University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

How relationships and institutional structures impact collaboration between early childhood educators and K12 educators

(USC Thesis Other)

How relationships and institutional structures impact collaboration between early childhood educators and K12 educators

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

How Relationship and Institutional Structures Impact Collaboration Between Early
Childhood Educators and K –12 Educators
by
Kristen Leigh Sheridan

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2022

© Copyright by Kristen Leigh Sheridan 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Kristen Leigh Sheridan certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Cathy S. Krop
Douglas E. Lynch
Paula M. Carbone, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
Research has shown that transitioning to kindergarten is a pivotal time in a child’s life and
development. Further, this transition is supported by educators prior to kindergarten and teachers
receiving these children in elementary school. The role of collaboration between these two
educational institutions, early childhood education (ECE) and the public school system (K–12)
plays a vital role in this successful transition. This study focused on understanding the role of
those relationship factors and institutional structural factors in contributing to or inhibiting the
ability of ECE and K–12 to collaborate with each other. Semistructured interviews were
conducted with 12 participants who represented ECE preschool teachers, K–12 preschool special
education teachers, ECE program administrators and coaches, and K–12 administrators and
coaches all from public institutions. The interviews highlighted that educators and administrators
from both ECE and K–12 experience effective collaboration, wherein both child and educator
benefits occur, when relationships are cultivated over time, the collaboration has a clear purpose,
and the collaboration occurs in environments of mutual respect, inclusivity, and positivity.
Further, interviewees highlighted that structures are necessary for effective collaboration to
occur, including having dedicated time, funding, and clear processes that promote alignment
between institutions. The interviews highlighted those key factors as necessary for effective and
intentional collaboration to occur, alongside factors that inhibit the ability of ECE and K–12 to
collaborate, including the presence of an imbalance of power dynamics with K–12 having
institutional power in the collaborative setting. Based on the study findings, recommendations
for practice are outlined, including local control and autonomy in designing collaborative
structures that best meet the individual needs of the community; grant funding to support the
study findings of limited funding that affects time to come together and differing institutional

v
regulations; and systematic policy change at the federal level requiring states to implement
sustainable collaboration practices between ECE and K–12. This study further analyzed the role
of relationships and structures impacting the ability of ECE and K–12 to collaborate across
institutional structures. This study provided findings related to how educators describe
collaboration, the relationships and structural factors necessary for collaboration to occur, and
the challenges, both relational and structural, for ECE and K–12 in collaborating. These findings
reflect a small sample size, and future research is needed to examine the generalizability of the
data and the resulting implications and recommendations for practice. Additionally, future
research should examine the frequency, dosage, and necessary funding structures to sustain
collaborative opportunities that can result in improved outcomes for children transitioning to
kindergarten.

vi
Dedication
To Addisen, my strong, compassionate, and confident daughter who I admire. Your journey in
life will be filled with extraordinary opportunities, and I know that you will do your part to make
a difference in the world and for those around you. Remember, you are capable of achieving
anything you put your mind to, and your kind, genuine, and thoughtful heart will help guide the
way.

vii
Acknowledgments
This dissertation is an acknowledgment of all those who unwaveringly supported and
encouraged me throughout the dissertation process. Without them, the culmination of this writing
would not have been possible. First, I acknowledge my dissertation committee: Dr. Paula M.
Carbone, Dr. Cathy Krop, and Dr. Douglas Lynch. My study was strengthened through their
support, guidance, and feedback. Thank you for your dedication to my success and to the success
of this study.
To my husband, Rick. I am forever grateful to you for encouraging me to embark on this
journey and for your constant source of support and reassurance. You were my champion before
I entered this doctoral program, and it certainly did not change during. Thank you for believing
in me, your continual words of encouragement, your keen editing eye, and your much needed
humor at just the right times. I am so fortunate to have your support and for our daughter to
witness that a loving partner is committed to doing whatever is needed for the success of the
other. Thank you, babe.
To Addisen. I will never forget graduation day, seeing you in the audience and the pride
on your face for me, your mom, as I prepared to walk across that stage. You have been a
continual source of encouragement and motivation. While I know I learn from you each day, I
hope that you learned from me, through this experience and others, the importance of hard work,
dedication, and perseverance.
To my mom. Thank you for modeling for me how to be a strong and determined woman.
You have instilled in me drive and tenacity, challenged me to dream big, and never let anyone or
anything stop me. I would not be half the woman I am today if it were not for you. To dad and
Nancy. You have modeled the value of reaching for my goals and persevering when things get

viii
hard. In addition, you remind me to laugh, especially during the hard times. Thank you to my
mom, dad, and Nancy for always believing in me. To my family near and far. Thank you for
your love and support, for inquiring about my work, and for sending me words of encouragement
over the last few years. I could feel your faith in me, and it means the world to me to know you
were rooting for my success.
To my colleagues and mentors. I now refer to you as the eternal ones, those who have
had a lasting and permanent impact on my life. I am grateful for your wisdom, knowledge,
advice, and guidance. You have shaped for me the belief that people are happiest in their work
when they feel valued. I value your leadership and comradery, and I am thankful to have your
support.
Finally, to my OCL colleagues and Cohort 16. While I know I have learned a great deal
from our course work over the last few years, but far greater is what I learned about each of you.
I admire you and am so thankful to have been on this journey with you.

ix
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice.................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................... 3
Importance of Study ............................................................................................................ 4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 4
Definitions........................................................................................................................... 6
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 7
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 8
Brief History of Child Development Theorists ................................................................... 8
Brief History of Educational Reforms .............................................................................. 10
Current Models of Early Learning in the United States ................................................... 13
Educator Collaboration ..................................................................................................... 15
Sociocultural Theory ......................................................................................................... 26
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 29
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 31
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 32
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 32
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 32
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 34

x
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 35
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 37
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 40
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 41
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 43
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 43
Research Question 1: How Do ECE and K–12 Educators Describe Collaboration? ....... 45
Research Question 2: What Relational Factors, Such As Beliefs, Trust, or Values,
Do ECE and K–12 Educators See As Impacting Their Ability to Collaborate? .............. 50
Research Question 3: What Structural Factors, Such As Time, Funding Models, or
Procedures, Do ECE and K–12 Educators See As Impacting Their Ability to
Collaborate? ...................................................................................................................... 57
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 62
Chapter Five: Recommendations .................................................................................................. 65
Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................... 65
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 69
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 80
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 81
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 82
References ..................................................................................................................................... 84
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................... 97

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources 33
Table 2: Organizations Sampled in this Study 34
Table 3: Credibility and Trustworthiness Strategies 41
Table 4: Characteristics of Participants 44
Table 5: Existing Local Control Models 72

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Current Models for Early Learning and Associated Median Hourly Wages 15
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework 30
Figure 3: Conceptual Framework and Implementation of Local Control Recommendation 73
Figure 4: Conceptual Framework and Implementation of Educational Grant Funding 76
Figure 5: Conceptual Framework and Implementation of Policy Change 79

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Nearly 4 million children in the United States are estimated to enter kindergarten each
year (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). The Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes found that
children were not entering kindergarten ready, and the readiness gap widened for children from
low-income families equal to a gap of 20 months upon enrollment (Barnett & Nores, 2014). For
many children, this gap is not resolved contributing to further barriers in schools and later life
(Fontil et al., 2019). Sawhill et al. (2013) suggested that when children enter school ready, there
is an 82% chance that they will master basic skills by age 11. Smooth transitions and
collaboration between early childhood education (ECE) and the public school system (K–12) are
critical components of school readiness and are linked to predictors of future school success (Gill
et al., 2006). Although research has indicated the importance of collaboration (Muckenthaler et
al., 2020; Ronfeldt et al., 2015), few empirical studies have documented the role of collaboration
between ECE and K–12 (Cook & Coley, 2019).
Context and Background of the Problem
Children from low-income families in the United States start school at a disadvantage;
48% of children from low-income families are not ready for school at age 5, compared to 25% of
children from mid- to high-income families (Isaacs, 2012). Additionally, children living in
poverty have limited opportunities for quality early learning and access to child care and lag
behind their more advantaged peers in academic, cognitive, and social competencies. Scholars
reported that children living in poverty fail to meet grade-level expectations in core subjects,
experience higher rates of enrollment in special education, have increased rates of grade
retention, have increased rates of high school dropout, and experience later-life impacts,
including reduced rates of employment, lower earnings, higher use of welfare programs, and
2

increased crime and incarnation (Karoly et al., 2005). Karoly et al. (2005) further determined that
the economic cost to society of one person dropping out of high school is estimated to be
$243,000 to $388,000. Heckman et al. (2006) suggested that investments in early education are
vital to the success of children in K–12 and found the cost benefit of prekindergarten education
programs to have highest per-child benefit for children with economic disadvantages. They also
found that participants in high-quality early learning programs had higher reading and math
achievement, increased graduation rates, increased employment and home ownership, and higher
lifetime earnings. With 63% of children under the age of 5 in the United States in some type of
early child care arrangement, smooth transitions and collaboration between ECE and the public
school system (K–12) are critical components of school readiness and linked to predictors of
future school success (Gill et al., 2006; Laughlin, 2010). Pianta and Kraft-Sayre (2003) said the
following about school readiness and the collaboration between ECE and K–12: “Readiness is
not simply a property of the child. It is a reflection of a preschool’s preparation of a child, of a
kindergarten’s preparedness to welcome that child … and their ability to manage those
differences” (p. 12).
Educator collaboration is a key indicator of school effectiveness (Collins, 2002).
Collaboration is a term used to describe groups of people working together (Goulet et al., 2003),
and educators who engage in collaboration in instructional teams find both personal and
collective impacts and increases in child development and performance outcomes (Killion,
2015). Goulet et al. (2003) further asserted that collaboration brings educators together for a
common purpose and the outcome of collaboration is the transformation of practice for the
participants. Dr. Deborah Bergeron, former director of the Office of Head Start and former
elementary school principal, identified improved collaboration between Head Start and
3

elementary schools as a critical necessity for improved child outcomes (U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, 2020). Cook and Coley (2019) found that different policies,
philosophies, and lack of coordination between educational systems affect successful transitions
for children. Coordination between educational systems supports children’s early development
and continued growth as they transition from early childhood programs to elementary school
(Bogard & Takanishi, 2005).
Children’s transition to kindergarten is a crucial opportunity for educators in ECE and K–
12 to collaborate and coordinate. Although the professional fields of ECE and K–12 are broad,
the stakeholders who should engage in collaboration during this transitional timeframe are
preschool and kindergarten educators and administrators, who are generally in charge of these
two institutions. Although policies (e.g., Every Student Succeeds Act [ESSA], 2015; Office of
Head Start, 2016) are in place that promote collaboration across educational systems, there is
limited information related to how stakeholders in these systems engage in collaboration and
which collaborative practices are most effective (Cook & Coley, 2019).
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to investigate how educator relationships and institutional
structures impact the ability of ECE and K–12 to engage in collaborative opportunities. Limited
scholarly attention has been paid to how ECE and K–12 coordinate, align, and support transitions
across systems (Cook & Coley, 2019). This study investigated promising practices associated
with creating collaborative opportunities between these institutions and how relationships and
institutional structures support or impede the process. By analyzing promising practices and
potential barriers of collaboration between ECE and K–12, educators will gain knowledge, with
the potential to transform their practice. This transformation of practice could result in high-
4

quality instruction for children, improved child outcomes, and higher kindergarten readiness
(Killion, 2015).
The questions that guided this study were as follow:
1. How do ECE and K–12 educators describe collaboration?
2. What relational factors, such as beliefs, trust, or values, do ECE and K–12 educators
see as impacting their ability to collaborate?
3. What structural factors, such as time, funding models, or procedures, do ECE and K–
12 educators see as impacting their ability to collaborate?
Importance of Study
This problem is important to address because coordination between educational systems
supports the growth of children’s early development and their continued growth as they
transition from early childhood programs to elementary school (Bogard & Takanishi, 2005).
Children from low-income families are entering kindergarten with more significant achievement
disparities in comparison to children from mid- and high-income families (Barnett & Nores,
2014). Cook et al. (2017) found that when kindergarten teachers received child-specific
information from preschool, children had higher social adjustment skills and this information
sharing was linked to improved child outcomes. Given the importance of enhancing
collaboration between the ECE and K–12 systems to improve child outcomes, an understanding
of the role of these relationships and institutional structures is necessary.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This study relied on Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory. Lev Vygotsky was a
Russian psychologist who believed that a child’s cognitive development occurred through social
interactions in their environment (Mooney, 2013). He also believed that a child’s environmental
5

culture, including the beliefs, values, and attitudes that are present, is a primary determinant of
knowledge acquisition (Mooney, 2013). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory views human
development through a social process in which values and beliefs develop through collaboration
and dialogue (Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky (1978) further asserted that through this approach,
knowledge is co-constructed, such that individuals learn from one another when engaged in the
learning process.
Sociocultural theory can also be extended to adult learning (Smith et al., 1998).
Extending sociocultural theory to adult learning involves the same ideals of child development,
social interaction and discourse, which also exist in adult-learning forums (Bonk & Kim, 1998).
Smith et al. (1998) furthered assert that collaboration is central to adult learning and that
knowledge and pedagogical development occurs through opportunities to work in a team. The
aforementioned problem of practice and the nature of collaboration were analyzed using
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory.
This study utilized a qualitative approach. Creswell and Creswell (2018) stated that a
qualitative study is best when seeking to identify the perceptions and narratives of identified
groups. The design method for this study was a qualitative interview approach focused on
preschool and K–12 educators and administrators in the public ECE and K–12 systems. The
organizations of focus for this study included a state government agency that provides state-
funded preschool in partnership with a local school district, a school district with blended
preschool and K–12 educational offerings, and a community nonprofit organization that provides
federally funded Head Start preschool in partnership with a local school district. This study was
bounded and investigated through semistructured interviews how educator relationships and
institutional structures impact the ability of ECE preschool educators, K–12 educators, and ECE
6

and K–12 administrators to engage in collaborative opportunities. This format allowed the
researcher to gather narratives, insights, and current practices that promote or hinder
collaboration. To ensure credibility, the extent to which findings can be replicated (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016), the interview process was implemented consistently and documented accurately,
and narratives were analyzed utilizing a coding tool.
Definitions
Key concepts that emerged from the literature review are integral to understanding the
problem and subsequent study focus. These key concepts are defined as follows:
Early childhood education is defined as part- or full-day care of children from birth
through age 8 in a center, school, or home setting (National Association for the Education of
Young Children, 1993).
The public school system is defined as the aggregate of schools in an area that provides
education for children from kindergarten through 12th grade (Merriam-Webster, n.d.).
Collaboration is defined as a group of people working together for a common purpose;
collaboration can result in improved practice and outcomes (Goulet et al., 2003; Killion, 2015).
Educator relationships are those featuring trust, benevolence, honesty, openness,
reliability, and competence, according to Tschannen-Moran (2014).
Coordination practices go beyond the cooperation of educators and are defined as
activities that support successful transition of children between systems (Cook & Coley, 2019).
Institutional structures, or organizational structures, are defined as the framework by
which organizational activities, operating processes, roles, and responsibilities are coordinated to
achieve organizational goals (Ahmady et al., 2016).
7

Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation features five chapters. This chapter provided the reader with the
purpose, theoretical framework, guiding questions, and key terminology that guided the study.
Chapter 2 provides a review of literature that supported the scope of the study. Topics of the
literature review include a brief history of child development theorists and America educational
reform movements, a review of collaboration and current ECE and K–12 collaborative practices,
and a review of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory as it relates to collaboration and the nature of
constructivism. Chapter 3 reviews the study methodology and procedures implemented to gather
study data. In Chapter 4, data and results are provided and analyzed. Based on the data and
literature, Chapter 5 provides recommendations for increasing collaborative opportunities
between ECE and K–12 educators.

