There’s no one to take care of us”: Reorienting Systems for Early Childhood Educators’ Well-Being

• In Event: There’s No One to Take Care of Us: The Importance of Teacher Emotional Well-being

Abstract

Introduction
This paper discusses findings from a survey of how early childhood educators across New York were faring early in the COVID-19 pandemic and was a project of the New York City Early Childhood Research Network, a collective made up of researchers, policymakers, and funders. The survey was available in Spanish and English and consisted of 29 choice, scaled, and open-ended items regarding: programs’ status (e.g., closed); stressors (e.g., job loss, social isolation); emotional well-being; supports (e.g., receiving/wanting); and their experiences.

While based upon a COVID-19 related study, we advance a two-fold argument. First, the results amplify long-standing issues in the field, calling attention to the need for systemic approaches to supporting early educators’ well-being – both for themselves and the children they care for and teach (e.g., Jennings, 2019). The second aspect of our argument is that researchers’ role in these efforts is to both analyze systems’ operations and engage in ongoing dialogue with educators and decision-makers about intended and unintended implementation outcomes.

Hypothesis

We took an exploratory, mixed methods approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018), and so our primary purpose was describing and understanding, rather than hypothesis testing. That said, we began with the preliminary hypothesis that geography, program type, job role, program status, and personal/familial stressors would be associated with emotional well-being.

Study Population

The survey was distributed to 25,192 members of New York State’s early childhood professional registry (i.e., program leaders, teachers, etc.), with a response rate of 13% (n=3,355).

Methods

The data were approached through a recursive process of descriptive summary; chi square, loglinear, and logistic ordinal regression analyses. These were used to (1) test the initial hypothesis and (2) shape a multi-step, deductive-inductive textual analysis which, in turn, raised questions for further statistical and textual examination. While our decision to use a convenience sample constrains this study’s broader use, the intent was to obtain a rich snapshot with which to engage our policy partners in qualified discussion about policy-into-practice issues. We argue that this limitation does not undermine our position, particularly when triangulated with what similar studies are finding (e.g., Berrgey, Quick, Anthony, Crolotte & Lozano, 2020).

Results

In support of this paper’s dual argument, we will discuss three particular findings: (1) that mental health was participants’ most frequently requested support (n=910); (2) that professional mental health services were their least reported approach to coping (n=216); and (3) how the loss of social support and balancing work-life demands (e.g., teaching online, parenting, etc.) affected participants’ well-being), with those working remotely (n=1840) approximately one-and-a-half times more likely to rate their emotional well-being as affected a lot/greatly (CI 95% 1.157, 1.896). Given the pandemic’s scope and scale, these are not surprising findings; however, they gain meaning when contextualized within the United States’ disjointed, politicized public health response (Pueyo, 2020); its fragmented, individual-focused approach to mental health care (Lakeman, 2016); and its similarly loosely-coupled early care and education systems (Allen & Kelly, 2015) – and how these systems could be reoriented towards better supporting the field.

Authors

• Mark Nagasawa, Bank Street College of Education
  Presenting Author

• Kate Tarrant, City University of New York
  Non-Presenting Author