2 Chapter 2: Professionalism in Early Childhood Education

Chapter 2: Professionalism in Early Childhood Education

    About the Author

     About the Peer Reviewer

Chapter 2: Professionalism in

Early Childhood Education

Authored by Brenda Boyd and Reviewed by Linda Felch

Image 2.1 “game” by Barbara Eckstein is licensed under CC BY 2.0

This chapter aligns with SLO #7:  apply the professional code of ethics for early care and education to resolve dilemmas.

In chapter 1 we introduced the practice of teaching and referred to the “field” of early childhood education (ECE).  In the last two decades, there has been much attention paid to the difference between a “field” and a profession of ECE (e.g., Goffin & Washington, 2007).  While the intensity of attention about defining ECE as a profession has increased considerably, this attention is far from new.  As early as the mid-1960’s Bettye Caldwell wrote about the relatively little concern for defining the field apparent in discussion about how early childhood education should operate (Caldwell, 1967).  In this chapter, you will explore the definition of “profession” and consider whether ECE fits that definition.  You will learn about a recent effort to move to finally position ECE to be recognized as a profession.  You will also become aware of the currently used and various systems of standards and codes that define professional behavior and conduct of the ECE practitioner.  The goal of this chapter is for you to understand the expectations of a professional early childhood educator as you prepare to move into that role.

Key points from this chapter:

• A profession is defined by criteria that guide professional practice.
• Current thinking suggests early childhood education does not fully meet the definition of a profession.
• While ECE may not yet fully meet professional criteria, many systems of standards exist to guide practice.

Terminology found throughout this chapter:

ECE Field:  All programs, services and occupations that currently reside within the boundary of what we call ECE.

Field of Practice:  Specialization or a defined scope of work undertaken by an identified group of practitioners.

Profession:  An occupation that serves the public welfare and that requires specialized educational training in some branch of learning or science.

Professional:  The inhabitant of a role in that occupation—the person who does the work of the profession.

Early Childhood Education:  The title of the profession chosen by the Power to the Profession Task Force.

Early Childhood Educator:  The title of the professionals chosen by the Power to the Profession Task force; those who provide direct service to children, birth to age 8.

Unifying Framework:  The final product of the Power to the Profession Task Force. Reports on recommendations made by the Task Force to define the profession and create infrastructure to support implementation of the recommendations.

Scope of Practice:  The responsibilities and authority granted to an ECE professional.

WAC: Washington Administrative Code. Sets regulations for licensed childcare.

Stackable Certificates:  3 credentials granted by community and technical colleges in Washington.  They build on one another and set the foundation for acquiring an associate degree.

NAEYC:  National Association for the Education of Young Children.  Prominent professional organization for early childhood educators.

Ethical conduct:  Behavior following moral and right principles.

Ethical Ideals: Aspirational statements guiding behavior.

Ethical Principles: Rules for practice dividing ethical from unethical behavior.

Ethical Dilemma:  Moral conflict that requires choosing between two conflicting values and responsibilities.

Ethical Responsibility:  A clear cut rule regarding moral decisions.

Ethical Finesse:  Finding a way to resolve a problem that is acceptable to everyone involved.

Advocacy:  Action that argues for an issue or course of action; support or defense of a group.

Defining terms:  A vocabulary for discussing professionalism

Understanding terminology is a helpful way to start an investigation of professionalism in ECE.  The terms profession and professional are used frequently in our everyday conversations.  But our common usage of the term does not ensure that we understand what these terms mean as we apply them to our work as educators.

In our work life, we may use the term professional to refer to the fact that we are committed to doing our jobs well, that we are good employees (punctual, respectful to colleagues, dress appropriately), that we provide reliable and competent service, or it may simply mean that we get paid for what we do (Feeney, 2012).  You might use the term professional as a compliment, indicating that you see that person as being good at their job.

While we may use the term professional as a verb to describe how we behave at our jobs, it is important to note that a body of scholarly literature exists in which academics from various disciplines have discussed the meaning of these terms.

In this section, we will further define terms that assist in understanding the conversation about ECE becoming a profession.

Field

You have likely heard reference to the “field of ECE”.  In fact, we use that phrase in chapter 1 of this book.  Calling ECE a field allows us to create a boundary around what we mean by ECE; it allows for defining what fits into this category.  Similarly, you have probably heard mention of those who work in the business field, the medical field, etc.  As Goffin and Washington (2019) suggest, the term ECE field describes all of the programs, services and occupations that currently reside within the boundary of what we call ECE—childcare, either in centers or family childcare homes; preschool; and care for infants and toddlers, for example.

Field of Practice

A field of practice refers to a specialization or a defined scope of work undertaken by an identified group of practitioners.  It is a term often used in defining specialties in medicine or social work.  Stacie Goffin has also applied the term “field of practice” to ECE (Goffin & Washington, 2019; Goffin, 2015).  A field of practice, according to Goffin, indicates the roles that directly focus on the learning and development of children.  In other words, the ECE field of practice refers to those who do the work of educating and facilitating development.  Calling ECE a field of practice allows for defining the focus—the learning and development of young children.  Naming it as a field of practice also highlights that the field’s main objective is competent practice and suggests that we understand what it means to competently educate young children.  In sum, the ECE field of practice is populated by those who do the work of direct service to children, which also assumes a level of competent practice to be successful.

