This article was downloaded by: [The UC Irvine Libraries]On: 07 November 2014, At: 13:46Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

Articulation and studentintentionality in professionaldevelopment: A proactive model forteacher educatorsPeggy Apple aa Indiana University , Bloomington, IN, USA Phone: +1 317 3408205 Fax: +1 317 340 8205 E-mail:Published online: 25 Apr 2008.

To cite this article: Peggy Apple (2004) Articulation and student intentionality in professionaldevelopment: A proactive model for teacher educators, Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducation, 24:4, 257-267, DOI: 10.1080/1090102040240406

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1090102040240406

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ELSEVIER Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 257-267

Journal°f EarlyChildhood

TeacherEducation

Articulation and student intentionality in professionaldevelopment: a proactive model for teacher educators

Peggy Apple*Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

Accepted 25 September 2003

Abstract

The Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) professional development movement, community collegestudents' emerging intentionality, and the role of two- and four-year higher education faculty intersect in a proactivemodel proposed by the author that advocates ECEC community college programs separate from the vocationaltradition and establishes ECEC transfer degrees to four-year programs. Degree structures must be built with flex-ibility, and encompass checkpoints and highly articulated options as student intentionality unfolds. The proactivemodel is constructed from Morgan's (1994) 21 st century model of professionalism and her conception of students'emerging intentionality, combined with Brint and Karabel's (1989) models that attempt to explain why communitycolleges moved from conferring primarily transfer degrees to conferring primarily vocational degrees.© 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

As an early childhood education and care (ECEC) pro-fessional for over 20 years, I have watched the ECECprofessional development movement significantly in-fluence the field of ECEC for over a decade. Duringmy 12 years as a community college faculty member Iworked extensively with community college studentsas an instructor and academic counselor. I also servedon committees to develop state and local articulationagreements between two- and four-year institutions inresponse to state mandates and the impetus of a stateprofessional development system. The link betweenteacher training and quality child care, brain devel-opment research, seamless professional developmentsystems, licensing requirements for teachers and pro-grams, compensation issues, and staffing shortages areonly a few of the dialogical topics characterized by thismovement (Morgan, 2000b). Theoretical and method-ological dialogues about strategy and impact of themovement occur in universities, community colleges,businesses, government, and local agencies.

In this paper, I explore the relationship between theECEC professional development movement and the

* Tel.: +1 317 340 8205; fax: +1 317 251 9286.E-mail address: papple@indiana.edu.

community college. This exploration is influenced bythe recommendation from the Eager to Learn report(Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001) that all ECECteachers should have a minimum of a bachelor's de-gree. Currently, however, the majority of students inECEC community college degree programs choosevocational programs, rather than transfer programs toa four-year institution, leaving them with no easy wayto advance to the next level of a professional devel-opment ladder. We know that the education level ofECEC teachers positively correlates with the quality ofECEC programs; specifically teachers with four-yeardegrees have higher quality classroom environmentsand interactions with children than do teachers withtwo-year degrees or less (Bowman et al., 2001). Mycontention is that new structures and proactive facultyinvolvement in higher education ECEC degree pro-grams can provide incentives and reduce barriers to en-courage bachelor's degree completion, which will ulti-mately improve the quality of care for young children.Within the topic of ECEC professional developmentmovement, I will explore the need for professionaldevelopment, the foundations of the professional de-velopment movement, and the role of the communitycollege. Following this discussion, I suggest a proac-

1090-1027/$ - see front matter © 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jecte.2003.09.011

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:46

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

258 P. Apple /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 257-267

tive model for higher education (two- and four-year)ECEC programs.

and improved transfer and articulation between two-and four-year institutions (Johnson & McCracken,1994; Welsh & Kjorlien, 2001).

1. The need for professional development

A review of ECEC research and recommenda-tions for the field was compiled by a committee of17 national experts in the National Research Coun-cil's (NRC) book Eager to Learn: Educating OurPreschoolers (Bowman et al., 2001). The committeecites research indicating a strong connection betweenprofessional development and the quality of ECECprograms. They conclude that "The strongest relation-ship is found between the number of years of educa-tion and training and the appropriateness of a teacher'sclassroom behavior" (p. 309). The first of 19 recom-mendations that the NRC makes for improving thequality of ECEC relates to professional development:

Recommendation 1: Each group of children in anearly childhood education and care program shouldbe assigned a teacher who has a bachelor's degreewith specialized education related to early childhood(e.g., developmental psychology, early childhood ed-ucation, early childhood special education). Achiev-ing this goal will require a significant public invest-ment in the professional development of current andnew teachers, (p. 311)

According to the 1995 Cost, Quality and ChildOutcome Study "only 14% of centers in the UnitedStates are good to excellent quality" (Morgan, 2000a,p. 40). Given that only approximately one-third ofchild care teachers have a bachelor's degree or higher(Whitebook, 1997), and given that community col-leges play a primary role in the education of those whowork with young children before they enter early child-hood public school settings, do community collegeshave a professional responsibility to encourage ECECmajors to transfer to four-year institutions? Accordingto results from the National Survey of Early Child-hood Teacher Preparation Programs in Institutions ofHigher Education (National Center for Early Develop-ment and Learning, 2000), there are "more early child-hood programs offering] associate degrees (57%)than there are bachelor's degree programs (40%)." TheECEC profession, based on the foresight of Whee-lock College and the National Association for the Ed-ucation of Young Children (NAEYC), has been work-ing to develop state professional development systemsto identify solutions and break down transfer barri-ers (Johnson & McCracken, 1994). "By 1998, forty-eight states and the District of Columbia had an activeearly-childhood career-development planning and im-plementation initiative underway" (Lombardi, 2003).In addition, state legislative mandates have influenced

