Michigan Early Care
and Education
Workforce Study

2018

 

3226;?me MICHIGEN

- 
Schoouofaducanon Ed 
Graduate School ofSodgl Work Human Development Of uca 1011 at t/ae 

All rights reserved
Design: Butler Institute for Families, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver
Butler Institute for Families
Graduate School of Social Work
University of Denver, Craig Hall
2148 S. High Street
Denver, Colorado 80208-7101
NORC at the University of Chicago
50 California Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, California 94111
University of Colorado Denver
School of Education and Human Development
1380 Lawrence Street
Denver, Colorado 80204
The Michigan Department of Education / Office of Great Start funded this study. The views,
conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are those of the authors and not of the
funders of this report.
Special thanks to Joy Milano and Kelly Bentley, the Michigan Department of Education, and to all
the early educators who shared their insights, knowledge, and passion about the work that they do
every day on behalf of children and families in Michigan.
Suggested citation:
Roberts, A., Le, V., Schaack, D., Franko, M., & Morgan, K. (2018). Michigan Early Care and Education
Workforce Study: 2018. Denver, CO: Butler Institute for Families, Graduate School of Social Work,
University of Denver.

2

 Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Table of Exhibits ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Key Terms ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 9
Methods ....................................................................................................................................................... 12
Recruitment ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Sample ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
Instruments ............................................................................................................................................. 13
Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 15
Study Limitations ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Organization of Report ............................................................................................................................ 16
Chapter 2 .......................................................................................................................................................... 17
Demographic and Educational Characteristics............................................................................................. 17
Research Questions ................................................................................................................................. 18
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 18
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 23
Chapter 3 .......................................................................................................................................................... 24
Professional Development Experiences and Needs ..................................................................................... 24
Research Questions ................................................................................................................................. 25
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 25
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 33
Chapter 4 .......................................................................................................................................................... 35
Compensation and Financial Well-Being ...................................................................................................... 35
Research Questions ................................................................................................................................. 35
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 36
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 42
Chapter 5 .......................................................................................................................................................... 44
Working Conditions, Turnover, and Burnout ............................................................................................... 44
Research Questions ................................................................................................................................. 45
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 45
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 53

3

 Chapter 6 .......................................................................................................................................................... 55
Conclusion and Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 55
References ................................................................................................................................................... 58
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................... 62
List of Michigan Counties by Region ........................................................................................................ 62
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................................... 63
Demographic and Educational Characteristics by Region ........................................................................ 63
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................................... 66
Professional Development Experiences and Needs by Region ................................................................ 66
Appendix D ................................................................................................................................................... 69
Compensation by Region ......................................................................................................................... 69
Appendix E ................................................................................................................................................... 72
Working Conditions, Turnover, and Burnout by Region .......................................................................... 72

4

 Table of Exhibits
Exhibit 1.1. Sample Size by Geographic Region and Job Role ........................................................................... 13
Exhibit 2.1. Descriptive Statistics for Age by Job Role ...................................................................................... 18
Exhibit 2.2. Average Years of Experience in Current Position and in the Field by Job Role .............................. 19
Exhibit 2.3. Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Early Educators................................................................................. 20
Exhibit 2.4. Educational Attainment by Job Role .............................................................................................. 21
Exhibit 2.5. Distribution of Field of Degree among Early Educators ................................................................. 22
Exhibit 2.6. Distribution of Credentials across Job Roles .................................................................................. 22
Exhibit 3.1. Feelings of Preparation for Working with Children by Job Role..................................................... 26
Exhibit 3.2 Feelings of Preparation for Performing Teaching Responsibilities by Job Role............................... 27
Exhibit 3.3. Items by Factor for Administrative Responsibilities ....................................................................... 28
Exhibit 3.4. Administrators’ Feelings of Preparation for Performing Various Tasks ......................................... 28
Exhibit 3.5. Modality Preferences for Professional Development by Job Role ................................................. 29
Exhibit 3.6. Modality Preferences for Coursework by Job Role ........................................................................ 30
Exhibit 3.7. Barriers to Professional Development by Job Role ........................................................................ 31
Exhibit 3.8. Supports Needed for Professional Development by Job Role........................................................ 32
Exhibit 4.1. Descriptive Statistics for Hourly Wages by Job Role, Setting, and Age Group ............................... 36
Exhibit 4.2. Median Hourly Wages by Job Role ................................................................................................ 37
Exhibit 4.3. Teacher Median Hourly Wage by Program Type and Age Group Served ...................................... 37
Exhibit 4.4. Descriptive Statistics for Wages by Educational Attainment among Teachers .............................. 38
Exhibit 4.5. Percent of Early Educators Meeting the Threshold for a Living Wage by Job Role, Setting, and Age
Group Served ................................................................................................................................................... 38
Exhibit 4.6 Benefits Received by Service Sector ............................................................................................... 39
Exhibit 4.7. Percent of Early Educators Receiving Public Subsidies by Job Role ............................................... 40
Exhibit 4.8. Percent of Early Educators Holding Second Jobs by Job Role ........................................................ 41
Exhibit 4.9. Descriptive Statistics for Financial Strain Scale by Job Role ........................................................... 41
Exhibit 4.10. Financial Sacrifices ....................................................................................................................... 42
Exhibit 5.1. Job Supports Available to Teachers and Assistant Teachers .......................................................... 46
Exhibit 5.2. Perceptions of Work Environment Items....................................................................................... 47
Exhibit 5.3. Perceptions of Work Environments ............................................................................................... 47
Exhibit 5.4. Job Motivations ............................................................................................................................. 48
Exhibit 5.5. Job Frustrations ............................................................................................................................. 49
Exhibit 5.6. Average Burnout Component Scores by Job Role.......................................................................... 50
Exhibit 5.7. Job Intentions in the Next Two Years by Job Role.......................................................................... 51

5

 Exhibit 5.8 Average Annual Turnover Rates by Job Role .................................................................................. 52
Exhibit 5.9. Average Annual Turnover Rates by Job Role and Program Type ................................................... 52
Exhibit 5.10. Working Conditions That Early Educators Report Promote Retention ........................................ 53

6

 Key Terms
Administrator: a staff person in a community-based or publicly funded program who is in charge of
administrative tasks. Administrators include directors, assistant directors, and public school administrators.
Assistant Director: a staff person within a licensed program who supports the administration of the program
and is supervised by a director.
Assistant Teacher: a staff person who works in a community-based or publicly funded program who assists
with classroom activities but is not the lead teacher. Assistant teachers are often referred to as teacher
aides, staff aides, or paraprofessionals. For the purposes of this study, floater teachers and substitutes are
also included as assistant teachers. Floater teachers and substitutes are staff who are not assigned to a
particular classroom but move classroom to classroom to support classroom activities or to provide
substitute coverage.
Community-Based Licensed Centers: early learning programs that are not publicly funded (i.e., public prekindergarten or Head Start). These programs can include nonprofit stand-alone centers and nonprofit
centers affiliated with a larger social service agency, hospital, or college. It can also include for-profit standalone programs or chains.
Director: a staff person who works in a licensed program and who is in charge of the administration of an
early learning program. Within the context of this study, directors may be owners of centers, they may be
middle management within a larger agency, or they may serve as an executive director for their
organization.
Early Care and Education (ECE): a broad term used to refer to the suite of programs, including prekindergarten, preschool program, child care centers, infant and toddler programs, Head Start, Early Head
Start, and licensed family child care homes, that provide early learning and child care to children birth to age
five.
Early Educator: a broad term used to describe the workforce as a whole, including directors, assistant
directors, teachers, assistant teachers, and family child care providers.
Family Child Care Provider: a small business owner who operates a licensed home-based early learning
program from his or her home. For the purpose of this study, this term includes family homes and group
homes.
Great Start Readiness Program (GSRP): The State of Michigan’s publicly funded pre-kindergarten program for
eligible four-year olds.
Great Start to Quality: Michigan’s quality rating and improvement system.
Head Start / Early Head Start: a federally funded ECE program with wraparound services offered to children
from low-income families. Head Start serves preschool-aged children; Early Head Start serves infants and
toddlers.
Infant/Toddler Teacher: a teacher who works in a classroom that serves children birth to age three.

7

 Michigan Early Childhood Registry (MiRegistry): a registry for early child educators used to track employment,
education, and training history and to find relevant training opportunities.
Michigan’s Child Development and Care Program: a tuition subsidy funded through federal Child
Development Block Grant dollars to Michigan’s Department of Education to help eligible families pay for
child care.
Preschool Teacher: a teacher who works in a classroom that serves children three to five years of age.
Public School Administrator: a staff person with administrative responsibilities in a public school setting. For
the purposes of this study, this job role can include pre-kindergarten administrators or coordinators who
may supervisor ECE classrooms in one school or in multiple schools within a district. This job role can also
include principals who supervise pre-kindergarten and elementary school teachers.
Publicly Funded Program: early learning programs that receive at least some public funding. In the current
study, this term includes Head Start / Early Head Start, Great Start Readiness Program, and/or programs in
public schools.
T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood® Michigan Scholarship Program: T.E.A.C.H. (Teacher Education and Compensation
Helps) Early Childhood® is a scholarship program funded by the Michigan Department of Education in which
early educators receive tuition support and a retention bonus paid by their ECE program after coursework
completion and job requirements have been met.
Teacher: a staff person in a licensed center or publicly funded program who is in charge of a classroom.
Teachers may be referred to as lead leaders, head teachers, or co-teachers.

8

 Chapter 1

Introduction
Recently, early care and education (ECE) has received unprecedented policy attention due, in
part, to positive associations between high-quality ECE and children’s school readiness (Barnett
& Lamy, 2013; Yoshikawa et al., 2013). Research indicates that the knowledge and skills of early
educators are the most important ingredients in high-quality ECE (Whitebook, 2003). Thus,
ensuring that Michigan has a well-prepared, well-supported, and thriving ECE workforce is of
utmost concern.
Consequently, policy and funding efforts, such as Michigan’s Race-to-the-Top Early Learning
Challenge (RTT-ELC) Grant, have sought to elevate the quality of ECE programs, improve
children’s access to high-quality ECE, and build a coordinated and comprehensive early learning
system. As a result of systematic efforts to improve the quality of ECE over the last several
decades, many early educators have experienced an expansion in their job roles and
responsibilities. Historically, the primary role for many early educators was to ensure children’s
health and safety and to nurture children’s social development and early friendships. Today,
many more early educators are tasked with facilitating children’s emergent literacy, math, and
science skills and preparing children for kindergarten. As efforts to expand access to ECE have
proliferated, many early educators are also now called upon to meet the needs of an increasingly
diverse population of children, including English language learners, children who have
experienced trauma, and children with special health, behavioral, and learning needs (Sakai,
Kipnis, Whitebook, Schaack, 2013).
Early educators in Michigan work in various settings, including the state’s pre-kindergarten Great
Start Readiness Programs (GSRP), federally funded Head Start and Early Head Start, communitybased ECE centers, and licensed family homes and group homes. Despite the fact that many
educators across ECE settings share common goals of fostering children’s learning and
development, the workforce, as a whole, is not cohesive. Variation in preparatory requirements
is one of the most profound examples of the fragmentation of the workforce (IOM & NRC, 2015).
For instance, in Michigan, the educational requirements for teachers working in Head Start and
GSRP classrooms are markedly higher than in licensed child care settings. National studies

9

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

confirm this variation in the formal education and credentials of the ECE workforce (NSECE,
2013). Efforts to advance and align the knowledge and skills of the Michigan ECE workforce
include developing a set of core competencies, implementing various in-service professional
learning opportunities, and offering T.E.A.C.H. scholarships. However, these efforts are often
challenged by a lack of detailed information about Michigan’s ECE workforce regarding their
basic characteristics, including demographics, employment, education, professional
development needs, access to scholarships, and the supports needed to successfully complete a
degree. Such information is needed to help decision-makers target policies, build a responsive
professional development system, and better understand the investments needed to ensure an
effective workforce across ECE settings.
Efforts to describe the ECE workforce are also guided by a growing national concern about the
economic fragility and instability of the ECE workforce. Early educator wages are often compared
to those of dog walkers and janitors, and typically do not reflect the professional nature of the
work (Whitebook, Phillips, & Howes, 2014). Wages and benefits demonstrate further
fragmentation of the field. A national study found an average hourly wage of $19.50 per hour for
state pre-kindergarten teachers working in public schools and a mere $9.38 an hour for family
child care providers. The same study documented a wage gap among early educators working
with infants and toddlers and those working with preschool-aged children, in which preschool
teachers made nearly $9,000 more annually (NSECE, 2013). In addition, many early educators,
especially if they work outside public school settings, have limited or no benefits, including
health insurance, employer sponsored retirement savings accounts, or paid sick and vacation
days (Whitebook et al., 2014). Median annual salaries often qualify early educators for public
assistance in nearly every state (Whitebook et al., 2014). In a recent study of approximately
4,700 early educators in Colorado, 45% reported economic insecurity, 32% relied on public
subsidies, and 24% were forced to take a second job to make ends meet (Schaack & Le, 2017a).
As states, including Michigan, make concerted efforts to increase the educational requirements
for early educators, research suggests that completing a degree and additional certifications do
not often translate into substantially increased wages. Hourly wages among early educators with
B.A. degrees were nearly half the average earnings of those with B.A. degrees in other industries
(Whitebook et al., 2014).
In addition, the work environments for many early educators have not adapted to the changing
landscape of the profession or to the professional needs of the workforce. Efforts to provide
enriching instruction and meet the individualized needs of children have resulted in many early
educators now conducting developmental screenings, referring children for services, meeting
with special educators, planning curriculum across learning domains, conducting ongoing child
observations and assessments, and working with coaches to improve their teaching practices.
For many early educators, these enhanced duties are set against a backdrop of classrooms that
are often understaffed, and where they have unreliable work schedules in which they are either
sent home without pay if child attendance is low or they move in and out of different classrooms
throughout the day to meet state teacher-child ratio requirements (Setodji, Le, & Schaack,
2012). Many also have limited or no paid planning time or paid professional development days
(Whitebook et al., 2104). These workplace conditions may constrain early educators’ abilities to
deliver high-quality services to young children (IOM & NRC, 2015) and may contribute to

