Trans Awareness

As many of us continue our work on diversity, equity, and inclusion issues, it becomes clear that complexity exists, even in preschools and other early childhood programs. Families rely on early childhood professionals to accept and educate their children; children rely on teachers to understand, care for, and protect them. Teachers rely on their colleagues and administrators to support them and work together to discuss and decipher the complex issues that emerge.

What happens when circumstances arise that challenge teachers’ personal beliefs? In some cases, when children’s expressed desires conflict with the ideas of the adults around them, the adults are called on to check themselves. They must acknowledge the external, societal influences on themselves, families, the classroom community, and their programs. Then they have to determine a course of action that is caring and inclusive.

As a program director, I was called on to support a team of teachers as they navigated a developing relationship with a gender nonconforming preschooler’s family. The child had a gender-neutral name (we’ll use Jamie), and the family had not responded to the question asking for a binary gender designation in the enrollment paperwork. The teachers referred to the child as a boy but had expressed confusion and, to be honest, some judgment about the hairstyles and clothes that the child wore to preschool.

The teachers’ discomfort came to a head on Picture Day. Jamie arrived with braids and barrettes, wearing a skirt and tights. As the preschool had a drive-through drop-off routine and program assistants who helped children out of cars, the teachers had not spoken directly to the child’s mother as they arrived. They called me to ask what they should do. Uncertain about the question, I asked them about their concerns, which they framed as wondering if Jamie’s outfit were one the parents would want to be photographed.

It quickly became clear that their concern was limited to Jamie’s outfit. It centered around the teachers’ personal beliefs, which were biased about gender and sexuality. After quickly reviewing the communications about Picture Day, and remembering that retakes were always an option, I determined that we should trust that the parents knew it was Picture Day and move on without calling them.

Later, the teachers and I reflected on what happened and the bigger issues we discovered we needed to understand. We considered the child’s needs, the family’s needs, and those of the teachers and their colleagues within our program. Some of our thoughts and questions included:

What is the program’s mission? Is there a statement about non-discrimination or inclusivity? How is that interpreted and lived in the classroom and program?
What are our personal beliefs about gender and sexuality? Are they in line with the program’s expressed mission and policies? If not, what do we do about that?
Do all children feel supported and affirmed in our classrooms?
What can and should families expect from program staff around sensitive issues, especially as they begin to know one another?
How can administrators support staff, so they have enough time and the required knowledge to build trusting relationships with families?
What classroom practices support the inclusion of all children and families? Do we have current practices that should be evaluated and changed to ensure inclusion?
What administrative practices do we currently have that lead to exclusion or do not actively support every family’s sense of inclusion?

As we met and talked, it became clear that our assumptions about gender and sexuality were equity issues. The labels we use can be inclusive or exclusive. One classroom practice that was eliminated almost immediately was calling children to activities by gender (e.g., “It’s time for all the girls to come to the door.”). There are so many other ways to refer to groups of children; calling them by name is preferred, but not always practical. Try “children,” “class,” or “everyone.”

We also agreed to reconsider the practice of required drive-through drop-off and pick-up. While the convenience was desired by many (and may be the best practice during the pandemic), encouraging children’s important adults to join the teachers and children in the classrooms at the beginning or end of each day made it easier to develop friendly relationships. When those relationships exist, conversations about sensitive subjects become easier.

For more ideas and tips, these articles may be helpful, Using Gender-Inclusive Language with Children & Families and Good Morning, Boys and Girls. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) also provides guidance for supporting families of gender nonconforming children, along with research about Gender Identity and Expression in the Early Childhood Classroom.

The McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership is dedicated to empowering early childhood leaders so they can positively impact outcomes for children and families. No child should have to choose between being themselves and pleasing their teachers. For more information about transgender children and youth and being an ally, visit PFLAG and GLAAD.

< 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.