Profession

The term profession is commonly accepted to mean an “occupation that serves the public welfare and that requires specialized educational training in some branch of learning or science” (Feeney, 2012, p. 6).  Thus, a profession requires specialized education not held by others, and serves a public good, as opposed to serving one’s self-interest alone (i.e., simply getting a paycheck).

Professionals

If a profession is an occupation that serves a public good, and requires education, a professional is the inhabitant of a role in that occupation—the person who does the work of the profession.  Applying the definition of profession just shared, a professional is the person who has made a commitment to serve the public good related to that field and has achieved the educational requirement necessary to play that role.  In the field of ECE, it is common to hear about efforts to professionalize the field.  This often refers to incremental efforts to improve the practice of individuals, rather than being about system wide efforts to meet the full definition of a profession.

A large body of academic literature has identified the defining features of a profession.  Although there is not complete agreement on these features, some appear frequently and are accepted as critical markers.  Feeney (2012) identifies 8 criteria that are common in the literature about professions.  Table 1 describes them.

Table 1 Criteria for Defining a Profession

ECE as a Profession

In recent years, many have questioned whether ECE meets the definition of a profession (e.g., Feeney, 2012; Goffin, 2013, 2015).  There seems to be a consensus that it currently does not, and review of the list in Table 1 provides evidence that this conclusion is accurate.  While ECE has developed some of the characteristics above, not all are currently in place.  For example, a Code of Ethical Conduct, put forth by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC, 2011), has been in existence for several years, though there is no universal requirement that ECE practitioners are aware of or abide by this code.  Similarly, in terms of standards of practice, many states have adopted a set of guidelines defining the skills and knowledge necessary to provide quality childcare.  However, each state can define these guidelines as they see fit, and a wide variety of licensing requirements can be found across the US.  As guidelines, they carry no authority over the continued practice of a practitioner who chooses not to follow them.

Moreover, these competencies are often set by the state legislature and defined by the state agency responsible for childcare licensing, rather than being defined and agreed to by the profession.  This fact points to the absence of autonomy.  Having autonomy is another marker of a profession.  Licensed childcare, a central mode of delivery in ECE, is heavily regulated by the state, rather than by the profession, providing notable evidence for the lack of autonomy in ECE, another critical feature in a profession.

Further, prolonged training with rigorous entry requirements are not required for entry into ECE with any consistency.  Similarly, too many in the general public still view childcare as “glorified babysitting” to all us to say that ECE is recognized as being based on specialized knowledge, or that there exists a particular set of practitioners who alone can do the work of ECE.

This analysis should make it clear that ECE has work to do before it can claim the title of profession and before those engaged in this work can claim to be professionals.  Identifying this reality has not, however, made it easy for ECE to move toward the status of profession.  While numerous efforts have aimed to solve the problem, no large-scale success has been achieved.  Early childhood educators remain unrecognized for the significance of their work, remain undercompensated, the field of early childhood education remains fragmented and siloed with no clear definition of its boundaries, and little specialized knowledge is required for entry (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2015).

NAEYC’s efforts:  Power to the Profession and the Unifying Framework

A hopeful initiative has, however, recently emerged.  Beginning in 2017, NAEYC (the National Association for the Education of Young Children), the leading professional association for those engaged in the work of ECE, made a significant investment in achieving this goal.  This initiative, titled Power to the Profession and carried out by a task force representing 15 national ECE-related organizations created a Unifying Framework for the Early Childhood Education Profession. According to the Power to the Profession Task Force (n.d.), the framework is designed to “…set a vision for how to drive the significant and sustained public investment that will allow all children, birth through age 8, to benefit from high-quality early childhood education provided by well-prepared, diverse, supported and compensated professionals” (para. 3).  The title of the framework, including the term profession, as well as the focus on preparation and support of the professionals illustrate the focus of moving ECE to this status, while also recognizing the need for public funding to achieve this long-standing goal.

Power to the Profession was a multi-year process that involved 8 “decision cycles” in which decisions on the defining issues of the field were presented to stakeholders for feedback.  At each cycle, practitioners in the field responded in writing to the proposal, engaged in focus groups, and other means of providing feedback.  After this process, each proposal was revised and ultimately finalized.  In March of 2020, the results of the 8 decision cycles were presented in the Unifying Framework for the Early Childhood Education Profession.  The recommendations in the framework are summarized in the table found in the appendix to this chapter.  In addition to summarizing the recommendations, the table includes how they address the 8 criteria of a profession identified earlier in in this chapter.

The recommendations that make up the Framework are notable in their effort to address at one time as many of the issues facing ECE as possible.

Naming and Defining the Profession

The first issue addressed by the Task Force was what to call the profession.  This is a long existent problem with ECE (which you will note we have been calling early childhood education all along—but many do not accept this and use other names such as early care and education or early learning, and so on).  The difficulty was not just about agreeing to a single name but determining which practitioners working with young children were part of the profession.  A long-held aversion to exclusion has made it difficult to draw a boundary around who is “in” and who is “out” of the profession.  But this decision is necessary to define a field as a profession.  After much deliberation, the Task Force chose to call the profession Early Childhood Education and the professionals are called Early Childhood Educators.  Further, a boundary between the profession and the larger field of early childhood was drawn, delineating the professionals from other allied practitioners who, while still engaged in work that support children and families, are not early childhood educators and not part of the profession.

