ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. WORKFORCE COMPENSATION POLICIES FOR LEAD TEACHERS IN STATE-FUNDED PRESCHOOL ZAYNAB KHAN, ALLISON FRIEDMAN-KRAUSS (FACULT ADVISOR) ✵ ABSTRACT Each state in the US has different compensa- tion parity policies for their early childhood educa- tion programs. Currently, public preschool teachers often have similar qualifications to K-3 teachers but earn significantly lower salaries. Compensation par- ity policies ensure that equivalent work and qualifi- cations are compensated with equivalent pay and benefits. Using data collected by the National Insti- tute of Early Education Research (NIEER), I organized and analyzed policy data from all state-funded pre- school programs in the U.S., with a focus on state compensation parity policies for lead preschool teachers. Ultimately, my purpose was to understand state-funded preschool compensation parity for lead teachers in order to identify areas of improve- ment for the workforce within early education pro- grams. I initially hypothesized that Pre-K programs that required pay parity did not cost states more per child than Pre-K programs that did not require pay parity. Literature from NIEER and other early educa- tion research institutions has shown that quality early education programs are critical in a child’s formative years and suggests that a more satisfied workforce yields more positive outcomes for children. Parity policies in state-funded Pre-K programs are not highly correlated to spending per child or program quality. Moreover, parity policies improve workforce well-being and should still be incorporated into state-funded Pre-K. Results show that there are only six programs across four states that require full salary parity for lead preschool teachers and no states re- quire benefit parity for lead preschool teachers in both public and private settings. No clear pattern has emerged between compensation parity policies and state preschool spending or program quality. 1 INTRODUCTION i. What is compensation parity? Many preschool teachers earn substantially less than their counterparts in K-3 despite having comparable education and training.[3] A lack of parity in both salaries and benefits between preschool and K-3 teachers has important implications for both the teachers themselves as well as for the children they serve. In this study, I apply the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment’s (CSCCE) definition of workforce compensation parity to analyze the work- force compensation parity policies in state-funded preschools in the U.S.[10] According to CSCCE, pay parity occurs when preschool teachers and K-3 teachers with equal qualifications and work experi- ence receive equal pay (TABLE 1). COMPONENTS OF COMPENSATION SALARY PARITY BENEFIT PARITY FU LL PA R IT Y Equivalent starting salary with K-3 lead teachers with the same qualifications Equivalent salary schedule with K-3 lead teachers with the same qualifications Salary schedule is prorated for differences in length of workday or year Requires retirement benefits Requires paid time off Requires healthcare benefits Requires other benefits PA R TI A L PA R IT Y Not equivalent or no salary schedule Some benefits are equivalent, but others are not TABLE 1: Compensation Parity & Related Forms of Compensation Improvement NOTE. Definitions of parity as defined above. SOURCE: Adapted from Whitebook, Marcy, and Caitlin McLean. “In Pursuit of Pre-K Parity.” Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, Apr. 2017. ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III TABLE 1 outlines how CSCCE defines compensation parity. This definition divides parity into multiple cat- egories such as full parity, partial parity, sub parity, and alternative forms of compensation. Parity is equivalent compensation which includes: 1) starting salary, 2) salary schedule, 3) benefits, and 4) payment for professional responsibilities for em- ployees with similar qualifications. Full parity is when teachers receive equivalent treat- ment across all four parity categories. Partial parity is the equivalent treatment across some of the parity categories. For example, starting salary could be the same, while salary schedule, benefits, and/or pay- ment for professional responsibilities may differ.[1] Sub-parity is similar to partial parity but does not en- tail equivalent treatment across all four parity cate- gories. Alternative forms of compensation include strategies to improve compensation but do not fall into one the three other categories.[1] Only full and partial parity will be further discussed in this paper. Early childhood education in the U.S. con- sists of a variety of programs such as the federal Head Start program, childcare, state-funded pre- school, or private school. This paper will specifically discuss state-funded preschool. State-funded pre- school is defined as a program that is directed, funded, and controlled by the state, serves mainly 3 and 4 year-olds, and focuses on early childhood ed- ucation.