should determine compensation parity for program and site leaders across sectors and settings?


Wave 4

  • Assuming an equitable and sufficient distribution of resources to support the vision, do you agree with the five consensus recommendations for a unified professional identity for future program and site leaders working across sectors and settings?


The data were analyzed in each wave to determine where there was consensus about the components of a unified professional framework for onsite program leaders.


RESULTS



During the first three waves, consensus was reached on five recommendations. During the fourth wave, additional feedback was obtained on the five consensus recommendations and on the draft report. The fourth wave included 75 additional leadership stakeholders to expand the feedback. For each recommendation, participants were asked whether they agreed with the recommendation (5-point agreement scale) and then to explain their response and level of agreement. The agreement assessment is shown below, listed from highest to lowest agreement:

Table ranking recommendations for early childhood program leaders

KEY FINDINGS


All five of the recommendations had a strong level of agreement (4.2 through 4.6 on a 5-point agreement scale). While there were nuances (such as the degree type or the level of the ECE credential required as a foundation) it is clear that there is a fundamental need for a unified framework for program leaders and agreement on equitable compensation based on educational qualifications and responsibilities; a minimum requirement of a degree; achievement of competencies aligned to the Whole Leadership Framework; and a foundation of the ECE Level I, II, or III (established in Power to the Profession). These five consensus recommendations developed in the earlier waves and “tested” in Wave 4 with additional participants, appear to be strong pillars for the development of program leadership for the future.


The recommendation for a unified professional framework received the strongest level of agreement (4.6 on a 5 – point agreement scale). The strength of conviction about this recommendation can best be understood through the open-ended comments, some of which are shown below:


STRONGLY AGREE: “There are wide disparities in the field depending upon where someone works and/or where the program is located. Children deserve the highest quality regardless of what program they attend–leadership should reflect this.”


STRONGLY AGREE: “A unified framework is an essential foundation for shaping choices professionals make to move into leadership positions, pre-service and in-service training, and to shape the ecosystem we need to support leaders.”


STRONGLY AGREE: “A common framework is an essential element of a profession. Having a common framework that is recognized by the field will allow members of the field a clearer understanding of the field and will allow for more effective advocacy with policymakers.”


STRONGLY AGREE: “With the expansion of early childhood education into the school system and the continued research that reveals the immense value of early childhood education, we must get to a place where the leaders in this field have a unified focus for quality.”


STRONGLY AGREE: “In our global marketplace, a standard across all states is needed to ensure all children and families will receive the highest quality programming. Working together across sectors focuses back to doing what is best for the children and not competing between sectors.”


DISCUSSION


Unified Framework


Early childhood program leadership stakeholders—comprised of program and site leaders, higher education faculty and leadership developers, and national and state system leaders—agreed about the need for and value of a unified professional framework for early childhood program and site leaders working in schools, centers, and homes. The rationale most frequently provided was that a united voice has the greatest impact on policy and funding decisions.


Core Competencies


The three stakeholder groups were also closely aligned regarding the core competencies of program and site leaders across sectors and settings. The vast majority of participants (81%) in the study believed that program and site leaders needed a balance of administrative and pedagogical competencies to lead high-performing early childhood care and education organizations. The Whole Leadership Framework, with its three interdependent domains of administrative leadership, pedagogical leadership, and leadership essentials, substantially reflects the leadership competencies most valued by the project participants. It is notable that the five most highly-ranked core competencies for program and site leaders working across sectors and settings included competencies from all three of the Whole Leadership domains.


Minimum Educational Level


There was a clear consensus that program and site leaders need a degree. However, there was not consensus on what level degree that should be. Most of the participants believed that a minimum should be set at the baccalaureate level. Other participants suggested that the level of degree be based on the scope of responsibilities of the program or site leader. In this scenario, an associate degree would be the minimum educational requirement for the leader of a home-based program, a baccalaureate degree would be the minimum for the leader of a center-based program, and a graduate degree would be the minimum for the leader of a school-based program.


There was also diversity of opinion on whether the degree needed to be in early childhood education. A significant number of comments suggested that a degree in program administration or business or elementary education would be fine if supplemented with early childhood education courses. There were numerous comments emphasizing the value of multiple pathways to preparing qualified program and site leaders.