10

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

occupational burnout and turnover (Austin, Sakai, Dhamija, 2016). A recent study of family child
care providers also found that these increased work expectations combined with the increased
regulations of their programs are sources of occupational stress that often prompt providers not
to obtain or renew their licenses, creating a shortage of family child care providers (Schaack &
Le, 2017b).
Nationally, approximately 30% of center and school-based early educators leave their jobs each
year (Whitebook et al., 2014), a figure four times higher than elementary school teachers
(Rhodes & Huston, 2012). However, unlike elementary schools in which teacher turnover
typically occurs between school years, teacher turnover in ECE occurs throughout the year and
disrupts continuity within classrooms. Not only can turnover negatively impact classroom quality,
children’s relationships with teachers, and children’s school readiness skills (Helburn, 1995),
teachers and directors also cite it as one of their greatest sources of job stress (Schaack & Le,
2017b) that often prompts subsequent turnover (Whitebook & Sakai, 2003).
Increasingly, policy makers are recognizing that if ECE is to live up to its promises of preparing
children for elementary school and beyond, it is critical to elevate the profession, specifically the
policies and infrastructure that support the professional preparation and ongoing professional
learning opportunities available to early educators, as well as the compensation and working
conditions of the professionals in the field. Recognizing the importance of a thriving ECE
workforce, the Michigan Department of Education / Office of Great Start (MDE/OGS)
commissioned the present study of their ECE workforce conducted by the Butler Institute for
Families, NORC, and the University of Colorado Denver (referred to henceforth as “the Research
Team”). Due to the study being funded by RTT-ELC, the focus was specifically on the ECE
workforce serving children birth to age 5. Specifically, the purpose of this study is to examine the
qualifications and professional development needs, employment conditions, and well-being of
Michigan’s workforce across job roles, ECE settings, geographic locations, and age groups. By
identifying the current strengths, gaps, and unmet needs in the field, policies and infrastructure
may be developed to enhance the professional lives of the adults who serve Michigan’s youngest
children.
Specifically, this study was designed to broadly address the following questions based on a
sample of early educators in Michigan:
1. What are their demographic and educational characteristics?
2. What are their professional development experiences and needs?
3. What salaries and benefits do they receive, and to what extent are the educators
experiencing economic strain?
4. What are their working conditions, experiences of burnout, and turnover rates?

11

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Methods
Recruitment
MDE/OGS provided the Research Team with a list of 9,084 active licensed ECE programs,
including public school pre-kindergarten programs, Head Start and Early Head Start programs,
community-based ECE centers, and group homes and family child care homes from across the
state. Of these programs, administrator and family child care provider email addresses were
available for 7,615 programs. The Research Team emailed administrators to request the names
and email addresses of teaching staff who work in classrooms (e.g., teachers or assistant
teachers) and administrative staff who oversee the day-to-day operations of a program (e.g.,
directors, assistant directors, principals, and pre-kindergarten coordinators). Group homes and
family child care homes were also emailed and asked to provide contact information for any
additional staff. A combination of 495 administrators and family child care providers responded
and provided an additional 2,054 staff email addresses.
An invitation to participate in the study with a link to an electronic survey was emailed in English,
Spanish, and Arabic to 2,549 early educators. If requested, paper surveys were mailed to
educators (283 total). Additionally, a link to the survey was posted on the MDE/OGS Facebook
page. This recruitment strategy resulted in a sample size of 685 early educators. Respondents
received a $10 gift card for their participation.

Sample
Of the 685 early educators participating in the study, 189 were classified as “administrators.”
This group included directors, assistant directors, director/teachers (if the respondent indicated
that they were primarily responsible for center operations), principals, and pre-kindergarten
coordinators. Another 168 early educators were classified as “teachers” who have primary
responsibility for classrooms. An additional 68 respondents were classified as “assistant
teachers,” which included teacher aides, floater teachers, and substitutes. Of the teachers and
assistant teachers, approximately 81% indicated that they work primarily in preschool
classrooms and 19% indicated that they work primarily in infant toddler classrooms. Another 260
survey respondents were classified as “family child care (FCC) providers.” This group included
providers who work in group homes and family child care homes.
Of the center and school-based early educators in the sample, 69% work in publicly funded
programs, which includes Head Start, Early Head Start, the Great Start Readiness Program
(GSRP), or work in programs with a combination of these funding sources. For the purposes of
this study, we combined early educators who work in these publicly funded settings into one

12

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

group, which we refer to as “publicly funded” or “public” programs. The remaining 31% of early
educators in the sample work in community-based programs that do not receive GSRP or Head
Start funding. We refer to these settings as “community-based” or “community” programs.
For all regional analyses, Michigan was divided into four geographic regions—Western, Upper
Peninsula (UP) and Northern Lower Peninsula (LP), Southeast, and Eastern or East Central. A list
of counties that comprise each region can be found in Appendix A. Exhibit 1.1 shows the
geographic distribution of the sample by job role.
Exhibit 1.1. Sample Size by Geographic Region and Job Role

Western
UP and Northern LP
Southeast
Eastern or East Central

Administrator

Teachers

Assistant
Teachers

FCC Providers

50
30
67
42

29
19
66
54

14
17
14
23

94
50
80
36

Instruments
A comprehensive survey was designed to capture various aspects of early educators’
professional experiences, tailored to specific job roles (e.g., administrators, teachers, and family
child care providers). The Research Team collaborated with MDE/OGS, referenced extant
literature, and drew from existing ECE workforce surveys to identify key constructs and
measures. The resulting survey focused on the following areas:
Personal and Employment Characteristics, including demographic characteristics, such as age,
gender, race/ethnicity, and primary language; and employment characteristics, including job
role, tenure in current job and in the field, work schedule, sector, and program auspice (e.g.,
nonprofit or for-profit center).
Education and Professional Preparation, including formal education, major or area of study, and
credentials. Teachers, assistant teachers, and FCC providers were also administered 15 questions
that asked them to reflect on how prepared they feel to meet the needs of specific children and
perform various teaching responsibilities. Analogously, administrators were asked 15 questions
about their feelings of preparation to lead an ECE program. A factor analysis on the 15 items
administrator measure resulted in three subscales: Supervisory Tasks, Managerial Tasks, and
Family-Related Tasks. The coefficient alphas for these scales were 0.91, 0.83, and 0.75,
respectively.

13

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Professional Development Preferences and Barriers were captured using various measures. First,
a six-item Quality of Professional Development Support Scale (α = .91) assessed the extent to
which teaching staff felt that their organization effectively supported their professional
development (e.g., “The professional development that I receive is culturally appropriate and
relevant to the populations I serve in my classroom”). The survey also asked all early educators
about barriers they experience in accessing in-service professional development, the modality of
professional development and higher education they prefer, whether they are currently enrolled
in an institution of higher education, and the supports that they would need to advance their
formal education.
Compensation was measured through various self-reported measures, including, wages, benefits
received from their employer, the public subsidies that they receive, and whether they have a
second job. Respondents were also administered three items from the Financial Strain Scale
(Conger & Elder, 1994). The first two items tap into the general perception that financial
resources are insufficient (e.g., “During the last twelve months, how much difficulty have you
had paying your bill?”). The third item asks about 11 ways that the early educator has tried to
economize to lessen their financial burdens (e.g., reduced or eliminated medical insurance
because of financial need).
Center Characteristics, Turnover, and Wages were reported by administrators, specifically, the
number of classrooms, by age group, in their programs; the number of staff they employ, by job
role and age group of the children served; the number of turnover events that have occurred
over the last twelve months, by job role and age group of the children served; how many
positions they currently have open; and the average time it takes to fill open positions.
Classroom and Family Child Care Home Characteristics were reported by teaching staff and FCC
providers, including the number of children in their classroom/home, the adult-to-child ratio, age
group(s) served, children’s languages, hours and months of operation, and the composition of
children in their classroom/home (e.g., how many have special needs, are English language
learners, and are from low-income families).
Job Frustrations, Motivations, and Intentions were asked of all survey respondents, across job
roles. Specifically, respondents were asked to identify the three most important factors that
contribute to their motivation to stay in their jobs, their three greatest job frustrations, whether
they plan on staying in their job for the next two years, whether their job provides opportunities
for career advancement, and what conditions would need to change to promote staff retention.
Work Environment was reported by teaching staff using a 15-item scale that assessed dimensions
of their organizational health and work climate. These items were drawn from two scales, The
Comprehensive Assessment of Organizational Health (Potter, Leake, Longworth-Reed, Altschul, &
Rienks, 2016) and the Colorado Early Childhood Workforce Survey (Schaack & Le, 2017c). Items
administered were then subjected to a factor analysis that identified two underlying factors. The
first factor, Communicative-Supportiveness, measured the extent to which teachers and assistant
teachers perceive their organizations to have collegial relationships, adaptive communication,

14

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

and supportive and collaborative leadership. The second factor, Bureaucratic-Unrest, measured
the extent teachers and assistant teachers perceived their organizations to have staff conflict,
low staff morale, and top-down management approaches. The alpha coefficients for these scales
were 0.83 and 0.75, respectively.
Burnout was measured by a nine-item shortened version of the Maslach Occupational Burnout
Inventory (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1997) administered to all staff. This inventory assessed the
extent to which early educators feel emotional exhaustion derived from their work, are
depersonalizing their work as a result of job stress, and feel a sense of personal accomplishment
in the work. Alpha coefficients were 0.58 for the Emotional Exhaustion scale, 0.77 for the
Depersonalization scale, and 0.51 for the Personal Accomplishment scale.

Analysis
Missing Data. Approximately 89% of respondents completed the entire survey, and an additional
3% of respondents completed at least 50% of the survey. To address missing data, a multivariate
model was used as a basis to impute 10 sets of plausible values, with the stipulation that the
distributions of the imputed variables remain similar to the observed data. Model results were
then aggregated across these multiply imputed datasets using standard procedures.
Descriptive Statistics. Descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations were calculated to provide an
overview of the characteristics of the sample, aspects of the settings in which they work, their
perceptions of their work lives and well-being, and barriers to higher education and professional
development.
False Discovery Rate. In instances where key differences among types of teachers or service
sectors were highlighted, we tested for statistically significant differences while controlling for
the clustering of teachers within the same program. In addition, we adjusted our analysis for
multiple comparisons. When many outcomes are examined, the likelihood of observing a
statistically significant result due to chance increases. To mitigate this likelihood, we applied the
false discovery rate (FDR) procedure and adopted an FDR criterion of 0.15 to identify significant
differences (McDonald, 2014).

Study Limitations
There are several limitations to this study that suggest caution should be taken when
interpreting results. First, it is important to note that little information is available about the
population of Michigan’s early educator workforce. Thus, we were unable to weigh the current
sample based on key characteristics (e.g., job role, service sector) to adjust for their relative
representation within the workforce. Second, this study only included programs from which we
had an administrator email address and only included early educators for whom their

15

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

administrator responded to our initial request for staff email addresses. It is very likely that ECE
programs without an email address on file and whose administrators did not respond to our
request are in some ways different from those who do have email addresses or whose
administrator did respond (e.g., more administrative staff available to be able to respond to
emails, greater connection to quality improvement resources and funding, and the like).
Therefore, the inferences drawn from this study should be restricted to early educators in the
sample and generalizations should not be made to the population of all early educators or ECE
programs in Michigan.

Organization of Report
This report consists of chapters on demographics and educational characteristics; professional
development experiences and needs; compensation and financial well-being; and working
conditions, burnout, and turnover. Chapter 6 offers conclusions and implications.
All regional analyses are located in the appendices, organized by content area.

16

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Chapter 2

Demographic and Educational
Characteristics
It is important to examine the demographic and educational characteristics of early educators in
Michigan to describe who they are and how they relate to the children they serve. There has
been a significant increase in the population of children whose primary language is not English,
as well as students of color (Mack, 2017; Montemurri & Tanner, 2014). In 2017, approximately
33% of children were identified as children of color, with 16% of children identifying as black and
8% identifying as Hispanic or Latino (Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count Data Center, 2018).
However, it is unclear whether the ECE workforce has experienced commensurate shifts in their
demographic composition. Given the growing body of evidence demonstrating that
achievement, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes are improved when a student’s
race/ethnicity matches that of his/her teacher’s (Bates & Glick, 2013; Dee, 2005; Downer, Goble,
Myers, & Pianta, 2016; Egalite, Kisida, & Winters, 2015; Wright, Gottfried, & Le, 2017), it is
important to understand the current demographic characteristics of early educators and their
ability to accommodate children who speak a language other than English.
It is also imperative to examine the educational characteristics of the workforce to better direct
resources. Although Michigan has launched initiatives to increase the educational requirements
for early educators, there may still be considerable variation in the attainment and credentials
across settings, age groups of children served, and job roles. Previous research has found that
center-based teachers were more likely to have a college degree than FCC providers, and
teachers who served preschool-aged children were more likely to have a bachelor’s (B.A.) 1
degree than teachers who served infants and toddlers (NSECE, 2013). Understanding the
qualifications of the ECE workforce, and identifying the segments of the early educator
population who may need additional resources to meet increasing educational requirements,
can be used to target opportunities and supports.

1

For ease of the reader, we refer to associate’s, bachelor’s, and master’s degrees as A.A., B.A., and M.A. degrees,
respectively, but we also include A.A.S./A.A.T., B.S., and M.S. degrees, respectively, in these groups.

17

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Research Questions
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the demographic and educational characteristics of a
sample of early educators in Michigan. This chapter addresses the following research questions:
1. What are the ages and experience levels of the sample?
2. What is the racial/ethnic composition of the sample?
3. What languages do early educators speak and to what extent do they match the
languages spoken by children in their programs?
4. What are the educational attainment and credentials of the sample?

