The work of the Power to the Profession Task Force is impressive. Adopting the Unifying Framework across the country would dramatically change the face of ECE. This audacious vision would address many, perhaps even all, of the defining issues the field has grappled with, especially in recent years. However, the aspirational nature of the Unifying Framework should not lead one to believe that ECE as we know it today has no established standards that could nudge it toward professionalizing. Such standards do exist. This section of the chapter will introduce systems of standards that currently define and regulate the work of early childhood educators in the United States and specifically in Washington State.

Washington Administrative Code

Early childhood education is not made up only of licensed childcare. However, it represents a large portion of early childhood education programs across the country and in Washington State. The term licensed childcare should suggest that a state agency regulates these programs (licensed to operate). Each state has its administrative agency that oversees childcare. In Washington State, it is the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF). After the legislature passes laws, they become part of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), a compilation of all permanent laws now in force. However, 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 codes 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 the operation of licensed childcare programs (Wash. Admin. Code § 110-300, 2018). Note that these regulations reflect foundational (or base) quality (sometimes called minimal quality) and that licensed programs are called early learning programs, not early childhood education, as NAEYC recommended (Power to the Profession Taskforce, 2020). The chapter in the Washington Administrative Code § 110-300 (2018) comprises several sections:

1. Intent and Authority
2. Child Outcomes
3. Family Engagement and Partnership
4. Professional Development, Training, and Requirements
5. Environment
6. Interactions and Curriculum
7. Program Administration and Oversight

Three of these seven sections of the Washington Administrative Code § 110-300 (2018) have multiple subsections, making more than 100 subsections of regulations, many of which are broken down into additional subsections. This is a complicated document!

All sections guide childcare practice according to the State of Washington and could be considered professional [pb_glossary id=686]standards[/pb_glossary]. 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, the section on Professional Development, Training, and Requirements is of special note. This section of the Washington Administrative Code § 110-300 (2018), revised as recently as 2023, addresses staff qualifications in licensed childcare programs (§ 0100), and the general staff qualifications for lead teachers:

• be at least 18 years of age
• have a high school diploma or the equivalent
• preservice requirements (i.e., negative TB test, orientation training, background check)
• ECE Initial Certificate within five years of hire or promotion (or from the time of this section becoming effective)
• ECE Short Certificate within two years of receiving ECE Initial Certificate
• document the 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 (Washington State DCYF, 2023). These stackable certificates are meant to provide a manageable set of steps in moving to the goal of a degree. Initially, this is at the associate level, and if a student continues in their education, at the bachelor’s level. The three stackable certificates are described in Table 11.3.

Note: Source is author generated based on source cited in text (Washington State DCYF, 2023)

Washington State Core Competencies for Early Care and Education Professionals

In 2009 the former Department of Early Learning at the direction of the Washington State legislature published the Core Competencies for Early Care and Education Professionals developed out of a multi-year process that engaged a broad consortium of professionals from across the state (Washington State DCYF, 2009). 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:

• Individual practitioners assess their knowledge and skills and plan for professional development (PD).
• Directors develop PD plans or build job descriptions.
• Trainers plan and organize PD.
• Higher education faculty and administration guide course and program development.

The competencies are divided into eight content areas:

Child Growth and Development (Washington State DCYF, 2009) contains statements that present a skill or knowledge. The statements are organized by levels. The levels as shown in Table 11.4 represent a continuum of skill/knowledge from entry level to advanced preparation. All but the first level is associated with professional development or a college certificate or degree.

Note: Core Competencies for Early Care and Education Professionals as defined by Washington State’s Department of Children, Youth & Families (2009).

Each of the eight content areas has between 2 and 17 skill/knowledge statements representing an individual competency. The total number of competencies identified in this system is more than 650, making for a very complicated system of standards in Washington State (DCFY, 2009).

