ERIC EJ1124801: Using State Early Care and Education Workforce Registry Data to Inform Training-Related Questions: Issues to Consider. Research Report. ETS RR-16-31

2016·0.91 MB·English

by  ERIC

ThisPolicyInformationReportwaswrittenby:
DebraJ.Ackerman
EducationalTestingService,Princeton,NJ
PolicyInformationCenter
MailStop19-R
EducationalTestingService
RosedaleRoadPrinceton,NJ08541-0001
[phone]
[email protected]
Copiescanbedownloadedfrom:www.ets.org/research/pic
The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the officers and
trusteesofEducationalTestingService.
AboutETS
At ETS, we advance quality and equity in education for people worldwide by creating assessments based on rigorous
research.ETSservesindividuals,educationalinstitutionsandgovernmentagenciesbyprovidingcustomizedsolutions
forteachercertification,Englishlanguagelearning,andelementary,secondaryandpostsecondaryeducation,andbycon-
ductingeducationresearch,analysisandpolicystudies.Foundedasanonprofitin1947,ETSdevelops,administersand
scoresmorethan50milliontestsannually — includingtheTOEFL®andTOEIC®tests,theGRE®testsandThePraxis
Series®assessments — inmorethan180countries,atover9,000locationsworldwide.
PolicyInformationReportandETSResearchReportSeriesISSN2330-8516
RESEARCH REPORT
Using State Early Care and Education Workforce Registry
Data to Inform Training-Related Questions: Issues to
Consider
DebraJ.Ackerman
EducationalTestingService,Princeton,NJ
Thecurrentearlycareandeducation(ECE)policycontextisbringingincreasedattentiontothetrainingcompletedbythechildcare
workforceandtotheuseofregistriestotracksuchtraining.AlthoughECEworkforceregistriesaredesignedtorecordindividuals’data,
aggregateregistrydatahavethepotentialtoshedlightontheworkforce’strainingneeds.However,todate,registrieshavenotbeen
tappedinthisway,andthereislimitedresearchonthedatacollectedacrossregistriesandtheextenttowhichtheyarestandardized.In
thisreport,Isharetheresultsofresearchonthetrainingfocusvariablesusedacrossthesedatabasesandontheextenttowhichsuch
variablesarecomparable.Alsoexplorediswhenregistriesbeganrecordingthesedataandwhetherenrollmentisvoluntary,incentivized,
ormandatory.Theresultsofthestudysuggestthataggregateregistrydatahavethepotentialtoaddressquestionsrelatedtothefocusof
thetraininginwhichtheECEworkforceparticipates.However,additionalresearchonECEworkforceregistriesisneededtoconfirm
theirusefulnessasasourceofdataonchildcaretrainingaswellastheaccessibilityofthesedata.
Keywords Earlycareandeducation;training;workforceregistries
doi:10.1002/ets2.12117
ThecurrentU.S.earlycareandeducation(ECE)policylandscapehasastrongfocusonimprovingthequalityofchild
careforchildrenundertheageof5years(Boller,Tarrant,&Schaack,2014).Theseeffortshavebeenbothfundedand
guidedinlargepartbystates’respectiveChildCareandDevelopmentFund(CCDF)grants(seealsotheChildCareand
DevelopmentBlockGrantActof2014)andRacetotheTop–EarlyLearningChallenge(U.S.DepartmentofEducation,
2015)awards.RelatedcontributorsincludestatechildcareQualityRatingandImprovementSystem(QRIS)initiatives,the
majorityofwhicharelinkedtoRacetotheTop–EarlyLearningChallengeandCCDFplansandarebeingimplemented,
piloted,orplannedineverystateexceptMissouri(QRISCompendium,2016).
As part of these quality improvement efforts, policy makers are focusing on the child care workforce’s capacity to
support young children’s social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development. For example, states’ biennial CCDF
plansmustincludeongoingworkforcetrainingandotherprofessionaldevelopmentrelatedtomeetingthedevelopmental
needs of participating children (Matthews, Schulman, Vogtman, Johnson-Staub, & Blank, 2015; Office of Child Care,
2015).WithinQRISinitiatives,atleast38stateshaveelementsfocusingonstaffeducationandtraining(NationalCenter
onChildCareQualityImprovement,2011a,2011b;NationalInfantandToddlerChildCareInitiative,2011).Thefocus
ontrainingisparticularlycriticalgiventhatnostaterequireschildcareteacherstoobtainacollegedegreepriortobeing
hired(ChildCareAware,2012).
Inaddition,thereisagrowingstateinterestinusingwhatareknownasECEworkforceregistriestotrackthechild
careworkforce’straining,credit-bearingcoursework,andformaleducationalattainment(Prentice,2013;TheNational
RegistryAlliance[TNRA],2009).Thesedatabasestypicallyrecordatraining’stitleandlengthinhours.Registriesalso
maydocumentifenrolleesmeetlicensingand/orQRISrequirementsand,instateswithwhatisknownasacareerladder
or lattice, the criteria for a specific level. In addition, some registries record an enrollee’s employment history. Finally,
themajorityofregistryWebsitesallowindividualstosearchfortrainings,trainers,andassociatedtrainingorganizations
(Kipnis&Whitebook,2011;Prentice,2013;U.S.GovernmentAccountabilityOffice,2012;Wolfe,2015).