8

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter reviews the literature relevant to collaboration between early childhood
education (ECE) and public school system (K–12) educators. History is reviewed, the concepts
of collaboration are analyzed, and theory is presented. This chapter begins with examining the
history of educational theorists and reform movements that have created the educational
institutions of ECE and K–12 that we see today. This is followed by a thorough review of
collaboration, its benefits, and the collaborative and transition approaches that are currently in
place in ECE and K–12. Next, a review of Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory explores the
tenets of human development through the lens of social processes that align with the nature of
collaboration. Finally, at the conclusion of this chapter, a conceptual model is presented to frame
the concepts reviewed.
Many theorists have contributed to our knowledge of child development and how
educational institutions are structured. Educators use these theories and put them into practice.
Although not all theories can be reviewed in this chapter, the following review reflects theorists
whose body of work aligns with the nature of development and the concepts and approaches
necessary for collaboration. Additionally, the history of educational reforms is briefly reviewed.
These theorists and educational reform movements support the relevance and importance of
addressing collaboration between ECE and K–12.
Brief History of Child Development Theorists
Theorist John Dewey (1929) argued that learning and development continue throughout
life. He further explained that learning experiences are a continuous process of reconstructing
past experiences. In his publication My Pedagogic Creed, Dewey (1929) suggested that children
learn best when they interact with others, and their personal interests should be considered when
9

designing educational curricula. He further asserted that education is part of life and connected to
the community in which children live and interact (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000; Mooney, 2013).
Although Dewey focused on children and youth, his concept of “learning by doing” is a
fundamental element in all learning processes and can be applied to children and adults (English,
2016).
Maria Montessori’s theories on child development focus on the role of the adults and the
environments in which children learn (Mooney, 2013). Although most scholars would
acknowledge Montessori’s work and her emphasis on preparing appropriate environments for
children, she is also recognized for her contributions to how language develops in young children
(Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). Her idea of the “absorbent mind” suggests that children absorb
everything in their environment, including language expressed by adults (Montessori, 1965).
Montessori also asserted that teacher observation and discourse can support curriculum
development for children (Mooney, 2013).
Jean Piaget, a Swiss psychologist, studied the cognitive development of young children
(Mooney, 2013). A core idea of Piaget’s theory is that children develop by exploring and
interacting in their environment. Piaget’s theory suggests that cognitive development occurs
largely independently, as does knowledge construction (Piaget, 1936). He further asserted that
cognitive development occurs through stages from birth through adulthood and that these stages
are universal, although not all children progress through them at the same rate (Piaget, 1936).
Piaget’s stages of cognitive development are:
 Sensorimotor: Learning through movement and exploring from birth to 18–24 months
 Preoperational: Use of symbols to represent words, images, and ideas from 2–7 years
 Concrete operational: Logical thinking and problem solving from 7–11 years
10

 Formal operational: Ability to think scientifically and abstractly from 12 years and
older
In adulthood, cognitive development occurs through formal operations and reasoning.
Further, in adult learning, emphasis is placed on providing opportunities to enhance knowledge
through expanding schemas or mental models that connect new learning to existing knowledge
in environments and interactions with others (Orr, 1991).
Whereas Piaget suggested that learning occurs independently, Vygotsky argued that
learning occurs socially through interaction with peers and adults (McLeod, 2018). Vygotsky’s
(1978) theories suggest that language drives cognitive development and learning is done socially
through interaction and working with others. Vygotsky believed that children learn not only by
doing but also by talking, working with friends, and persisting at a task (Mooney, 2013).
Vygotsky’s ideas are referred to as sociocultural theory, which views human development
through a social process whereby knowledge creation and development occur through dialogue
and collaboration (Vygotsky, 1978). Sociocultural theory is examined in depth later in this
chapter.
Brief History of Educational Reforms
Contributions of American educational reformers have shaped the American educational
system today (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). Although there are many reformers and reform
movements, the following section highlights some that have contributed to public education and
the development of early childhood programs.
Horace Mann (1796–1859) was an educational reformer and politician committed to
promoting public education for children in the United States (Fife, 2013). He became the
secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education in 1837 and recognized the relationship
11

between disparities in free schools, the number of children not attending school, and the impact
on voting, thus advocating that all children be in school from ages 4–16. As a result, Mann
became known as the father of the common schools movement, in which he argued for free,
public, nonsectarian institutions for all children (Fife, 2013). Additionally, as the secretary,
Mann established normal schools, now referred to as teacher preparation colleges, to support
specialized training for teachers (Groen, 2008). He was later elected to the U.S. House of
Representatives, where he continued to advocate for free public schools and the importance of
teacher training (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000).
Another reformer who believed in universal public education was William Torrey Harris
(1835–1909; Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). He is known for many educational advancements,
including creating the Dewey Decimal System seen in libraries today, and was a strong
proponent and supporter of the first public school kindergartens in the United States (Lascarides
& Hinitz, 2000). This support occurred during a kindergarten movement in the United States that
began when Henry Barnard published an 800-page article in the American Journal of Education,
of which he was the founder and editor, in 1881 on the principles and methods of kindergarten
(Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). His content came from working closely with strong advocates such
as Harris and other Froebleians who saw kindergarten as an extension of the home to nurture
child development through self-activity. The Froebel principles came from a German educator,
Friedrich Froebel, and Froebleians who follow his child education system believe that learning
should occur naturally and through play and as an extension of the child’s home (Brehony,
2009). Through the efforts of Barnard and many others, Harris introduced kindergartens into
schools as an effort to support readiness and socialize children early (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000).
12

Shortly after the kindergarten movement came the nursery school movement (Lascarides
& Hinitz, 2000). According to Lascarides and Hinitz (2000), nursery schools, like kindergarten,
came to America from Europe in the 1920s. The first nursery schools were founded out of an
interest in prekindergarten education and were typically private institutions for families of wealth
and founded by women who wanted to nurture child development (Lee, 1990). Lascarides and
Hinitz (2000) further highlighted that both private and publicly funded (charity) nursery schools
grew between 1919 and 1923.
As nursery schools continued, the implementation of day care and child care grew in
America (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). Day care was originally referred to as welfare covering
full-day group care for children of working and impoverished mothers or mothers with a
disability (Youcha, 1995). During the Great Depression, day care was considered a jobs program
and saw rapid expansion across the country with the support of federal funding (Lascarides &
Hinitz, 2000). Federal funding was again provided to support day care during World War II,
when there was an increased need for women in the workforce (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). The
Lanham Act, passed by Congress in 1940, provided funding to states to hire staff members to
plan for community day care (Riley, 1994). After the war, educational literature began to assert
that additional guidelines were needed regarding services provided to 3- to 5-year-old children
(Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). As a result, regulations, standards, and licensing were developed.
The case for care of young children continued through these types of emergency programs; in
1965, President Johnson declared a “war on poverty,” and Head Start, a comprehensive child
development service for low-income families, was created to eradicate the adverse effects of
poverty on a child’s development (Zigler & Valentine, 1979).
13

The federal government has continued to be involved in educational reform movements
into the 21st century (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). In 2002, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act (2002) was signed into law and sought to advance American competitiveness and close
achievement gaps in schools for low-income and minority students. NCLB significantly
increased the federal government’s role in holding schools accountable, including ensuring
academic progress and annual yearly progress of English-language learners, special education,
students whose income is below the federal poverty threshold for K–12, and underrepresented
racial and ethnic groups. States that did not meet defined thresholds risked losing federal
funding, with the greatest risk for schools in low-income communities (Ayers et at., 2008). In
2015, Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to replace NCLB. With ESSA,
states were still responsible for closing achievement gaps but had autonomy in setting goals to
meet accountability measures (ESSA, 2015). ESSA has linkages to the Preschool Development
Grant, a grant program supported by the U.S. Department of Education (2019) that focuses on
the importance of K–12 and ECE coordinating and broadening access to early childhood
programs.
Current Models of Early Learning in the United States
Early childhood education is defined as part- or full-day care of children from birth
through age 8 in a center, school, or home setting (National Association for the Education of
Young Children, 1993). Child care arrangements can be defined as relatives, nonrelatives
(babysitters, neighbors, friends), and family child care providers who care for more than two
children or organized child care facilities (daycare, child care centers, nursery schools,
preschools, and Head Start; Laughlin, 2010). According to Laughlin (2010), 63% of the 20
million children younger than 5 are in some type of regular early child care arrangement.
14

Further, 61% of children younger than 5 spend an average of 33 hours per week in child care
(Gorry & Thomas, 2017). The Center for the Study of Child Care Employment (Whitebook et
al., 2014) reported that turnover in early childhood programs is nearly double that of the public
school system, with an annual rate of 15%. Whitebook and Sakai (2003) further highlighted the
magnitude of this problem, stating that child care centers have a 30% turnover rate annually.
They found that more than half of child care teaching staff members left their centers within a 4-
year period. A study by Torquati et al. (2007) found that compensation and educator education
had a correlative effect on program quality. Even though ECE educators require as much
knowledge, skill, and training support as public school teachers, well-articulated compensation
standards that reflect comparable pay are not consistently implemented across all states
(Whitebook et al., 2018). The Early Childhood Workforce Index of 2016 (Whitebook et al.,
2016) found that the mean hourly wage for early childhood educators was $13.74, compared to
$24.83 for kindergarten teachers. Figure 1 reflects early learning models consistent throughout
the United States and the median hourly wages related to those settings, according to
occupational employment statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021). This figure
reflects the employee roles in current early learning models found in the United States, including
teacher and administrator roles. The figure further reflects the mean hourly wages for those
respective roles.

15

Figure 1
Current Models for Early Learning and Associated Median Hourly Wages

Note. From U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021, December 8). Occupational employment and
wage statistics.

Educator Collaboration
What Is Educator Collaboration?
With each reform movement, educational systems and settings for children have
advanced, necessitating education transformation and educator transformation (Goulet et al.,
2003). Collaboration is a model to support the relationship between the transformation of schools
and educator practice to meet their challenges (Dufour et al., 2012). Collaboration is defined as
groups of people working together (Goulet et al., 2003) interdependently to achieve a common
goal (DuFour et al., 2004). Winton et al. (2019) expanded the definition of collaboration to
include a transdisciplinary team, which consists of members from varying disciplines or
$10.72
$10.35
$13.94
$26.88
$22.54
$31.29
$32.98
$58.63
Community Child Care Worker
Family (Home) Care Provider
Community Child Care Preschool Teachers
Preschool Teachers In Schools Only
Preschool Child Care Center Director
Kindergarten Teachers
Elementary Teachers
Public School Elementary Principals
Early Learning Models and Median Hourly Wages
16

professions. Collaboration in education has roots in collaborative consultation (Individuals with
Disability Education Act Amendments, 1997) between special and general education teachers to
share information about children to create a plan to meet their educational needs. The concept of
collaboration is now commonplace in educational professional practice (Kagan & Rivera, 1991)
and is typically taught in undergraduate teacher preparation programs (McKenzie, 2009).
Teacher collaboration is a key element of school development and effectiveness
(Muckenthaler et al., 2020). Defining characteristics of successful collaboration emerged from
the literature, including:
1. Building and sustaining trusting relationships in which responsibilities are shared and
there is a collective commitment to work together (Goulet et al., 2003; Hallam et al.,
2015; Byrk & Schneider, 2002; Tschannen-Moran, 2014)
2. Establishing intentional and structured organizational processes to support continuous
improvement (Muckenthaler et al., 2020; Ronfeldt et al., 2015)
Evidence suggests that improvement efforts supported by collaboration have defining
characteristics that encompass relationships, organizational processes, and accountability
measures (Tye, 2000). Kagan and Rivera (1991) suggested that through collaboration, collective
accountability for outcomes and a focus on improved quality of services for students, children,
and families can occur. Tye (2000) asserted, however, that of all of these factors, strong
relationships between adults must be present for improvement efforts to be sustained.
Educator Relationships
According to Rimm-Kaufman and Pianta (2002), relationships between educators are a
critical predictor of successful transitions among children. They further concluded that structures
of relationships include effective communication, regular contact, and feelings of connectedness.
17

Further, relationships that foster cooperation involve engaging on a personal level, sharing
information, and trusting team members (Costa & Anderson, 2011). Trust is critical in
effectively implementing collaboration (Hallam et al., 2015). Tschannen-Moran (2014) defined
trust as having five components: benevolence, honesty, openness, reliability, and competence.
Goulet et al. (2003) similarly suggested that caring, respect, openness, and voluntary
participation contribute to educator trust in collaboration. Research relating to trust in schools
has shown that high-quality teaching is inhibited in environments where trust is absent (Bryk &
Schneider, 2002). Moye et al. (2005) suggested that trust is central to an educational
organization’s ability to function well.
Trust in schools promotes an environment in which hard work and educational change
can occur (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Hallam et al. (2015) found that trust in schools is built
through forming personal relationships with colleagues, fulfilling responsibilities, treating team
members with kindness, and having principal or administrator support. Hargreaves (2001)
elaborated that trust and collaborative cultures arise when educators value each other,
collaborative tasks are purposeful, working together is productive and enjoyable, and the process
is administratively supported and facilitated.
Organizational Structures
Collaboration occurs when educator relationships that foster trust are present and
organizational structures or processes are in place to support the experience (Goulet et al., 2003).
Forsyth et al. (2006) described organizational structures as being both bureaucratic (formalized)
and enabling (promoting autonomy). Datnow (2011) found that study participants viewed
formalized structures that included providing structured collaboration time, having clear
expectations for how collaboration time was conducted, and having systems in place to analyze
18

data as beneficial. The role of leadership is essential in advocating for and establishing structures
for collaboration to occur (Ronfeldt et al., 2015). Further, resources such as time, materials, and
data should be made available to support sustained efforts. Conversely, Weglarz-Ward et al.
(2020) found that barriers to collaborating included lack of funding and time and minimal
training on the process of collaboration. Although organizational processes should be in place to
support collaboration, Datnow (2011) and Hargreaves (2001) further asserted that teachers
should also have the flexibility and time to implement new strategies that result from
collaboration.
Dufour et al. (2004) suggest that in formalized structures for collaboration, clarity of
purpose, collaborative culture, collective inquiry into best practice, action-oriented, and a focus
on results should also be present. Ronfeldt et al. (2015) suggested that learning design, standards
of implementation, and emphasis on outcomes should be present in collaborative structures.
These components, when overly controlled or regulated, may result in contrived outcomes; thus,
Datnow (2011) cautioned that finding a balance between organizational control and teacher-
generated forms of collaboration is critical. Ultimately, Datnow (2011) asserted that teachers
need supportive structures to analyze information to improve student learning.
Benefits of Collaboration
With increased federal involvement in the accountability of public education (NCLB,
2002), collaboration has remained an essential component of school improvement (Hargreaves,
2001). Research has found that quality teacher collaboration positively influences teacher
performance, child outcomes, and student achievement (Ronfeldt et al., 2015) and is a core
objective of school development (Muckenthaler et al., 2020). Muckenthaler et al. (2020) further
suggested that collaboration has benefits at the organizational, teacher, and individual child and
19

student levels.
At the organizational and teacher levels, research has found that collaboration supports
teacher learning, enhances innovative approaches to school and organizational programs, and
improves school and organizational effectiveness (Muckenthaler et al., 2020). Vangrieken et al.
(2015) also suggested that collaboration represents a characteristic of good schools. Additionally,
collaboration in schools is recognized as an effective approach to improving educator
effectiveness and subsequently, student achievement (Hallam et al., 2015).
Research has suggested that teacher collaboration is correlated with student achievement
(Goddard et al., 2007). The study by Goddard et al. (2007) found a linkage among teacher
collaboration, school improvement, and student achievement. Specifically, they found that
fourth-grade children achieved at higher levels in math and reading when attending a school
where teacher collaboration occurred. Ronfeldt et al. (2015) also found that schools with
instructional teams that engaged in collaboration had higher achievement gains in math and
reading. Additionally, Reeves et al. (2017) found similar results in that teacher collaboration
improved overall teacher job satisfaction and student achievement. Increased regular
communication between teachers focused on improved practice for students is critical in
improving student achievement (Datnow, 2011).
Current ECE and K –12 Collaborative, Coordination, and Transition Practices
The transition to kindergarten is a critical stage for children and families (Little et al.,
2016), and nearly 4 million children enter kindergarten each year in the United States (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2018). A national study by Rimm-Kaufman et al. (2000) found that teachers
reported almost half (48%) of children entering kindergarten experienced some difficulty
adjusting to school. Research by Rimm-Kaufman and Pianta (2000) found that early school
20

experiences, including in kindergarten, are a predictor of later school success.
Forming collaborative relationships is the core to building a comprehensive approach to
supporting young children as they transition into kindergarten (Pianta & Kraft-Sayre, 2003).
Cook and Coley (2019) defined transitions as coordination and collaboration between preschools
and elementary schools to support children and families in transitioning to kindergarten. They
further defined collaboration between ECE and K–12 as requiring full commitment between
educational partners to engage in comprehensive planning with aligned educational structures,
bidirectional engagement, and sustained communication structures. LoCasale-Crouch et al.
(2008) suggested that smooth transitions from a prekindergarten experience to kindergarten are
an essential function between systems, and purposeful coordination should occur to maximize
gains in child achievement (Bogard & Takanishi, 2005). Additionally, Schulting et al. (2005)
suggested that transition practices between K–12 and ECE promote stability and that additional
supports provided during this critical time in a child’s development have lasting benefits,
particularly for children from lower-income families. LoCasale-Crouch et al. (2008), Pianta et al.
(1999), and Schulting et al. (2005) highlighted many transition practices that can occur between
ECE and K–12, which include:
 Prekindergarten children visits to a kindergarten class
 Prekindergarten teacher visits to a kindergarten class
 Kindergarten teacher visits to a preschool class
 Kindergarten teacher visits to children’s homes
 Spring kindergarten orientations for prekindergarten children
 Spring kindergarten orientations for prekindergarten families
 Schoolwide elementary school activity for prekindergarten children
21