ECE I, II, or III as a Foundation for Onsite Program Leaders


In the future, the professional preparation for program and site leaders should be linked to ECE I, II, or III of the Power to the Profession (P2P) framework. More than four-fifths of participants indicated that ECE I, II, or III should be the foundation on which additional leadership competencies sit. However, there was no agreement on which level is most appropriate. There needs to be more discussion on this topic as the P2P recommendations become implemented in policy. The largely consistent responses building program leadership competency on the foundation of the ECE levels of preparation indicate that early childhood leadership stakeholders view program and site leaders as part of the ECE profession.


Compensation Parity


Compensation parity was the second most frequently stated rationale for the need of a unified professional framework for early childhood program and site leaders. Clear consensus was reached that compensation should be based on mastery of core leadership competencies and the achievement of a requisite educational degree. Scope of responsibility was identified as another important criteria determining compensation parity. Most of the comments suggested that scope of responsibility was determined by the number of children and families served or the number of staff supervised by the leader.


Achieving consensus on the north star of a unified framework for the professional preparation and compensation of program and site leaders is, however, only the first step on the journey. Creating the broad buy-in, system change, and funding so that early childhood education and care leaders have equitable access to the education and training, as well as additional supports, to achieve these professional standards will be the challenges ahead in the next few years.


LIMITATIONS AND NEED FOR FURTHER RESEARCH


While participants in this study were racially, culturally, and geographically diverse, some participants suggested in their feedback the need for further research using focus groups to make sure that the consensus recommendations represent the views of Black and Latino/a program leaders. Applying a racial equity lens, additional data collection using focus groups should be utilized to ensure that the voices of people of color are fully represented in the consensus recommendations.


Nomenclature is closely associated with professional identity. Even though this issue was discussed in each of the four waves, consensus on a unified role title was not reached. This is an area that needs further research and consideration. Is the variation in responses due to the unique professional identities of program and site leaders working in different sectors and settings? Or, is the variation in responses due to the professional identities of the leadership stakeholders engaged in the Building Leaders Project? A qualitative analysis of the comments submitted during the four waves of data collection may provide a clarification of the nomenclature issue and an answer to the question, “what’s in a name?” Finally, the four waves of data collection produced rich qualitative data that deserve a full analysis. Specifically, a qualitative analysis of the feedback generated by each of the three stakeholder groups could illuminate areas where consensus was not reached and shed light on how to move the profession forward in these areas.


REFERENCES


Abel, M. B., Talan, T. N., & Magrid, M. (2018). Closing the leadership gap: 2018 status report on early childhood program leadership in the United States. Wheeling, IL: McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership. Retrieved from https://mccormickcenter.nl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2018-LEAD-Clearinghouse-webbook_04.pdf


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


Dennis, S., & O’Connor, E. (2013). Reexamining quality in early childhood education: Exploring the relationship between the organizational climate and the classroom. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 27(1), 74–92.


Doherty, G., Ferguson, T., Ressler, G., & Lomotey, J. (2015). Enhancing child quality by director training and collegial mentoring. Early Childhood Research and Practice 17(1). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v17n1/doherty.html


Early Childhood Leadership Development Consortium, (2016). Early childhood leadership consensus statement, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.fcd.us.org/assets/2017/03/ECELeadershipStatement2016.pdf


Goffin, S. (2013). Building capacity through an early education leadership academy. Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes (CEELO). Retrieved from http://ceelo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/EELA_Goffin_WEB.pdf


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. Retrieved from https://www.fcd-us.org/assets/2016/10/IOMNRCFullReport2015.pdf


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., and Bella, J. (2019). Building on whole leadership: Energizing and strengthening your early childhood program. Lewisville, NC: Gryphon House, Inc.


New Venture Fund. (2018). Developing Early Childhood Leaders to Support Strong, Equitable Systems: A Review of the Early Childhood Education Leadership Development Landscape. Retrieved from https://www.arabellaadvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/New-Venture-Fund_Packard_report.pdf


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.

