1. A Joint Initiative of EEC and BTWIC
A Career Ladder for Early Education and Out of School Time: A resource for our workforce
A Joint Initiative of EEC and BTWIC

2. Career Ladder Background
EEC has long recognized the need for a career ladder to define professional growth in early education and out of school time and a ladder’s potential to remedy the inadequate compensation in our field.
Developing a career ladder is in EEC’s legislation and has been advanced by the 2008 Workforce Development Task Force, the Professional Development Workgroup of EEC’s Advisory, and ad-hoc work groups on family child care and out of school time.
In September 2010, BTWIC released its “Blueprint for Early Education Compensation Reform.” The report’s first recommendation is the development of a career ladder.
EEC and BTWIC partnered to implement this common goal.

3. Development Timeline October 2010
Developed an initial career ladder for internal review
November – December 2010
Convened two external focus groups to provide feedback on the initial career ladder
Revised ladder to incorporate focus group recommendations
January - February 2011
Presented ladder to Planning and Evaluation Committee
Launched online survey of educators in the Professional Qualifications Registry
March - April 2011
Analyzed survey results
Updated Planning and Evaluation Committee
May 2011
Present to EEC Board

4. Career Ladder Definition and Principles
“A career ladder should support and value our ECE/OST workforce and recognize that a diverse workforce is essential for a quality ECE/OST system that yields positive outcomes for every child and family. A career ladder has multiple entry points and clearly defines multiple pathways for professional growth and movement.”
Quality is important at every level of the ladder.
“You are competent” even if you have alternative qualifications instead of a degree.
All sectors of the field and the workforce are valued. Everyone must recognize themselves in the ladder.
Our field is not a dead end; there are continuing opportunities for professional growth.
Reflective practice and lifelong learning are key to professional growth.
Professional growth requires peer support and networks.

5. Career Ladder Goals
Develop one common career ladder for educators across early education and OST settings that is simple and easy to understand.
Borrow from established career ladder models in other fields;
This initial basic ladder will evolve and develop over time as it is used and adapted by our field.
Focus on educators working directly with children and those who are responsible for professional development and/or curriculum; not on administrative staff.
Identify basic levels of responsibility (job functions) and the knowledge, skills, and abilities they require. Do not base it on existing job titles.
The responsibilities at each level may look different in different types of care but they require the same underlying skills.
Educators can enter the ladder at any level that they qualify for whether they work in a home-based or center-based setting.
Don’t be restricted by QRIS standards or licensing regulations.
The ladder may eventually be aligned with these systems.

6. Career Ladder - A Resource and Reference
EEC is not mandating the use of this Career Ladder by early education and OST programs. Many programs already have a ladder that meets their needs. This ladder is:
A resource across EEC’s mixed delivery system that:
Articulates how increasing responsibility aligns with greater knowledge and skills (competency) and professional advancement;
Establishes a common starting point for work on more refined pathways like a career lattice;
Provides a frame to address compensation and other broad issues that affect our entire workforce.
A reference that programs and educators can use to:
Develop a career ladder that is specific to their program;
Assess and improve a ladder that already exists;
Map intentional professional growth for educators;
Plan professional development for different levels of responsibility;
Aid supervisors and directors as they guide and mentor staff.

7. 5 Levels of Responsibility
Leadership
Supervisory
Independent
Novice
Beginner/Entry
Each Level Includes:
Responsibilities
Education
Experience
In-service Training
Continuing Education
Experience: Providing direct care and instruction to children during all types of program activities for at least 12 hrs. per week. Qualifying experience includes regular observation by, and consultation with, a more qualified educator from the Independent Level or above.
In-service Training: Intentional, on-going professional development and training to meet established requirements and to increase competency within a given level. Often includes ongoing, formative observation and feedback by a supervisor or qualified peer.
Continuing Education: Professional development that advances an educator’s professional growth with the intent of helping the educator move up the ladder. 

8. Career Ladder Comparison with Regulations
Levels of Responsibility
EEC Regulations
(Minimum qualifications)
GCC
FCC
SACC
Leadership Level
Director I or II needs less education and experience
Licensees need less education and experience
Program adm. needs less education and experience
Supervisory Level
Lead teacher needs less education and experience
Licensee for 10 children needs less education and experience
Site coordinator needs less education and experience
Independent Level
Teacher needs less education and experience
Licensee for 8 children needs less education
Group leader needs less education and experience
Novice Level
Same as Teacher
Licensee for 6 children needs less experience
Assistant leader needs less education and experience
Beginning/Entry Level
Same as Assistant
Regular asst. needs less experience
Same as Assistant leader
Education and experience in the Career Ladder exceed the minimum requirements in the Regulations.