 Individual meetings with parents about kindergarten
 Record sharing between preschool and elementary school
 Contact between kindergarten and preschool teachers about curriculum and individual
child needs
 Staggered entry of kindergarten children
 Shortened days for kindergarten children
Studies by Pianta et al. (1999) and Schulting et al. (2005) found that sending information
to families and hosting orientations or open houses were more common in schools. In contrast,
in-home or preschool classroom visits were far less common. Cook and Coley (2017) found that
kindergarten teachers engage in slightly more than three transition practices, on average. Early et
al. (2001) found that teachers with larger class sizes and less training on the importance of
transition practices engaged in fewer practices. Additionally, teachers in schools with higher
rates of poverty and racial and ethnic diversity also engaged in fewer transition practices (Cook
& Coley, 2017; Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000), highlighting further disparities for
marginalized populations.
Transition practices between ECE and K–12 that are inclusive of relationship building
and information sharing can support and facilitate a child’s stable transition between systems
(Kagan & Neuman, 1998). Schulting et al. (2005) examined kindergarten transition practices and
child academic outcomes using a survey that explored the type and frequency of transition
experiences. Their study found that more transition activities that occurred at the beginning of
kindergarten resulted in higher academic scores for children in kindergarten. Additionally, they
discovered that transition practices helped improve a child’s ability to adapt to kindergarten, with
higher adaption rates found with children with social and economic risk factors. Pianta et al.
22

(1999) found that transition practices are implemented less frequently and with less intensity in
communities with higher rates of poverty and racial and ethnic diversity. LoCasale-Crouch et al.
(2008) found that the more transition practices implemented by a kindergarten teacher, the more
positive judgment of social and behavioral competence among African American children. Ladd
and Burgess (1999) suggested that prekindergarten transition practices, which occur prior to
kindergarten, also increase a child’s kindergarten readiness and set the stage for later school
success.
Although policies as part of ESSA, Head Start, special education legislation, and federal
child care legislation acknowledge and call for coordination across educational systems (ESSA,
2015; Head Start Bureau, 2000; Kagan & Rivera, 1991), there is little empirical information on
the practices that are most effective in building collaboration and continuity across systems to
support successful transitions for children (Cook & Coley, 2019). Ultimately, Cook and Coley
(2017) suggested that collaborative transition practices between systems can help support
children and families as they move into kindergarten. They further asserted that current practices
do not reach the level of full coordination and collaboration but remain focused more on
cooperation.
In 2019, the Office of Head Start in the Administration for Children and Families and the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services came together with school districts and ECE
educators to address the need for better collaboration between ECE and K–12 education. Their
collective work focused on addressing the need to improve transitions between systems for
children entering kindergarten. The result of this joint work, consistent with research, identified
that the best transition practices to support stronger collaborative connections were sharing
information, building relationships, and establishing alignment between systems (Pianta & Kraft-
23

Sayre, 2003). Despite the extensive literature that illustrates the importance of coordinated
transition practices, Little et al. (2016) found that kindergarten transition activities that take place
are usually low intensity, such as sending out brochures, and schools with many low-income
children were less likely to provide transition activities compared to wealthier schools. Although
planning for transitions between ECE and K–12 typically falls on the local efforts of
communities and school districts, practices that support sharing information, building
relationships, and establishing alignment can be implemented to improve the overall process
(Loewenburg, 2017).
Sharing Information
Ahtola et al. (2011) found that sharing information on curriculum and individual child
needs was one of the most important collaborative and coordinated practices in supporting a
child’s transition to kindergarten. Cook and Coley (2019) highlighted that sharing practices
should include information, curriculum, expectations, program policies, and child records.
Ahtola et al. (2011) found that through information sharing, children showed higher rates of
school adjustment in the first week of school, and although this practice was the strongest
predictor of success in their study, they also found it was the least commonly implemented.
Cook and Coley (2019) found that the most common activities for sharing information
included participating in developing a child’s individualized education plan, prekindergarten
educators helping elementary schools identify kindergarten children in the community, and early
childhood educators providing educational records to elementary schools. LoCasale-Crouch et al.
(2008) found record sharing to be the most frequently reported practice by kindergarten teachers.
Educators consider receiving and sharing information to be important, and it should be intensive
enough to foster personal connections between educators engaging in information sharing
24

(Ahtola et al., 2011). Effective communication and regular contact are part of information
sharing and support a relationship-building system between educational systems (Early et al.,
2001).
Building Relationships
Building relationships between systems, including teachers, families, and early childhood
educators, is critical to the success of transition practices (Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000).
Early et al. (2001) also suggested that regular communication and educator connectedness can
promote coordination in a child’s successful transition to school. A study by Cook et al. (2019)
found that Head Start educators would consider increased collaboration with K–12 but struggled
to build relationships and sustain coordinated practices with K–12. They further found that Head
Start programs in their sample did not engage in the high-intensity collaborative practices found
in the Administration for Children and Families’ (2014) collaboration pyramid. Cook et al.
(2019) also found that ECE directors hoped for more formalized bidirectional collaboration that
included the implementation of coordinated alignment practices.
Mutual trust and respect are essential between ECE and K–12 educators to achieve
desired transition results (Ahtola et al., 2011). Although visiting classrooms to support
relationship building is seen as a beneficial transition practice, LoCasale-Crouch et al. (2008)
found this to be the least reported and most underutilized practice and suggested that school
policies be changed to facilitate this practice as an essential component of successful transition
practices. Tschannen-Moran (2014) noted that when high trust is present in teams and fostered
through personal engagement, information sharing, and reliance on team members, improvement
can be seen in teacher skills, knowledge, and processes to support child learning.
25

Alignment
LoCasale-Crouch et al. (2008) suggested that continuous efforts to support aligned
systems and experiences for ECE and K–12 be implemented and include program policies that
promote alignment. Bogard and Takanishi (2005) further suggested that coordinated practices
between preschools and K–12 should include the alignment of curriculum and learning
experiences, through which K–12 can build on a child’s previous experience in ECE. Early et al.
(2001) found that teachers reported using practices to promote alignment and coordination with
preschool programs less frequently.
Cook and Coley (2019) highlighted the limited literature that examined specific
coordination practices, such as engaging in collaborative training or professional development,
collaborative planning, or alignment of educational practices. Early et al. (2001) also found that
the least common practice was participating in joint training. They further highlighted that
increased information sharing, curriculum planning, and sharing of common goals occur when
alignment practices are in place. Despite various limitations and barriers, Yelverton and
Mashburn (2018) suggested that alignment in educational practices and policies is necessary to
promote coordination between ECE and K–12.
Barriers to Educator Collaboration
LoCasale-Crouch et al. (2008) suggested that increased opportunities for information
sharing, relationship building, and alignment between ECE and K–12 are essential to support the
transition from preschool to kindergarten. Pianta et al. (1999) found that increasing intentional
transition activities is a necessary prevention strategy for future school success. They further
highlighted that children exposed to connected systems are more likely to adjust well to school,
especially in low-income communities. Although some states are currently implementing
26

policies that promote collaborative and transition approaches in both early learning and K–12,
considerable variability persists in the implementation of these approaches (Scott-Little et al.,
2006) and limited scholarly attention is focused on how ECE and K–12 can collaborate and
coordinate better across systems (Cook & Coley, 2019). Early et al. (2001) found funding, time,
and willingness to participate in collaborative and coordinated approaches to be key barriers,
because high-intensity practices require dedicated funding, time, and policies. Forsyth et al.
(2006) found that lack of time, not understanding each other’s roles, and lack of value or respect
contributed to limited engagement in coordination and collaborative practices. Bogard and
Takanishi (2005) recommended creating integrated educational systems that enhance
coordination between ECE and K–12. They further asserted that this would support the growth
and development of children as they transition from early childhood experiences to K–12, a
pivotal sociocultural change in a child’s life.
Sociocultural Theory
Overview
Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory views human development as a social process.
His theory suggests that children develop their values, beliefs, and problem-solving strategies
through collaboration and discourse with others in their social environment. Central to
sociocultural theory is the fundamental role of social interaction in the development of higher
cognitive abilities. Ratner (2002) defined sociocultural theory as a field that “studies the content,
mode of operation, and interrelationships of psychological phenomena that are socially
constructed and shared, and are rooted in other social artifacts” (p. 9). According to Vygotsky
(1978), much of a child’s development and learning occurs through social interaction with an
educator, primary caregiver, or other adult models while engaged in cooperative and
27

collaborative dialogue. Further, Vygotsky suggested that children seek to understand through
these interactions and uses this information to regulate their behavior or actions. Vygotsky’s
sociocultural theory relates to social constructivism, or students constructing knowledge socially
through dialogue with others to stimulate learning (Beck & Kosnik, 2006), and through this
response to social or community structure is the emergence of the self (Entwisle et al., 1987).
Vygotsky’s stages of thought and speech development are:
1. Preintellectual and prelinguistic
2. External speech
3. Written speech
4. Egocentric (inner) speech
Vygotsky considered this continuum of stages to be the process of development for all
individuals, from childhood to adult life (Berducci, 2004).
These core concepts of sociocultural theory have played a pivotal role in how educational
systems design instruction for children, and Vygotsky (1978) asserted that:
The educational process must be based on the student’s individual activity, and the art of
education should involve nothing more than guiding and monitoring this activity. …
From the psychological point of view, the teacher is the Director [sic] of the social
environment in the classroom. … The social environment is the true lever of the
educational process, the teacher’s overall role reduces to adjusting this lever. (p. xxii)
To further highlight the role of educator, Vygotsky (1978) described child development and
higher mental functions in the “zone of proximal development” and the essential role of an
educator in supporting a child in moving through this zone. The zone of proximal development is
defined as: “the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent
28

problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving
under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygostky, 1978, p. 86).
A key strategy in supporting a child moving through the zone of proximal development is
to encourage social interaction with peers through collaboration and discourse (Beck & Kosnik,
2006). In essence, the education and development of a child cannot be separated from the social
context of their environment, and language and discourse are vital in the development of higher
psychological functions (Vygotsky, 1978).
Adult Learning
Although Vygotsky’s work has been widely used to support the approaches to the
learning and development of children, it has also been referenced in the development and
learning of teachers (Newman & Latifi, 2021). Berducci (2004) asserted that Vygotsky
considered development to occur from childhood through adulthood and summarized Vygotsky’s
developmental continuum into four stages, ranging from primitive to capable adult. Berducci
(2004) wrote:
Vygotsky’s complete developmental continuum comprises four stages: phylogenetic
(transformation from ape to human), sociohistorical (primitive to modern), ontogenetic
(child to adult), and microgentic (less to more capable individual). Between each pair of
stages, a qualitative jump is evident. (p. 332)
Jarvis (2012) suggested that “the process of learning is located at the interface of people’s
biography and the sociocultural milieu in which they live, for it is at this intersection that
experiences occur” (p. 17). Given the social interactions that are part of adult-learning activities,
Bonk and Kim (1998) suggested that a sociocultural perspective be taken to understand the
underpinnings of social dynamics and their impact on adult learning.
29

Brown et al. (1993) drew parallels between Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and the
process of adults making meaning in a community of learners. Group collaboration is a
component of a community of learners, because the process is generally social and occurs in
teams (Bonk & Kim, 1998), similar to that of collaboration between educators. Goulet et al.
(2003) suggested that collaboration creates a space for educators to be self-reflective learners in a
community of other educators. They described this process of reflection as a transformative
practice that engages the educator in meaning making and the construction of knowledge both
individually and collectively. They summarized that the process of collaboration, which occurs
socially through conversation, encourages educators to make changes and transform their
practice. Peer learning has also been a suggested strategy to support adult learning through a
sociocultural lens (Carlson & Stenberg, 2020). Lave (1998) highlighted that peer learning occurs
in a community of practice in which clinicians co-construct knowledge to solve a problem.
Carlson and Stenberg (2020) further asserted that collaborative models have a significant role in
the development of adult knowledge and skills.
Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework, designed by the researcher, was used to support the alignment
of concepts presented in this literature review, highlight the interconnectedness of these concepts
to the theoretical framework of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, and provide a visual
representation of the intricacies of these elements to the problem addressed in this study. A
conceptual framework, according to Jabareen (2009), supports qualitative studies in linking
multiple bodies of knowledge or concepts to build a framework for understanding.
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory is grounded in a solid constructivist paradigm of inquiry
or worldview (Beck & Kosnik, 2006). Constructivism is based on the idea that people actively
30

construct and make meaning of knowledge through experiential learning (Vygotsky, 1978).
Vygotsky further suggested that relationships are integral to the ability to construct knowledge,
and physical activities and structures must be in place to foster and facilitate the process of
constructing knowledge. Using this theory and a conceptual framework (Figure 2) illustrates how
addressing the role of relationships and individual ECE and K–12 institutional structures can
contribute to collaborative opportunities between ECE and K–12.

Figure 2
Conceptual Framework

31

To engage in intentional collaboration, in which construction of knowledge occurs, to
benefit both the educator and the individual and collective outcomes of children and students,
acknowledgment of individual institutional structures and the role of relationships must be
addressed. In the top left of Figure 2 is the overlay of ECE and K–12 institutional structures.
Each system has educational processes or procedures, accountability measures, funding
structures, time requirements, and leadership models. Vygotsky (1978) asserted that these
institutional or organizational structures are the environments in which discourse and interaction
occur. Added to this are relational factors of trust, respect, openness, beliefs, and values, which
Vygotsky viewed as integral to the construction of knowledge. Recognizing and understanding
these factors can result in collaboration that enhances the social construction of knowledge
through discourse and interaction between ECE and K–12 educators.
Summary
This chapter provided a review of the literature in alignment with collaboration between
ECE and K–12. After a brief review of history, collaboration was reviewed, including current
coordination and collaborative practices and an exploration of existing barriers. Collaboration
was further explored through the constructivist lens of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. This
theory and its underpinnings were reviewed in relation to the social dynamics of adult learning
and social interactions involved in collaboration. Last, a conceptual framework that guided this
study was presented, utilizing Vygotsky’s concept of the social construction of knowledge
through discourse and interaction and how institutional structures and relationships are
connected to the ability of educators to engage in collaboration. The next chapter introduces the
research methodology and describes the credibility and ethics of this study.

32

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of relationships and institutional
structures in creating collaborative opportunities between Early Childhood Education (ECE) and
the public school system (K–12). The current research highlights the importance of cross-
institutional collaboration to improve outcomes for children (Killion, 2015). Cook and Coley
(2019) found that different policies, philosophies, and lack of coordination between educational
systems impact successful transitions for children. This chapter explains the design of this study
in further detail and how the researcher investigated promising practices and challenges
associated with creating collaboration opportunities between ECE and K–12. Specifics related to
stakeholder selection, data collection processes, and instrumentation are reviewed. Finally, a
discussion of validity, reliability, ethics, and limitations concludes this chapter.
Research Questions
The questions that guided this study were the following:
1. How do ECE and K–12 educators describe collaboration?
2. What relational factors, such as beliefs, trust, or values, do ECE and K–12 educators
see as impacting their ability to collaborate?
3. What structural factors, such as time, funding models, or procedures, do ECE and K–
12 educators see as impacting their ability to collaborate?
Overview of Design
This study utilized a qualitative case study approach. A qualitative research study is best
when seeking to identify the perceptions and narratives of identified groups (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). The design method for this study was a semistructured interview approach
focused on ECE preschool educators, kindergarten and preschool special education educators,
33

and administrators or leaders in ECE and K–12, all from public organizations. This case study
was bounded and investigated through semistructured interviews on the perceptions of ECE and
K–12 educators and administrators about the role of relationships and individual institutional
structures impacting their ability to collaborate. This format allowed the researcher to gather
narratives, insights, and promising practices that promote or hinder collaboration and align with
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, a constructivist paradigm, and the conceptual framework. Table
1 reviews the research questions and methodology used to gather data.

Table 1
Data Sources
Research questions Semistructured
interview
RQ1: How do ECE and K–12 educators describe collaboration? X
RQ2: What relational factors, such as beliefs, trust, or values, do ECE and
K–12 educators see as impacting their ability to collaborate?
X
RQ3: What structural factors, such as time, funding models, or procedures,
do ECE and K–12 educators see as impacting their ability to collaborate?
X

34

Research Setting
The participating stakeholders for this study were ECE preschool educators, kindergarten
and preschool special education educators, and administrators or leaders from ECE and K–12, all
from public organizations. These stakeholders represented a cross-section of educators and
administrators in the field of education, specifically preschool and K–12. The organizations of
focus for this study were a state government agency that provides state-funded preschool in
partnership with local school districts, a school district with blended preschool and K–12
educational offerings, and a community nonprofit organization that provides federally funded
Head Start preschool in partnership with a local school district. Table 2 provides an overview of
each organization that was sampled during this study, including a description, general location,
and the number and types of interviewees from each organization.