Giventheinterrelatedgoalsofthispolicylandscape,itwouldbehelpfulforECEpolicymakers,programadminis-
trators,trainingproviders,advocates,andresearcherstohaveaccurateinformationonthetrainingneededbythechild
Correspondingauthor:D.J.Ackerman,E-mail:[email protected]
2 PolicyInformationReportandETSResearchReportSeriesNo.RR-16-31.©2016EducationalTestingService
D.J.Ackerman UsingECEDatatoInformTraining
careworkforce.Furthermore,althoughworkforceregistriesaredesignedtorecordindividuals’data,aggregateregistry
datahavethepotentialtoprovidesuchinformation(EarlyLearningChallengeTechnicalAssistanceProgram[ELCTA],
2015;NationalCenteronChildCareProfessionalDevelopmentSystemsandWorkforceInitiatives[PDWCenter],2013).
Yet,todate,fewresearchershavetappeddatafromsingleregistries(e.g.,Douglass,Carter,Smith,&Gadhadharan,2012;
Lipscomb,Schmitt,&Pratt,2015;Weber&Grobe,2014;Weber&Lipscomb,2015).Evenmoreimportantly,therehas
beenlimitedresearchontheexactdatacollectedacrossregistriesandtheextenttowhichsuchdataarestandardizedor
comparable(e.g.,Mayfield,2012;Prentice,2013;TNRA,2009).
In this report, I share the results of research on the variables ECE workforce registries use to denote the focus of
participants’trainingandonhowlongsuchdatahavebeencollected.Alsosharedistheextenttowhichregistryenrollment
isvoluntary,incentivized,ormandatory.Tosetthestageforthestudy,Itakeacloserlookatthechildcareworkforce
training policy context. I then review three issues to consider before using aggregate ECE workforce registry data to
informtraining-relatedpurposes.Afterdiscussingthestudy’sresults,Iconcludethereportwithsomefutureresearchto
beconductedonECEworkforceregistriesasameansforfurtherinformingtheirpotentialtobeusedasasourceofdata
onchildcaretraining.
ChildCareWorkforceTrainingPolicyContext
Thinkingabouttheknowledgeandskillsneededtoeffectivelysupportstudentlearningcanbehelpfulforsituatingadis-
cussionaboutthechildcareworkforcetrainingpolicycontext,particularlywhenpoliciesaimtoenhancetheworkforce’s
capacitytosupportyoungchildren’ssocial,emotional,physical,andcognitivedevelopment.AsSykesandWilson(2015)
described,high-qualityteachinginvolvesacomplexsetofinstructionalcompetencies,suchasplanningandpreparing
forinstruction(includingdeterminingwhatstudentsalreadyknowandcando),developingrelationshipswithstudents,
andmanagingthephysicalenvironmentoftheclassroom.Teachersalsomustcommunicateeffectivelywithotherprofes-
sionalsandstudents’families.Furthermore,thesecompetenciesarenotonlydependentonthecontentofwhatisbeing
taught(e.g.,literacyvs.mathematics)andstudentcharacteristics(e.g.,age3vs.age8;monolingualvs.duallanguage)but
alsoinfluencedbythesettingsinwhichteachersworkandthesupportreceivedinthosesettings.
Insettingsservinginfants,toddlers,andpreschoolers,itisespeciallycriticalforteacherstopossessastrongfounda-
tionalknowledgeaboutchilddevelopmentaswellasthebiologicalandenvironmentalfactorsthatcanbothenhanceand
impedeyoungchildren’sbehaviorandlearning.Suchknowledgealsoisimportantfororganizingtheclassroomlearning
environmentandusingongoingassessmentdatatoinforminstruction(InstituteofMedicine[IOM]&NationalResearch
Council[NRC],2012).Inaddition,teachers’instructionalinteractionswiththeirstudentsmaybeparticularlycrucialto
effectiveteaching;thatis,whileteachersneedtobecaring,responsive,andmindfulaboutchildren’shealthandsafety,
alsoimportantaretheactivitiesandconversationsthatpromotestudents’higherorderthinkingskillsandearlylearning
outcomes(Burchinaletal., 2008; Cameron,2012; Hamre etal., 2013; Pianta,2011). In addition,effectiveteachers will
knowwhentousedifferentlearningapproaches(e.g.,one-on-one,smallgroup,wholegroup,hands-onactivities)and
“havearepertoireofcontent-specificinstructionalstrategiesthatpromotelearning”(Hamre,2014,p.225).
