What began in the 1990's as a postcard campaign ultimately informed a set of standards:

early childhood teachers identified the MOST IMPORTANT policies and practices

supporting them to STAY in their jobs.

This project is guided by the recommended policies and practices found in the Model Work Standards for Teaching Staff in Center Based Care and funding is provided by Ready for School, Ready for Life and the North Carolina State Legislature

• Facilitation & Design: Ashley Allen
• Implementation Team: Angie Roberson, Rosemarie Vardell, & Tyla Ricks
  
• Evaluation: Valerie Jarvis McMillan & Jennifer Beasley

Project Overview

In 2018, an early childhood workforce design team developed a strategic plan to recruit, retain, and engage educated and experienced early educators in Guilford County. Early childhood teachers told us they want to have more input in their work, but the context of working in center based settings doesn't always allow the opportunity or time to do so. This project aims to address the need for early educators to have more input into decisions that impact their work, and in the process help identify the policies and practices that promote stability and those that serve as a barrier to recruiting staff and keeping

them long term.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES:

• Support programs to identify strengths and prioritize areas for change through the lens of the Model Work Standards for Teaching Staff in Center Based Settings
  
• Support programs to create action plans to achieve their goals
  
• Provide funding to achieve goals
• Strategize with program administrators to identify how program strengths serve as powerful tools in recruitment and hiring
  
• Provide stipends for all participating staff throughout the process
  
• Remain flexible and work responsively within the program context and identified priorities
  
• Maintain confidentiality of programs/participants through the change process
  

Ready for School, Ready for Life has continued to advocate at the state level about the potential of using the Model Work Standards as a framework for teachers to have more input in their work as a lever to reduce turnover and increase job satisfaction.

While the field of early childhood has always faced unique challenges, COVID has highlighted the inequities across roles and among program's access to resources as well as staffing issues. The sense of urgency to better understand what factors increase program stability has led the North Carolina State Legislature to fund this project -- because they believe early childhood educators can best identify changes we should consider not only within your programs, but beyond Guilford County to allow teachers to stay in the field. They realize programs need financial support and a trusted ally to guide them through the process.

The Model Work Standards Pilot Project aims to facilitate the change process with three early childhood programs in Guilford County to identify what policies and practices help recruit and retain staff while creating and revising existing policies and practices as a strategy to reduce turnover.

What we learn can help inform program administrators, community organizations, and guide funding decisions and policy implementation.

CLICK HERE to see the 2019 Model Work Standards for Early Childhood Teachers in Center Based Settings

Program Profiles

Each column provides links to documents that describe the programs work environment, staff demographics, enrollment, and more. Documents titled "PROGRAM PROFILE" pull information from ALL data/documentation for a program to paint the full story of that program's process. The profiles are being built throughout the process and will fully capture each program's story towards the end of the project.

The process

Ashley Allen shares the theoretical foundations of this project HERE.

This project was originally designed to occur over a three year period and programs would go through three phases in that model: relationship building, identifying/prioritizing/goal setting, and finally sustainability - where each program would have the experience and skills to help engage other programs in going through this process.

This version of the project was collapsed into a ten month period. Recruitment and first visits occurred in July of 2022 and programs aimed to achieve the goals on their action plans by May, 2023. We made the decision to reduce the relationship building phase because of the facilitator having work experience with early childhood programs in Guilford County; EQuIPD and Ashley were not "new" faces working with providers. Additionally, we removed the last phase of sustainability, which was intended to overlap with recruitment of new programs for another round of the project. Sustainable funding and time will be required to implement the project to fidelity.

The purpose of this project is to a) support early educators communication, leadership, and advocacy skills to be more proactively involved in shaping their work environments; b) expose early educators to the ideas of rights/responsibilities as they relate to elements in work environments, and c) better inform policy decisions to reflect what best supports EC programmatic stability.