2. The professional development movement

Morgan (2000b) distinguishes the 19th centurydefinition1 of a profession from an evolving 21st cen-tury definition. In the 19th century, a profession wasdefined as having "attributes identified as traits or func-tions that can be reduced to three: (1) A specializedknowledge base; (2) a service mission; (3) autonomyand control of work" (p. 137). Upon first consideration,the 19th century attributes appear to still be an appro-priate way to define a profession. Doctors, lawyers,social workers, and teachers come to mind as profes-sionals who fit this definition. With further scrutinyof the 19th century model, a specialized knowledgebase can also mean clients are not involved in de-cisions affecting the service they are receiving froma professional. In this model, knowledge flows onlyfrom the professional to the client. Morgan (2000b)is especially critical of the 19th century model be-cause it does not acknowledge caring as part of thespecialized knowledge base, but rather focuses on therationale/scientific knowledge that characterized theearly-mid 20th century. In addition to the attribute ofspecialized knowledge, the traditional definition of aprofessional was someone who served the communityfor low wages. This vow of poverty changed and is nota measure of professional success in the 21st century.Finally, in this model autonomy and control of workhas been replaced by accountability to the public andprofessional organizations. Clients demand consumerprotection. Morgan (2000b) concludes that this "tax-onomic approach" (p. 137) is self-serving, overem-phasizes the rationale/scientific, and is authoritarianwithout a focus on the family.

Morgan (2000b) calls on the ECEC profession to beactively engaged in developing a new 21 st century def-inition. How do we move beyond an outdated perspec-tive to a new 21st century perspective for the ECECprofession? Morgan (2000b) suggests seven charac-teristics for a 21st century definition of the ECEC pro-fession:

(1) College credit continues to be important to pro-fessional success.

(2) Service continues to be evident in the ECECprofession.

(3) Professionals are focused on integrated ser-vices to meet the needs expressed by families

1 In this paper, definitions of professions are examinedfrom a western perspective and do imply universal applica-bility.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:46

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

P. Apple /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 257-267 259

and children; rather than disjointed servicesprovided only by specialists.

(4) Professional development is viewed as a pro-gressive process, rather than a single eliteachievement.

(5) Specialized knowledge of the profession isviewed as fluid and ever changing with influ-ence from knowledge sharing with clients.

(6) Caring for the families and children isparamount; as opposed to maintaining distancebetween programs and families.

(7) With most ECEC services being providedwithin programs (rather than by independentcontractors), autonomy of the professional isconstrained.

With a 21 st century definition for the ECEC professionin place, the professional development movement situ-ates itself at the heart of the transition from definition toreality. This modern view of professionalism (Morgan,2000b), coupled with recommendations from Eager toLearn (Bowman et al., 2001) provides a vision for fu-ture professional requirements.

In 1993, NAEYC published a position statement,A Conceptual Framework for Early Childhood Pro-fessional Development (Wilier, 1994), which encom-passed years of professional dialogue regarding praxis.The framework proposes several principle compo-nents for an ECEC professional development system,including (1) "a statement of need that describes thecurrent diversity of early childhood service providersand preparation opportunities and outlines the assump-tions upon which the framework is built;" (2) utiliza-tion "of the analogy of a 'lattice' to describe the pro-fessional knowledge, performances, and dispositionsconnected with the early childhood profession's di-verse roles, levels, and settings;" (3) "key elementsregarding the provision of professional developmentopportunities;" and (4) "guidelines for compensationthat link increases in professional development and im-proved performance to increased compensation" (pp.5-6). The position statement's overriding philosophyis that all young children and families utilizing earlycare and education services outside the home deservehigh quality ECEC programs, a philosophy based onassumptions that professional development systemsprovide a framework to assist in overcoming barriersto quality (Wilier, 1994).

3. Career lattices and ladders

The concept of a career lattice, which was new tothe profession in the early 1990s, incorporates hor-izontal, vertical, and diagonal strands of movementto illustrate the different trajectories one may take in

one's professional journey in the ECEC profession.ECEC differs from many other professions becauseof the multiple entry points into the profession and themultitude of qualifications of its practitioners (Johnson& McCracken, 1994). For instance, a person may havea degree in business and enter the profession as a di-rector of a child care center. Another person may havea degree in social work and become an early child-hood trainer in a nutrition program. Another personmay have a teaching degree in ECEC and work as anexecutive director of an advocacy organization.

These hypothetical strands include a person'smovement as that individual earns credentials, cer-tificates, and/or degrees; increases job responsibilityand compensation; and changes roles and settings(Johnson & McCracken, 1994). For instance, a per-son may move upward along a strand as he/she com-pletes additional education; she/he may move later-ally by accepting a new responsibility with increasedcompensation and responsibility; and/or she/he maymove diagonally by accepting an advocacy position inan agency. For example, Sarah receives an associatedegree five years after receiving a credential. The fol-lowing year, she moves from a position as an assis-tant teacher to a lead teacher. Five years later, stillwith the same educational level, she accepts an advo-cacy position with a local agency. The NAEYC po-sition statement (Wilier, 1994) emphasizes that "thelattice distinguishes the early childhood field from theearly childhood profession. The field includes anyoneengaged in the provision of ECEC services; the pro-fession denotes those who have acquired some pro-fessional knowledge and are on a professional path"(p. 11).