PrehireRequirements
Whileeffectiveteachingmayrequireaspecializedknowledgebaseandsetofcompetencies,statepoliciesrequirechild
careteachers1inlicensedcenterstoattainminimalprehirequalifications.Simplyput,nostaterequirescenter-basedchild
careteacherstohaveacollegedegreepriortobeinghired.Moreover,20statesrequireattainmentofonlyahighschool
diploma or equivalent exam, and an additional 20 states have no minimum educational requirement. Just three states
requireindividualstoobtainaChildDevelopmentAssociate(CDA)credential(Ackerman&Kingsley,2015).Toattaina
CDA,individualsmustcompleteavarietyofactivities,including120clockhoursoftrainingacrosseighttopics(Council
forProfessionalRecognition,2015).TheCDAalsoisavoluntarymilestonestepinthemajorityofstates’childcarecareer
laddersorlattices(MissouriCoordinatingBoardforEarlyChildhood,2014).
Incontrast,the2007HeadStartreauthorizationmandated50%ofteachersinthefederallyfundedHeadStartprogram
forpreschoolerstohaveaminimumofabachelor’sdegreeinorrelatedtoearlychildhoodby2013(ImprovingHeadStart
forSchoolReadinessActof2007).Amongstate-fundedpre-Kprograms,whichmostlytarget4yearolds,18statesrequire
PolicyInformationReportandETSResearchReportSeriesNo.RR-16-31.©2016EducationalTestingService 3
D.J.Ackerman UsingECEDatatoInformTraining
allteacherstohaveaminimumofabachelor’sdegree.Inanadditional33states,teachersworkinginpublicschoolpre-K
settingsmusthaveaminimumofa4-yeardegree(Schilder,2016).
Perhapsnotsurprisingly,nationalstudiessuggestthatjust25%ofcenter-basedchildcareteachershavea4-yeardegree
(Bassok,Fitzpatrick,Loeb,&Paglayan,2013;NationalSurveyofEarlyCareandEducationProjectTeam,2012;U.S.Gov-
ernment Accountability Office, 2012). Conversely, an analysis of recent Head Start Program Information Report data
showsthat74%ofitsteachersarereportedtohaveabachelor’sdegreeorhigher(OfficeofHeadStart,2015).
ChildCareandDevelopmentFund
Severaladditionalpolicycontextsdrivethetrainingcompletedbythechildcareworkforcebothinitiallyandonanongoing
basis.ThefirstcontextstemsfromtheCCDFprogram,whichispartoftheChildCareandDevelopmentBlockGrantAct
andappliestostaffinsettingsacceptingCCDFfamilyassistancevouchers.Forexample,newstaffmustreceivetraining
onavarietyofhealth-andsafety-relatedtopics,includingrecognizingsymptomsofillness,preventingandcontrolling
infectious disease, administering medication, emergency procedures, and first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation
(NationalCenteronChildCareQualityImprovement,2015;OfficeofChildCare,2015).States’biennialCCDFplans
alsomustprovideanassurancethattrainingwillbeconductedonanongoingbasisandreflectcurrentresearchandbest
practicesrelatedtotheskillsnecessarytomeetthedevelopmentalneedsofparticipatingchildren.Furthermore,states
mustreportviatheirCCDFQualityPerformanceReportshowmanychildcarecenter-basedteachers,familychildcare
providers,andlegallyexemptprovidersreceivedtrainingonthestate’searlylearningguidelines(Matthewsetal.,2015).
ChildCareLicensingRegulations
Asecondkeycontextisstatechildcarelicensingregulations,which,inadditiontogoverningprehirequalifications,require
center-basedchildcareteacherstocompleteposthiretraining.AsmightbeexpectedgivenCCDFrequirements,themajor-
ityofstatesrequireinitialtrainingrelatedtochildren’shealthandsafety,emergencypreparedness,licensingregulations,
andchildabusereporting.Inaddition,48statesrequirestaffinchildcarecenterstoundergospecificamountsofannual
training.Theseamountsvarywidely,with10statesrequiring11orfewerhours,24statesrequiringbetween12and17
hours,andtheremainingstatesrequiring18ormorehours.While40statesrequireannualtrainingonhealthandsafety
issues,inroughlytwo-thirdsofstates,varyingamountsofannualtrainingrelatedtochilddevelopment,childguidance
andbehavior,and/orlearningactivitiesalsoarerequired(ChildCareAware,2013;U.S.GovernmentAccountabilityOffice,
2012).
QualityRatingandImprovementSystemInitiatives
AthirdcontextdrivingchildcaretrainingisQRISinitiatives,whicharebeingimplemented,piloted,orplannedin49
statesandtheDistrictofColumbia(QRISCompendium,2016).Theseinitiativesgenerallyhavetwoprimarypurposes,
bothofwhichreflecttheintentoftheChildCareandDevelopmentBlockGrantAct.Thefirstpurposeistoprovideparents
andotherconsumerswithinformationregardingtherelativequalityofanychildcareprogram.Asecondprimarypurpose
istoincentivizeparticipatingprogramstomaintainorimprovetheirqualityasameansforbettersupportingchildren’s
developmentandearlylearning.