The program context, willingness and openness of both program leadership and staff, along with other factors, shaped individualized approaches although the project purpose remained the same across all programs. The Model Work Standards is a long and potentially overwhelming list of standards to view at once, and considering the time constraints we chose to begin with all staff completing the Early Childhood Work Environment Survey as both a pre and post measure of their perceptions of the work environment. The facilitator, Ashley Allen, worked with each program's responses to allow staff to "place" their needs into the areas of the Model Work Standards. This approach allowed programs to identify areas they felt needed improvement in a broad way and further narrowing specific priorities into the standards themselves.

Programs participated in similar activities and decision making processes, but there was no standardized approach to how programs engaged in prioritizing, decision making, or leadership opportunities. The way in which each program went through the process was tailored to best meet the communication style and culture of the staff in each program.

The approach to support staff in engaging in this way is highly influenced by Paula Jorde Bloom's work on staff communication, Learning & Teaching for Social Justice, and Paulo Friere's notions of problem-posing inquiry. This requires responsivity on the facilitation side based on what is said, what is not said, body language, individual communication with staff and much attention to detail and reflection. It is important to note that this process will require an individualized approach to the "how," while the larger process components would be similar across programs.

Although each program went through an individualized process, the most unpredictable and often challenging part of the entire process is the time period after the action plan is developed. The facilitator steps back to allow the space for staff in each program to take ownership of the steps required to achieve goals identified on their action plans.

This time period is best situated in Fogg's (2009) Behavior Model, a framework for behavior and behavior change that believes "behavior (B) happens when Motivation (M), Ability (A), and Prompt (P) come together at the same moment. While there are some limitations to this approach that will be addressed for further consideration, Fogg's Behavior Model (2009) provides a clear framework for considering the factors affecting teacher's behavior during this period of time.

Behavior = Motivation Ability Prompt

Viewing behavior through this model asks the questions:

What are the core motivators (MOTIVATION)?

What are the simplicity factors (ABILITY)?

What types of prompts are involved?

Motivation:

Motivation exists internally and externally, which means both individual mindsets as well as external components (prompts) impact motivation. Motivation can also shift over time. Motivation can be largely impacted by a person's belief that change is possible as well as how they view their capacity (have the ability) to participate or impact change. A barrier to motivation is when someone feels that change is not possible; there may be past history that imprints this belief when changes may have been difficult or unfulfilled previously. Motivation is also a result of one's perception of "what's in this for me?"

Ability:

Ability, or essentially how easy or difficult a task appears and is in reality, exists in reality and in mindset. If someone believes an idea won't work, the belief itself can limit motivation and impact behavior. If we believe an idea is not possible, then we are highly unlikely to allow our brains to think of those possibilities (e.g. we "know" that if we throw a ball up in the air it will fall down, thus we are not likely to immediately consider the possibilities of it not falling down. In our daily interactions this may seem insignificant, but in the change process we are encouraging people to think of possibilities beyond what they currently "know") . Additionally, external factors can increase or limit ability. If authority figures create a barrier to ability, then other prompts and motivation must occur to make one believe something is possible - even if it is a smaller step towards the larger intended outcome. In some situations, rules, laws and employers beliefs and abilities shape what is and is not possible within the program's change process.

Prompt:

The prompt is any push, suggestion, or even negative situation that moves a person's motivation. Prompts can be used to strategically make things easier or more difficult for others, as well. In this case, the project provided some prompts to make the process easier. Examples include stipends for attending meetings, food/gift cards, and larger resource funds to make achieving goals easier by reducing financial barriers. Other prompts that impact how easy or difficult a task might be include the work environment context (staffing , communication, and leadership styles of administration) and what external supports, such as the facilitation/accountability prompts were provided from the implementation side of the project.

Results & findings

Programs identified priorities for change in the following areas of the Model Work Standards:

II. Benefits

III. Employment Policies & Practices

IV: Communication & Team Building

VI: Staffing & Teaching Supports

VII: Decision Making & Problem solving

Program A:

BENEFITS:

Staff were highly motivated and need benefits - two staff left the program early in the project as a result of losing benefits and needing to find employment that offered health insurance. Their ability was limited, as there are decisions that must be made beyond their control and there was not enough time to pursue alternative/creative approaches. The prompt of resource funding was important, but the group chose to pursue options where they could maximize the impact of resources funds. While the resource funds were critical, they were not enough to provide health insurance and they are a one time payment which is not a sustainable solution.

COMMUNICATION & TEAM BUILDING/DECISION MAKING & PROBLEM SOLVING:

Program A directly connected these two areas in their action plan and goals. Staff self-identified as "family" in the beginning of the project - and they were highly motivated to grow in relational ways that reflect healthy family relationships. They are highly motivated to be involved in decisions as a result of contextual factors and saw the value in committing to staff meetings as a way to dedicate time towards making those decisions collectively. (ex: administration sends a message about a child transitioning - staff felt as if they were left out. Without a dedicated time to have these conversations, there are limitations to being included in decisions due to staffing situations and time). Administration was open to following through with staff identified goals - prior to knowing what those goals may be. Administrators followed through in supporting the format for staff meetings identified by staff, which made the change "easier" by having administrative support. The administrator was also motivated, because previous staff meetings felt like she "created a PowerPoint and talked at them for an hour." Their idea of using the time for dialogue and problem solving motivated the administrator - which transfers to further motivate staff. The prompt in this situation was being able to see the value in the notion, "if we spend time collectively, dedicated to problem solving, our daily work life becomes more streamlined and inclusive." The prompt of resource funding motivated staff to identify activities to pursue together outside of work to further build a sense of community. Without funds to support outside activities, the program could not afford the activities in their program budget.

Program B:

BENEFITS:

Staff were highly motivated and need benefits - two staff left when they finished their educational goals to gain employment in K12 and federally funded programs to gain access to retirement benefits. While motivation was high, there was no sense of ability or prompt to pursue this at the staff level in project.

EMPLOYMENT POLICIES & PRACTICES:

Staff were motivated as a result of being short staffed; lack of teachers created larger issues that tied to job descriptions and orientation. The prompt was not a reward but rather a negative experience that sparked motivation to meet a need. When new staff were hired, they were not going through the orientation process to the same extent they were prior to COVID. Additionally, being short staffed results in teachers being responsible for tasks outside of their traditional role. Neither of these issues stemmed from the actual job descriptions or orientation process needing revision. These impacts were felt in classrooms however and acted as a prompt for teachers to strengthen their individual classroom orientation preferences and consider job descriptions in the hiring process. Lead teachers have enough experience that creating an individualized orientation process for new staff was an easy task, making it a more feasible goal.

COMMUNICATION & TEAM BUILDING:

Not all staff share the same perspectives on events that bring all staff together at once (ex: staff meetings, community events). Those who are motivated feel that a sense of collective understanding and problem solving is important for the program to continue growing over time. The prompt for this motivation is not directly known - but some state motivation as the long term value of building relationships across classrooms. The ability is difficult for most staff, however, even with resource funding. COVID created an environment where all staff have needs and/or responsibilities beyond the school - creating competing demands. Some staff care for families, share vehicles, work other jobs, or simply need time outside of the physical environment of the school. Being that classrooms operated on their own during COVID to avoid transmission, many teachers have become accustomed to these routines. There are two extremes on this continuum - where some may be more resistant and others may be more excited to participate in group activities outside of work hours. Staff are spread along this continuum although they generally agree that this time is important and are making efforts to participate in these events.

Program C:

BENEFITS:

Many staff need benefits, and while there was motivation for some as a result, there was not a collective approach towards the steps in the action plan although all staff agreed for an action plan to be made focusing on benefits. They have little ability towards this goal, as there is not an option at the program level to access health insurance or retirement plans but they have some ability when we think about doing research on what is available. Administration did allow someone to come speak to staff from a retirement planning firm, however it was clear that there was no ability at the program level to support benefits "at this time." The facilitator eventually asked about what creative options the administrator was willing to consider, and while she stated she was open to ideas there was a scarcity mindset approach to the topic. Funds are being used currently to provide Aflac to staff which is supplemental, and when asked if that cost could be reallocated towards another benefit, the response clarified that Aflac is purchased with grant funds and will no longer be an option after December, 2023.