In this discussion I will refer to a career ladder asa component of a career lattice. A career ladder is notas broadly interpreted and refers only to advancementas a person receives additional formal training and ed-ucation. ECEC career ladders vary from state to state,but typically include a beginning level for those withlittle or no training, a level for those with certificatesor credentials, a level for those with two-year degrees,and so on.

The community college, which offers more ECECcertificate and associate degree programs than anyother type of higher education institution, providesopportunities for those working with young childrento progress along the first rungs of the career lad-der (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES],1995). Most teachers of young children under fiveyears of age have little or no knowledge of ECEC,have low basic skills, and are low-income women whowork full time (Whitebook, 1997; Whitebook, Sakai,Gerber, & Howes, 2001). In addition, many states al-low teachers to be responsible for a group of youngchildren with only a high school diploma or G.E.D.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:46

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

260 P. Apple /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 257-267

Often these teachers were not on a college-prep trackin high school; for them community college serves asa natural bridge to higher education.

Community colleges, rather than four-year institu-tions, are often the place where those who are workingwith young children take courses because tuition is lessexpensive; classes are smaller with more personal at-tention from the instructor; courses are held at timesconvenient for those working full-time during the day;and community colleges have open admission with astrong support mission to help students develop col-lege level reading, writing and math skills (Cohen &Brawer, 1994). With these attributes, community col-leges are an attractive entry point to higher educationfor those teaching in ECEC programs.

4. The role of the community college

Andrew Carnegie in 1889, as quoted by Brint andKarabel (1989), called for "ladders upon which theaspiring can rise" (p. 4). The two-year college wascreated to help people reach their aspirations and tohelp business have a trained workforce.2 At the be-ginning of the 20th century, the first two-year col-leges awarded only transfer degrees to four-year in-stitutions (Brint & Karabel, 1989). In the 1920s and1930s college-prep and vocational tracks developedin high schools to meet needs of an academically di-verse community college student body. In 1940 theleadership of the American Association of Commu-nity Colleges (American Association of CommunityColleges, 2001) decided that "between two-thirds andthree-fourths of junior college students should be en-rolled in terminal vocational education programs" (p.12) based on the premise that not all students could bepart of the elite members of society who were destinedfor four-year institutions and that technically trainedworkers were needed to support the economy.

In The Diverted Dream Brint and Karabel (1989)present three models which attempt to explain whycommunity colleges moved from institutions confer-ring primarily transfer degrees to institutions con-ferring primarily vocational degrees: the consumer-choice model, the business-domination model, andthe institutional model. The consumer-choice modelassumes that student consumers determine what pro-grams will be offered at the community college, basedupon an assumption that an increase in terminal voca-tional programs occurs because of public interest anddemand. The second model, the business-domination

2 For information on the number of community collegesin the U.S. from 1900 to 1998 and historical facts visit theAmerican Association of Community Colleges web page athttp://www.aacc.nche.edu.

model, identifies businesses as having the greatestinfluence on community college programming. Thismodel assumes that the increasing number of terminalvocational degrees is due to the need of business andindustry for an increasing number of trained employ-ees.

Brint and Karabel (1989) contend a third model,the institutional model, most accurately explains theincrease in terminal vocational degrees. The institu-tional model argues that "community colleges chose tovocationalize themselves, but they did so under condi-tions of powerful structural constraints" (p. 16). A de-creased emphasis on transfer degrees meant less directcompetition with four-year institutions. An increasein vocational programs met the immediate interests ofbusiness and industry. An added incentive was that leg-islators often provided funds to community colleges ifthey would increase and support terminal vocationaldegrees.

It was not until the 1970s, when the demand forcollege graduates fell, that vocational programs be-came more popular (Brint & Karabel, 1989). With asurge in enrollment and expansion of community col-leges in the last half of the 20th century there are cur-rently 1171 community colleges in the United States(American Association of Community Colleges,2003). Catlett and Winton (1999) report the followingstatistics:

• approximately half of all undergraduates attendcommunity colleges;

• 90% of the United States' population is locatednear a community college;

• community college tuition is half that of mostfour-year institutions;

• first generation college students make up overhalf of the community college enrollment; and

• 32% of European-American/Caucasian collegestudents are enrolled in community colleges ascompared to over 50% of all other college stu-dents.

These facts are compatible with Brint and Karabel's(1989) institutional model, which taken together offeran explanation for the growth and maintenance of ter-minal vocational degree programs in community col-leges.

5. A personal perspective: community collegeEarly Childhood Education and Careprograms and professional development

In 1992, as a community college faculty memberand director of a laboratory child development cen-ter, I sat in a local meeting with fellow faculty mem-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:46

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

P. Apple /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 257-267 261

bers, directors of child care programs, family childcare providers, and staff of child advocacy organiza-tions to listen to a representative from Wheelock Col-lege. The purpose of the meeting was to learn abouta new vision for a coordinated professional develop-ment system. Central to the discussion was the con-cept of the career lattice and how higher education,if faculty answered the call, would be instrumental inadvancing ECEC as a profession. Everyone was at-tentive and united in our outcry for higher compensa-tion, increased licensing standards for teacher quali-fications, increased public recognition and apprecia-tion for quality, and how all these issues combined,significantly contributed to quality child care in ourcity.