Asmentionedintheintroduction,atleast38QRISinitiativeshavequalityimprovementcategoriesfocusingonstaff
education and training. Some of these states also require training related to specific topics, such as caring for infants
andtoddlersorastate’searlylearningguidelines.And,asanincentivetotheworkforcetoattainhighereducationlevels
and/orparticipateintraining,manyQRISofferscholarships(NationalCenteronChildCareQualityImprovement,2011a,
2011b;NationalInfantandToddlerChildCareInitiative,2011).However,inmoststates,theparticipationoflicensed
center-basedchildcareprogramsisvoluntary(QRISCompendium,2016).
Summary
Insummary,owingtotheminimalqualificationsneededtoenterhelicensedchildcareworkforce,individualslikelywill
needtrainingiftheyaretoeffectivelycontributetoeffortstoimprovechildcarequalityandsupportyoungchildren’slearn-
inganddevelopment.Atthesametime,becauseofdifferentregulatorypolicies,staffformaleducationalbackgrounds,and
4 PolicyInformationReportandETSResearchReportSeriesNo.RR-16-31.©2016EducationalTestingService
D.J.Ackerman UsingECEDatatoInformTraining
theagesofthechildrenserved(e.g.,infantsandtoddlersvs.preschoolers),thefocusandamountoftrainingneededare
notlikelytobeonesizefitsall(Wasik,Mattera,Lloyd,&Boller,2013).ItthereforecouldbehelpfulforECEpolicymak-
ers,programadministrators,trainingproviders,advocates,andresearcherstohaveaccurateinformationonthetraining
needsofstaffwithinandacrosssettings,programs,andstates.Discussednextaresomemethodologicalconsiderations
whenusingaggregatedatafromECEworkforceregistriesforthispurpose.
IssuesinUsingAggregateRegistryDatatoInformTraining-RelatedQuestions
ECEprogramsareincreasinglyusingdatafromavarietyofsourcestosatisfyreportingrequirementsrelatedtolicensing,
funding,ongoingmonitoring,andaccountabilityaswellaspartofqualityimprovementefforts(Jordan&King,2015;
Kipnis,Stebbins,&Szekely,2012;Riley-Ayers,Frede,Barnett,&Brenneman,2011;TheEarlyChildhoodDataCollabora-
tive,2014).Thesedataalsocanbeusefulforperformingneedsassessments(e.g.,OfficeofChildCare,2013a),including
thetrainingneededbythechildcareworkforcetosupportstateandfederalregulationsandqualityinitiatives.Secondary
analysisofaggregatedatafromoneoracombinationofECEworkforceregistrieshasthepotentialtoserveasanother
sourceofdataandthusinformtheeffortsofawidearrayofstakeholders.However,atleastthreeregistry-specificissues
canunderminethispotential:thedatavariablesused,theyearsofdataavailable,andthepercentageofeligibleindividuals
enrolled.
TrainingDataVariablesUsed
Thefirstissuetoconsiderpriortopotentiallyrelyingonaggregateregistrydataisthefocusoftheavailabledataand,if
usingmultipleregistries,theextenttowhichthevariablesusedarestandardizedoratleastcomparableintermsoftheir
focus(Friese,King,&Tout,2013;PDWCenter,2013).Forexample,somestakeholdersmaybeinterestedinparticipation
inexacttrainingtitlesasameansfordocumentingthenumberandpercentageofindividualsmeetingspecificlicensing
requirements(e.g.,theprocessforreportingpotentialchildabuse).However,otherstakeholdersmaywishtoexaminethe
extenttowhichparticipantsengageintrainingrelatedtoanoverallcontentarea(e.g.,healthandsafety).
Toaddressthislatterissue,TheNationalRegistryAlliance(TNRA,2013),avoluntaryorganizationofECEworkforce
registryleaders,urgesregistriestousesevenprimarycoreknowledge/corecontentareacategoriestodescribeatraining’s
mainfocus.ThesecategoriesareAdministrationandManagement;ChildGrowthandDevelopment;EarlyChildhood
EducationProfessionandPolicy;FamilyandCommunityRelationships;Health,Safety,andNutrition;Observing,Doc-
umenting,andAssessing;andTeachingandLearning.
ThesaliencyofthesetopicswithinthelargerECEfieldisillustratedwhenconsideringthecompetenciestobedisplayed
bycandidatesfortheCDAcredential(CouncilforProfessionalRecognition,2015)andthestandardsforearlychildhood
professionalpreparationprogramcurriculumadvocatedbytheNationalAssociationfortheEducationofYoungChil-
dren(NAEYC,2009).Asmentionedearlier,theCDAistheminimumqualificationtobehiredasachildcareteacher
in licensed centers inthreestates andavoluntarymilestonestep in themajorityofstates’ child care careerladders or
lattices.CDAcandidatesalsomustcompletetrainingacrosseighttopics.NAEYCisconsideredtobethelargestprofes-
sionalassociationforindividualsworkinginsettingsforchildrenagesbirththroughage8yearsintheUnitedStatesand
alsoanimportantauthorofearlychildhoodpositionstatements,particularlyrelatedtohigh-qualityECE.Andalthough
eachorganizationhasadifferenttargetaudience,theCDACompetenciesandNAEYC’sprofessionalpreparationprogram
curriculumstandardsareacknowledgedascomparable(NAEYC&CouncilforProfessionalRecognition,2012).