9. Career Ladder Comparison with QRIS
Career Ladder Levels of Responsibility
QRIS Standards (Level 2)
Workforce Qualifications and Professional Development
QRIS Comments
Center-based
FCC
ASOST
Leadership Level
Program adm. needs more education but less experience
Requires more education and experience
GCC: QRIS requires an administrator whose duties are primarily supervisory to have a BA.
Supervisory Level
Program staff
need more education and experience
Requires more education but less experience
Site coordinator
needs more education and experience
GCC: QRIS requires that 50% of staff to have BA degrees.
Independent Level
Similar education for non-BA but less experience
Similar education and experience for non-BA
N/A- positions below site coordinator not addressed in QRIS
GCC: QRIS requires all program staff to have HS and 3 credits in ECE and 50% of staff to have BA degrees.
Novice Level
GCC/FCC: QRIS requires all educators to have a HS diploma or GED.
Beginning/Entry Level
QRIS Level 4 with Leadership Level Comparison
Center-based: more education and experience
FCC: more education and experience
ASOST: more education and same experience
Education and experience in the Career Ladder generally are less than qualifications at QRIS Level 2, Level 1 is meeting licensing regulations.
GCC qualifications only distinguish between administrators and program staff.
There are no separate standards for FCC administrators.
Standards for ASOST programs only address program administrator and site coordinator.

10. Career Ladder: Beginning (Entry) Level

11. Career Ladder: Novice Level

12. Career Ladder: Independent Level

13. Career Ladder: Supervisory Level

14. Career Ladder: Leadership Level

15. Career Ladder Survey 439 individuals responded to the survey
EEC and BTWIC built an on-line survey on Survey Monkey.
Focus group participants and educators in the Professional Qualifications Registry were asked to complete the survey between 2/11/11 and 3/7/11.
A link to the survey was posted on EEC’s website with the draft Career Ladder.
Respondents were asked if they:
with the Responsibilities, Education, Experience, In-service training, & Continuing Education required for each of the ladder’s 5 levels.
They were also asked their position and program type, education, and how they would use the ladder.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
439 individuals responded to the survey
96% (301) of respondents indicated general approval of the Ladder

16. Career Ladder Survey—Comments
Respondents also were given the opportunity to comment on each level of the ladder.
16% - 20% commented on the levels
In general, respondents who selected “strongly disagree” or “disagree” did not comment
Comments provided at the Beginning and Novice levels focused on the requirement of GED or High School Diploma
Comments provided at the Supervisory and Leaderships levels focused more on the requirements for in-service and continuing education requirements

17. Career Ladder Survey—Comments
“I appreciate the effort that went into creating the Career Ladder…I love that Early Childhood Educators are including Family Child Care in this effort…”
“I like that it will finally give people a clear path to advance in the field, clear expectations. I would like to see supervisors/directors have training in mentoring and to make sure that directors have the skills to provide quality guidance…”
“The draft ladder made it very clear as to what is expected of me. It also made me feel as if climbing is a realistic possibility.”
“I think this is a well thought out plan and will benefit centers; however, I do not comprehend how a career ladder affects a family child care home with one provider.”
“Another layer to make running a program more time-consuming.”

18. Career Ladder Survey—Questions
The most commonly asked questions were:
Will compensation be used as an incentive to utilize the ladder?
Asked by 14 different respondents
Will there be assistance for pursuing higher education (grant, time off, etc.) or professional development?
Asked by 12 different respondents
How can I, a family child care provider, use the ladder?
Asked by 9 different respondents

19. How Survey Respondents Would Use the Career Ladder
Respondents were also asked how they would use the Career Ladder:
56% - To identify where I am on the ladder
51% - To plan my own professional development
50% - To plan professional development for my staff
47% - To coach/mentor other educators
15% - Would not use the Career Ladder

20. How EEC Would Use the Career Ladder
EEC is not mandating the use of this Career Ladder by early education and OST programs. Many programs already have a ladder that meets their needs. This ladder is:
A resource across EEC’s mixed delivery system that:
Articulates how increasing responsibility aligns with greater knowledge and skills (competency) and professional advancement;
Establishes a common starting point for work on more refined pathways like a career lattice;
Provides a frame to address compensation and other broad issues that affect our entire workforce.
A reference that programs and educators can use to:
Develop a career ladder that is specific to their program;
Assess and improve a ladder that already exists;
Map intentional professional growth for educators;
Plan professional development for different levels of responsibility;
Aid supervisors and directors as they guide and mentor staff.