In spite of our common goal, the cohesiveness ofthe group suddenly became two opposing factions,practitioners versus college faculty, as the speakerintroduced the concept of the career lattice and theseamless career ladder. The speaker methodically ex-plained the vision of having non-credit training countfor credit at the community college and communitycollege credit count toward a bachelor degree at a four-year institution. A practitioner, listening attentively,raised her hand and asked, "If I brought my shoe boxfull of workshop certificates to the community col-lege, would they give me college credit?" It was clearit would be a long process, with no simple answers orquick-fixes.

Faculty discussions were serious, troublesome, andaggravating. Suddenly the weight of injustice was onour shoulders. Many of us, once practitioners our-selves and highly dedicated to the profession and rec-ognizing the contribution of community colleges, felttorn between how we could play our part to advancethe issues of practitioners. How could we help thesepractitioners who did not have college credit climbthis new career ladder and simultaneously ensure thatwe would continue to produce competent graduates?How could we assess competency acquired from one-or two-hour workshops taken at local conferences anddelivered by such diverse trainers? In turn, how wouldwe convince four-year institutions to accept creditsfrom a terminal community college vocational pro-gram? Unspoken among us was also the fear of los-ing credit hours, our department's life blood for statefunding. If we "gave away" credit without requiring allstudents to register for classes, would our enrollmentdrop?

From the moment of this first challenge, I havecontemplated the competing, often conflicting, needsof ECEC practitioners and the ECEC profession. Thecontributions of community college programs are nu-merous and have served as appropriate mechanismsto educate practitioners over the years. How can thecommunity college "play its part" in developing the

individual as an ECEC professional and at the sametime professionalize the field of Early Childhood Ed-ucation and Care? Community college ECEC fac-ulty members are precariously perched on a branchof higher education casting a net of open access forall students; nurturing the intellectual and emotionaldevelopment of individuals on the branch, hoping togive flight to students to obtain successful employ-ment and/or to transfer to four-year institutions; andbeing enveloped in the new 21st century vision of a"profession."

Since the initial conversations over a decade ago,progress has been made in realizing the vision of aseamless career ladder. While workshop hours are notindiscriminately accepted for credit, more two- andfour-year institutions are awarding credit for the entrylevel Child Development Associate Credential (CDA),assessments of prior learning are being developed, andtransferability of community college ECEC coursesto four-year institutions has increased. Two- and four-year early childhood faculty have come together todevelop articulation agreements—some voluntarily,some involuntarily because of legislative mandates.Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) programs havebeen the most responsive to developing agreements.Bachelors in Applied Science (BAAS) Degrees haveemerged as a new way to combine an associate ofapplied science degree with two years of general ed-ucation coursework in order to earn a four-year de-gree. FCS and BAAS options, however, do not includeteacher licensure components (Costley, 2000).

Based on my experiences negotiating the develop-ment of articulation agreements with four-year insti-tutions and analysis of degree programs offered at IvyTech State College in Indianapolis, Indiana and SanAntonio College in San Antonio, Texas (CommunityCollege of Indiana, 2002; San Antonio College, 2002),I have identified five options (assuming all are avail-able at the student's institution and articulation agree-ments have been developed) for ECEC communitycollege students interested in transferring to a teachereducation program in a four-year institution. It is as-sumed that informal training hours, such as CDA non-credit training, may be awarded by the communitycollege prior to enrollment; therefore they are not dis-cussed in this paper.

Option 1: Complete a teacher education associateof arts degree at a community college (approx-imately 60 total credit hours including two tofour general teacher education courses; no ECECcourses and the rest general education courses).Option 2: Complete an ECEC associate of artsdegree at a community college (approximately 60credit hours including two to four ECEC coursesand the rest general education courses).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:46

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

262 P. Apple /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 257-267

Both the above options typically conform to articula-tion agreements between two- and four-year institu-tions. This is largely true because community collegegeneral education courses are typically acknowledgedto be compatible to lower division four-year institu-tion general education courses. Also, many four-yearprograms allow teacher education/ECEC courses to betransferred in as electives, while still requiring all up-per division teacher education courses to be taken atthe four-year institution. These options are chosen bystudents who have strong "intentionality" (Morgan,2000b); in other words, they are reasonably certainthey want to be teachers; and upon entering the com-munity college, they have the skills necessary to besuccessful in college, and they have a strong beliefthat they will be successful in college.

Option 3: Complete an ECEC technical certificateprogram at a community college (approximately30 credit hours typically with one to two generaleducation courses and the rest ECEC courses).Option 4: Take a few ECEC courses at a commu-nity college to confirm an interest in the field, toreceive a CDA, or meet licensing requirements.

Options 3 and 4 both require a student attendinga community college to develop their intentionalityearly in their college career, usually after the equivalentof one to two semesters of full-time enrollment.

Option 5: Complete an associate of applied sci-ence degree in ECEC (approximately 60 to 68credit hours with four to six general educationcourses and the rest ECEC courses).