Results
What are the ages and experience levels of the sample?
Exhibit 2.1 provides the average age (including the standard deviation) and age range of early
educators across job roles. The average age of early educators in this sample ranged from
approximately 39 to 44 years, with no significant differences by job role. To estimate the portion
of early educators who are at or approaching retirement age, the percent of educators who are
age 55 or above is presented in Exhibit 2.1. Across job roles, 12–20% of early educators in this
sample are approaching retirement age.
Exhibit 2.1. Descriptive Statistics for Age by Job Role
Job Role
FCC Providers
Administrators
Teachers
Assistant Teachers

M (SD)
44.32 (10.86)
43.20 (10.99)
38.71 (11.57)
40.16 (14.12)

Range
18–70
23–79
18–64
19–73

Percent 55+
20%
18%
12%
17%

Exhibit 2.2 shows educators’ average years of experience in their current positions, as well as
average years of experience in the ECE field, by job role. Across job roles, the sample
demonstrated significant experience in the field, ranging from an average of approximately 10
years for assistant teachers to more than 17 years for FCC providers and administrators. FCC
providers and administrators had significantly more experience in the field than teachers and
assistant teachers. Notably, the sample has less experience in their current jobs than in the field,
ranging from an average of 13.7 years in their current jobs for FCC providers to an average of 5.5
years for teachers and assistant teachers. FCC providers have been in their current jobs
significantly longer than early educators in all other job roles. Among teachers who work in

18

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

community-based and publicly funded programs, there were no significant differences in age,
tenure in current position, and tenure in the field
The median years of ECE experience for teachers in this sample is comparable to that observed
for teachers nationally (10 years), but the median years of ECE experience for FCC providers in
this study is higher than national estimates (i.e., 17.5 years compared to 13.7 years) (NSECE,
2013).
Exhibit 2.2. Average Years of Experience in Current Position and in the Field by Job Role
17.51

17.31

13.68

13.16
10.4
7.37

FCC Providers

Administrators
Tenure in Current Position

5.58

Teachers

5.55

Assistant Teachers

Tenure in the Field

What is the racial/ethnic composition of the sample?
Early educators were asked to self-identify their race and ethnicity. Due to the small sample size,
we combined early educators who identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and multiple race/ethnicities into a single category. The racial/ethnic
composition of the sample by job role is shown in Exhibit 2.3. The majority of early educators
(nearly 90% across job roles) identified as white. Black and African American early educators
comprised 9% of the FCC provider sample, 6% of administrators, and 5% or less of teachers and
assistant teachers. Early educators who identify as Hispanic were a small percentage of the
sample, with no FCC providers and between 2–3% across job roles in community and public
programs. Across job roles, 5% or less identified as another race.

19

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Exhibit 2.3. Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Early Educators

9%

2%
2%
6%

5%
2%
3%

4%
3%
3%

87%

89%

88%

90%

4%

Family Child Care
Providers

Administrators
White

Black

Teachers
Hispanic

Assistant Teachers

Other Race

We conducted additional analysis to determine whether race/ethnicity is related to job role, but
we did not find any significant differences. The racial/ethnic distribution of early educators is
similar across job roles, with the majority of early educators identifying as white. In addition, we
examined whether the racial/ethnic distribution of teachers differed by ECE service sector.
Results suggest that the racial and ethnic distribution of teachers in community-based programs
is similar to the distribution in publicly funded programs.

What languages do early educators speak and to what extent do they
match the languages spoken by children in their programs?
Only 8% of early educators reported speaking a language other than English (i.e., in addition to
English). The most commonly spoken languages, other than English, were Spanish (5%),
American Sign Language (3%), Arabic (1%), and French (1%). Approximately 10% of teachers in
community and public programs and 7% of FCC providers report working with children whose
primary language was not spoken by any staff in their programs. Spanish is the most common
language spoken by children that is not spoken by any staff (28%), followed by Arabic (19%) and
Chinese (12%).

What are the educational attainment and credentials of the sample?
The distribution of educational attainment for the sample by job role is displayed in Exhibit 2.4.
The exhibit shows that approximately 55% of FCC providers, 90% of administrators, 89% of
teachers, and 58% of assistant teachers hold at least an A.A. degree. FCC providers most
frequently report “some college” as their highest level of attainment, whereas assistant teachers
are evenly split between “some college” and an A.A. degree as their highest educational level.

20

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

When comparing educational attainment across job roles, administrators (79%) and teachers
(72%) are significantly more likely than FCC providers (34%) and assistant teachers (27%) to hold
at least a B.A. degree.
Exhibit 2.4. Educational Attainment by Job Role

8%

8%
22%

26%

19%

36%

21%

50%

31%

MA or higher
BA
AA

43%

Some college
33%

31%
11%

High school diploma

17%

12%

10%

9%
3%

11%

Family Child Care
Providers

Administrators

Teachers

Assistant Teachers

Looking more closely at teachers, we did not find any differences in the educational levels of
teachers who worked in community-based programs and teachers who worked in publicly
funded programs. However, teachers who work with preschool-aged children are considerably
more likely to report having at least a B.A. (79%) compared to teachers who work with
infants/toddlers (53%). Despite the demonstrated importance of the early years, infant/toddler
teachers have fewer education requirements than preschool teachers, and there is a limited
focus on infant/toddler preparation in higher education (Austin, 2018).
Next, we examined the educational backgrounds of early educators in the sample who hold at
least an A.A. degree. Exhibit 2.5 displays their field of study in their highest degree. As can be
seen in the exhibit, 36% of FCC providers, 51% of administrators, 53% of teachers, and 48% of
assistant teachers hold degrees in early childhood education, early childhood special education,
or child development (which also includes degrees in human development and family relations).
Education degrees were also common, with 19% of FCC providers, 24% of administrators, 31% of
teachers, and 20% of assistant teachers holding degrees in elementary or secondary education.
Many educators also held degrees in “other” fields, specifically 44% of FCC providers, 24% of
administrators, 16% of teachers, and 32% of assistant teachers. Most commonly, these degrees
were in business (9%), psychology (9%), social work (6%), and public/nonprofit administration
(5%).

21

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Exhibit 2.5. Distribution of Field of Degree among Early Educators

16%

25%

32%

45%
Other Field

31%

24%

20%

14%

14%

37%

39%

Administrators

Teachers

19%

Elementary/Secondary Education

14%

Child Development/Human
Development

15%

ECE/EC Special Education
34%

21%
Family Child Care
Providers

Assistant Teachers

Exhibit 2.6 displays the specialized credentials earned by the sample. We observe that early
educators in the sample are most likely to hold a Child Development Associate (CDA): Preschool
Credential, with 43% of FCC providers, 50% of administrators and teachers, and 57% of assistant
teachers holding a Preschool CDA.
Exhibit 2.6. Distribution of Credentials across Job Roles
57%
50% 50%
43%
33%
21%

22% 23%

18% 16%
9%

CDA: Preschool

CDA: Family Child
Care

6% 6%

25%

9%

Early Childhood
Family Associate

Family child care providers

28%

6%

CDA: Early
Childhood

Administrators

Teachers

9% 8% 7%

CDA: Home Visiting

3% 3% 3% 4%

Early Childhood
Family Specialist

Assistant teachers

22

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Conclusion
The results of this chapter show that early educators in this sample have significant experience in
the ECE field, but there is some degree of job instability among early educators working in
community and public programs. In particular, there appears to be more occupational stability
and tenure among FCC providers in Michigan compared to other job roles and to a national
sample of FCC providers (NSECE, 2013). The results of this chapter also show a lack of racial and
ethnic diversity among early educators in Michigan, at least within this sample. Close to 90% of
the early educators in the sample identify themselves as white compared to 66% of the child
population in Michigan (Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count Data Center, 2018), suggesting a
need for targeted recruitment of early educators of color into the field. Similarly, the results also
suggest a need for targeted recruitment of early educators who can speak Spanish, Arabic, and
Chinese.
The results of this chapter also show high levels of educational attainment across job roles.
Compared to a national sample of ECE teachers, where the majority of teachers (53%) had some
college as their highest level of education (NSECE, 2013), 72% of teachers in this sample report
hold a B.A. degree or higher. Thus, the educational attainment of assistant teachers and FCC
providers may be an important focal point for targeting professional development efforts.

23

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Chapter 3

Professional Development
Experiences and Needs
Professional development (PD) is designed to increase early educators’ knowledge and
competencies (IOM & NRC, 2015). Various topics are relevant in PD given the diverse needs of
young children, the various responsibilities of early educators, and the constantly growing
science on learning and development. As such, it is important to understand how prepared or
confident early educators feel about various topics in order to identify areas to focus future PD
efforts. Among other modalities, PD can be delivered through face-to-face workshops, online
modules, or on-site coaching. This chapter seeks to understand early educators’ feelings of
preparation, the extent to which ECE workplaces support PD, and educators’ preferences
regarding PD opportunities and modalities.
In addition, early educators may engage in PD differently depending on the barriers they
experience and/or the supports they receive. Barriers can include cost, distance to training
locations, and time and are particularly important to consider among working professionals who
may not have the time and resources to devote to ongoing PD. In contrast, supports may help
alleviate barriers and can include scholarships, convenient locations, or convenient scheduling
options. In this chapter, we seek to understand the barriers to PD that a sample of early
educators in Michigan experience, as well as the supports that they need to participate in PD.
This information can ultimately help inform Michigan’s PD investments. Finally, we will explore
the extent to which this sample is utilizing various opportunities and supports, including
college/university coursework, the Michigan Early Childhood Registry (MiRegistry), and T.E.A.C.H.
scholarships.

24

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Research Questions
Based on a sample of early educators in Michigan, the purpose of this chapter is to address the
following questions about PD:
1. To what extent do early educators feel prepared for their job responsibilities?
2. To what extent is PD supported in early educators’ workplaces?
3. What are early educators’ PD modality preferences?
4. What are the barriers and needed supports related to PD?
5. What are the utilization rates for coursework, MiRegistry, and T.E.A.C.H. scholarships?

Results
To what extent do early educators feel prepared for their job
responsibilities?
Working with Children. FCC providers, teachers, and assistant teachers were asked to rate how
prepared they feel to work with different children, including typically developing children,
children with special learning needs, culturally and linguistically diverse children, very young
children (i.e., infants and toddlers), and children experiencing various stressors (homelessness,
trauma, poverty, etc.). Preparedness was assessed on a four-point scale, where 1 represented
“unprepared” and 4 represented “very prepared.” Exhibit 3.1 shows how prepared early
educators feel to work with children by job role.

25

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Exhibit 3.1. Feelings of Preparation for Working with Children by Job Role

Family Child Care Provider
Very
Prepared

4

Prepared

3

Somewhat
Prepared

2

Unprepared

1

Teacher

Assistant Teacher

Across job roles, early educators feel most prepared to work with typically developing children
and least prepared to work with dual language learners. Early educators also tend to feel
prepared to work with infants and toddlers, especially FCC providers, who often work with
children of various ages. In addition to dual language learners, early educators also tend to feel
less prepared to work with children with disabilities, children experiencing trauma or toxic stress,
and children experiencing homelessness.
Among teachers, these patterns were similar for both teachers in community-based programs
and teachers in public programs. Patterns were also similar among infant/toddler teachers and
preschool teachers, with one exception. On average, infant/toddler teachers feel “very
prepared” (M = 3.83) to work with infants and toddlers, whereas preschool teachers feel
“prepared” (M = 2.92).
Teaching Responsibilities. FCC providers, teachers, and assistant teachers were also asked to rate
how prepared they feel to perform various tasks associated with teaching, including supporting
language development, implementing math and science curricula, implementing creative arts
curricula, conducting observations, using assessment results to plan curricula, and working with
families. Again, preparedness was assessed on a four-point scale, where 1 represented

26

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

“unprepared” and 4 represented “very prepared.” Exhibit 3.2 shows how prepared early
educators feel performing various responsibilities by job role.
Exhibit 3.2 Feelings of Preparation for Performing Teaching Responsibilities by Job Role
Family Child Care Provider
4
3.17

3

3.36

3.02

3.08

3.27
2.91

3.2

3.34

Teacher
3.42

3.04

2.99

Assistant Teacher

3.13

3.47 3.56

3.36
2.88

2.97

3.31

2
1

Support Language
Development

Implement
Math/Science
Curricula

Implement Creative
Arts Curricula

Conduct
Observations

Use Assessment Work with Families
Results

Overall, early educators feel “prepared” to perform these various responsibilities. Across job
roles, early educators feel most prepared to work with families. FCC providers feel least
prepared to use assessment results to plan their curricula, whereas teachers and assistant
teachers feel least prepared to implement math and science curricula.

Administrative Responsibilities. Furthermore, administrators were asked to rate how prepared
they feel to perform 15 different aspects of their jobs on a four-point scale, where 1 represents
“unprepared” and 4 represents “very prepared.” To organize these items, factor analyses were
used to create three distinct factors representing feelings of preparation related to: (1)
supervisory tasks, (2) managerial tasks, and (3) family-related tasks. Specific items are shown in
Exhibit 3.3.

27

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Exhibit 3.3. Items by Factor for Administrative Responsibilities
FACTOR

ITEMS

Supervisory Tasks

Provide staff with feedback on their teaching practices
Model best practices in language and literacy for teaching staff
Model best practices in math and science for staff
Model best practices for staff to support children’s positive behavior
Provide support to teachers in curricular planning
Provide support to teachers in implementing and using child assessments
for individualized support to children
Develop effective classroom teaching teams
Support staff in understanding the different programs being implemented
in the center (e.g., Great Start Readiness Program, QRIS, Teaching
Strategies Gold)
Articulate the different program standards operating in the center (e.g.,
licensing, Head Start, etc.)

Managerial Tasks

Manage staff conflict
Develop budgets and manage resources
Manage turnover and staffing
Hire and train new staff

Family-Related Tasks

Engage and support the families in your program
Connect families with community resources

On average, administrators feel the most prepared to perform family-related tasks (M = 3.26;
SD = .60), followed by supervisory tasks (M = 3.21; SD = .55). Administrators feel the least
prepared to perform managerial tasks (M = 2.94; SD = .67), although it should be noted that all
averages indicate administrators tend to feel “prepared” across job responsibility categories.
Results are shown in Exhibit 3.4.
Exhibit 3.4. Administrators’ Feelings of Preparation for Performing Various Tasks
Very
Prepared

4
3

Prepared
Somewhat 2
Prepared
Unprepared 1

3.26

3.21

2.94

Family-Related Tasks

Supervisory Tasks

Managerial Tasks

28

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

To what extent is PD supported in early educators’ workplaces?
Teachers and assistant teachers who work in community and public programs were also asked
about the PD provided by or funded by their workplaces. Specifically, they were asked to rate six
items that focused on the extent to which they feel PD is available through their organizations, is
valued by their organization, and meets their needs. These six items were averaged to estimate
overall satisfaction with the provided PD. Both teacher and assistant teacher responses ranged
from 1 to 5, and on average, both job roles are “somewhat” satisfied with PD at their
organization (teachers M = 4.21; SD = .73; assistant teachers M = 4.18; SD = .93).