NAEYC Professional Standards and Competencies

As described in the previous section on the Unifying Framework, a new set of professional standards, the Professional Standards and Competencies for Early Childhood Educators, has been adopted by NAEYC (2019) and is proposed to be 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 prepare early childhood educators successfully (NAEYC, 2012). The revised Professional Standards and Competencies (NAEYC, 2019) are written as expectations for the individual professional—what they must know and be able to do as an effective educator.

The standards are organized into six core areas::

• child development and learning in context
• family-teacher partnerships and community connections
• child observation, documentation, and assessment
• developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate teaching practices
• knowledge, application, and integration of academic content in the early childhood curriculum
• professionalism

Each standard (NAEYC, 2019) contains three to five key competencies that clarify the core with a total of 22 key competencies. Each standard has also been leveled to correspond with the three ECE designations (ECE I, II, and III) described in the Unifying Framework (Power to the Profession Task Force, 2020). 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. Table 11.5 presents a sample of the leveling descriptions for key competency 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.”

Note: Table 11.5 is author generated based on source cited in text (NAEYC, 2019)

NAEYC Code of Ethics

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 a group that can uniquely fulfill an important social need, and because the service is often provided to a vulnerable population, there must be a clear statement about how ethical behavior is defined. Without that, the power in the professional role can potentially exploit the population being served.

Although early childhood education is still striving to be viewed as a profession, it has had a code of ethics since 1989 and began developing a code at least 10 years before that (Feeney & Freeman, 2018). Beginning in the mid-1970s, NAEYC leadership was advancing efforts with the code of ethical conduct adopted in 1989. NAEYC’s Code of Ethical Conduct was updated in 2005 and most recently reaffirmed and updated in 2011. NAEYC leadership is currently seeking feedback from practitioners to assist in updating the code.

The Code of Ethical Conduct (NAEYC, 2011a) exists as one of several position statements that NAEYC has adopted. These position statements are 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, are available on the association’s website.

The Code of Ethical Conduct (NAEYC, 2011a) focuses on early childhood educators working directly with children and families. Supplements have also been written to apply the code to the work of Early Childhood Program Administrators (2011b) and Adult Educators (2004). 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.

Many professions that have a code of ethics and also have the power to sanction professionals do not follow the code. For example, a physician that breaches the medical ethics accepted by the profession may face the loss of the right to practice medicine. There is currently no way for the ECE profession to sanction an early childhood educator who breaches the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct (2011a). The only legal rule applicable to early childhood educators exists in the licensed childcare setting. Educators who work in licensed childcare are designated mandated reporters. This designation indicates that they are, by law, required to report any instance in which they have cause to believe a child has suffered abuse or neglect (Washington State DCYF, n.d.).

Structure of the Code of Ethical Conduct

The NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct (2011a) is organized under two major components: core values and conceptual framework.

Core Values (p. 1)

• 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 (pp. 2-7)

The framework is an organizing structure for the code. It is divided into four sections that address 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 ethical ideals and ethical principles.

Ethical ideals are aspirational. They represent what we strive for as we work with children and families; they are our goals. Ethical 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 involve determining how to act when an individual faces conflicting professional values and responsibilities” (Feeney & Freeman, 2018, p. 19).

The four professional relationship areas explored in each section of the conceptual framework (NAEYC, 2011a) are as follows:

1. Ethical Responsibilities to Children (pp. 2-3):

This 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 are responsible for ensuring children’s safety, health, and emotional well-being. Moreover, this section of the code addresses the profession’s commitment to respecting individual differences, helping children learn to cooperate with peers, and promoting children’s self-awareness, competence, self-worth, and physical well-being.

The first section contains 12 ethical ideals and 11 ethical principles. (Note there is no one-to-one 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” (p. 3).

2. Ethical Responsibilities to Families (pp. 3-4):

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 are responsible for communicating, cooperating, and collaborating with the child’s family. The second section contains 9 ethical ideals and 15 ethical principles.

3. Ethical Responsibilities to Colleagues (p. 5):

The third section of the code addresses responsibilities to colleagues. This section is divided into two subsections: responsibilities to coworkers and 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 holding coworkers and employers accountable for their professional ethical conduct. The first subsection contains three ethical ideals and four ethical principles and the second subsection contains two ethical ideals and five ethical principles.

