Chapter 11: Professionalism in Early Childhood Education

Overview

In Chapter 1, we introduced the term teaching practice and referred to the “field” of early childhood education (ECE). In the last two decades, much attention has been paid to the difference between a “field” and a profession of ECE (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-1960s, Bettye Caldwell wrote about the limited concern for defining the field (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 by NAEYC and partners to 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 the professional behavior and conduct of the ECE practitioner. This chapter aims to explicate the expectations of a professional early childhood educator as you prepare to move into that role.

11.1 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. However, 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 (i.e., 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). The term professional may be used as a compliment, indicating that that person is good at their job.

While we may use the term professional to describe how we behave at our jobs, it is essential 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 .

11.1.1 Field

It is not unusual to refer to the “ field of ECE .” We used that phrase in[crossref:1] chapter 1 [/crossref] 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, we often hear mention of those who work in the business and medical “fields.” 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.

11.1.2 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 to describe medicine or social work specialties. Stacie Goffin has also applied the term “field of practice” to ECE (Goffin, 2015; Goffin & Washington, 2019). 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 educate and facilitate child 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 educate young children competently. 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.

11.1.3 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 instead of serving one’s self-interest alone (i.e., simply getting a paycheck).

11.1.4 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 a person who has committed to serving 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 not unusual to hear about efforts to professionalize the field, often referring to incremental efforts to improve the practice of individuals rather than 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 disagreement about which features are critical, some are commonly included and are accepted as essential to the definition. Feeney (2012) identifies eight criteria regularly found in the literature about professions. Table 11.1 describes them.

Table 11.1

Criteria For Defining a Professional

11.2 ECE as a Profession

Recently, many have questioned whether ECE meets the definition of a profession (Feeney, 2012; Goffin, 2013, 2015). Some have concluded that it currently does not, and a review of the list in Table 11.1 provides evidence that this conclusion is accurate. While ECE has developed some of the characteristics in Table 11.1, not all are currently in place. For example, a Code of Ethical Conduct , put forth by the NAEYC (2011a), has existed for several years. However, there is no universal requirement that ECE practitioners know or abide by this code.

Similarly, in terms of standards of practice, many states have adopted guidelines defining the skills and knowledge necessary to provide quality childcare. However, each state can define these guidelines as they see fit, and various licensing requirements can be found across the U.S. 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 child care 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 child care, 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 must be more consistently applied for entry into ECE to allow it to be considered a profession.

This analysis should clarify that ECE has work to do before it can claim the title of a profession and before those engaged in this work can claim to be professionals . However, identifying this reality has not made it easy for ECE to move toward the status of a profession. While numerous efforts have aimed to solve the problem, large-scale success has yet to be achieved. The significance of the work of early childhood educators remains unrecognized, and they remain under-compensated; the field of early childhood education remains fragmented and siloed with no clear definition of its boundaries. Little specialized knowledge is required for entry (Committee on the Science of Children et al., 2015).

11.2.1 NAEYC’s Efforts: Power to the Profession and the Unifying Framework

A hopeful initiative has 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 (2020). According to Power to the Profession (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 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 eight “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. The results of the eight decision cycles were presented in the Unifying Framework for the Early Childhood Education Profession (Power to the Profession Task Force, 2020). A summary of the recommendations in the framework can be found in the [appendix]appendix 11[/appendix]. In addition to summarizing the recommendations, the table includes how they addressed the eight criteria of a profession identified earlier in this chapter. The recommendations that make up the Framework are notable in their effort to address as many issues facing ECE as possible at one time.

11.2.2 Naming and Defining the Profession

The first issue addressed by the Task Force was what to call the profession (Power to the Profession Task Force, 2020). Settling on what to call itself is a long-existent problem with ECE. Note that the title “ early childhood education ” is the selected name throughout this chapter. Nevertheless, many do not accept this and use other names, such as early care and education or early learning. 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. However, 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, the authors drew a boundary between the profession and the larger field of early childhood, delineating the professionals from other allied practitioners who, while still engaged in work that supports children and families, are not early childhood educators and not part of the profession.

The image above presents the Unifying Framework (Power to the Profession Task Force, 2020) illustration 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:

1. Early Childhood Educators who provide direct service to children birth to age eight and on whom the Unifying Framework is primarily focused
2. Professional Preparation Faculty and Trainers who instruct, observe, and monitor the practice of aspiring ECEs
3. Pedagogical and Instructional Administrators who guide the practice of ECEs

In addition to defining the profession and the professionals , the Unifying Framework (Power to the Profession Task Force, 2020) identifies three designations of early childhood educators: Early Childhood Educator I, II, and III, as presented in Table 11.2. 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 that the scope of practice attached to a specific level of professional preparation differs by setting. For example, in Birth to age five settings, a practitioner with an associate degree may be a lead teacher in a classroom. That same level of education is tied to an assistant teacher position in a K to grade 3 setting.