What are early educators’ PD modality preferences?
Preferred PD Modality. Given that PD can be delivered in various ways, including face-to-face,
online, and on-site coaching, early educators were asked to identify their preferred modalities.
Modality preferences by job roles are shown in Exhibit 3.5.
Exhibit 3.5. Modality Preferences for Professional Development by Job Role
FCC
Providers

Administrators

Teachers

Assistant
Teachers

Face-to-face, group PD

64%

81%

77%

75%

Online PD

69%

57%

56%

56%

Mentoring or coaching

22%

36%

39%

48%

PD Type

Note: Educators could select multiple modality preferences.
Face-to-face group professional development is the most preferred modality among
administrators, teachers, and assistant teachers. Online PD is the most preferred modality
among FCC providers. On-the-job mentoring or coaching is the least preferred modality across
job roles. Preferences appear mostly consistent among teachers in community and public
settings. Teachers in both settings prefer face-to-face, group PD (69% community; 80% public),
followed by online PD (68% community; 52% public). On-the-job mentoring or coaching is the
least preferred modality (31% community; 42% public).
Preferred Coursework Modality. In addition, early educators were asked to identify their
preferred modalities for college/university classes (Exhibit 3.6).

29

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Exhibit 3.6. Modality Preferences for Coursework by Job Role
Coursework Type

FCC Providers

Administrators

Teachers

Assistant
Teachers

Face-to-face

36%

36%

39%

42%

Online

62%

66%

59%

54%

Hybrid

43%

44%

55%

46%

Note: Educators could select multiple modality preferences.
Unlike preferences for in-service PD where face-to-face modalities are preferred, online
coursework is the most preferred modality for college/university classes, followed by hybrid
models, which are partially taught online and partially taught face-to-face. Entirely face-to-face
coursework is the least preferred modality across job roles. Among teachers, a few differences
emerged by sector. Specifically, teachers in community settings have a strong preference for
online coursework (75%), compared to 54% of teachers in public settings. Teachers in public
settings most prefer hybrid courses (56%), which was endorsed by 52% of teachers in
community settings. Only one in three teachers in public settings prefers face-to-face
coursework (35%) compared to approximately half of teachers in community settings (53%)

What are the barriers and needed supports related to PD?
Barriers. Early educators were asked to identify barriers that prevent them from participating in
in-service PD (i.e., trainings that are not for college credit). Thirteen possible barriers were
identified, as well as the option to endorse “none of the above.” The three most common
barriers are highlighted for each job role in Exhibit 3.7.
FCC providers tend to identify the most barriers to PD, with only 16% identifying “none of the
above” (compared to 28–36% in other job roles). Approximately half of FCC providers identify
lack of substitute time and having to take an unpaid workday / vacation day as barriers to
participating in PD. The third most common barrier among FCC providers is the cost of PD.
Administrators most commonly identify lack of substitute time and that PD tends to be too basic
as barriers to their participation in PD. Common among teachers and assistant teachers is, again,
lack of substitute time and the cost of PD. Among teachers, those teaching in public settings are
significantly more likely to identify lack of substitute time as a barrier (31%) compared to
teachers in community settings (9%). No other barriers are significantly different by sector.

30

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Exhibit 3.7. Barriers to Professional Development by Job Role
FCC Providers

Administrators

Teachers

Assistant
Teachers

PD too expensive

31%

21%

25%

27%

Have to take an unpaid workday

46%

15%

16%

20%

No substitute coverage

49%

30%

26%

18%

Inconvenient times

23%

23%

14%

13%

PD too basic

21%

26%

24%

13%

PD too advanced

1%

0%

0%

3%

PD not relevant for my children

8%

6%

9%

2%

PD is not relevant to my job

4%

10%

6%

4%

PD is too far away

21%

15%

13%

14%

Not enough online sessions

21%

17%

16%

13%

Not enough face-to-face sessions

7%

8%

3%

11%

Don’t know where to find PD

10%

10%

11%

13%

Prefer to take college classes

9%

9%

12%

14%

None of the above

16%

28%

29%

36%

Barrier

Note: Educators were asked to select all that apply.
Supports. Early educators were also asked about their desires to pursue higher education and
the supports that would enable them to pursue a degree. Across job roles, 73% of FCC providers,
71% of administrators, 76% of teachers, and 67% of assistant teachers expressed an interest in
higher education. Exhibit 3.8 shows the supports, by job role, that these early educators
identified to be able to successfully pursue higher education. The three most common barriers
are highlighted for each job role.
By far, the most common needed support identified across job roles is tuition support, such as
scholarships and fellowships, to offset the cost of higher education. “More online class options”
is also identified as one of the top three desired supports across all job roles. Other commonly
desired supports include better financial advisement and more convenient class times. Among
teachers, those teaching in community settings are significantly more likely to identify the need
for better financial advisement (39%) compared to teachers in public settings (16%). No other
supports are significantly different by sector.

31

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Exhibit 3.8. Supports Needed for Professional Development by Job Role
Support

FCC
Providers

Administrators

Teachers

Assistant
Teachers

Tuition support

60%

63%

65%

54%

Better financial advisement

24%

14%

22%

23%

Convenient class times

24%

17%

21%

33%

More online class options

34%

33%

35%

25%

More face-to-face options

7%

4%

3%

9%

More convenient locations

11%

11%

13%

11%

Academic support

4%

0%

3%

8%

Better advisement

4%

4%

3%

6%

Course transfers

11%

12%

10%

16%

Career counseling

4%

3%

6%

6%

Practice-based mentoring

3%

1%

5%

6%

Work release time

5%

5%

7%

4%

Child care

7%

7%

9%

9%

Cohort learning

6%

12%

6%

10%

Note: Educators were asked to select all that apply.

What are the utilization rates for coursework, MiRegistry, and T.E.A.C.H.
scholarships?
Coursework. Early educators were asked if they are currently enrolled in a degree or certificate
program at a college or university. Just over a quarter (28%) of assistant teachers indicate they
are currently enrolled, followed by 17% of teachers, 13% of administrators, and 11% of FCC
providers. Among teachers, enrollment did not differ by sector (17% for teachers working in both
community and public settings).
Michigan’s Early Childhood Registry. MiRegistry allows early educators to create profiles to track
employment, education, and training history; plan their PD; and find relevant training
opportunities in the state (MIRegistry, 2018). Approximately half of teachers (48%) and assistant
teachers (53%), two thirds of FCC providers (66%), and 70% of administrators are aware of the
registry. Among all early educators who are aware of the registry, 55% report they had received

32

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

support from leadership in their organization for uploading and maintaining professional registry
information.
T.E.A.C.H. Scholarships. T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood® MICHIGAN is a scholarship program for early
educators who meet certain eligibility criteria and work in Michigan. It provides financial
assistance and paid release time so that early educators can continue working while receiving
training and/or obtaining degrees. Although eligibility criteria depends on the degree/training
that is sought, all scholarships require early educators work at least 20 hours per week and meet
certain income requirements (e.g., making less than $17/hour). In addition, many scholarships
require sponsorship by current employers, and employers agree to pay a portion of tuition and
fees. More information about the program can be found on the Michigan Association for the
Education of Young Children’s website (MIAEYC, n.d.).
On the survey, early educators were asked whether or not T.E.A.C.H. scholarships are currently
offered at their job. Just under half (41%) of administrators said these scholarships are available
to them, followed by 26% of teachers, 18% of assistant teachers, and 15% of FCC providers.
Among teachers, availability rates are similar for those working in community (30%) and publicly
funded (25%) ECE settings.

Conclusion
The results of this survey provide valuable insight into early educators’ feelings of preparedness,
PD preferences, barriers, and desired and utilized supports. In terms of preparedness, educators
tend to feel prepared to work with children and perform various teaching and administrative
responsibilities. However, it is important to note that early educators feel least prepared to work
with dual language learners. A recent estimate suggests that approximately 15% of young
children (age 0 to 8) are dual language learners in the state of Michigan (Park, O’Toole,
Katsiaficas, 2017). In order for all children to receive the highest quality early experiences,
educators need to feel well-prepared to work with children who speak various languages. Topics
related to working with dual language learners are important areas to focus future PD efforts. In
light of recent research suggesting that many higher education faculty do not currently possess
the expertise in dual language learning to effectively support the preparation of early educators,
this topic must be addressed within higher education as well as in ECE settings (Copeman Petig,
Austin, & Dean, 2018).
In terms of modality preferences, face-to-face group PD and online PD were most preferred. For
college/university coursework, online courses were most preferred. Face-to-face group PD may
allow networking, connection, and collaboration, while online PD/coursework may allow more
flexibility in when and where learning occurs. Although on-site mentoring or coaching was the
least preferred modality, 22–48% of educators, depending on job role, were still receptive to this
delivery method. In designing future PD efforts, early educators’ preferences should be
considered in conjunction with evidence that ongoing exposure to material and repeated

33

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

practice of skills are most effective at improving instructional practices (Zaslow, Tout, Halle,
Whittaker, & Lavelle, 2010).
The most commonly identified PD barriers tend to be logistical and/or financial, including lack of
substitute coverage, lack of paid time off for training, and the associated expense. FCC providers,
in particular, identified the most barriers of any job role, suggesting they need greater support in
accessing PD. Relatedly, at least half of all early educators across job roles identified a need for
greater financial support for PD. Given that only one in four teachers and fewer than two in five
assistant teachers and FCC providers report access to T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood® scholarships,
financial advisement, information sharing, and marketing may be a valuable strategy for
increasing access to existing scholarships. Other supports that educators feel would be valuable
include more convenient class times and online class options, which may allow educators to fit
helpful PD into their busy schedules.

34

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Chapter 4

Compensation and Financial WellBeing
Despite the importance of early educators in promoting children’s development, many early
educators earn exceedingly low wages, sometimes at or near the federal poverty level, lack
access to workplace benefits, and often struggle to meet the needs of their own families
(Whitebook et al., 2014). Low wages do not only constrain an early educator’s ability to deliver
high-quality services to young children (Phillips, Mekos, Scarr, McCartney, & Abbott-Shim, 2000),
but also contribute to an annual early educator turnover rate of 15–30% and persistent
difficulties attracting and retaining professionals in the field (Phillips et al., 2000). Several studies
have also found that the strongest predictor of classroom quality is the wages earned by
teachers, which also predict the likelihood that they will stay in their jobs (Schaack & Le, 2017d).
Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to explore the compensation and economic well-being of a
sample of early educators in Michigan so that policy makers can better target workforce
initiatives aimed at improving the financial status of the workforce.

Research Questions
Specifically, this chapter will address the following research questions:
1. What are the hourly wages earned by a sample of early educators in Michigan?
2. What benefits do they receive?
3. To what extent is the sample economically fragile?

35

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Results
What are the hourly wages of a sample of early educators in Michigan?
Exhibit 4.1 shows the descriptive statistics for hourly wages among early educators in various job
roles, sectors, and age groups. As is typical, we report median wages. 2
Exhibit 4.1. Descriptive Statistics for Hourly Wages by Job Role, Setting, and Age Group
Job Role
FCC Provider
Assistant Teacher
Teacher
Community-Based
Publicly Funded
Preschool
Infant/Toddler
Administrators

Median (SD)
$9.25 ($4.24)
$12.00 ($2.22)
$15.00 ($6.37)
$13.50 ($3.31)
$15.50 ($4.84)
$15.50 ($4.60)
$14.90 ($4.41)
$20.00 ($4.61)

Range
$9.25–$33
$9.25–$20
$9.25–$33
$9.25–$22
$9.25–$33
$9.25–$33
$9.25–$33
$9.25–$33

As shown in Exhibit 4.2, FCC providers earned the lowest wages compared to all other job roles. 3
Specifically, FCC providers earn $9.25, which is the same as the state’s minimum wage. Assistant
teachers earned slightly more ($12), followed by teachers ($15) and administrators ($20). With
respect to staff in community and public programs, there appears to be a career ladder linked to
increased wages within the profession. Teachers earn an average of $7,155 more annually than
assistant teachers; administrators earn an average of $8,902 more annually than teachers.

2

Mean hourly wages were observed to be similar to median wages for the sample. Average hourly wages for FCC
providers are $11.31 an hour, for assistant teachers are $12.08 an hour, for teachers are $15.52 an hour, and for
administrators are $19.80 an hour.
3
It is unclear from the reporting of FCC providers whether they considered their business expenses in their hourly
wage, which may account for the wide variation in their hourly wages. A more detailed account of FCC providers’
expenses may be needed to more accurately reflect their income.

36

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Exhibit 4.2. Median Hourly Wages by Job Role
$9.25

$12.00

$15.00

Family Child Care
Providers

Assistant Teachers

Teachers

$20.00

Administrators

The large standard deviation in teachers’ hourly wages (Exhibit 4.1) suggests considerable
variability, likely due to differences by setting. Specifically, Exhibit 4.3 displays the median hourly
wages for teachers who work in public programs and for teachers who work in community-based
programs on the left side of the figure. Teachers who work in public programs earn a median
wage of $15.50 an hour, whereas teachers in community-based programs earn a median wage
of $13.50, a statistically significant difference. As noted in Chapter 2, there were no statistically
significant educational differences among these teachers.
The right side of Exhibit 4.3 combines teachers across the two service sectors and displays the
median hourly wages for preschool and infant/toddler teachers. Preschool teachers report a
median hourly wage of $15.50 and infant/toddler teachers report an average hourly wage of
$14.90. Differences in hourly wages between preschool teachers and infant/toddler teachers are
not statistically significant.
Exhibit 4.3. Teacher Median Hourly Wage by Program Type and Age Group Served
$15.50

$13.50

$15.50

$14.90

Public
Teachers

Community
Teachers

Preschool
Teachers

Infant/Toddler
Teachers

Exhibit 4.4 displays the descriptive statistics for wages among teachers across settings by
education level. Due to small sample sizes, teachers with a high school diploma as their highest
education level and teachers who have taken some college classes, but have not yet earned a
degree, were combined. Teachers with a high school degree / some college earn significantly less
than those with an A.A. degree or higher ($11.50 and $13.50, respectively). Teachers with a B.A.
degree earn approximately $16.25 an hour, and teachers with a graduate degree earn
approximately $15.50 an hour. There were no statistically significant differences among the
wages of teachers with A.A., B.A., and graduate degrees. The large standard deviation for
teachers who have a master’s degree reflects the wide range ($9.25–$33) and the relatively
large portion of educators (8%) who report the highest wage ($33).