TohelpdemonstratetherelevancyofTNRA’scategorysuggestions,Table1displaysthisorganization’scategoriesin
alphabeticalorderaswellastheircorrespondingCDACompetenciesandNAEYCstandards.Ascanbeseen,thetitles
acrossthethreeorganizationsarenotstandardized.However,forthemostpart,theyarecomparableintermsoftheir
phrasing and focus. For example, the TNRA category of Child Growth and Development is comparable to the CDA
competencyofUnderstandingPrinciplesofChildDevelopmentandLearningandtheNAEYCstandardofPromoting
ChildDevelopmentandLearning.Inaddition,theTNRAcategoryofFamilyandCommunityRelationshipsissimilarto
theCDACompetencyofBuildingProductiveRelationshipswithFamiliesandNAEYC’sBuildingFamilyandCommunity
Relationshipsstandard.
TwoexceptionstothiscomparabilityareseenintheTNRAcategoriesofAdministrationandManagementandHealth,
Safety,andNutrition.Morespecifically,bothcategorieshaveacorrespondingCDAcompetency,butneitherofthesetopics
PolicyInformationReportandETSResearchReportSeriesNo.RR-16-31.©2016EducationalTestingService 5
D.J.Ackerman UsingECEDatatoInformTraining
Table1 ComparabilityofTheNationalRegistryAlliance,ChildDevelopmentAssociate,andNationalAssociationfortheEducation
ofYoungChildrenCoreKnowledge/CompetencyStandardsTitles
TNRACoreKnowledge/CoreContent NAEYCStandardsforEarlyChildhood
Areasa CDACompetenciesb TeacherPreparationProgramCurriculumc
AdministrationandManagement ManaginganEffectiveProgramOperation (Nostand-aloneequivalent)
ChildGrowthandDevelopment UnderstandingPrinciplesofChild PromotingChildDevelopmentand
DevelopmentandLearning Learning
EarlyChildhoodProfessionandPolicy MaintainingaCommitmentto BecomingaProfessional
Professionalism
FamilyandCommunityRelationships BuildingProductiveRelationshipsWith BuildingFamilyandCommunity
Families Relationships
Health,Safety,andNutrition PlanningaSafeandHealthyLearning (Nostand-aloneequivalent)
Environment
Observing,Documenting,andAssessing ObservingandRecordingChildren’s Observing,Documenting,andAssessingto
Behavior SupportYoungChildrenandFamilies
TeachingandLearning AdvancingChildren’sPhysicaland UsingContentKnowledgetoBuild
IntellectualCompetence;and MeaningfulCurriculum;and
SupportingChildren’sSocialand UsingDevelopmentallyEffective
EmotionalDevelopment ApproachestoConnectWithChildren
andFamilies
Note. The three organizations’ respective core knowledge/competency standards have been reordered to demonstrate their align-
mentwitheachother.CDA=ChildDevelopmentAssociate.NAEYC=NationalAssociationfortheEducationofYoungChildren.
TNRA=TheNationalRegistryAlliance.
aAvailable in The National Registry Alliance, Core Data Elements for Early Childhood and School-Age Registries, 2013, Washing-
ton,DC:Author.bRetrievedfromhttp://www.cdacouncil.org/credentials/apply-for-cda/preschool.cRetrievedfromhttps://www.naeyc
.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/ProfPrepStandards09.pdf
isastand-alonecategorywithintheNAEYCstandards.Inaddition,althoughthefocusofthecategoriesrelatedtoTeaching
andLearningissimilar,thephrasingofthetitlesacrossthethreeorganizationsisverydifferent.
YearsofData
A second potential challenge in using registry data for secondary analyses is for what length of time aggregate data
related to any variable are available. Such longitudinal data can be particularly useful when new policies or programs
areimplementedandstakeholdersareinterestedinmeasuringchangeovertime(Kemper,Stringfield,&Teddlie,2003).
Forexample,stateadministratorsorresearchersmightwishtodeterminewhetherthecarrotofaccesstofreetraining
oreligibilityforpotentialscholarshipsiscorrelatedwithanincreaseoverseveralyearsinenrollmentinastate’svolun-
taryECEworkforceregistry.Aggregatelongitudinaldataalsomightshedlightonwhetherprograms’participationinstate
QRISinitiativesiscorrelatedwithgreaterworkforceparticipationinspecifictraining,suchassupportingand/orassessing
children’slearning.
PercentageofEligibleIndividualsEnrolled
Athirdissuetobearinmindwhenconsideringtheuseofaggregateworkforceregistrydataistheextenttowhichthedata
havethepotentialtoaccuratelyinformspecificpolicyorpracticequestionsaboutspecificpopulationsofECEteachers
(Mauzy,Tout,&Whitehead,2014).Forexample,sometrainingquestionsmayfocusontheECEworkforceasawhole,
whereasothersmaybedesignedtocomparestaffworkingindifferentauspices(e.g.,licensedchildcarecenters,state-
fundedpre-K,HeadStart)oratvaryingpointsintheircareers(e.g.,teachersatStep1or2inastate’sECEcareerlattice
vs.thoseathigherlevels).Inothercases,thetrainingquestionmayfocusonlyonstafffromaspecificprogramordemo-
graphic.