Table 11.2

Designations of Early Childhood Educators (ECEs) Proposed in Unifying Framework

Note: Source Generated by author based on info in source cited in text discussing this table (Power to the Profession Task Force, 2020)

11.2.3 Defining 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 Unifying Framework recognizes the role of higher education in professions, 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 (NAEYC, 2019) 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 shortly before the Unifying Framework and included a “leveling” of the standards, further illuminating the distinction between the three Early Childhood Educator designations (See Table 11.2). This “leveling” guides professional preparation programs to pitch coursework content appropriately to the different designations and further underscores the differences in the scope of practice .

This approach addresses the reality that many practitioners have worked in the field for some time without college coursework. These individuals may not be 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 the scope of practice. The Unifying Framework additionally recommends that all early childhood educators 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 Unifying Framework calls on higher education institutions to be accountable through accreditation by a governing body to ensure the delivery of competently prepared early childhood educators. Moreover, the Unifying 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 prepares early childhood educators.

Finally, the Unifying 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 .

11.2.4 Professional Compensation

The Unifying Framework (Power to the Profession Task Force, 2020) also addressed the requirement for increased compensation for current and future ECE professionals. They recommend “public school salary scales as a minimum benchmark for comparable compensation, assuming comparable qualifications, experience, and job responsibilities” (p. 41). The compensation for an early childhood educator should be comparable regardless of setting (i.e., private childcare, state-funded preschool, public school kindergarten). The Unifying Framework also calls out the importance of a benefits package for all EC educators regardless of setting. The Task Force stated that the other requirements were only possible by instituting increased compensation. 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 is only possible with a financial investment from the federal government, which requires a recognition of ECE as a public good that serves all of society.

11.2.1.4 The Purpose of the Unifying Framework

As described here, the goal of the Unifying Framework (Power to the Profession Task Force, 2020) was to address the issues that have kept early childhood education from claiming its status as an actual 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 essential.

Those who have argued for defining ECE as a profession have claimed effectively that the well-being of children is what is at stake (Goffin, 2013; Power to the Profession Task Force, 2020). Suppose ECE remains a fragmented, unrecognized, under-compensated occupation. In that case, 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 initially 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 that our tax dollars should support. These efforts aim to ultimately have ECE recognized as a profession so that those who do that work are well-prepared, well-compensated, and supported—doing so to ensure that the children who receive their efforts will have positive future trajectories.

11.3 Standards Currently Defining Professional Performance

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 US and specifically in Washington state.

11.3.1 Washington Administrative Code

Early childhood education is not made up only of licensed child care. However, it does represent a large portion of early childhood education programs across the country and in Washington state. The term “licensed child care” 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 child care, 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 child care program. One chapter of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) addresses the requirements for the operation of licensed child care 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 recommends (Power to the Profession Taskforce, 2020). This chapter in the Wash. Admin. 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 Wash. Admin. Code § 110-300 (2018) have multiple subsections, making for over 100 subsections of regulations, many of which are broken down even further into numerous smaller subsections. This is a complicated document!

All sections guide childcare practice according to the state of Washington and 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, the section on Professional Development, Training, and Requirements is of special note. This section of the Wash. Admin. Code § 110-300 (2018), revised as recently as 2023, addresses staff qualifications in licensed child care programs (§ 0100), and the general staff qualifications for center lead teachers are listed below:

• Be at least 18 years of age
• Have a high school diploma or the equivalent
• Pre-service requirements (i.e. negative TB test, orientation training, background check)
• ECE Initial Certificate within 5 years of hire or promotion (or from the 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 (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 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 11.3

Washington State Stackable Certificates

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

11.3.2 Washington State Core Competencies 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 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, to guide course and program development

The competencies are divided into 8 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 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.

Table 11.4

Competency Levels

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

Each of the 8 content areas has 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 in Washington state (DCFY, 2009).

11.3.3 NAEYC Professional Standards and Competencies

As described in the previous section of this chapter on the Unifying Framework , a new set of professional standards , the Professional Standards and Competencies for Early Childhood Educators, have been adopted by NAEYC (2019) 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 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 6 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 3 to 5 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, & 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. A sample 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 11.5.

Table 11.5

Levels of Key Concept 1a

Note: Table depicting the NAEYC Key Concept 1a ((Understand the development of early childhood from birth through age eight across all domains) by 3 levels of ECE Scope of Practice. Source Author generated table based on source cited in text (NAEYC, 2019)

11.3.4 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 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 before that (Feeney & Freeman, 2018). Beginning in the mid-1970s, NAEYC leadership was advancing efforts to develop a code, with a 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.

It is important to note that many professions that have a code of ethics and also have the power to sanction professionals who 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 child care setting. Educators who work in licensed child care 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.).

11.3.4.1 Structure of the Code of Ethical Conduct

The NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct (2011a) is organized by several components:

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:

• Ethical Responsibilities to Children (pp. 2-3):
  • 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 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 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” (p. 3).
• 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 nine ethical ideals and 15 ethical principles .
• Ethical Responsibilities to Colleagues (p. 5):
  • 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 on 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 co-workers and employers accountable for their professional ethical conduct . The first subsection contains three ethical ideals and four ethical principles and the second contains two ethical ideals and five ethical principles.
• 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, to assist families get 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 seven ethical ideals and 11 ethical principles .

11.3.4.2 Using the Code of Ethical Conduct

The Code of Ethical Conduct (NAEYC, 2011a) provides a tool to use in various ways to ensure ethical conduct and 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 your work 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, consider 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. Here 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 above, 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, 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. 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 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 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, 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 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” 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.

11.4 Advocacy

The role of an advocate, both for the clientele [ GL] professionals serve and 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 important for many professions, including early childhood education . Note that both the NAEYC Professional Standards and Competencies (2019) and the Washington State Core Competencies for Early Care and Education Professionals (2009) include professionalism as a core standard area and advocacy as a competency area.

Advocacy is any action supporting or defending a specific cause or issue. Advocacy aims to cause change and various activities can accomplish this goal. 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 to be true about advocacy. There are many ways for an early childhood educator to engage in advocacy without experiencing any discomfort.

11.4.1 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 grow and develop successfully. Our professional responsibility is to speak out against initiatives counter to this knowledge and not good for children or families.

11.4.2 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, compensation comparable to similar professions , and regulation 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 the imposition of requirements that may create hardships for the individual professional . For example, advocating for inclusion in the early childhood education profession to require a certain educational preparation may mean one must 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.

11.4.3 Methods of Advocacy

One way to organize the myriad advocacy methods is to divide them into personal and public advocacy (Feeney, 2012), as detailed below.

11.4.3.1 Personal Advocacy

Personal advocacy happens during your workday and includes speaking up about what you know to be the 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 built as an educator.

11.4.3.2 Public Advocacy

Public advocacy occurs 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. Policymakers need data and statistics, but even more, they need to hear how people are affected by the policies they set. They want to hear from the front-line workers about the reality of the days they spend 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

Early childhood practitioners can feel isolated and consequently limited in influencing policymakers or the public. Luckily, at both the state and national levels, advocacy groups exist to 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
  • 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
  • Convenes informational events, advocacy days, and sponsors fundraising events
• Washington State Association for Head Start and ECEAP
  • Advocates on behalf of Head Start and ECEAP programs
  • Provides information about current issues on its web page
  • Supports professionals in advocacy efforts
• MomsRising
  • Campaigns for early care and education
  • Provides information about current issues on its web page
• Child Care Aware of Washington
  • Advocates on behalf of child care providers
  • Presents data to support advocacy efforts
  • Presents action plans for individuals
• National Association for the Education of Young Children
  • 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
  • Disseminates advocacy information from the NAEYC to membership and others
  • Sponsors advocacy training
  • Collects and disseminates information on state legislative issues and actions

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 . Exploring these opportunities and considering how to begin or expand advocacy engagement is essential.

 

References

Caldwell, B. M. (1967). On reformulating the concept of early childhood education—Some whys needing wherefores. Young Children, 22(6), 348–356. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42720712

Committee on the Science of Children Birth to Age 8: Deepening and Broadening the Foundation for Success, Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Institute of Medicine, & National Research Council. (2015, July 23). Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/19401

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

Feeney, S., & Freeman, N. K. (2018). Ethics and the early childhood educator: Using the NAEYC code (3^rd ed.). National Association for the Education of Young Children.

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

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

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

Goffin, S. G., & Washington, V. (2019). Ready or not: Early childhood care and education’s leadership choices—12 years later (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.

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

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2004, Spring). Code of ethical conduct: Supplement for early childhood adult educators. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/ethics04_09202013update.pdf

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2011a, May). Code of ethical conduct and statement of commitment (1989, revised April 2005, reaffirmed and updated May 2011). https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/Ethics%20Position%20Statement2011_09202013update.pdf

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2011b, May). Code of ethical conduct: Supplement for early childhood program administrators (2006, reaffirmed and updated May 2011). https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/Supplement%20PS2011.pdf

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2012, September). 2010 NAEYC standards for initial & advanced early childhood professional preparation programs. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/accreditation/higher-ed/naeyc-higher-ed-accreditation-standards.pdf

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2019, November). 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

Power to the Profession. (n.d.) About. http://powertotheprofession.org/about/

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

Washington State Department of Children, Youth & Families. (n.d.). Mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect. https://www.dcyf.wa.gov/safety/mandated-reporter

Washington State Department of Children, Youth & Families. (2009). Core competencies for early care and education professionals. https://www.dcyf.wa.gov/sites/default/files/pubs/EPS_0023.pdf

Washington State Department of Children, Youth & Families (2023, May). Washington State stackable certificates: Early childhood education statewide certificates. https://dcyf.wa.gov/sites/default/files/pubs/EPS_0026.pdf