Making Gains Synthesis Conference
Conference was held in 1999.
This conference has concluded.
Investigators:
Pam Winton
(pam_winton@unc.edu)
Project Staff: Kate Thegen, Wanda Weaver
Conference goals: - to contribute a relevant body of knowledge to the continuing improvement of the early childhood professional development system
- to create an environment where national, state and local stakeholders could develop research-based strategies and models for supporting a qualified early childhood workforce focused on making changes to compensation of early childhood teachers and providers
Conference structure: Twenty-one teams (1 national, 10 state and 10 NC counties) of 5-8 people participated in this 2-day conference in Chapel Hill, NC. Presentations were made on existing professional development and compensation models around the country and in Canada. Written descriptions of models were in conference notebooks. Presenters were available as resources. Keynote and closing presentations were by nationally recognized leaders who provided a national context. One team was comprised of leaders of national organizations and agencies who also contributed in a panel presentation.
Conference sponsorship was a collaboration among the Center for the Child Care Workforce, Day Care Services Association, NCEDL, NC Division of Child Development, the NC Institute of Early Childhood Professional Development and the Mailman Foundation.
The participant structure was team-based and included a prescribed formula of one teacher/provider, director, policy-maker, professional development and regulatory decision-maker per team. The perspectives of parents, teachers and childcare directors were shared through panel discussions.
Teams of policy makers and stakeholders were given opportunities to interact and exchange ideas, access current research on models and strategies, learn about important linkages between professional development and compensation and develop strategies to address compensation. They were provided with 3 formal opportunities to process the information, adjust their goals and create take-home plans to be implemented after the conference. Follow up by conference staff 3 and 6 months later gathered information about their progress.
Conference results: Follow up interviews indicated that the conference was a catalyst for their collaborative attempts by teams to bring policy and funding resources to the issue of compensation. While they met with varying degrees of success in moving forward to achieve their goals, participants rated the conference's value to the early childhood workforce a 4.6 on a scale of 1-5 (1 being of little value and 5 being highly valuable).
Our website has been an important way of sharing information, research, and tools from the conference with our target audience in an ongoing way. This recent email illustrates the kinds of responses that we have received:
Dear Dr. Winton,
I am an early childhood consultant for Jewish institutions in the greater Philadelphia area. Our constituents need research data that they can bring to the boards about the measurable and observable outcomes of good early childhood programs. We are fighting the same battle as other early childhood programs of all types across the country in terms of recruitment and retention due to low salaries, benefits, and status. I am mustering whatever weapons I can in the fight to save the quality of our schools!
In addition, I was very impressed with the information on the web from the Making Gains Conference held in Chapel Hill in 1999 and have used it in discussions with the directors and our Advisory Committee. Has there been another conference? Do you have any ideas where I can get more information on progress in outside support of wages and benefits? I am familiar with the work of the Center for the Child Care Workforce and the Worthy Wage Campaign.
Thank you for your help, and for the very important work that you are doing!
New knowledge: Participants left with new ways of thinking about professional development and compensation linkages. Existing models broadened horizons and possibilities and fueled creative problem-solving that was relevant to the unique needs of each team's local or state situation.
The conference teams identified common goals. Thirty percent of the goals focussed on dissemination - sharing information with the community, decision-makers and with new and existing groups.
The second most common goal was to bring together new groups to focus on compensation and professional development. There were some differences in the kinds of goals developed by the states as compared to the NC county teams. More state goals as compared to county goals focused on bringing new groups together; more county goals as compared to states' focused on initiatives that link professional development and compensation.
In addition, analysis of progress at implementing their goals revealed that on a scale of 1-5 (with 1 being no progress and 5 being a great deal of progress), states rated their progress at an average of 2.76 and NC counties an average of 3.29.
Between 3 and 6 months after the conference, team liaisons were interviewed about the progress their team had made in achieving the goals. Both state and county teams cited barriers that reflect the difficulties of the scope of the problem - the time it takes to address it, "there is so much to change" or they had been unrealistic in what they could actually accomplish.
Another factor that emerged as both a facilitator and a barrier was the impact of other groups. This factor includes the team's access to or influence with groups (including key individuals, agencies and organizations) that may or may not have a buy-in, information or a willingness to collaborate. Whether they facilitated progress on the achievement of goals or were impediments to progress, they were significant factors for both state and county teams.
Another factor related reaching goals was the presence or lack of opportunity, timing, and reflects the impact of competing or complementary priorities, administrative support or caution. This factor was more strongly identified as a barrier for states and as a facilitator for NC counties, perhaps reflecting the positive climate for change in NC created by the Smart Start initiative.
Across both states' and North Carolina teams the 3 most often-named facilitating factors related to people or groups of people. The 3 most commonly identified barriers were those linked to institutions and resources.
Implications of project: This conference model is an effective strategy for both disseminating information and for promoting effective systems change through the use of team-based planning model. Further, policy-making in the future should reflect the link between professional development and compensation.
Publications, products:
|