Image 2.3 presents the illustration from the Unifying Framework (Power to the Profession Task Force, 2020) that depicts the relationship between the field of ECE–everything outside of the profession–and the profession designated by the orange section at the top of the circle.  The profession as proposed, includes three roles:

• Early Childhood Educators who provide direct service to children birth to age 8 and on whom the Unifying Framework is largely focused
• Professional Preparation Faculty and Trainers who instruct, observe, and monitor the practice of aspiring ECEs
• Pedagogical and Instructional Administrators who guide the practice of ECEs

In addition to defining the profession and the professionals, the Framework identifies three designations of early childhood educators (Early Childhood Educator I, II and III) as presented in Table 2.  Creating these designations addresses a confusing jumble of titles and roles in the current field, creating a uniform approach to defining responsibilities (scope of practice) and preparation.  The Task Force also recognized the current reality that the scope of practice attached to a specific level of professional preparation differs by setting.  For example, in Birth to age 5 settings, a practitioner with an associate degree may hold the position of lead teacher in a classroom.  That same level of education would commonly be tied to an assistant teacher position in a K-Grade 3 setting.

Table 2 Designations of ECEs proposed in Unifying Framework

Defined Professional Standards and Professional Preparation Delivery

The Unifying Framework (Power to the Profession Task Force, 2020) also addressed the need for a unified system of professional preparation for EC Educators.  The Framework recognizes the role of higher education in professions, both in informing the content of professional preparation, and delivering high quality preparation that successfully graduates competent professionals.  The Task Force selected the updated and revised NAEYC Professional Standards and Competencies as the standards for professional preparation.  Given that a profession is defined partially by the existence of standards for practice set and defined by the profession, choosing standards developed by NAEYC rather than a state licensing entity is appropriate.  These revised standards were released at the same time as the Unifying Framework and include a “leveling” of the standards, further illuminating the distinction between the 3 designations.  This “leveling” guides professional preparation programs to pitch the content of coursework appropriately to the different designations and further underscores the differences in scope of practice.  To some extent, this approach was used to address the current reality that many practitioners have worked in the field for many years with no college coursework and are not willing to undertake a college education but wish to remain employed in the newly named profession.  These designations recognize the contribution of all professionals regardless of scope of practice.  The Framework additionally recommends that all early childhood educators must first complete a general early childhood education program before specializing in, for example, a focus on an age group such as preschool or toddler aged children.

In addition to adopting professional preparation standards, the Framework calls on institutions of higher education to be accountable through accreditation by a governing body to ensure delivery of competently prepared early childhood educators.  Moreover, the Framework calls on higher education to work to ensure seamless transition across educational systems, access to higher education by an ethnically, racially, and linguistically diverse population and diversity in faculty that prepare early childhood educators.

Finally, the framework recommends that once all the requirements just described are in place (i.e., higher education access to all who seek it, effective higher education that produces competent educators, utilizing a uniform set of standards) then early childhood educators should be licensed upon completion of a program of professional preparation.

Professional compensation

The Framework also addressed the requirement for increased compensation for the current and future ECE professionals.  Using public school salary scales as a minimum benchmark for comparable compensation is recommended.  That is, assuming comparable qualifications, experience and job responsibilities, the compensation for an Early Childhood Educator should be comparable regardless of setting (i.e. private childcare, state funded preschool, public school kindergarten).  The Framework also calls out the importance of a benefits package for all EC educators regardless of setting.  The Task Force was clear that without increased compensation as described above, the other requirements outlined for early childhood educators in the Framework could not be instituted.  In other words, any increase in education or responsibility resulting from the Unifying Framework would necessitate a matched increase in salary.  The Task Force also recognized that employers that hire Early Childhood Educators should be accountable for providing comparable compensation (salary and benefits).  The Task Force indicates that such accountability would be impossible without a financial investment from the federal government, which requires a recognition of ECE as a public good that serves all society.

Purpose of the Unifying Framework

As described here, the point of developing the Unifying Framework was to address the issues that have kept Early Childhood Education for claiming its status as a true profession.  By formalizing ECE as a profession, those who do this work will be well-prepared and well-compensated, finally receiving the status and recognition they have long deserved.  While this is accurate, it does not explain why doing so is important.

Those who have argued for defining ECE as a profession have claimed effectively that the well-being of children is what is at stake.  If ECE remains a fragmented, unrecognized, under-compensated occupation, many children will not have access to the early education that research has consistently shown improves each child’s developmental and learning outcomes.  NAEYC, the association that originally called the 15 representative entities that made up the Task Force has a vision.  This vision, sometimes called an audacious one, is to unify as a profession to argue for ECE as a public good which should be supported by our tax dollars.  The goal of these efforts is to ultimately have ECE be recognized as a profession so that those that do that work are well-prepared, well-compensated and supported so that the children who receive their efforts will be set on a positive trajectory for their futures.