21. Professional Qualifications Registry
Update

22. 77%

23. Professional Development: Workforce
Source: PQ Registry Data as of 4/14/2011.

24. Source: PQ Registry Data as of 3/31/2011.

25. Source: PQ Registry Data as of 5/3/2011.

26. Source: PQ Registry Data as of 5/3/2011.

27. Source: PQ Registry Data as of 5/3/2011.
Source: PQ Registry Data as of 5/3/2011.

28. PQ Registry: Increasing Participation and Next Steps
EEC’s regulations* require all educators to register annually.
Increasing participation:
Continuing to make the Registry easier to use;
Providing more technical assistance through licensing and EPS Partnerships;
Requiring that educators be registered to participate in professional development;
Requiring that providers participating in initiatives like QRIS and UPK have their staff registered;
Citing programs that haven’t complied with this requirement.
Next Steps:
Reminder s to educators and providers and including reminders in routine paper correspondence;
Developing a renewal process for educators already in the Registry;
Making it easier for licensors and EPS grantees to verify registration;
Simplifying the way salary data is reported;
Generating regular reports about the early education and OST workforce.
*606 CMR 7.09(4)

29. Career Ladder Survey Results
Data Appendix

30. Career Ladder Survey Results
Survey Respondents Location
N = 167

31. Career Ladder Survey Results
N = 319
*Other positions specified included: educational coordinator, Education/Disabilities Manager, Director/Lead Teacher, 0-5 Supervisory, Assistant Director, Project Facilitator, Health Manager/Enrollment Specialist, etc.

32. Career Ladder Survey Comments

33. Career Ladder Survey Results
N = 319
*Other program types specified included: Coordinated Community and Family Engagement Grantee, Head Start, Early Head Start, multi-type agency, etc.

34. Career Ladder: Beginning (Entry) Level
*74 respondents added comments on this level.

35. Career Ladder: Novice Level
*79 respondents added comments on this level

36. Career Ladder: Independent Level
Independent Level “Strongly Disagree / Disagree Comments
17 (5%) “Strongly Disagree” with “Responsibilities are Realistic”, 7 of these respondents provided a comment
49 (67%) respondents who commented selected “Strongly Disagree / Disagree for at least one category
14 “Strongly Disagree” with all aspects of this level, 4 respondents provided a comment
At this level comments indicated a concern for the increased qualifications (an associate’s degree), money and incentives, accessibility of training in required core competency areas, and that this ladder is only written with center-based programs in mind, not family child care providers
N = 353
*73 respondents added comments on this level

37. Survey Results: Supervisory Level
Supervisory Level “Strongly Disagree / Disagree Comments
12 (3%) “Strongly Disagree” with “Responsibilities are Realistic”, 1 commented (re: inappropriate for FCC)
58 (75%) respondents who commented selected “Strongly Disagree / Disagree for at least one category
11 “Strongly Disagree” with all aspects of this level, 1 commented (same as above)
At this level comments indicated a concern for increased qualifications (associates or bachelor’s degree required), and appropriateness for FCC providers and OST staff. Others responded that a degree should not be required if there has been longevity in the field
N = 348
*77 respondents added comments on this level

38. Survey Results : Leadership Level
Leadership Level “Strongly Disagree / Disagree Comments
10 (3%) “Strongly Disagree” with “Responsibilities are Realistic”, 2 commented (re: inappropriate for FCC and Public School)
37 (68%) respondents who commented selected “Strongly Disagree / Disagree for at least one category
10 “Strongly Disagree” with all aspects of this level, 2 commented (same as above)
At this level comments indicated a concern for increased qualifications (bachelor’s or master’s degree required), and appropriateness for FCC providers and OST staff. Others responded that a degree should not be required if there has been longevity in the field, lack of consideration for individuals with unrelated degrees, comments at this level indicated a general stress in meeting these standards
N = 343
*54 respondents added comments on this level

39. How Survey Respondents Would Use Ladder