Most four-year institutions will accept four to six gen-eral education courses, with only a few lower divisionECEC classes transferring as electives. The student,therefore, enters the four-year program with approxi-mately one to one-and-a-half semesters of coursework.For most students completing the associate of appliedscience degree, the intentionality to pursue a bache-lor's degree in early childhood with teacher licensuredevelops either during the last semester of courseworkat the community college or only after the degree isconferred. The majority of such students have takenbasic skills courses to build necessary college skillsin reading, writing, and math; have developed a beliefin their ability to be successful in college; and haveprogressed by first completing coursework for a cre-dential, then a certificate, then have made the decisionto pursue an associate in applied science degree.

Many of the students I have counseled over theyears were part-time students with full-time, low-paying jobs, and family commitments. Students inthis category typically take one to two classes persemester depending on their financial resources and

life commitments. At this rate 30-hour certificates of-ten take three to four years to complete, and associateof applied science degrees might take 5 to 10 yearsto complete. This time span often includes time-outfor family commitments or to secure the financial re-sources needed to continue. Faced with virtually "start-ing over" to pursue a bachelor's degree with teachinglicensure (i.e., only being credited with one to one-and-a half semester's worth of credit), many studentseither choose not to continue their education or choosea FCS or BAAS program.

The ECEC profession needs to critically examinethese options in regard to mobility on the career ladder.Modifications to existing options and/or the develop-ment of entirely new options are clearly indicated. Thelack of ECEC community college students transferringto four-year institutions and the call for practitionersto earn a minimum of a bachelor's degree has fueledthe need to review the existing paradigm.

6. A proactive model

In order to advance the dialogue regarding the re-alization of a 21st century definition for what it meansto be an ECEC professional, leaders must dialogue re-garding access to ECEC bachelor degree programs.New conversations are needed regarding institutionaland degree structures, as well as about dismantling thebarriers found in and reinforced by current ECEC com-munity college programs. Community college institu-tional structures which produce ECEC degreed prac-titioners must break away from the historic vocationaltradition and firmly establish these programs alongsideeducationally oriented professions, such as K-12 andpost-secondary educators. To deny that young chil-dren in programs other than public schools requirebachelor-degreed teachers, is to deny the vast knowl-edge we now have regarding brain development of in-fants, toddlers, preschoolers and the impact quality ex-periences and programs have on their future lives. Thisis coupled with the growing need for ECEC teacherswith bachelor's degrees (Bellm, Burton, Whitebook,Broatch, & Young, 2002).

In theorizing about new degree structures in two-and four-year institutions that support articulation, it isrelevant to utilize a tripartite approach to construct thedialogue. The tripartite approach includes the highereducation (two- and four-year institutions), the ECECprofession, and the ECEC student. Intersections be-tween these three are critical to the improvement ofchild care quality in our nation.

Returning to Brint and Karabel's (1989) mod-els (consumer-choice model, the business-dominationmodel, and the institutional model), which attempt toexplain why community colleges moved from offer-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:46

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

P. Apple /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 257-267 263

ing primarily transfer degree programs to offering amajority of vocational degree programs, a tripartiteapproach for ECEC can be applied to these models toassist in clarifying why ECEC is still primarily viewedas a technical field. These models are also beneficialas a dialogical framing tool for explorations of degreestructures for ECEC degree programs.

There is evidence of student influence in ECEC,supporting the consumer-choice model, which is basedon the premise that student interest and demand drivewhether a program is transfer or vocational. With theadvent of Head Start in the 1960s and an increase inthe number of young children being cared for out-side the home in the 1970s and 1980s, communitycolleges responded by developing ECEC programs totrain the growing ECEC workforce. Low status andlow pay of ECEC educators often affects the self-esteem of those working with young children. Carusoand Fawcett (1999) note that "Low pay, which reflectsa lack of recognition of the difficulty of providing aquality program for children and the staff training re-quired, further erodes caregivers' self-image and theirdesire to stay in the field" (p. 176). These attitudestoward the profession limit a person's motivation toattain a four-year degree and increase the attractive-ness of short-term vocational programs.

McGrath and Spear (1991) comment that "mostcommunity colleges are enrollment driven: they havebeen extremely sensitive to patterns of student choice"(p. 22) and have a high enrollment of non-traditionalstudents. These non-traditional students, includingECEC teachers, often lack in basic skills to be suc-cessful in college, lack financial resources needed toattend four-year institutions, and are constrained byfamily duties. Vocational programs, therefore, with afocus on practical skills and very few general educa-tion courses, are appealing to women in the ECECworkforce.

For instance, Carol came to my office to register foran ECEC class because she was enjoying her job car-ing for toddlers at a child care center. Some of her col-leagues were taking classes in our program and spokefondly of their experiences. I reviewed the credential,certificate and degree programs offered by the depart-ment for Carol. As we examined the options together,she announced that she was interested in anything thatdidn't have math or any "hard" subjects. Of course,my first reaction was to defend the integrity and rigorof our ECEC coursework, but my educated profes-sional side prevailed, and I responded with empathy,knowing that Carol's past negative experiences andfailures in math and other general education courseswere very real. And so, for Carol, and the hundreds ofother women with similar attitudes and fears whom Ihave counseled over the years, the vocational programis a much more comfortable option than one that would

prepare them to transfer to a four-year university. Forthese women, their agency is defined by self-esteem,expectations of others, and past educational experi-ences.