37

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Exhibit 4.4. Descriptive Statistics for Wages by Educational Attainment among Teachers
Educational Attainment
High School Diploma / Some College
Associate’s Degree
Bachelor’s Degree
Master’s Degree

Median (SD)
$11.50 ($2.13)
$13.50 ($2.74)
$16.25 ($3.73)
$15.50 ($6.51)

Range
$9.25–$22.91
$9.60–$23.39
$9.25–$29
$9.25–$33

To account for cost of living, we examine the extent to which early educators, within each
county, have hourly wages that are sufficient to support one adult, or one adult and one child,
under the assumption that the early educator is the sole monetary provider.4 Across counties,
the average hourly wage needed to support one adult was $10.53 and the average hourly wage
needed to support one adult and one child was $22.29. Exhibit 4.5 provides the percent of early
educators whose hourly wage meets the threshold for a living wage by job role, service sector,
and age group served. With the exception of FCC providers, the majority of educators report
hourly wages that could support one adult. A little less than one in four FCC providers report
wages that can support one adult, whereas more than 90% of administrators report wages that
could support one adult. Examining the percentage of early educators whose wages can support
one adult and one child, we observe that the vast majority cannot do so on their wages alone.
Nearly one third of administrators report being able to do so, compared to less than 6% of
educators in other roles. Overall, the hourly wages reported by the early educators in our sample
are generally sufficient to support a single adult, but are mostly insufficient to support a family of
one adult and one child (or more).

Exhibit 4.5. Percent of Early Educators Meeting the Threshold for a Living Wage by Job Role,
Setting, and Age Group Served
FCC Provider
Assistant Teacher
Teacher
Community-Based
Publicly-Funded
Preschool
Infant/Toddler
Administrator

4

1 Adult
23%
65%
84%
79%
86%
86%
84%
91%

1 Adult, 1 Child
5%
0%
5%
0%
6%
5%
3%
35%

The living wage calculator used for this analysis is found at http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/26/locations.

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

What benefits do they receive?
To understand the extent to which early educators have access to workplace benefits, early
educators who work in community and public programs were asked to identify the benefits they
are offered through their employers. FCC providers were asked to identify the types of benefits
that they either purchase or receive through their partner or spouse. For the purpose of this
analysis, we combined job roles within sectors since workplace benefits are often provided at an
organizational level. Exhibit 4.6 displays the results. The three most commonly received benefits,
by service sector, are highlighted in the table.
Exhibit 4.6 Benefits Received by Service Sector
Overall Sample
Health insurance
Dental insurance
Short-term disability insurance
Long-term disability insurance
Vision insurance
A retirement plan
Two weeks of paid time off
At least five paid holidays
Paid professional development
Tuition support
Reduced-rate / free child care
Flexible spending account
I do not receive any benefits

54%
45%
22%
18%
38%
29%
35%
51%
42%
16%
18%
13%
18%

FCC
Provider
46%
35%
8%
5%
27%
12%
17%
40%
14%
5%
9%
5%
28%

Community

Public

45%
38%
28%
21%
30%
29%
52%
65%
60%
25%
41%
13%
11%

68%
62%
38%
33%
57%
53%
52%
60%
72%
26%
20%
23%
8%

More than half of early educators who work in publicly funded and community-based programs
are receiving two weeks paid time off, at least five paid holidays, and paid professional
development. Early educators working in publicly funded programs are also likely to receive
health, dental, vision insurance, and a retirement plan. However, less than half of all communitybased early educators and FCC providers receive health, dental, and vision insurance, and 88% of
FCC providers and 71% of community-based early educators do not have a retirement savings
account to which they or their employer contribute. In total, 18% of early educators across
sectors do not receive any benefits, including 28% of FCC providers, 11% of community-based
early educators, and 8% of early educators working in public programs.
We also compared whether early educators working in different service sectors are more or less
likely to receive particular benefits. Results suggest that community-based early educators are
more likely to receive short-term and long-term disability, have a retirement plan, receive five
paid holidays, and receive tuition support than are FCC providers. Early educators working in

39

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

public programs are also more likely to receive health insurance, long-term disability, vision
insurance, and paid professional development than are community-based teachers. Communitybased early educators are also more likely to receive free or reduced-rate child care than early
educators working in public programs.

To what extent is the sample economically fragile?
We first examined what percentage of educators in the sample receive at least one public
subsidy reserved for low-income individuals and families, including:
〉

Medicaid / MI Child Health Insurance (MIChild)

〉

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

〉

Woman, Infants, and Children (WIC) Nutrition Program

〉

Free or Reduced-Price Lunches

〉

Section 8 Housing Vouchers or Public Housing

〉

Child Development and Care (CDC) Subsidies

〉

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

〉

Low-Income Energy Assistance (RH Tennyson_LIHEAP)

〉

The Earned Income Tax Credit

Overall, 93% of the total sample received at least one subsidy. Exhibit 4.7 displays the results by
job role.
Exhibit 4.7. Percent of Early Educators Receiving Public Subsidies by Job Role
93%

95%

94%

91%

Family Child Care
Providers

Assistant Teachers

Teachers

Administrators

The figure shows that a high percentage of early educators across job roles (91–95%) participate
in at least one public assistance program. The most commonly utilized public subsidies include
MIChild (46%), Medicaid/Medicare (42%), the Earned Income Tax Credit (40%), free and reduced

40

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

school lunches (30%), and WIC or SNAP (26%). Among educators receiving more than one
subsidy, 33% receive two subsidies, 20% receive three subsidies, and 10% receive four or more
subsidies. Next, we examined what percentage of educators in the sample hold a second job.
Overall, 20% of the total sample held second jobs. Exhibit 4.8 shows the results by job role.
Between 15% and 26% of early educators hold a second job across job roles. When examining
differences by job roles, FCC providers are less likely to have a second job than teachers.

Exhibit 4.8. Percent of Early Educators Holding Second Jobs by Job Role
26%
15%

Family Child Care
Providers

23%

19%

Assistant Teachers

Teachers

Administrators

Next, we examined the financial strain experienced by the sample of early educators. Early
educators were asked to respond to a set of three questions drawn from the Financial Strain
Scale (Conger & Elder, 1994). The first question asked about how much money they have left
over at the end of each month. For this item, a score of 1 reflects “not enough money” left to
make ends meet, a score of 2 reflects “just enough money,” a score of 3 reflects “some money
left over” after paying bills, and a score of 4 reflects “more than enough money left over.” The
second item asked early educators how difficult it has been for them to pay their bills over the
last 12 months. A score of 1 reflects “great difficulty,” a score of 2 reflects that they have had
“quite a bit of difficulty,” a score of 3 reflects that they have had “some difficulty,” and a score of
4 reflects that they have had “no difficulty.”
Exhibit 4.9 displays the means (and standard deviations) for the sample by job role. The table
shows that, on average, across job roles, most early educators make just enough money to pay
their bills with little money left over at the end of each month. Across the sample, 19% report
not having enough money left at the end of each month to make ends meet. The table also
shows that most early educators, across job roles, and particularly assistant teachers, have some
difficulty paying their bills. Across the sample, 18% percent report quite a bit of difficulty paying
their bills.
Exhibit 4.9. Descriptive Statistics for Financial Strain Scale by Job Role

Money left at end of month

FCC Providers

Administrators

Teachers

2.28 (0.80)

2.46 (0.88)

2.18 (0.89)

Assistant
Teachers
2.05 (0.94)

41

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Difficulty paying bills
3.21 (0.80)
3.28 (0.78)
Note: Lower scores indicate greater financial strain

3.01 (0.93)

2.83 (0.98)

Early educators were also asked to identify the financial sacrifices they have made in the past
year to make ends meet. Exhibit 4.10 displays the percentage of early educators across the
sample that have made particular sacrifices. Important to note, 52% have used savings to meet
basic expenses, while 42% used credit to make ends meet. In addition, about one in three
educators had to postpone medical or dental care because of a lack of funds, one in four have
fallen behind in bills, and one in five have borrowed money to meet their basic needs.
Exhibit 4.10. Financial Sacrifices
Cut back on social activities and entertainment expenses.
Changed food shopping or eating habits to save money.
Used savings to meet daily living expenses.
Postponed major household purchase(s).
Purchased more items on credit than you used to.
Postponed medical/dental care.
Fallen behind in paying bills.
Reduced household utility use.
Reduced other charitable contributions.
Reduced driving the car to save money.
Borrowed money to help pay bills.
Sold possessions or cashed in life insurance.
Postponed or delayed paying property tax.
Reduced or let life insurance lapse.
Reduced or eliminated medical insurance.
Reduced or eliminated auto or household insurance.
Sold property to raise money.

Percent
63%
55%
52%
48%
42%
33%
27%
26%
26%
24%
20%
18%
6%
4%
5%
5%
4%

Conclusion
The results of this chapter demonstrate the economic fragility of Michigan’s early educator
workforce. Regional cost of living analyses reveal that most educator wages are insufficient to
support one adult and one child. Almost all of the early educators in this sample make low
enough wages that they or their children receive public subsidies restricted to low-income
individuals or families, suggesting that government programs are subsidizing the ECE workforce.
Approximately one in five educators are struggling to pay their bills and make ends meet. The
low percentages of early educators in community-based ECE programs and of FCC providers who
received comprehensive benefits also show how difficult it is to make a career in ECE.
Importantly, the stress that early educators may feel as a result of such economic strain can have

42

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

implications for young children, as it can be very challenging to provide positive and responsive
care in the face of chronic economic stress (Dearing, McCartney, & Taylor, 2001).
The results of this chapter also show little practical variation among teachers’ hourly wages as a
function of their education levels, tenure in their organizations, and experience as an early
educator, creating little incentive for teachers to pursue educational advancement and making it
difficult to retain a highly qualified workforce in many communities throughout Michigan. In the
immediate future, major public investments are needed to increase the compensation of early
educators in Michigan, who are so very vital to working families and their children.

43

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Chapter 5

Working Conditions, Turnover, and
Burnout
Working conditions, such as planning time, paid professional development, physical resources,
and manageable class sizes, can promote effective teaching (Torquati, Raikes, & HuddlestonCasas, 2007; Whitebook, McLean, & Austin, 2016). However, unsupportive working conditions,
including stressful situations, difficult relationships, and not feeling fairly compensated, may
incite turnover (Cassidy, Lower, Kintner-Duffy, Hedge, & Shim, 2011; Jeon & Wells, 2018).
Turnover and burnout among the ECE workforce are a major cause for concern. Early educators
who experience burnout feel emotionally exhausted, detached from their jobs, and lack a sense
of personal accomplishment at work (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Past studies have
documented average early childhood teacher turnover at rates of 15–30% annually, depending
on the setting (Rhodes & Huston, 2012). Turnover tends to be even higher among assistant
teachers, with some estimates as high as 36% (Roberts, Gallagher, Sarver & Daro, 2018; Schaack
& Le, 2017d). Turnover can be disruptive to children, as well as staff, who have formed strong
relationships and routines (Whitebook & Sakai, 2003), and it can be time consuming and costly
to programs as administrators must hire and train new staff (Hale-Jinks, Knopf, & Kemple, 2006).
This chapter explores working conditions, as well as turnover and burnout, among the sample of
early educators in Michigan. Aside from reporting the working conditions experienced by early
educators, we report educators’ perceptions of the quality of work environments, as well as job
motivations and frustrations. To inform workforce retention efforts, this chapter also explores
the working conditions educators identify as critical for keeping them in their jobs. We also
report the extent to which early educators experience burnout, as well as intentions to leave
their jobs in the next two years. Finally, we examine turnover rates among early educators in
various job roles, and the time it usually takes to fill staff vacancies when turnover occurs.

44

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Research Questions
The purpose of this chapter is to address the following questions among a sample of early
educators in Michigan:
1. What types of working conditions do early educators experience?
2. What are their most common job motivators and frustrations?
3. To what extent do early educators in the sample experience burnout and intend to leave
their jobs?
4. What are the annual turnover rates and how long does it take to fill vacancies?
5. What factors do early educators identify as important for retaining them in their jobs?

Results
What types of working conditions do early educators experience?
Working conditions were measured in two ways: job supports and perceived quality of the work
environment. Regarding job supports, teachers and assistant teachers identified supports in their
work settings from a list of 13 options. These supports are categorized into four areas: (1)
written job expectations; (2) performance and wage review processes; (3) paid planning and
professional development; and (4) self-care. Results are displayed in Exhibit 5.1.
Teachers and assistant teachers commonly report having written job expectations, including
employee handbooks and job descriptions, annual performance evaluations, and orientation for
new staff, as well as paid time for planning, PD, and staff meetings. Teachers in public settings
were significantly more likely to receive paid PD (58%) than teachers in community settings
(30%). In terms of supports for self-care, more than half of the teachers and assistant teachers
had access to a staff lounge. Notably, less than one in three teachers and assistant teachers
report receiving paid lunches and paid breaks, and only 17% report annual cost-of-living wage
increases

45

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Exhibit 5.1. Job Supports Available to Teachers and Assistant Teachers
Construct
Written job
expectations
Performance
and wage
review
processes

Paid planning
and
professional
development

Self-care

Items
Written personnel policies /
employee handbook
Written job descriptions
Written hiring contracts
Annual performance evaluations
A formal grievance process
Yearly cost-of-living wage
adjustments
Orientation for new staff
At least one hour of paid
planning time a week
Paid release time for required
training/professional
development
Paid attendance for staff
meetings outside of work hours
A staff lounge
Paid lunch breaks for employees
working six hours or more
Fifteen-minute breaks for every
four hours worked

Percent
76%
71%
47%
73%
43%
17%
62%
61%
53%
50%
61%
28%
23%

The second measure of working conditions captured early educators’ perceptions of the quality
of their work environment. Teachers and assistant teachers responded to a series of 12 items
rated on a 1–5 scale, with 1 meaning “strongly disagree” and 5 meaning “strongly agree.” The 12
items were subjected to a factor analysis that identified two underlying constructs:
communicative-supportive and bureaucratic-unrest. Communicative-supportive is characterized
by formal and informal communication and professional support among staff and administrators.
Bureaucratic-unrest is characterized by a strong regulatory and hierarchical culture, paperwork
requirements, staff conflict, confusion, and dissatisfaction. Specific items on the scale are found
in Exhibit 5.2.