Akeyingredientinthispotentialistheextenttowhichregistryenrolleesarerepresentativeofthetargetpopulation
inthatjurisdiction(Gliklich,Dreyer,&Leavy,2014).Anexampleofatargetpopulationisinfant,toddler,andpreschool
6 PolicyInformationReportandETSResearchReportSeriesNo.RR-16-31.©2016EducationalTestingService
D.J.Ackerman UsingECEDatatoInformTraining
teachers working in licensed child care centers throughout a state. In an ideal research world, an ECE workforce reg-
istry’sdatabasewillenrollalleligibleindividualsinthetargetpopulation(s).Onenextbestoptionisforthedatabaseto
beproportionallyrepresentativetothepopulationofinterestacrossthejurisdiction.Asanexample,supposearesearcher
wishestocompareratesofparticipationinhealthandsafetytrainingbetweeninfant/toddlerteachersandpreschoolteach-
ersworkinginlicensedcenterswithinasinglestate.Inthiscase,itwouldbehelpfulfromasamplingperspectiveifthe
proportionofregistryenrolleesreflectednotonlytheteacherswhodo—anddonot—attendhealthandsafetytraining
butalsothetwochildagegroups.Conversely,ifthepercentageofteachersenrolledfromeithertrainingcategoryorage
groupissignificantlydifferentthanisactuallythecase—andtheresearcherdoesnottakethisdifferenceintoaccount—a
subsequentanalysisofthedatamayresultinaninaccurateestimationofeachgroup’sparticipationinhealthandsafety
training(e.g.,NationalSurveyofEarlyCareandEducationProjectTeam,2016).
Assuming a workforce registry is open to everyone in a target population, determining its representativeness first
requires pinning down exactly how many individuals are eligible to enroll at any point in time. However, this can be
challengingduetothepresenceofmultipleECEauspices,variationsinchildcareregulationsregardingwhichsettings
arerequiredtobelicensed,andthenamesofcommonjobroles(e.g.,childcareworkervs.preschoolteacher).Another
contributoristhenatureofthechildcarefield,whichisdominatedbylow-wagedhourlystaffandhighratesofturnover.
Asaresult,morethanoneindividualmayfillanotherwisefull-timepositionwithinasingleyear(IOM&NRC,2012;
Kipnis&Whitebook,2011,2012;NationalSurveyofEarlyCareandEducationProjectTeam,2013;Whitebook,Phillips,
&Howes,2014).
Even if the approximate number of eligible individuals can be determined, a database’s representativeness typically
is conditional on there not being any reason to suspect that any subgroup of interest was less likely to enroll (e.g.,
infant/toddlerteachersorteacherswhoattendveryfewtrainings)and/orsystematicallyexcluded(Kadam&Bhalerao,
2010).Historically,thepercentageofeligibleindividualsenrolledinstates’respectiveECEworkforceregistrieshasvaried
widely (Bellm & Whitebook, 2004; Mayfield, 2012). This is not surprising given that another issue facing voluntary
registriesofalltypesisrecruitmentandretention(Bishop,Tiro,Sanders,CraddockLee,&Skinner,2015).
To the best of my knowledge, no published research examines the percentage of eligible individuals enrolled in all
activeECEworkforceregistries.However,areviewofstates’RacetotheTop—EarlyLearningChallengeperformance
reportssuggeststhatenrollmentpoliciesmayserveasaproxyforregistriesbeingrepresentativeoftheworkforceinspe-
cificauspices.Forexample(andasishighlightedlaterinthereport),Oregonmandatespractitionersworkinginregulated
ECEsettingstoenrollinthestate’sregistry.Inturn,Oregon’s2013RacetotheTopAnnualPerformanceReport(Ore-
gon Department of Education, 2013) noted that, “as of 2012 … the online registry provides workforce data on 100%
ofpractitionersinregulatedfacilities”(p.6).GeorgiaanticipatesthatenrollmentinitsnewlyimplementedProfessional
Development Registry also will be representative of its ECE workforce by the end of 2017 and when all programs are
requiredtobeenrolledinthestate’sQRISinitiative(StateofGeorgia,2015).Illinoisbeganrequiringallstaffinlicensed
childcaresettingstoenrollinitsregistryin2012,andasaresult,membershipmorethandoubledfrom32,402in2013to
80,769in2014(StateofIllinois,2015).
Datafromothersourcesalsosuggestthatenrollmentpoliciescanshaperegistryenrollment.Nevadabeganrequiring
theparticipationofstaffworkinginlicensedchildcarein2009andanticipatedthatfullparticipationwouldbephased
inbytheendof2012(TheNevadaRegistry,2016).Oklahoma’sregistryreportedamarkedincreaseinenrollmentafter
regulationsrequiredtheenrollmentofstaffinQRIS-participatingsettings(ELCTA,2015).Wisconsinalsorequiresthe
enrollmentofstaffworkinginlicensedprograms(WisconsinDepartmentofChildrenandFamilies,2009).Infact,based
onBureauofLaborStatisticsdataonthesizeoftheECEworkforceinbothOklahomaandWisconsin,Mayfield(2015)
hasestimatedthattheseregistriesrepresentcloseto100%enrollment.Insum,thoughnotaguarantee,theexperiencesof
theseregistriessuggestthatajurisdiction’srequirementsforparticipationarelikelytobecorrelatedwiththepercentage
ofeligibleindividualsenrolled.
Intheabsenceofmandatoryenrollment,anotherwayvoluntaryregistriescanmitigaterecruitmentandretentionissues
istoreducethecostofregistryparticipationandincreasetherelatedrewards(Gliklichetal.,2014).Previousresearchhas
suggestedthatECEworkforceregistriesalsohaveimplementedvaryinginitialapplicationorenrollmentfeesandpartic-
ipationincentives(Bellm&Whitebook,2004;Prentice,2013).However,Icouldnotidentifyanyresearchexploringthe
extenttowhichsuchfeesand/orincentivesplayaroleinboostingregistryenrollmentand,inturn,therepresentativeness
ofanyECEsubgroup.
PolicyInformationReportandETSResearchReportSeriesNo.RR-16-31.©2016EducationalTestingService 7
D.J.Ackerman UsingECEDatatoInformTraining
In conclusion, there are a variety of potential training-related uses for aggregate workforce registry data. At the
same time, the usefulness of these data may be dependent on a variety of registry-specific issues, including the type
of data recorded and the degree of comparability across registries, how long such data have been collected, and the
extent to which jurisdictions promote participation through their enrollment policies. These are important topics
given the larger policy focus on improving the quality of child care and the capacity of the workforce to support
children’s learning and development, as well as ongoing state training requirements. Furthermore, because there
has been limited research on the exact data collected across ECE workforce registries, it is difficult to gauge the
potential for aggregate data from one or more registries to inform a variety of child care workforce training-related
questions.
Toshedlightontheseissues,theresearchquestionsforthisstudyareasfollows:
1. Whichjurisdictions(e.g.,states,DistrictofColumbia,regionswithinsinglestates)currentlyimplementECEwork-
forceregistries?
2. Whichregistriesusevariablestodenotethefocusofparticipants’training?
3. Towhatextentdoregistriesuseasetoftrainingfocusvariablesthatappeartobecomparablebasedonvariabletitle?
4. Inwhatyeardidregistriesbeginrecordingthefocusofparticipants’training?
5. Acrossregistries,towhatextentisenrollmentvoluntary,incentivized,and/ormandatoryforchildcareteachersin
licensedsettings?
6. Whataretheimplicationsofthestudyforpotentiallyusingaggregateregistrydatatoinformchildcareworkforce
training-relatedquestions?
Themethodologyforthestudyisdiscussednext.
StudyMethodology
DataCollectionandSample
Toaddressthesequestions,Iengagedinthreephasesofdatacollectioninfall2015.Thefirstphaseconsistedofiden-
tifyingallpotentiallyactiveECEworkforceregistriesinthe50statesandDistrictofColumbiathroughareviewofthe
Office of Child Care Technical Assistance Network’s State Profile information.2 In Phase 2, I identified and reviewed
registry Web sites not only to confirm that the database was active but also to determine if the jurisdiction uses core
knowledgeorcontentcategoriestodescribethemainfocusofnoncredittrainingaimedatthechildcareworkforce.If
so,thesecategorieswerenotedasthepotentialregistrynoncredittrainingcontentvariablesforthatstate.ThisWebsite
review also was used to identify which entity is responsible for administering the registry as well as a potential infor-
mantforthethirdphaseofdatacollection.Ifnospecificcontactswereprovided,todeterminewhomightserveinthat
role,Itelephonedtheregistry’sadministratingentity,e-mailedthegeneralinformationaddress,and/orreachedoutto
colleagueswithknowledgeaboutkeyearlychildhoodstakeholderswithinthatjurisdictionforadviceregardingpotential
informants.
Phase3involvede-mailingajurisdiction-specificsurveytoeachregistry’sidentifiedinformantinNovember2015.The
surveyquestionswereasfollows:
1. Doesyourregistryincludevariablesdenotingthefocusofparticipants’noncredittraining?
2. Ifso,dothefollowingcategoriesaccuratelyreflectthevariablesusedtodenotethefocusofparticipants’noncredit
training?(Thecategorieswerederivedfromareviewoftheregistry’strainingWebsite.Administratorsalsowere
giventheoptionofaddingvariablesandnotinganyincorrectvariables.)
3. Inwhatyeardidyourregistrybeginusingvariablestodenotethefocusofnoncredittraining?
4. Towhatextentisenrollmentinyourregistryvoluntary,incentivized,ormandated?
Inthemajorityofcases,Ifollowedupthesurveyinvitations,aswellasresponses,withadditionale-mailsand/orphone
conversationsinDecember2015andJanuary2016.Informantsfrom41ofthe44identifiedregistriesparticipatedinthe
surveyforaresponserateof93%.BecauseIcouldnotconfirminformationforthethreenonrespondingregistries,3data
ontheirrespectivetrainingfocusvariables,yearinwhichsuchdatawerefirstrecorded,orenrollmentpoliciesand/or
incentivesarenotincludedhere.