[3] Furthermore, state-funded preschool is a distinct program from state-subsidized childcare, programs that do not need to include early learning components. Some states such as New Jersey have multiple preschool programs which are all funded and instituted by the state. Each state is responsible for the licensing and administration of these pro- grams. State-funded preschool programs may be provided in both public (e.g., public schools) and nonpublic settings (e.g., childcare centers) when states have mixed-delivery systems. This paper will specifically focus on parity for lead teachers in state-funded Pre-K, in contrast to as- sistant teachers or other staff employed at state- funded preschool programs. Lead teachers are of- ten required to have the similar qualifications to K-3 teachers (such as a bachelor’s degree). Assistant teachers often do not need the same level of educa- tion as lead teachers and are typically not present in K-3 programs. Qualifications requirements for lead teachers can be compared to those of K-3 teachers as they require similar education levels. ii. Why is compensation parity important? Prior research suggests that teacher com- pensation affects both teachers as well as their stu- dents.[9] For example, improved well-being of the preschool workforce is associated with higher qual- ity preschool programs. One recent review found that teacher stress was associated with poor teacher- child relationships and ineffective teaching of social and emotional skills.[9] Teachers’ financial instability was identified as a significant source of stress and thus associated with less positive child outcomes. Low emotional wellness of teachers is associated with negative effects on students such as misbehav- ior, indicating the relationship between teacher well- ness and student outcomes.[7] Furthermore, low wages are correlated with high turnover rates.[9] Consequently, this may nega- tively affect program quality for children. Parity poli- cies in general are associated with higher wages for lead teachers and can improve teacher well-being. Compensation parity is critical because it is associ- ated with higher wages for preschool teachers, put- ting them on a pay scale like their K-3 colleagues. While both K-3 and many preschool teachers are re- quired to have the same educational backgrounds (e.g., at least a BA), preschool teachers typically earn significantly less than K-3 teachers. Teachers in the federal Head Start program with at least a BA still make, on average, $23,000 less than public K-3 teachers.[2] In a study conducted by the research insti- tute Child Trends, researchers examined Alabama’s First Class Pre-K program after the state increased funding for salary parity in 2016.[5] Teachers began receiving pay similar to public K-3 teachers. In this qualitative study, some preschool directors reported ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III that they could lead more effectively since parity re- sulted in easier recruitment of high-quality teachers. Furthermore, the researchers also noticed an in- crease in teamwork after the policy took effect. From the preschools the researchers surveyed, all direc- tors reported high staff retention rates of teachers. More lead teachers opted to remain employed within Alabama’s First Class Pre-K program than be- fore, and directors and teachers noted that there was an increased amount of interest from public school teachers to find employment in Alabama’s First Class Pre-K program. However, this did not apply to auxil- iary staff, who were not affected by the new parity policy. Teachers also reported better economic and personal well-being after salary parity went into ef- fect.[5] While this study was conducted in 2016, the parity policies remain in place in Alabama’s First Class Pre-K.[8] Taken together, this research by Child Trends and the paper Early Care and Education Teacher Well-Being: Associations with Children's Ex- perience, Outcomes, and Workplace Conditions: A Research-to-Policy Brief suggests that compensation parity is an essential ingredient for improving pre- school program quality. As a result, it can potentially improve outcomes for children in their formative years and teachers’ well-being. Further, this research highlights that it is important for states to prioritize compensation parity policies in their state-funded preschool programs and that it is necessary to un- derstand the landscape of compensation parity pol- icies in state-funded preschool. iii. What are the main questions relating to the state of compensation policies in state- funded preschool? In response to the existing literature that in- dicates the importance of the compensation parity policies, I examined the existing structure of parity policies within state-funded Pre-K. In this exploratory paper, I addressed the following questions: 1) What do we know about preschool parity policies? 