46

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Exhibit 5.2. Perceptions of Work Environment Items
Scale

Items

CommunicativeSupport

− My relationships with the other teachers in my program are positive
and collegial.
− We have strong communication among the teachers in my classroom.
− Leadership in my program helps me to be effective in my teaching.
− There is strong communication between program leadership and
teachers.
− Decisions about my job are made in a fair manner.
− Teachers feel comfortable sharing their challenges with supervisors and
program leaders.

BureaucraticUnrest

− My time is spent more on paperwork (assessments, preparing for
inspections, etc.) than on being with children.
− Too many rules and regulations interfere with how well I am able to do
my job.
− Program leaders rarely involve teachers in decision-making about the
direction of the program.
− The morale among teachers in my center is low.
− It is often not clear who has the authority to make decisions regarding
my job.
− In my program, we have a lot of conflicts with one another.

Exhibit 5.3 shows the mean scores for teachers and assistant teachers for “communicativesupport” and “bureaucratic-unrest.” Higher scores on the communicative-support scale indicate
more positive work environments, whereas higher scores on the bureaucratic-unrest suggest
more negative work environments.
Exhibit 5.3. Perceptions of Work Environments
3.89

3.83
2.72

2.56

Teachers
Bureaucratic-Unrest

Assistant Teachers
Communicative-Support

Results suggest that, on average, both teachers and assistant teachers have largely positive
perceptions of their work environments. Mean scores for the communicative-support scale are

47

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

3.83 and 3.89, respectively, indicating both groups tend to “agree” there is strong formal and
informal communication and professional support in place in their workplaces. Likewise, mean
scores for the bureaucratic-unrest scale are 2.72 and 2.56, respectively, indicating that both
groups tend not to see their work environments as being overly hierarchical, regulatory, and
conflictual. There were no statistically significant differences by job role or sector.

What are their most common job motivators and frustrations?
Motivators. Early educators were asked to identify, from a set of 18 response options, the three
primary factors that motivate them to stay in their jobs. Exhibit 5.4 displays the percent of
educators who endorsed each option, with the three most frequently nominated factors
highlighted for each job role.
Exhibit 5.4. Job Motivations

Relationships with children
Relationships with families
I feel like I am making a difference
I am good at what I do
Relationships with other staff
The work schedule
The benefits
The pay
I don’t like change
Career advancement opportunities
PD opportunities
Autonomy and independence
To develop and support teachers
Free or reduced-rate child care
I own the business / work for myself
I can’t find another job
Ability to stay home
Tuition support

FCC
Providers

Administrators

Teachers

Assistant
Teachers

71%
41%
40%
27%
6%
7%
2%
7%
2%
1%
2%
5%
1%
2%
49%
1%
32%
1%

64%
47%
47%
28%
25%
14%
8%
8%
3%
5%
1%
14%
15%
1%
9%
2%
2%
0%

83%
51%
41%
25%
23%
20%
11%
6%
6%
5%
5%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
1%
0%

92%
53%
36%
20%
34%
26%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
5%
3%
4%
5%
0%
2%
0%

Across job roles, the most commonly reported reason that early educators stay in their jobs is
the relationships they have with children (64–92% across job roles). Other commonly endorsed
reasons include the relationships with families and feeling like they are making a difference.
Similarly, approximately one in four teachers and assistant teachers and one in three
administrators note that their relationships with other staff is a key reason for staying in their
job. It is also worth noting that many educators are also motivated by feelings of self-efficacy,

48

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

with 20–28% of educators indicating that being good at what they do contributes to why they
stay. Several motivators are unique to FCC providers; approximately half of FCC providers are
motivated to stay in their jobs because they are business owners and work for themselves, and
approximately one in three FCC are motivated to stay in their jobs because of their ability to
work from home. Notably, the reasons early educators did not typically note as primary factors
that contribute to them staying in their jobs include pay and benefits, career advancement and
professional development, tuition support, and job autonomy.
Frustrations. Similarly, early educators were asked to identify, from a list of 24 response items,
their top three most significant job stressors and frustrations. Exhibit 5.5 displays the percent of
educators who endorsed each option, with the three most frequently nominated factors
highlighted for each job role.
Exhibit 5.5. Job Frustrations
FCC
Providers

Administrators

Teachers

Assistant
Teachers

The pay
Too much paperwork
Children’s challenging behavior

45%
28%
6%

51%
34%
18%

67%
28%
21%

63%
20%
25%

Teacher turnover
Lack of paid time off
Lack of health benefits
Lack of retirement benefits
Balancing work/family needs
Not enough staff in classrooms
Conflict with other teachers
Conflict with administrators
Not enough job autonomy
Too many training requirements
Managing staff
Conflict with families
Board management
Teacher supervision
Enrollment
Families pay late
Work schedule
Running a business in my home

5%
35%
29%
40%
16%
1%
1%
1%
2%
6%
1%
5%
1%
0%
3%
11%
11%
14%

28%
7%
16%
18%
13%
7%
6%
3%
2%
7%
12%
3%
3%
4%
3%
10%
4%
1%

20%
17%
16%
13%
13%
11%
11%
9%
8%
5%
4%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%

24%
12%
28%
17%
4%
5%
13%
6%
2%
6%
0%
0%
3%
3%
0%
2%
5%
0%

Fiscal management
Moving classrooms to meet ratios

3%
1%

10%
4%

1%
1%

0%
3%

49

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Being sent home without pay due to
child attendance

FCC
Providers

Administrators

Teachers

Assistant
Teachers

1%

1%

2%

8%

Across job roles, the most commonly reported reason that early educators feel frustrated in
their jobs is the pay (45–67% across job roles). Relatedly, lack of benefits, including health
benefits, paid time off, and retirement benefits, were also commonly cited frustrations,
especially among FCC providers. Excessive paperwork, including reporting and monitoring
requirements and child assessments, was another main source of stress, particularly among
administrators and teachers. Additionally, administrators, teachers, and assistant teachers also
indicate frustration stemming from a lack of support addressing children’s behavioral challenges,
as well as high rates of teacher turnover. Teachers in community settings are significantly more
likely to report unpredictable work schedules as a frustration as compared to teachers in public
settings.

To what extent do early educators experience burnout and intend to
leave their jobs?
Burnout. Given the frustrations experienced by educators, it is also worth exploring the extent to
which they experience burnout. Burnout consists of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization,
and lack of personal accomplishment. Emotional exhaustion represents the stress component of
burnout, characterized by fatigue and feeling drained from work. Depersonalization represents
the tendency to withdraw from the work, including becoming more detached in work
relationships. Personal accomplishment refers to a feeling of efficacy and achievement at work.
Individuals experiencing burnout feel less accomplished or successful (Maslach, Schaufeli, &
Leiter, 2001). Early educators identified how often they experienced nine symptoms of burnout
(three items each) on a 7-point scale, where 1 represented “every day” and 7 represented
“never.” Results are summarized in Exhibit 5.6.
Exhibit 5.6. Average Burnout Component Scores by Job Role
6.37 6.27 6.25 6.32
4.96
4.67 4.43
4.28
2.09

Emotional Exhaustion
FCC

Depersonalization
Administrator

Teacher

2.2

2.12 2.46

Personal Accomplishment
Assistant Teacher

50

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

On average, administrators and teachers feel emotionally exhausted “a few times a month” and
FCC providers and assistant teachers feel emotionally exhausted “once a month or less.” In
terms of depersonalization, all job roles feel that they experience symptoms “a few times a
year.” Finally, FCC, administrators, and teachers feel personally accomplished, on average, “a
few times a week.” Assistant teachers tend to feel personally accomplished “once a week.”
Among teachers, symptoms of burnout did not significantly vary by sector.
Intention to Leave. Early educators were asked to indicate whether they planned to stay in their
current jobs for at least the next two years. Responses are shown in Exhibit 5.7. FCC providers
express the greatest intent to stay, with only 12% indicating intent to leave or uncertainty about
whether they would stay in or leave their jobs. Among administrators, 22% indicate intent to
leave within the next two years or uncertainty about their job intentions. Teachers and assistant
teachers express the greatest intent to leave; 35% of teachers and 40% of assistant teachers
indicate that they intend to leave their jobs or expressed uncertainty about staying in their jobs.
Across all job roles, more early educators express uncertainty about job intentions than an intent
to leave.
Exhibit 5.7. Job Intentions in the Next Two Years by Job Role
Job Role
FCC Providers
Administrators
Teachers
Assistant Teachers

Intend to Leave

Intend to Stay

Uncertain

2%
5%
8%
14%

88%
77%
65%
60%

10%
18%
27%
26%

Teachers who work in community settings are significantly more likely to express uncertainty
about their job intentions (43%) compared to teachers who work in publicly funded settings
(22%).

What are the annual turnover rates of early educators and how long
does it take to fill vacancies?
Turnover. Administrators in community and public settings reported the number of staff in
various job roles who left their employment in the past year, as well as the total number of staff
employed. This information was used to calculate annual turnover rates among six job roles—
teachers, assistant teachers, substitutes, administrators, infant/toddler teachers, and preschool
teachers. Annual turnover rates by job role are shown in Exhibit 5.8. Annual turnover is highest
among assistant teachers, with nearly half (46%) of assistant teachers leaving during the year.
Annual turnover among teachers is 30%, meaning close to one in three teachers left during the
year. Turnover is lowest among substitute teachers (18%) and administrators (13%).

51

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Exhibit 5.8 Average Annual Turnover Rates by Job Role
46%
31%

26%

30%
18%

Preschool
Teachers

Infant/Toddler
Teachers

13%

Substitute
Teachers

Assistant
Teachers

Teachers

Administrators

Turnover rates also appear similar among infant/toddler teachers (31%) and preschool teachers
(26%). Turnover rates are also similar between teachers who work in community-based and
publicly funded ECE programs (Exhibit 5.9).
Exhibit 5.9. Average Annual Turnover Rates by Job Role and Program Type
48%

45%
34%

27%
11%

Assistant Teacher

Teacher
Community Setting

14%

Administrator
Public Setting

Filling Vacancies. Administrators were asked how long it takes, on average, to fill vacant
positions. Administrators report that, across job roles, it takes approximately two months (M =
1.76, SD = 1.58) to fill vacancies. Responses range from less than one month to eight months.

What factors do early educators identify as important for retaining them
in their jobs?
To better understand the working conditions and working environments that would promote
early educators’ retention, administrators, teachers, and assistant teachers were asked to
identify the top three factors that would keep them in their jobs. Exhibit 5.10 displays their
responses. The three most commonly nominated workplace factors by job role are highlighted.
By far, the most important retention factor that early educators identify across job roles is higher
pay, with at least 65% of early educators across job roles indicating that pay would be important

52

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

to their retention. Similarly, at least one in four educators, across job roles, indicate better
benefits would also be an important factor in promoting retention. More respect for the
profession was also identified as important. Many respondents indicated that “other” working
conditions would be needed, but most do not specify what these other working conditions
entail.
Exhibit 5.10. Working Conditions That Early Educators Report Promote Retention

Better pay
Better benefits
Other
More respect for the profession
A better supervisor
More opportunities for paid professional
development
Working fewer hours
Working on an academic calendar year
A more predictable work schedule
If it were easier to enroll families / fill slots
If families paid on time
Changes to standards
Nothing
Tuition support

Administrators

Teachers

65%
27%
29%
17%
11%
11%

69%
29%
26%
25%
14%
10%

Assistant
Teachers
69%
26%
28%
24%
11%
10%

6%
5%
4%
4%
5%
4%
4%
1%

9%
7%
5%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%

8%
8%
8%
4%
5%
5%
4%
1%

Conclusion
There are several positive findings worth noting. On average, this sample of early educators
tends to view their work settings as more supportive and communicative and less bureaucratic
and disruptive. Some job supports also seem to be in place, such as written job expectations,
regular performance evaluations, and job orientations. Teachers and assistant teachers report
relatively high rates of personal accomplishment and relatively low rates of depersonalization.
However, on average, teachers in this sample experience symptoms of emotional exhaustion “a
few times a month.” Job frustrations typically involve low pay and lack of benefits. Educators are
not consistently receiving wage increases to adjust for cost of living, likely contributing to the
financial strain reported in the previous chapter. Furthermore, ECE programs in this sample
experience relatively high rates of turnover. Approximately one in two assistant teachers and
one in three teachers leave their jobs annually, likely due to the frustrations they express related
to compensation. Consistently, teachers and assistant teachers express the greatest intent to
leave and the greatest uncertainty about staying in their jobs. Given that turnover can be timeconsuming, costly, and stressful, and can have detrimental consequences for children, staff,
administrators, and programs (Hale-Jinks et al., 2006; Whitebook & Sakai, 2003), efforts should

53

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

be made to minimize turnover as much as possible. According to early educators, increasing pay
and benefits would be the most effective way to keep them in their jobs.

54

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Chapter 6

Conclusion and Recommendations
The results of this study provide a detailed overview of the characteristics and experiences of a
sample of early educators in Michigan. Several key findings emerged that have implications for
practice and policy. It is important to emphasize that these conclusions are drawn from a sample
of early educators and more information is needed regarding the full population of early
educators in Michigan.
This study reveals many positive aspects of ECE in Michigan. For instance, early educators report
feeling mostly prepared to do their jobs; they express a commitment to the children and families
they work with, as well as a commitment to the profession. However, results also indicate
significant sacrifices and struggles, especially related to job stability, compensation, and working
conditions. Although this workforce demonstrates a commitment to the profession, they have
less tenure at their current jobs and express uncertainty about staying in their current positions.
Turnover rates are high, with approximately one in three teachers and one in two assistant
teachers leaving annually. As a result, the following recommendations are offered as ways to
promote a well-prepared, well-supported, thriving ECE workforce that is most capable of serving
children and families in Michigan.