Table 2
Organizations Sampled in This Study
Organization Description Location Interviewees
A Government agency NW U.S. ECE administrator
ECE coach (administrator)
ECE preschool educator
K–12 administrator
B School district NW U.S. K–12 administrator (n = 2)
K–12 preschool special education educator
ECE preschool educator
C Nonprofit NW U.S. K–12 coach (administrator)
K–12 preschool special education educator
ECE preschool educator (n = 2)
Note. NW U.S. = Northwest United States.
35

Organization A is a state government agency that provides educational professional
development and organizational management support to 30 school districts in its state; this
support includes both ECE and K–12. Additionally, Organization A provides preschool services
to more than 2,500 children from birth to age 5. Organization B is a local school district that
provides blended ECE with special education services to approximately 380 children.
Organization B serves children aged 3 to 5 in the K–12 structure. Organization C is a community
action nonprofit organization that provides Head Start services to children from birth to age 5 in
its community. Although Organization C provides ECE, employment, housing, and other
assistance services as a community action program, it also collaborates with a local school
district to provide federally funded Head Start preschool options to 335 children.
These stakeholders represent a cross-section of educators and administrators in the field
of education, specifically preschool and K–12. This was not a comparative study of these
stakeholder organizations; the sampling of these organizations was not to compare but rather to
investigate across a broad group or community of educators and administrators from varying
organizations.
The Researcher
I have worked in public education for nearly 20 years, but the last 5 have had the most
profound impact on my views of systemic institutional bias. In 2015, I transitioned from
traditional K–12 public education as an elementary school principal and leader in a school
district to a director of ECE, focusing my work with children who have limited access to high-
quality early childhood experiences from birth to age 5. Despite my experience and knowledge, I
quickly learned that although a preponderance of evidence exists regarding the importance and
value of ECE, pervasive inequities remain in the ECE community, including lack of access to
36

high-quality services, insufficient funding for programs, and limited workforce development
exacerbated by the lack of wage parity between ECE educators and K–12 educators with the
same educational degrees (Child Care Aware of America, 2014; Early et al., 2007; Gould &
Cooke, 2014; Whitebook et al., 2016).
My identity has been shaped and molded by multiple facets of my life, some of which I
was born into and some of which I acquired. In the mirror, I see a White, able-bodied woman
who has acquired wrinkles and gray hair, but I acknowledge and celebrate these signs of age as
marks of wisdom. Although short in stature, I also have a presence in my profession as a leader
who is often called on for my knowledge and expertise, which is an honor and humbling. I
acquired this presence through years of dedication to the education and development of children,
youth, and families. I have also been humbled by my experiences; being a White, able-bodied
woman has afforded me opportunities that I acknowledge and for which I am grateful. Each
milestone in my professional journey has uncovered a myriad of inequities that I have
subsequently chosen to champion. Although I don’t know how it must feel to be marginalized in
terms of race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, language, or religion (Villaverde, 2008), I choose to
walk in others’ shoes and use my professional presence to effectuate change. At the end of the
day, when looking in the mirror and seeing a White, able-bodied woman, I also see a woman
who chooses to make a difference in the lives of others.
To understand the complexities involved in this study, I must recognize how I and the
ECE and K–12 community are positioned in the social and power structures of the system
(Villaverde, 2008). This positionality can be further analyzed by examining the dominant role of
K–12 in relationship to ECE as the oppressed entity (Morgan, 2018). I am uniquely positioned to
address these complexities, having worked and led in both systems; however, I must also
37

recognize that as a result of my most recent experiences, I may have a bias in favor of ECE as
the marginalized group.
Data Sources
The research for this study was conducted through interviews with ECE preschool
educators, K–12 kindergarten and special education educators, and administrators or leaders
from ECE and K–12. Interviews allowed the researcher to gather data from the stakeholder
groups. Further, the use of interviews promoted purposeful dialogue and conversation with the
fundamental purpose of gaining insights from affected participants aligned to the purpose of this
study to make sense or meaning of the problem at hand (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Semistructured Interviews
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), interviews can be highly structured,
semistructured, or unstructured. For this study, a semistructured interview approach was applied.
With this approach, the researcher used an interview protocol (see Appendix) with questions
aligned to the research questions. This protocol provided structure to the interview sessions while
also providing flexibility to explore the study based on each respondent’s personal experiences
and perspectives.
Participants
The participants for this study were ECE preschool educators, kindergarten and preschool
special education educators, and administrators or leaders from both ECE and K–12, all from
public organizations. Participants were purposefully sampled through a network sampling
approach and represent federal, state, and nonprofit funding models. Specifically, the
organizations of focus for this study were a state government agency that provides state-funded
preschool in partnership with a local school district, a school district with blended preschool and
38

K–12 educational offerings, and a community nonprofit organization that provides federally
funded Head Start preschool in partnership with a local school district. Purposeful sampling, as
described by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), is a means of sampling in which the researcher can
discover and gain as much insight from the specific group of focus. To engage with the
respective organizations, the researcher corresponded through phone and email with the
administrators of each organization to invite them and four to six ECE and K–12 educators,
whom the director could identify, to participate in an interview session; the total number of
participants sought ranged from 15 to 21 individuals. To ensure transferability, or the extent to
which the findings can be applied beyond this case study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), the
purposeful sampling of interviewees and organizations was representative of those found across
the country.
Instrumentation
The interviews were conducted using a semistructured interview protocol. Questions
were predetermined but allowed the researcher flexibility to probe for further detail and the
interviewees to respond based on their personal experiences. Patton (2002) suggested that this
process supports the exploration of a predetermined topic through the use of questions as a guide
to facilitate conversation and dialogue. The interview protocol is included in the Appendix. The
questions in the interview protocol were designed to promote conversation and dialogue through
a standardized, open-ended approach (Patton, 2002) and encouraged the discovery of beliefs,
values, and knowledge of the participants.
Data Collection Procedures
The data collection method followed an exploratory and inductive approach. The
researcher conducted 12 interviews in March 2022. This period lends itself to higher rates of
39

availability because it is the middle of a school year following a winter break. Interviews took
approximately 45–60 minutes to complete and were done virtually utilizing Zoom.
Informed consent is the process of informing participants about the key elements of a
study and what their participation will entail (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As part of informed
consent, the researcher provided a written statement to the participants that included the scope of
the research, a statement that the study was voluntary, a summary of the research purpose and
process, and a summary of potential outcomes, both beneficial and potentially unforeseeable.
Interview participants were well informed of the dissertation, the purpose of the study, and the
interview process before engaging. Additionally, participants were informed of the institutional
review board process, the necessity to record the interviews for data collection, and the
safeguarding of these recordings and any personally identifiable information. As part of this
process, participants were also informed that the data collected would be secure and only utilized
for this study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Participants gave consent through email confirmation
and again verbally at the onset of the interview.
Interview recordings were saved to facilitate accurate transcribing and coding of data
gathered. Recordings were transcribed for ease of analysis and coding. This transcription was a
built-in feature of Zoom when the study was conducted. Transcripts were further analyzed using
Otter AI, a transcription program that provides enhanced clarity to oral transcriptions.
Additionally, the researcher took notes during the interviews as a backup method for collecting
data and to collect thoughts and other relevant information. At the conclusion of each interview,
the researcher engaged in 30 minutes of reflection and reflexivity to ensure a neutral stance by
analyzing the data free from bias or assumptions. Further, at the conclusion of each interview,
participants received a $25 gift card for participating, which was sent to them through email.
40

Data were saved and backed up to a hard drive and cloud drive. Participants were informed that
after successful completion of the data analysis process, a draft of the findings section could be
made available to them for review.
Data Analysis
The interview recordings were reviewed and analyzed using a coding process that
involved finding patterns in responses that aligned with the research questions. During data
analysis open coding and a prioir coding, codes generated prior to the examination of the data,
were utilized (Gibbs, 2018). A priori codes were based on the following response types:
knowledge of collaboration, relational factors, institutional factors, and benefits of collaboration.
NVivo, a qualitative data analysis computer software product, was utilized to support the
completion of the coding process. As data were reviewed, coding changed to reflect more
general or broad categories and overarching themes. These revisions ensured the data collected
by the researcher aligned with the research questions. Chapter 4 discusses the findings of the data
analysis and the alignment of data to the research questions.
Validity and Reliability
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) defined reliability as the extent to which research findings
can be reproduced or replicated if the study is conducted again. Additionally, they defined
validity as the likelihood that research findings match reality. The researcher maximized validity
and reliability by implementing strategies that promoted the credibility and trustworthiness of the
study. Table 3 details the strategies the researcher utilized to maximize credibility and
trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

41

Table 3
Credibility and Trustworthiness Strategies
Type Description
Member checks

The researcher utilized member checks by promoting the
opportunity for interview participants to review responses to
ensure clarity and representation.
Reflexivity

The researcher utilized self-reflection and intentional opportunity to
pause throughout the interview to promote reflexivity. This
supported the researcher in maintaining a neutral stance free from
assumptions and bias.
Rich, thick descriptions

The researcher gathered, through interviews, rich- and thick
descriptions from participants and utilized follow-up questions
and probes when necessary to gather additional rich- and thick
descriptions.

Ethics
This study serves the interests of ECE and K–12 educators, administrators, and
ultimately, the young children supported by their practice. By analyzing the promising practices
of collaboration between ECE and K–12, knowledge could be gained that could transform
practice. This transformation of practice could result in increased coordination between
institutions that could lead to positive child outcomes. Participants gave their time and expertise,
and the researcher had the responsibility to gather data through personal interviews for this
research to generate findings that could transform practice. An important recognition is that this
research might have led to findings that participants may not want to hear, find conflicting, or
deem harmful to them or their institution. The University of Southern California ensures that all
42

potential research studies go through the institutional review board process to safeguard and
protect the rights of participants and ensure the research design is sound. For the participants
engaged in this study, consent was obtained before the interviews. Consent included a clear
explanation of the research study, participant roles, researcher role, confidentiality, and the
option to opt out at any time. Further, participants were provided pseudonyms to protect their
anonymity.
The researcher framed the scope of the study. Participating organizations were chosen
based on network convenience from the researcher’s colleagues and professional network.
Participants did not have a prior working relationship with the researcher, nor were any of the
participants related to the researcher. The findings and summations are from the perspective of
the researcher, who values both institutions and their role in developing young children.

43

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to identify the relationship and institutional structure
factors that impact the ability of Early Childhood Educators (ECE) and K–12 educators to
collaborate with each other. Gill et al. (2006) suggested that smooth transitions and collaboration
between ECE and K–12 are linked to positive school readiness and future school success for
children. This study utilized one-on-one semistructured interviews to provide a qualitative
analysis of such factors. This chapter summarizes the findings regarding the three research
questions that guided this study:
1. How do ECE and K–12 educators describe collaboration?
2. What relational factors, such as beliefs, trust, or values, do ECE and K–12 educators
see as impacting their ability to collaborate?
3. What structural factors, such as time, funding models, or procedures, do ECE and K–
12 educators see as impacting their ability to collaborate?
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population was composed of 12 participants from three educational
organizations in the Northwest United States. The organizations represented in the study were a
state government agency that provides state-funded preschool in partnership with local school
districts, a school district with blended preschool and K–12 educational offerings, and a
community nonprofit organization that provides federally funded Head Start preschool in
partnerships with a local school district. The participants were ECE preschool teachers, K–12
and preschool special education teachers, ECE program administrators and coaches, and K–12
administrators and coaches, all from public organizations. Table 4 summarizes the participants’
organization, organizational role, and years of experience. Personally identifiable information
44

has been protected for all participants, and each participant was given a pseudonym of a plant
that is representative of the Northwest region where the study was conducted.

Table 4
Characteristics of Participants
Organization Participant
(pseudonym)
Organizational role Experience
A: Government
agency
Aster ECE administrator 30 years
Rose ECE coach 20 years
Cherry ECE preschool teacher 17 years
Willow K–12 administrator 15 years
B: School district Fern K–12 administrator 20+ years
Maple K–12 administrator 20+ years
Iris K–12 preschool special education teacher 20 years
Violet ECE preschool teacher 23 years
C: Nonprofit Alder K–12 coach 20+ years
Pine K–12 preschool special education teacher 17 years
Ginger ECE preschool teacher 20 years
Lily ECE preschool teacher 20 years

45

Research Question 1: How Do ECE and K –12 Educators Describe Collaboration?
Participants responded to three questions related to their description of collaboration.
Two overarching themes emerged from participant interviews: (a) collaboration should have
purpose and common goals; and (b) benefits that come from collaboration occur for both
children and educators. Research has found that quality teacher collaboration, or collaboration
with a purpose, can positively influence teacher performance and student achievement (Ronfeldt
et al., 2015).
Purpose of Collaboration
Six of the 12 participants stated that having a common goal, vision, or purpose for
collaboration was necessary. Rose stated that when collaborating, they are “there with a purpose
of figuring out what is best for the child.” Pine similarly explained collaboration as “when a
group of people are working towards a common goal.” Further, the interview with Maple
highlighted the importance of educators having a role in collaboration that results in shared
outcomes: “Collaboration is understanding that we all have a role in this and a desire for a shared
outcome. Collaboration [is when] you yield something that’s greater than what you had before
… something greater comes of getting people together.”
Participants further shared that benefits for both children and educators can occur when
collaboration is purposeful. One interviewee, Rose, highlighted this by suggesting that “so many
amazing things can happen when you network with people,” further emphasizing that this
networking supports educators in understanding that “you’re a cog in this beautiful wheel of
helping a child fall in love with learning.” These participant data align with research conducted
by Goulet et al. (2003), who described collaboration as bringing together educators for a
common purpose. Rose stated that collaboration is “coming together with a purpose,” and Pine
46

similarly shared that “collaboration in general is when a group of people are working together
towards a common goal.” Reeves et al. (2017) suggested that instructional teams that engaged in
purposeful collaboration had benefits for educators, including higher teacher satisfaction, and
benefits for children, including higher student achievement.
Benefits of Collaboration for Children
Ten participants, with the exception of two preschool teachers, shared that improved
child or student outcomes are a result of educator collaboration. The participants shared that
children would experience smoother transitions from ECE to K–12, would be more ready for
kindergarten, and the child’s family would be more involved as a result of educator
collaboration. Fern stated, “the number one goal would be student outcomes,” echoed by Aster,
who shared that “strengthening outcomes for children” is a result of collaboration. Killion (2015)
suggested that the transformation of educator practice as a result of collaboration can result in
high-quality instruction for children, improved child outcomes, and higher kindergarten
readiness.
Transitions, Kindergarten Readiness, and Family Involvement
Smooth transitions, kindergarten readiness, and increased family involvement emerged
as themes from interviews related to the benefits of collaboration for children. Nine participants
spoke of the importance of smooth transitions for children. Violet highlighted in their interview
that during collaboration, educators are “collaborating on ways to make transitions smoother and
more efficient.” Ginger emphasized this concept, suggesting that the “overall goal is to have that
smooth transition process,” as did Rose, who stated that it is educators’ “responsibility to ease
this transition for a child.”
47

Further, Ginger, Fern, Iris, Lily, and Aster all suggested that having alignment in
expectations and developmentally appropriate practices based on child needs would support
transitions between ECE and K–12 and increase school readiness. Lily shared that a benefit of
collaboration for children is “to get the kids ready to go to kindergarten, to have them be
confident and knowing what they are supposed to know.” Pine suggested:
If we don’t have that collaboration, then you’re going to either be going over stuff that
kids already know, or you’re going to be starting way too high, whereas if both parties
are able to share and talk about their students, then we can better meet all their needs.
When discussing kindergarten readiness, Fern, a K–12 administrator, shared that their “biggest
hope for collaborating … is to talk, you know, to make kindergarten more appropriate,
developmentally appropriate.”
Five participants, representing both ECE and K–12, also spoke of the role of families in
the transition process. Ginger highlighted that “collaboration is one of the most important things
about transitions for not just children, but for families from preschool to kindergarten.” Rose
shared that she “wished” that families “could experience an easy transition,” and both Ginger
and Rose suggested the need for families to be more involved in collaboration. Willow further
highlighted that they “find a lot of families get lost in like, just the transition from the zero-to-
five world to K–12.” Maple reflected that families had not been part of collaboration, stating, “I
don’t know that we ever had parents as stakeholders. … They’re ultimately stakeholders, but
they weren’t at it [collaboration] per se.” Violet suggested that including families in
collaboration would “support the student to be successful in the classroom,” implying that a
student would be more successful in a preschool or kindergarten classroom when the family is
part of collaboration. LoCasale-Crouch et al. (2008) suggested that smooth transitions are an
48

essential function between ECE and K–12 that supports kindergarten readiness, which the study
participants highlighted.
Benefits of Collaboration for Educators
Educator benefits also emerged as a theme from participants as they described
collaboration. Participants highlighted that educator benefits included opportunities for shared
learning, improved educator practice, and system alignment between ECE and K–12. Maple
stated:
I just think that a really good collaboration, you walk away better, you are more ready for
something, and depending on what you collaborated on, you’re stronger, because you’ve
had the lift of your peers to help share that work and thinking.
Research by Muckenthaler et al. (2020) found that collaboration supports teacher learning,
enhances innovative approaches, and improves school and organizational effectiveness.
Shared Learning, Improved Educator Practice, and Systems Alignment
Ten participants, including all of the teacher participants, spoke about the importance of
shared learning as a result of collaboration. Rose shared that collaboration presents
“opportunities for us both to learn from each other,” and Fern highlighted that the “best
collaborations were when you learn new skills.” The participant data suggest that learning occurs
when educators collaborate. Aster highlighted this concept:
I’m learning new information and I’m taking this information and using it to inform and
strengthen the work that I’m doing in the classroom. … It’s thoughtful, it’s meaningful,
it’s intentional, and it’s informing and strengthening my work in real time.
Seven participants spoke about the importance of collaboration to improved educator
practice. Fern stated, “collaboration is where you learn to improve your craft,” and Maple shared
49

that through collaboration, “we can look at what we could do to change our instruction to get
better outcomes.” Willow highlighted the connection of improved educator practice to improved
outcomes for children and families, suggesting that “we can improve, you know, together to
support children and families in different ways.”
Additionally, eight participants spoke about increased systems alignment as a result of
collaboration. Aster described systems alignment as follows:
[It is] this expectation that we’re not putting the onus on children or families to be
navigating transitions, but instead focused on continuity, alignment, and coherence with
the systems in ways that ultimately benefit children and families. … [It is] through
collaborative efforts that we can see change in practice that really promotes and focuses
on continuity, alignment, and coherence.
Iris further suggested that systems alignment is a “bridge between early childhood and K–12”
and that this alignment “could be bridged better.” Five other participants referenced the bridge
analogy when discussing systems alignment as an educator benefit of collaboration. Maple
suggested that this “bridge” would bring “two worlds closer to alignment,” and Willow
highlighted that this alignment would provide a “zero-to-eight continuum” for children and
families. Aster further emphasized that “building those relationships, those connections, those
partnerships help facilitate a stronger understanding of the educational continuum.” Research by
Bogard and Takanishi (2005) found that coordination and alignment between educational
systems can support children’s early development and continued growth as they transition from
early childhood programs to elementary school.
50