2) Which state-funded preschool programs institute partial or full parity for lead teachers? 3) How do parity policies differ across public and nonpublic settings within state-funded preschool programs? 4) How are parity policies related to teacher salaries for public programs? 5) To what extent do parity policies relate to state preschool spending and program costs? 6) To what extent do parity policies relate to the quality of state-funded preschool programs? Ultimately, this research focuses on pay parity poli- cies within the different state-funded preschool pro- grams across the United States and their relationship to cost and compensation in Pre-K. This research was conducted to understand if programs with pay parity policies spent more per child and if programs with pay parity policies had a higher wage for teachers. 2 METHODOLOGY The National Institute for Early Education Re- search (NIEER) has tracked state-funded preschool enrollment, spending, and policies in order to sup- port quality programs across states since 2002. Re- cently, NIEER has taken an in-depth look into com- pensation parity policies, including the extent to which they support the preschool teaching work- force. Data used in this paper pertain to the 2017- 2018 school year. NIEER surveys all 50 states, the District of Co- lumbia, and U.S. territories about their current poli- cies regarding their state-funded preschools. All states that have state-funded preschool programs have provided requested data. This includes 61 pre- school programs across 44 states and D.C.; the pro- grams serve over 1 million children. This information is compiled into the annual State of Preschool Year- book.[3] To explore lead preschool teacher compen- sation parity policies, I used data about state-funded preschool policies, such as each state’s required teacher qualifications, average salary of lead pre- school teachers, and average salary of lead K-3 teachers, for programs in both public and nonpublic settings. That is, although all programs receive state funding, many states use a mixed-delivery system where some preschool programs operate in public ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III [a] Consistent with U.S. government statistical reporting practices, the District of Columbia will be referred to as a “state” throughout this report. Hence, we report 45 “states” providing state-funded preschools. schools and others operate in nonpublic settings such as private childcare centers or Head Start programs. While data were collected on the 44 states, D.C., and territories (only Guam) that have a state-funded preschool program, only the states and D.C. were included in the analyses for this study.[a] Quality as discussed throughout the paper refers to the NIEER’s quality standards, which evalu- ate programs according to 10 benchmarks: early learning and development standards, curriculum support, teacher and assistant teacher educational background, training, and professional develop- ment, class sizes, staff-student ratios, and continuous quality improvement system. I conducted a thorough literature review of NIEER’s previous publications on compensation par- ity as well as other credible publications to under- stand compensation parity policies and their im- portance. To analyze the current state of compensa- tion parity for lead teachers in state-funded pre- school programs, I analyzed raw survey data col- lected by NIEER for the 2017-2018 State of Pre- school Yearbook. I also conducted statistical anal- yses, including correlations and regression analyses, on NIEER’s data to explore associations between compensation parity policies, state preschool spending, and preschool quality. For the regression analysis between parity policies and state preschool spending, the length of the day was included as an independent variable in the regression. The dependent variable, adjusted spending per child in each state’s Pre-K program, was regressed against the following binary variables: if they program offered part day, full day, or ex- tended day service and whether the program of- fered partial salary parity, full salary parity, and ben- efit parity within their programs. A regression analysis was also conducted between parity and quality benchmarks. Given that prior literature finds an association between teacher compensation and preschool quality, I also explored the association between state preschool programs’ parity policies and NIEER’s 10 benchmarks for pre- school quality.[6] Examples of NIEER’s quality stand- ard benchmarks include supports for curriculum im- plementation, qualifications of lead (at least a B.A.) and assistant teachers (at least a Child Development Associate (CDA)), class size (maximum 20 children) and staff to teacher ratios (1:10 or better), as well as other non-workforce related specifications (such as required health screenings for children). All the pro- grams are graded on quality on a scale from 1-10. The programs are evaluated across the 10 policy standards and then given an average total score. 