Other Standards Defining Professional Performance

The work of the Power to the Profession Task Force is impressive and would dramatically change the face of ECE if the Unifying Framework is adopted across the country.  This audacious vision would serve to address many, perhaps even all, of the defining issues that the field has grappled with, especially in recent years.  However, the aspirational nature of the Framework should not lead you to believe that early childhood education as it we know it today has no established standards which could nudge it in the direction of professionalizing.  In this section of the chapter, you will be introduced to systems of standards that define and regulate the work of early childhood educators in the US and specifically in Washington state.

Washington Administrative Code

Early Childhood Education is not made up only of licensed childcare.  However, it does represent a large portion of early childhood education programs across the country and in Washington state.  The term, “licensed childcare” should hint at the fact that these programs are regulated (licensed to operate) by a state agency.  Each state has its own administrative agency that oversees childcare and in Washington state it is the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF).  After laws are passed by the legislature, they become part of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), a compilation of all permanent laws now in force.  But in the case of something as complicated as childcare, the laws cannot be specific enough to guide practice.  Thus, an administrative agency, in this case DCYF, writes administrative code or regulations that specify what is allowed in the operation of a licensed childcare program.  One chapter of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) addresses the requirements for operation of licensed childcare programs–Title 110, Chapter 300–which was recently renumbered and retitled “Foundational Quality Standards for Early Learning Programs” (Washington State Legislature, n.d.).  Note that these regulations reflect foundational (or base) quality (sometimes referred to as minimal quality) and that programs being licensed are called Early Learning Programs, not Early Childhood Education as NAEYC recommends.  This chapter in WAC is made up of several sections including the following:

Note that 3 of the sections have multiple subsections, making for a total of over 100 subsections of regulations, many which are broken down even further into numerous smaller subsections.  This is a complicated document!

All sections provide guidance for the practice of childcare according to the state of Washington and as such could be considered professional standards.  We could conversely argue that a profession is viewed as an autonomous body that self-governs and provides internal control of quality and thus does not need this level of detailed regulation by an entity external to the profession.

Given the focus of this chapter on Professionalism in ECE, of special note is the section on Professional Development, Training and Requirements.  This section of the Chapter addresses the qualifications of staff in licensed childcare programs, both center based and family home programs.  In 2019 the General Staff Requirements for center lead teachers were revised and are listed below:

• Be at least 18 years of age
• Have a high school diploma or the equivalent
• Preservice requirements
  • DCYF Portable Background Check
  • Negative TB test
• ECE Initial Certificate within 5 years of hire or promotion (or from time of this section becoming effective)
• ECE Short Certificate within 2 years of receiving ECE Initial Certificate
• Document completion of annual professional development

The ECE certificates referenced here are part of the Washington State Stackable Certificates.  These are certificates offered by many community and technical colleges in Washington and provide a cumulative pathway with courses building on one another.  These stackable certificates are meant to provide a manageable set of steps in moving to the goal of a degree, initially at the associate level, and if a student continues in their education, at the bachelor’s level.  The three stackable certificates are described below:

Table 3 Washington Stackable Certificates

Washington State Core Competencies for Early Care and Education Professionals

Image 2.4 Cover of Core Competences for Early Care and Education Professionals

In 2009 the former Department of Early Learning, at the direction of the state legislature, published the Core Competencies for Early Care and Education Professionals (DEL, 2009), developed out of a multi-year process that engaged a broad consortium of professionals from across the state.  The competencies are meant to provide a framework of knowledge and skills necessary to provide quality care for children.

The competencies are viewed as a tool that can be used in a variety of ways including,

• By individual practitioners to assess their own knowledge and skill and to plan for professional development (PD)
• By directors to develop PD plans, or build job descriptions
• By trainers to plan and organize PD
• By higher education faculty and administration, to guide course and program development

The competencies are divided into 8 content areas:

1. Child Growth and Development
2. Curriculum and Learning Environment
3. Ongoing Measurement of Child Progress
4. Families and Community Partnerships
5. Health, Safety, and Nutrition
6. Interactions
7. Program Planning and Development
8. Professional Development and Leadership

Each content area contains statements that present a skill or knowledge.  The statements are organized by levels.  The levels represent a continuum of skill/knowledge from entry level to an advanced level of preparation.  All but the first level is associated with a level of professional development or college certificate or degree.

• Level 1
  • Basic knowledge and skills expected at entry level
  • No specialized training or education required
• Level 2

• o Level 1 + knowledge and skills comparable to a CDA

• Level 3

• o Level 1+ Level 2 + knowledge and skills commensurate with an associate degree in ECE/child development

• Level 4

• o Level 1 + Level 2 + Level 3 + knowledge and skills commensurate with a bachelor’s degree in ECE/child development

• Level 5

• o Level 1 + Level 2 + Level 3 + Level 4 + knowledge and skills commensurate with an advanced degree in ECE/child development

Each of the 8 content areas have between 2 and 17 skill/knowledge statements representing an individual competency.  The total number of competencies identified in this system is over 650, making for a very complicated system of standards.