4. Ethical Responsibility to Community and Society (pp. 6-7):

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

Using the Code of Ethical Conduct

The Code of Ethical Conduct (NAEYC, 2011a) provides a tool for various ways to ensure ethical conduct and to resolve ethical dilemmas that arise due to 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 of Ethical Conduct (2011a) does identify several specific responsibilities. These ethical responsibilities are either things we should not do or things that we are required to do. Feeney and Freeman (2018) call these “mandates” (p. 17) and explain how these mandated behaviors are spelled out in Principles of the Code. Examples of principles that illustrate what educators must do include the following (pp. 129-133):

Principle 1.1: We shall not harm children. We shall not participate in practices that are emotionally damaging, physically harmful, disrespectful, degrading, dangerous, exploitative or intimidating to children.

Principle 2.13: We shall maintain confidentiality and shall respect the family’s right to privacy, refraining from disclosure of confidential information and intrusion into family life.

Principle 3A.1: We shall recognize the contributions of colleagues to our program and not participate in practices that diminish their reputations or impair their effectiveness in working with children and families.

Principle 4.6: We shall be familiar with laws and regulations that serve to protect the children in our programs and be vigilant in ensuring these laws and regulations are followed.

These ethical responsibilities are clear-cut. They communicate what must and must not be done. One way the code serves early childhood educators is to provide clear-cut guidelines for behavior. In addition, the code is meant to help navigate ethical dilemmas. In an ethical dilemma, a clear-cut ethical responsibility is not evident. Instead, the professional is faced with two equally justifiable actions, which often include a conflict between the interests of the two parties. For example, it may require placing the child’s needs above that of the parents or a group over an individual. The code can help determine the best course of action in a situation. Still, 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 of Ethical Conduct 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 above Reflection. The suggested steps from Feeney and Freeman are described here:

1. Determine if the issue/problem 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 the issue involves legal responsibility. If so, 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 the issue is a true ethical dilemma requiring hard choices between conflicting moral obligations. Consider the needs of all involved and the professional obligations to each. Are there conflicting obligations requiring one be prioritized over another? Are core values in conflict? If so, there is an ethical dilemma to resolve.

Following are some steps to decision making about an ethical dilemma.

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. Gather more information if necessary for the full picture. It may also be helpful to refer to program policies or community laws.

Brainstorm possible resolutions. Now that the issue is fully understood, and the conflicting values, needs, and obligations identified, 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 these ideas.

Consider ethical finesse. In some situations, it may be possible to solve the problem without choosing between two options. This approach is called 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, is it possible to resolve the dilemma in a way that addresses both the needs of the child and the parent? Could the teacher work with the parent to develop more effective bedtime routines. Or, could they experiment with having the child go down for a nap a little later, sleeping less in the afternoon? Ethical finesse should be used sparingly (Kipnis, 1987). If we rely too often on ethical finesse, we may avoid ethical responsibility and not meet our obligations.

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

Decide on a justifiable course of action. The next step is to make the choice between the alternatives, basing the decision on the ethics presented in the Code. In the previous naptime 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 naptime 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 child’s physical needs outweighs the parent’s need for 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.

Implement your resolution and reflect. After making the decision and putting it into play, reflect on the process to determine what you 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 comfort level with these decisions?

The process of applying the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct (2011a) 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 (the children in our care) and the inherent power we wield in that relationship, we must be aware of our ethical obligations and become proficient in using tools to assist with carrying out our ethical responsibility. Numerous resources for practicing the use of the Code are available from NAEYC.

Attributions

1. Figure 11.4: © Washington State Department of Early Learning Fair use: screenshot excerpt referring to full report: “Core Competencies for Early Care and Education Professionals”.
2. Figure 11.5: by Nicolas Malara, for WA Open ProfTech, © SBCTC, CC BY 4.0