STAFFING & TEACHING SUPPORTS:

Staff identified the need for materials that go beyond those required for rating scale assessments, and in this case the prompt of having resource funds to use towards goals motivated them to choose this as an easy win. Staff struggled to identify a goal and eventually asked the facilitator to make suggestions. There was a clear sense that staff didn't feel their identified goals would be supported at the program level, and having a clear way to spend the funds was an idea they could all agree upon as important. Staff raised the concern of the funds quickly disappearing and chose to add a component to the action plan that focuses on fundraising to make this pot of resource funding more sustainable over time. The motivation came from knowing the funds were to be spent on items they decided were necessary, however there has not been much movement towards solidifying a fundraising plan. Their ability to create a plan and implement it is low; being short staffed, those who currently teach here are working longer hours and with fewer breaks. The energy and capacity to take on "extra" planning and work beyond the scope of the classroom is definitely impacted by the work environment context.

Considerations/Lessons Learned:

APPLICATION/RECRUITMENT PROCESS

• Program leadership is a key component to the successful achievement of goals in this project. It is imperative to have a good understanding of the flexibility and perception of authority with decision making prior to beginning this process.
• Assessing individuals readiness/willingness to change prior to beginning this process will be a key component to whether goals are achieved or even identified.
• Asking both administrators and staff the types of decisions teachers are currently included in, what that looks like, and what changes have occurred as a result provides some insight for the implementation side to consider related to previous experiences.
• When concerned about readiness, it will be helpful to build in some sort of entry phase to the project where implementation can build relationships with staff, know more about the program culture, decision making processes and perceptions of the work environment before solidifying commitment to project participation.
• Long term outcomes can be strengthened by paying more attention to building relationships and gaining a better understanding of the work environment context in programs during the recruitment phase and using what is learned during the time after action planning.
• The time after action plans are developed is the tipping point of program's success. Dedicating more time to follow up, relationships, and checking in during this period are all imperative.

ENGAGING IN THE PROCESS

• It is critical for minimally ONE goal to be identified by staff and supported by leadership. It is possible to do harm when we ask one to identify what needs changing, ask them to provide solutions, and have no concrete support from program leadership. Be mindful of the Ability component in Flagg's Behavior Model when considering identification of goals.
• Taking time to follow up with individual staff helps keep momentum going and provides reinforcement/encouragement that some people need in order to stay engaged.
• While the project's purpose is to ultimately facilitate change driven by staff, not all program's staff have the capacity to collectively operate in this way. There may be moments where the facilitator has to offer suggestions or options, clearly stating that these are ideas and not "what should be done." This occurred in two of the three programs, and it was the only way there was any forward movement at that particular moment in time. Keep in mind that facilitators must match their style to the capacity of the people in the moment and at times, some actions may feel antithetical to the process but are truly what programs need in order to grow/move forward with the process.

FOLLOW THROUGH/NEXT STEPS

• Programs were all concerned about their ability to "do this again" without support. In this case, the facilitator is still available to support the program after the grant ends due to the nature of their full time work overlapping with the work of this project (the facilitator could transition programs on to their "case load" if programs felt that was needed). This was a relief to the programs, even though not all programs will continue to work with the facilitator at this level. It is important to build in on-going follow up for this reason, when applicable.
  
• Noticing what programs may need the most and providing that as the project transitions at the end is important. An example of this would be that program A has a teacher who is driven to lead hard conversations and wants a larger role in staff meetings. The facilitator provided a "facilitator deck" that offers various strategies to help groups with decision making, prioritizing, and brainstorming. The person is ready and eager - but does not necessarily have all the experience to pull out ideas to feel successful. The deck acts as a stepping stone to build the confidence needed for this teacher to continue growing in their leadership capacity.