NAEYC Professional Standards and Competencies

As described in the previous section of this chapter on the Unifying Framework, a new set of professional standards (Professional Standards and Competencies for Early Childhood Educators; NAEYC, 2020) have been adopted by NAEYC and are proposed as the unifying standards of practice in the profession of childhood education.  This newly adopted position statement represents the core body of knowledge, skills, dispositions, and values that early childhood educators must demonstrate to be effective teachers of young children.  The previous professional standards set by NAEYC were written as expectations for higher education programs—what they must teach to successfully prepare early childhood educators.  The revised Professional Standards and Competencies are written as expectations for the individual professional—what he/she/they must know and be able to do as an effective educator.

The standards are organized into 6 core standards:

1. Child Development and Learning in Context
2. Family-Teacher Partnerships and Community Connections
3. Child Observation, Documentation and Assessment
4. Developmentally, Culturally, and Linguistically Appropriate Teaching Practices
5. Knowledge, Application, and Integration of Academic Content in the Early Childhood Curriculum
6. Professionalism

Each standard contains 3 to 5 key competencies that clarify the core with a total of 22 key competencies.

Each of the standards has also been “leveled” to correspond with the three ECE designations described in the Unifying Frame (ECE I, II & III).  The leveling documentation is presented as a first attempt to identify the differences in the breadth and depth of content in the programs that prepare professionals with differing scopes of practice.  A sampling of the leveling descriptions for one of the key competencies (1a—Understand the developmental period of early childhood from birth through age eight across physical, cognitive, social/emotional, and linguistic domains including bilingual/multilingual development) is presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Leveling of Key Concept 1a (Understand the developmental period of early childhood from birth through age eight across physical, cognitive, social, and emotional, and linguistic domains including bilingual/multilingual development) by 3 levels of ECE Scope of Practice

NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct

Image 2.5 Code of Ethics Statement of Commitment NAEYC

A common characteristic of professions is that they have a document spelling out the moral responsibilities to society and guiding principles for professional behavior.  Because a profession is viewed as the group that can uniquely perform an important social need, and because often the service is provided to a vulnerable population, it is critical that there is a clear statement about how ethical behavior is defined.  Without that, the power that resides with the professional role has the potential for exploitation of the population being served.

Although the field of early childhood education is still striving to be viewed as a profession, it has had a code of ethics since 1989, but began the work to develop a code at least 10 years prior to that (Feeney & Freeman, 2018).  Beginning in the mid-70’s, NAEYC leadership was advancing efforts to develop a code, with a code of ethical conduct adopted in 1989.  The code was updated in 2005 and most recently reaffirmed and updated in 2011.  The code exists as one of several position statements that NAEYC has adopted as guides to assist early childhood educators in making informed decisions on issues facing the field/profession and promote dialogue on the issues using a common language provided by the statement.  All NAEYC position statements, including the Code of Ethical Conduct in its entirety, are available on the association’s website, naeyc.org.  The code is focused on early childhood educators—those working directly with children and families.  Supplements have been written to apply the code to the work of Early Childhood Program Administrators and Early Childhood Adult Educators as well.  Multiple articles in NAEYC’s publication Young Children have addressed the use of the code, providing professionals with numerous opportunities to practice applying the code to real situations faced in the work of early childhood education.

Structure of the Code of Ethical Conduct

The NAEYC Code is organized by several components:

• Core Values
  • Appreciate childhood as a unique and valuable state of the human life cycle
  • Base our work on knowledge of how children develop and learn
  • Appreciate and support the bond between the child and family
  • Recognize that children are best understood and supported in the context of family, culture, community, and society
  • Respect the dignity, worth and uniqueness of each individual (child, family member, and colleague)
  • Respect diversity in children, families, and colleagues
  • Recognize that children and adults achieve their full potential in the context of relationships that are based on trust and respect

• Conceptual Framework

The framework is an organizing structure for the code.  It is divided into four sections that address an area of professional relationships: with children, with families, among colleagues, and with the community and society.  Each section includes an introduction to the primary responsibilities of the professional in that setting.  Each section also lists a set of ideals and principles.

Ideals are aspirational.  They represent what we strive for as we do our work with children and families; they are our goals.  Principles are more concrete—they could be considered the objectives that allow us to achieve our goals or aspirations (ideals).  The principles guide conduct and help professionals resolve ethical dilemmas.  Ethical dilemmas are “moral conflicts that involves determining how to act when an individual faces conflicting professional values and responsibilities” (Feeney & Freeman, 2018, p. 19).

• The four professional relationship areas
  • Ethical Responsibilities to Children

The first section focuses on the profession’s beliefs about the unique and valuable nature of childhood and the vulnerability of this stage of development.  Consequently, early childhood educators have responsibility to ensure the safety, health, and emotional well-being of children.  Moreover, this section of the code addresses the profession’s commitment to respecting individual differences, to helping children learn to cooperate with peers and to the promotion of children’s self-awareness, competence, self-worth resiliency and physical well-being.

The first section contains 12 ideals and 11 principles (note there is not a 1 to 1 correspondence of ideals to principles).  The first principle is identified as taking precedence over all the others in the Code:

“Above all, we shall not harm children.  We shall not participate in practices that are emotionally damaging, physically harmful, disrespectful, degrading, dangerous, exploitive, or intimidating to children” (NAEYC, 2011).