3 RESULTS & DISCUSSION i. What do we know about preschool parity policies? Of the 44 states and District of Columbia that offered state funded preschool, some states re- quired similar qualifications for lead preschool teachers and public-school K-3 teachers. According to NIEER’s 2018 Workforce Special Report, 28 states required that all lead teachers in state-funded pre- school have at least a bachelor's degree (B.A.). 25 states required that lead teachers have an additional state-specified certification. However, of those states that require both a B.A. and a certification, only four —Hawaii, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island —require starting salary parity.[3] ii. Which state-funded preschool programs in- stitute partial or full parity for lead teachers? I explored state preschool parity policies to determine which states have full and partial parity policies in place for lead preschool teachers. NIEER collected data on state policies regarding both sal- ary parity and benefit parity in state-funded pre- school. As per the data from the 2017–2018 State of Preschool Yearbook, there were no states that re- quired both salary and benefit parity for all lead teachers in state-funded preschool programs, which includes teachers in programs that offer both non- public and public settings. Fifteen state-funded preschool programs have policies in place that meet the requirement for at least one component of salary parity, such as equivalent starting salaries but not an equivalent sal- ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III ary schedule. However, there are only six state- funded preschool programs that require full salary parity, which requires all three components (equiva- lent starting salary, equivalent salary schedule, and proration of salary based on work hours, see TABLE 1) for lead teachers in both public and nonpublic pro- grams. These six programs are in four states: Califor- nia, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Oregon. Only six programs meet at least one component of benefit parity, while no state program meets all three cate- gories of benefit parity (see TABLE 1) for teachers in all settings. iii. How do parity policies vary across public and non-public settings? In many state-funded preschool programs, parity policies differ for preschool teachers em- ployed by public and non-public schools. Parity pol- icies are more likely to be in place for preschool teachers employed by public rather than non-public schools. According to the NIEER Workforce Special Report, “In states requiring the same degree require- ments for all teachers, almost 70% (of those with data) reported wage disparities where preschool public school teachers earned up to $21,136 more than private preschool teachers in the same pro- gram. Disparities are even larger when comparing state-funded preschool teachers where a bachelor’s degree is required to public school K–3 teachers. Preschool pay gaps of $20,000 to $30,000 per year are common.”[3] Moreover, there are 19 state-funded pre- school programs that require full salary parity only for teachers employed by public programs. Oregon, California, New Mexico, Texas, Kentucky, Minnesota, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Maine have some form of salary parity. Only three states (Nevada, D.C., and Georgia) require full ben- efit parity for lead preschool teachers employed by FIGURE 1: Map of Salary and Benefit Parity Policies for Lead Teachers in State-Funded Preschool Programs Employed by Public Schools Compared to K-3 Lead Teachers Note: Map outlining parity by state public programs. ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III [b] While the state of California considers TK a kindergarten program, it meets NIEER’s definition of a state-funded preschool program[3]. Despite TK being viewed as kindergarten by CA, there is still a large salary gap between preschool teachers in TK and elementary school teachers. public schools. Of these, only the District of Colum- bia and Nevada require both salary and benefit par- ity for state-funded preschool teachers employed by public schools. iv. How are parity policies related to teacher salaries for public programs? One result of the lack of parity policies in state-funded preschool programs is that preschool lead teachers in public programs with similar qualifi- cations as public K-3 teachers often receive signifi- cantly less pay for similar work. According to the 2017–2018 Yearbook data, among the states that re- ported preschool teacher salary, state-funded pre- school teachers employed by public schools earned $7,456 less on average than public elementary school teachers. This gap is even larger when com- paring lead state-funded preschool teachers em- ployed by nonpublic settings with K-3 teachers; on average, this gap is $17,729.[3] I also explored the extent to which salary parity policies in state-funded preschool were re- lated to lead preschool teacher salaries. However, only 30 states provided data on average salaries for lead preschool teachers. When examining the states that require full salary parity for all programs, there still exists a significant wage gap between preschool teachers and K-3 teachers. For example, in Califor- nia’s Transitional Kindergarten (TK), a preschool pro- gram that serves 4-year-olds, the wage gap is $18,126 despite TK being considered an early year of kindergarten by California.[b] Similarly, in Oregon’s Preschool Promise program, the wage gap is $15,413. Both programs institute salary parity, yet there still exists a large discrepancy in wages.[3] The inconsistency of parity policies and teacher salaries across the different programs can be partly attributed to the split between public and non- public program designations. For example, New Mexico institutes full salary parity for preschool teachers in public schools but not those teaching in private settings (though still part of the state-funded program). The wage gap between state-funded, public school lead preschool and K-3 teachers in New Mexico is only $2,745. Conversely, in Arkansas, where there are no salary parity policies, the wage gap between public lead preschool teachers and public K-3 teachers is $8,824. Even after adjusting for cost of living, the wage gap in Arkansas is signifi- cantly higher than the wage gap in New Mexico.[3] v. To what extent do parity policies relate to state spending and program costs? A regression analysis showed a statistically insignificant correlation between salary parity poli- cies and state spending per child for preschool. As an example, Nevada and the District of Columbia are the only two states that have parity policies for both salary and benefits for lead preschool teachers em- ployed in public settings (see TABLE 2). Yet the state spending per child is significantly different in these two states. The District of Columbia spends $17,545 per child, which is the most compared to any other state program. The state of Nevada spends $4,025 per child (which is only slightly lower than the me- dian of $4,769 per child). When adjusted for cost of living, Nevada spends $4,124 per child and the Dis- trict of Columbia spends $15,008. Nevada still insti- tutes full compensation parity for public programs despite spending significantly less than the only other state that institutes full parity policies for both salary and benefits. However, it is worth noting that Nevada’s programs are part-day and only serve stu- dents for 2.5 hours a day while the District of Colum- bia’s program serves students for 6.5 hours a day (as indicated in TABLE 2). TABLE 3 indicates that it is somewhat surpris- ing that there is only a weak but nonsignificant cor- relation between spending per child and parity pol- icies. This is likely due to other variables such as dif- fering operating times (as in the example of District of Columbia and Nevada). That is, some programs are full-day while others are half-day, which affect costs. Programs also vary in the total number of hours and/or days per year, which also affects costs. Shorter programs will cost significantly less than pro- grams that serve students for longer periods of time. Results of the regression analysis indicated only a weak and nonsignificant correlation between pay parity policies and the spending per child of each ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III [c] Full day programs serve students for at least 5.5 hours a day. Extended day programs serve students for more than 6.5 hours a day. Part day programs serve students for at least 3 hours a day but not more than 5.5 hours. TABLE 2: State Preschool Spending Per Child, Minimum Operating Schedule, and Parity Policies[c] NOTE. This table represents data available on the operating schedule, spending per child, partial and full salary parity, and full benefit parity. ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III b (SE) p Part-Day Program (n =35) -375.9859 1165.289 P > .05 Full-Day Program (n=10) 949.3526 1428.907 P > .05 Extended-Day Program (n=7) 857.1525 1640.042 P > .05 Partial Salary Parity (n=29) -113.4493 1137.561 P > .05 Full Salary Parity (n=19) 2041.8102 1223.313 P > .05 Full Benefit Parity (n=3) 1266.2790 1996.638 P > .05 b (SE) p Part-Day Program (n =35) 1.5262705 0.7695571 P < .05 Full-Day Program (n=10) 2.8829284 0.9436502 P < .01 Extended-Day Program (n=7) 2.3051779 1.0830838 P < .05 Partial Salary Parity (n=29) 1.4399083 0.7512457 P > .05 Full Salary Parity (n=19) -0.9485807 0.8078760 P > .05 Full Benefit Parity (n=3) -1.7629463 1.3185800 P > .05 TABLE 3: Regression analysis predicting Spending per Child from Teacher Salary Parity TABLE 4: Regression Analysis predicting Quality Standard Benchmarks from Teacher Salary Parity ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III state program (𝑝𝑝 > .05). There are several limitations regarding finding a relationship between parity pol- icies and state spending. Many states have varied operating schedules. While the analysis accounted for operating schedule, it did not account for how many calendar days children are served. Further- more, class size, which varies amongst programs and is often a driver for program costs, was not con- trolled for. vi. How does parity relate to the quality of programs? Results of the regression analysis from TABLE 4 indicated only a weak and nonsignificant correlation between pay parity policies and the number of qual- ity standard benchmarks met by each state pre- school program (𝑝𝑝 > .05). In 2018, the programs that met every minimum quality benchmark were in Michigan, Alabama, and Rhode Island. NIEER does not include parity as one of their ten quality bench- marks and does not guarantee quality. None of these states institute full parity for their lead pre- school teachers. However, both Rhode Island and Alabama required partial salary parity in their pro- grams. The results suggest that there is no direct link between policies related to quality and parity poli- cies.[3] However, it is possible that preschool pro- gram quality is affected by consequences of parity such as high turnover rates. Similar to state spend- ing, there are limitations regarding the relationship between quality and parity policies. While the litera- ture suggested a relationship between parity and teacher well-being (and consequently quality), there are several factors not included in the analysis that could explain the weak correlation. The quality standards benchmarks represent policies related to quality but do not represent actual program quality. Further, the benchmarks include markers of quality that do not relate to the lead teachers at all such as a policy requiring that children receive health screen- ings. 4 SUMMARY & CONCLUSION In conclusion, compensation parity policies are policies that require preschool teachers to re- ceive equal compensation, including both salary and benefits, on par with similarly qualified K-3 teachers. In general, parity policies should be associated with higher wages. However, results of this analysis indi- cate that few states institute parity policies in state- funded preschool. Teachers employed by public schools are more likely to be supported by parity policies in comparison to preschool teachers em- ployed by nonpublic settings. Moreover, there seems to be little correla- tion between state preschool spending per child and parity policies, but some evidence that a smaller wage gap between public preschool and public K-3 was associated with preschool programs having par- ity policies. In addition, qualitative studies indicate that parity policies improve teacher well-being which can improve program quality of state-funded pro- grams. However, I found no direct link between pro- gram quality and enforced parity policies. This study is a first step in understanding state-funded preschool compensation parity for lead teachers. Results indicate that most state- funded preschool programs have a long way to go to ensure that preschool teachers receive compen- sation packages on par with their K-3 counterparts. Future research could explore barriers that contrib- ute to these discrepancies. Governments can create labor policies, such as parity and starting salaries, for their own workforce and therefore for teachers in public settings. However, it likely would be seen as government overreach for states to regulate work- RESULTS INDICATE THAT MOST STATE- FUNDED PRE- SCHOOL PRO- GRAMS HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO TO ENSURE THAT RESULTS INDICATE THAT MOST STATE-FUNDED PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO TO ENSURE THAT PRESCHOOL TEACHERS RECEIVE COMPENSATION PACKAGES ON PAR WITH THEIR K-3 COUNTERPARTS. ARESTY RUTGERS UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL, VOLUME I, ISSUE III force policies for privately-run (non-public) pro- grams even if they receive state funding.[1] Further- more, many states will delegate the implementation of parity policies to municipalities. Some local gov- ernments will require parity policies in their districts while others will not, resulting in different parity pol- icies and varying wages across a state. Indeed, for many preschool programs that did not have com- pensation parity policies, these policies were deter- mined at the local level by school districts. Addition- ally, as more state-funded preschool programs im- plement parity policies, future research could ex- plore how changes in parity policies over time affect teacher salaries and turnover as well as preschool quality, spending, and child outcomes. Current budgeting deficits due to COVID-19 pandemic may result in the regression of parity policies, though so far this is not evident.[4] While backtracking on parity policies is not a desirable outcome, it may serve as an opportunity to research the effects of compensa- tion parity on teacher well-being, program quality, and child outcomes. Ensuring that the preschool workforce is well-compensated will be crucial to en- sure that preschool programs have positive effects on young children’s development, as well as for teachers’ own well-being∎ 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Allison Friedman- Krauss as well as the National Institute of Early Child- hood Education Research for their support in this project. 6 REFERENCES [1] Barnett, W. S. & Kasmin, R. (2017). Teacher Compensation Parity Policies and State-Funded Pre-K Programs. New Bruns- wick, NJ: the National Institute for Early Education Research and Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Em- ployment, University of California, Berkeley [2] Barnett, W. S., Friedman-Krauss, A., Weisenfeld, G., Horo- witz, M., Kasmin, R., & Squires, J. H. (2017, May). The State of Preschool 2016. HTTP://NIEER.ORG/WP-CONTENT/UPLOADS/2017/09/FULL_STATE_OF_PRE- SCHOOL_2016_9.15.17_COMPRESSED.PDF [3] Friedman-Krauss, A., Barnett, S., Garver, K., Hodges, K., Wei- senfeld, G., & DiCrecchio, N. (2019, April). The State of Pre- school 2018. HTTP://NIEER.ORG/WP-CONTENT/UPLOADS/2019/08/YB2018_FULL-RE- PORTR3WAPPENDICES.PDF [4] Friedman-Krauss, A., Barnett, S., Garver, K., Hodges, K., Wei- senfeld, G., & Gardiner, B. (2021, August). The State of Pre- school 2020. HTTPS://NIEER.ORG/WP-CONTENT/UPLOADS/2021/08/YB2020_FULL_RE- PORT_080521.PDF [5] Gebhart, T., Carlson, J., Harris, P., & Epstein, D. (2020 June). Workforce Perceptions and Experiences with the Alabama Early Care and Education Salary Parity Policy. Childtrends.org [6] Jennings, P. A. (2014). Early Childhood Teachers’ Well-Be- ing, Mindfulness, and Self-Compassion in Relation to Class- room Quality and Attitudes Towards Challenging Students. [7] Jennings, P., & Greenberg, M. (2009). The Prosocial Class- room: Teacher Social and Emotional Competence in Rela- tion to Student and Classroom Outcomes. Review of Educa- tional Research, 79(1), 491-525. Retrieved May 18, 2021, from HTTP://WWW.JSTOR.ORG/STABLE/40071173 [8] Office of the Governor of Alabama. (2021, May 18). Governor Ivey Announces New First Class Pre-K Classrooms in First Round of Funding. Office of the Alabama Governor. HTTPS://GOVERNOR.ALABAMA.GOV/NEWSROOM/2021/05/GOVERNOR-IVEY- ANNOUNCES-NEW-FIRST-CLASS-PRE-K-CLASSROOMS-IN-FIRST-ROUND-OF- FUNDING/ [9] Smith, S., & Lawrence, S. (2019, March). Early Care and Edu- cation Teacher Well-Being: Associations with Children's Ex- perience, Outcomes, and Workplace Conditions: A Re- search-to-Policy Brief (Rep.). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED597580) [10] Whitebook, M. &McLean, C. (2017). In Pursuit of Pre-K Parity: A Proposed Framework for Understanding and Advancing Policy and Practice. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California, Berkeley and New Brunswick, NJ: the National Institute for Early Edu- cation Research. Zaynab Khan is a graduate from the Class of 2021. She majored in Mathematics and minored in Political Science and Economics. She was an Honors College student as well as a member of the Douglass Residential College community. As part of the Aresty Research Assistant Program, she worked with the National Institute of Early Education Research at the Rutgers Graduate School of Education to conduct research on early education policy, specifically on workforce compensation for early education teachers. She hopes to eventually pursue higher education in economics and conduct further policy related research. http://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Full_State_of_Preschool_2016_9.15.17_compressed.pdf http://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Full_State_of_Preschool_2016_9.15.17_compressed.pdf http://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/YB2018_Full-ReportR3wAppendices.pdf http://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/YB2018_Full-ReportR3wAppendices.pdf https://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/YB2020_Full_Report_080521.pdf https://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/YB2020_Full_Report_080521.pdf http://www.jstor.org/stable/40071173 https://governor.alabama.gov/newsroom/2021/05/governor-ivey-announces-new-first-class-pre-k-classrooms-in-first-round-of-funding/ https://governor.alabama.gov/newsroom/2021/05/governor-ivey-announces-new-first-class-pre-k-classrooms-in-first-round-of-funding/ https://governor.alabama.gov/newsroom/2021/05/governor-ivey-announces-new-first-class-pre-k-classrooms-in-first-round-of-funding/