Research Question 1: Summary
In line with the literature, participants described collaboration as a group of people
working together toward a common purpose (DuFour et al., 2004; Goulet et al., 2003). Further,
the data from participant interviews highlight that based on participant experiences, benefits for
both children and educators occur through the implementation of collaboration. Research by
Kagan and Rivera (1991) suggested that through collaboration, improved quality of services and
outcomes to students, children, and families can occur. Of additional note were the findings
related to family involvement in the collaboration process suggesting participants view family
involvement as an essential component of the collaboration process. Further, Goddard et al.
(2007) suggested that teacher collaboration has effects on student achievement and that
collaboration in schools is a practical approach to improving educator effectiveness (Hallam et
al., 2015).
Research Question 2: What Relational Factors, Such As Beliefs, Trust, or Values, Do ECE
and K –12 Educators See As Impacting Their Ability to Collaborate?
Participants addressed three questions regarding the role of relationships in collaboration.
During the interviews, this was described as relational factors, or the inter- and intrapersonal
behaviors that occur in a professional setting. Relational themes emerged, with participants
sharing that (a) collaborative relationships take time to cultivate and require shared agreements;
(b) collaborative relationships occur in inclusive and respectful environments; (c) collaborative
relationships involve speaking with and listening to fellow educators; and (d) relationship
challenges exist between ECE and K–12 that affect collaboration. Rimm-Kaufman and Pianta
(2000) argued that relationships between ECE and K–12 systems are critical.
51

Relationship Cultivation Takes Time and Requires Shared Agreements
All 12 participants spoke about the role of relationships in collaboration, stating that
collaboration is about building relationships, that relationships need to be strengths based, and
that when teams have positive relationships, collaboration is more effective. Alder suggested that
“relationships have to be the backbone of everything we do,” and Maple echoed this by stating:
Relationships are critical, and that takes time to develop and that is probably a missing
component, because we [ECE and K–12] don’t work side by side in the same building as
frequently, so when is there that time to develop that relationship, you have to create that
within your collaboration, right?
Additionally, five participants spoke about how building and cultivating relationships takes time.
Aster highlighted that “it takes a lot of time to develop relationships. … It also takes a lot of time
to invest in the process.” Therefore, Aster suggested the need to “creating time and capacity for
people to intentionally build relationships.” Maple similarly shared that “relationships are
critical, and that takes time to develop.” Pine and Rose also referenced in their interviews that
relationships take time to develop and form and that rapport is built over time. Iris also suggested
that through multiple meetings, “you start to get more and more comfortable.”
Data from participants suggest that building collaborative relationships takes time and
requires agreements regarding that time together, which aligns with research by Goulet et al.
(2003), who suggested the need for shared responsibilities and a collective commitment to the
collaborative work. Six participants indicated that shared goals, intentions, and agreements are
necessary for collaboration. Aster stated that “shared commitments” are necessary “to enhance
and facilitate the experience for everyone.” Rose shared that when they engage in collaboration,
they “are there with a purpose of figuring out what is best for the child.” Maple further suggested
52

the use of “some norms so that people feel comfortable” to support educators who “want to
develop [collaborative] relationships.” Alder similarly suggested that educators should “have
shared intentions.” Hargreaves (2001) suggested that collaborative cultures in which tasks are
purposeful promote environments that are more productive and enjoyable.
Relationships Occur in Inclusive, Respectful, and Positive Environments
Participant data also highlight that relationships involve coming together, being
respectful, and creating a positive and friendly environment, which they viewed as educator
behaviors that support collaboration and feelings of comfort for those engaged. Just as Maple
suggested the need for norms “so that people feel comfortable,” six participants also referenced
the importance of cultivating relationships to support a feeling of comfort. Iris highlighted that
certain educator behaviors can lead to feelings of comfort, stating that they “try to do things so
that [others] are comfortable” while collaborating. Lily shared that their collaborators “made me
feel really comfortable,” and Cherry highlighted that they would describe their best collaboration
as “when it’s a safe environment, meaning that you’re comfortable speaking.”
Seven participants, representing teachers and administrators, suggested that a relationship
factor for collaboration involved the inclusive nature of coming together to share diverse
perspectives. Four participants—Rose, Pine, Aster, and Willow—used the terminology of
coming to or being at the table as analogous to coming together. Rose referenced this as
inspirational, stating, “it’s such an inspiring thing when you get people at the table and you’re
talking about different perspectives and how to support a child.” Aster highlighted the inclusion
of diverse perspectives by stating they “ensure that you’re coming to the table and that diverse
perspectives are at the table.” Pine also highlighted the importance of “believing that everybody
53

is bringing something to the table and that you’re not any better or worse than anybody else
there.”
Additionally, seven participants shared the importance of having a positive and friendly
environment for collaboration to occur. Rose said they “create a really positive space where
people can converse back and forth.” Conversely, Violet highlighted: “If you bring a negative
attitude, people may be less willing to share.” Ultimately, Cherry suggested that when “it’s a safe
environment,” people engaging in collaboration will be “comfortable speaking.” Fern furthered
this concept, sharing that the environment should be one of “kindness, respect, and humility.”
Five participants highlighted the role of respect in collaboration. Pine highlighted the
importance of “mutual respect” and “valuing your team members or your colleagues.” Ginger
also referenced mutual respect, suggesting that collaborative teams should “have this mutual
respect and understanding of what needs to happen, not just in the classroom, but as partners and
organizations.” Lily stated that educators need “to be respectful and to be able to talk to each
other,” highlighting the role of communication in respectful relationships. The literature suggests
that respect is essential between educators to achieve desired results as part of collaborative
experiences (Ahtola et al., 2011; Goulet et al., 2003).
Relationships Involve Speaking and Listening
Communication emerged as a theme from participant interviews, with nine participants
referencing it as a relational factor as part of collaboration. Ginger suggested that
“communication is key” and “communication makes [collaboration] strong.” Violet further
highlighted that “communication is a big piece of collaboration” and having “systems of
communication” can support “being able to find a way to communicated more efficiently.”
Alder, Cherry, Aster, and Rose recommended strategies to support communication between
54

educators, including “establishing norms,” “learning one another’s communication styles,” and
implementing conflict-resolution strategies when miscommunication occurs.
Further, seven participants referenced the need to be open and receptive to hearing
others’ thoughts and perspectives. Pine stated that they try to “be open and receptive.” Violet
shared that they try “having, like, an open ear to where people can share.” Aster provided further
evidence regarding this idea, stating that building relationships involved “being open to hearing
other people’s thoughts, ideas, and perspectives while also sharing information about your ideas,
thoughts, and perspectives.” Increasing regular, bidirectional communication between educators
is a critical component of improved child and student outcomes (Cook & Coley, 2019; Datnow,
2011; Early et al., 2001).
Relationship Challenges Impacting Collaboration Between ECE and K –12
Ten participants, representing all roles and organizations, referenced relational challenges
impacting the ability of ECE and K–12 to collaborate. The overarching themes that emerged
related to these relational challenges were the presence of a K–12 institutional power imbalance
and the imbalance in knowledge sharing.
Participants from both ECE and K–12 referenced the power of school districts in
facilitating collaboration between ECE and K–12. Maple stated:
I think that egocentric piece of K–12 education, right, that we start these kiddos, we
launched their education—well no, we don’t actually; it started in the home, and then it
moves to maybe someplace else, and then it comes to us. K–12 sometimes forgets that
there’s another system, that our systems have to work together, right, and so we do get
egocentric.
55

Violet further highlighted the “one-sided or lopsided dynamics in the space; they [school
districts] just think that they know more.” Lily echoed this sentiment, stating, “Some [K–12]
teachers don’t see us as a preschool teacher or real teachers. … I think preschool teachers don’t
get as much respect as we should because our job is very, very hard.” Aster further stated:
I think that school districts in particular have a lot of autonomy, a lot of power and
influence in the community, whether they recognize and realize that or not. And so, it
doesn’t necessarily feel like we’re coming to the table as equitable partners, that it often
feels like school districts are in a position of power, authority, and knowledge and that we
are being asked sometimes to kind of sign off on something that the district wants to
move forward with.
Pine, a K–12 teacher, suggested that this imbalance needs to be addressed at the legislative and
state levels:
We’ve got to have further recognition at, you know, the legislative level, the state level,
and beyond of how critical the early childhood experiences is and how critical it is to
have our preschool partners treated as professionals—just like our certificated teachers—
and that we all play a huge role in getting our students ready and capable of learning. I
sometimes feel that the words are there, but not the actions from higher-up levels.
Research by Forsyth et al. (2006) highlighted that the lack of value or respect and not
understanding the roles of educators contribute to limited engagement in collaborative practices.
Further, Hargreaves (2001) suggested that collaborative cultures arise when educators value each
other.
An additional relational challenge that emerged from both ECE and K–12 participants
was the educator practice of knowledge sharing. Lily stated, “we [ECE] wish we were able to
56

share more.” Violet said that “child care could have some great information that could help the
school support students better. … It’s just that they get looked at as that [child care].” When
reflecting on collaborative opportunities, Maple shared:
I feel like when I think about that kindergarten team, they were doing the balance of the
presenting, like they were the authority, the knowers, and the early childhood teachers
and staff members maybe were the receivers of the knowledge.
Aster summarized that “sometimes there’s less interest from the district’s perspective in asking
our thoughts, our genuine kind of thoughts and reflections about what we think.” Aster
continued:
If there isn’t a shared value around the importance of collaboration, if there isn’t shared
value around the experience and the expertise that birth-to-five [ECE] educators can and
do bring to the work, then it’s very easy for school districts to take a step back and say,
“Actually, no, we believe that we can do this work better if we work independently and in
isolation.”
Participant data align with research by Cook and Coley (2019), who suggested that educators
should commit to bidirectional engagement and sustained communication structures to engage
successfully in collaboraton that is comprehensive and aligned.
Research Question 2: Summary
Relational factors, both constructive and challenging, affect the ability of ECE and K–12
to collaborate. Participant data highlight the relational factors needed to support collaboration,
which included being open, creating a positive environment, the importance of mutual respect,
and the role of communication. Participant data also highlight that relationship challenges
between ECE and K–12 affect their ability to collaborate, including the presence of an imbalance
57

of power skewed toward K–12 and an imbalance in sharing of information when collaboration
between ECE and K–12 occurs. Given that all but two participants addressed the perceived
imbalance of power dynamic, relationship factors should be further analyzed to encompass this
power dynamic as a contributing or inhibiting factor for collaboration between ECE and K–12.
Violet suggested that “when teams have positive relationships, they collaborate well, and
everybody’s ideas are heard.” The literature indicates that mutual trust and respect are essential
between ECE and K–12 educators to achieve desired results (Ahtola et al., 2011), and effective
communication and regular contact are part of a relationship-building system between
educational systems (Early et al., 2001). Although participants generally spoke of these concepts,
further research on the imposition of knowledge and whose knowledge is valued may be
necessary as it relates to the role of relationships in collaborative settings.
Research Question 3: What Structural Factors, Such As Time, Funding Models, or
Procedures, Do ECE and K –12 Educators See As Impacting Their Ability to Collaborate?
Participants answered three questions regarding the role of structural factors in their
institution or organization in promoting or inhibiting collaboration. During the interviews, this
was described as those systems or structures, such as how collaboration is designed and
implemented within their organization or institution. Three overarching themes emerged: (a) the
dedication of time; (b) the role of leadership and administration; and (c) structural challenges
impacting collaboration between ECE and K–12. In the literature, Datnow (2011) suggested that
formalized structures for collaboration are beneficial, including providing structured
collaboration time, having clear expectations for how collaboration time is spent, and having
systems in place to analyze data, all of which are supported by organizational leadership.
58

Dedicated Time
All 12 participants referenced the need to have dedicated time for collaboration to occur.
Alder shared:
The biggest element, of course, is time. So, if it’s something that we really value and if
we feel like the work is really important, are we honoring that by giving the time needed
to do that really hard work?
Pine stated similarly that “trying to build in shared scheduled time and opportunities for all
people, all these players, to be at the table at the same time” cannot occur “unless time is given
and granted.” All six school district participants shared that they had district-directed
collaboration time, and Aster suggested that the school district collaborative relationships “often
tend to be stronger because we see people regularly. … It’s a little bit easier when you’re
working from the same organization.”
The literature suggests that educators should have time to collaborate (Datnow, 2011;
Hargreaves, 2001). Aster recommended that organizations be:
really thoughtful and intentional about prioritizing that time … because oftentimes what
happens is the opposite … [and] if we institutionally recognize how important
collaboration is, what would it look like institutionally to carve out that time to ensure
that it is protected and how are we building in, again, more regular time to collaborate
internally with colleagues in your building and externally with colleagues outside of the
building?
Further, Ronfeldt et al. (2015) recommended that leadership advocate for the resource of time to
sustain collaborative efforts.
59

Role of Leadership and Administration
The themes that emerged from participants related to the role of leadership and
administration included the need for leaders who support and value collaboration and a systems
approach to collaboration, including funding and protocols. For this study, leadership included
those in power in the educational field, and participants referenced principals, directors, district
office administrators, and legislators. In the literature, Hargreaves (2001) asserted that the
collaborative process must be administratively supported and facilitated.
Nine participants referenced the need for organizational leaders to support and value the
implementation of collaboration. Violet shared that they “feel like you need to have support
from, you know, admin, or the people who support those teaching teams,” and further shared that
“it has to be important to them, and I think when you see that it’s successful when it is important
to the administrator.” Alder highlighted a leader who inspired them, sharing that this leader
“drove the decisions that she made” because collaboration was “close to her heart.” Willow
echoed this, suggesting that a leader “who is passionate and sees opportunities and is willing to
work towards improvement of the system will continue to advocate for that [collaborative]
space.” Similarly, Aster suggested:
When we have system leaders who are engaged in these kinds of intentional collaborative
opportunities, I think we start to see change not only happening at the individual level,
but I think there’s also recognition of what changes need to happen in order to sustain
those kinds of changes so that that when that leader leaves their position, there are some
things that have been adopted and incorporated into the system that just becomes part of
how we do business, part of how we educate children, how we educate and support
educators.
60

Additionally, nine participants referenced a systems approach that included the need for
funding to support collaboration and clear protocols to support planning for collaboration. Maple
suggested that for collaboration to be effective, “it required planning” and having “protocols in
place.” Violet, Cherry, Fern, Rose, and Aster also referenced planning and protocols as necessary
collaboration structures. Willow said that “common data systems” and “sustainability structures”
were necessary as part of a “strategic [collaborative] system.” When asked what structural
factors are necessary, Pine stated, “Money. You’re going to need money.” Alder similarly
suggested “funding for release time and substitutes,” and Aster recommended “intentional
investment … and investing in educators across sectors.” Participant data align with research by
Weglarz-Ward et al. (2020), who found that barriers to collaborating included lack of funding
and time and minimal training on the process of collaboration.
Structural Challenges Impacting Collaboration Between ECE and K –12
Structural challenges emerged from participant interviews, including issues related to
time, adequate funding, and staffing, and differing regulations between ECE and K–12. Early et
al. (2001) found that the lack of funding, time, and a willingness to participate in collaboration
were key barriers to ECE and K–12 educators’ ability to engage in collaborative and coordinated
approaches.
Ten participants stated that dedicated time between ECE and K–12 was a challenge.
Ginger said that “we have it [time] on paper, but it doesn’t happen,” and further shared that
collaborative opportunities between ECE and K–12 don’t always happen because “things can
just go [into] disarray at any given time.” Cherry stated similarly that “just those constant
interruptions that you have” impact the ability to collaborate and further shared that “they
[school districts] kind of get discouraged … so they don’t want to invest a whole lot of time.”
61

