Want to Build Community and Professional Development at the Same Time? Try a Book Discussion Group!

A woman wearing glasses and a suit is smiling in front of a flag.

Sim Loh is a family partnership coordinator at Children’s Village, a nationally-accredited Keystone 4 STARS early learning and school-age enrichment program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, serving about 350 children. She supports children and families, including non-English speaking families of immigrant status, by ensuring equitable access to education, health, employment, and legal information and resources on a day-to-day basis. She is a member of the Children First Racial Equity Early Childhood Education Provider Council, a community member representative of Philadelphia School District Multilingual Advisory Council, and a board member of Historic Philadelphia.


Sim explains, “I ensure families know their rights and educate them on ways to speak up for themselves and request for interpretation/translation services. I share families’ stories and experiences with legislators and decision-makers so that their needs are understood. Attending Leadership Connections will help me strengthen and grow my skills in all domains by interacting with and hearing from experienced leaders in different positions. With newly acquired skills, I seek to learn about the systems level while paying close attention to the accessibility and barriers of different systems and resources and their impacts on young children and their families.”

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

Maybe you are an administrator of an early childhood program looking for new ways to build a culture of learning and initiate a conversation around best practices in your program. Or you may be a technical assistance provider working with a diverse group of administrators, wondering how to bring them together to form a community and spark dialogue around early childhood leadership. Book discussion groups could be one way of meeting your objective. For the past few years, I have organized book discussions and would like to share some lessons learned along the way.


GETTING STARTED


Having a well-thought-out plan is your first step. Here are some questions to consider before beginning a book discussion group.


Who, When, Where, and How


Who is interested in participating in a book discussion group? One way to find out is to send a short survey inquiring if there is interest in reading and discussing a book, and if so, what topics or books they might like to explore.


When will the book discussions take place? If you are an administrator of a program, will the staff participate during paid time; such as, at a meeting, lunchtime, children’s naptime, or paid time after the program closes? Do not forget to account for time allotted to read the book! If you facilitate an early childhood administrator’s group, will the book discussion be part of a regularly-scheduled meeting or held at another time?


Where will the group meet, if it will be an in-person meeting? If the group is meeting virtually, will all participants have access to a computer with virtual meeting capability and Internet access?


How will the books be paid for, and will the cost be part of your professional development budget? Is there a grant or other resource to help with the cost? Is there a local business that can be supported with the purchase of the books? If you are purchasing the book for participants, be sure to ask participants if they already have a copy or if they would prefer to check it out at their library. Keep in mind that providing a copy for each participant may reduce the pressure of needing to finish the book within their library’s loan period.


NEXT STEPS


Choose the Book


After collecting the surveys, make a list of the book titles that were submitted. If participants suggested topics to explore, you will need to find books that will address those topics. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), Redleaf Press, and Teacher’s College Press are some organizations with catalogs containing a wide variety of early childhood books. Next, create another survey with the list of books they submitted and books chosen from their suggested topics. They will need to rank order their top three selections. You now have a list of books, in order of interest, to choose for the book discussion.


Determine Questions for the Book Discussion


It is helpful to create a study guide with general or specific questions related to the book to give to the participants before they start reading. The study guide will help participants prepare and will spark group discussion. You may want to start with general questions, such as:


  • What did you already know about the topic?
  • What did you learn that was new or surprising?
  • What new questions do you have?
  • What do you want to know more about?
  • What was your favorite and least favorite idea?
  • What ideas or strategies in the book seem realistic and what challenges your thinking?
  • If you could ask the author a question, what would it be?


In addition, some books have questions at the end of the chapters, reflective questions, and activities that you may want to include in the study guide. If you choose to copy material from the book, remember to obtain permission and add a citation giving credit to the author and book at the end of the study guide.


Establish Guidelines for Interaction


When first bringing together a learning community, it is important to establish guidelines for engagement. Some guidelines are logistical and are typically developed by the organizer of the group, including establishing time for breaks, turning off or silencing electronic devices, using video cameras for face-to-face interactions when virtual, as well as muting when not speaking, etc. Other guidelines should be created by the group. One question to help participants think about guidelines for engagement would be, “What will make this learning experience successful?”


Here are a few examples of guidelines suggested by participants in some trainings I have facilitated: uphold confidentiality―what is said in the group, stays in the group; be respectful of ideas shared—no judgments; come prepared for the discussion—read material in advance; and create an environment supportive of all—provide everyone with an opportunity to speak.


Prepare the Facilitator(s)


 When members of the group take turns facilitating and managing the group discussion, they will have an opportunity to practice a leadership role. Defining the facilitator role, talking with them, and giving guidelines to help them manage a group, will ensure that they feel prepared and ready to lead the discussion group. Guidelines for the facilitator could include:


  • Build trust and safety among the group.
  • Be an active listener and encourage active listening among the group.
  • Ask a question, then let others answer first.
  • Be comfortable with silence; some people need to think before they answer.
  • Keep the discussion on track. If the conversation strays too far off-topic, bring it back.
  • Introduce a new question if it appears that interest in the question being discussed has declined.
  • Make sure everyone’s voice is being heard, and no one is being “heard too much.” You might direct a question to the “quiet person,” especially if they look like they would like to share; however, make it clear that everyone has a right to pass.
  • Remember that there is no need to get through every discussion question; let the conversation flow naturally.


Develop an Evaluation


You will want to gather feedback from the participants after the book discussion ends to gain insight into the logistics of the group discussion and better inform future discussions. I suggest including an evaluation form that creates an opportunity for participants to rate criteria as well as answer some open-ended questions. The following are some examples:


Rate the following on a scale of one to five (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = no opinion, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree)


  • The discussion enhanced my understanding of the topic.
  • Ideas and questions were encouraged.
  • The study guide questions were helpful.
  • The group size met my needs.
  • The length of the book discussion met my needs.
  • The amount of time provided to read the book met my needs.


 Please answer the following questions:


  • What are two lessons you learned from the book?
  • What suggestions do you have to improve the study guide?
  • Are you interested in another book discussion group?
  • If yes, would you be interested in inviting others to join the group?
  • If yes, what other topics or books would you suggest for the next book discussion?
  • Other ideas or suggestions for improvement?


FINAL THOUGHTS


One of my favorite questions is, “If you could ask the author a question, what would it be?” Recently, I was planning a third virtual book discussion for a group of technical assistance providers who have been meeting regularly. Since the author’s email address was in the book, I emailed her to share that we selected her book for our virtual book discussion group. In addition, I asked if she could give any suggestions or thought-provoking questions for our discussion and she responded with some great ideas. Then, to my surprise, she offered to join the discussion to answer questions from the participants! Authors may or may not respond to your email; however, you just might be pleasantly surprised to find out they are thrilled you have chosen their book and will share ideas for enhancing the discussion.


Book discussion groups can provide an opportunity to explore new ideas, inspire, motivate, and build relationships. There are many good early childhood books out there just waiting for a group of educators and leaders to discover and discuss!


If you are interested in learning more about professional development opportunities offered by the McCormick Center for administrators of early care and education programs and those who provide technical assistance, please contact us.


Barbara Volpe, M.Ed., is Leadership Academy Manager for the McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership at National Louis University. In this role, she coordinates and facilitates leadership and quality improvement training for early childhood administrators, teachers, and technical assistance providers. Barb has over 20 years of leadership and management experience. Barb enjoys developing trainings and has made many local, statewide, and national presentations. Barb obtained her master’s degree in early childhood administration from National Louis University and her baccalaureate degree in child and family development from Southern Illinois University-Carbondale.

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