• • Ethical Responsibilities to Families

The second section addresses the responsibility to the families served by early childhood educators.  Given the belief that the family is of primary importance, and that the family and the teacher have a common interest in the child’s well-being, educators have a responsibility to communicate, cooperate and collaborate with the child’s family.  The second section contains 9 ideals and 15 principles.

• • Ethical Responsibilities to Colleagues

The third section of the code addresses responsibilities to colleagues.  This section is divided into two subsections, one focused on responsibilities to co-workers and one related to responsibilities to employers.  The responsibility to colleagues is to establish and maintain relationships that support productive work and professional needs.  The focus here is on trust, confidentiality, collaboration, and respect for the dignity of each human.  It also includes responsibility for holding co-workers and employers accountable for their own professional ethical conduct.  The first subsection contains 3 ideas and 4 principles and the second contains 2 ideals and 5 principles.

• • Ethical responsibility to Community and Society

The final section of the code recognizes the responsibility of the educator to provide programs that meet the diverse needs of families, to assist families in getting access to needed services, to work together with other agencies and professionals and to help with developing programs needed, but not available.  This section contains 7 ideals and 11 principles.

Using the Code of Ethical Conduct

The Code of Ethical Conduct provides a tool to use in a variety of ways to ensure ethical conduct and to resolve ethical dilemmas that arise as a part of the complexity of early childhood education.  While the code of ethics is a guide, it is not a recipe for specific behaviors to be enacted in any particular situation.  However, the Code does identify a number of specific responsibilities. These ethical responsibilities are either things we should not do, or things that we are required to do.  Some of the responsibilities are presented as ideals, (I) some as principles (P) and include the following:

I 1.1 To be familiar with the knowledge base of early childhood care and education and to keep current through continuing education an in-service training.

P 2.9 [To]…maintain confidentiality and…[to] respect the family’s right to privacy…

I 3 A.1 To establish and maintain relationships of respect, trust, and cooperation with co-workers

I 4.1 To provide the community with high-quality (age and individually appropriate, and culturally and socially sensitive) education/care programs

P 4.7 [To]… be familiar with laws and regulations that serve to protect the children in our programs.

P 1.1 [To] not harm children. [To]…not participate in practices that are disrespectful, degrading, dangerous, exploitative, intimidating, emotionally damaging, or physically harmful to children.

P 2.1 [To]…not deny family members access to their child’s classroom or program setting.

P 3C.8 In hiring, promotion, and provision of training…[to] not participate in any form of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin, culture, disability, age, or sexual preference….

These ethical responsibilities are clear cut.  They communicate what must and must not be done.  So, one way the code serves your work is to provide clear cut guidelines for how to behave.  In addition, the code is meant to help in navigating ethical dilemmas.  In this case, the professional is faced with two equally justifiable actions but often includes a conflict between the interests of two involved parties.  For example, it may require placing the needs of the child above that of the parents or of a group over an individual.  The code can help sort out the best course of action in a situation, but the process requires thoughtful consideration of the various interests, needs, and priorities of one person or group over the interests, needs and priorities of another.

The authors of the Code suggest a process for applying the code to ethical issues and dilemmas (Feeney & Freeman, 2018).  As you consider the steps, think about the situation described in the reflection above.  The steps they suggest are described here:

1. Determine if your issue/problem even involves ethics.  Does it involve concerns about right and wrong, rights and responsibilities, human welfare, or an individual’s best interests?  If so, it is an ethical issue.
2. Determine if your issue involves legal responsibility.  If so, you must follow the law.  Issues involving child abuse are examples involving legal responsibilities.
3. Next determine if the issue involves an ethical responsibility.  Recall that ethical responsibilities are clear cut expectations about how a professional early childhood educator behaves.  There is no question about what must be done (or not done).
4. Determine if your issue is a true ethical dilemma requiring hard choices between conflicting moral obligations.  Consider the needs of all involved and your professional obligations to each.  Are there conflicting obligations requiring you to prioritize one over another?  Are core values in conflict?  If so, you have an ethical dilemma to resolve.  Here are some steps to decision making about an ethical dilemma:

1. 1. Identify the conflicting responsibilities.  Consider the people involved and determine their needs and your obligations to them.  Then turn to the Code for guidance.  Review the Core Values and Ideals in the related section of the Code.  You may need to get more information if you decide you do not have the full picture.  It may also be helpful to refer to program policies or community laws.

1. 1. Brainstorm possible resolutions.  Now that you fully understand the issue and the conflicting values, needs and obligations you can think about how to solve the problem.  Do not yet reject any ideas but generate as many ideas as possible.  Then go back and consider the equity and feasibility of your ideas.

1. 1. Consider ethical finesse.  In some situations, it may be possible to solve the problem without having to choose between two options.  This approach is known as ethical finesse and is characterized by the ability to amicably resolve the situation, delicately maneuvering without anyone feeling like they did not have their needs addressed.  For example, in the scenario in the reflection box above, is it possible to resolve the dilemma in a way that both the needs of the child and the parent could be addressed?  Could the teacher work with the parent to develop more effective bedtime routines, or could they experiment with having the child go down for nap a little later, sleeping less time in the afternoon to see if this made a difference?  Ethical finesse should be used sparingly (Kipnis, 1987).  If we rely too often on ethical finesse, it is possible we are avoiding ethical responsibility and not meeting our obligations.