Aster highlighted that “K–12 educators have a different kind of work schedule than child care
providers and preschool providers,” and Willow shared that they try to plan evening
opportunities, but K–12 educators often don’t come due to collective bargaining agreements and
that “most K–12 employees are not used to working past five o’clock in the evening.” Maple
also described the constraint of time, highlighting that “proximity constraints are also an issue
because we don’t work side by side in the same buildings as frequently.” Fern reflected on this
topic and stated that “we could definitely improve” in creating collaborative time between ECE
and K–12. In the literature, Weglarz-Ward et al. (2020) found the barriers of lack of funding and
time and minimal training on collaboration processes are contributors to the lack of sustained
efforts between educators.
Participants also referenced the lack of funding for collaboration as a structural challenge.
Rose shared, “I think it is rooted in the lack of funds, because if there were more funds for more
teachers, you would be able to have some flexibility with that teacher’s schedule.” Fern echoed
this, stating that “it seems like it always comes down to funding, right?” Four participants
referenced the constraint of staffing shortages as a result of lack of funding. Aster suggested that
differing compensation models affected the ability of ECE educators to collaborate.
Additionally, seven participants representing teachers and administrators referenced the
challenge of differing regulations impacting the ability of ECE and K–12 to collaborate. Cherry
stated, “We’re so much the same, but we’re so different.” Similarly, Rose shared:
We’re a little bit unique, right? Like, we’re kind of working with different challenges and
I would say that, you know, we both have different kinds of—what’s the word—agencies
that we have to answer to, right, and regulations.
62

Pine also shared that there are “struggles, especially when you get into, like, two different
agencies—everyone has their own pieces that they need to get done.” LoCasale-Crouch et al.
(2008) asserted based on their research that continuous efforts to support aligned systems and
experiences for ECE and K–12 should be implemented, including program policies that promote
alignment.
Research Question 3: Summary
Participant data reflect that organizational structures such as dedicated time,
administrator and leadership support, and clear processes are necessary for collaboration.
Participants also highlighted challenges impacting collaboration between ECE and K–12,
including lack of time, adequate funding and staffing, and differing regulations. The lack of time
finding also reinforced the findings related to relational factors in that participants suggested that
relationships take time, consequently the lack of dedicated structural time impacts the cultivation
of relationships. Goulet et al. (2003) suggested that collaboration occurs when organizational
structures or processes are in place to support the experience. Early et al. (2001) further
suggested that high-intensity collaborative practices require dedicated funding, time, and
policies.
Summary
This chapter presented the data collected from 12 interview participants with respect to
the three research questions that framed this study. Through the interviews, themes emerged
related to relational and structural factors that broadly contribute to or inhibit collaboration,
alongside factors that contribute to or inhibit collaboration specific to ECE and K–12. In
alignment with the conceptual framework and literature review, relational factors from
participant data included (a) cultivating relationships over time and being inclusive of diverse
63

perspectives; (b) engaging in educator behaviors of openness, creating environments that are
positive and friendly, and establishing mutual respect; and (c) creating communication
structures. Additionally, in alignment with the conceptual framework and literature review,
participants identified structural or organizational factors that included (a) the need for dedicated
collaboration time, (b) the role of administrators and leadership in supporting and valuing
collaboration, and (c) the need for funding, staffing, and procedural systems. Regarding
collaboration between ECE and K–12, participants highlighted challenges. Violet stated, “I don’t
see any collaboration between early child care to the school other than transporting and maybe,
you know, a little communication here and there.” Iris shared a similar sentiment, explaining that
“in my number of years, I’m surprised how little I have collaborated with child care centers.”
Challenges that emerged from participant data included (a) lack of time, funding, and staffing;
(b) differing regulations between ECE and K–12; and (c) imbalance in power and knowledge
sharing between ECE and K–12, with K–12 being the institution of power. Aster also described
the challenge of values:
Collaboration can be challenging; it takes a lot of time … and when we don’t really value
collaboration and when we don’t really value what educators from other systems can
bring, then we sometimes use these other things as an excuse for why we’re having to
scale back, when really the root issue is a lack of value around the importance of
collaboration.
This aligns with research by Forsyth et al. (2006), who found that lack of time, not understanding
each other’s roles, and lack of value or respect contributed to limited engagement in coordination
and collaborative practices between ECE and K–12.
64

These findings highlight that attending to both educator relationships and institutional
structures in collaboration are essential to supporting collaborative opportunities between ECE
and K–12. Aster noted the need to prioritize collaboration:
Our systems often will kind of continue to perpetuate inequities and continue to serve the
system instead of serving students, instead of serving families, and instead of serving
educators, so we need to create capacity to really prioritize collaboration. It can yield
really tremendous and impactful results and outcomes both at the individual level and at
the systems level, when done well.
Chapter 5 discusses further recommendations, strategies, and practices to improve and
enhance collaboration between ECE and K–12 and provides implications for future study and a
conclusion to this dissertation.

65

Chapter Five: Recommendations
This chapter concludes the study with a discussion of the findings and proposes
recommendations for practice and future research. The chapter begins with a discussion of the
findings related to the conceptual framework and research questions. Then, an outline of
recommendations is presented based on the study findings. A review of study limitations and
delimitations is offered. This chapter concludes with future research recommendations.
Discussion of Findings
Chapter 4 detailed the findings from 12 semistructured interviews with educators and
administrators in public Early Childhood Education (ECE) and the public school system (K–12).
These findings aligned with the research questions, and presented data relate to:
1. How educators describe collaboration.
2. The relationships factors necessary for collaboration to occur.
3. The structural factors necessary for collaboration to occur.
4. The challenges, both relational and structural, for ECE and K–12 in collaborating.
The interviews revealed that ECE and K–12 educators and administrators understand the
factors necessary for collaboration to occur and factors that inhibit their ability to collaborate.
The interviews also revealed challenges impacting the ability of ECE and K–12 educators to
collaborate with each other. Although participants shared their understanding and the importance
of educator collaboration, strategies to implement and collaboration practices were not consistent
among those interviewed. Further, participants expressed that collaboration between K–12 and
ECE was inconsistently implemented, with seven participants reporting that collaboration was
not occurring or occurred inconsistently. Recent research has shown that considerable variability
in the implementation of approaches and limited scholarly attention focused on how ECE and K–
66

12 can collaborate have contributed to decrease coordination and alignment across systems
(Cook & Coley, 2019; Scott-Little et al., 2006).
When describing collaboration, ECE and K–12 educators and administrators suggested
that collaboration must be purposeful, educators must have clear goals and a vision for meeting,
and effective collaboration results in positive outcomes for both children and educators. It was
not apparent whether these descriptions were consistently realized in practice; the generality of
participant responses suggests more of a theoretical understanding of the concept of
collaboration rather than direct application. Participants further shared that child or student
outcomes are improved due to educator collaboration and suggested that collaboration between
ECE and K–12 could improve transitions between institutions, resulting in increased
kindergarten readiness and family involvement. Participants also suggested that shared learning
for educators occurs through collaboration, and 83% of participants suggested that this shared
learning results in improved educator practice. As previously communicated, the literature aligns
with these findings—research by Muckenthaler et al. (2020) found that collaboration enhances
educator practice by supporting shared learning and the implementation of innovative
approaches results in improved school effectiveness. Further, the transformation of educator
practice, as a result of collaboration, results in improved outcomes for children and higher
kindergarten readiness (Killion, 2015).
All 12 participants shared that relationships play an essential role in educator
collaboration. Participants suggested that relationships take time to cultivate, and 58% of
participants reported that their most positive collaborative moments occurred in inclusive,
respectful, and positive environments. Further, 83% of participants shared that relationships in
which educators are open and receptive to hearing diverse perspectives were also essential to
67

effective collaboration. Ongoing two-way communication is essential to support effective
collaboration (Datnow, 2011) and create collaborative cultures that foster educator relationships
(Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000). Further, in alignment with the theoretical and conceptual
model that grounded this study, Vygotsky (1978) suggested that relationships are integral to the
ability to construct knowledge. Vygotsky suggested that knowledge creation—or in the case of
educator collaboration, knowledge sharing and improved educator practice—occurs through
discourse and interaction. The conceptual model reflects this by addressing the various
relationship factors involved in effectively interacting and engaging in discourse, leading to
intentional collaboration between educators.
All 12 participants spoke of the role of structural or institutional factors that contribute to
educator collaboration. Additionally, all participants agreed that dedicated time is necessary for
collaboration to occur. Participants further highlighted that proximity, such as working in a
school district, increases the likelihood of collaboration. It is worth nothing that educators not in
the K–12 structure did not engage in collaboration with K–12 unless invited, and those in a K–12
structure collaborated on a weekly basis. Additionally, nine participants shared that leaders who
support the implementation of collaboration was necessary. Participants suggested that this
support comes through a leader’s beliefs about collaboration and how they align funding and
organizational systems with those beliefs. This is consistent with research showing that leaders
who support the creation of a culture of collaboration, allocate resources toward collaboration,
and create structures necessary for collaboration to occur are essential (Ronfeldt et al., 2015;
Hargreaves, 2001; Weglarz-Ward et al., 2020). The conceptual model addresses these findings
by highlighting structural and institutional factors necessary for collaboration to occur, including
time, funding, and processes. This further aligns with Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, in that
68

development and learning occurs in environments that promote discourse and social interaction;
conversely, if no environment exists, the opportunity for educators to engage as a community of
learners is limited (Goulet et al., 2003; Vygotsky, 1978).
Study participants also addressed challenges, both relational and structural, for ECE and
K–12 to collaborate. Participants shared that a relationship challenge between ECE and K–12
involves the presence of K–12 institutional power, referred to by participants as egocentricity or
one-sidedness impacting the role of mutual respect, which they highlighted as an essential
relational factor for effective collaboration. Participant findings suggest that the perception of
institutional power imbalance contributes to relational and structural factors impacting
collaboration between institutions. This perception was reinforced by participant responses who
suggested that different funding structures, ECE receiving less funding, and regulations
contributed further to this imbalance. Forsyth et al. (2006) suggested that a lack of value or
respect contributes to decreased educator engagement in collaborative opportunities. Further,
83% of participants referenced the lack of dedicated time between ECE and K–12 for
collaboration, to occur impacting the cultivation of relationships and consistent structures.
Participants suggested that this challenge occurs due to differing instructional structures and
regulations, such as work schedules and collective bargaining agreements, and a lack of funding
to support release time and staffing coverage for educators from ECE and K–12 to come together
and collaborate. The literature suggests that collaboration occurs when structures are in place that
provide dedicated time, funding, and policies (Early et al., 2001; Goulet et al., 2003). In
relationship to the conceptual and theoretical framework, it is crucial to address both the
relationship and structural factors that positively affect collaboration and those that impede
collaboration.
69

This study has several significant contributions and implications. The study
demonstrated, in alignment with existing literature and research, the role of relationships and
institutional structures in the effective implementation of educator collaboration. This study also
indicates that critical relational and structural factors impede the ability of ECE and K–12
educators to collaborate with each other. This study’s findings suggest that the combination of
relationships and structures contributes to an environment in which ECE and K–12 educators can
effectively engage in intentional collaboration, discourse, and knowledge construction. Further,
this study highlights the role of institutional power in the ability or inability of ECE and K–12
educators to engage in relationship cultivation and the establishment of collaborative structures.
Participant responses suggest that trust, respect, and a diversity of perspectives balanced with
leadership-supported structures that promote dedicated time can contribute to effective
collaboration. The implications of these findings include recommendations for improved ECE
and K–12 collaborative practices and future research.
Recommendations for Practice
This section discusses recommendations for practice to increase collaborative
opportunities between ECE and K–12. In alignment with the study findings and literature review,
three recommendations are presented to increase educator collaboration between ECE and K–12,
with the goal of improved school readiness for children transitioning between institutions. A
significant finding of this study is that time, funding, and perceived power imbalance are
contributing factors impacting both relationships and structures necessary for intentional
collaboration; these will be addressed in each recommendation. The first recommendation
highlights the role of local control and community governance in the implementation of
collaboration between ECE and K–12. This recommendation presents current methods in the
70

United States that involve community-driven approaches to ECE and K–12 collaboration. The
second recommendation focuses on additional monetary support to mitigate time and funding
barriers. This recommendation involves establishing grant funding for school districts and ECE
community providers to promote increased collaboration between institutional programs. The
final recommendation is a systemic approach involving policy change at the federal or state level
that requires collaboration between school districts and community preschool programs.
Recommendation 1: Local Control
This study showed that educators have a theoretical understanding of the role of
collaboration, which is being applied in varied ways based on participant experience. The results
of the study suggest ECE and K–12 educators need further support in developing structures that
promote time to build relationships of mutual respect and systems necessary for collaboration
across institutions. Based on study findings, the first recommendation promotes the autonomy of
individual states and communities to engage in collaborative activities between ECE and K–12
based on individual community needs using models found to be effective in other states. This
recommendation is based on current national collaborative practices that promote local
community control to engage in and implement collaboration between ECE and K–12. Further,
study findings suggest that collaborations that occur between ECE and K–12 are largely
developed based on school district-determined structures that include joint professional
development, annual transition meetings, and sharing of child data. These findings contributed to
participant’s perception of a K–12 power imbalance. This recommendation honors those efforts
while also promoting further district and community child care exploration of models that could
be replicated in their community context. Loewenberg (2017) highlighted that the responsibility
for creating well-connected transitions between ECE and kindergarten largely falls on individual
71

schools, districts, and communities. Based on his review, several states are implementing
transition and collaborative practices that include county collaboration teams, coordinated
transition activities, joint educator training, aligned assessment tools, family engagement events,
and full-day kindergarten. The 2019 Head Start Collaboration Demonstration project found
similar results; at local levels, transition and collaborative activities include sharing information
about transitioning children, implementing varied transition activities, and supporting families in
registering for kindergarten (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). Table 5
depicts models implemented across the United States that individual communities could
reference when engaging in and developing local control options for collaboration between ECE
and K–12 and reflect joint engagement and balanced partnership in the models references
(Loewenberg, 2017; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020).

72

Table 5
Existing Local Control Models
State Model Model description
Various states Memorandum
of
understanding
At the community or state level, memorandums of
understanding are developed between programs that
prescribe the planning and implementation of
collaborative activities between ECE and K–12.
Washington Home visits Local school districts conduct joint home visits with
community child care providers.
Michigan Exchange visits Local school districts and community child care providers
plan exchange visits during which kindergarten teachers
visit preschool classes and preschool educators visit
kindergarten classes.
Minnesota Joint family
events
Local school districts and community child care providers
plan and host multiple joint family events for
transitioning children to kindergarten.
Pennsylvania Shared
professional
development
Local school districts host joint professional development
sessions for kindergarten and community-based
preschool teachers in an area identified as a need by
community child care providers.
Various States Common
assessments
Common child assessment tools are implemented to
support alignment in measurement practices.
New York Summits Head Start collaboration offices host several summits to
bring together local teams.
Ohio, Oregon,
California
State funding Local school districts secure state funding for substitute
pay or to hire coordinators to support the facilitation of
community-based collaboration efforts.

73

The outcome of local control is that each state and community has local control and
governance to implement—or not implement, a limiting factor of this recommendation—
collaboration between ECE and K–12. Collaboration in this context occurs based on limited
funding, strong community partnerships, and innovative educators at the local level (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). Although some states are implementing
various forms of collaboration, there is little consistency or alignment of practices across states
(Scott-Little et al., 2006), another limiting factor of this recommendation. The results of this
study suggest the need for clear institutional structures, and Figure 3 shows factors in the
conceptual framework that would be addressed with local control.