8 PolicyInformationReportandETSResearchReportSeriesNo.RR-16-31.©2016EducationalTestingService
D.J.Ackerman UsingECEDatatoInformTraining
DataAnalysis
Tofacilitatedataanalysis,IenteredallofthestudydataintoanExceldatabase.Theanalysisregardingwhichjurisdictions
currentlyimplementECEworkforceregistries(ResearchQuestion1),usevariablestodenotethefocusofparticipants’
training(ResearchQuestion2),andinwhatyearregistriesbeganrecordingthefocusofparticipants’training(Research
Question4)involvedthegenerationofsimpledescriptivestatisticsviaacountofthenumberofregistrieswithresponses
relevanttoeachofthesequestions.
Todeterminetowhatextentregistriesuseasetofcomparablevariabletitlestodenotethefocusofparticipants’training
(ResearchQuestion3),Iinitiallycodedeachregistry’svariablesaccordingtothesevencategoriessuggestedbyTNRA
(2013) and noted earlier in Table 1. In analyzing these data, it became apparent that four additional categories were
required:Interactions,Guidance,andSocial/EmotionalDevelopment;Diversity;SpecialNeeds;andOther.Inaddition,
TeachingandLearningwasexpandedtoreflecttheCDAcredential’sandNAEYC’suseofthewordscurriculum,learning
environment,andintellectualdevelopmenttodescribethisknowledgearea.
Toillustratethiscodingprocess,Table2displaysthetitlesofArizona’seighttrainingfocusvariablesinalphabetical
orderaswellastheircorrespondingTNRAcategories.Ascanbeseen,forsevenoftheeightArizonavariables,thecoding
processwasverystraightforward,asthevariabletitlesareeitheridenticalorverysimilartoTNRA’scategories(e.g.,Family
andCommunityPartnershipsvs.FamilyandCommunityRelationships).Theoneinstanceinwhichthephrasingwasnot
similarwasfortheArizonavariableCurriculumandLearningEnvironment,whichwascodedasTeachingandLearning.
Table2 ResearchQuestion2CodingExample
Arizonaregistryvariable CorrespondingTNRAcategory
ChildGrowthandDevelopment ChildGrowthandDevelopment
ChildObservationandAssessment Observing,Documenting,andAssessingChildren
CurriculumandLearningEnvironment TeachingandLearning
EffectiveInteractions Interactions,Guidance,Social/EmotionalDevelopment
FamilyandCommunityPartnerships FamilyandCommunityRelationships
Health,Safety,andNutrition Health,Safety,andNutrition
Professionalism EarlyChildhoodProfessionandPolicy
ProgramManagement AdministrationandManagement
Note.TNRA=theNationalRegistryAlliance.
Todeterminetowhatextentenrollmentisvoluntary,incentivized,and/ormandatory(ResearchQuestion5),dataon
states’ registry enrollment policies were coded as voluntary (and defined as individuals having the option to enroll in
theregistryandwithnoincentivebeyondtrackingtheirtraining),conditional/incentivized(voluntary,butenrollmentis
requiredtobeeligibleforortoaccessafinancialortrainingincentive),ormandatory(requiredaspartofemployment
withinaspecificECEsetting).Finally,todeterminetheimplicationsofthestudyforpotentiallyusingaggregateregistry
datatoinformchildcaretrainingquestions(ResearchQuestion6),Ijuxtaposedtwohypotheticalresearchquestionswith
theresultsofthestudy’sfirstfiveresearchquestions.Theresultsofalloftheseanalysesarediscussednext.
Results
StatesWithEarlyCareandEducationWorkforceRegistries
Thestudy’sfirstresearchquestionfocusedonwhichjurisdictionswereimplementingECEworkforceregistriesatthetime
ofthestudy.OnthebasisofareviewoftheOfficeofChildCareTechnicalAssistanceNetwork’sStateProfileinformation,
registryWebsites,and/orregistryadministratorparticipationinthestudy’ssurvey,therewere44registriesinsomestage
ofimplementationin42statesandtheDistrictofColumbia(seeFigure1).
Amongthesejurisdictions,RhodeIslandandMichiganeachhadsingle,under-developmentregistries,andVirginia’s
sole registry was being piloted. In addition, I classified two states as having regional registries: California, which had
a single registry but with enrollment limited to individuals in specific regions, and Florida, which had two separately
administered,regionalregistriesbasedinPalmBeachandMiami-Dadecounties.Therealsowere38jurisdiction-wide,
in-operationregistries.TheseregistrieswerelocatedintheDistrictofColumbiaaswellasthestatesofAlaska,Arizona,
PolicyInformationReportandETSResearchReportSeriesNo.RR-16-31.©2016EducationalTestingService 9