Next consider the business-domination model(Brint & Karabel, 1989) and how it reflects the ECECprofession and the influence of industry needs for anincreased number of trained workers. Over the years,community college ECEC programs have grown di-rectly in relation to the increased number of child carebusinesses, which in turn have grown in response to so-ciety's need for child care outside the home. Moreover,legislative mandates on the child care industry, in-cluding increased government regulation and require-ments for Head Start to have better trained practition-ers, trickled down to elicit the development of morecommunity college ECEC programs. But the responsefrom community colleges was to expand vocationalprograms, rather than addressing the vision of the pro-fessional development movement for seamless careerpathways in Early Childhood Education and Care.

Take for instance, one of the numerous studentswho enroll in community college ECEC courses, be-cause it is required of them to keep their job; Yolandais a representative of this group. In our conversationto explore the values of her attainment of a credential,certificate, or a degree program, she responded impa-tiently that she wished to enroll in the credential pro-gram because it is all that her employer required for herto maintain her position. It is the demand of studentssuch as Yolanda and her employer that, in part, com-munity colleges have responded to by keeping theiremphasis on the provision of vocational programs.

Finally, consider the institutional model which pre-sumes that community colleges choose to create andmaintain vocational programs in order to lessen com-petition with four-year institutions (Brint & Karabel,1989). These vocational ECEC programs have tradi-tionally snuggled comfortably in a market niche inwhich they prepared practitioners to work in child careprograms, rather than preparing students for transfer tofour-year teacher education programs. Advantages ofthis placement have guaranteed a continual enrollmentof students to vocational programs and a continual flowof funding into the community college. Credential,certificate, and associate of applied science degreesgranted in ECEC community college programs areprimarily composed of practice-based, skill-orientedECEC courses. As stated before, programs in com-munity college that are designed for easy transfer intofour-year programs consist largely of general educa-tion programs.

Also related to the institutional model, thoughmostly unspoken, is the benefit to community collegefaculty of maintaining ECEC vocational programs inorder to ensure ongoing employment. Funding of fac-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:46

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

264 P. Apple/Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 257-267

ulty positions is directly linked to enrollment. The as-sumption is that fewer numbers of students would en-roll in degree programs offered by ECEC departmentsthat offer primarily non-transfer degree options. Theinstitutional model raises consideration of issues sur-rounding benefits to community college faculty andtheir self-interest in the continuation of vocationalECEC programs.

ECEC faculty at four-year institutions must alsorecognize the benefit of establishing and improving ef-fective transfer pathways for community college stu-dents. With well-established programs and adequateenrollment, the motivation to make changes must begenerated from commitment to the profession andquality programs for young children. In addition toinadequate transfer programs, traditional four-year in-stitution approaches to course scheduling often do notmeet the needs of non-traditional students who wouldlike to transfer from community colleges.

While the three Brint and Karabel (1989) mod-els can be applied to the ECEC situation in commu-nity colleges, I suggest a fourth model, a proactivemodel, in which community college early childhoodprograms are intimately involved in the tripartite ap-proach suggested earlier (i.e., a model that considersthe needs and interests of higher education institutions,the early childhood profession, and the individual stu-dent). Ignoring any one of these three componentslessens progress toward improved quality in early careand education. This proactive model, rather than be-ing strictly responsive, recognizes the complex inter-sections between higher education (two- and four-yearinstitutions), the profession, and individuals. One doesnot act without the other two and one does not succeedwithout the other two. Higher education ECEC facultymust influence trends based on their knowledge of in-dividuals working in child care and the politics of two-and four-year institutions.

7. Teacher education degree structure andintentionality

In a proactive model, community college ECEC de-gree structures must be examined, deconstructed andrebuilt if they are not providing effective options thatwould facilitate students' advancement up the careerladder, by allowing courses to transfer to teacher edu-cation programs in four-year institutions. A simplisticsolution would be merely to call for all ECEC stu-dents to enroll in transfer programs, such as is requiredin pre-law or social work. This solution recognizesECEC as a profession, rather than a technical field,but negates the current reality of the child care indus-try, the lack of four-year degree programs (Early &Winton, 2001), and the evolving intentionality of the

traditional community college ECEC student. Accessto four-year institutions would be guaranteed, but atthe price of continued imposition of institutional andclass bias on individuals who flourish in the commu-nity college environment.

Degree structures, within the context of a proactivemodel, must be built with flexibility, encompassingcheck points and highly articulated options as studentintentionality unfolds. Intentionality to obtain an ed-ucational goal is a complex attitude that emerges ina student as self-esteem is enhanced, skills are im-proved, and a realization develops that ECEC is a vi-able profession. Community college faculty must bediligent in communicating the concrete possibilitiesof transfer to four-year teacher education programs.Transfer degrees, as described earlier in Options 1 and2, are good choices for students who enter the com-munity college with clearly established intentions totransfer to a four-year teacher education program. Theother currently available options (Options 3, 4, and5) include barriers to transferability and penalize thecommunity college student for lacking foresight andthe intentionality to obtain a four-year degree at thepoint of entering the community college.

A flexible degree structure with check points andoptions would allow students to make decisions thatwould minimize transfer penalties as their learninggoals unfold. The goal would be to encourage studentsto move to a progressively more engaging programover time. Students would be required to take generaleducation courses throughout their course of study, inorder to increase self-confidence in their ability to suc-ceed in classes that focus on content other than ECECand to develop a belief in their ability to transfer to afour-year institution. A flexible degree structure thatfollows the tripartite approach recognizes the evolv-ing intentionality of the student, the need of the pro-fession for practitioners with bachelor's degrees, andthe contribution of the community college structure indeveloping skills necessary for success in college.

Career counseling throughout the students' com-munity college experience is imperative to the successof this new, flexible degree structure. Limitations ofcredential, certificate, and associate of applied sciencedegrees must be a topic of discussion at each estab-lished check point. To illustrate this, consider Caroland Yolanda who were definite in their intent to notpurse a transfer degree, at least initially; under cur-rent degree structures they may complete their pro-grams, without dialogue regarding the intentionalitythat may evolve over time. In most cases, commu-nity college faculty ask, "What do you want?" onlywhen a student comes for their first advising sessionbefore choosing a program; conversations regardingprogram options rarely take place after this point. Ina flexible degree structure, annual or semester check

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:46

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

P. Apple /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 257-267 265

points would be established to review program optionsand discuss the availability of transfer programs. Com-pletion points, in addition to a 30-hour certificate and60+ hour associate of applied science degrees wouldbe designated in order to provide awards for studentaccomplishments and check-points for assessing in-tentionality. This requires community college facultyto take a proactive stance to communicate the expec-tations and vision of professional development. Fac-ulty, above all else, must be honest about the profes-sional limitations of vocational programs and salaryexpectations upon graduation. Silence is a fundamen-tal disservice to the student and only serves to supportinstitutional and class bias.

During her enrollment at the community college,Carol modified her intent and did receive an associateof applied science degree. During her last semestershe arrived in my office, full of pride for her accom-plishment after six years of part-time enrollment. Sheshared her dream of teaching in her child's elemen-tary school and announced that she was making plansto transfer to the local public four-year institution topursue a teaching license. Her excitement and self-confidence were evident and slowly dissolved as I ex-plained her limited options, which in reality were nooptions at all other than to start over. Except for her fewgeneral education courses and a few ECEC coursesthat would transfer, most of her coursework was use-less in the four-year institution teacher education pro-gram. Her anger with the system and with me grewas she asked, "Why didn't you tell me this before?"Thinking back now, I remember our first review of heroptions, but do not remember subsequent discussionsabout the possibility of her interest in a transfer pro-gram. I had ignored the possibility of evolving inten-tionality. Carol, of course, holds some responsibilityfor not communicating her changing goals, but I con-tend the institution holds the primary responsibilityfor not having communicated effectively with Carol.Michael Apple (1990) comments that:

Until we take seriously the extent to which educationis caught up in the real world of shifting and unequalpower relations, we will be living in a world divorcedfrom reality. The theories, policies, and practices in-volved in education are not technical. They are inher-ently ethical and political, and they ultimately involve- once this is recognized - intensely personal choicesabout what Marcus Raskin calls the 'common good',(p. viii)

Four-year teacher education programs also have aresponsibility to the profession to enter this criticaldiscourse, examine degree structures, and develop op-tions that allow community college students to transferwith minimum penalties. Possibilities might includeseminar courses that focus on theory, which would rec-

ognize and build on the practical knowledge gainedat the community college. For instance, a seminarcourse might focus on theory related to curriculum de-velopment, rather than having students take multiplecurriculum courses which include knowledge alreadygained at the community college. Rather than dismiss-ing this valuable core knowledge, four-year programscould maximize the number of transferable ECECcourses, without sacrificing the knowledge gained inupper division courses. Additionally, four-year insti-tutions must develop flexible course scheduling andstudent teaching options, rather than requiring that stu-dents be enrolled full-time. These options would allowstudents who must work to meet financial and familyobligations to participate in four-year institution pro-grams.

8. Conclusion

Clearly, there are no simple answers to improvethe quality of ECEC programs and professionalizeECEC, but I assert that one important step is to increaseECEC community college student access to four-yearinstitutions. Significant progress has been made, butmore change is needed to advance the profession, sup-port the students' interests, and ensure the viabilityof both community college and four-year programs(Lombardi, 2003; Morgan, 2003).

The proactive model proposed in this paper, oneencompassing flexible degree structures, will advancethe profession, and thereby, presumably, the quality ofearly care and education in the United States. Moreresearch must be conducted, however, to identify dif-ferences, if any, in the quality of licensed teachers thatattended classes only at a four-year institution duringtheir academic career and those who transferred underan articulation agreement from a community college.Research in this area will allow us to identify strengthsand weaknesses of community college transfer pro-grams in order to increase successful transferability.Additionally, further research regarding student inten-tionality and characteristics of two-year teacher ed-ucation programs which encourage and support con-tinued formal professional development will add tothe profession's ability to establish effective, tripartitetransfer programs.

Morgan (1994) describes the educational systemof ECEC as a "leaky funnel" because many studentsdrop out when they face the barriers that often exist inhigher education. Community colleges and four-yearinstitutions each play a critical role in fixing this "leakyfunnel." A proactive model is required if we are to pro-vide a truly attainable career ladder in the 21 st centuryprofessional development movement. We must recog-nize that currently, rather than a career ladder, our pro-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:46

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

266 P. Apple /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 257-267

fession often offers only a step stool. My kitchen stepstool displays this message, "CAUTION: Keep bodycentered between side rails. Do not over reach." Inmany ways this is the message that we communicate tocommunity college ECEC students. Raskin, as quotedin Apple (1990), states that "no inhuman act should beused as a short cut to a better day," and that any socialprogram "will be judged against the likelihood that itwill result in linking equity, sharing, personal dignity,security, freedom, and caring" (p. viii). Let us be surethat students of Early Childhood Education and Carehave a real career ladder consisting of proactively en-gaging humane steps, not a step stool of "inhumanacts" providing a short cut that fails to benefit childrenand the profession in the long run.

References

American Association of Community Colleges. (2001).Significant events in the development of the publiccommunity college. Retrieved November 23, 2001 fromhttp://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutCommunityColleges/HistoricalInformation/SignificantEvents/SignificantEvents.htm.

American Association of Community Colleges. (2003). Sta-tistical guide: Number of community colleges 2002. Re-trieved March 20, 2003 from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Template.cfm?Section=Statistical.Guide&Template=/InterestDisplay.cfm&InterestCategoryID=244.

Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2nd ed.).New York, NY: Routledge.

Bellm, D., Burton, A., Whitebook, M., Broatch, L., & Young,M. P. (2002). Inside the pre-k classroom: A study ofstaffing and stability in state-funded prekindergarten pro-grams. Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care Work-force.

Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.).(2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers.Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Re-search Council Committee on Early Childhood Peda-gogy. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciencesand Education.

Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Commu-nity colleges and the promise of educational opportunityin America, 1990-1985. New York, NY: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Caruso, J. J., & Fawcett, M. T. (1999). Supervision in earlychildhood education: A developmental perspective (2nded.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Catlett, C , & Winton, P. (1999). Community colleges andearly childhood intervention: Current facts and chal-lenges. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina,FPG Child Development Center.

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1994). The challenging envi-ronment: Context, concepts, and crises. In A. M. Cohen& F. B. Brawer (Eds.), Managing community colleges:A handbook for effective practice (pp. 5-21). San Fran-cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Community College of Indiana. (2002). Early childhoodeducation degree plans. Retrieved March 20, 2003 fromhttp://www.ivytech.edu/indianapolis/pdf/Curriculum/Early_Childhood_Education.pdf.

Costley, J. B. (2000). Building a professional developmentcontinuum. Paper presented at the Third Annual HigherEducation Forum, Indianapolis, IN.

Early, D., & Winton, P. (2001). Preparing the workforce.National Center for Early Development and Learn-ing Spotlights, No. 33. Retrieved March 1, 2003 fromhttp://www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl/PDFs/spot33.pdf.

Johnson, J., & McCracken, J. B. (Eds.). (1994). The earlychildhood career lattice: Perspectives on professional de-velopment. Washington, DC: National Association for theEducation of Young Children.

Lombardi, J. (2003). Time to care: Redesigning childcare to promote education, support families, andbuild communities. Philadelphia, PA: Temple UniversityPress.

McGrath, D., & Spear, M. B. (1991). The academic crisis ofthe community college. Albany, NY: State University ofNew York Press.

Morgan, G. (1994). A new century/a new system for profes-sional development. In J. M. Johnson & J. B. McCracken(Eds.), The early childhood career lattice: Perspectiveson professional development (pp. 39-46). Washington,DC: National Association for the Education of YoungChildren.

Morgan, G. (2000a). The director as a key to quality. In M.L. Caulkin (Ed.), Managing quality in young children'sprograms: The leader's role (pp. 40-58). New York, NY:Teacher's College Press.

Morgan, G. (2000b). A profession for the 21st century. In M.L. Caulkin (Ed.), Managing quality in young children'sprograms: The leader's role (pp. 133-151). New York,NY: Teacher's College Press.

Morgan, G. (2003). Staff roles, education, and compensation.In D. Cryer & R. M. Clifford (Eds.), Early ChildhoodEducation and Care in the USA (pp. 87-105). Baltimore,MD: Paul H. Brookes.

National Center for Early Development and Learning.(2000). National survey of early childhood teacher prepa-ration programs in institutions of higher educationproject summary. Retrieved November 11, 2001 fromwww.fpg.unc.edu.

National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsec-ondary Education Data System. (1995). Fall enrollmentreport [Data file]. Available from the IPEDS web sitehttp://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/index.html.

San Antonio College. (2002). Child Development Depart-ment Degree plans. Retrieved March 20, 2003 fromhttp://www.accd.edu/sac/childdev/html/degrees.htm.

Welsh, J. F., & Kjorlien, C. (2003 April). State support forinterinstitutional transfer and articulation: The impact ofdatabases and information systems. Community CollegeJournal of Research & Practice, 25(4), 313-333. Re-trieved March 20, 2003 from EBSCO Academic SearchPremier database (AN: 4318429).

Whitebook, M. (1997). Who's missing at the table? Leader-ship opportunities and barriers for teachers and providers.In S. L. Kagan & B. T. Bowman (Eds.), Leadership in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:46

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

P. Apple /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 257-267 267

early care and education (pp. 77-82). Washington, DC:National Association for the Education of Young Chil-dren.

Whitebook, M., Sakai, L., Gerber, E., & Howes, C.(2001). Then and now: Changes in child care staffing1994-2000. Washington, DC: Center for the Child CareWorkforce.

Wilier, B. E. (1993). A conceptual framework for early child-hood professional development: NAEYC position state-ment, adopted November 1993. In J. Johnson & J. B. Mc-Cracken (Eds.), The early childhood career lattice: Per-spectives on professional development (pp. 4-21). Wash-ington, DC: National Association for the Education ofYoung Children.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:46

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14