Figure 3
Conceptual Framework and Implementation of Local Control Recommendation

74

Study participants suggested that collaboration must be supported by leadership and that
time and clear process for collaboration are necessary. This recommendation is dependent on
leadership support, which any local control model would require at various levels (Ronfeldt et
al., 2015; Hargreaves, 2001; Weglarz-Ward et al., 2020). A benefit of engaging in a local control
model is the ability to build structures and relationships based on community-driven, inclusive,
and participatory processes that local governance promotes. As highlighted in Figure 3, a
limiting factor of this recommendation is the inability to determine if the implementation of a
local control model would address any relational factors of the conceptual framework. In
alignment with research, relationships arguably can be built when a local control model
addresses regular communication and educator connectedness (Cook et al., 2019; Early et al.,
2001).
Recommendation 2: Educational Grant Funding
Study findings suggest funding is necessary to mitigate the barriers of lack of time and
limited staffing, with every study participant suggesting the need for dedicated time and seven
participants further addressing the need for increased funding. To address these barriers, the
second recommendation is to establish educational grant funding to support collaboration
between school districts and community preschool providers at the local or community level. For
this recommendation, federal or state dollars should be made available at the local level for
school districts and local community child care providers through an application process.
Various grant models exist across the United States. The U.S. Department of Education (2021)
offers three kinds of grants: (a) discretionary grants that are awarded using a competitive
process, (b) student loans or grants to help students attend college, and (c) formula grants that
use a formula determined by Congress for the distribution of funds. Grants are also made
75

available through the federal government and private funders. Research has further suggested
that the application of grant funding correlates positively to increased education spending. Cohn
(1987) investigated the effects of educational grants on education spending and found that
recipients of grants at the local level increased their educational spending by 70 cents for each
dollar of federal funding, resulting in educational revenue that could be applied to programs to
support students. Fisher and Papke (2000) also found that education grants stimulated education
spending. Raymond and Sadoulet (2003) suggested that educational grants offer an intervention
to address problems of low school attainment and most importantly, that low-income children
experience cumulative gains compared to wealthier families.
This educational grant funding should be made available to school districts and
community child care providers across the United States. As part of this recommendation, school
districts and community child care providers could apply for grant funding through an
application process and have to meet specific requirements and deliverables as described in the
grant. Study findings suggest that clarity of the structures and outcomes of collaboration are
necessary. Study participants suggested that logistics, differing regulations, and lack of
alignment between institutions impact educators’ ability to collaborate. Thus, grant requirements
should include:
 Establishing ECE and K–12 collaboration teams that plan and host regular meetings
between school districts and local community preschool programs at a time
convenient for community preschool providers.
 Investing in sustainable research-based transition practices implemented by
kindergarten educators in collaboration with community preschool educators.
 Implementing joint training to support the alignment of curriculum and assessments.
76

Finally, this study showed that time and clarity of purpose were essential in effective
collaboration. Figure 4 shows those factors in the conceptual framework that would be addressed
with the implementation of the educational grant funding recommendation.

Figure 4
Conceptual Framework and Implementation of Educational Grant Funding

77

Participants suggested that funding is necessary to promote increased time dedicated to
supporting the cultivation of relationships necessary for effective collaboration environments.
Cook and Coley (2019) highlighted the barriers of funding and time to engage in collaboration
between ECE and K–12. Thus, with grant funding and clear grant deliverables, institutional
structures could be established to promote clarity of purpose between educators engaged in
collaborative opportunities. Further, through clear grant deliverables power balance could be
established. This recommendation is a viable option because it provides a consistent model for
school districts and community child care providers that choose to apply for educational grant
funding. A limiting factor, as also seen in recommendation one, is the ability to determine if the
application of grant funding would impact relational factors of trust, respect, and beliefs. In
alignment with study findings and participant perspectives, is that through the dedication of time
that grant funding would support, the cultivation of relationships would also be fostered, which
further aligns existing research (Cook et al., 2019; Early et al., 2001). Despite the limitations and
barriers of time and funding, Yelverton and Mashburn (2018) suggested that alignment in
educational practices and policies is necessary to promote coordination and collaboration
between ECE and K–12.
Recommendation 3: Policy Change
Study finding suggest that further analysis of state and federal policies is needed to fully
address the barriers of collaboration between ECE and K–12. Beyond the finding of lack of time
and limited funding as key barriers, seven participants referenced differing regulations and lack
of aligned systems and 10 participants referenced a K–12 power imbalance as additional barriers
for ECE and K–12 to collaborate. To mitigate the barriers of funding, time, and lack of
alignment and perceived imbalance of power in collaborative and coordinated approaches, high-
78

intensity policy change is recommended as the third recommendation. In alignment with the
literature and study findings, this recommendation would create integrated educational systems
that enhance coordination and collaboration between ECE and K–12 through necessary policy
change (Bogard & Takanishi, 2005; Early et al., 2001; Kagan & Neuman, 1998). The study
findings and research further highlight the necessity of crafting effective legislation that
mandates collaboration for all agencies serving young children. This recommendation would
require crafting legislation at the federal or state level that requires all agencies serving young
children to engage in collaboration (Kagan & Neuman, 1998), inclusive of all U.S. school
districts and community child care providers. Further, study findings suggest that policy change
would promote further alignment of not only institutional structures, but also relational factors of
core beliefs and values related to the development of young children. Participants suggested that
increased alignment would support common practices and alignment in curricula and would lay
the foundation for developmentally appropriate practice. Bogard and Takanishi (2005) similarly
recommended policy change with a single clear governance structure and alignment of standards,
curriculum, assessments, and accountability systems. They asserted that educational programs
with structures, processes, and alignment provide an infrastructure for successfully educating
children and saving public dollars by reducing grade retention and special education placement
and increasing college attendance and future earnings.
In alignment with study findings and the conceptual framework, this recommendation
addresses the structural and relational factors that contribute to effective and intentional
collaboration between ECE and K–12, as described in the conceptual and theoretical
frameworks. This recommendation would require the same or similar deliverables as the
educational grant funding recommendation. This recommendation would also address the
79

necessity of equitable funding and would allocate funds to ECE and K–12 stakeholders to
address the financial implications related to the requirements. The literature suggests that
investment in high-quality early learning programs results in increased school readiness, higher
reading and math achievement, lower rates of retention, higher rates of graduation, higher
earning, and lower rates of incarceration (Heckman et al., 2006; Isaacs, 2012). This allocation of
funds further aligns with study findings, given seven participants suggested that limited funding
affects their ability to collaborate. Policy change accompanied with the necessary funding would
increase engagement in collaborative practices and promote consistency, as highlighted by study
participants. Figure 5 shows the factors in the conceptual framework that would be addressed
with the implementation of the policy change recommendation.

Figure 5
Conceptual Framework and Implementation of Policy Change
80

As with the previous two recommendations, a limiting factor of this recommendation is
the ability to determine if the implementation of policy change would impact the relational
factors of trust and respect. A case can be made, given the literature, that this policy change
recommendation would increase time and understanding of differing roles that would ultimately
support the cultivation of mutual respect and trust between institutions (Forsyth et al., 2006). As
a result of implementing the policy change recommendation, all providers serving young
children would be engaged in collaboration. This solution is a viable option because it provides a
consistent model for educators and children across the United States.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations of this study include factors that are outside of the control of the researcher.
For this study, a limiting factor was the individual responses of the participants and the
trustworthiness of those responses. To mitigate this, the researcher conducted interviews with
multiple participants, utilized a standardized coding process, and engaged in member checking to
ensure participants felt their responses were clear and representative. Further, although the
interview questions were designed to elicit thoughts and perceptions about educator
collaboration, the broadness of this topic may have limited participant responses.
Factors that are potentially delimiting are those in the researcher’s control. These
included the researcher’s decision-making processes during the design of the research study to
ensure credibility or the extent to which findings can be replicated (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016):
ensuring that (a) the interview process was consistently implemented and documented
accurately, (b) narratives were analyzed utilizing a coding tool; and (c) the number of
participants was sufficient to ensure representation and transferability. Further, this study
focused on relational and structural factors that contribute to collaboration and did not address
81

the perceptions of value or a sense of agency, or control, over current experiences, which may
have been present for some educators who engaged in the study.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study raised questions that warrant future research. Specifically, the following
research topics deserve further attention.
Where ECE and K –12 Collaboration is Currently Occurring and What We Can Learn
The study participants shared their perspectives on the role of collaboration between ECE
and K–12, and the preponderance of data reflect that collaboration is not happening with
consistency or intentionality and rather occurs when time permits or when K–12 invites
participation from ECE. Future research should be designed to identify states or communities
that are currently engaging in ECE and K–12 collaboration that involves key factors highlighted
by study participants and the conceptual framework. Research should also be designed to
measure the frequency and dosage of such collaboration experiences and the necessary funding
structures to support sustained efforts between ECE and K–12.
Role of Power Dynamics in Diminishing Value
Study participants suggested that a power imbalance is present. They viewed this
imbalance as primarily due to K–12 being an institution of power in relationship to community
child care. Future research should be designed to evaluate feelings regarding the value of ECE
and the resulting impacts on willingness to participate in collaboration.
Role of Inequitable Funding Structures Between ECE and K –12 Impacting the Ability to
Collaborate
Study participants spoke about their sphere of influence as it relates to collaboration.
Three participants raised awareness of different funding structures and their impact on their
82

ability to collaborate. Future research should be designed to evaluate funding structures, the
effects of the disparity between institutional funding structures, and the resulting impact on
educator collaboration.
Conclusion
This chapter provided recommendations for practice in alignment with study findings and
existing research. The recommendations focused on small-scale and large-scale changes to
normalize collaboration between ECE and K–12. These recommendations primarily focused on
building consistent structures with dedicated time to create educator relationships through local
control initiatives, establishment of grant funding and clear practice deliverables, or wide-
sweeping policy change across the United States. These recommendations further align with
research that suggested smooth transitions and collaboration between ECE and the K–12 public
school system are critical components of children being ready for school and are linked to
predictors of future school success (Gill et al., 2006).
A key finding of this study was the limited opportunity for ECE and K–12 educators to
collaborate. All three recommendations promote the bringing together of educators for a
common purpose, because educator collaboration is a key indicator of school effectiveness
whether designed locally, driven by grant deliverables, or through federal or state policy change
(Collins, 2002; Goulet et al., 2003). Thus, these recommendations address the persistent
challenge of ECE and K–12 educators working in isolation rather than engaging in collective
work (Ronfeldt et al., 2015). Consistent with study findings, the recommendations promote
increased collaborative opportunities between ECE and K–12 educators, which would benefit
both the educators and students, as study participants reported. The study recommendations
further address relationship factors for educators, aiming to provide additional time to cultivate
83

relationships. Further, leaders should intentionally encourage a focus on relationship building as
a function of all three recommendations. Finally, the recommendations promote increased
regular communication between educators, another key finding, as essential to improving
collaborative efforts.
Study recommendations further align with the findings regarding the need for increased
time, funding, and alignment of institutional structures. The last two recommendations address
the differing policies, philosophies, and lack of coordination between educational systems that
affect successful transitions for children. Further, formalized structures, including providing
structured collaboration time and having clear expectations for how collaboration is conducted,
that are supported by organizational leadership are essential for effective collaboration. Finally,
research has suggested that coordination between educational systems supports children’s early
development and continued growth as they transition from early childhood programs to
elementary school (Bogard & Takanishi, 2005).
This study took an important step in identifying relational and structural factors that
contribute to or inhibit collaboration between ECE and K–12. Further, it provided insight into
what educators consider to be essential for collaboration to be effective. Yet barriers exist that
contribute to the inconsistent implementation of collaboration between ECE and K–12. Thus,
future research is needed to determine (a) how to equitability fund necessary time for
collaboration, (b) how differing educational regulations impact institutional structures, and (c)
how K–12 power dynamics impact ECE perceptions of the value of ECE. Finally, further
advocacy is needed at the federal level to align and adequately fund institutional systems to
promote the effective implementation of consistent and sustained collaboration between ECE
and K–12 as a core function of effective education.
84

References
Administration for Children and Families. (2014). Collaboration pyramid. Early Head Start-
Child Care Partnerships.
Ahmady, A., Mehrpour, M., & Nikooravesh, A. (2016). Organizational structure. Procedia –
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 230, 455–462.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.09.057
Ahtola, A., Silinskas, G., Poikonene, P.L., Kontoniemi, M., Niemi, P., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2011).
Transition to formal schooling: Do transition practices matter for academic performance?
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(3), 295–302.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.12.002
Ayers, W., Ladson-Billings, G., & Noguera, P. A. (2008). City kids, city schools: More reports
from the front row. The New Press.
Barnett, S., & Nores, M. (2014). Access to high quality early care and education: Readiness and
opportunity gaps in America. Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes.
Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2006). Innovations in teacher education: A social constructivist
approach. State University of New York Press.
Berducci, D. F. (2004). Vygotsky through Wittgenstein: A new perspective on Vygotsky’s
developmental continuum. Theory and Psychology, 14(3), 329–353.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354304043639
Bogard, K. & Takanishi, R. (2005). Prek-3: An aligned and coordinated approach to education
for children 3 to 8 years old. Social Policy Report, 19(3), 1–24. Society for Research on
Child Development.
Bonk, C., & Kim, K. (1998). Extending sociocultural theory to adult learning. In M.C Smith &
85

T. Pourchot (Eds.), Adult learning and development: Perspectives from educational
psychology (pp. 67–88). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brehony, K. J. (2009). Transforming theories of childhood and early childhood education: Child
study and the empirical assault on Froebelian rationalism. Paedagogica Historica, 45(4–
5), 585–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230903100965
Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993).
Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (ed.), Distributed cognitions:
Psychological and education considerations (pp. 188–228). Cambridge University Press.
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.
Russell Sage Foundation.
Carlson, E., & Stenberg, M. (2020). Peer learning-making use of sociocultural theory. Nurse
Education in Practice, 46, 102819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102819
Child Care Aware of America. (2014). Parents and the high cost of child care.
Cohn, E. (1987). Federal and state grants to education: Are they stimulative or substitutive?
Economics of Education Review, 6(4), 339–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-
7757(87)90017-3
Collins, A. B. (2002). Does a school make a difference? Perceptions of an ‘effective school.’
European Educational Research Journal, 1(3), 429–444.
https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2002.1.3.3
Cook, K. D., & Coley, R. L. (2017). School transition practices and children’s social and
academic adjustment in kindergarten. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2), 166–
177. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000139
86

Cook, K., & Coley, R. (2019). Coordination between Head Start and elementary schools to
enhance children’s kindergarten success. Early Education and Development, 30(8),
1063–1083. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2019.1656318
Cook, K. D., Coley, R. L., & Zimmermann, K. (2019). Who benefits? Head Start directors’
views of coordination with elementary schools to support the transition to kindergarten.
Children and Youth Services Review, 100, 393–404.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.03.021
Cook, K. D., Dearing, E., & Zachrisson, H. D. (2017). Information sharing between teachers and
early education programs during school entry in Norway: Associations with children’s
school adjustment and success in the first year. International Journal of Child Care and
Education Policy, 11, Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-017-0039-5
Costa, A. C., & Anderson, N. (2011). Measuring trust in teams: Development and validation of a
multifaceted measure of formative and reflective indicators of team trust. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 119–154.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320903272083
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage.
Datnow, A. (2011). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Revisiting Hargreaves in the age of
accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 12(2), 147–158.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-011-9154-1
Dewey, J. (1929). My pedagogic creed. Progressive Education Association.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2012). Revisiting professional learning communities at
work: New insights for improving schools. Solution Tree.
87

DuFour, R., DuFour, R. B., Eaker, R. E., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How
professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. National Educational
Service.
Early, D. M., Maxwell, K. L., Burchinal, M., Alva, S., Bender, R. H., Bryant, D., Cai, K.,
Clifford, R. M., Ebanks, C., Griffin, J. A., & Henry, G. T. (2007). Teachers’ education,
classroom quality, and young children’s academic skills: Results from seven studies of
preschool programs. Child Development, 78(2), 558–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2007.01014.x
Early, D. M., Pianta, R. C., Taylor, L. C., & Cox, M. J. (2001). Transition practices: Findings
from a national survey of kindergarten teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal,
28(3), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026503520593
English, A. R. (2016). John Dewey and the role of the teacher in a globalized world:
Imagination, empathy, and “third voice.” Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48(10),
1046–1064. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1202806
Entwisle, D., Alexander, K., Pallas, A., & Cadigan, D. (1987). The emergent academic self-
image of first graders: Its response to social structure. Child Development, 58(5), 1190–
1206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1987.tb01451.x
Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. 114-95, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015).
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177
Fife, B. L. (2013). Old school still matters: Lessons from history to reform public education in
America. Praeger.
Fisher, R. C., & Papke, L. E. (2000). Local government responses to education grants. National
Tax Journal, 53(1), 153–168. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2000.1.09
88

Fontil, L., Sladeczek, I. E., Gittens, J., Kubishyn, N., & Habib, K. (2019). From early
intervention to elementary school: A survey of transition support practices for children
with autism spectrum disorders. Research in developmental disabilities, 88, 30-41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2019.02.006
Forsyth, P. B., Barnes, L. L., & Adams, C. M. (2006). Trust-effectiveness patterns in schools.
Journal of Educational Administration, 44(2), 122–141.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230610652024
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Vol. 6). Sage.
Gill, S., Winters, D., & Friedman, D. S. (2006). Educators’ views of pre-kindergarten and
kindergarten readiness and transition practices. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood,
7(3), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2006.7.3.213
Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical
investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in
public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877–896.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810710900401
Gorry, D., & Thomas, D. (2017) Regulation and the cost of childcare. Applied Economics,
49(41), 4138–4147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2016.1276275
Gould, E., & Cooke, T. (2015). High quality child care is out of reach for working families.
Economic Policy Institute.
Goulet, L., Krentz, C., & Christiansen, H. (2003). Collaboration in education: The phenomenon
and process of working together. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 49(4), 325–
340. https://doi.org/10.11575/ajer.v49i4.55027
89