Increase the racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity of early
educators.
Nearly all early educators in the sample are white, and fewer than one in ten speak languages
other than English. Ten percent of teachers in community and public settings report having
children in their classroom whose primary language is not spoken by any staff in the program,
which likely poses barriers to communicating with and educating all children. As the racial,
ethnic, and linguistic diversity of Michigan’s young population grows (Mack, 2017; Montemurri &
Turner, 2014; Park et al., 2017), efforts should be made to increase diversity among the early
education workforce, especially in light of findings that outcomes are improved when a student’s
race/ethnicity matches that of his/her teacher (e.g., Dee, 2005; Downer et al., 2016; Wright et
al., 2017). State policy makers and program leaders should consider using targeted recruitment
efforts—for instance, creating scholarship opportunities for teachers or prospective teachers of

55

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

color, as well as linguistically diverse teachers. One strategy that has been effective in the K–12
sector offers a promising model for early education. Similar to the “NxtGen” scholarship program
at the University of Colorado Denver, diverse high school students who are interested in early
education could receive scholarships for a bachelor’s degree with Early Childhood Education (ZA)
or Early Childhood General and Special Education (ZS) endorsements. In turn, scholarship
recipients could commit to work part-time, while in school, as paraprofessionals in early
childhood programs, and move into teaching positions upon graduation. Important to note,
however, well-intentioned recruitment and retention efforts may be futile if compensation and
working conditions do not improve, which is discussed in more detail below.

Ensure early educators feel prepared to work with all children,
especially dual language learners.
Aside from lacking linguistic diversity, this sample of early educators also felt the least prepared
to work with dual language learners than any other group of children (e.g., children with
disabilities, children experiencing trauma, etc.). This finding is particularly concerning given that
approximately 15% of young children in Michigan are dual language learners (Park et al., 2017),
an estimate that is likely to grow in coming years (Montemurri & Tanner, 2014). Unfortunately,
this finding is not surprising given national findings showing a lack of content focus on dual
language learners in teacher preparation programs (Ray, Bowman, & Robbins, 2006). One
potential way to enhance early educators’ knowledge is to require dual language learning
coursework and in-service professional development in Michigan’s Great Start Quality Rating and
Improvement System. When specific standards are included in state-level accountability
systems, institutions of higher education are more likely to create and deliver coursework
related to the standards (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Concerted efforts must also be made to
build capacity among teacher educators, who often lack expertise in dual language learning
(Copeman Petig et al., 2018); as such, professional development opportunities for teacher
educators and recruiting and retaining diverse teacher educators is especially important.

Make professional development opportunities more accessible
to early educators across settings.
Early educators experience numerous barriers to professional development (PD), which suggest
that PD needs to be more accessible. In particular, in-service PD needs to be more financially
accessible to educators across settings; common barriers include expense, lack of paid time off,
and lack of substitute coverage. Early educators across settings identify tuition support as the
most desired support for increasing their accessibility to formal degree programs. In the current
sample, 45% of FCCs and 42% of assistant teachers report not having a formal degree (A.A., B.A.,
or graduate degree), yet only 18% of assistant teachers and 15% of FCC providers report that
T.E.A.C.H. scholarships were available to them. It is possible that the early educators who may
benefit most from scholarship opportunities may not know they exist or how to utilize them.
Early educators also identified the need for more advisement, particularly financial advisement.
Thus, efforts could be made at the local Great Start Council level to employ college/career

56

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

counselors to help early educators access financial support, advisement, and academic tutoring.
One model to explore is the Los Angeles Universal Preschool’s Workforce Initiative, which
provides financial, academic, and career supports to working early educators to foster degree
persistence and reduce financial strain (Whitebook, Schaack, Kipnis, Austin, & Sakai, 2013).
Additionally, many educators desire more convenient class times and more online class options
to be able to pursue degrees. Increasing the accessibility of PD could be accomplished by
creating more modules or online trainings available through the MiRegistry for little to no cost to
participants. Trainings should be consistent with early learning or Great Start to Quality (QRIS)
system standards and can be linked to various incentives, such as quality ratings, reimbursement
rates, bonuses, and the like. To create more online coursework for early educators, institutions
of higher education, including community colleges, could compete for grants to transform faceto-face courses into online or hybrid formats. PD and coursework should be designed for
working professionals and must be available to educators across settings and across the state.

Improve working conditions for early educators across settings,
especially wages and benefits.
Although the average early educator in this sample reports significant experience and advanced
education, median wages appear to be more consistent with entry-level positions, suggesting
wages are relatively stagnant. In fact, FCC providers report median wages equal to Michigan’s
minimum wage, which are insufficient to support a family of two, and few early educators
receive wage increases to adjust for the cost of living. Although there does appear to be some
opportunities for wage growth when looking at positions within centers and schools, even the
highest positions within this hierarchy, those held by administrators, report financial hardship
and reliance on public assistance. A staggering 93% of the total sample report utilizing some
form of public assistance and express “some” difficulty paying bills. From a list of 24 options,
wages are identified, across job roles, as the most frustrating aspect of the work. Relatedly, wage
increases are the most commonly identified way to promote staff retention and reduce
turnover. As a result, Michigan stakeholders should explore ways to sustainably increase early
educator wages, as well as benefits, across settings. Stakeholders could consider incorporating
compensation into their QRIS system as an indicator of quality. For instance, centers who
provide higher pay and/or comprehensive benefits packages could receive higher ratings within
the system. It is important to note, however, that ECE settings are often financially constrained
and, thus, incentivizing higher compensation may not create change unless funds are devoted to
supporting the ECE workforce. One way to increase funding devoted to wages could involve
increasing Child Care and Development Block Grant funded subsidy reimbursement rates and
specifically earmarking increases for salaries. Another strategy could include non-refundable tax
credits linked to early educators’ MiRegistry tier. In Michigan, changes in funding formulas are
mostly decided by administration and the legislature. As such, leadership is needed to prioritize
early educator wages in advocacy and policy efforts. In reality, multiple policy solutions must be
explored as different sectors require different solutions. Therefore, dedicated leadership is
needed to create a common vision and real solutions.

57

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

References
Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count Data Center. (2018). Child population by race for Michigan.
Retrieved November 21, 2018, from https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/103-childpopulation-by-race.
Austin, L. J. (2018, July 11). Supporting the infant-toddler workforce: A multi-pronged approach is
urgently needed [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://cscce.berkeley.edu/supporting-the-infanttoddler-workforce/
Austin, L. J., Sakai, L., & Dhamija, D. (2016). 2016 Alameda County Early Care and Education Workforce
Study. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California,
Berkeley.
Barnett, W. S., & Lamy, C. E. (2013). Achievement gaps start early: How preschool can help. In P. L. Carter
& K. G. Welner (eds.), Closing the Opportunity Gap: What America Must Do to Give Every Child an
Even Chance (pp. 98–110). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bates, L. A., & Glick, J. E. (2013). Does it matter if teachers and schools match the student? Racial and
ethnic disparities in problem behaviors. Social Science Research, 42(5), 1180–1190.
Cassidy, D. J., Lower, J. K., Kintner-Duffy, V. L., Hegde, A. V., & Shim, J. (2011). The day to-day reality of
teacher turnover in preschool classrooms: An analysis of classroom context and teacher, director,
and parent perspectives. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(1), 1–23.
Conger, R. D., & Elder Jr, G. H. (1994). Families in Troubled Times: Adapting to Change in Rural America.
Social Institutions and Social Change. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Copeman Petig, A., Austin, L. J. E., & Dean, A. (2018). Understanding Many Languages: Preparing Early
Educators to Teach Dual Language Learners. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care
Employment.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1).
Dearing, E., McCartney, K., & Taylor, B. A. (2001). Change in family income‐to‐needs matters more for
children with less. Child Development, 72: 1779–1793.
Dee, T. S. (2005). A teacher like me: Does race, ethnicity, or gender matter? The American Economic
Review, 95(2), 158–165.
Downer, J. T., Goble, P., Myers, S. S., & Pianta, R. C. (2016). Teacher-child racial/ethnic match within prekindergarten classrooms and children’s early school adjustment. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 37, 26–38.
Egalite, A. J., Kisida, B., & Winters, M. A. (2015). Representation in the classroom: The effect of own-race
teachers on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 45, 44–52.
Hale-Jinks, C., Knopf, H., & Kemple, H. (2006). Tackling teacher turnover in child care: Understanding
causes and consequences, identifying solutions. Childhood Education, 82(4), 219–226.

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Helburn, S. W. (1995). Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers. Technical Report, Public
Report, and Executive Summary. Denver, CO: University of Colorado Denver.
Institute of Medicine & National Research Council (IOM & NRC). (2015). Transforming the Workforce for
Children Birth to 8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Jeon, L., & Wells, M. (2018). An organizational-level analysis of early childhood teachers’ job attitudes:
Workplace satisfaction affects Early Head Start and Head Start teacher turnover. Child & Youth
Care Forum, 47(4), 563–581.
Mack, J. (2017, Jan. 30). Minorities comprise third of Michigan K–12 students, and 4 other facts. Michigan
Live. Retrieved from
https://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/01/minorities_comprise_third_of_m.html.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S., & Leiter, M. (1997). The Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual. In C. P. Zalaquett &
R. J. Wood (eds.), Evaluating Stress: A Book of Resources (pp. 191–218).Lanham, MD: Scarecrow
Education.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1),
397–422.
McDonald, J. H. (2014). Handbook of Biological Sciences. Baltimore, MD: Sparky House Publishing.
Michigan Association for the Education of Young Children [MIAEYC]. (n.d.) T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood ®
Michigan Scholarship Program. Retrieved from http://www.miaeyc.org/professionaldevelopment/t-e-a-c-h-scholarships/.
MIRegistry. (2018, November 2). Retrieved from http://www.miregistry.org/.
Montemurri, P. & Tanner, K. (2014, Oct.22). By 2060, a much more multiracial Michigan will emerge.
Detroit Free Press. Retrieved from
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/10/24/michigan-diversity-index-racialdemographics/17671861/.
National Survey of Early Care and Education Team (NSECE). (2013). Number and Characteristics of Early
Care Education (ECE) Teachers and Caregivers: Initial Findings from the National Survey of Early
Care and Education (NSECE). Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation Administration for
Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services.
Park, M., O’Toole, A., & Katsiaficas, C. (2017). Dual Language Learners: A National Demographic and
Policy Profile. National Center of Immigrant Integration Policy.
Phillips, D., Mekos, D., Scarr, S., McCartney, K., & Abbott-Shim, M. (2000). Within and beyond the
classroom door: Assessing quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(4),
475–496.
Potter, C., Leake, R., Longworth-Reed, L., Altschul, I., & Rienks, S. (2016). Measuring organizational health
in child welfare agencies. Children and Youth Services Review, 61, 31–39.
Ray, A., Bowman, B., & Robbins, J. (2006). Preparing Early Childhood Teachers to Successfully Educate All
Children: The Contribution of Four-Year Undergraduate Teacher Preparation Programs. Chicago,
IL: Erikson Institute.

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Rhodes, H., & Huston, A. (2012). Building the workforce our youngest children deserve. Social Policy
Report. Volume 26, Number 1. Society for Research in Child Development.
Roberts, A., Gallagher, K., Sarver, S., & Daro, A. (2018). Early Childhood Teacher Turnover in Nebraska.
Omaha, NE: Buffett Early Childhood Institute.
Sakai, L., Kipnis, F., Whitebook, M., & Schaack, D. (2013). Yes We Can: Supporting Degree Attainment for
Early Childhood Practitioners. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 16(2).
Schaack, D., & Le, V. (2017a). At the Heart of the Matter: The Compensation of Colorado’s Early Educators.
Denver, CO: University of Colorado Denver.
Schaack, D., & Le, V. (2017b). The Work Environments and Well-Being of Colorado’s Early Childhood
Teachers. Denver, CO: University of Colorado Denver.
Schaack, D., & Le, V. (2017c). Colorado’s Early Childhood Workforce Survey 2017: Final Report. Denver,
CO: University of Colorado Denver.
Schaack, D., & Le, V. (2017d). Factors That Predict Turnover, Retention, and Well-Being among Colorado’s
Early Educators. Denver, CO: University of Colorado Denver.
Setodji, C. M., Le, V., Schaack, D. (2012). Accounting for movement between child care classrooms: Does
it change teacher effects interpretations? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33(1), 1–
12.
Torquati, J. C., Raikes, H., & Huddleston-Casas, C. A. (2007). Teacher education, motivation,
compensation, workplace support, and links to quality of center-based child care and teachers’
intention to stay in the early childhood profession. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(2),
261–275.
Whitebook, M. (2003). Bachelor's Degrees Are Best: Higher Qualifications for Pre-Kindergarten Teachers
Lead to Better Learning Environments for Children: A Review of Research Prepared for the Trust
for Education. Retrieved December 14, 2018 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED480817.pdf.
Whitebook, M., McLean, C., & Austin, L. J. (2016). Early Childhood Workforce Index, 2016. Center for the
Study of Child Care Employment, University of California at Berkeley.
Whitebook, M., Phillips, D., & Howes, C. (2014). Worthy Work, STILL Unlivable Wages: The Early Childhood
Workforce 25 Years after the National Child Care Staffing Study. Center for the Study of Child Care
Employment, University of California, Berkeley.
Whitebook, M. & Sakai, L. (2003). Turnover begets turnover: An examination of job and occupational
instability among child care center staff. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(3), 273–293.
Whitebook, M., Schaack, D., Kipnis, F., Austin, L., & Sakai, L. (2013). From Aspiration to Attainment:
Practices That Support Educational Success, Los Angeles Universal Preschool’s Child Development
Workforce Initiative. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of
California, Berkeley.
Wright, A., Gottfried, M., & Le, V. (2017). A kindergarten teacher like me: the role of student-teacher race
in social-emotional development. Centennial Edition of the American Educational Research
Journal, 54, 78S–101S.

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, M., Espinosa, L., Gormley, W.,... Zaslow, M. J.
(2013). Investing in Our Future: The Evidence Base on Preschool Education. New York, NY:
Foundation for Child Development and Ann Arbor. MI: Society for Research in Child
Development.
Zaslow, M., Tout, K., Halle, T., Whittaker, J. V., & Lavelle, B. (2010). Toward the Identification of Features
of Effective Professional Development for Early Childhood Educators. Literature Review. Office of
Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, US Department of Education.

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Appendix A
List of Michigan Counties by Region
Western Michigan
Allegan
Barry
Berrien
Calhoun
Cass
Ionia
Joseph
Kalamazoo
Kent
Lake
Mason
Mecosta
Montcalm
Muskegon
Newaygo
Oceana
Osceola
Ottawa
Van Buren

UP and Northern LP
Alcona
Alger
Alpena
Antrim
Baraga
Benzie
Charlevoix
Cheboygan
Chippewa
Crawford
Delta
Dickinson
Emmet
Gogebic
Grand Traverse
Houghton
Iosco
Iron
Kalkaska
Keewenaw
Leelanau
Luce
Mackinac
Manistee
Marquette
Menominee
Missaukee
Montmorenc
Ogemaw
Ontonagon
Oscoda
Otesgo
Presque Isle
Roscommon
Schoolcraft
Wexford

Eastern or East Central
Michigan
Arenac
Bay
Clair
Clare
Clinton
Eaton
Genesee
Gladwin
Gratiot
Huron
Ingham
Isabella
Lapeer
Midland
Saginaw
Sanilac
Shiawassee
Tuscola

Southeast Michigan
Branch
Hillside
Jackson
Lenawee
Livingston
Macomb
Monroe
Oakland
Washtenaw
Wayne

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Appendix B
Demographic and Educational Characteristics by Region
Exhibit B.1. Descriptive Statistics for Age and Experience Levels by Job Role by Region
Job Role
Family Child Care Providers
Age
Years in current position
Years in the ECE field
Administrators
Age
Years in current position
Years in the ECE field
Teachers
Age
Years in current position
Years in the ECE field
Assistant Teachers
Age
Years in current position
Years in the ECE field

Western
M (SD)
Range

UP and Northern LP
M (SD)
Range

Southeast
M (SD)
Range

Eastern or East Central
M (SD)
Range

42.93 (10.54)
12.67 (10.19)
16.70 (10.17)

18–65
0–34
0.50

42.92 (10.16)
13.49 (9.43)
16.57 (8.24)

18–69
0–36
0–44

46.11 (11.59)
14.32 (11.62)
17.99 (11.44)

19–70
0–44
0–50

45.95 (10.18)
15.18 (9.13)
19.89 (9.5)

20–61
0–42
0–50

42.47 (10.69)
7.52 (7.38)
17.24 (9.77)

23–62
0–33
1–50

43.31 (10.05)
5.81 (4.82)
17.96 (8.18)

24–64
0–21
1–44

44.39 (11.26)
7.7 (7.6)
17.01 (10.38)

24–79
0–36
1–45

42.10 (11.39)
7.76 (8.26)
17.40 (10.53)

25–62
0–29
0–44

39.87 (13.08)
5.86 (4.76)
11.86 (8.34)

18–64
0–20
0–35

39.01 (9.79)
3.27 (3.57)
12.89 (8.15)

24–55
0–16
0–44

37.93 (11.74)
5.44 (6.12)
13.53 (9.67)

20–62
0–30
1–38

38.93 (11.03)
6.41 (6.93)
13.5 (8.58)

21–64
0–35
1–41

38.79 (11.88)
5.93 (6.94)
7.69 (7.33)

20–61
0–45
0–50

42.09 (15.20)
9.21 (10.26)
13.28 (10.19)

19–73
0–35
2–36

42.08 (13.70)
3.43 (3.84)
9.86 (8.42)

20–73
0–12
1–28

38.39 (14.56)
3.91 (4.78)
10.26 (11.08)

19–67
0–20
0–38

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Exhibit B.2. Racial/Ethnic Distribution of the Early Educator Workforce Sample by Region

Family Child Care Providers
Black
Hispanic
White
Other race
Administrators
Black
Hispanic
White
Other race
Teachers
Black
Hispanic
White
Other race
Assistant Teachers
Black
Hispanic
White
Other race

Western

UP and Northern LP

Southeast

Eastern or East Central

2%
0%
97%
1%

0%
0%
98%
2%

26%
0%
67%
8%

3%
1%
94%
3%

2%
2%
96%
0%

0%
0%
100%
0%

15%
1%
77%
6%

2%
5%
93%
0%

3%
3%
86%
7%

0%
0%
95%
5%

9%
5%
83%
20%

4%
0%
91%
6%

0%
7%
86%
7%

0%
0%
94%
6%

0%
0%
93%
7%

9%
4%
87%
0%

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Exhibit B.3. Educational Attainment of the Early Educator Workforce Sample by Region

Family Child Care Providers
High school diploma
Some college
AA
BA
MA or higher
Administrators
High school diploma
Some college
AA
BA
MA or higher
Teachers
High school diploma
Some college
AA
BA
MA or higher
Assistant Teachers
High school diploma
Some college
AA
BA
MA or higher

Western

UP and Northern LP

Southeast

Eastern or East Central

15%
34%
18%
29%
4%

13%
41%
15%
24%
7%

10%
22%
29%
27%
13%

11%
46%
21%
16%
6%

0%
7%
16%
42%
34%

0%
11%
10%
38%
41%

0%
12%
5%
45%
38%

0%
8%
15%
44%
32%

10%
10%
10%
48%
21%

0%
5%
21%
64%
10%

2%
11%
17%
40%
30%

2%
6%
19%
57%
17%

10%
26%
19%
29%
16%

6%
37%
47%
3%
7%

21%
43%
14%
14%
7%

9%
23%
36%
28%
4%

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Appendix C
Professional Development Experiences and Needs by Region
Exhibit C.1. Average Feelings of Preparation for Teachers and Provider by Region— M (SD)
Western

UP and Northern LP

Eastern or East Central

Southeast

3.28 (0.69)
3.24 (0.79)
3.41 (0.67)
3.40 (0.58)
3.30 (0.67)
3.47 (0.60)

3.22 (0.67)
3.19 (0.65)
3.08 (.071)
3.42 (0.68)
3.38 (0.70)
3.54 (0.62)

3.38 (0.65)
3.23 (0.67)
3.27 (0.71)
3.41 (0.64)
3.35 (0.64)
3.58 (0.49)

3.42 (0.67)
3.35 (0.69)
3.43 (0.65)
3.45 (0.68)
3.40 (0.66)
3.61 (0.54)

3.17 (0.77)
3.03 (0.78)
3.13 (0.83)
3.04 (0.78)
2.92 (0.89)

3.12 (0.75)
3.12 (0.77)
3.15 (0.74)
2.78 (0.86)
2.67 (0.95)

3.17 (0.68)
3.13 (0.79)
3.38 (0.71)
3.17 (0.86)
3.01 (0.92)

3.21 (0.79)
3.08 (0.84)
3.21 (0.80)
2.98 (0.88)
2.92 (0.99)

3.41 (0.61)

3.35 (0.66)

3.63 (0.65)

3.54 (0.63)

3.04 (1.06)
2.86 (0.99)
3.02 (1.00)
3.18 (0.92)
3.01 (1.00)

3.05 (0.78)
2.95 (0.82)
3.05 (0.86)
3.21 (0.83)
2.92 (0.90)

3.00 (0.85)
2.92 (0.76)
3.03 (0.71)
3.04 (0.86)
2.83 (0.96)

2.98 (0.70)
2.90 (0.66)
3.09 (0.64)
3.16 (0.71)
3.24 (0.61)

Teachers
Support language development
Implement Math/Science curricula
Implement Creative Arts curricula
Conduct observations
Use assessment results
Work with families
FCC Providers
Support language development
Implement Math/Science curricula
Implement Creative Arts curricula
Conduct observations
Use assessment results
Work with families
Assistant Teacher
Support language development
Implement Math/Science curricula
Implement Creative Arts curricula
Conduct observations
Use assessment results

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Work with families

3.22 (0.88)

3.21 (0.81)

3.42 (0.60)

3.35 (0.61)

Exhibit C.2. Average Feelings of Preparation for Administrators by Region

M (SD)

Supervisory Tasks
Managerial Tasks
Family-Related Tasks

Western

UP and Northern LP

Eastern or East Central

Southeast

3.19 (0.59)
2.91 (0.61)
3.15 (0.56)

3.23 (0.48)
2.89 (0.65)
3.39 (0.52)

3.08 (0.52)
2.76 (0.66)
3.13 (0.65)

3.29 (0.54)
3.10 (0.68)
3.36 (0.59)

Exhibit C.3. Average Satisfaction with PD by Region—M (SD)
Western

UP and Northern LP

Eastern or East Central

Southeast

4.08 (0.78)

4.00 (0.86)

4.22 (0.68)

4.17 (0.72)

Exhibit C.4. Preferred PD Modality by Region
M (SD)

Face-to-face, group PD
Online PD
On-the-job mentoring or coaching

Western

UP and Northern LP

Eastern or East Central

Southeast

67%
68%
27%

77%
50%
35%

75%
62%
36%

76%
60%
34%

Exhibit C.5. Percent of Teachers Endorsing “It is usually too far away” as a Barrier to PD
Western

UP and Northern LP

Eastern or East Central

Southeast

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

7%

26%

10%

14%

Exhibit C.6. Percent of Early Educators Identifying Needed Supports by Region
M (SD)

More online class options
More convenient class locations
Child care

Western

UP and Northern LP

Eastern or East Central

Southeast

24%
5%
6%

53%
21%
11%

39%
17%
15%

33%
11%
15%

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Appendix D
Compensation by Region
Exhibit D.1. Regional Wages by Job Role
Western
FCC Providers
Assistant Teachers
Teachers
Administrators
UP and Northern LP
FCC Providers
Assistant Teachers
Teachers
Administrators
Eastern or East Central
FCC Providers
Assistant Teachers
Teachers
Administrators
Southeast
FCC Providers
Assistant Teachers
Teachers
Administrators

Mean

Median

Std Dev

Min.

Max.

$11.01
$11.84
$19.40
$14.48

$ 9.25
$11.55
$18.48
$14.72

$4.63
$2.13
$6.82
$5.49

$9.25
$9.25
$9.25
$9.25

$33.00
$16.47
$33.00
$33.00

$11.33
$11.78
$21.02
$17.20

$ 9.25
$11.75
$22.10
$17.85

$5.71
$1.94
$5.56
$4.62

$9.25
$9.25
$9.25
$9.25

$33.00
$15.33
$33.00
$33.00

$11.28
$11.96
$18.70
$15.43

$ 9.25
$12.00
$18.29
$15.00

$4.93
$1.73
$6.02
$4.81

$9.25
$9.25
$9.25
$9.25

$33.00
$16.00
$33.00
$33.00

$11.01

$ 9.25

$5.82

$9.25

$33.00

$12.88
$20.25
$15.56

$12.19
$20.10
$15.00

$3.01
$6.47
$3.80

$9.40
$9.25
$9.25

$20.00
$33.00
$25.25

Exhibit D.2. Percent Meeting Threshold for a Living Wage by Job Role
Western
FCC Providers
Assistant Teachers
Teachers
Administrators
UP and Northern LP
FCC Providers
Assistant Teachers

1 Adult

1 Adult, 1 Child

25%
60%
76%
88%

4%
0%
7%
27%

19%
63%

7%
0%

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Teachers
Administrators
Eastern or East Central
FCC Providers
Assistant Teachers
Teachers
Administrators
Southeast
FCC Providers

90%
93%

6%
59%

26%
70%
81%
92%

4%
0%
7%
27%

22%

6%

Assistant Teachers
Teachers
Administrators

64%
89%
92%

0%
2%
36%

Exhibit D.3. Percent with Benefits by Region
Western
Health insurance
Dental insurance
Short-term disability insurance
Long-term disability insurance
Vision insurance
Retirement plan
At least two weeks of paid time off
At least five paid holidays
Paid professional development
Tuition support
Reduced rate / free child care
Flexible spending account
No benefits

52%
42%
16%
12%
33%
25%
35%
52%
37%
15%
18%
11%
17%

UP and
Northern LP
51%
42%
15%
11%
33%
29%
28%
40%
35%
19%
13%
6%
24%

Eastern or
East Central
61%
52%
27%
26%
47%
35%
39%
55%
54%
13%
17%
17%
17%

Southeast

Exhibit D.4. Percent Second Job and Public Subsidy Recipient by Region
Western
FCC Provider
Assistant Teacher
Teacher
Administrator
UP and Northern LP
FCC Provider
Assistant Teacher

Second Job

Public Subsidy Recipient

11%
10%
16%

92%
93%
91%

24%

94%

16%
6%

94%
95%

53%
46%
27%
20%
39%
30%
35%
54%
42%
16%
22%
14%
17%

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Teacher
Administrator
Eastern or East Central
FCC Provider
Assistant Teacher
Teacher

21%
31%

90%
94%

21%
31%
28%

95%
97%
90%

Administrator

30%

93%

16%
21%
27%
23%

91%
96%
92%
96%

Southeast
FCC Provider
Assistant Teacher
Teacher
Administrator

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Appendix E
Working Conditions, Turnover, and Burnout by Region
Exhibit E.1. Job Intentions for the Next Two Years by Job Role and Region
M (SD)

FCC Provider
Leave
Stay
Unsure
Administrator
Leave
Stay
Unsure
Teacher
Leave
Stay
Unsure
Assistant Teacher
Leave
Stay
Unsure

Western

UP and Northern
LP

Eastern or East
Central

Southeast

4%
85%
11%

1%
90%
9%

3%
88%
9%

1%
90%
9%

4%
83%
13%

9%
82%
9%

8%
65%
27%

2%
79%
20%

3%
72%
24%

0%
73%
27%

6%
68%
26%

13%
57%
30%

15%
53%

12%
69%

13%
65%

14%
49%

32%

18%

22%

37%

Exhibit E.2. Annual Turnover Rates by Job Role & Region
M (SD)

Teachers
Assistant Teachers
Substitute Teachers
Administrators
Infant/Toddler Teachers
Preschool Teachers

Western

UP and
Northern LP

Eastern or East
Central

Southeast

29%
45%
18%
14%
30%
24%

35%
55%
27%
12%
50%
27%

25%
42%
10%
14%
18%
29%

31%
44%
19%
11%
31%
25%

 MICHIGAN EARLY CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE STUDY

Exhibit E.3. Average Months to Fill Vacancies by Region
Western
UP and Northern LP
Eastern or East Central
Southeast

Mean
1.87
1.39
1.75
1.86

SD
1.45
1.59
1.51
1.70

Range
0–8
0–8
0–8
0–8