1. 1. Look for guidance in the NAEYC Code.  If ethical finesse does not result in a satisfactory resolution, utilize the Code to determine the action you can defend morally and prepare to act.  Look to the Core values for guidance.  Then review the Ideals and Principles to clarify your responsibilities.  Make sure you feel you have all the necessary information.  It may also be helpful to review your program’s policies or discuss the issue with a trusted colleague.

1. 1. Decide on a justifiable course of action.  The next step is to make the choice between the alternatives, basing your decision on the ethics presented in the Code.  In the previous nap-time example, if the attempts to help the parent with bedtime routines and/or a shorter nap did not solve the problem (i.e. the child became sleepy at nap time and was grumpy in the afternoon without a full nap) then the decision to reinstitute the nap procedure for this child is necessary.  The responsibility to meet the physical needs of the child outweighs the need of the parent to get more sleep.  It can be difficult to take such a stand, but having the Code, and your knowledge of child development on your side of the decision can be reassuring and affirming.

1. 1. Implement your resolution and reflect.  After making the decision and putting it into play, it is important to reflect on the process to determine what you have learned.  Did you learn something about how you communicate with families?  Did you learn something about how program policies are set and shared with parents?  Or did you mostly learn about your own comfort level with these kinds of decisions?

Clearly, the process of applying the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct is not an easy one.  Nonetheless, this important marker of a profession is critical in the work of early childhood education.  Given the vulnerability of our “clients” and the inherent power we wield in that relationship, it is incumbent upon us to be aware of our ethical obligations and become proficient in the use of tools to assist with carrying out our ethical responsibility.  Numerous resources for practicing the use of the Code are available from NAEYC.

Advocacy

Image 2.6 “Advocacy” by Nick Youngson is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

The role of advocate, both for the clientele professionals serve, and for the profession itself, was not included in the list of commonly accepted criteria of a profession presented at the beginning of this chapter.  Nonetheless, advocacy is identified as an important obligation for many professions, including early childhood education.  Note that both the NAEYC Professional Standards and Competencies and the Washington State Core Competencies for Early Care and Education Professionals include professionalism as a core standard area, and both include advocacy as a competency area.

Advocacy is generally defined as any action that supports or defends a specific cause or issue.  The goal of advocacy is to cause change and can be accomplished through a variety of activities.  Often those of us in the early childhood education field feel uncomfortable with the idea of advocacy.  It may feel too political, too aggressive, or require one to be able to speak eloquently about an issue.  None of those characterizations need be true about advocacy.  There are many ways for an early childhood educator to become engaged in advocacy without experiencing any of this discomfort.

Advocating for children and families

Part of the advocacy obligation for early childhood educators is standing up for the rights of those we serve—young children and their families.  As members of a profession, we have access to evidence-based information and have acquired first-hand knowledge about what children and their families need to successfully grow and develop.  It is our professional responsibility to speak out against initiatives that are counter to this knowledge and are not good for children or families.

Advocating for the profession

Speaking out on behalf of the workforce that does the work of early childhood education is another form of advocacy that early childhood educators are called to.  Advocating for recognition, for compensation that is comparable to similar professions, for regulation that is not in opposition to what we know to be good for children and families are all ways of advocating for the profession.   When advocating for the profession, it is important to recognize the difference between one’s personal interest and the best interest of the entire profession.  Sometimes what is important for the profession may result in imposition of requirements that may create a hardship for the individual professional.  For example, advocating that inclusion in the early childhood education profession should require a certain level of educational preparation may mean that one will need to pursue additional education.  As a part of the profession, one is called to advocate for what is best for the profession, rather than what one wants to do as an individual.

Methods of Advocacy

One way of organizing the myriad methods of advocating is to divide it into personal and public advocacy (Feeney, 2012).

Personal advocacy

Personal advocacy happens during your workday and includes speaking up about what you know to be best practice for young children.  When you share information with parents, co-workers, or agencies you cooperate with, you are advocating for children’s rights.  When you refer your families to reliable agencies within your community or provide them with written resources, you are advocating.  Too often early childhood educators feel reluctant to respond to calls for advocacy.  Advocacy does not have to involve a public event; it can occur through the relationships you have already built as an educator.

Public advocacy

Public advocacy takes place when you speak out to address issues of concern in the larger community.  It might surprise you how compelling it can be to hear the story of those working directly in the field.  Policy makers need data and statistics, but even more, they need to hear how real people are affected by the policies they set.  They want to hear from the front-line workers about the reality of their days spent caring for and educating young children.

However, even public advocacy does not require a public display; it can include voting with early childhood education in mind or writing to your congressional representatives at the state or federal level.  Public advocacy can, however, involve engagement that is more visible to others:

• • Testifying at a legislative hearing
  • Attending a public rally for an early childhood issue or during the state legislative session
  • Participating in a community awareness event, such as Week of the Young Child
  • Writing a letter to the editor of your local paper on some specific early childhood issue
  • Visiting your state or federal representative or senator to share your perspective on the importance of early childhood education.

As early childhood practitioners, we can feel isolated and consequently limited in our ability to influence policy makers or the public at large.  Luckily, at both the state and national level, advocacy groups exist to provide support individuals in their advocacy efforts.  A list of such groups is listed below.  Many of these agencies maintain email lists for individual professionals to stay informed of current issues.

• Children’s Alliance https://childrensalliance.org/
  • Develops a legislative agenda each session with issues specifically related to early childhood education
  • Holds an annual advocacy camp to learn how to effectively engage in advocacy
• League of Education Voters https://educationvoters.org/
  • Convenes informational events, advocacy days, and sponsors fundraising events
• Washington State Association for Head Start and ECEAP https://www.wsaheadstarteceap.com/
  • Advocates on behalf of Head Start and ECEAP programs
  • Provides information about current issues on web page
  • Supports professionals in advocacy efforts
• MomsRising https://www.momsrising.org/
  • Campaigns for early care and education
  • Provides information about current issues on web page
• Childcare Aware of Washington https://childcareawarewa.org/advocacy/take-action/
  • Advocates on behalf of childcare providers
  • Presents data to support advocacy efforts
  • Presents action plans for individuals
• National Association for the Education of Young Children https://www.naeyc.org/our-work/public-policy-advocacy
  • Mobilizes members and other early childhood educators and allies to advocate on behalf of professionals and the children they serve
  • Presents legislative agendas
  • Holds training events to empower educators to advocate on behalf of the profession
  • Gathers professionals annually to visit federal representatives and senators
• Washington Association for the Education of Young Children https://waeyc.org/
  • Disseminates advocacy information from the NAEYC to membership and others
  • Sponsors advocacy training

Advocating on behalf of the profession and the children and families it serves is part of the role of the professional early childhood educator.  There are numerous ways to become involved in advocacy efforts and opportunities abound for both the new professional and those with more experience.  It is important to explore these opportunities and consider how you can begin or expand your advocacy engagement.

Final thoughts

The current field of early childhood education has a long history of striving for recognition as a profession.  Your involvement in that ongoing effort requires you understand what is necessary to meet the definition of a profession and what that label means for your practice.  Recognize that recent efforts involve some of the most assertive and comprehensive steps ever taken to claim the title of profession for the field of ECE.  You can be a part of this effort, that when realized, will provide a bright future for the profession of early childhood education.  This future offers new and exciting opportunities to change how the world understands the importance of early childhood and those that support the development and learning of all young children.  We sincerely hope you want to be a part of that future.

Chapter Attribution

“Chapter 2–Professionalism in ECE” by Brenda Boyd is CC BY 4.0

Websites you may wish to explore further

https://www.naeyc.org/

https://www.naeyc.org/resources/position-statements/ethical-conduct

http://powertotheprofession.org/

https://www.dcyf.wa.gov/

https://www.dcyf.wa.gov/services/earlylearning-profdev/professional-development-strategies

https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=110-300

References

Caldwell, B. M. (1967). On reformulating the concept of early childhood education—Some whys needing wherefores.  Young Children, 22(6), 348-356.

Department of Early Learning. (2009).  Core Competencies for Early Care and Education Professionals. https://www.dcyf.wa.gov/sites/default/files/pubs/EPS_0023.pdf

Feeney, S. (2012). Professionalism in early childhood education:  Doing our best for young children. Pearson Education:  Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Feeney, S. & Freeman, N. K. (2018). Ethics and the early childhood educator:  Using the NAEYC code (3rd ed.).  NAEYC:  Washington, D.C.

Goffin, S.G., & Washington, V. (2019). Ready or not:  Early childhood care and education’s leadership choices—12 years later.  Teachers College Press:  New York.

Goffin, S.G. (2015). Professionalizing early childhood education as field of practice?  A guide to the next era.  Red Leaf Press:  St. Paul, MN.

Goffin, S.G. (2013). Early childhood education for a new era:  Leading our profession.  Teachers College Press:  New York.

Goffin, S.G., & Washington, V. (2007). Ready or not:  Leadership choices in early care and education.  Teachers College Press:  New York.

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. https://doi.org/10.17226/19401.

Kipnis, K. (1987). How to discuss professional ethics. Young Children, 42(4), 26-30.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2020). Professional standards and competencies for early childhood educators. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/professional_standards_and_competencies_for_early_childhood_educators.pdf

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2011). Code of Ethical Conduct and Statement of Commitment. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/Ethics%20Position%20Statement2011_09202013update.pdf

Power to the Profession Task Force. (2020).  Unifying framework for the early childhood education profession. https://powertotheprofession.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Power-to-Profession-Framework-03312020-web.pdf

Power to the Profession Task Force. (n.d.) Where we started:  Power to the profession. http://powertotheprofession.org/about/

Washington State Legislature. (n.d.). Washington Administrative Code. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/

CHAPTER 2 APPENDIX

Table 5 Recommendations for Defining the Profession:  Power to the Profession, Unifying Framework