By Cara Murdoch February 16, 2026
In early childhood education and care (ECEC), we know that some of the simplest ideas can carry the biggest lessons—and many of us have been singing “The Ants Go Marching” for years without realizing it might also be a leadership guide. Ants may be tiny, but their colonies run on teamwork, communication, flexibility, and a clear sense of purpose—all things ECEC programs rely on every day. By taking a closer look at how ants work together to support their colony, early childhood leaders can discover practical and familiar ways to strengthen teamwork, value every role, and lead programs where everyone is marching in the same direction for children and families. Ants are busy creatures; they work with a purpose and know their jobs in the colony. Ants exhibit teamwork and collective effort. Ant colonies demonstrate intelligence, division of labor, communication systems, and cooperative behaviors. They can recognize and respond to the colony's needs. They overcome their challenges through trial and error, learning from their experiences, and sometimes even develop innovative strategies. In the ant colony, individual ants work together as a unit, each with a unique role that determines the colony's survival and success. The ant colony functions just like a superorganism, where the actions of each individual ant are a part of the highly efficient system that supports the whole colony. This concept of collective action is closely related to human teamwork! Ants have a lot to teach us, as we work in ECEC. teamwork Just as ants collaborate, relying on their communication and coordination to complete tasks, humans thrive when working together, as each individual brings their own unique skills and perspectives to their “colony.” Ants depend on each other. Each ant has a specialized job, and the colony relies on the cooperation and coordination of all its members to thrive and survive. Each ant’s contribution, no matter how small it may seem, is vital to the success of the colony as a whole, and the strength of the group is built on the cooperation of each individual. Similarly, in ECEC programs, teamwork — working together and helping one another —leads to better results than trying to do everything alone! When we collaborate, we pool our strengths, share our knowledge, and support each other, which can lead to more creative and efficient solutions. Each person in the program brings unique skills and perspectives, filling gaps and helping compensate for one another’s weaknesses. This shared effort allows your program to tackle tasks and achieve goals that would be difficult, if not impossible, for one individual to accomplish on their own... just like in an ant colony! Adapting to face challenges Ants are highly adaptable creatures. Have you ever watched a disrupted colony hurry to move the uncovered eggs to a protected space? They respond quickly to changes or disruptions in their environment. Their ability to quickly assess new situations and adjust their behavior will help the colony continue to function efficiently, even when the unexpected happens. Their adaptability is the key to their survival, allowing them to overcome obstacles and thrive. Early childhood programs also need to adapt to challenges. When unexpected changes occur, each person needs to be flexible and find new ways to contribute to the program's success. Just as ants adjust, programs must reassess their strengths, collaborate, and develop alternative solutions. Adaptability is essential for proper teamwork! honoring individual roles In an ant colony, different ants take on very specific roles. There are worker ants, soldier ants, and the queen ant. Each ant’s role is crucial to the success and survival of the colony, and all roles are interdependent; they work together to achieve common goals. This division of labor that exists in an ant colony can be compared to the different roles and unique talents found in an ECEC program. Just as ants rely on each other to perform specific tasks, each ECEC team member brings their own expertise and skills to the program. In a project or workplace setting, one person may excel at brainstorming creative ideas, another might be skilled at organizing tasks and managing timelines, and someone else may be particularly adept at technical skills or problem-solving. This diversity of roles within a team ensures that every aspect of a project or goal receives focused attention. In center-based programs, there are the director, teachers, kitchen staff, and other roles as needed. The diversity of roles in a program helps to ensure that the program is successful and thrives. clear purpose and goals In an ant colony, survival is the common goal. The colony’s success depends on each member performing its specific role. Their unwavering focus on the survival of the colony is connected to their success. It demonstrates the power of their collective action, driven by a clear and unified goal. ECEC programs thrive when they are aligned around a shared and clear purpose and goals. When program members understand and commit to their common goals, the well-being and growth of children and families, their efforts will become more effective and coordinated. Just as ants bring different strengths to the program, each person brings different strengths to the program. It is alignment around shared goals that enables the program to overcome challenges and succeed. When everyone in the program is clear on the goals and helps work together toward them, the whole program becomes more focused, resilient, and motivated - just as an ant colony becomes stronger when every member is working toward survival! Ants work together harmoniously to achieve their common goals; they set aside individual competition in favor of colony cooperation. Each ant focuses on its specialized task. This spirit of ant cooperation is key to the colony's survival and success, as it enables the colony to accomplish more complex tasks than any single ant could manage alone. ECEC programs can benefit from adopting a similar approach that emphasizes collaboration and shared goals over individual achievement. In an ECEC program, when members support each other and work together, they can leverage each person’s strengths to accomplish more than they could individually. Instead of competing for recognition or resources, each member can focus on the program’s success, fostering a more positive and productive environment. learning from ants Ants have so much to teach ECEC programs when it comes to cooperating and working together as an effective team. Whether it's knowing your own role and abilities, supporting each of your fellow team members, communicating clearly and effectively, being flexible, or avoiding competition, the ant colony is an excellent example of these qualities! Let your ants go marching!!! Ant Life, author unknown I am just an ant, A small life is what I live, But I have dreams for bigger things And so much more to give If only I could grow A foot or two would do I could live a life That others look up to.
Show More