Groen, M. (2008). The Whig Party and the rise of common schools, 1837-1854: Party and policy
reexamined. American Educational History Journal, 35(1–2), 251–260.
Hallam, P. R., Smith, H. R., Hite, J. M., Hite, S. J., & Wilcox, B. R. (2015). Trust and
collaboration in PLC teams: Teacher relationships, principal support, and collaborative
benefits. NASSP Bulletin, 99(3), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636515602330
Hargreaves, A. (2001). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the
postmodern age. Continuum International.
Head Start Bureau. (2000). Head Start program performance standards and other regulations.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Heckman, J., Grunewald, R., & Reynolds., A. (2006). The dollars and cents of investing early:
Cost-benefit analysis in early care and education. Zero to Three.
Individuals with Disability Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. 105-17, 111 Stat. 37
(1997). https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ17/PLAW-105publ17.pdf
Isaacs, J. B. (2012). Starting school at a disadvantage: The school readiness of poor children.
Center on Children and Families at Brookings.
Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure.
International Iournal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49–62.
https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800406
Jarvis, P. (2012). Paradoxes of learning: On becoming an individual in society. Routledge.
Kagan, S. L., & Neuman, M. J. (1998). Lessons from three decades of transition research. The
Elementary School Journal, 98(4), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1086/461902
Kagan, S., & Rivera, A. (1991). Collaboration in early care and education: What can and should
we expect? Young Children, 47(1), 51–56.
90

Karoly, L. A., Kilburn, M. R., & Cannon, J. S. (2005). Children at risk: Consequences for school
readiness and beyond. RAND Corporation.
Killion, J. (2015). High-quality collaboration benefits teachers and students. The Learning
Professional, 36(5), 62–64.
Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (1999). Charting the relationship trajectories of aggressive,
withdrawn, and aggressive/withdrawn children during early grade school. Child
Development, 70(4), 910–929. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00066
Lascarides, V. C., & Hinitz, B. F. (2000). History of early childhood education. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203814215
Laughlin, L. L. (2010). Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Spring 2005/summer
2006. U.S. Census Bureau.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life.
Cambridge University Press.
Lee, M. W. (1990). [Review of the book Past caring: A history of U.S. preschool care and
education for the poor, 1820-1965, by E. D. Cahan]. Contemporary Psychology, 36(3),
264–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/029577
Little, M. H., Cohen-Vogel, L., & Curran, F. C. (2016). Facilitating the transition to
kindergarten: What ECLS-K data tell us about school practices then and now. AERA
Open, 2(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416655766
LoCasale-Crouch, J., Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2008). Pre-kindergarten
teachers’ use of transition practices and children’s adjustment to kindergarten. Early
Childhood Quarterly, 23(1), 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.06.001
Loewenberg, A. (2017). Connecting the steps: State strategies to ease the transitions from pre-K
91

to kindergarten. New America Foundation. https://na-
production.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Connecting-the-Steps.pdf
McKenzie, R. G. (2009). A national survey of pre-service preparation for collaboration. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 32(4), 379–393.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406409346241
McLeod, S. A. (2018). Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. SimplyPsychology.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). School system. Retrieved May 1, 2021, from https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/school%20system
Montessori, M. (1965). Dr. Montessori’s own handbook. Schocken Books.
Mooney, C. G. (2013). Theories of childhood: An introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson,
Piaget, and Vygotsky (2nd ed.). Redleaf Press.
Morgan, K. P. (2018). Describing the emperor’s new clothes: Three myths of educational
(in)equity. In A. Diller, B. Houston, K. Pauly Morgan, & M. Ayim (Eds.), The gender
question in education: Theory, pedagogy, & politics (pp. 105–122). Routledge.
Moye, M. J., Henkin, A. B., & Engley, R. J. (2005). Teacher-principal relationships: Exploring
linkages between empowerment and interpersonal trust. Journal of Educational
Administration, 43(3), 260–277. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230510594796
Muckenthaler, M., Tillmann, T., Weiß, S., & Kiel, E. (2020). Teacher collaboration as a core
objective of school development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31(3),
486–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1747501
92

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1993). Conceptual framework for
early childhood professional development.
Newman, S., & Latifi, A. (2021) Vygotsky, education, and teacher education. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 47(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1831375
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
Office of Head Start. (2016). Head start program performance standards: 45 CFR Chapter XIII.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Orr, J. (1991). Piaget’s theory of cognitive development may be useful in deciding what to teach
and how to teach it. Nurse Education Today, 11(1), 65–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/0260-
6917(91)90127-V
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Pianta, R. C., Cox, M. J., Taylor, L., & Early, D. (1999). Kindergarten teachers’ practices related
to the transition to school: Results of a national survey. Elementary School Journal,
100(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1086/461944
Pianta, R., & Kraft-Sayre, M. (2003). Successful kindergarten transition. Paul Brookes.
Ratner, C. (2002). Cultural psychology: Theory and method. Kluwer/Plenum.
Raymond, M., & Sadoulet, E. (2003). Educational grants closing the gap in schooling
attainment between poor and non-poor. University of California, Berkeley, Department
of Agricultural and Resource Economics. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/60r0x8j4
Reeves, P. M., Pun, W. H., & Chung, K. S. (2017). Influence of teacher collaboration on job
satisfaction and student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 227–236.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.016
93

Riley, S. E. (1994). Caring for Rosie’s children: Federal child care policies in the World War II
era. Polity, 26(4), 655–675. https://doi.org/10.2307/3235099
Rimm-Kaufman, D. E., & Pianta, R.C. (2000) An ecological perspective on the transition to
Kindergarten: A theoretical framework to guide empirical research. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 21(5), 491–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-
3973(00)00051-4
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (2000). Teachers’ judgments of problems in
the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(2), 147–166.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(00)00049-1
Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. (2015). Teacher collaboration in
instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
52(3), 475–514. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215585562
Sawhill, I. V., Winship, S., & Grannis, K. S. (2013). Pathways to the middle class: Balancing
personal and public responsibilities. Issues in Science and Technology, 29(2), 47–54.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43315718
Schulting, A. B., Malone, P. S., & Dodge, K. A. (2005). The effect of school-based kindergarten
transition policies and practices on child academic outcomes. Developmental Psychology,
41(6), 860–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.860
Scott-Little, C., Kagan, S. L., & Frelow, V. (2006). Conceptualization of readiness and the
content of earl learning standards: The intersection of policy and research. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(2), 153–173.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.04.003
94

Smith, M. C., Pourchot, T., & Pressley, M. (1998). Adult learning and development:
Perspectives from educational psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Torquati, J., Raikes, H., & Huddleston-Casas, C. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.03.004
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools (2nd ed.).
Jossey-Bass.
Tye, B. B. (2000). Hard truths: Uncovering the deep structures of schooling. Teachers College
Press.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021, December 8). Occupational employment and wage
statistics. https://www.bls.gov/oes/
U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). School enrollment in the United States: 2018.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/P20-584.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2019). Starting strong: Increasing preschool quality and access:
The Preschool Development Grants Program summary report.
U.S. Department of Education. (2021). Grants. https://www2.ed.gov/fund/grants-
apply.html?src=ft
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2020). Office of Head Start and Public Schools
Collaboration Demonstration Project: Summary and practice implications. National
Center on Early Childhood Development, Teaching, and Learning.
https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/cdp-summary-practice-implications-
paper.pdf
95

Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic
review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002
Villaverde, L. E. (2008). Feminist theories and education: Primer. Peter Lang.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Weglarz-Ward, J. M., Santos, R. M., & Hayslip, L. A. (2020). How professionals collaborate to
support infants and toddlers with disabilities in child care. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 48(5), 643–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01029-5
Whitebook, M., McLean, C., & Austin, L. J. E. (2016). Early Childhood Workforce Index 2016.
University of California, Berkeley, Center for the Study of Child Care Employment.
Whitebook, M., McLean, C., Austin, L. J. E., & Edwards, B. (2018). Early Childhood Workforce
Index 2018. University of California, Berkeley, Center for the Study of Child Care
Employment.
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.
University of California, Berkeley, Center for the Study of Childcare Employment.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/16n6j8zz
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(03)00040-1
96

Winton, P. J., Guillen, C., & Schnitz, A. G. (Eds.). (2019). Teaming and collaboration: Building
and sustaining partnerships (DEC Recommended Practices Monograph Service No. 6).
Division for Early Childhood.
Yelverton, R., & Mashburn, A. J. (2018). A conceptual framework for understand and supporting
children’s development during the kindergarten transition. In A. J. Mashburn, J.
LoCasale-Crouch, & K. C. Pears (Eds.), Kindergarten transition and readiness:
Promoting cognitive, social-emotional, and self-regulatory development (pp. 3–29).
Springer.
Youcha, G. (1995). Minding the children: Child care in America from colonial times to the
present. Scribner.
Zigler, E. F., & Valentine, J. (1979). Project Head Start: A legacy of the war on poverty. Free
Press.

97

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Three research questions guided this study:

1. How do ECE and K–12 educators define collaboration?
2. What structural factors, such as time, funding models, or capacity, do ECE and K–12
educators see as impacting their ability to collaborate?
3. What relational factors, such as beliefs, trust, or values, do ECE and K–12 educators
see as impacting their ability to collaborate?
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate that you are dedicating
time to meet with me and answer some questions. I shared with you previously, as a USC
student, I am conducting this study focused on collaboration, what it is, factors that promote or
inhibit collaboration, and the extent to which educators see benefits of collaboration. I am
particularly interested in understanding the role of collaboration between ECE and K–12. I
conducting multiple interviews to learn more about this and will be using interviews to gain
additional information and perspectives. My role today is to be a listener, and as a researcher, I
will listen with the intent to understand. This interview today will be recorded solely to support
me in capturing your responses and will not be shared; the recording will be kept in a password-
protected file on my computer. Finally, this interview is confidential; your name will not be
shared. I will protect your confidentiality and am happy to share a copy of my findings if you are
interested. This overview, along with additional confidentiality information, was also provided to
you in the Study Information Sheet, and before we begin, I am going to open the space up to
address any questions you may have about this study. Before we start, I want to confirm, again,
with you that I have your permission to record this conversation. Great, let’s begin.
98

Pause – Build Rapport and Reflection Probes:
 So, what I heard you say….
 Based on your experience, collaboration has been…
I appreciate hearing a bit of your context as it relates to collaboration, thank you!

Setting the Stage

I ’d like to start by asking you some background questions about yourself.

Question Interview notes
1. First, tell me about your background in ECE or K–12.

a. How did you become interested in the field of ECE
or K–12 education?
b. How long have you worked in the field?
c. What roles or positions have you held?

2. Tell me a little about your program/school.

Pause – Build Rapport Probes:
 It sounds like you/your….
 I noticed when you were sharing that…
Thank you for sharing a little bit about your history in ECE or K–12.

Interview
I ’d like to now ask you about collaboration.

Question Potential probes, coding and
interviewer notes
3. Based on your experience, how would you describe
collaboration?

4. Can you recall and share a time with me when you
experienced collaboration at its best? If the
interviewee has not experienced collaboration at its
best: Why do you think that was? What factors led to
your experience?

What factors led to this experience?

What were the results of this
experience?
5. What do you see as the overall goal of collaboration? Tell me more about results you
have seen as a result of
collaboration?

99

Pause – Build Rapport and Reflection Probes:
 Based on what I heard, relationships have/are….
Anything else you would like to share about relational factors before we move on? Thank you for
sharing this with me!

Now I ’d like to ask you some questions about the role of relationships in collaboration – the
relational factors affecting collaboration. When I say relational factors, I am referring to the
inter- or intrapersonal behaviors that occur within a professional setting, for example, how do
these relationships make you feel, or do you have common values and beliefs.

Question Potential probes, coding and
interviewer notes
6. So, thinking about the experience (good or bad) you
recalled earlier or other collaborative experiences, who
was involved in that experience with you?

How would you describe your
relationship with these
individuals?
7. If you were to list the key relationship ingredients for
effective collaboration, what would they be?

Why did you choose these
ingredients? What behaviors
interfere with effective
collaboration?
8. In what ways have relationships with your colleagues
affected your educator experience?

100

Pause – Build Rapport and Reflection Probes:
 I enjoyed hearing your perspective as if I was a new employee in your institution/agency.
Any further insights to share before we transition to our next set of questions?

Now we ’re going to think about the structural factors that promote or inhibit collaboration at
your institution or agency. When I say structural factors, I am referring to the large
institutional or organizational systems and how collaboration is designed, implemented,
and/or communicated.

Question Potential probes, coding and
interviewer comments
9. Again, thinking about your experiences (good or bad),
have there been institutional or organizational structures
that were put in place so that collaboration could occur?
If no collaboration: Tell me more about what
contributes to the inability to collaborate within your
institution or agency? If no structures but collaboration
is occurring: Can you describe what this looks like in
the absence of institutional or agency structure?

Who supports and encourages
collaboration in your institution?
10. Suppose I was a new educator to ECE or K–12; what
would you tell me about collaboration in your
institution or agency?
What are the challenges or barriers
of collaboration in your
institution or agency?
What are the successes or
celebrations of collaboration in
your institution or agency?
11. If you were to list the key institutional structures and
supports necessary for effective collaboration, what
would they be?
Why did you choose these
ingredients?
Who contributes to or has the
responsibility of these key factors
being in place?

101

Pause – Build Rapport and Reflection Probes:
Your perspective around the goal and benefits of collaboration have been insightful, thank you!

Now we ’re going to switch gears and talk about collaboration across the ECE and K –12
sectors and the extent to which educators see the benefit of collaboration across sectors.
Question Potential probes, coding and
interviewer comments
12. Tell me about an experience(s) you have had
collaborating with either ECE or K–12 educators.
If no experience, why do you think
that is?
If yes, what has that experience
been like for you?
13. What do you see as the overall goal of collaboration
between ECE and K–12 educators?
How do you think collaboration
across sectors affects student or
child outcomes?

Closing Question(s)

As we finish our time together, share your final thoughts:

Question Potential probes, coding and
interviewer comments
14. Given what you have shared with me if you could
design the ideal collaborative experience, what would
it look like?
What would make this experience
meaningful for you?
Who would be involved?
What kinds of resources might you
need?
How would you know you were
successful?
What would be the outcomes?

Any final insight you would like to share?

Closing Comments

Thank you so much for you sharing your thoughts with me today! I appreciate our time
together and your willingness to share your thoughts, experience, and insights, all of which will
be helpful for me as I conduct this study. If I find myself with a follow-up question, can I contact
you, and if so, is email OK? Again, thank you for participating in my study. As a thank you,
please accept this small token of my appreciation (gift card).

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The impact of cultural wealth and role models on the transformation of an individual’s future self

PDF

Modeling collaboration in K–12 teacher professional development

PDF

The nature of K-12 education news in the United States

PDF

How teachers identify and respond to bullying: an evaluation study

PDF

Understanding how organizational culture and expectations influence retention of managers

PDF

Leadership practices impacting Minnesota school principals’ employee well-being and burnout during the pandemic

PDF

The lack of National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) hiring of male and female BIPOC athletics coaches

PDF

Centering women's voices in CQAD accredited post-secondary institutions

PDF

Transformative justice in California’s public schools: decreasing the education debt owed to California’s Latino students through collaboratively-developed professional learning for secondary teachers

PDF

IEP stakeholder communication and collaboration and its effects on student placement

PDF

Advisor impact on student veterans at a post-secondary institution: an evaluation study

PDF

A path to K-12 educational equity: the practice of adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset

PDF

Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study

PDF

Increasing representation of women in executive technology leadership roles

PDF

Defying odds: how teachers perceive academic language growth despite high poverty

PDF

Leadership psychological safety: exploring its development and relationship with leader-member exchange theory

PDF

Can collaboration among senior higher education leaders ensure organizational survival?

PDF

Improving first-generation students' sense of belonging at university

PDF

Counselors and teachers’ perceptions of underrepresentation of female secondary students in STEM

PDF

Online graduate program retention: exploring the impact of community on student retention rates from the perspectives of faculty and alumni

Asset Metadata

Creator Sheridan, Kristen Leigh (author)

Core Title How relationships and institutional structures impact collaboration between early childhood educators and K12 educators

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 07/27/2022

Defense Date 07/12/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag collaboration,Early childhood,K12,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Carbone, Paula M. (committee chair), Kropp, Cathy S. (committee member), Lynch, Douglas E. (committee member)

Creator Email klsherid@usc.edu,kristenlsheridan@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111375400

Unique identifier UC111375400

Legacy Identifier etd-SheridanKr-11012

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Sheridan, Kristen Leigh

Type texts

Source 20220728-usctheses-batch-962 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu