ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT AND WELL-BEING OF INFANT/TODDLER AND PRESCHOOL EDUCATORS By Loria Eunji Kim A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Human Development and Family Studies – Doctor of Philosophy 2024 ABSTRACT The well-being of early childhood educators is essential to the quality of care and education our young children receive. Yet not enough is known about infant/toddler (I/T) and preschool educators’ well-being and how their unique job demands of working with different age groups might impact their well-being. Moreover, studies on educator well-being mostly focus on the individual educator and what they can do to promote their own well-being when educators’ well- being is influenced by the systems in place, such as administrative support, which is defined as administrators providing support and assistance to educators to ensure quality in their work. A small but important body of literature on administrative support indicates that a lack of administrative support is associated with educators’ intention to leave and their job satisfaction. However, conceptualizations and definitions of administrative support vary across studies and only one study has examined administrative support in early childhood education. Further, there could be differences in the nature of both administrative supports and well-being between I/T and preschool educators. Therefore, this dissertation examined the associations between administrative support and the well-being of I/T and preschool educators using an exploratory mixed methods approach. The first study consisted of focus groups with early childhood administrators and educators to conceptualize and define administrative support and identify specific types of administrative supports. Findings from the first study were used to create a quantitative survey measure of administrative support for the second study which investigated associations between administrative support and educators’ physical, psychological, and professional well-being. The second study explored the differences in I/T and preschool educators’ perception of administrative support they receive and their well-being and identified specific types of administrative support that predict their well-being. Findings from Study 1 generated a definition of administrative support in early childhood education: administrators supporting educators’ work by providing necessary resources, respecting, trusting, acknowledging and expressing appreciation through open communication and relationships as well as supporting educators’ well-being. Themes from this study identified administrative support, lack of administrative support, ill-being, and well-being. Three different types of administrative support were identified: emotional, instrumental, and well-being support. Findings from Study 1 were used to create items to measure ECE administrative support for educators’ well-being in four domains: emotional support, instrumental support, well-being support, and well-being resources. Study 2 findings revealed that I/T educators reported more emotional support, instrumental support, and well-being support compared to preschool educators. Emotional support predicted educators’ mental well-being regardless of the age group of children they work with. Well-being support predicted lower perceived stress among preschool educators. More instrumental support was associated with higher physical ill-being; and well-being resources was positively associated with educators’ depressive symptoms and negatively associated with educators’ joy in teaching. Lastly, well-being support was negatively associated with I/T educators’ mental well-being, while higher well-being resources was associated with higher level of burnout for preschool educators. These findings contribute to the literature on how administrative support can influence early childhood educator well-being. Furthermore, the types of administrative support associated with educator well-being have practical implications for early childhood programs in implementing these administrative supports and advocating for policy on supporting educator well-being. Keywords: administrative support, well-being, early childhood care and education, infant/toddler educators, preschool educators Copyright by LORIA EUNJI KIM 2024 To my grandma and my dad, who paved the way for me to go for the impossible. To my husband, Youn Woong, who showed me unconditional love and support. To my siblings, Sandy, Cassie, and Brian, who have always been there for me. To my cat, Louie, who provided me with unlimited purrs and cuddles. To my mentor, Daisaku Ikeda, who believed in my full potential. To our early childhood educators, who deserve all the best. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I started my Ph.D. journey to investigate the effects of administrative support on early childhood educators’ well-being and this dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance, support, and encouragement of many individuals. I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to all of them. First, this dissertation was supported by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) of the United States (U.S.) Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of a financial assistance award totaling $49,992.18 with 100 percent funded by ACF/HHS. The contents are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement, by ACF/HHS, or the U.S. Government. For more information, please visit the ACF website, Administrative and National Policy Requirements. I deeply appreciate my incredible mentor and advisor, Dr. Claire Vallotton, who provided me with unwavering support in all aspects of my well-being, insightful guidance, and taught me what is done is good. I am so grateful for the various opportunities you have given me to pursue not only research but also engage with community partners and apply research through public scholarship. I could not have asked for a better mentor, and I am so excited to continue working as colleagues. I would also like to thank my dissertation committee members, Drs. Holly Brophy- Herb, Ahnalee Brincks, and Julia Torquati, for your time, guidance, and expertise in making my research come to life. Thanks to my community partners, Advocacy Chair of Michigan Association for the Education of Young Children, Michigan State University Child Development Laboratories, Kent County Intermediate School District, Head Start for Kent County, Capital Area Community Services, Livingston Educational Service Agency, and Marygrove Early Education Center, who vi have helped recruit early childhood administrators, infant, toddler, and preschool educators whom I am also thankful. With your contribution, I was able to elevate voices from the field of early childhood education and carry out field-informed research. Special thanks to my colleagues and friends, whose continuous support and encouragement have made this journey much more worth it. Atikah, thank you for being my unconditional emotional support. Stacy and Sojin, I am so appreciative of your unchanging friendship through thick and thin. To my SGI Buddhist family in Michigan, I felt so fortunate to be with amazing young women’s division members and overcome challenges and struggles together. I was both inspired and encouraged to keep going no matter what and never give up. I would also like to thank my lifetime mentor, Daisaku Ikeda, who anchors me to believe in myself and continue for the sake of humanity. You help me broaden my perspective. I am profoundly grateful to my family for persisting and enduring through all circumstances. Grandma, without you, I could not have come this far. I am forever indebted to you and your sacrifice for us to become happy and successful. Dad, thanks for not giving up and allowing me to pursue my goals. My siblings, Sandy, Brian, and Cassie, thank you for the much- needed support. To my cat, Louie, I am so thankful to have you in my life. Lastly, I would like to thank my husband, Youn Woong, for your patience, understanding, and love. You have been there for me for all the big milestones. Your sense of humor and belief in me have helped me come this far. Thank you for making me feel grounded and being so supportive of my dreams. You made this journey more enjoyable and memorable. I cannot thank you enough. I love you. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 What is Well-being? ........................................................................................................... 3 Administrative Support ..................................................................................................... 16 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 21 CHAPTER 2: STUDY 1 – INFANT/TODDLER AND PRESCHOOL EDUCATORS’ PERCEPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORTS ................................................................ 24 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 24 Current Study .................................................................................................................... 27 Method .............................................................................................................................. 27 Findings ............................................................................................................................ 32 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 49 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 59 CHAPTER 3: STUDY 2 – INFANT/TODDLER AND PRESCHOOL EDUCATORS’ PERCEPTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORTS AND THEIR WELL-BEING .............. 63 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 63 Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 74 Method .............................................................................................................................. 75 Results ............................................................................................................................... 87 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 121 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 131 CHAPTER 4: INTEGRATED DISCUSSION ........................................................................... 135 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 135 ECE Educator Well-being Conceptual Model ................................................................ 136 Contribution to Existing Literature ................................................................................. 141 Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 142 Future Directions for Research ....................................................................................... 143 Implications for Practice and Policy ............................................................................... 144 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 145 APPENDIX A: IRB AND RECRUITMENT INFORMATION ................................................ 148 APPENDIX B: STUDY 1 MEASURES .................................................................................... 155 APPENDIX C: STUDY 2 MEASURES .................................................................................... 185 APPENDIX D: EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS ........................................................ 235 APPENDIX E: UNADJUSTED MULTILEVEL ESTIMATES FOR STUDY 2 ...................... 240 APPENDIX F: EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS ....................................................... 253 viii CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The well-being of the early childhood workforce is crucial for the development of our youngest learners and the quality of care they deserve, but the national statistics on this workforce indicate that their well-being lags far behind that of other teaching workforces. The average turnover rate of early childhood education (ECE) programs is the highest among other care and education fields and four times higher than elementary schools (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council [IOM & NRC], 2015). More specifically, the annual turnover rate ranges from 26% to 40% among ECE educators working in childcare centers (Totenhagen et al., 2016). Frequent staff changes and instability lower the quality of care which negatively impacts children’s social-emotional development by disrupting attachment relationships and resulting in more aggressive and socially withdrawn behaviors (IOM & NRC, 2015). Because of higher rates of turnover and work-related stress in ECE compared to other fields, research has focused on ECE educators experiencing stress and how this experience can impact their quality of practice as well as children’s development. The field of ECE includes a wide range of children’s ages, and the working conditions and characteristics of the workforce vary between infant/toddler (I/T), preschool, and pre- kindergarten/elementary schools. For instance, ECE educators working in childcare centers receive lower wages and benefits compared to teachers working in public elementary schools (McLean et al., 2021). To take these variations into consideration, research on ECE educator well- being should be differentiated. Many studies have examined preschool teachers’ well-being to identify factors associated with stress specific to ECE educators working with preschool children. Hall-Kenyon et al. (2014) and Cumming (2017) reviewed previous studies on preschool educators’ 1 well-being and found that the conceptualization of teacher well-being is very narrow and fragmented because typically, only one aspect of well-being is examined at a time. This fragmentation is also true for the conceptualization of I/T educators’ well-being, but there is much less research focused on I/T educators. Therefore, more research is needed on the well-being of I/T and preschool educators in order to fully understand and identify ways to support their well- being. More recently, a study by Kwon et al. (2020) examined I/T and preschool educators’ well- being with the framework of Whole Teacher Well-being; this framework suggests a holistic view of early childhood educators’ well-being, including physical, psychological, and professional well- being as well as work environment and workplace support. Findings contribute to the literature by highlighting educators’ poor working conditions and the similarities and differences between I/T and preschool educators’ well-being (e.g., compared to I/T educators, preschool educators reported higher level of stress and depressive symptoms). However, administrative support, which might play a critical role in the work environment and workplace support of ECE educators has not been examined. Findings from studies on administrative support in elementary and secondary education indicate that teachers’ perceived lack of administrative support is inversely associated with work- related stress, job satisfaction, and work commitment (e.g., Fox et al., 2020; Wang & Hall, 2019; Conley & You, 2017) which suggests that administrative support plays a critical role in teachers’ well-being and retention. Currently, the literature on administrative support in the field of early childhood care and education is limited compared to other teaching workforces. The importance of this type of support in other teaching workforces gives us the impetus to study it among our most under-supported educators – those working with infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Hence, it is imperative that we 2 start to examine administrative support in early childhood programs and how it may influence the well-being of I/T and preschool educators. This literature review will describe what well-being is, both generally and for the early childhood education workforce, including how it is conceptualized, and research findings on I/T and preschool educators’ well-being in terms of their physical, psychological, and professional well-being as well as working conditions. Then, the definition and conceptualization of administrative support will be described along with studies on administrative support and educators to highlight the necessity of research on administrative support with I/T and preschool educators. What is Well-being? The term well-being is used widely across many fields with varying definitions. In the early years of research on workplace well-being, studies used the term well-being to examine mostly physical health, but now it encompasses the physical, emotional, mental, and social aspects of health (Simone, 2014). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2018), well- being constitutes different aspects including physical, emotional, social, psychological, and economic well-being as well as domain-specific satisfaction and refers to “judging life positively and feeling good” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018, para. 1). These various definitions of well-being reflect different conceptualizations of the concept and inform how well- being is studied in different fields. How is Well-being Conceptualized? In the field of psychology, well-being has been conceptualized as hedonic or eudaimonic. Hedonic well-being observes an individual’s subjective rating of happiness and judgment about the elements of their life (Bartels et al., 2019). On the other hand, eudaimonic well-being refers to an individual’s flourishing and fulfillment of what is meaningful to them (Hall-Kenyon et al., 3 2014). Although many previous studies focused on hedonic well-being (Hall-Kenyon et al., 2014; Bartels et al., 2019; Jones et al., 2019), “wellbeing cannot be conceptualized based solely on happiness (hedonistic wellbeing) but needs to include meaningful pursuits and feelings of growth toward self-actualization in the person (eudaimonic wellbeing)” (Jones et al., 2019, p. 329). Specifically in the field of early childhood education, although we see more research on well-being, there seems to be “a narrow conceptualization of and means of measuring well-being,” (Cumming, 2017, p. 583) which calls for the need to examine existing conceptual frameworks to understand ECE educators’ well-being. Integrated Domains of Well-being To understand the well-being of ECE educators, the term well-being must encompass many distinct aspects of the domain. Previous research (Hall-Kenyon et al., 2014; Cumming, 2016; Kwon et al., 2020) has been focused on certain aspects of well-being that contributed to the beginning phase of conceptualization, but there is no current model that organizes these findings holistically to fully understand the well-being of ECE educators. Even more so, most Australian ECE educators viewed psychological well-being as workplace well-being which is shaped by social, economic, environmental, and relational factors (Jones et al., 2019). With an increase in research on ECE educators’ well-being, some frameworks have been developed that comprehensively examine various aspects of well-being such as early childhood professional well- being (McMullen et al., 2020) and Whole Teacher Well-Being (Kwon et al., 2020). Early Childhood Professional Well-being (ECPW). McMullen and colleagues (2020) suggested early childhood professional well-being (ECPW) as a holistic way to gain an understanding of the underlying factors of an individual’s well-being related to the physical, cognitive, psychological, and emotional perceptions. This framework was adapted from Maslow’s 4 Hierarchy of Needs and Vygotsky’s notions of how an individual’s lived experiences help us understand their perceptions of experiences and environments. ECPW consists of nine senses of early childhood professional well-being: comfort, security, affinity, self-respect, communication, engagement, contribution, efficacy, and agency. These senses were used to examine the association between ECPW and the risk of turnover among teachers and administrators in childcare programs. Results indicated that supportive structures, collegial relationships, and professional beliefs and values were predictors of the risk of turnover. This finding helps with conceptualizing workplace well-being among ECE educators as well as administrators, but due to the use of a convenience sample, findings might not be generalizable. Moreover, this model does not consider personal life stress as one of the underlying factors of individuals’ well-being when research shows that the spillover effect of work and personal life can play a critical part in one’s well-being (Simone, 2014; Cassidy et al., 2016). The evidence of ECPW shows some gaps in representing the demographics of ECE educators because more than half of the responses were from directors or administrators, approximately 64% were White/non-Hispanic, and Native Americans were overrepresented in the sample because the study specifically targeted Native American childcare settings. Therefore, ECPW should be used with samples representative of ECE educators to understand the overall well-being. Whole Teacher Well-Being. Another holistic framework for understanding ECE educators’ well-being is the Whole Teacher Well-Being framework (Kwon et al. 2020). This framework examines teachers’ physical, psychological, and professional well-being as well as work environment and workplace support. Kwon and colleagues (2020) used this framework to conceptualize I/T and preschool educators’ well-being and found evidence that educators 5 experienced physical and psychological challenges in less-than-optimal working conditions. In addition, this study showed evidence of differences in well-being between I/T and preschool educators where I/T educators received less health insurance benefits and had more designated breaks while preschool educators reported more work-related stressors and infectious diseases. The Whole Teacher Well-Being framework certainly captures many aspects of well-being and helps us understand I/T and preschool teachers’ well-being, as was evident from the findings. However, this study was conducted in one geographical area where state policy might be different from childcare centers in other states. Also, the findings may not be generalizable to all ECE educators because almost half of the educators were from Early Head Start or Head Start programs. Because program policies and practices might differ depending on the types and characteristics of programs, comparing the working conditions of different programs and educator well-being might contribute to a better understanding of ECE educator well-being. Despite these limitations, this framework can certainly be applied to understanding I/T and preschool educators’ well-being because it provides a comprehensive framework with elements necessary for understanding workplace well-being across sub-components of the ECE workforce. Infant/Toddler and Preschool Educator Well-being The quality of care and education our young children receive depends significantly on the well-being of ECE educators and growing literature points to what is currently known about ECE educators’ well-being. In addition, contexts, such as knowing who makes up the ECE workforce can provide valuable insights in identifying gaps and limitations in the current literature. Therefore, the following sections will describe the workforce demographics and discuss previous studies on educator well-being aligned with the framework of the Whole Teacher Well-being (Kwon et al., 2020). 6 Workforce Demographics Approximately 2 million ECE educators are working in homes and centers to provide care and education to approximately 10 million children under the age of five. These ECE educators are mostly women and about 40% of these women are of color (McLean et al., 2021). Characteristics of ECE educators are remarkably diverse as they work in different settings (e.g., home-, center-based), various kinds of programs (e.g., Early Head Start, Head Start, university- based, private), and with a variety of age groups (e.g., infants, toddlers, preschool, elementary). Due to the varying requirements of education and training to work as ECE educators, their levels of education differ in terms of their highest degree of education (e.g., I/T educators working in childcare may only need a high school diploma, whereas Head Start preschool teachers need a bachelor's degree, and many elementary educators need master’s degrees). Because of the diversity among ECE educators, it is crucial to understand how these characteristics contribute to their well- being in the workforce. For instance, there might be differences in well-being for ECE educators who identify as minorities because of systemic racism they might experience in their live. In fact, a meta-analysis of the general population (Paradise et al., 2015) revealed that racism was associated with poorer well-being in terms of general, physical, and mental well-being. Also, ECE educators working in Early Head Start, university-based ECE programs, and community child care centers might have different kinds of access to health insurance which can impact their well-being. Moreover, a higher education level was associated with more physical symptoms (Kwon et al., 2020) which is discussed in detail below. Specific Aspects of Well-being Of the existing studies on ECE educator well-being, many focus on specific aspects of well-being. Using the Whole Teacher Well-being (Kwon et al., 2020) as the underlying framework, 7 findings on these specific aspects are organized into physical, psychological, and professional well-being as well as working conditions which have been modified to include the physical environment, compensation and benefits, and organizational climate. The following sections describe how each specific aspect of well-being has been conceptualized and measured from previous studies and what we know about the well-being of ECE educators, specifically those who work with infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Physical. Providing the basic needs, care, and education for young children requires a lot of physical demands. Surprisingly, not many studies focused on understanding ECE educators’ physical well-being given that their job requires a considerable amount of physical work. Kwon et al. (2020) used their holistic framework, Whole Teacher Well-Being, to measure ECE educators’ physical well-being with physical pain or symptoms, body mass index, and testing the physical ability of the educators. Kwon et al. (2020) used the Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Scale (WMDS; Cheng et al., 2013) to ask I/T and preschool educators whether they have any general health complications, experienced any work-related injuries, or musculoskeletal pain (e.g., back pain, knee pain). Educators also reported their weight and height to calculate the body mass index because many ECE educators report having excessive weight. Using the Three-Minute Step Test (American College of Sports Medicine, 2017), educators’ fitness levels were measured based on the number of heart beats per minute to assess their circulatory and respiratory systems since educators working with young children must engage in sustained physical activity. Findings indicated that ECE educators reported physical challenges such as ergonomic pain, headaches, and infectious diseases. More specifically, more than half of the educators in this sample indicated ergonomic pain in one or more areas of the body and prevalent headaches. Preschool educators and educators with bachelor’s degrees reported having a greater proportion of 8 headaches and infectious diseases compared to I/T educators and educators with degrees other than bachelor's degrees. This study highlighted the differences in educators’ well-being in terms of the age group of children they work with and their education level. However, it only measured physical health without consideration of whether these physical conditions impact educators’ ability to carry out their job responsibilities or affect their physical well-being. The combination of current measures of physical well-being and their perception of how physical pain prevents their ability to meet the physical demands of the job might fully capture ECE educators’ physical well-being in the workplace. Psychological. ECE educators’ psychological well-being plays a critical role in their practice of responding to and supporting children’s emotional development in the classroom. However, many ECE educators report experiencing stress and burnout in their workplace which impacts their well-being (IOM & NRC, 2015). Due to the concerning rate of stress and burnout among ECE educators, many studies examined several ways to understand ECE educators’ psychological well-being. More specifically, psychological well-being has been examined by assessing educators’ perceived level of stress, burnout, and depressive symptoms. Kwon et al. (2020) measured perceived stress and depressive symptoms among I/T and preschool educators and found that there was a difference between I/T educators and preschool educators in which preschool educators reported higher levels of perceived stress and depressive symptoms compared to I/T educators. Moreover, there is evidence of ethnic differences between African Americans and White educators in burnout. Findings indicated that African Americans experienced higher levels of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization compared to White educators, but both groups suggested that the hours of direct contact with children had more to do with depersonalization than racial differences (Evans et al., 2004). This suggests that psychological 9 well-being must be examined not only in terms of stress, depressive symptoms, and burnout but also considering racial differences given that the majority of ECE educators are ethnic minority individuals (Whitebook et al., 2018) and how their personal life might already be prone to experience more stress as minoritized populations in the U.S. (Smith, 1985). Professional. ECE educators are professionals who work with young children and families. As a result, ECE educators’ professional well-being must be examined as well to fully understand their overall well-being. Professional well-being is simply constructed as feelings about work such as work commitment and job satisfaction (Cassidy et al., 2016; Kwon et al., 2020). However, numerous factors are associated with how an individual feels about their work. Self-efficacy, sense of autonomy, and perceived relationships with children can contribute to how teachers feel about their work which in turn measures professional well-being (Kwon et al., 2020). Kwon et al. (2020) measured the professional well-being of I/T and preschool educators in terms of work commitment, a sense of self-efficacy, and their perceptions of their relationships with children. Researchers examined the differences in professional well-being by the age group of children that teachers worked with and their level of education. Results indicated that job commitment, self-efficacy, and perceived conflict in relationships with children were significantly lower for educators with a bachelor’s degree compared to educators without bachelors’ degrees. On the other hand, perceived closeness in relationships with children was significantly different by the age group in which preschool educators reported higher closeness than I/T educators (Kwon et al., 2020). Although this study measured the professional well-being of I/T and preschool educators, the measures did not specifically assess job satisfaction which observes educators’ feelings about work. 10 Job satisfaction is an element of professional well-being that cannot be overlooked because it is affected by factors in the workplace. Cassidy et al. (2016) studied the professional well-being of toddler teachers using the Teacher Satisfaction Inventory (Cassidy et al., 2016) related to teachers’ feelings about their work such as how they usually feel when they come to work (e.g., excitement, frustration, stress, tiredness, etc.), sense of autonomy in making decisions, wages, and perceptions of fairness in wages within the program as well as the ECE field. Findings indicated that the ability to make decisions in hiring new teachers was associated with positive classroom emotional support, and teachers’ perception of unfair wages compared to others in the profession was associated with lower emotional support in the classroom. In addition, a higher teacher salary was associated with toddlers’ positive emotional expressions and behaviors. Evidence suggests that each of the variables observed in Cassidy et al. (2016)’s construct of professional well-being is associated with toddler teachers’ classroom practices. It is understandable to include educators’ salaries and their perceptions of fairness in the construct of professional well-being because these factors can impact how teachers feel about their work. However, it might make more sense to examine these two variables within the construct of working conditions, which is discussed more in the next section. Working Conditions. The workplace of an individual can have an impact on their well- being because they spend about 70% of their waking daily life at work (Yuh & Choi, 2017). I/T and preschool educator well-being cannot be measured without considering the working conditions because these factors can impact the specific aspects of well-being discussed in the previous sections. Studies show that working conditions are associated with risks related to health and well- being. Moreover, there are concerning disparities in working conditions such as lack of compensation and benefits and poor physical environment, especially for workers who earn low 11 wages and identify themselves as racial and ethnic minority groups (Kwon et al., 2020). Given these findings, the working conditions of ECE educators must be examined because many teachers in ECE are in marginalized population. According to the framework of Whole Teacher Well-being (Kwon et al., 2020), working conditions include breaks, job demand, physical environment, compensation and benefits as well as work climate. This literature review will focus on what is known about the physical environment, compensation and benefits, and organizational climate of the working conditions in relation to educator well-being. Physical Environment. Working conditions consist of the physical environment in which educators work such as physical comfort (adult-sized furniture, ergonomic furniture in office spaces), control (e.g., lighting, temperature), noise levels (e.g., disturbing), and privacy (e.g., space for personal belongings in the classroom, space for relaxation) in the work environment (Ellis, 2013). To assess the physical environment quality of I/T and preschool educators, Kwon et al. (2020) used the Environmental Preference Index (EPI; Ellis, 2013) with 262 I/T and preschool educators. Findings indicated that educators worked in poor physical environments. Only 19% of educators reported having adult-sized furniture, 56% of educators had designated breaks, 67% reported that they have space for relaxation, and 69% indicated that they had space for personal belongings. These reports of I/T and preschool educators’ physical environment are concerning given that I/T and preschool educators must meet the physical and emotional demands required to provide high quality care and education, but they are not able to sit comfortably or have consistent breaks to recharge their emotional capacity. Moreover, these findings are related to the responsibilities of administrators in ECE programs who have the power to make decisions about the physical environments, which suggests the need to examine the role of administrators in ECE educators’ well-being. 12 Compensation and Benefits. Another aspect of working conditions that depend on ECE administrators is compensation and benefits. According to the Early Childhood Workforce Index 2020 (McLean et al., 2021), ECE educators working in childcare centers with infants, toddlers, and preschoolers receive the lowest wage in the field of ECE and the workforce in general. These educators are often considered childcare workers and this particular population continues to remain at the bottom percentile when all occupations are ranked by annual pay since 2016 (McLean et al., 2021). Moreover, 41% of I/T educators and 30% of preschool/kindergarten educators and their families qualified for federal income support programs which help people out of poverty from 2014 to 2016. Because of the poverty-level compensation (McLean et al., 2021), many educators are not able to meet basic needs which may cause personal and work-related stress. Therefore, compensation and benefits must be examined further to assess whether it impacts the educators’ well-being and the children in their classrooms. There are several ways to examine compensation and benefits such as asking educators to report their range of annual salary and benefits or asking about their perception of being able to pay for their basic needs. In a study by Kwon et al. (2020), 55% of I/T and preschool educators reported $20,001-40,000 as their annual salary range and 69% indicated that they had health insurance, but it is unclear whether it was from their employer. Educators reported having about 12.5 paid vacation and sick days which were reported from 61% of educators who indicated that they get paid sick days and 75% of educators who indicated that they have paid vacation days. Moreover, only 58% of educators reported having retirement plans. These findings are similar to the report from the Early Childhood Workforce Index 2020 (McLean et al., 2021) that 25% of ECE educators are estimated to have no health insurance and those who have health insurance might be through a spouse, public agency, or employer. A decent work environment provides paid time off 13 for when the employee is sick or needs to take care of family members as well as retirement plans (McLean et al., 2021). However, paid time off for vacation and sick leave, as well as retirement contribution, is not standard in early childhood programs (IOM & NRC, 2015). Additionally, lack of compensation and benefits can impact educators’ financial well-being and the quality of interactions they provide for children in their classroom. King and colleagues (2016) used the Finances section in the Teacher Satisfaction Inventory (TSI; Cassidy et al., 2016) to ask preschool educators to indicate their hourly wage and answer a Yes or No question which asked whether they believed their salary can make ends meet. Findings indicated that 98 preschool educators’ mean hourly wages ranged from $9.26 to $10.00 and about 74% of teachers reported that their salary was not enough to make their ends meet (King et al., 2016). Moreover, King et al. (2016) examined the associations between preschool educators’ wages, perception of their wages meeting the basic expenses, and children’s emotional expressions and behaviors. Results indicated that educators’ higher wage and their perception of being able to meet their basic expenses were associated with children’s positive emotional expressions and behaviors. Overall, these findings suggest that most preschool educators perceive that their compensation is not enough to cover their basic expenses and their perception might be associated with their emotional availability in the classroom to support children’s emotional expression and regulation. Further research is needed to examine the perception of I/T educators’ wages being able to pay the basic expenses as well as how benefits such as health insurance, paid time off, and retirement plans contribute to I/T and preschool educators’ well-being. Organizational Climate. Working conditions include organizational climate which may affect a person’s well-being. Organizational climate refers to the “collective perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and values of the individuals in a particular work setting” and “describes conditions that 14 exist in the work setting based on the collective perceptions of workers” (Jorde-Bloom, 1998, p. 112). This aspect of workplace well-being is important to explore because research shows that an individual’s perception of organizational climate can impact their behavior, attitude, work performance, and well-being (Dennis & O’Connor, 2013; Veziroglu-Celik, & Yildiz, 2018). Jorde-Bloom (1998) used the Early Childhood Work Environment Survey (ECWES; Jorde-Bloom, 1988) to conduct a study with ECE educators and administrators from nonprofit, for-profit, and center-based programs to examine whether there was any difference in how teachers and administrators perceived their organizational climate. Results showed that there was indeed a significant difference in the perception of organizational climate in which administrators perceived the work climate to be more positive than the educators. This finding suggests that administrators might not be aware of perceptions of organizational climate from the perspective of ECE educators which can prohibit administrators from supporting the well-being of ECE educators. Further study is needed to understand the discrepancy between educators’ and administrators’ perceptions of organizational climate to identify how administrators can support ECE educators’ well-being. Although Jorde-Bloom’s study (1998) assessed the organizational climate with evidence and provided new insight on organizational climate, the relation between organizational climate and ECE educator well-being was not examined. Therefore, organizational climate should be measured along with ECE educators’ well-being to fully understand how their perceptions of their work climate can impact their well-being. Moreover, ECE administrators should also be considered in further studies because they contribute to organizational climate, and how they support their educators might impact the educators’ perception of the organizational climate. 15 Administrative Support ECE administrators determine and maintain many factors associated with educator well- being such as their physical environment, compensation, benefits, and organizational climate. Given these connections, it is essential to examine the role of ECE administrators in educator well- being, especially administrative support which has largely been defined as administrators providing support and assistance to promote educators’ quality of practices in school systems (Borman & Dowling, 2008). There are several ways administrative support has been defined and conceptualized in studies that focused on administrative support and educators in elementary and secondary education. Wang & Hall (2019) measured teachers’ perception of how important specific values are for their administrators. These values included altruism making the world a better place (altruism), getting to know teachers’ students, job security, and determining how teachers’ work is done (autonomy). Findings indicated that differences in teachers’ values and administrative values, among teachers working in primary or secondary schools, can potentially have negative effects on their psychological well-being (e.g., emotional exhaustion), work commitment, and job satisfaction. A different definition of administrative support was found in a study by Conley & You (2017) which examined the effects of administrative support and teacher efficacy on teachers’ intention to leave the profession in a mediational model. To measure administrative support, secondary special education teachers were asked to rate how much administrators were supportive, encouraging, and administrators communicated of their expectations to the teachers. Results indicated that administrative support and teacher efficacy had strong effects on teachers’ intention to leave. 16 Moreover, Cancio et al. (2013) explained that administrative support consists of four specific behaviors, identified by House (1981), which are emotional, instrumental, informational, and appraisal support. Emotional support refers to administrators showing respect, trust, and concern toward teachers through open communication, expressing gratitude, and interest in teachers’ work and recommendations. Administrators engage in behaviors related to instrumental support when they directly assist teachers with work-related tasks (e.g., materials, space, resources, planning time, and difficulties with children and families). Teachers receive informational support when administrators provide information for teachers to use in improving their classroom practices through professional development and brainstorming strategies to identify signs of stress and burnout and how to manage these stressors. Appraisal support refers to administrators taking responsibility for providing ongoing constructive feedback and clear job expectations to teachers. Using this framework, Cancio et al. (2013) surveyed special education teachers to examine the effects of perceived administrative support on stress, job satisfaction, and work commitment. Overall, characteristics of administrative support were associated with teachers’ job satisfaction and their intention to stay or leave. Findings indicated that emotional support and informational support from administrators predicted teachers’ higher job satisfaction which may impact their work commitment and intention to stay (Cancio et al., 2013). Although there is evidence of administrative support (e.g., values on relationships with students, job security, and autonomy; emotional support, and informational support) predicting educators’ psychological well-being, job satisfaction, and work commitment, the evidence was found among elementary and secondary educators and special education teachers which might not be generalizable to educators working with infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. However, not much can be found about administrative support and educator well-being in the field of early childhood 17 education. In ECE, Veziroglu-Celik and Yildiz (2018) defined administrative support as administrators providing “frequent constructive feedback on teacher performance, useful information, an equitable attitude towards employees, and encouraging employees to improve themselves professionally” (p. 90). They further emphasized that one of the most important predictors of educators’ perceptions about their work and the quality of classroom practices is administrative support. Yet only one study examined ECE educators’ perceptions of administrative support and antecedents of turnover (Russell et al. 2010). This pilot study (Russell et al. 2010) used the Competing Values Framework (CVF) which was designed to measure organizational effectiveness and staff perceptions of and expectations for the administrators. Administrative support was operationalized by the four quadrants of CVF administrative behaviors which are boundary spanning, human relations, coordinating, and directing. The human relations quadrant is comprised of administrative behaviors focused on making effective organizational changes and obtaining resources and are considered boundary spanning and ensuring a competent workforce. The third quadrant, coordinating skills, is maintaining the structure of the organization, and the directing skills quadrant refers to behaviors aimed at improving organizational efficiency and effectiveness. This framework was modified from the business management field to measure 78 ECE educators’ perceptions of administrative support and found that the perceptions of their directors’ coordinating skills such as dependability and skills at enforcing rules and standards predicted educators’ commitment and thoughts of leaving their current job and commitment (Russell et al., 2010). Findings from this study paved the way for research on ECE administrative support, but further examination is needed because this is the only study so far that we know of, the educators were from one geographical location, and educator well-being was not part of the study. Therefore, it is imperative that we examine 18 administrative support with I/T and preschool educators and identify the kinds of administrative supports provided and how these impact I/T and preschool educators’ well-being, using a strengths-focused approach. Gaps in Literature Although there are more studies now on ECE educators’ well-being (e.g., Hall-Kenyon et al., 2014; Cumming, 2017), much more research is needed to get a full picture of their well-being, especially considering the differences in job demands depending on the age group of children with whom they work. Simply put, we do not know much about the well-being of I/T and preschool educators and the effective strategies to support their well-being. ECE administrators are critical in providing support for the educators in the program, but not much is known about administrative support in ECE settings. Specifically, there is a lack of consensus on how administrative support is defined and conceptualized. Moreover, we do not exactly know what types of administrative support exist in the ECE settings, how these are important for the ECE educators, and how the types of administrative support may impact the well-being of I/T and preschool educators. Therefore, the current two studies investigate ECE administrative support and I/T and preschool educators’ well-being using an exploratory mixed methods design. The first study explores the definition and conceptualization of administrative support from focus groups with ECE administrators and I/T and preschool educators as well as how they think about ECE educators’ well-being. The second study focuses on examining the associations between the types of administrative support and the well-being of I/T and preschool educators. Based on the literature review and anticipated findings, a new theoretical framework (Figure 1.1) is presented to conceptualize administrative support contributing to working conditions. 19 Figure 1.1 Early Childhood Educator Well-being Framework 20 REFERENCES American College of Sports Medicine. (2017). ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription (10th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Bartels, A. L., Peterson, S. J., & Reina, C. S. (2019). Understanding well-being at work: Development and validation of the eudaimonic workplace well-being scale. PLOS ONE, 14(4), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215957 Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367–409. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321455 Cancio, E. J., Albrecht, S. F., & Johns, B. H. (2013). Defining administrative support and its relationship to the attrition of teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 36(4), 71–94. Cassidy, D. (2016). Teacher Satisfaction Inventory (TSI). Unpublished manuscript. Cassidy, D. J., King, E. K., Wang, Y. C., Lower, J. K., & Kintner-Duffy, V. L. (2016). Teacher work environments are toddler learning environments: Teacher professional well-being, classroom emotional support, and toddlers’ emotional expressions and behaviours. Early Child Development and Care, 187(11), 1666–1678. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1180516 Cheng, H. K., Wong, M., Cheng, C., & Ju, Y. (2013). Work-related musculoskeletal disorders and ergonomic risk factors in early intervention educators. Applied Ergonomics, 44(1), 134–141. Conley, S., & You, S. (2017). Key influences on special education teachers’ intentions to leave: The effects of administrative support and teacher team efficacy in a mediational model. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(3), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215608859 Cumming, T. (2017). Early childhood educators’ well-being: An updated review of the literature. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(5), 583–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643- 016-0818-6 Dennis, S. E., & O’Connor, E. (2013). Reexamining quality in early childhood education: Exploring the relationship between the organizational climate and the classroom. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 27(1), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2012.739589 Ellis, N. D. (2013). Environmental preferences index (EPI): Improving the person-environment congruence for an office setting. https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/43053 21 Evans, G. D., Bryant, N. E., Owens, J. S., & Koukos, K. (2004). Ethnic differences in burnout, coping, and intervention acceptability among childcare professionals. Child and Youth Care Forum, 33(5), 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CCAR.0000043040.54270.dd Fox, H. B., Tuckwiller, E. D., Kutscher, E. L., & Walter, H. L. (2020). What makes teachers well? A mixed methods study of special education teacher well-being. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 9(2), 223–248. https://doi.org/10.32674/jise.v9i2.2170 Hall-Kenyon, K. M., Bullough, R. V., MacKay, K. L., & Marshall, E. E. (2014). Preschool teacher well-being: A review of the literature. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(3), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-013-0595-4 House, J. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council [IOM & NRC]. (2015). Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation. The National Academies. Jones, C., Hadley, F., Waniganayake, M., & Johnstone, M. (2019). Find your tribe! Early childhood educators defining and identifying key factors that support their workplace wellbeing. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(4), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939119870906 Jorde-Bloom, P. (1988). Closing the gap: An analysis of teacher and administrator perceptions of organizational climate in the early childhood setting. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(88)90012-1 King, E. K., Johnson, A. V., Cassidy, D. J., Wang, Y. C., Lower, J. K., & Kintner-Duffy, V. L. (2016). Preschool teachers’ financial well-being and work time supports: Associations with children’s emotional expressions and behaviors in classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44(6), 545–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015-0744-z Kwon, K.-A., Ford, T. G., Salvatore, A. L., Randall, K., Jeon, L., Malek-Lasater, A., Ellis, N., Kile, M. S., Horm, D. M., Kim, S. G., & Han, M. (2020). Neglected elements of a high- quality early childhood workforce: Whole teacher well-being and working conditions. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50, 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020- 01124-7 McLean, C., Austin, L.J.E., Whitebook, M., & Olson, K.L. (2021). Early Childhood Workforce Index – 2020. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from https://cscce.berkeley.edu/workforce-index- 2020/report-pdf/ McMullen, M. B., Lee, M. S. C., McCormick, K. I., & Choi, J. (2020). Early childhood professional well-being as a predictor of the risk of turnover in child care: A matter of 22 quality. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 34(3), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2019.1705446 Paradies, Y., Ben, J., Denson, N., Elias, A., Priest, N., Pieterse, A., Gupta, A., Kelaher, M., & Gee, G. (2015). Racism as a determinant of health: A systematic review and meta- analysis. PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0138511. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138511 Russell, E. M., Williams, S. W., & Gleason-Gomez, C. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of administrative support and antecedents of turnover. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24(3), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2010.487397 Simone, S. D. (2014). Conceptualizing wellbeing in the workplace. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(12), 118–122. Smith, E. M. J. (1985). Ethnic minorities: Life stress, social support, and mental health issues. The Counseling Psychologist, 13(4), 537-579. Totenhagen, C. J., Hawkins, S. A., Casper, D. M., Bosch, L. A., Hawkey, K. R., & Borden, L. M. (2016). Retaining early childhood education workers: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 30(4), 585–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2016.1214652 Veziroglu-Celik, M., & Yildiz, T. G. (2018). Organizational climate in early childhood education. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(12), 88. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i12.3698 Well-being Concepts. (2018, October). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved March 22, 2022, from https://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/wellbeing.htm Wang, H., & Hall, N. C. (2019). When “I care” is not enough: An interactional analysis of teacher values, value congruence, and well-being. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102906 Whitebook, M., McLean, C., Austin, L.J.E., & Edwards, B. (2018). Early Childhood Workforce Index – 2018. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from http://cscce.berkeley.edu/topic/early-childhood- workforce-index/2018/ Yuh, J., & Choi, S. (2017). Sources of social support, job satisfaction, and quality of life among childcare teachers. The Social Science Journal, 54(4), 450–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.08.002 23 CHAPTER 2: STUDY 1 – INFANT/TODDLER AND PRESCHOOL EDUCATORS’ PERCEPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORTS Early Childhood Education Educator Well-being Introduction According to the Early Childhood Workforce Index 2020 (McLean et al. 2021), there are approximately 2 million Early Childhood Education (ECE) educators in the workforce who provide care and education for approximately 10 million children under the age of five. These ECE educators assume a huge responsibility in shaping and helping our young children to grow and develop with responsive and sensitive caregiving, providing stimulating and supportive learning environments, and using developmentally appropriate practices that are evidence-based. Fulfilling this complex set of responsibilities requires a lot of energy, physical demands, emotional demands, and mental capacity (Cassidy et al., 2016; Jeon et al., 2016; Kwon et al., 2020) which can lead to ECE educators experiencing higher levels of work-related stress compared to professionals working in other fields (IOM & NRC, 2015). Due to the high rates of stress which can lead to burnout, ECE educators often decide to leave the field which contributes to 26-40% annual turnover rates among the ECE workforce (IOM & NRC, 2015). This alarming rate of turnover impacts the stability of care and education children receive, families’ concern over their children, as well as the well-being of educators who stay and try to fill in the vacancy which increases their already overwhelming job demands. Given this concern, it would be crucial to examine educators’ well-being to identify ways we can support their well-being to reduce stress, burnout, and turnover. So far, we know that infant/toddler (I/T) and preschool educators receive low wages and poor benefits (King et al., 2016; Kwon et al., 2020; McLean et al., 2021). They experience general 24 physical health complications, back pain, neck pain, and work-related injuries, and report having an obese or extremely obese body mass index and these physical health issues might be due to no designated breaks and poor physical environments with no adult-sized furniture (Kwon et al., 2020). Their perceptions of organizational climate differ from their administrators’ perceptions where the administrators perceive the organizational climate as more positive (Jorde-Bloom, 1988) which suggests that administrators might not be aware of the educators’ perception of organizational climate, nor of the things they may need to do to create a more positive organizational climate and better support their teaching staff. Most of the attention on educator well-being has been on the individual and the perception of their environments, but not much is known about how these are created or modified by the people who are in charge, the administrators. Although this topic is under-studied in the field of early childhood education, research in elementary and secondary education indicates that a lack of administrative support predicts educators’ higher work-related stress, lower job satisfaction, and lower work commitment (e.g., Fox et al., 2020; Cancio et al., 2013; Conley & You, 2017; Wang & Hall, 2019). Moreover, to our knowledge, there is only one study that examined administrative support with ECE administrators and educators (Russell, 2010) which found evidence that educators’ perceptions of administrative support were associated with their intention to leave their current job. Findings from previous studies indicate a need to understand how administrators support ECE educators’ well-being and thus their high-quality, sustained work with young children. Administrative Support – An Important Concept in Need of a Definition In the field of early childhood education, administrative support is an important concept in need of a shared definition and measurement tools. In the school systems, administrative support is defined as administrators providing assistance for teachers to improve their quality of practice 25 (Borman & Dowling, 2008). Yet there are various ways administrative support has been defined and conceptualized. Administrative support can be conceptualized as teachers’ perception of their administrators’ values on relationships with students, job security, and autonomy (Wang & Hall, 2019), but it can also be conceived as teachers’ perception of administrators’ supportiveness, encouragement, and communication of expectations (Conley & You, 2017). Additionally, administrative support can be characterized by providing specific types of support such as emotional (respecting, trusting, and showing appreciation), instrumental (work-related tasks), informational (information for quality classroom practice and strategies to recognize and cope with stress), and appraisal support (providing constructive feedback) to the teachers (Cancio et al., 2013). In the literature on administrative support in the ECE field, two different definitions and conceptualizations were found. Veziroglu-Celik and Yildiz (2018) defined administrative support as administrators providing frequent constructive feedback and useful information, showing an equitable attitude, and encouraging professional development. Russell et al. (2010) adapted the framework of administrative support from the business management field which included administrative behaviors making effective organizational changes, obtaining necessary resources, ensuring a competent workforce, maintaining the structure of the organization, and taking actions to improve organizational efficiency and effectiveness. While these qualities may be important to support workers within many different types of work and organizations, these dimensions are broad and general and may need to be made more specific in order to be useful within the ECE field. Further, they should be validated by the experiences and voices of educators and administrators within the field. 26 Current Study Although the research on ECE educators’ well-being is growing rapidly (e.g., Hall-Kenyon et al., 2014; Cumming, 2017; Jeon et al., 2018; Grant et al., 2019; Kwon et al., 2020; Berlin et al., 2020; Brophy-Herb et al., 2023), much more research is needed to get a full picture of the well- being of this crucial workforce. ECE administrators are critical in providing support for the educators in the program, but to date, only one foundational study has been conducted to begin understanding ECE administrative support (Russell et al., 2010). Furthermore, there is a lack of consensus on how administrative support should be defined within ECE, and the dimensions or components that it includes. Specifically, we do not exactly know what types of administrative support exist, how these are important for the ECE educators, and how the types of administrative support I/T and preschool educators’ well-being which make it difficult to conceptualize administrative support. Therefore, the current study aims to generate an understanding of how ECE educators and administrators conceptualize and define administrative support, using the experiences and voices of I/T and preschool educators as well as administrators. This understanding will create a foundation for future work to develop measures of administrative support in the field of early childhood care and education that can be used to advance both research and practice and to set standards to support the workforce. Method Participants Four I/T educators, eleven preschool educators, and nine administrators participated in the focus groups. The majority of the participants were female (96%) and White (79%). Their age ranged from 18 to over 50 years old which was a categorical variable. Most educators had an associate or bachelor’s degree, and most of the administrators had a graduate degree. All educators 27 were head teachers except for one preschool assistant teacher. For administrators, six were directors and three were site supervisors. One infant educator majored in child development or psychology, another infant educator majored in applied science with an endorsement in early childhood education, one I/T educator and one toddler teacher majored in early education or early or school-age care. The majority of preschool educators majored in early education or early or school-age care. One preschool head teacher majored in elementary education and another preschool head teacher majored in child development or psychology. For administrators, many majored in either elementary education or early education or early or school-age. One director majored in child development or psychology and another majored in family services/family sciences. See Table 1 for detailed information on demographics. Table 2.1 Demographics Infant and Toddler n = 4 Gender 4 females Preschool n = 11 11 females Age Categories 26-30 (50%) 41-50 (25%) Over 50 years old (25%) 18-25 (9%) 31-40 (18%) 41-50 (55%) Over 50 years old (18%) Administrator n = 9 8 females 1 male 26-30 (22%) 31-40 (11%) 41-50 (33%) Over 50 years old (33%) Race 3 White 1 Black or African American, White 9 White 1 Black or African American 1 American Indian or Alaska Native, White 7 White 1 Black or African American 1 White, Hispanic mean = 3 SD = 3.37 mean = 6.09 SD = 5.45 mean = 7.78 SD = 6.85 Years working in current program 28 Table 2.1 (cont’d) Highest level of education High school diploma or equivalent (25%) Associates (25%) Bachelors (25%) Graduate degree (25%) Associates/some college (18%) Bachelors (73%) Graduate degree (9%) Associates (11%) Bachelors (22%) Graduate degree (67%) Procedures Early childhood administrators and ECE educators were recruited via email in the state of Michigan. Recruitment information was shared with seven local community partners such as an Advocacy Chair of Michigan Association for the Education of Young Children, Michigan State University Child Development Laboratories, Kent County Intermediate School District, Head Start for Kent County, Capital Area Community Services, Livingston Educational Service Agency, and Marygrove Early Education Center. Participants who showed interest in this study received a written description of the study and a link to an online eligibility survey via Qualtrics. Educators were eligible to participate if they were working for at least 6 months at the current program, working directly with children younger than 5 years of age, and working at least 40 hours per week. Administrators were deemed eligible if they were overseeing and working directly with educators at the current site for at least 6 months prior to participating in this study, working full-time (at least 40 hours a week) as center administrators, overseeing the program, and educators. When they were determined eligible to participate, prospective participants were directed to electronically sign the consent form on the website, and to indicate their availability to participate in a focus group. All focus groups were conducted via Zoom; invitations included a password to protect the privacy of participants. Each focus group lasted about 1.5 to 2 hours during the evenings, preferred by the participants, and participants could choose to leave at any time. For the protection of 29 participants, participants’ names on Zoom were changed to a coded identifier before the focus group started. Focus groups were video recorded for ease of transcription. Participants were informed that they can choose to turn off their video if they wish not to be recorded. Participants were compensated with a $50 gift card for their time and participation. Measures Educator and Administrator Characteristics Educators were asked to fill out a questionnaire regarding their sex, age, race, ethnicity, the highest level of education, whether they have degrees related to ECE or a related field, age group of children they work with, total number of years working with the age group, total number of years in their current positions, the type of program they worked in (e.g., center-based, university-based, Early Head Start, Head Start, etc.), and total number of years working in ECE. Administrators filled out a similar questionnaire that also included their total number of years working in administration. They were asked whether they have had formal training in administration and, if so, what the training entailed as well as if they were once educators in the classroom. Both administrators and educators provided information on the administrative structures in their programs (e.g., the number of staff in administrative roles and the responsibilities held in those roles). These characteristics were collected to provide educators’ contextual information. Administrative Support Five focus groups were conducted: one group of I/T educators, two groups of preschool educators, and 2 groups of administrators. During the focus groups, both educators and administrators were asked how they define and think about administrative support in early care setting. In the educator focus groups, I/T and preschool educators were asked to discuss 30 administrative support in response to questions such as “How do your administrators help you to do your work?” “What types of support have you received from your administrators?”, “What types of support would you like to have that are not currently available to you?”, “How much do you think your supervisor understands your job demands?”, “How often do you feel acknowledged and/or appreciated by your administrators?”, and “How do your administrators support educators’ well-being?” They were also asked to share their thoughts about physical well-being, psychological well-being, professional well-being, and their working conditions. In separate focus groups, administrators were asked to discuss from the following prompts: “How do you help educators to do their work?”, “What types of support do you provide for the educators in your program?”, “What types of support are important for educators to work with children and families?”, and “How often do you acknowledge and/or appreciate your early childhood educators?”. Administrators were also asked about how they support educators’ well- being and how they would like to support educators’ well-being. Additional prompts and follow- up questions were used as needed to better understand participants’ thoughts and points made. All focus groups were audio- and video-recorded and transcribed verbatim, omitting identifying information. Analytic Approach Focus groups were transcribed verbatim except for any identifying information, using blinded participant ID to identify individual contributions to the conversation. Focus group data were analyzed using an inductive qualitative approach to identify themes and subthemes (Thomas, 2006). Two coders (author and a research assistant) were involved in coding the transcripts to discuss and develop coding schemes with complete definitions from an agreement to ensure interrater reliability (Thomas, 2006). Given that the author was a former early childhood educator, 31 this was considered a potential source of bias in the coding process, thus the other coder was chosen specifically as someone who was not a former early childhood educator. The analysis process was iterative with emerging themes which led to multiple coding cycles. Findings Analysis of the focus group data generated a definition of administrative support as assisting educators’ work by providing necessary resources, respecting, trusting, acknowledging, and showing appreciation through communication and relationships as well as supporting educators’ well-being. Administrative support that educators and administrators discussed could be categorized into instrumental support, emotional support, and support for well-being. Further, four major themes were identified from the discussion of educators and administrators: a) Administrative Support, b) Lack of Administrative Support, c) Ill-being, and d) Well-being with subthemes and categories which are shown in Table 2. Table 2.2 Themes, Subthemes, and Categories Themes Administrative Support Subthemes and Categories Emotional Support • Acknowledgment • Appreciation • Communication • Relationship Well-being Support • Psychological • Professional • Organizational climate • Social well- being Instrumental Support • Support for working with children and families • Resources needed for job duties • Sufficient staffing • Coaches and specialists 32 Table 2.2 (cont’d) Lack of Administrative Support Lack of Instrumental Support • Insufficient staffing Lack of Emotional Support • Undermining and disrespect • Lack of appreciation • Lack of open communication Ill-being Stressors Ill-being • Working conditions • Age-group specific • Psychological ill- being • Physical ill-being Well-being Work-life balance Professional Well-being Social Well-being Theme 1: Administrative Support From the voices and experiences of ECE administrators and educators, three categories of administrative support emerged: 1) well-being support, 2) emotional support, and 3) instrumental support. There were variations in what administrators and educators had discussed for each category of administrative support which provide a fuller sense of what it means, and these are described below. Well-being Support When educators and administrators were asked about support for educators’ well-being, there were similarities and differences in comparing what administrators say they provide for their educators and what educators indicate as support for well-being from their administrators. Both administrators and educators (of both age groups) discussed administrative supports for professional and social well-being; however, psychological well-being was described only by administrators and preschool educators, not by I/T educators. Administrators framed their 33 administrative support in terms of organizational climate, whereas educators framed these same types of actions and activities as support for social well-being. Support for Psychological Well-being. When administrators asked what they do to mitigate teacher stress and prevent burnout, they discussed various things that they do which support educators’ psychological well-being. For example, administrators discussed providing coping strategies and being there for educators when they are feeling stressed out. Administrators mentioned that they try to find humor and do pranks as a whole program to get through the day and share silly personal stories to support educators facing personal challenges. They would also let educators know that it is okay to have a breakdown or ask for help. This was also evident among preschool educator focus groups as shared by one of the preschool educators: …my supervisor is amazing in that aspect, because she told me I could have taken a lot longer than a week off when I had my mental breakdown, but I ended up coming back… at the end of that week, and she's like, if you need anything, or just to talk, you know, just let me know. I'm there, if you need it, like another day or another week, just let me know, and we'll get that going. She was very supportive in my well-being, and so was my co-teacher. Because a lot of educators feel guilty about taking time off and not being in class with the little ones, administrators said they are intentional about not making educators feel bad about calling off sick or taking time off for themselves. They also look at their educators’ faces to see when they are feeling stressed and try to go into the classroom or go and take children for walks to let the educators have a break to recenter themselves. One of the preschool educators indicated that their administrator comes in to help with children in the classroom. Furthermore, administrators said having educators out of the classroom without the children (e.g., professional development days or a surprise personal day) helps them prevent stress and exhaustion. A few of the administrators also talked about providing snacks for educators when it has “been a day” as stated by a site supervisor: 34 And I can tell you I have been known on some of those days where it's been a day… possibly warm chocolate chip cookies come out of the oven of the site as the children are walking out of the door, and the chocolate chip cookies are just there in the office and [teachers] know when they come back in, because they can smell them. There's sometimes… nothing else I can do for you except I can do that. Interestingly, many preschool educators also mentioned that their administrators provide food for them when they are feeling stressed out as well as to show appreciation which will be described in the later section. Finally, administrators talked about creating a safe space for educators to vent or complain when they are stressed out as well as providing mental health support such as a psychiatrist to work with educators, or mental health days which was also mentioned by educators. Preschool educators, but not infant-toddler educators, mentioned that administrators listen to educators when they are stressed out and many are provided with mental health counseling and therapy through their insurance and benefit package which is described by this preschool educator: …when we're feeling stressed out, she at least listens to us. Sometimes there's nothing she can do but she at least listens to us. Last year, for example with all the COVID cases and things that we had, she just said at one point… everyone gets one free mental health day to take off and use however you want. She said, “I don't want you to use it for doctor’s appointments or anything else. I just want you to take a mental health day. Let me know when you want to take it”. So, I feel like I get a lot of support in this particular environment from the administration. Support for Professional Well-being. Professional well-being was another category discussed among administrators and educators. Administrators provide professional development for educators to gain knowledge and skills that support their work, especially in the areas where educators are struggling. Professional development could involve administrators themselves going into the classroom to provide direct training, having early intervention specialists or mental health specialists to come in to provide strategies, or offering webinars to attend. One of the administrators talked about providing individualized professional development days just like how 35 children’s learning is individualized. Infant, toddler, and preschool educators discussed similar ways administrators support their professional well-being such as receiving training and opportunities to strategize together with other teachers. Administrators also discussed how educators struggled with their confidence and abilities as educators, which may be considered an aspect of professional ill-being, after coming back from COVID-19, and how they supported educators’ professional well-being which is captured by this quote by an administrator: …the big one for me this year is… some of them are just struggling, and I keep saying it's not you right? You're the same amazing teacher you were 3 years ago. I promise you it's not you. You've not changed how you're teaching. You know, you haven't become this evil teacher… we've got different children that we're dealing with… I promise we'll learn how to teach them together, and we'll get through to this other side of it, but it's gonna take us a bit… those seasoned teachers are really struggling with their self-confidence and feeling like… they've let these students down… But it truly isn't anything you're doing wrong. We just got some different students. Support Organizational Climate and Social Well-being. Another way administrators support educator well-being is to create positive organizational climate through a variety of simple but meaningful actions that bring joy, such as using humor, having fun at work to bring happiness, giving positive notes, connecting with teachers in an ongoing basis by greeting them and starting a conversation, and giving surprises like chocolates. Other types of administrative supports come through more formal actions. One site supervisor talked about how sometimes the organizational climate depends on what kinds of emails teachers receive from higher-up administrators or agency- wide meetings which convey the possibility of administrative support from various levels of administrators for educators working in programs with multiple layers of administrators. Educators also mentioned how administrators host non-work-related activities that allow educators to meet other educators in the program to get to know each other by brainstorming together about certain situations or talk about topics unrelated to work and build relationships. Some educators expressed 36 that they appreciated their administrators going out of their ways to organize these events, yet some also indicated that it can be stressful because there is so much work to get done and it will still be waiting for them at the end of the events. Emotional Support The second most frequent topic of discussion among administrators and educators was emotional support in terms of acknowledgment, appreciation, open communication, and relationships. Administrators talked more about acknowledging their educators’ work by giving positive praise, leaving written notes with positive remarks, or even doing happy dances to celebrate together. Educators also mentioned that they receive acknowledgments from their administrators but did not discuss it as much as it was discussed among administrators. Educators talked more about appreciation from their administrators they experienced when administrators give little tokens of appreciation in gifts, provide food and snacks, or have a teacher appreciation week, as well as events for the whole program. All of these ideas were all mentioned in the administrator focus groups. One teacher explained: I'm lucky in the building I'm in, our supervisor is phenomenal. Anything you need like she'll send out a group text in the middle of the day, say I'm making a pop run, or I'm making a candy bar run. What do you guys want? And I'm not talking like she goes and gets a little fun size bag of different candies. She comes back with king size candy bars for everybody and 20-ounce bottles of pop or coffee, or whatever you want, and she's like, here you guys go… I know it's not much, but I know you guys need this and… you know I appreciate what you're doing… it makes it nice to know that she appreciates me when we know the higher ups in our agency don't. This example also demonstrates educators’ feelings of being appreciated by their immediate supervisors but not anyone else who is above their supervisor which will be discussed further in the later section. Other aspects of emotional support are open communication and trusted relationships, which are connected to each other, as it would be difficult to have open communication without 37 the trusted relationships between administrators and educators. Many administrators discussed being intentional about connecting with their educators and knowing when educators might be stressed or “checked out” (disengaged) and use this as a cue to reach out to initiate conversations. They also mentioned that they have individual check-ins with their staff in order to make themselves available to listen to them when they are stressed out or need help with working with children and families; these ideas of individual check-ins and administrator availability were also discussed among infant, toddler, and preschool educators. These two quotes, the first from a director, and the second from an infant and toddler teacher, demonstrate this shared sub-theme: I'll have staff come up to my office and shut the door and say, I just need to talk. and then they implode, explode, tell me everything, anything, and then they'll say, “Thank you for listening, sorry I had to say it.” They'll leave, and then they'll come back 20 minutes later and be like, “Okay, so what I was trying to get across, what I really meant, and you know, I wasn't trying to take it out on you”. I'm like, I know you because I've invested in too… you have to know your staff, because each staff has their different trigger. Each staff has their different way of expressing. So, once you know what it is, you don't take offense to it because you know this is their process, and this is what they have to do otherwise they're going to end up doing it in front of the children. So instead, they're not doing it in front of the children. They're excusing themselves, their room is covered, they're coming up to an office, they're shutting the door so that way it's privately done. I can't… complain about that. I'm okay with that. …she does her best to have meetings with us and check in, one on one check ins with us, and she, she's always open if we need to. She really wants us to just come to her and talk to her about any concerns that we have as far as our classroom, or the kids and the parents, and she supports us in working with them… She's there. Instrumental Support For the last category of instrumental support from administrators, administrators generally discussed more aspects of instrumental support compared with the educators. Administrators communicated that they provide support for their educators to work with children and families and resources needed for job duties such as professional training, materials for the classroom and time for educators to complete their paperwork. Many administrators mentioned that they support 38 teachers’ work by physically going into the classroom to be another helping hand when they know or notice challenging behaviors of children and accidents. They also discussed doing paperwork for educators so they can focus on working with children in the classroom and building relationships with families rather than spending time to complete paperwork. A handful of educators mentioned that their administrators provide sufficient staffing to have consistent staff, enough teachers to help out in the classroom, and for educators to have office hours. One preschool educator mentioned that their program has four teachers in one classroom which is helpful because they get fresh ideas and different perspectives and work together when a teacher is “having a day” (experiencing unusually high and persistent distress). However, working with a team of teachers can sometimes be stressful when not all teachers are on the same page or have different views of what is going on in the classroom. Additionally, just like the administrators, a few of the educators mentioned that their administrators provide support for working with children by stepping in whenever teachers need additional support. Further, a couple of preschool educators mentioned that they have coaches and specialists who are part of the instrumental supports that are provided by administrators. Educators indicated that they could go to coaches and specialists for help when they are struggling with how to handle difficult situations with children in their classrooms. Theme 2: Lack of Administrative Support The theme of lack of administrative support emerged mostly from the discussion of educators and very little from the administrators. Both groups talked about one of the aspects of instrumental support, insufficient staffing, which is also related to support for educators’ well- being. Infant, toddler, and preschool educators expressed a lack of appreciation, open 39 communication, and undermining and disrespecting from their administrators which are part of emotional support. Lack of Instrumental Support Some educators mentioned that they are provided with sufficient staffing to get their work done and go on breaks, yet many administrators and other educators discussed the lack of staffing in their programs and in the classrooms. Administrators talked about the issues of insufficient staffing as it is related to educators needing to work more than the designated hours, and unable to take time off so that they come in when they are not feeling well, tired, or frustrated because they should have had time off instead of coming to work. One of the administrators mentioned that their educators were taking time off to take care of themselves as they should, but the program is already short staffed which makes it difficult for the administrator to figure out how to operate the program given the insufficient staffing. This administrator understood the importance of educators taking care of themselves but also expressed frustration of navigating through challenges of filling in when educators take time off. The same administrator said that because there is no flexibility in teachers’ work hours, many teachers leave the field to keep their sanity and well-being. The following quote shared by one of the directors describes this sub-theme. There's not that flexibility there, and there never has been subs… we've never had some in early childhood… But it's even more… of a struggle now because people are taking time off, and they're not putting up with what we put up with twenty-five years ago in the field… you were supposed to get off at three thirty, but you're here still at six o'clock, because someone didn't come in, and that would happen regularly, and that's just not something that the workforce is willing to put up with anymore…. And so… as a well-being… you leave the field, you know, to keep your own sanity like I can't do that anymore. My family is too important. So yeah, people are not um willing to commit to that level, I guess, and nor should be like. There has to be something different that can be done. I don't know what that is, but it's tough. 40 Administrators also wished they had more subs and floaters in their programs to help out in the classrooms for teachers to work with challenging behaviors and meeting the expectations of paperwork. Educators who talked about insufficient staffing indicated that they might be short-staffed on any given day. Although this was not mentioned among administrators, infant toddler educators indicated difficulty in hiring staff, and educators from both groups talked about the need to have competent staff who are not just there for the paycheck. Moreover, infant and toddler educators expressed the unique challenge of staffing being chaotic and inconsistent – because administrators are piecing together staffing – when consistency is so important for the children. Many preschool educators voiced that insufficient staffing affects the child-to-adult ratio which makes it challenging for them to get their paperwork done, as well as to take breaks or personal days. A couple of preschool educators described times when they were short-staffed, and their administrators said they could not come into the classroom and told the teachers to figure out how to take breaks; this is illustrated by two quotes from preschool educators: I feel like physically… We also deal with… If you short staffed and you go all day sometimes you don't eat right. You don't eat at all. You're not… [able to use] the bathroom, you know, so that those things also are not good for your physical well-being, and then stress on top of it. You know it's, that's a challenge, and it's like I said it that causes a lot of health issues as well. …where I've worked before it don't support the teachers. I've had to go for an entire day without a bathroom break and been in the classroom with the children all day long from my entire 8 hours and was basically told we don't have enough staff. Figure it out. You know, “I can't come up and give you a break”. And, and obviously I left that school. Undermining and Disrespect Although some educators discussed feeling appreciated and acknowledged by their administrators with open communication (which was coded as administrative support), others discussed a lack of appreciation and acknowledgment, as well as a lack of open communication 41 from their administrators. Moreover, educators expressed that their administrators micromanage and undermine them as professionals. Preschool educators who said they felt appreciated by their administrators indicated that this was only from their direct supervisor and not from the “higher ups,” which can include assistant directors or directors of agencies with multiple sites. The following two quotes from preschool educators demonstrate this sub-theme. I feel very supported by the, my direct supervisor, but anybody above her, nothing. I feel weirdly replaceable for a job that is very understaffed and they can't afford to fire me basically. Yeah. I feel like they act like... they don't care about us. We were basically told at a meeting, training, that we were replaceable by upper management. So that doesn't make you feel very good about you or your job when they basically say you're replaceable. And again, nobody wants to come work. They can't hire people to come work. Nobody applies for the positions. And I've been there 21 years. But my immediate supervisor, I feel supported every day from her. Educators also voiced that they feel a little micromanaged and scrutinized by the administrators because they are often critiqued and do not get praise for the things that they do right. This is demonstrated by the first quote from a preschool educator and the second quote from a toddler teacher. I feel very scrutinized and very critiqued often, and the sentiment of like I want to feel appreciated, like I felt that, because I feel like I don't get appreciated. Like I get told what I'm doing wrong. And there's always something there's always, of course there is, and we're all learning and growing and doing better every year. So, there's always something, you know that I can improve on, obviously, and that's wonderful. But to never feel like you know, I, I'm getting a good report like I have. You know, I've met my goals and my growth, you know it's, it's a constant like scrutiny of, you know, and they're sitting in my classroom and observing me for like the entire day. And you know I'm not gonna be perfect the entire day. That is very frustrating. I think sometimes we feel a little micro-managed. Um, and just I think we could, in my classroom specifically like not feel so babysat. Um, you know we're, we got hired for a reason. We're college-educated teachers. Um, we know how to do our job. Sometimes it just feels like we're not trusted all the time, and we second guess ourselves a lot because of things coming from not just our supervisor, but higher up than her that there's just a lot 42 of trust issues, and we feel like we're constantly being watched and micromanaged. And um that's not always a great feeling. Infant, toddler, and preschool educators shared how their administrators do not communicate effectively about the changes in policies, staffing information, and events happening in the program. They also mentioned that administrators do not consult with educators about policies and procedures that educators need to implement in the classroom. The following two quotes shared by two different preschool educators exemplify lack of communication from administrators. I would really love to see admin consult with teachers for things that they need to implement in the classroom. Like if it's going to be implemented in the classroom, you should be talking to teachers about that. The people that don't spend any time in the classroom, making up policies and procedures. They should be talking to us, like it would make more sense. It would be more functional. Administrative for me is mainly people that have no education in the early childhood, specifically preschool and they don't ever ask any questions. They don't come to you. How's everything going? Is there anything you need? And the way they are supportive is I don't call for problems, I'll solve my own… But if I say I need this for my classroom they trust what I say, and they, they get it to me… But other than that, they have no idea what's happening in my classroom. or the things that I have to do… No clue. I'd love for them to come in and observe me for a week straight and be like oh, damn! This girl is, this girl is like on point like, look at what she's doing. I, I mean, I would like more of that. Come watch me. Come see what I do all day. Theme 3: Ill-being The theme of ill-being emerged from the discussion among administrators and educators when they talked about stressors causing educators to feel stressed or burned out, experience health issues, or feel devalued as professionals. When administrators and educators were asked about aspects of an early childhood educators’ work that are most stressful, both groups talked a lot about working conditions as stressors which contribute to educators’ ill-being. Additionally, stressors specific to the age group educators worked with were discussed by administrators, infant and toddler educators, as well as preschool educators. 43 Poor Working Conditions Administrators indicated that educators seemed to be most stressed with high job demands and lack of compensation and benefits. Many administrators mentioned that educators feel stressed out and overwhelmed (psychological ill-being) with too much paperwork they need to complete outside of the classroom and not being paid overtime to get their work done, which is related to lack of compensation and benefits. They also talked about not having enough pay, and no flexibility with work hours. One of the directors indicated that their staff who were hired as childcare workers got their CDAs and are now educators who are succeeding, but they shared that all the paperwork they have to complete as part of their job responsibilities were overwhelming and they did not know that getting their CDAs meant they were also signing up to do so much paperwork for their work. Educators shared similar thoughts about feeling stressed due to the high job demands of paperwork and not getting enough time to complete everything. Although insufficient staffing was described in the lack of instrumental support section, shortage in staffing is also related to poor working conditions contributing to educators’ professional, psychological, and physical ill-being because they shortage in staffing makes it hard for them to manage their high job demands, keep their sanity in a chaotic classroom, take breaks during the day, or take time off. On a similar note, when educators were asked to share reasons for other educators who left the field, most of the educators shared that it was due to lack of compensation and benefits such as low pay, not enough paid sick and vacation time, medical benefits, as well as inflexibility of work hours and taking time off which are all poor working conditions. 44 Another aspect of working condition was mentioned by a preschool educator who shared that the common practice of breaking up an effective co-teaching team (by re-assigning one of the co-teachers to a different classroom) is an additional stressor: …the program I work for, they'll just like break your team up like out of nowhere, you know. So, I'm like that could be like one of them stresses we was just talking about, because, like gee, you spend all this time growing and knowing these women, and then they say, hey, you know, I need to go to this building. I need you to go to this building and boom just like that. You're learning another staff, a new personality. This is so mm-mm (shakes head side-to- side). Age-group Specific Stressors Administrators and educators discussed stressors that were specific to the age group of children that educators were working with. Specifically, administrators were asked to discuss differences between I/T and preschool educators’ well-being in the workplace. Administrators who had I/T classrooms in their programs talked about how infant and toddler educators are not as well- respected as preschool educators, and educators think of being infant and toddler educators as a steppingstone to becoming a preschool educator. They also shared how it is emotionally draining for infant and toddler educators to spend the entire day hearing young children cry because they are not yet able to use words to communicate their needs. Moreover, one director mentioned how working with parents can be particularly challenging for infant and toddler educators. I feel a lot of um infant toddler parents are I don't know if suspicious is the right word, but they tend to um if something goes wrong, go instantly right into blame mode in infants and toddlers. Um, I've noticed a little bit more than preschool um, where, especially since the infants and toddlers can't vocalize anything quite yet if they come home with a scratch, or if you know, they fell and bonked their noggin while they were learning how to walk. There seems to be kind of an instant blame towards the teachers that in preschool they don't have quite as much, because the kids can vocalize what happened or um the kids can explain it a little bit more. Um versus that no communication that the infants and toddlers can give at the end of the day. Administrators also indicated infant and toddler educators’ working hours when they were asked about differences in their well-being. With state-funded preschool classrooms, preschool educators 45 work 4 days a week for 7 hours and get a planning day on Friday whereas infant and toddler educators are expected to work 5 days a week with longer hours; interestingly, this contrast was not mentioned by infant and toddler educators. However, infant and toddler educators expressed that they feel like they are always “on the back burner” and often feel forgotten, which can negatively impact their professional well-being. This is illustrated by the two quotes below, first from an infant teacher and the second from a toddler teacher. I feel like infant toddler everywhere I've kind of gone has always been like on the back burner, and I, really, this is my first time being back in infant-toddler. I worked in preschool for a long time, and I did like some administrative stuff. So just kind of seeing here specifically how much infant-toddler gets put on the back burner is just insane. I think the most stressful is just feeling forgotten a lot, especially because at our site we're the only infant-toddler classroom. And then, right now we have three preschool classrooms open um, and things that get communicated sometimes miss us um and I don't know why that is. Um, we've all tried to figure it out. And then there's times where it's like, you know, we get these emails, or we're required to go to these trainings or things that just don't apply to us, and it's like, why are we having to go to these things that don't apply to us? But then, when we do need to know something that is pertaining to us we're like left in the dust, and then we're getting reprimanded because we didn't know about it, and we're just expected to know, you know, like I think infant-toddler is just not seen as important as preschool when we are setting them up, like, we are the foundation before they go to preschool, and even the preschool teachers have said to us, they notice a difference between the kids that are coming from our infant-toddler classroom than the kiddos that are just coming into the program that haven't been in a program before you know, so clearly we're doing something right. But for whatever reason, it feels like, we just don't have as much importance, and we're forgotten a lot. And then also, yeah, things that we are required to go to don't make much sense, because it's so preschool focused that this is a waste of our time. Why are we here? Preschool educators experienced different kinds of stressors that were related to the age group they are working with. Administrators talked about stressors specific to preschool educators which were mostly due to COVID-19 where they perceive that it is challenging to handle children’s behaviors from staying home. One site supervisor described that educators are experiencing preschool children who are “not as socially savvy” compared to preschool children 46 they had in their classrooms before the pandemic. Another director shared the struggles that preschool educators experience after COVID-19: …it seems like the kids have such big emotions right now, and no idea how to process them. So, I think that that's where we're struggling, and it's mainly our preschool room. But those are the kids that I had a few of them come in, and they had never been away from mom, dad, or grandpa, grandma. So, they came in, and they didn't even know how to like, talk, because there wasn't a need to, everyone just did everything for them. And I like, how are we almost 3, and never have spoken to other people outside of our immediate core family. They also indicated how preschool children are unable to use the bathroom due to COVID-19 which was also shared among preschool educators where children lack self-care skills and many of them are still in diapers. These changes in children’s self-care skills add more work for preschool educators when they are used to children being able to use the bathroom on their own and not having to change diapers or teach children how to dress themselves. Theme 4: Well-being When administrators were asked about how they define work-related well-being of infant, toddler, and preschool educators, administrators mostly discussed about educators’ work-life balance and how they support their educators’ well-being which was discussed in the previous section, Theme 1: Administrative Support. Administrators voiced that they want educators to try to have a good work-life balance where educators feel like they can take time off to take care of themselves and their personal matters without feeling guilty about not coming into work, which is also related to psychological well-being. The following quote from a director demonstrates this sub-theme: …making sure that they know that I respect their personal time, their evenings, their weekends. I'm not going to intrude on that um, and that uh, when they are giving me those times like they have to take their dog to the vet, or they have to make sure that they can get to a doctor's appointment if they need to; that that time is going to be respected and honored. Um, and not something that they have to feel guilty about, because I think a lot of them, especially being in a care field um feel guilty when they're not there to care for… the little one, so they feel like their classroom is going to um explode and be a ball of fire 47 when they're not there, so letting them know that they have a support system not only me but their um co-leads and co-teachers as well um, so they feel that they can do that successfully. When asked what work-related well-being meant to them, infant, toddler, and preschool educators mostly talked about elements related to professional and social well-being. Educators talked about being happy to go to work and doing whatever you love with passion and skill. One infant educator said, “I feel like waking up and enjoying going to work and coming home and feeling good about it” as their work-related well-being. Educators also mentioned several ideas related to professional well-being, including feeling appreciated for their work, appreciation from the parents, and being seen as professionals with education, not as just babysitters. They also discussed several ideas related to social well-being, including having good relationships at work with their team, being able to share personal issues, being supportive of one another, and enjoying spending time together outside of work. A few preschool educators expressed the importance of the relationships with co-teachers in terms of their well-being, as explained by one of the preschool educators below. I think the relationships we have with like co-teachers, for example, is it makes a huge impact on your satisfaction with your job because of the nature of like, we're in the same room with each other for eight plus hours a day, every single day of the week. If you don't like your co-teacher, you're not going to have a good time at work, and it makes everything that much harder… Another preschool educator even mentioned that they almost quit their job because working with co-workers was so stressful and just so draining, indicating their intention to leave which is also related to educators’ professional well-being in terms of job commitment. In summary, ECE administrators and educators discussed administrative support and ECE educator well-being in terms of providing and receiving administrative support. Educators talked about lack of administrative support such as insufficient staffing and lack of emotional in terms of 48 administrators undermining and disrespecting educators, lack of appreciation, and lack of open communication. Both administrators and educators indicated poor working conditions such as high job demands and lack of compensation and benefits as stressors that contribute to educators’ ill- being. Additionally, I/T educators expressed that they feel like are often forgotten as required trainings are preschool-focused. Preschool educators’ stressors were mostly children's challenging behaviors which were exacerbated by COVID-19. Lastly, administrators talked about supporting work-life balance for their educators whereas educators discussed their well-being in terms of being happy to go to work, being seen as professionals, and having good relationships at work, especially with co-teachers. Discussion Early childhood administrators directly work with, supervise, and play an important role in providing support for infant/toddler (I/T) and preschool educators which impacts educators’ work experience and well-being. The current qualitative study examined the definition and conceptualization of administrative support and educator well-being in the field of early childhood education (ECE) by elevating the voices of current ECE administrators and educators. From the insights provided by the administrators and educators, a definition of administrative support in ECE can be: administrators assisting educators’ work by providing necessary resources (instrumental support), respecting, trusting, acknowledging, and showing appreciation through open and direct communication and positive relationships (emotional support), all of which support multiple aspects of educators’ well-being. Administrators and educators discussed support for well-being in terms of psychological well-being, professional well-being, positive organizational climate, and social well-being. For emotional support, both administrators and educators expressed acknowledgment, appreciation, 49 open communication, and having relationships. Other educators talked about a lack of emotional support in terms of a lack of appreciation, feeling both micromanaged and forgotten, and having a lack of open communication. For example, educators articulated that administrators do not always consult with educators about practices that must be implemented in the classroom which demonstrates not only a lack of open communication but also a lack of acknowledgment and support for professional well-being because educators are not included in the decision-making processes. With instrumental support, administrators talked about providing support for working with children and families and resources needed for job duties. Only a few educators indicated that they experienced sufficient staffing and coaches and specialists. More educators shared that they do not receive sufficient staffing and support from administrators when they are short-staffed. Moreover, this study highlighted the aspects of well-being as defined and explained by the ECE administrators and educators, which were also related to administrative support. From the discussions of both administrators and educators, ill-being was identified as including both psychological and physical ill-being which are related to negative working conditions, as well as stressors that were specific to the age group of children that educators work with. Finally, educator well-being was discussed in terms of work-life balance by administrators, whereas educators talked more about professional and social well-being. Definition and Conceptualization of Administrative Support in ECE The definition and conceptualization of administrative support developed within this study aligns with, yet differs from, the ways administrative support has been defined and conceptualized in special education and early childhood education. This study generated emotional support and instrumental support as part of administrative support in ECE, which aligns with specific administrative behaviors identified by special education teachers (Cancio et al., 2013). Further, 50 administrators’ and educators’ description of opportunities for professional development as part of administrative support is in line with one aspect of administrative support defined by Veziroglu- Celik and Yildiz (2018) which describe administrative support as administrators encouraging ECE educators’ professional development. The conceptualization of administrative support from this study also aligns with administrative behaviors in ECE such as effective communication, staff training and mentoring, proficiency in scheduling staff (Russell et al., 2010). A novel contribution from this study is the concept of administrative support for specific aspects of educators’ well- being as part of administrative support because this was not evident in the current literature on administrative support. Interconnectedness of Administrative Support and Educator Well-being The discussion of administrative support among ECE administrators and educators spontaneously illustrated the interconnectedness of administrative support and educators’ well- being. Notably, when administrators were asked about how they define ECE educator well-being, many of them instantly shared how they support educators’ well-being. They talked about how they support their teaching staff when they are stressed out (psychological ill-being) by providing coping strategies (support psychological well-being) and being available to talk to them (emotional support). Preschool educators also mentioned that when they are stressed out (psychological ill- being) their administrators listen to them (emotional support) and offer mental health counseling and therapy through insurance and benefit packages (support for psychological well-being, and positive working conditions). However, I/T educators did not talk about receiving support for their psychological well-being which might be explained by the fact that I/T educators experience lower stress and less depressive symptoms compared to preschool educators (Kwon et al., 2020) and might not perceive getting support from administrators for their psychological well-being. Further 51 examination of this finding could provide additional insights into the types of support needed specifically for I/T educators. Additionally, administrators indicated that when they know their educators are stressed out (psychological ill-being), they provide food and snacks for their educators (support psychological well-being) as well as to show appreciation and recognition; this form of support was also discussed by the educators. Administrators’ use of food could be seen as their efforts to nourish their educators so they feel cared for and have more energy when they are stressed out, and feel good because they are appreciated by acknowledged by their administrators. On the other hand, this can be considered as providing or using an avoidant coping strategy, which is using a repressive strategy to avoid addressing the problem at hand (Baumgartner et al., 2009) but found to be effective in reducing educators’ daily stress (Carson et al., 2017). It was also evident that food and snacks were one of the ways that administrators show appreciation (emotional support) for their teaching staff. Even though food can be useful in supporting educators’ well-being, depending on the types of food that are provided for them, it could potentially be unhealthy for their physical well-being given that many ECE educators are overweight or obese (Kwon et al., 2020). Instead, administrators might consider providing designated breaks for educators to engage in physical exercise, prayer, or meditation to help educators cope with daily stress (Carson et al., 2017) and showing appreciation by asking educators how they would like to feel appreciated and recognized which can be getting personalized gratitude notes, celebrating their work anniversaries or birthdays, bonuses or gift cards which was mentioned by one of the educators from the focus groups. Furthermore, educators discussed insufficient staffing, which is an ongoing crisis of a pervasive ECE educator shortage, as the stressor which leads educators to experience ill-being at 52 work. Further, educators pointed out that poor working conditions such as high job demand and lack of compensation and benefits impact their well-being, which is consistent with previous studies indicating that working conditions are associated with educators’ well-being and their practice in the classroom (e.g., Kwon et al., 2020; King et al., 2016). Being understaffed (lack of instrumental support) makes educators feel overwhelmed and overworked (psychological ill-being) because they have to take on more and more since there are fewer educators, causing higher job demand when they already have too much work to complete during their work hours (working conditions). Further, the shortage in staffing impacts the child-to-teacher ratio which causes negative consequences in all aspects of educators’ well-being. For instance, educators are unable to get their paperwork completed because they will be out of ratio if they physically step out of the classroom, which means that they either take their work home or work longer than their designated work hours even when they are not compensated for overtime (lack of compensation and benefits). When ECE programs are short-staffed, educators cannot go on breaks (physical well-being) which is essential for their well-being, especially during times of stress to take a moment and debrief before going back into the classroom to manage challenging situations (psychological ill- being). Likewise, educators are more likely to feel guilty about taking personal days (psychological ill-being) and less likely to call in sick because they know it will be hard for other educators in the classroom (Baumgartner et al., 2009; Cassidy et al., 2011) if they do not come in and cannot get additional staffing. In a recent study by Zhao and Jeon (2023), educators reported wanting higher pay, less paperwork, and support for working with children’s challenging behaviors as resources essential for their well-being, which were identified as positive working conditions and instrumental support in the current study. Ultimately, lack of instrumental support from 53 administrators and poor working conditions cause ECE educators to experience psychological and physical ill-being, which contributes cyclically to the national crisis of educator shortage. Last but not least, educators in this study defined their work-related well-being in terms of their job satisfaction (professional well-being) and relationships with their co-workers (social well- being) while administrators thought about educators’ well-being as work-life balance. Educators’ perception of job satisfaction as their work-related well-being is consistent with how it has been conceptualized as professional well-being (e.g., Cassidy et al., 2016; Kwon et al., 2020) which can also predict teacher turnover (e.g., Jeon & Wells, 2018; McMullen et al., 2020). Moreover, educators’ discussion about how positive relationships at work impact their well-being aligns with previous studies indicating that supportive workplace relationships are positively associated with job satisfaction and lower stress levels (e.g., Nislin et al., 2016; Løvgren, 2016) while difficult relationships are associated with emotional exhaustion (Rentzou, 2012) which impact educators’ professional and psychological well-being. Stressors Specific to Infant/Toddler Educators vs. Preschool Educators This study also contributes to the current literature by identifying stressors that are specific to the age group of children that educators are working with. Administrators mentioned that I/T educators are not as respected as preschool educators and their working conditions such as longer workdays in the week and having to spend the entire day with children’s cries seem to be stressors for I/T educators. The points about not being respected as educators were echoed by infant and toddler educators as they expressed that they always feel like they are “on the back burner” and feel forgotten, which aligns with the findings of Berlin and colleagues (2020) in which I/T teachers described feel undervalued as early childhood professionals (Berlin et al., 2020). For preschool educators, their stressors were specific to the changes in children’s behaviors and self-care skills 54 from the impact of COVID-19, which may be exacerbated by higher teacher-child ratio in preschool classrooms. Both administrators and preschool educators mentioned that preschool children in classrooms now are not the same as those before the pandemic, and preschool educators are struggling to adjust their teaching and feel incompetent which impacts their professional well- being. Importance of Relationships to Educators’ Well-being As ECE administrators and educators discussed administrative supports and well-being, they expressed the importance of workplace relationships, such as relationships with co-teachers, families, and administrators, to educators’ psychological and professional well-being as well as an important aspect of administrative support. Previously, ECE educators indicated that workplace relationships were stressors, yet they described positive co-teacher relationships as social support that helps them alleviate their work-related stress (Tebben et al., 2021) which aligns with what this study found. Moreover, educators from this study shared that their relationships with administrators and co-teachers impact their job satisfaction and intention to leave which was found among interviews with Head Start preschool teachers who also conveyed that relationships with co-teachers and directors were the most important predictor of teachers’ intent to stay or quit (Wells, 2017). Both findings from this study and past studies elevate the importance of workplace relationships to the well-being of I/T and preschool educators. Limitations Although this study contributes to defining and conceptualizing administrative support in ECE settings and provides valuable insights into ECE educator well-being from current ECE administrators and educators, limitations specific to the current study should be noted as generalizations of the findings should be applied cautiously. First, administrators and educators 55 who participated in the focus groups were recruited from one Midwestern state in the United States with ECE-related state policies that could be different from other U.S. states and countries. Thus, ECE administrators and educators in this particular state might have different experiences compared to other geographical locations. Moreover, due to the difficulty in recruiting infant and toddler educators to participate in focus groups, only four I/T educators were in the sample. The majority of the educators in the sample were white, which does not represent the demographics of the educators in ECE in the U.S. who disproportionately, but mostly identify themselves as racial and ethnic minority individuals (Whitebook et al., 2018). In addition, administrators and educators who participated in the focus groups were not from the same program which makes it difficult to make direct comparisons between administrators’ discussion about administrative support they provide their teaching staff and what educators perceive as administrative support from their administrators since they are thinking about their own educators or administrators who did not participate in this study. Lastly, it should be noted that the current study included some educators who were working in a program with multiple sites which meant they had various levels of administrators, and this makes is challenging to generalize the findings given that administrative support might differ depending on the administrative support educators receive at different levels. Implications and Future Directions Contributions to the Literature The current study contributes to the literature by providing a definition and conceptualization of administrative support from the voices of both ECE educators and administrators which can be linked to various aspects of educator well-being. This can encourage further research on administrative support and ECE educator well-being with a clearer direction for conceptualizing administrative support. The identified themes and subthemes from the focus 56 groups could be used to generate survey items to measure administrative support in ECE settings in order to advance research, as well as to evaluate educator well-being for the purpose of providing better supports. Implications for Practice Findings from this study have direct implications for practice and future research. Overall, findings indicated that ECE administrators and educators thought similarly in some ways, and differently in others, about administrative support and educator well-being. Given these findings, it may be important for ECE administrators and educators to talk directly about administrative support to examine any discrepancies in what administrators and educators perceive as the most important aspects of support that administrators can provide to educators. This practice of direct communication about administrative support could not only identify areas for improvement but also allow administrators to focus on providing support that matters to their educators’ work. Equally important, discussion about multiple aspects of educators’ well-being should occur between administrators and educators, related to the finding that administrators’ initiatives for supporting educators’ well-being might not always be what educators themselves need and find these initiatives to be more stressful for educators. Future Directions for Research Future directions for research should include investigating administrative support across different levels of leadership. Additionally, future studies should examine administrators and educators from the same programs to identify similarities and differences in provided and perceived administrative support considering previous research which indicated differences in perceived organizational climate between administrators and educators (Jorde-Bloom, 1988). Because educators mentioned how relationships with co-teachers can impact their well-being and 57 their intention to stay, future research is needed to further examine how changes and qualities of the co-teacher relationships are associated with early childhood educators’ well-being and children’s learning and development. Early childhood programs are not mandated to include coaches, behavior specialists, or infant mental health specialists. However, some programs incorporate these professionals, while others do not. Preschool educators from this study mentioned that coaches and behavior specialists were helpful in guiding children’s behaviors. Therefore, future research on how coaches, behavior specialists, or infant mental health specialists contribute to educators’ well-being can offer insights into best practices and policy considerations about whether all early childhood programs should be mandated to include coaches and specialists which could benefit educators and positively impact the children and families served by these programs. 58 REFERENCES Baumgartner, J. J., Carson, R. L., Apavaloaie, L., & Tsouloupas, C. (2009). Uncovering common stressful factors and coping strategies among childcare providers. Child & Youth Care Forum, 38(5), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-009-9079-5 Berlin, L. J., Shdaimah, C. S., Goodman, A., & Slopen, N. (2020). “I’m literally drowning”: A mixed-methods exploration of infant-toddler childcare providers’ wellbeing. Early Education and Development, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1766915 Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367–409. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321455 Brophy-Herb, H. E., Stacks, A. M., Frosch, C., Brincks, A. M., Cook, J. L., Vallotton, C. D., Perkins, H. A., Kim, L. E., Carson, R., Muzik, M., Rosenblum, K., & Jennings, P. A. (2022). The effects of a relationship-focused professional development intervention on infant and toddler teachers’ mindfulness-based strategies for coping. Early Childhood Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01416-0 Cancio, E. J., Albrecht, S. F., & Johns, B. H. (2013). Defining administrative support and its relationship to the attrition of teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 36(4), 71–94. Carson, R. L., Baumgartner, J. J., Ota, C. L., Kuhn, A. P., & Durr, A. (2017). An ecological momentary assessment of burnout, rejuvenation strategies, job satisfaction, and quitting intentions in childcare teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(6), 801–808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0831-9 Cassidy, D. J., King, E. K., Wang, Y. C., Lower, J. K., & Kintner-Duffy, V. L. (2016). Teacher work environments are toddler learning environments: Teacher professional well-being, classroom emotional support, and toddlers’ emotional expressions and behaviours. Early Child Development and Care, 187(11), 1666–1678. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1180516 Cassidy, D. J., Lower, J. K., Kintner-Duffy, V. L., Hegde, A. V., & Shim, J. (2011). The day-to- day reality of teacher turnover in preschool classrooms: An analysis of classroom context and teacher, director, and parent perspectives. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(1), 1–23. doi:10.1080/02568543.2011. 533118. Conley, S., & You, S. (2017). Key influences on special education teachers’ intentions to leave: The effects of administrative support and teacher team efficacy in a mediational model. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(3), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215608859 59 Cumming, T. (2017). Early childhood educators’ well-being: An updated review of the literature. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(5), 583–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643- 016-0818-6 Fox, H. B., Tuckwiller, E. D., Kutscher, E. L., & Walter, H. L. (2020). What makes teachers well? A mixed methods study of special education teacher well-being. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 9(2), 223–248. https://doi.org/10.32674/jise.v9i2.2170 Grant, A. A., Jeon, L., & Buettner, C. K. (2019). Relating early childhood teachers’ working conditions and well-being to their turnover intentions. Educational Psychology, 39(3), 294–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1543856 Hall-Kenyon, K. M., Bullough, R. V., MacKay, K. L., & Marshall, E. E. (2014). Preschool teacher well-being: A review of the literature. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(3), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-013-0595-4 Institute of Medicine and National Research Council [IOM & NRC]. (2015). Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation. The National Academies. Jeon, L., Buettner, C. K., & Grant, A. A. (2018). Early childhood teachers’ psychological well- being: Exploring potential predictors of depression, stress, and emotional exhaustion. Early Education & Development, 29(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1341806 Jeon, L., Hur, E., & Buettner, C. K. (2016). Child-care chaos and teachers’ responsiveness: The indirect associations through teachers’ emotion regulation and coping. Journal of School Psychology, 59, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.09.006 Jeon, L., & Wells, M. B. (2018). An organizational-level analysis of early childhood teachers’ job attitudes: Workplace satisfaction affects Early Head Start and Head Start teacher turnover. Child & Youth Care Forum, 47(4), 563–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566- 018-9444-3 Jorde-Bloom, P. (1988). Closing the gap: An analysis of teacher and administrator perceptions of organizational climate in the early childhood setting. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(88)90012-1 King, E. K., Johnson, A. V., Cassidy, D. J., Wang, Y. C., Lower, J. K., & Kintner-Duffy, V. L. (2016). Preschool teachers’ financial well-being and work time supports: Associations with children’s emotional expressions and behaviors in classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44(6), 545–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015-0744-z Kwon, K.-A., Ford, T. G., Salvatore, A. L., Randall, K., Jeon, L., Malek-Lasater, A., Ellis, N., Kile, M. S., Horm, D. M., Kim, S. G., & Han, M. (2020). Neglected elements of a high- 60 quality early childhood workforce: Whole teacher well-being and working conditions. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50, 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020- 01124-7 Løvgren, M. (2016). Emotional exhaustion in day-care workers. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(1), 157–167. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2015.1120525. McLean, C., Austin, L.J.E., Whitebook, M., & Olson, K.L. (2021). Early Childhood Workforce Index – 2020. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from https://cscce.berkeley.edu/workforce-index- 2020/report-pdf/ McMullen, M. B., Lee, M. S. C., McCormick, K. I., & Choi, J. (2020). Early childhood professional well-being as a predictor of the risk of turnover in child care: A matter of quality. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 34(3), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2019.1705446 Nislin, M. A., Sajaniemi, N. K., Sims, M., Suhonen, E., Maldonado Montero, E. F., Hirvonen, A., et al. (2016). Pedagogical work, stress regulation and work-related well-being among early childhood professionals in integrated special day-care groups. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(1), 27–43. doi:10.1080/08856257.2015.1087127. Rentzou, K. (2012). Examination of work environment factors relating to burnout syndrome of early childhood educators in Greece. Child Care in Practice, 18(2), 165–181. doi:10.1080/ 13575279.2012.657609. Russell, E. M., Williams, S. W., & Gleason-Gomez, C. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of administrative support and antecedents of turnover. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24(3), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2010.487397 Tebben, E., Lang, S. N., Sproat, E., Tyree Owens, J., & Helms, S. (2021). Identifying primary and secondary stressors, buffers, and supports that impact ECE teacher wellbeing: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 42(2), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2021.1918294 Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748 Veziroglu-Celik, M., & Yildiz, T. G. (2018). Organizational climate in early childhood education. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(12), 88. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i12.3698 Wang, H., & Hall, N. C. (2019). When “I care” is not enough: An interactional analysis of teacher values, value congruence, and well-being. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102906 61 Wells, M. B. (2017). Is all support equal?: Head Start preschool teachers’ psychological job attitudes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.004 Whitebook, M., McLean, C., Austin, L.J.E., & Edwards, B. (2018). Early Childhood Workforce Index – 2018. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from http://cscce.berkeley.edu/topic/early-childhood- workforce-index/2018/ Zhao, X., & Jeon, L. (2023). Examining the associations between teacher job satisfaction, workplace climate, and well-being resources within head start programs. Early Education and Development, 0(0), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2023.2221765 62 CHAPTER 3: STUDY 2 – INFANT/TODDLER AND PRESCHOOL EDUCATORS’ PERCEPTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORTS AND THEIR WELL-BEING Infant/Toddler and Preschool Educators Introduction It has been well-established that the well-being of early care and education (ECE) educators is crucial for children’s development and learning (IOM & NRC, 2015) and there is an increasing body of research on ECE educators’ well-being, but the evidence is more prominent for educators working with kindergarten or older children, with less work focused on the needs of preschool and infant/toddler (I/T) educators. More recently, studies have focused on the well-being of preschool educators (e.g., Buettner et al., 2016; Jennings, 2015; Jeon et al., 2016; King et al., 2016), which highlights the importance of their well-being in supporting the well-being and development of preschool children. Additionally, Kwon et al. (2020) conducted a study to examine the physical, psychological, and professional well-being of I/T and preschool educators, as well as their working conditions, and compared results from the two groups. Findings revealed that I/T educators had less access to health insurance, but more designated breaks compared to preschool educators whereas preschool educators reported higher levels of stress and depressive symptoms. Thus, although there has been some progress toward understanding I/T and preschool educators’ well- being, the body of literature focused on this group of educators, whose work is so crucial to the well-being and development of our youngest learners, is still very small, with only a few studies to date, and insufficient evidence to generalize the findings across early childhood educators working in different settings or geographic regions. Given the growing national shortage of educators working with our youngest children, it is particularly pressing to investigate ways to 63 enhance the well-being of those in this workforce in order to support their longevity in the field, and to recruit and retain a stronger workforce. The Unique Nature of Work in Early Childhood Education Job Demands In the early childhood work environment, I/T and preschool educators have job demands that are unique to their roles. A job description of I/T and preschool educators includes meeting the constant but varying needs of numerous children for responsive physical care, affection, and behavior guidance, as well as ongoing weekly tasks in observing their development, planning individualized experiences to support learning in multiple domains, communicating with families, and completing paperwork to meet licensing requirements. Though they share many common job demands, there are differences in job demands between I/T and preschool educators. For instance, infant and toddler educators are expected to meet the unique physical demands of caring for our youngest children which includes frequent bending, lifting, and carrying of both children and equipment (Cumming & Wong, 2019; Kwon et al., 2020), as well as spending much of their time sitting on the floor to stay physically and relationally available at the children’s physical level. Although there is less physical demand for preschool educators, they have a higher child-educator ratio which increases their workload in terms of individualization, documentation, observations, and assessments; there is also an expectation that they spend time on the floor and use child-sized furniture in order to be at the children’s physical level. Given the unique job demands, we must take the working conditions of I/T and preschool educators into consideration when we examine their well-being. 64 Working Conditions Educators’ well-being is associated with the working conditions of their workplace which include the physical environment, compensation and benefits, as well as organizational climate. The physical environment of the early childhood work environment should include adult-sized furniture, a space to store personal belongings, a place to take breaks, and scheduled break times (Kwon et al., 2020). In Kwon et al.’s study (2020) with the I/T and preschool educators, researchers found that almost 50 percent of educators had no designated breaks, 30 percent of educators did not have space to take breaks, and about 20 percent did not have enough adult-sized furniture. These findings suggest that I/T and preschool educators work in poor physical environments, but this study did not examine whether these conditions are associated with educators’ well-being. One important topic of study, with potential policy implications, is the degree to which poor physical environments can impact educators’ well-being; this would help program directors, policy makers, and other decision-makers to understand what kind of physical environments support the well-being of I/T and preschool educators. Another aspect of working conditions that might influence educators’ well-being is compensation and benefits. According to the Early Childhood Workforce Index 2020 (McLean et al. 2021), only 9 out of 51 states (including Washington D.C.) are making partial progress in articulating the need for compensation standards or guidelines for early educators working with children from birth to 5 years of age. Moreover, I/T and preschool educators working in childcare centers receive the lowest wage compared to all workers in the US across all jobs. Benefits such as health insurance, paid time off when sick or taking care of family members, and retirement plans contribute to a good work environment (McLean et al., 2021). Yet 25% of early childhood educators are estimated to have no health insurance and those who have insurance might be 65 through a spouse, public agency, or employer. Further, paid time off for vacation and sick leave, as well as retirement contribution, is not standard in early childhood programs (IOM & NRC, 2015). Given these dire circumstances, it is no surprise that compensation and benefits impact the well-being of I/T and preschool educators as they report low wages in compensation and limited benefits (Kwon et al., 2020). When preschool educators perceive that their wages are enough to meet their basic expenses, children exhibit more positive emotional expressions and behaviors in the classroom compared to children in classrooms with educators who perceive their wages to be not enough (King et al., 2016). Educators’ wages are associated with toddlers’ positive emotional expressions and behaviors, and toddler educators who perceive their compensation as unfair compared to other professionals were rated lower in emotional support for toddlers in their classrooms, using observational measures of classroom quality (Cassidy et al., 2016). Thus, working conditions affect educators’ well-being which in turn affects classroom quality and children’s development. However, not much is known about infant educators and the mechanism in which compensation and benefits can support the educators’ well-being in terms of their working conditions. Organizational climate is also part of the working conditions because research shows that an individual’s perception of organizational climate can impact their behavior, attitude, work performance, and well-being (Dennis & O’Connor, 2013; Veziroglu-Celik, & Yildiz, 2018). For instance, a significant association was found between preschool educators’ perception of organizational climate and their classroom quality (Dennis & O’Connor, 2013). However, this study was limited to preschool educators, and it did not examine the association between organizational climate and the well-being of educators. Another study (Hewett & La Paro, 2020) 66 examined organizational climate in terms of collegiality and supervisor support to the classroom and program quality among early childhood educators which included I/T and preschool educators. Results indicated collegiality and supervisor support occurred frequently whether these were positive or negative which did not vary depending on the age group of children they worked with. Moreover, collegiality was only associated with program quality, and not classroom quality which might be due to how classroom quality is measured. This study included infant and toddler educators to examine their perceptions of organizational climate, and further research is needed to understand how organizational climate can impact their well-being. Early Childhood Educator Well-being As described in the previous section, working conditions can play a critical role in the educators’ well-being in their physical, social, emotional, psychological, and professional domains of well-being. This section summarizes recent findings on the well-being of early childhood educators and discusses how these can be related to job demands and working conditions which can be supported by administrators. Physical Well-Being A recent study (Kwon et al., 2020) with I/T and preschool educators found evidence of substantial general health complications, back pain, neck pain, work-related injuries, and obese body mass index in terms of their physical well-being among I/T and preschool educators. Findings can be explained by the unique physical demands of I/T educators in which they need to frequently bend and lift to provide care. This could also be related to the physical environment where adult- sized furniture is not available, there are no scheduled breaks even for taking care of their own physiological needs (such as bathroom or lunch breaks), and no designated space for relaxation or breaks. 67 Psychological Well-Being ECE educators’ psychological well-being has been known to be compromised due to job demands and poor working conditions as these factors can lead to experiencing stress and burnout, and ECE educators do experience higher rates of stress compared to professionals in other fields (IOM & NRC, 2015). I/T and preschool educators in center-based programs reported higher levels of depressive symptoms compared to educators in elementary school setting (Roberts et al., 2019). Kwon et al. (2020) examined depressive symptoms among I/T and preschool educators and found that higher average depressive symptoms were reported by preschool educators. Furthermore, they investigated educators’ perceived level of stress and discovered that preschool educators reported higher levels of perceived stress compared to I/T educators. These findings illustrate that further examination is needed to assess I/T and preschool educators’ level of depressive symptoms and how administrative support might influence educators’ depressive symptoms. Educators experience burnout when they are exposed to constant work-related stress. A study by Evans et al. (2004) found that there was a difference in burnout among African American and Caucasian American childcare professionals. African American educators reported higher levels of depersonalization and emotional exhaustion compared to Caucasian American educators. Because the majority of ECE educators are racial and ethnic minority individuals (Whitebook et al., 2018), who may be more often subjected to depersonalization in their workplace, we should consider potential racial and ethnic differences in the ways ECE educators are treated and the ways this treatment affects them. Given what we know, it is crucial to investigate what administrators can do to help with educators’ depressive symptoms, perceived level of stress, and burnout in order to promote their emotional and psychological well-being. 68 Professional Well-Being Professional well-being is focused on how educators feel about their work, including how they usually feel when they come to work, job satisfaction, and job commitment (Cassidy et al., 2016; Kwon et al., 2020). However, numerous factors can determine an educator’s professional well-being. For instance, professional well-being can be examined by observing work commitment, self-efficacy, sense of autonomy, and perceived relationships with children (Kwon et al., 2020) or as job satisfaction by studying a sense of autonomy in making decisions, wages, and perceptions of fairness in wages within the program as well as the ECE field (Cassidy et al., 2016). Kwon et al. (2020) found that by ECE educators’ educational levels predicted their work commitment and perceived conflict in relationships with children. On the other hand, preschool educators reported more closeness in their relationships with children compared to I/T educators. Findings from Cassidy et al.’s (2016) study indicated that ECE educators’ ability to influence hiring decisions for new teachers was associated with positive classroom emotional support. When teachers perceived their wages to be unfair compared to other ECE educators in their program and in the field, this was associated with lower emotional support in the classroom. Moreover, a higher educator salary was associated with researchers’ observation of toddlers’ positive emotional expressions and behaviors. Both studies (Kwon et al., 2020; Cassidy et al., 2016) revealed that how educators feel about their work can impact their perceptions of relationships with children and their abilities to provide emotional support in the classroom. Because a sense of autonomy is mostly developed and reinforced by program administrators and directors, it is crucial to further examine how their roles contribute to educators’ professional well-being. 69 Administrative Support for Educator Well-being Administrative support has largely been defined as administrators providing support and assistance to promote educators’ quality of practices in school systems (Borman & Dowling, 2008). More specifically, administrative support is characterized by behaviors that provide emotional (e.g., respect, trust, and showing concern), instrumental (e.g., assisting with work-related tasks), informational (e.g., ways to improve classroom practices), and appraisal support (e.g., constructive feedback) for educators (Cancio et al., 2013). Administrative support is provided directly by the administrators to the educators in their work environment, thus, administrative support may impact educators' work-related well-being. However, most of the studies on educator well-being focus on the individual and overlook the workplace systems in place that impact the well-being of I/T and preschool educators. Often, ECE administrators, who oversee and directly work with the educators in their programs, create and maintain the workplace system that affect educator well-being. ECE administrators are responsible for many factors that predict program quality, from the practical choices around the education and professional development of teaching staff to more elusive psychological factors such as the levels of perceived respect and stress in the work environment; these factors in turn influence staff turnover and continuity of care (National Survey of Early Care and Education, 2015). The responsibilities and choices of administrators not only predict program quality but also impact educators’ perceptions of their administrators and organizational climate which can be associated with their well-being. In fact, ECE educators’ perceptions of their directors’ coordinating skills, such as dependability and skills for enforcing rules and standards, predicted teachers’ commitment and thoughts of leaving their current job (Russell et al., 2010). Moreover, a 70 significant difference in the perception of organizational climate was found between administrators and educators in early childhood programs (Jorde-Bloom, 1988a). Administrators perceived the work climate to be more positive than did educators, which suggests that administrators might not be aware of how their choices and behaviors influence organizational climate from the perspective of ECE educators, which could then prohibit administrators from providing effective supports for the educators in their programs. Administrators have a variety of other responsibilities that also influence educator well- being. They often oversee and supervise the quality of educators’ practices, which also impacts educator well-being. ECE administrators are the ultimate decision-makers on availability of adult- sized furniture, spaces to store personal belongings, and places for teachers to relax and take breaks, all of which can impact ECE educators’ well-being (Kwon et al., 2020), all of which may predict educators’ perceptions about their work and the quality of classroom practices (Veziroglu-Celik & Yildiz, 2018). We know that administrative support is associated with well-being, but less is known about exactly what kinds of support are related to types of educator well-being that affects their ability to maintain positive relationships with children and to provide a high-quality learning environment (Jennings, 2019). Much of the literature on administrative support (e.g., Fox et al., 2020; Wang & Hall, 2019; Conley & You, 2017) from other teaching workforces indicates that lack of administrative support negatively impacts educators’ psychological (e.g., greater work- related stress) and professional well-being (e.g., predicts educators’ intention to leave, lower job satisfaction and work commitment). However, definitions and methods for studying administrative support have varied across previous studies. For instance, Wang & Hall (2019) measured administrative support as perceived school administrative values on relationships with students, job security, and autonomy. Findings 71 indicated that a perceived lack of administrative support, meaning the lack of administrative values, among teachers working in primary or secondary schools, can have negative effects on their psychological well-being (e.g., emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction) and work commitment. A different definition of administrative support was found in a study by Conley & You (2017) which examined the effects of administrative support and teacher efficacy on teachers’ intention to leave in a mediational model. To measure administrative support, secondary special education teachers were asked to rate how much administrators were supportive and encouraging, and how well administrators communicated their expectations to the teachers. Results indicated that administrative support and teacher efficacy had strong effects on teachers’ intention to leave. Only one study has examined administrative support and educator turnover with ECE educators (Russell et al., 2010); that study used a conceptualization of administrative support that was modified from the business management framework. ECE educators were asked to indicate their perception of administrators in terms of their behaviors and competencies in making effective organizational changes, obtaining resources that are necessary, ensuring a competent workforce, maintaining the structure of the organization, and taking actions to improve organizational efficiency and effectiveness. Findings revealed that ECE educators’ perception of administrative support was predictive of antecedents of turnover which highlights the importance of administrative support in preventing turnover. However, the mechanism in which administrative support predicts, moderates, or mediates educators’ intention to leave is unclear. To advance our understanding of the effects of administrative support on educator well- being among ECE educators, there must be a clear definition and conceptualization of administrative support which is applicable to the ECE settings to ensure the measurement of administrative support is valid and accurate. Furthermore, since we know that lack of 72 administrative support can be detrimental to primary and secondary school teachers’ well-being, it is imperative that we examine administrative support with I/T and preschool educators and identify the kinds of administrative supports that are provided and how these impact I/T and preschool educators’ well-being. Different Administrative Supports for I/T and Preschool Educators? Although the current literature does not provide information about whether I/T and preschool educators’ perception of administrative support might differ, anecdotes from the field, as well as comments made in the focus groups that informed this study, lead to reasonable speculation about differences. For instance, we heard from I/T educators in Study 1 that they feel like they are forgotten by their administrators which was not mentioned by preschool educators. This suggests that I/T educators might perceive less support from administrators than preschool educators. Moreover, preschool educators in Study 1 discussed receiving support for their psychological well-being from their administrators, but I/T educators did not mention this at all. Yet because there is not enough information to make specific hypotheses about, an exploratory approach would be the most appropriate method to understand whether there are differences in how I/T and preschool educators perceive administrative support. Present Study There is some evidence that I/T educators’ and preschool educators’ well-being differs in both physical and psychological domains (Kwon et al., 2020). However, not much is known about I/T educators’ well-being, and administrative support has not been investigated in terms of its impact on the well-being of either I/T or preschool educators. Moreover, working conditions should be taken into consideration in the investigation of relations between administrative supports and teacher well-being as these could be related to both the supports provided and to educators’ 73 well-being, and because administrators themselves may have some responsibility for the workplace conditions through decisions about policies, physical environment, organizational climate, and compensation and benefits. Therefore, the present study examined I/T and preschool educators’ perceptions of administrative support and its relationship to their well-being, while taking working conditions into account. Research Questions Research Question 1 (RQ1): How do perceptions of administrative supports differ between I/T educators and preschool educators? 1. Question 1.1: Do I/T and preschool educators’ perceptions of the level of administrative supports differ? 2. Question 1.2: Do I/T and preschool educators differ in the types of administrative supports they believe is most important for their well-being? Research Question 2 (RQ2): How do I/T educators’ and preschool educators’ well-being differ, and how do their perceptions of administrative supports differentially affect their well-being? 1. Question 2.1: Do I/T and preschool educators’ levels of physical, psychological, and professional well-being differ?? 2. Question 2.2: Are I/T and preschool educators’ perception of administrative supports associated with their physical, psychological, and professional well-being? 3. Question 2.3: Do I/T and preschool educators differ in the associations between perceived administrative supports and their well-being? 74 Participants Method Participants were 188 ECE educators working with either infants, toddlers, or preschoolers in early childhood programs in a Midwestern state in the United States across 44 sites. Out of 188 participants, 93 were I/T educators and 95 were preschool educators. The majority of educators were white (82.4%) and female (96%) with an average age between 31-40 years old (range = 18 to over 50 years old). Over 60% of educators were head teachers, approximately 30% were assistant teachers, and 8% were support staff and classroom assistants. Approximately a quarter of the participants had some college but no degree and 21% of educators had bachelor’s degree. Sixty percent of educators did not have a degree in early childhood education. Educators had worked in their current programs between six months to 30 years (M = 6.69, SD = 7.37) and about 47% of educators had worked between six months and three years and approximately a third of educators worked between four to 10 years. Sixty-five percent of participants worked at center-based early childhood programs. The administrative structure varied across participants, yet the most common structure included director and assistant director (28.7%). The total number of years working as ECE educators ranged from 6 months to 48 years (M = 11.53, SD = 10.29) and a little over 30% have worked as ECE educators between six months to three years, another 30% between four to 10 years, 10% between 11-15 years, 5% between 20-25, and 4% of participants worked 30 years as ECE educators. Detailed demographic information and ECE setting and structure of educators are provided in Tables 3.1 and 3.2, separated by I/T educators and preschool educators. 75 Table 3.1 Demographic Characteristics by Age Group Gender Female Male Prefer not to answer Age 18-25 26-30 31-40 41-50 Over 50 years old Prefer not to answer Race and Ethnicity American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Biracial Hispanic or Latino Prefer not to answer Highest Level of Education High school diploma or equivalent (GED) Some college but no degree Associate degree Bachelor’s degree Graduate or professional degree IT n % P n % 90 3 0 96.8 3.2 0 89 4 2 93.7 4.2 2.2 23 18 25 10 13 4 3 0 12 0 77 1 6 3 27 25 16 17 8 24.7 19.4 26.9 10.8 14.0 4.3 3.2 0 12.9 0 82.8 1.1 6.5 3.2 29.0 26.9 17.2 18.3 8.6 15 15 25 22 17 1 0 0 8 1 86 0 7 2 10 23 22 23 17 15.8 15.8 26.3 23.2 17.9 1.1 0 0 8.4 1.1 90.5 0 7.4 2.1 10.5 24.2 23.2 24.2 17.9 Degrees related to ECE a 26 28 49 51.6 Years Working with Age group Between 6 months – 3 years 4-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years Over 30 years 35.6 34.5 15.2 6.6 5.4 3.3 30 33 3 13 10 6 31.6 34.8 3.3 13.8 10.6 6.5 33 32 14 6 5 3 76 Table 3.1 (cont’d) Job position Head/lead teacher Assistant teacher Support staff Other: classroom assistant Other: infant daycare provider Experience in ECE Between 6 months – 3 years 4-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years 25-30 years Over 30 years 59 28 4 1 1 33 28 10 8 4 4 6 63.4 30.1 4.3 1.1 1.1 35.5 30.2 10.9 8.7 4.4 4.4 6.6 0 59 28 7 1 18 28 7 5 12 3 7 62.1 29.5 7.4 1.1 0 25.3 29.7 7.5 14.9 12.8 3.3 7.6 Years in Current Program 53 Between 6 months – 3 years 23 4-10 years 9 11-15 years 0 16-19 years 1 20-25 years 30 years 3 Note. N = 188 (IT = 93 and P = 95). a Reflects the number and percentage of participants answering “yes” to this question. 38 32.7 10.6 1.1 9.6 4.2 57.1 24.8 9.8 0 1.1 3.2 36 31 10 1 9 4 Table 3.2 ECE Setting and Structure ECE Setting Center-based Center-based, EHS University-based Early Head Start (EHS) Center-based, HS Head Start (HS) Center-based, EHS, HS Center-based, state-funded State-funded EHS, HS IT P n % n % 79 10 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 84.9 10.8 1.1 2.2 0 0 1.1 0 0 0 44 0 3 1 6 23 2 3 7 1 43.3 0 3.2 1.1 6.3 24.2 2.1 3.2 7.4 1.1 77 Table 3.2 (cont’d) Local district Center-based, HS, state-funded Center-based, university, HS State-funded, HS University-based, state-funded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Administrative Structure Director a Assistant Director a Associate Director a Site Supervisor a Coach a Specialist a Other a a Reflects the number and percentage of participants answering “yes” to this question. Note. Administrative structure other includes lead teacher, administrative assistant, school education manager, shift supervisor, floater, and office manager. 84.9 53.8 1.1 21.5 9.7 17.2 17.2 80.0 43.2 5.3 40.0 36.8 35.8 13.7 79 50 1 20 9 16 16 76 41 5 38 35 34 13 Procedures Community partner programs (e.g., Michigan Association for the Education of Young Children, Michigan State University Child Development Laboratories, Kent ISD, Head Start for Kent County, and Capital Area Community Services) and early childhood program directors in a U.S. Midwestern state were contacted via email to provide opportunities for ECE educators to participate in an online survey about administrative support and ECE educator well-being. Program directors and administrators shared the information about the study with their teaching staff and educators were prompted to email the researcher directly with their interest in participating in this study. Data Collection Before the survey was distributed to the participants, it was piloted with three people who had experience in early childhood settings or worked as teachers to take the survey as if they were a teacher and to provide feedback on a set of questions to evaluate the survey. Questions included the length of the survey, any challenges, difficulty in navigating the survey, items that seem unclear, 78 confusing, or excessively wordy, familiarity of the questions, and whether they felt excluded during the survey. All feedback was incorporated into the final version of the survey. When ECE educators responded to show interest in the study, they were each provided with a unique Qualtrics link which included a written description of the study and an eligibility survey. The online survey asked questions to determine eligibility before the interested individuals could proceed to the questionnaires on the survey. Educators were excluded if they worked fewer than 6 months at the current site, if they are not directly working with children, working less than 30 hours per week, or those who do not work with children younger than 5 years of age. When educators were deemed eligible to participate, they were directed to electronically sign the consent form. After they signed the consent form, ECE educators were asked to fill out questionnaires on perceived administrative support, their well-being, and their demographics, which took about 35-45 minutes to complete. Participants had at least 1 week to complete the survey and received reminder emails if they had not completed it. Each participant was compensated with a $40 gift card for their time and participation. Measures Educator Characteristics I/T and preschool educators were asked to fill out a questionnaire regarding their sex, age, race, ethnicity, the highest level of education, whether they have degrees related to ECE or a related field, age group of children they work with, total number of years working with the age group, total number of years in their current positions, the type of center they work at (e.g., center-based, university-based, Early Head Start, Head Start, etc.), and total number of years working in ECE. Educators indicated their age by selecting from the following categories: Between 18-25 years old, 26-30 years old, 31-40 years old, 41-50 years old, and over 50 years old. Age was binned this way 79 to reflect a life phase; precise age was not of interest, and collecting data this way avoided errors and streamlined data cleaning When included as a covariate, educators’ age was binned based on the frequency of the categories (-1 = educators who were 18-30 years old, 0 = 31-40 years old, and 1 = 41 and older). They also provided information on the administrative structure and roles of their program, such as administrative roles such as director, assistant director, associate director, site supervisor, coach, and other positions in their programs. Administrative Support Educators’ perceptions of the administrative support they receive was measured by a new tool with items generated from the Study 1 focus group findings. The Early Childhood Administrative Support-Educator (ECAS-E) tool consists of 46 items to assess educators’ perception of administrative support received from their administrators. Because the ECAS-E is in development as a measure of educators’ perceptions of administrative support, a set of exploratory factor analyses using data from the respondents of the current study were conducted to identify the factor structure of ECAS-E (see Appendix D for details). It resulted in four factors: 1) emotional support, 2) instrumental support, 3) well-being support, and 4) well-being resources. There were 21 items for emotional support which measure administrators respecting, trusting, acknowledging, and showing appreciation through communication and relationships. For instrumental support, 10 items assessed the kinds of necessary resources provided by administrators for educators to complete their work. With well-being support, 11 items examined what administrators do to support educators’ well-being and 4 items in well-being resources measured resources and services that are available for educators’ well-being. Both emotional support and well-being support include negative and positive items. Some items also had the option for respondents to indicate the item was not applicable as these items are more relevant for head 80 or lead teachers than assistant teachers or support staff. EFA results showed a good model fit because there were 21% nonredundant residuals with absolute values greater than 0.05 (Field, 2013). For this study, educators were asked to indicate how true each statement was based on their administrator who oversees everyday operations on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Not true, 5 = Very true). Because some programs have more than one administrator, educators were asked to answer based on the administrator who oversees everyday operations. Emotional support was measured using items such as “I feel appreciated by my administrator,” and “I can count on my administrator to hear my problems and help me come up with solutions.” Sample items for instrumental support include: “My administrator makes sure I have materials for my classroom,” “My administrator provides sufficient staffing so I can have paid office hours/planning time,” and “My administrator provides professional development and trainings for me so that I have the expertise I need for my work.” Well-being support was measured with items like “My administrator supports work-life balance by respecting teachers’ personal time and when they are taking time off,” and “My administrator makes sure that I get personal care breaks (e.g., bathroom break, breather, or mental break) when I need it.” Well-being resources was assessed by using items such as “I can access counseling or mental health services through my insurance and/or benefits package,” and “My administrator shows they care about my physical well-being by offering services, such as exercise classes, meditation, yoga, etc.” This measure resulted in composite scores of mean for each subscale, where a higher score indicates more perceived administrative support. Educators were also asked to rank the importance of nine different types of administrative support for their well-being. Sample items include: “My administrator supports my work by providing materials, space, resources, planning time, and support for handling difficult situations 81 with children and families,” and “I feel comfortable going to my administrator when I am stressed or having issues in the classroom, and to get help problem-solving.” The full list of items can be found in Table 3.13. Physical Ill-being Educators’ physical ill-being was measured in terms of their physical pain and other symptoms, and how physical pain prevents their ability to meet the physical demands of the job. Using the Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Scale (WMDS; Cheng et al., 2013), I/T and preschool educators reported on pain in nine regions (e.g., neck, lower back, knees, etc.) of the body, rating each pain symptom from no pain (0) to unbearable pain (4). They also indicated their most affected region out of the nine regions and how much the most affected region affected their work performance (0 = not affected, 4 = cannot work). A sum score of nine-items that asked about how much pain was used in the analyses and higher score indicates higher physical ill-being. This scale has evidence of reliability (α = .90), test re-test reliability above .75, content validity index of .95 (Cheng et al., 2013). For this study, the Cronbach’s alpha was .83. Psychological Well-being Psychological well-being included educators’ general mental health, perceived level of stress, burnout, and depressive symptoms. The Short Warwick-Edinburg Mental Well-being (SWEMWBS; NHS Health Scotland, 2008) was used to assess educators’ general mental health. Participants were asked to rate their experience of 7-items over the last 2 weeks from none of the time (1) to all of the time (5), yielding a sum of scores in which higher score indicates positive mental well-being. Sample items include: “I’ve been feeling optimistic about the future,” “I’ve been feeling relaxed,” “I’ve had energy to spare,” and “I’ve been dealing with problems well.” 82 This scale has evidence of test-retest reliability and construct validity in diverse populations (Shah et al., 2021). The general mental health scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .80. The Perceived Personal Stress Scale (Cohen et al., 1983) assessed educators’ perceived stress. Participants rated their stress on 9 items using a 5-point Likert scale (0 = never to 4 = very often; α = .84-.86 per Cohen, 1983). Example questions include “In the last month, how often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?”, “In the last month, how often have you felt nervous and ‘stressed’?” and “In the last month, how often have you felt that you were on top of things?” Positive items were reverse scored, and all responses were summed to create a total perceived stress score (α = .87). Educators’ burnout was measured using the Burnout subscale of Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL 5; Stamm, 2010). They were asked to indicate how frequently they experienced the 10 items in the last 30 days in their current work situation using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never to 5 = very often) (α = .75). Sample items include: “I am happy,” “I feel connected to others,” “I feel trapped by my job as an educator,” and “I feel overwhelmed because my workload seems endless.” Responses were summed to create a total burnout score (α = .79). Depressive symptoms of educators were assessed with the short version of Center for Epidemiologic Studies - Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). The 10-item scale measured how frequently these symptoms occurred with educators (α = .88) using a sum score of all items and this study produced a good internal consistency (α = .81). The sum scores of perceived stress level, burnout, and depressive symptoms were treated separately in the analyses. Professional Well-being Educators’ professional well-being was measured as their feelings about work, job satisfaction, and work commitment. The 12-item Teachers’ Emotions Scale (TES; Frenzel et al., 83 2016) measured educators’ enjoyment (α = .77), anxiety (α = .73), and anger (α = .70) while they are teaching to assess their feelings about work (Frenzel et al., 2016). Educators were asked to rate how much they agree with statements that describe a teacher’s experience on a 4-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to agree. Sample items include: “I generally enjoy teaching,” “I often have reasons to be happy while I teach,” “Sometimes I get really mad while I teach,” “I am often worried that my teaching isn’t going well.” Final score was a sum of each emotion: enjoyment (α = .85), anxiety (α = .79), and anger (α = .83). Educators’ job satisfaction and commitment were measured using the Job Satisfaction and Commitment scale (Buettner et al., 2016). There were four items to measure work commitment and two items for job satisfaction. For job satisfaction, educators were asked to rate items on a 7- point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), with higher mean scores reflecting greater satisfaction in their careers as early childhood educators and with their current positions (e.g., How satisfied are you with your career as an early childhood educator? How satisfied are you with your current position?). Items measuring work commitment were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), yielding a mean score such that higher scores reflect greater commitment. Educators indicated how strongly they disagree or agree with the following statements: “Knowing what I do now, if I could decide all over again, I would become an early childhood educator again,” “Within the next 12 months, I will continue to be an early childhood educator,” “Within the next 12 months, I will remain at my current program,” and “This job is a short-term career for me,” which was reverse scored. The final scores of enjoyment, anger, and anxiety in teaching, job satisfaction and commitment were all treated separately in the analyses. 84 Working Conditions I/T and preschool educators’ working conditions were measured in terms of their physical environment, compensation and benefits, and organizational climate. The quality of the physical environment was measured using the Environmental Preference Index (EPI; Ellis, 2013), which was modified for ECE settings. Educators indicated the presence or absence (0 = No, 1 = Yes) of 7 items related to physical comfort (adult-sized furniture, ergonomic furniture in office spaces), control (e.g., lighting, temperature), noise levels (e.g., disturbing), and privacy (e.g., space for personal belongings in the classroom, space for relaxation) in the work environment. Along with the EPI, an item was added to ask whether they get designated breaks during the workday. The final physical environment score reflects the sum of the 8 items while disturbing noise level was reverse scored, in which higher score indicates better physical environment. Educators were asked about their compensation and benefits using 11 items from the Finances section in the Teacher Satisfaction Inventory (TSI; Cassidy, 2016). Educators indicated their annual salary, hourly wage, how many holidays the centers were closed and whether they were paid for these, how many paid vacation and sick days they receive, as well as a retirement plan. These questions were answered using Yes/No (No = 0, Yes = 1) and multiple-choice. Not included in the TSI, but they were also asked whether they are provided with health insurance. The sum of the Yes/No items was used as the final score in which higher score indicates higher compensation and benefits. To assess educators’ perceptions of organizational climate, 3 items from the Early Childhood Job Attitude Survey (ECJAS; Jeon & Wells, 2018) were used to ask participants to rate on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). Items included were “I am happy working for this program,” “I feel like I am making a positive impact on the children in my 85 classroom,” and “My work environment has a pleasant atmosphere that makes me want to do outstanding.” The final scores of the physical environment (sum), compensation and benefits (sum), and organizational climate (mean) were entered separately in the analyses to account for educators’ working conditions. Data Analysis Preliminary Analyses As preliminary analyses, descriptive statistics and a series of bivariate Pearson correlations were conducted to examine frequencies, means, standard deviations, normality, and the associations between all variables using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 29). Given that there are clusters of educators from the same programs, intra-class coefficients were examined for potential non-independence of observations. Missing data was also examined and handled using the maximum likelihood method (Enders, 2010). Analysis for RQ1 To assess whether I/T educators and preschool educators differ in their perceptions of receiving each type of administrative support (emotional, instrumental, well-being, and well-being resources), t-tests were conducted to examine the mean differences by the age group of children whom educators worked with. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare the perceptions of the importance of each type of administrative support for work-related well-being between I/T and preschool educators. Analysis for RQ2 The mean differences in I/T educators’ and preschool educators’ physical, psychological, and professional well-being were examined using independent samples t-tests. A series of multilevel modeling using restricted maximum likelihood was conducted to examine the main 86 effects of all types of administrative support on educators’ well-being and the moderating effects of the age group of children educators worked with on the association between perceived administrative support and educator well-being, while controlling for educators’ demographic information and working conditions. Age group of children educators worked with was coded dichotomously as 0 = I/T, 1 = preschool; all types of administrative support were grand mean centered but kept in the natural units of their measures (see Table 3.4 for descriptive statistics of all outcomes, predictors, and controls). Random effects included variances for the group intercepts and ECE sites to adjust for variance due to difference between sites. Preliminary Analyses Results Missing data analysis, computing construct-level variables from item-level variables, descriptive analyses, and bivariate Pearson correlations were conducted as preliminary analyses. Results of descriptive analyses are presented in Tables 3.3 and 3.4 and correlations are shown in Tables 3.5-3.10. For potential dependencies based on educators’ ECE programs they worked in, ICCs were examined which can be found in Table 3.11. The null or empty model that included only a fixed effect intercept, a random intercept, and residual variance demonstrated the ICC of most well-being outcome variables as non-significant at alpha = .05, including physical ill-being, mental well-being, perceived stress, depressive symptoms, anger in teaching, and job commitment. The ICC’s were significant for four variables, including burnout, joy in teaching, anxiety in teaching, and job satisfaction. Thus, there was minimal evidence that educators in the same ECE program reported more similar well-being scores than educators from different programs. Full comparison of unadjusted and adjusted results can be seen in the Appendix E. 87 Missing Data Upon examining missing data, 1.84% of data was missing and because of such little missing data, it was assumed to be either missing completely at random or missing at random because incompleteness was due to the arbitrary pattern of missingness or participants opting not to answer negatively worded items from examination of descriptives. Moreover, if less than 5% are missing randomly, this is not considered a serious problem, and any procedure for handling missing values produces similar results (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). As such, missing values were handled by using maximum likelihood estimates (Enders, 2010). First, all analyses were conducted with the original data. Then, all missing values were replaced using the expectation maximization option in the IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 29) with a maximum of 25 iterations to rerun all analyses with predicted values. Finally, the original and missing data results were compared and although the results did not significantly differ for independent samples t-tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests, multilevel modeling with missing data results differed from the original data results. Missing data results estimated more variance in educators’ well-being explained by ECE program differences compared to the original data results. Therefore, missing data results are presented for all analyses results. Covariates Along with educators’ working conditions, educators’ demographic information was also treated as covariates because these can influence their perception of administrative support and their well-being. Demographic characteristics such as the number of years working with infants and toddlers, preschoolers, and at current ECE programs were found to be significantly correlated with one or more outcome variables. These variables were grand mean centered in the model. 88 Educators’ ages were also treated as covariates due to significantly high correlations with most of the outcome variables (-1 = 18-30 years old, 0 = 31-40 years old, 1 = 41 and older). Working Condition Covariates As presented in Table 3.3, less than 50% of the educators indicated having ergonomic furniture. About 80% of I/T educators and 45% of preschool educators reported having designated breaks. I/T educators reported mean hourly wage between $17.01-$18.00 (SD = 4.22, range = $9.01-$29.00) and preschool educators’ mean hourly wage was between $18.01-$19.00 (SD = 6.42, range = $9.01-$30.00). Less than quarter of I/T and preschool educators indicated that they do not get any paid time off, vacation, or sick days. Only 40% of I/T educators reported having retirement plan from their employer compared to 70% of preschool educators. Similarly, 58% of I/T educators were provided with health insurance from their program compared to 82% of preschool educators who indicated having health insurance. Table 3.3 Description of Working Conditions Physical Environment Adult-sized furniture a Ergonomic furniture a Lighting control a Temperature control a Disturbing noise level a Space for personal belongings a Space for relaxation a Designated breaks a Compensation and Benefits Annual salary Below $10,000 $10,001-$12,000 $12,001-$14,000 $14,001-$16,000 IT n % P n % 66 44 70 68 31 71 52 74 71.0 47.3 75.3 73.1 33.3 76.3 55.9 79.6 56 32 50 50 35 60 35 43 58.9 33.7 52.6 52.6 36.8 63.7 36.8 45.3 4 4 6 2 4.3 4.3 6.5 2.2 1.1 2.1 0.0 3.2 1 2 0 3 89 Table 3.3 (cont’d) $16,001-$18,000 $18,001-$20,000 $20,001-$22,000 $22,001-$24,000 $24,001-$26,000 $26,001-$28,000 $28,001-$30,000 $30,001-$32,000 $32,001-$34,000 $34,001-$36,000 $36,001-$38,000 $38,001-$40,000 $40,001-$42,000 $42,001-$44,000 $44,001-$46,000 $46,001-$48,000 $48,001-$50,000 $50,001 or more Hourly wage $9.01-$10.00 $12.01-$13.00 $13.01-$14.00 $14.01-$15.00 $15.01-$16.00 $16.01-$17.00 $17.01-$18.00 $18.01-$19.00 $19.01-$20.00 $20.01-$21.00 $21.01-$22.00 $22.01-$23.00 $23.01-$24.00 $24.01-$25.00 $25.01-$26.00 $26.01-$27.00 $27.01-$28.00 $28.01-$29.00 $29.01-$30.00 3 3 6 4 10 5 8 3 3 5 3 1 3 2 2 0 4 7 3 5 4 6 9 15 8 9 13 5 0 4 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 3.2 3.2 6.5 4.3 10.8 5.4 8.6 3.2 3.2 5.4 3.2 1.1 3.2 2.2 2.2 0.0 4.3 7.5 3.2 5.4 4.3 6.5 9.7 16.1 8.6 9.7 14 5.4 0.0 4.3 0.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0 3 8 6 7 7 6 9 1 4 2 3 4 5 2 2 1 7 9 8 1 3 1 2 13 8 8 4 2 4 3 5 4 6 5 5 2 2 3.2 8.4 6.3 7.4 7.4 6.3 9.5 1.1 4.2 2.1 3.2 4.2 5.3 2.1 2.1 1.1 7.4 9.5 8.5 1.1 3.2 1.1 2.1 13.8 8.5 8.5 4.3 2.1 4.3 3.2 5.3 4.3 6.4 5.3 5.3 2.1 2.1 Paid for holidays a 69 74.2 66 69.5 90 Table 3.3 (cont’d) Paid time off 0 days 1-3 days 4-6 days 7-10 days 11-15 days Paid vacation 0 days 1-3 days 4-6 days 7-10 days 11-15 days Paid sick 0 days 1-3 days 4-6 days 7-10 days 11-15 days 8 8 9 8 7 5 6 7 6 6 13 5 5 5 5 8.6 8.6 9.7 8.6 7.5 5.4 6.5 7.8 6.5 6.5 14 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 3 7 6 9 4 17 10 8 3 3 8 20 11 3 9 3.2 7.4 6.3 9.5 4.2 17.9 10.5 8.4 3.2 3.2 8.4 21.1 11.6 3.2 9.5 Retirement plan provided a 37 39.8 66 69.5 Health insurance provided a 54 Note. N = 188 (IT = 93 and P = 98). a Reflects the number and percentage of participants answering “yes” to this question. 82.1 58.1 78 91 Table 3.4 Descriptive Statistics of Continuous Variables by Age Group Variable Administrative Support Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-Being Support Well-Being Resources Physical Ill-being Psychological Well-being Mental Well-being Perceived Stress Burnout Depressive Symptoms Group M SD Min Max Range of Possible Scores Skewness Kurtosis IT P IT P IT P IT P IT P IT P IT P IT P IT P 3.62 3.27 3.43 2.91 3.52 3.30 2.48 2.64 0.69 0.87 0.81 0.94 0.42 0.51 1.17 1.07 9.25 9.57 5.09 5.72 24.30 23.70 16.40 17.16 22.92 25.18 9.74 10.58 4.47 3.87 5.83 5.09 5.86 6.18 5.18 5.66 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 8 8 2 6 10 13 1 2 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 22 34 35 33 33 32 37 42 27 30 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-36 0-36 1-35 1-35 0-36 0-36 1-50 1-50 0-30 0-30 -.95 -.46 -.15 .08 -.89 -.57 .26 .25 .74 .84 -.49 -.69 .04 .56 .07 .30 .64 .83 .47 -.89 -.37 -.82 1.68 -.14 -1.10 -.67 -.04 2.38 1.63 2.03 .12 .56 -.36 -.32 .46 .68 92 Table 3.4 (cont’d) Professional Well-being Joy in Work Anger in Work Anxiety in Work Job Satisfaction Commitment Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Years of Experience with ITs Years of Experience with Ps Years at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age IT P IT P IT P IT P IT P IT P IT P IT P IT P IT P IT P IT P 13.73 13.82 6.04 6.68 6.25 6.66 5.46 5.33 4.07 4.13 2.10 1.89 2.05 2.29 2.12 2.35 1.49 1.54 1.05 1.02 5.13 1.61 3.87 1.82 5.85 1.08 5.46 1.29 5.86 2.24 6.09 2.09 8.55 7.93 5.12 9.85 4.29 7.15 10.81 9.42 5.30 6.11 8.07 7.93 0.03 0.86 0.33 0.83 4 8 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 -1 -1 16 16 11 13 13 15 7 7 5 5 8 7 7 8 10 10 37 50 32 37 30 30 1 1 0-16 0-16 0-16 0-16 0-16 0-16 1-7 1-7 1-5 1-5 0-8 0-8 1-7 1-7 0-10 0-10 - - - - - - - - -1.13 -.46 .69 .57 .65 1.00 -1.08 -.98 -1.30 -1.48 -.53 .08 -.98 -.65 -.22 -.29 1.43 2.69 2.06 1.03 2.44 1.42 -0.06 -0.69 3.37 -.43 -.56 -.52 -.15 1.65 .98 .53 1.00 1.53 -.34 -.90 .41 -.37 -1.00 -.32 2.18 7.77 3.67 .13 6.95 1.10 -1.65 -1.20 Note. Infant/Toddler N = 93, Preschool N = 95. Educators’ age: 18-30 years old was coded as -1, 31-40 years as 0, and 41 years and older as 1. 93 Table 3.5 Administrative Support and Well-being Correlations for Infant/Toddler Educators 4 1 2 3 1. Emotional Support 2. Instrumental Support 3. Well-being Support 4. Well-being Resources 5. Physical Ill-being 6. Mental Well-being 7. Perceived Stress 8. Burnout 9. Depressive Symptoms 9.71 5.16 -.31b 13.71 2.12 10. Joy in Teaching .14 6.04 2.05 -.34b 11. Anger in Teaching 6.19 2.10 -.31b 12. Anxiety in Teaching .44b 5.46 1.49 13. Job Satisfaction 14. Job Commitment .34b 4.07 1.05 a p < .05. b p < .01; Note. N = 93. SD M .68 3.64 .70b .81 3.66 .69b 3.53 .43 .43b 2.56 1.16 -.23a .01 9.25 5.09 .23a 23.95 4.89 .32b 16.37 5.85 -.30b -.25a 22.88 5.83 -.42b -.37b -.33b -.43b -.15 -.26a .22a .13 -.30b -.22a -.20 -.41b .32b .43b .32b .34b -.19 .11 -.20 -.23a .38b .22a .60b .33b .06 .16 -.23a .37b -.06 .22a -.24a 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 -.10 .28b .25a .33b -.08 .39b .35b -.13 -.04 -.53b -.50b -.53b .26a -.45b -.44b .25a .24a .72b .73b .75b -.23a -.49b -.41b .46b .50b .56b .64b .57b .47b -.34b -.60b -.38b -.56b -.27b -.26a -.30 b -.45 b .34 a .39 b .67b -.34b -.36b -.28b -.40b .65b 94 Table 3.6 Administrative Support and Well-being Correlations for Preschool Educators 2 1 4 3 .72b .31b -.18 .35b 1. Emotional Support 2. Instrumental Support 3. Well-being Support 4. Well-being Resources 5. Physical Ill-being 6. Mental Well-being 7. Perceived Stress 8. Burnout -.45b 9. Depressive Symptoms 10.46 5.77 -.35b .34b 13.82 1.89 10. Joy in Teaching .24a 6.68 2.29 -.29b 11. Anger in Teaching -.38b 6.66 2.36 -.33b -.28b -.35b 12. Anxiety in Teaching .45b .48b 5.33 1.54 13. Job Satisfaction 14. Job Commitment .34b .29b 4.13 1.03 a p < .05. b p < .01; Note. N = 95. M SD .86 3.29 .79b 3.09 1.00 .71b 3.30 .51 .41b 2.67 1.06 .31b -.15 -.22a 9.54 5.72 -.25a .40b 23.42 4.34 .47b .43b 17.12 5.09 -.31b -.29b -.47b -.23a 24.82 6.66 -.54b -.46b -.54b -.27b -.19 .10 -.22a -.24a .24a .28b -.25a .20 -.25a .42b .27a 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 -.31b .41b .39b .53a -.14 .21a .36b -.28b -.11 -.60b -.57b -.65b .30b -.37b -.42b .49b .35b .60b .70b .66b -.28b -.57b -.36b .40b .39b .48b .41b .46b .51b -.52b -.63b -.53b -.47b -.60b -.45b -.54b -.38b .43b .51b .65b -.39b -.41b -.36b -.31b .71b 95 Table 3.7 Correlations between Control Variables and Administrative Support for Infant/Toddler Educators SD M .68 3.64 1. Emotional Support .81 3.66 2. Instrumental Support 3.53 .43 3. Well-being Support 2.56 1.16 4. Well-being Resources 5.13 1.61 5. Physical Environment 5.85 1.08 6. Organizational Climate 7. Compensation and Benefits 5.86 2.24 8. Years of Experience with ITs 8.55 7.93 4.29 7.15 9. Years of Experience with Ps 5.30 6.11 10. Years at Current ECE Site 11. Educators’ Age 0.03 0.86 a p < .05. b p < .01; Note. N = 93. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .63b .68b .40b .33b .66b .20 .07 .07 .24a .04 .51b .34b .35b .35b .33b .41b 61b .29b .08 .05 .11 -.04 -.04 .29b .16 .10 .06 .48b .25a .36b .24a .31b .42b .03 -.03 .16 .03 -.13 .18 .28b .16 .07 .24a -.08 -.00 .14 -.05 .16 .17 .50b .54b .58b .21a .39b .41b 96 Table 3.8 Correlations between Control Variables and Administrative Support for Preschool Educators 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M SD .86 3.29 3.09 1.00 3.30 .51 2.67 1.06 3.87 1.82 5.46 1.29 6.09 2.09 1. Emotional Support 2. Instrumental Support 3. Well-being Support 4. Well-being Resources 5. Physical Environment .23a 6. Organizational Climate 7. Compensation and Benefits .17 8. Years of Experience with ITs 5.12 9.85 -.16 -.12 -.14 -.11 -.03 -.14 9. Years of Experience with Ps .04 10. Years at Current ECE Site 11. Educators’ Age -.03 a p < .05. b p < .01; Note. N = 95. -.02 -.02 .03 10.81 9.42 8.07 7.93 -.01 -.05 .04 0.33 0.83 -.06 -.04 -.12 .80b .71b .32b .40b .65b .16 .73b .35b .49b .59b .19 .40b .38b .66b .20 .18 .35b .25a .18 .13 .26a .09 -.10 -.04 .11 .09 .11 .07 .04 .07 .13 .36b .30b .60b .62b .55b 97 Table 3.9 Correlations between Control Variables and Well-being for Infant/Toddler Educators 3 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 2 10 16 15 14 13 12 11 M SD 9.25 5.09 1. PIB .00 2. MWB 23.95 4.89 16.37 5.85 3. PSS .28b 22.88 5.83 26a 4. BO 9.71 5.16 33b 5. DS -.08 13.71 2.12 6. JOY .39b 6.04 2.05 7. ANG .35b 6.19 2.10 8. ANX -.13 5.46 1.49 9. JS 4.07 1.05 10. JC -.04 5.13 1.61 -.21a 11. PE -.17 5.85 1.08 12. OC -.09 5.86 2.24 13. CB -.16 8.55 7.93 14. IT .00 4.29 7.15 15. P -.14 5.30 6.11 16. ECE 17. Age -.18 0.03 0.86 a p < .05. b p < .01; Note. N = 93. PIB = physical ill-being, MWB = mental well-being, PSS = perceived stress, BO = burnout, DS = depressive symptoms, JOY = joy in teaching, ANG = anger in teaching, ANX = anxiety in teaching, JS = job satisfaction, JC = job commitment, PE = physical environment, OC = organizational climate, CB = compensation and benefits, IT = years of experience with infants and toddlers, P = years of experience with preschoolers, ECE = years at current site, Age = educators’ age. .71b .75b .73b -.49b -.41b -.23a .57b .52b .45b .64b .58b .47b -.34b -.59b -.37b -.57b -.28b -.26a -.19 -.07 -.22a -.45b -.64b -.56b -.08 -.20 -.12 -.13 -.22a -.17 -.10 -.24a -.19 -.11 -.12 -.12 -.26a -.33b -.33b .71b -.34b -.35b -.28b -.43b -.13 -.21a -.46b -.48b -.14 .01 -.08 -.13 .03 -.10 -.09 -.17 -.25a -.24a -.66b -.61b -.59b .37b -.43b -.41b .32b .31b .16 .50b .11 -.01 .09 -.05 .24a .25a .24a .31b .03 -.03 .03 -.13 .02 .10 -.08 -.00 -.28b -.46b .35b .37b .04 .38b .14 .07 -.05 -.05 .20 .65b .26a .51b .34b .19 .17 .11 .14 .10 .48b .37b .24a .16 .09 .13 .14 -.05 .17 .17 .50b .54b .58b .20 .39b .42b 98 Table 3.10 Correlations between Control Variables and Well-being for Preschool Educators M SD 9.54 5.72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. PIB 2. MWB 23.42 4.34 -.45b .41b 3. PSS 17.12 5.09 .44b 4. BO 24.82 6.66 .52b 5. DS 10.46 5.77 -.14 6. JOY 13.82 1.89 .20a 7. ANG 6.68 2.29 .36b 8. ANX 6.66 2.36 5.33 1.54 -.28b 9. JS 4.13 1.03 10. JC -.11 3.87 1.82 -.27b 11. PE 5.46 1.29 -.32b 12. OC 6.09 2.09 -.23a 13. CB .17 5.12 9.85 14. IT .06 10.81 9.42 15. P .12 8.07 7.93 16. ECE 17. Age .04 0.33 0.83 a p < .05. b p < .01; Note. N = 95. PIB = physical ill-being, MWB = mental well-being, PSS = perceived stress, BO = burnout, DS = depressive symptoms, JOY = joy in teaching, ANG = anger in teaching, ANX = anxiety in teaching, JS = job satisfaction, JC = job commitment, PE = physical environment, OC = organizational climate, CB = compensation and benefits, IT = years of experience with infants and toddlers, P = years of experience with preschoolers, ECE = years at current site, Age = educators’ age. .67b .76b .72b -.29b -.59b -.38b .40b .59b .40b .44b .54b .50b -.51b -.65b -.53b -.46b -.61b -.45b -.24a -.31b -.24a -.42b -.67b -.55b -.25a -.22a -.25a .11 .07 -.09 -.21a -.06 -.19 -.04 -.05 -.07 -.27b -.17 -.24a .65b -.39b -.41b -.36b -.32b -.02 -.15 -.49b -.45b .01 -.03 .04 -.01 -.16 -.14 -.07 -.01 -.16 -.16 .23a .23a .43b .17 .09 .33b -.03 -.10 .10 .09 -.14 .07 .11 .24a .14 .07 .23a -.03 -.75b -.75b -.75b .38b -.49b -.52b .61b .44b .29b .61b .27b -.00 .16 .09 .26a -.54b -.38b .43b .51b .09 .48b .10 -.02 -.08 -.07 -.11 .71b .23a .60b .09 .03 .09 .25a .26a -.04 .11 .14 .04 .13 .35b .30b .59b .62b .56b 99 Table 3.11 Examination of Independence of Observations Physical Ill-being Mental Well-being Perceived Stress Burnout Depressive Symptoms Joy in Teaching Anger in Teaching Anxiety in Teaching Job Satisfaction Job Commitment Note. N = 188. p ICC .215 .089 .425 .048 .542 .036 .<001 <.001 .056 .375 .<001 <.001 .321 .065 .<001 <.001 .<001 <.001 .467 .033 RQ1: How Does the Perception of Administrative Support Differ Between I/T and Preschool Educators? RQ 1.1: Differences in Perceptions of Administrative Support Between I/T and Preschool Educators Independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare the mean differences in the perception of administrative support (emotional, instrumental, well-being, well-being resources) between I/T and preschool educators as demonstrated below in Table 3.12. Generally, I/T educators reported higher means for emotional, instrumental, and well-being support compared to preschool educators whereas preschool educators reported higher means for well-being resources than I/T educators. With the Bonferroni correction, the results of the t-tests indicated that the difference of means in emotional support, instrumental support, and well-being support between I/T and preschool educators were significant. 100 Table 3.12 t-test Results Comparing Educators’ Perception of Administrative Support by Age Group of Children Logistic Parameter SD .87 Emotional Support .94 Instrumental Support Well-Being Support .51 Well-Being Resources 2.48 1.17 2.64 1.07 Note. Infant/Toddler N = 93, Preschool N = 95. P SD M .69 3.27 .81 2.91 .42 3.30 I/T M 3.62 3.43 3.52 t(186) p Cohen’s d .002 3.08 4.11 <.001 .001 3.29 .332 -0.97 0.45 0.60 0.48 -0.14 RQ 1.2: Differences between I/T and Preschool Educators’ Reports of Important Administrative Support for Well-being Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to compare the I/T and preschool educators’ perception of the most important types of administrative support for their work-related well-being. As presented in Table 3.13, two items were found to have significant difference between I/T and preschool educators. One of the items was “My administrator creates a positive organizational climate in the program,” U = 5172, r = .56, p < .05. Many preschool educators ranked this item to be less important for their well-being compared to I/T educators. This was found to be non- significant after the Bonferroni correction. Another significant item was “I have coaches or specialists (e.g., family advocates, mental health specialists, early intervention specialists) whom I can go to for help in working with children and families,” U = 3148, r = .35, p < .001; as seen in Figure 3.1, many I/T educators ranked this item to be less important for their well-being compared to preschool educators. This result was still significant after the Bonferroni correction. 101 Table 3.13 Mann-Whitney U test Results Comparing Infant/Toddler and Preschool Educators’ Perception of Importance of Administrative Support on their Well-being Administrative Support 1. My administrator supports my work by providing materials, space, resources, planning time, and support for handling difficult situations with children and families. 2. My administrator shows respect, trust, and concern toward me through open communication, expressing appreciation, and interest in my work and recommendations. 3. My administrator creates a positive organizational climate in the program. 4. My administrator is interested in knowing me as a human being with a personal life. 5. I feel comfortable going to my administrator when I am stressed or having issues in the classroom, and to get help problem-solving. 6. My administrator shows they care about my well-being by offering services, such as exercise classes, meditation, yoga, etc., and/or mental health day(s). 7. My administrator makes sure that I get designated breaks, including lunch, and personal care breaks (e.g., bathroom break, breather, or mental break) when I need it. 8. I have coaches or specialists (e.g., family advocates, mental health specialists, early intervention specialists) whom I can go to for help in working with children and families. 9. My administrator supports work-life balance by respecting my person time (e.g., not expecting me to finish my work at home, supportive of my time-off requests). Group IT P N Mean Rank 93 95 95.25 93.76 U 4347.50 p .85 IT P IT P IT P IT P IT P IT P IT P IT P 93 95 93 95 93 95 93 95 93 95 93 95 93 95 93 95 96.53 92.51 86.39 102.44 90.88 98.05 88.48 100.39 91.68 97.26 90.68 98.24 108.15 81.14 98.99 90.10 4228.50 .60 5171.50 .04 4754.50 .36 4977.00 .13 4679.50 .47 4773.00 .34 3148.00 <.001 3999.50 .26 102 Figure 3.1 Significant Difference in Importance of Administrative Support by Age Group of Children Note. * indicates p = <.001 103 RQ2: How Do I/T and Preschool Educators’ Well-being Differ, and How Do their Perceptions of Administrative Supports Differentially Affect their Well-being? Similar to RQ1, independent samples t-tests were utilized to investigate the mean differences in physical, psychological, and professional well-being between I/T and preschool educators. Then, a series of multilevel models were conducted to examine the associations between educators’ well-being and types of administrative support, and to test whether the effects of administrative supports are moderated by the age group of children educators work with. RQ 2.1: I/T and Preschool Educators’ Differences in Well-being To compare the mean differences in well-being between I/T educators and preschool educators, t-tests were conducted, and results are shown in Table 3.14. The results indicated the mean differences in burnout and anger in teaching were significant between I/T and preschool educators but non-significant at the p < .05 level after correcting with the Bonferroni test. Table 3.14 t-test Results Comparing Infant/Toddler and Preschool Educators’ Well-being Logistic Parameter Physical Ill-being Psychological Well-being Mental Well-being Perceived Stress Burnout Depressive Symptoms P SD M I/T M 9.25 5.09 9.57 5.72 -0.42 t186 SD 4.47 3.87 24.30 0.99 23.70 16.40 5.83 17.16 5.09 -0.96 22.92 5.86 25.18 6.18 -2.57 9.74 5.18 10.58 5.67 -1.06 Professional Well-being Joy in Teaching Anger in Teaching Anxiety in Teaching Job Satisfaction Job Commitment Note. Infant/Toddler N = 93, Preschool N = 95. 13.73 -0.30 13.82 6.04 2.05 6.68 2.29 -2.02 6.25 2.12 6.66 2.35 -1.28 5.46 1.49 5.33 1.54 0.59 4.07 1.05 4.13 1.02 -0.39 1.89 2.10 104 p Cohen’s d .679 -0.06 .324 .341 .011 .290 .764 .045 .203 .556 .700 0.14 -0.14 -0.37 -0.16 -0.04 -0.30 -0.19 0.09 -0.06 RQ 2.2: Administrative Support and Educators’ Well-being Results for the primary analysis which included the fixed effects for administrative support (grand mean centered), age group of children educators worked with (0 = I/T, 1 = preschool), and their interactions, while controlling for demographic information and working conditions are presented in Tables 3.15-3.24. In addition, the significant intercept variances suggest the variance of the intercept across educators is significantly different from zero. The significant slopes for ECE sites indicate that the associations between administrative supports and physical ill-being and anxiety in teaching varied across sites after accounting for the fixed effects, but not significant for other aspects of well-being. Table 3.15 Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Predicting Physical Ill-being Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a Well-being Resources x Age Group a Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Years of Experience with ITs Years of Experience with Ps Years at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age 9.27 -0.97 2.23 0.44 -0.55 0.82 -1.15 -0.76 0.72 0.00 -0.47 -1.02 -0.03 0.04 0.08 0.04 -1.18 0.74 <.001 .534 1.56 .034 1.04 .840 2.15 .416 0.67 .463 1.11 .542 1.88 .631 1.57 .805 2.90 .999 0.90 0.30 0.54 0.21 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.71 .113 .061 .884 .531 .223 .592 .099 9.85 -1.83 1.82 0.77 -0.38 0.45 <.001 .058 0.95 .020 0.77 .593 1.44 .428 0.48 -0.55 -1.08 -0.02 0.04 0.08 0.06 -1.28 0.28 0.52 0.21 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.69 .048 .041 .931 .518 .202 .381 .068 105 Table 3.15 (cont’d) Random Effects Intercept 24.64 3.28 <.001 0.00 <.001 0.07 ECE sites a 0 = infant/toddler teachers, 1= preschool teachers. Emotional support, instrumental support, well-being support, well-being resources were grand-mean centered. <.001 25.33 0.00 .963 3.42 1.53 Table 3.16 Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Predicting Mental Well-being Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a Well-being Resources x Age Group a Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Years of Experience with ITs Years of Experience with Ps Years at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age 23.79 1.28 0.47 -0.25 -0.08 0.30 <.001 .047 0.64 .368 0.52 .799 0.96 .799 0.32 0.10 0.95 0.11 -0.01 0.04 -0.10 1.59 .606 0.19 .008 0.35 .432 0.14 .788 0.04 .351 0.04 .046 0.05 0.47 <.001 24.26 1.97 0.62 -3.25 -0.07 -0.63 -1.11 -0.26 5.40 -0.10 0.04 0.80 0.15 -0.03 0.03 -0.05 1.72 0.50 <.001 .056 1.02 .371 0.69 .022 1.40 .872 0.44 .385 0.72 .368 1.23 .800 1.03 .005 1.89 .862 0.59 .835 0.19 .025 0.35 .305 0.14 .474 0.04 .548 0.04 .325 0.05 0.46 <.001 Random Effects 11.15 Intercept ECE sites 0.00 a 0 = infant/toddler educators, 1= preschool educators. Emotional support, instrumental support, well-being support, well-being resources were grand-mean centered. 1.42 <.001 0.00 <.001 1.50 <.001 0.80 0.66 10.43 0.35 106 Table 3.17 Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Predicting Perceived Stress Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a Well-being Resources x Age Group a Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Years of Experience with ITs Years of Experience with Ps Years at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age 17.10 0.04 -0.40 -1.91 0.19 0.44 <.001 .962 0.89 .581 0.73 .156 1.34 .684 0.45 -0.34 -0.73 -0.14 -0.02 -0.06 0.08 -1.81 0.26 0.49 0.20 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.64 .195 .136 .488 .768 .269 .254 .005 16.41 -0.70 -0.41 1.81 -0.04 0.91 1.21 0.19 -6.79 0.49 -0.25 -0.53 -0.16 0.01 -0.05 0.02 -1.98 0.70 <.001 .619 1.41 .671 0.96 .351 1.94 .952 0.62 .370 1.01 .479 1.70 .893 1.42 .010 2.61 .552 0.82 0.27 0.49 0.20 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.64 .352 .276 .410 .884 .439 .824 .003 Random Effects Intercept 20.26 1.10 ECE sites a 0 = infant/toddler educators, 1= preschool educators. Emotional support, instrumental support, well-being support, well-being resources were grand-mean centered. 2.89 <.001 .509 1.67 2.83 <.001 .439 1.68 19.48 1.30 107 Table 3.18 Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Predicting Burnout Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a Well-being Resources x Age Group a Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Years of Experience with ITs Years of Experience with Ps Years at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age 24.29 -1.04 -0.42 -0.08 0.58 0.40 <.001 .201 0.81 .523 0.66 .946 1.22 .162 0.41 -0.58 -2.68 -0.14 -0.02 -0.02 0.15 -2.57 0.24 .015 0.44 <.001 .443 0.18 .607 0.05 .729 0.05 0.06 .015 0.58 <.001 22.87 -0.83 -0.09 2.51 -0.55 1.91 -0.09 -0.62 -5.22 2.31 -0.36 -2.48 -0.16 0.02 -0.01 0.06 -2.64 0.64 <.001 .507 1.24 .916 0.85 .141 1.69 .314 0.55 .033 0.89 .950 1.49 .622 1.25 .023 2.27 .002 0.73 0.24 .127 0.43 <.001 .361 0.17 .653 0.05 .864 0.05 0.06 .313 0.56 <.001 Random Effects Intercept 16.83 0.87 ECE sites a 0 = infant/toddler educators, 1= preschool educators. Emotional support, instrumental support, well-being support, well-being resources were grand-mean centered. 2.58 <.001 .634 1.82 2.28 <.001 .329 1.98 14.32 1.94 108 Table 3.19 Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Depressive Symptoms Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a Well-being Resources x Age Group a Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Years of Experience with ITs Years of Experience with Ps Years at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age 10.54 -1.12 0.38 -1.08 1.07 0.44 <.001 .178 0.83 .580 0.68 .387 1.24 .013 0.43 -0.14 -2.00 -0.18 0.06 -0.03 0.05 -2.42 0.24 .575 0.45 <.001 .335 0.18 .253 0.05 .612 0.05 0.06 .412 0.59 <.001 9.45 -1.80 0.84 1.56 0.62 1.65 1.22 -0.81 -4.62 0.81 0.03 -1.77 -0.19 0.09 -0.02 -0.01 -2.48 0.67 <.001 .170 1.30 .352 0.89 .380 1.77 .289 0.58 .079 0.93 .436 1.56 .539 1.31 .055 2.39 .294 0.76 0.25 .909 0.45 <.001 .296 0.18 .085 0.05 .687 0.05 0.07 .823 0.59 <.001 Random Effects Intercept 16.38 2.10 ECE sites a 0 = infant/toddler educators, 1= preschool educators. Emotional support, instrumental support, well-being support, well-being resources were grand-mean centered. 2.39 <.001 .229 1.75 2.33 <.001 .182 1.77 15.68 2.36 109 Table 3.20 Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Predicting Joy in Teaching Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a Well-being Resources x Age Group a Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Years of Experience with ITs Years of Experience with Ps Years at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age 13.65 -0.26 0.22 0.09 -0.38 0.17 <.001 .466 0.35 .452 0.28 .873 0.53 .037 0.18 -0.12 0.65 0.09 -0.01 -0.03 0.00 0.47 0.10 0.19 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.26 .226 .001 .232 .757 .161 .893 .071 13.37 -0.39 0.38 -0.24 -0.22 0.64 0.19 -0.30 0.85 -0.43 -0.10 0.70 0.08 0.00 -0.04 0.00 0.52 0.27 <.001 .492 0.57 .317 0.38 .764 0.78 .371 0.25 .112 0.40 .786 0.68 .598 0.57 .420 1.05 .191 0.33 0.11 .348 0.20 <.001 .301 0.08 .972 0.02 .072 0.02 .991 0.03 .048 0.26 Random Effects Intercept 3.325 0.041 ECE sites a 0 = infant/toddler educators, 1= preschool educators. Emotional support, instrumental support, well-being support, well-being resources were grand-mean centered. 0.471 <.001 .861 0.237 0.47 <.001 .888 0.22 3.31 0.03 110 Table 3.21 Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Predicting Anger in Teaching Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a Well-being Resources x Age Group a Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Years of Experience with ITs Years of Experience with Ps Years at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age 6.48 -0.27 0.11 -0.77 -0.01 0.18 <.001 .469 0.37 .718 0.30 .166 0.56 .969 0.19 0.05 -0.69 0.14 -0.01 0.00 0.04 -0.71 0.11 .630 0.20 <.001 .097 0.08 .675 0.02 .998 0.02 .114 0.03 .009 0.27 6.31 -1.13 0.30 0.07 -0.07 0.32 1.29 -0.32 -1.53 0.21 0.09 -0.62 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 -0.77 0.30 <.001 .062 0.60 .465 0.41 .934 0.82 .781 0.26 .458 0.43 .076 0.72 .597 0.60 .169 1.10 .542 0.35 0.11 0.21 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.27 .420 .003 .117 .912 .998 .326 .006 Random Effects Intercept 3.62 0.07 ECE sites a 0 = infant/toddler educators, 1= preschool educators. Emotional support, instrumental support, well-being support, well-being resources were grand-mean centered. 0.51 <.001 .795 0.25 0.51 <.001 .445 0.32 3.48 0.24 111 Table 3.22 Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Predicting Anxiety in Teaching Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a Well-being Resources x Age Group a Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Years of Experience with ITs Years of Experience with Ps Years at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age 6.59 -0.38 0.08 -0.75 0.10 0.18 <.001 .318 0.38 .788 0.30 .188 0.57 .584 0.19 -0.06 -0.47 0.15 0.02 0.01 0.02 -0.99 .588 0.11 .024 0.21 .073 0.08 .342 0.02 .599 0.02 0.03 .527 0.27 <.001 6.62 -0.49 0.01 -0.42 0.19 -0.04 0.13 0.17 -0.59 -0.15 -0.07 -0.46 0.15 0.02 0.01 0.02 -1.01 0.30 <.001 .430 0.62 .986 0.41 .627 0.86 .475 0.27 .924 0.44 .859 0.75 .788 0.63 .614 1.16 .671 0.36 .535 0.12 .034 0.22 .092 0.09 .390 0.02 .588 0.03 0.03 .579 0.28 <.001 Random Effects Intercept 3.875 0.00 ECE sites a 0 = infant/toddler educators, 1= preschool educators. Emotional support, instrumental support, well-being support, well-being resources were grand-mean centered. 0.492 <.001 0.00 <.001 0.52 <.001 0.00 <.001 4.02 0.00 112 Table 3.23 Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Predicting Job Satisfaction Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a Well-being Resources x Age Group a Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Years of Experience with ITs Years of Experience with Ps Years at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age 5.36 0.15 0.19 0.30 -0.15 0.11 <.001 .498 0.22 .304 0.18 .372 0.33 .186 0.11 0.10 0.46 0.04 -0.01 0.00 0.02 0.44 0.06 .129 0.12 <.001 .408 0.05 .713 0.01 .865 0.01 .313 0.02 .006 0.16 5.26 0.38 0.16 -0.17 -0.11 0.27 -0.37 0.08 0.93 -0.15 0.10 0.46 0.03 0.00 -0.01 0.02 0.49 0.18 <.001 .291 0.36 .503 0.24 .724 0.49 .483 0.16 .288 0.25 .387 0.43 .821 0.36 .157 0.65 .474 0.21 0.07 .127 0.12 <.001 .507 0.05 .765 0.01 .726 0.02 .259 0.02 .003 0.16 Random Effects Intercept 1.21 0.09 ECE sites a 0 = infant/toddler educators, 1= preschool educators. Emotional support, instrumental support, well-being support, well-being resources were grand-mean centered. 0.18 <.001 .441 0.12 0.18 <.001 .384 0.13 1.21 0.11 113 Table 3.24 Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Predicting Job Commitment Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a Well-being Resources x Age Group a Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Years of Experience with ITs Years of Experience with Ps Years at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age 4.12 -0.03 0.10 0.06 -0.11 0.09 <.001 .839 0.17 .471 0.14 .800 0.25 .221 0.09 0.03 0.29 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.23 .541 0.05 0.09 .002 0.04 <.001 .357 0.01 .943 0.01 .483 0.01 .063 0.12 4.02 0.18 0.05 -0.42 -0.08 0.27 -0.36 0.14 0.88 -0.09 0.04 0.28 0.12 0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.26 0.13 <.001 .499 0.27 .784 0.18 .263 0.37 .516 0.12 .159 0.19 .264 0.32 .601 0.27 .082 0.50 .561 0.16 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 .496 .003 .002 .304 .456 .370 .036 Random Effects Intercept 0.72 0.05 ECE sites a 0 = infant/toddler educators, 1= preschool educators. Emotional support, instrumental support, well-being support, well-being resources were grand-mean centered. 0.11 <.001 .519 0.07 0.11 <.001 .636 0.06 0.73 0.03 For the main effects of administrative support, emotional support was statistically significant in predicting educators’ mental well-being, b = 1.28, t124 = 2.00, p = .047. Educators’ higher perceived emotional support was associated with more positive mental well-being regardless of the age group of children they worked with (Figure 3.2). Instrumental support predicted educators’ physical ill-being, b = 1.82, t96 = 2.37, p = .02; higher perceived instrumental support was associated with higher physical ill-being for both I/T and preschool educators (Figure 3.3). Well-being support did not have any significant main effect of predicting educators’ well- 114 being. Greater well-being resources was associated with higher depressive symptoms (b = 1.07, t110 = 2.52, p = .013; see Figure 3.4) and lower joy in teaching (b = -0.38, t99 = -2.11, p = .037; see Figure 3.5). Figure 3.2 Main Effect of Emotional Support on Educators’ Mental Well-being Emotional Support g n i e b - l l e W l a t n e M 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 Figure 3.3 Low Support Avg Support High Support Main Effect of Instrumental Support on Educators’ Physical Ill-being Instrumental Support g n i e b - l l I l a c i s y h P 21 19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 Low Support Avg Support High Support 115 Figure 3.4 Main Effect of Well-being Resources on Educators’ Depressive Symptoms Well-being Resources s m o t p m y S e v i s s e r p e D 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Figure 3.5 Low Support Avg Support High Support Main Effect of Well-being Resources on Educators’ Joy in Teaching Well-being Resources g n i h c a e T n i y o J 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 Low Support Avg Support High Support 116 RQ 2.3: I/T and Preschool Educators’ Differences in Perceived Administrative Supports and their Well-being When moderating effects were examined, the effect of emotional support and instrumental support on each aspect of well-being did not differ by the age group of children whom educators worked with. The effect of well-being support on mental well-being (b = 5.40, t118 = 2.86, p = .005), perceived stress (b = -6.79, t118 = -2.60, p =.01), and burnout (b = -5.22, t113 = -2.30, p = .023) differed depending on whether educators worked with infants and toddlers or preschoolers. Given the significant interactions, simple slopes analyses were conducted to examine the effects of well- being support and well-being resources on psychological well-being separately for I/T and preschool educators. First, for I/T educators, there was a significant negative association between well-being support and mental well-being, b = -3.25, t119 = -2.32, p = .022. In contrast, for preschool educators, the effect of well-being support on mental well-being went in the opposite direction but was not statistically significant, b = 2.16, t117 = 1.67, p = .098. Thus, as shown in Figure 3.6, mental well- being of I/T educators was high when well-being support was low, and for preschool educators, mental well-being was high with high well-being support. 117 Figure 3.6 Simple Slopes for the Interaction between Age Group of Children and Well-being Support on Mental Well-being Well-being Support g n i e b - l l e W l a t n e M 33 30 27 24 21 18 15 Low Support Avg Support High Support IT P Second, for I/T educators, the effect of well-being support on perceived stress was not statistically significant, b = 1.81, t118 = 0.94, p = 351. On the other hand, for preschool educators, there was a significant negative association between well-being support and the level of perceived stress, b = -4.97, t118 = -2.77, p = .007. As demonstrated in Figure 3.7, the level of perceived stress was lower for I/T educators with low well-being support from administrators whereas for preschool educators, the stress level was lower when well-being support was high. 118 Figure 3.7 Simple Slopes for the Interaction between Age Group of Children and Well-being Support on Perceived Stress Well-being Support s s e r t S d e v i e c r e P 28 24 20 16 12 8 4 Low Support Avg Support High Support IT P Third, there was no association between well-being resources and burnout for I/T educators, b = -0.55, t111 = -1.01, p = .314. On the contrary, for preschool educators, there was a significant positive association between well-being resources and burnout, b = 1.76, t108 = 3.20, p = .002. These results can be seen in Figure 3.8 in which burnout in I/T educators was relatively low and independent of well-being resources and for preschool educators, when well-being resources was low, the level of burnout was low, similar to I/T educators’ level of burnout. However, when well- being resources was high, the level of burnout was quite high for preschool educators. Finally, although there was a significant moderating effect of age group of children on well-being support and burnout, the simple slopes analysis revealed that there was little association between well- being support and burnout for both I/T (b = 2.51, t114 = 1.48, p = .141) and preschool educators (b = -2.71, t119 = -1.72, p = .088). 119 Figure 3.8 Simple Slopes for the Interaction between Age Group of Children and Well-being Resources on Burnout Well-being Resources t u o n r u B 35 31 27 23 19 15 11 Low Support Avg Support High Support IT P Exploratory Analyses Additional exploratory analyses were conducted to develop a fuller understanding of the ways that administrative supports are associated with educators’ well-being, and how both administrative supports and well-being are related to more systemic working conditions, given that working conditions were significantly associated with both educators’ well-being and many administrator supports. To examine the main effects of administrative supports on ECE educators’ well-being, model 1 only included the types of administrative supports while controlling for educators’ demographic information and then model 2 investigated changes in the results when working conditions, including physical environment, organizational climate, and compensation and benefits were added to the model. Additionally, to explore the moderating effects of administrative supports on educators’ well-being depending on the age group of children they worked with, age group of children (0 = I/T; 1 = Preschool) and the interaction terms were in model 1 and then in model 2, working conditions were added. 120 In these exploratory models, various types of administrative support predicted educators’ well-being when working conditions were not included as covariates. A few examples of the exploratory analyses can be found in Appendix F which predicted educators’ physical ill-being and depressive symptoms. For instance, emotional support was a significant main predictor of educators’ physical ill-being and depressive symptoms, but this association was no longer statistically significant when working conditions were added to the model. Additionally, there was a significant moderating effect of well-being support on their depressive symptoms based on the age group of children whom educators worked, which was not statistically significant once working conditions were added. Although some administrative supports were still significant after accounting for working conditions, many of the associations between administrative supports and educators’ well-being were no longer significant after accounting for working conditions, suggested the importance of working conditions in a full understanding of the relationships between administrative supports and educator well-being, especially for organizational climate. Discussion ECE educators’ well-being is critical to providing high-quality care and education for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers yet not much is known about how workplace factors such as administrative support are associated with educators’ well-being. This study developed and tested a new set of 46 items, the Early Childhood Administrative Support-Educator (ECAS-E), from qualitative study findings with ECE administrators and educators to measure administrative support in ECE with the following four domains: emotional support, instrumental support, well- being support, and well-being resources. Using this tool, I/T and preschool educators’ perceptions of administrative support were measured and addressed whether these perceptions differed depending on the age group of children educators worked with, which may influence their 121 perception of administrative support given the different job demands. I/T and preschool educators also ranked the most important types of administrative supports for their well-being. Moreover, the current study tested whether there were any differences in I/T and preschool educators’ well- being. Then, educators’ physical ill-being, psychological well-being, and professional well-being were examined in relation to the types of administrative support and the age group of children whom educators worked with, while controlling for educators’ demographic information and working conditions. Perception of administrative support differed between I/T and preschool educators as I/T educators reported more emotional, instrumental, and well-being support compared to preschool educators. When educators were asked to rank the most important to least important types of administrative support for their well-being, most I/T educators ranked having coaches and specialists as the least important type of support for their well-being. Results from examining administrative support and well-being revealed that emotional support was positively associated with educators’ mental well-being, instrumental support had a positive association with physical ill-being, and well-being resources was positively associated with depressive symptoms and negatively associated with educators’ joy in teaching. There were significant moderating effects such that I/T educators who perceived more well-being support reported poorer mental well-being, preschool educators who perceived more well-being support reported less stress, and preschool educators who perceived more well-being resources from their administrators reported higher level of burnout. Perception of Administrative Support This study contributes to our understanding of administrative supports in ECE by identifying different types of administrative support; these are aligned with two of the four types 122 of administrative support behaviors found by House (1981) with teachers: emotional support and instrumental support. The other two types identified by House (1981) were informational support and appraisal support (ongoing feedback) which did not appear in the current study, which was based on findings from Study 1; instead, well-being support and well-being resources emerged from the focus group findings in Study 1 and exploratory factor analysis in the current study. Using these four different types of administrative support allowed for observing the differences in perceived administrative support for I/T and preschool educators. I/T educators reported more emotional support, instrumental support, and well-being support compared to preschool educators. One reason for these findings could be that the I/T educators in this sample were generally younger and had less experience both in their current programs and in the field of ECE compared to preschool educators. The differences in their age and years of experience might influence educators’ expectations for administrative supports. For instance, the younger I/T educators might have lower expectations for administrative supports because they have had limited interactions with administrators, whereas the generally older preschool educators with greater experience might have higher expectations for administrative support from their extensive interactions with previous administrators. For educators’ ranking of important administrative support for their well-being, I/T educators ranked having coaches and specialists was less important compared to preschool educators. Because I/T educators work with fewer children and might experience fewer challenging behaviors from children than preschool educators, while also experiencing a greater level of demand to help children achieve more academically oriented learning outcomes, I/T educators might not consider having coaches and specialists as important for their professional well-being compared to preschool educators. This could also explain why I/T educators perceived 123 less well-being resources than preschool educators because administrators providing coaches and specialists is one of the items for well-being resources. For this reason, the scale of well-being resources could be used as a conversation starter between administrators and educators about what is important to them and what would help them most with their well-being while considering the different age groups of children whom educators work with. ECE Educators’ Well-being There were no significant group differences in educators’ well-being, however, the mean levels of stress, burnout, and depressive symptoms were a little higher for preschool educators compared to I/T educators which is consistent with Kwon et al.’s (2020) work in which preschool educators in their study reported higher depressive symptoms and perceived level of stress compared to I/T educators. Additionally, approximately 25% of preschool educators in this study indicated that they work at Head Start and a previous study (Farewell et al., 2022) found that Head Start preschool educators reported higher levels of depression and stress compared to the national ECE workforce which suggest that the types of ECE setting might affect preschool educators’ psychological well-being. Administrative Support and ECE Educators’ Well-being When educators’ well-being was examined in relation to their perceptions of administrative support, emotional support had a positive association with educators’ mental well-being regardless of the age group of children whom they work. This is consistent with findings from the National Survey of Early Care and Education (Madill et al., 2018) that showed that educators who felt respected experienced less psychological distress. Moreover, well-being support was negatively associated with preschool educators’ perceived stress. That is, educators who perceived more emotional support from their administrators reported more positive mental well-being, and 124 preschool educators who perceived more well-being support reported lower level of stress. On the other hand, there were some rather counterintuitive findings which can be explained by the potential impact of working conditions and unwanted support. Well-being resources had a positive association with educators’ depressive symptoms. Yet from the exploratory analysis without the working conditions, emotional support and well-being support were found to have negative associations with educators’ depressive symptoms and well- being resources was not significant. This could indicate that the types of administrative support that are important for well-being change when working conditions are accounted for. Additionally, I/T educators who perceived more well-being support reported less positive mental well-being which was no longer significant during the post-hoc analysis without the working conditions. In fact, preschool educators who perceived higher well-being support reported more positive mental well-being in the post-hoc analysis. Similarly, although past studies in ECE and other teaching workforces found administrative support to be a significant predictor of educators’ intention to leave and job satisfaction (e.g., Russell et al., 2010; Wang & Hall, 2019; Conley & You, 2017; Cancio et al, 2013), the current study did not find any of the four different types of administrative support to be a significant predictor of educators’ job commitment and job satisfaction while controlling for working conditions. However, in the post-hoc analyses without the working conditions, emotional support and well-being support were found to be significant in predicting educators’ job satisfaction. Given the post-hoc analyses results, further investigation is needed to understand the mechanism of administrative support and working conditions on educators’ well-being as their perception of working conditions are associated with preschool educators’ psychological well- being such as depression, perceived stress, and emotional exhaustion (Jeon et al., 2018) as well as 125 educators’ intentions to move or leave the field (Grant et al., 2019). It may be that working conditions influence both administrative supports and educators’ well-being, and that administrative supports may occasionally act as a buffer, or a way of exacerbating the effects of working conditions on educator well-being. Even after the post-hoc analyses, there were results that remained surprising such as the positive association between instrumental support and educators’ physical ill-being, well-being resources and negative association with joy in teaching, as well as positive association between well-being resources and preschool educators’ burnout. Although post-hoc analysis revealed that well-being support had a significant negative association with preschool educators’ burnout and emotional support was negatively associated with both I/T and preschool educators, the positive association between well-being resources and preschool educators’ burnout remained significant. One potential explanation of these results is whether these types of administrative support were needed or wanted by the educators, or conversely whether they were forced upon them, or experienced as micromanaging. Previous studies (e.g., Gray et al., 2020; Hughes et al., 2022) examined unwanted workplace social support which is explained as actions from supervisors or colleagues that the receiver believes are meant to be beneficial but are nonetheless experienced as unhelpful. Gray et al. (2020) found that, among employees from diverse work settings, unwanted social support in a work setting, whether it be from a supervisor or a colleague, was associated with greater negative emotions related to workplace, increased work-related burnout, and more physical symptoms such as headaches, nausea, and fatigue. This could explain the fact that instrumental support was positively associated with ECE educators experiencing more physical pain in which they might perceive the instrumental support as unwanted support. Further, preschool educators might 126 perceive well-being resources as unwanted support and experience higher levels of burnout in line with Gray et al.’s (2020) findings. Alternatively, these findings could suggest that administrators in the current sample are providing differentiated administrative support for ECE educators, and that they are actually providing these supports responsively to those educators who need them most. Due to the cross-sectional nature of these data, we cannot determine whether the supports are causing lower well-being, or are in response to lower well-being. Much like the individualization of support for children, educators may need individualized support for their work and well-being based on the types of support they need and want from their administrators. Ultimately, this will be beneficial for both administrators and educators as administrators can put time and efforts into the types of administrative support that matter for educators’ work and well- being rather than on less wanted and needed types of administrative support. Limitations This study can make significant contributions to understanding administrative support in ECE and how the perception of administrative support is associated with I/T and preschool educators’ well-being, yet several limitations should be noted. First, the Early Childhood Administrative Support-Educator (ECAS-E) is a new measure which has not been widely tested for reliability and validity. Because of the cross-sectional nature of the data, results can only be interpreted as associations and cannot establish causation between administrative supports and ECE educators’ well-being. Also, missing data imputation was conducted with SPSS which does not account for the nested data structures and thus, imputed values may not accurately reflect the well-being scores from educators in the same ECE sites. Moreover, educators who participated in the current study were all from a Midwestern state in the United States which makes it difficult to generalize the study’s findings due to differences in ECE-related policies. Second, because most 127 educators in the current study were white, the study sample does not represent the national demographics of ECE educators who consider themselves as racial and ethnic minority individuals (Whitebook et al., 2018). In a recent study, Burkhardt et al. (2024) found that Hispanic educators reported lower levels of stress level compared to white educators and Hispanic and Asian educators reported lower depressive symptoms than white educators. This suggests that the differences in their well-being could be differentially associated with administrative supports for educators of color. Third, this study only examined group differences in I/T and preschool educators’ perception of administrative support they received and the importance of administrative support for their well- being, rather than looking at the examining the importance of supports at an individual level, and how these might moderate the effects of different types of support on well-being. This method makes it difficult to understand whether the administrative supports educators receive are indeed what they consider as important which can impact their well-being. Last, in taking the holistic approach to examine well-being, working conditions were treated as covariates, but they were found to be powerful and significant in predicting educators’ well-being, especially educators’ perception of organizational climate, and when included in the model, some types of administrative supports were no longer not significant. Further study is needed to develop a fuller understanding and holistic model of the associations between administrative support and working conditions and their individual and combined effects on educators’ well-being. Implications and Future Directions Contributions to the Literature Findings from this study inform the field of educators’ perception of administrative support and how the four types of administrative support (emotional, instrumental, well-being support, and well-being resources) are associated with educators’ well-being, and differ for the age group of 128 children whom educators work with. With the Early Childhood Administrative Support-Educator (ECAS-E) tool, the current study contributes to the literature by providing a way to measure administrative support in ECE. This tool can be used for future research to gain more knowledge and broader understanding of the role of administrative support on ECE educators’ well-being in various states across the U.S. Implications for Policy and Practice Administrative support and the well-being of I/T and preschool educators have implications for retaining and sustaining the ECE workforce. Findings from this study inform what we know about the well-being of I/T and preschool educators, the types of administrative support that affect ECE educator well-being, and whether these types vary by age group of children with whom educators work. With this knowledge, ECE administrators can provide emotional support to promote educators’ mental well-being and well-being support for preschool educators’ perceived stress. Moreover, I/T and preschool educators can use the findings from this study to talk to their administrators to advocate for their needs and priorities for administrative support. ECAS-E can be used as an internal measure or as a starting point for conversations between administrators and educators about the kinds of supports that administrators should provide for educators which can also be individualized based on their needs. The actions that administrators and educators take will contribute to the support and retention of the ECE workforce which impacts ECE educators and administrators, and the children and families who depend on this workforce. Lastly, key findings from this study can be used to inform recommended practices and standards for administrative support to advocate the need for state and federal implementation in supporting educators and their well-being. For instance, the specific types of administrative supports and different associations on I/T and preschool educators could be added to the Head Start and Early 129 Head Start Memorandum, Supporting the Wellness of All Staff in the Head Start Workforce (2021), to communicate the importance of administrative support on educators’ well-being. Additionally, this study’s findings could also be incorporated into administrators’ leadership professional development and training programs to emphasize the critical role administrators play in supporting educators’ well-being, and retaining and sustaining the ECE workforce. Future Directions for Research Because this study was conducted with only educators, future studies with ECE administrators should create an administrator version of Early Childhood Administrative Support to measure the supports that administrators provide for their educators and their well-being. Using the Early Childhood Administrative Support with both administrators and educators will allow an examination of alignment and differences in support that administrators say they provide for educators and educators’ perception of administrative support they receive. This will also have implications for practice in which administrators and educators will be able to assess existing administrative support and identify areas in which there needs more support for educators. Moreover, future studies should consider asking educators about the administrative support they receive from their administrators and whether these are important for work-related well-being. This information will help with understanding the impact of administrative support on well-being as individuals may have different preferences in how much and what kind of support they need, and some support may be unwanted which can contribute to poor well-being. Finally, the importance of working conditions on educators’ well-being needs further examination by asking administrators about their decision-making processes for specific working conditions and investigating the moderating and mediating effects to gain a more clarifying mechanism of administrative support and working conditions on educators’ well-being. 130 REFERENCES Burkhardt, T., Huang, L. A., Oltmans, C., & Kakuyama-Villaber, R. (2024). ECE workforce well-being and racial and ethnic concordance. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. Buettner, C. K., Jeon, L., Hur, E., & Garcia, R. E. (2016). Teachers’ social–emotional capacity: Factors associated with teachers’ responsiveness and professional commitment. Early Education and Development, 27(7), 1018–1039. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1168227 Cancio, E. J., Albrecht, S. F., & Johns, B. H. (2013). Defining administrative support and its relationship to the attrition of teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 36(4), 71–94. Cassidy, D. (2016). Teacher Satisfaction Inventory (TSI). Unpublished manuscript. Cassidy, D. J., King, E. K., Wang, Y. C., Lower, J. K., & Kintner-Duffy, V. L. (2016). Teacher work environments are toddler learning environments: Teacher professional well-being, classroom emotional support, and toddlers’ emotional expressions and behaviours. Early Child Development and Care, 187(11), 1666–1678. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1180516 Cheng, H. K., Wong, M., Cheng, C., & Ju, Y. (2013). Work-related musculoskeletal disorders and ergonomic risk factors in early intervention educators. Applied Ergonomics, 44(1), 134–141. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404 Conley, S., & You, S. (2017). Key influences on special education teachers’ intentions to leave: The effects of administrative support and teacher team efficacy in a mediational model. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(3), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215608859 Cumming, T., & Wong, S. (2019). Towards a holistic conceptualisation of early childhood educators’ work-related well-being. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 20(3), 265– 281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949118772573 Dennis, S. E., & O’Connor, E. (2013). Reexamining quality in early childhood education: Exploring the relationship between the organizational climate and the classroom. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 27(1), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2012.739589 Ellis, N. D. (2013). Environmental preferences index (EPI): Improving the person-environment congruence for an office setting. https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/43053 131 Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. The Guilford Press. Evans, G. D., Bryant, N. E., Owens, J. S., & Koukos, K. (2004). Ethnic differences in burnout, coping, and intervention acceptability among childcare professionals. Child and Youth Care Forum, 33(5), 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CCAR.0000043040.54270.dd Farewell, C. V., Quinlan, J., Melnick, E., Powers, J., & Puma, J. (2022). Job demands and resources experienced by the early childhood education workforce serving high-need populations. Early childhood education journal, 50(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01143-4 Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. (4th ed.). Sage. Fox, H. B., Tuckwiller, E. D., Kutscher, E. L., & Walter, H. L. (2020). What makes teachers well? A mixed methods study of special education teacher well-being. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 9(2), 223–248. https://doi.org/10.32674/jise.v9i2.2170 Grant, A. A., Jeon, L., & Buettner, C. K. (2019). Relating early childhood teachers’ working conditions and well-being to their turnover intentions. Educational Psychology, 39(3), 294–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1543856 Gray, C. E., Spector, P. E., Lacey, K. N., Young, B. G., Jacobsen, S. T., & Taylor, M. R. (2020). Helping may be harming: Unintended negative consequences of providing social support. Work and Stress, 34(4), 359–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2019.1695294 Hewett, B. S., & La Paro, K. M. (2020). Organizational climate: Collegiality and supervisor support in early childhood education programs. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48(4), 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-01003-w House, J. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley. Hughes, I. M., Freier, L. M., & Barratt, C. L. (2022). “Your help isn’t helping me!” Unhelpful workplace social support, strain, and the role of individual differences. Occupational Health Science, 6(3), 387–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-022-00115-x Institute of Medicine and National Research Council [IOM & NRC]. (2015). Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation. The National Academies. Jennings, P. A. (2015). Early childhood teachers’ well-being, mindfulness, and self-compassion in relation to classroom quality and attitudes towards challenging students. Mindfulness, 6(4), 732–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-014-0312-4 132 Jennings, P. A. (2019). Comprehensive systems of support: Where do we go from here? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 61, 56–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2019.02.005 Jeon, L., Hur, E., & Buettner, C. K. (2016). Child-care chaos and teachers’ responsiveness: The indirect associations through teachers’ emotion regulation and coping. Journal of School Psychology, 59, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.09.006 Jeon, L., Buettner, C. K., & Grant, A. A. (2018). Early childhood teachers’ psychological well- being: Exploring potential predictors of depression, stress, and emotional exhaustion. Early Education & Development, 29(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1341806 Jeon, L., & Wells, M. B. (2018). An organizational-level analysis of early childhood teachers’ job attitudes: Workplace satisfaction affects Early Head Start and Head Start teacher turnover. Child & Youth Care Forum, 47(4), 563–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566- 018-9444-3 Jorde-Bloom, P. (1988). Closing the gap: An analysis of teacher and administrator perceptions of organizational climate in the early childhood setting. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(88)90012-1 King, E. K., Johnson, A. V., Cassidy, D. J., Wang, Y. C., Lower, J. K., & Kintner-Duffy, V. L. (2016). Preschool teachers’ financial well-being and work time supports: Associations with children’s emotional expressions and behaviors in classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44(6), 545–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015-0744-z Kwon, K.-A., Ford, T. G., Salvatore, A. L., Randall, K., Jeon, L., Malek-Lasater, A., Ellis, N., Kile, M. S., Horm, D. M., Kim, S. G., & Han, M. (2020). Neglected elements of a high- quality early childhood workforce: Whole teacher well-being and working conditions. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50, 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020- 01124-7 Madill, R., Halle, T., Gebhart, T., & Shuey, E. (2018). Supporting the psychological wellbeing of the early care and education workforce: Findings from the National Survey of Early Care and Education. OPRE Report #2018-49. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. McLean, C., Austin, L.J.E., Whitebook, M., & Olson, K.L. (2021). Early Childhood Workforce Index – 2020. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from https://cscce.berkeley.edu/workforce-index- 2020/report-pdf/ National Survey of Early Care and Education. (2015). Measuring predictors of quality in early care and education settings in the National Survey of Early Care and Education. The 133 Administration for Children and Families. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/report/measuring-predictors-quality-early-care-and- education-settings-national-survey-early NHS Health Scotland. (2008). Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS). University of Warwick and University of Edinburgh. Office of Head Start (2021, September 27). Supporting the Wellness of All Staff in the Head Start Workforce. Head Start Early Childhood Learning & Knowledge Center. https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/im/acf-im-hs-21-05 Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. doi:10.1177/014662167700100306 Roberts, A. M., Gallagher, K. C., Daro, A. M., Iruka, I. U., & Sarver, S. L. (2019). Workforce well-being: Personal and workplace contributions to early educators’ depression across settings. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 61, 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.09.007 Russell, E. M., Williams, S. W., & Gleason-Gomez, C. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of administrative support and antecedents of turnover. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24(3), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2010.487397 Shah, N., Cader, M., Andrews, B., McCabe, R., & Stewart-Brown, S. L. (2021). Short Warwick- Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS): Performance in a clinical sample in relation to PHQ-9 and GAD-7. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 19(1), 260. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01882-x Stamm, B. H. (2010). The Concise ProQOL Manual. Pocatello, ID: ProQOL.org. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Veziroglu-Celik, M., & Yildiz, T. G. (2018). Organizational climate in early childhood education. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(12), 88. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i12.3698 Wang, H., & Hall, N. C. (2019). When “I care” is not enough: An interactional analysis of teacher values, value congruence, and well-being. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102906 Whitebook, M., McLean, C., Austin, L.J.E., & Edwards, B. (2018). Early Childhood Workforce Index – 2018. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from http://cscce.berkeley.edu/topic/early-childhood- workforce-index/2018/ 134 CHAPTER 4: INTEGRATED DISCUSSION Introduction The well-being of educators in early childhood education (ECE) is receiving more attention than ever before since the onset of COVID-19 as the pandemic exacerbated educators’ ill-being (Stanford Center on Early Childhood, n.d.) and shortage in staffing is a national crisis (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2024). Research on ECE workforce well-being focused on identifying educators’ stressors (e.g., Baumgartner et al., 2009; Faulkner et al., 2016; Roberts et al., 2019; Berlin et al., 2020), assessing educators’ well-being (e.g., Cassidy et al., 2016, King et al., 2016; Jeon et al., 2018; Kwon et al., 2020), investigating how they cope with work- related stress (e.g., Baumgartner et al., 2009; Carson et al., 2017), and examining the effect of intervention to promote educator well-being (e.g., Brophy-Herb et al., 2022; Hatton-Bowers et al., 2023). Yet there is limited research on how systems in place, such as administrative support, can impact educators’ well-being. Although there is some literature on administrative support and educators’ intention to leave, job satisfaction, and psychological ill-being, this was mostly from elementary and secondary education teachers (e.g., Cancio et al., 2013; Fox et al., 2020; Wang & Hall, 2019; Conley & You, 2017). There was one study (Russell et al., 2010) which examined administrative support with ECE educators and their intention to leave by using an adapted framework from the business management model. However, given that the field of ECE is unique, the conceptualization of administrative support should be derived from the voices of ECE administrators and educators. Moreover, the age group of children whom educators worked with must be considered in examining the perception of administrative support and their well-being because educators’ job demands differ when they work with infants and toddlers or preschoolers. 135 Therefore, this dissertation examined administrative support in the field of ECE and how the perception of administrative support affects I/T and preschool educators’ well-being. The two studies defined and conceptualized administrative supports by elevating the voices of ECE administrators and educators and utilized the findings to develop items to measure administrative supports in terms of emotional support, instrumental support, well-being support, and well-being resources then examined the associations between I/T and preschool educators’ perception of administrative supports and their physical, psychological, and professional well-being. ECE Educator Well-being Conceptual Model In my conceptual model of ECE educator well-being (Figure 1.2 in Chapter One), administrative support was the outer layer encompassing working conditions and educators’ physical, psychological, and professional well-being. This model articulated that ECE educators’ physical, psychological, and professional well-being, which overlap because all aspects of well- being are interrelated, can be impacted by working conditions and administrative support and that administrative support contributes to the working conditions of the programs which are foundations for educators’ well-being. However, a refined conceptual model of ECE educator well-being (Figure 4.1) is proposed to incorporate the findings from the two studies which now include the specific types of administrative supports, the associations of administrative supports on ECE educators’ well-being, components of working conditions, and social well-being. Because administrative supports and working conditions are associated with educators’ well-being, these components were purposefully placed as the outer layers of all aspects of well-being. The working conditions component is the most outer layer because these were significant predictors of educators’ well- being, and the main effects of administrative support were no longer significant when working 136 conditions were added. Then, administrative supports encompass all aspects of educators’ well- being to portray the associations of specific types of administrative supports on ECE educators’ well-being with solid arrows, I/T educators’ well-being with a dotted arrow, and preschool educators’ well-being with dashed arrows. To show the direction of associations, plus signs were used to show positive associations and minus signs for negative associations above the arrows. Finally, social well-being was added to the model to display the importance of workplace relationships on ECE educators’ well-being. Figure 4.1 Refined Early Childhood Educator Well-being Framework 137 Components of Working Conditions Although working conditions such as physical environment, organizational climate, and compensation and benefits were examined as covariates in Study 2, these were found to be significantly associated with administrative supports and powerful predictors of educators’ well- being. This was also evident in Study 1 as poor working conditions were found to be stressors for I/T and preschool educators which was mentioned by both administrators and educators. Administrators talked about high job demands and lack of compensation and benefits which was also shared by educators that they have so much paperwork to complete, do not get paid enough, and cannot get paid overtime to get their work done, causing educators to experience psychological ill-being which aligns with a previous finding about the work environment and its negative association with educators’ perceived stress and burnout (Jeon et al., 2018). When administrators and educators were asked about the reasons other educators leave the field, they mentioned the lack of compensation and benefits and inflexible working hours which is related to working conditions predicting educators’ intention to leave (Grant et al., 2021). Even though educators’ job demands were not examined in Study 2, there were numerous mentions of job demands as stressors in Study 1 and Roberts et al., (2019) found that high job demands were associated with educators’ depressive symptoms. Further, it would be important to consider working conditions by the age group of children with whom educators work because I/T educators have fewer children than preschool educators but might have longer hours in the classroom with children compared to preschool educators due to program structure which was mentioned in Study 1. Perhaps because I/T educators have longer work hours, I/T educators from Kwon et al.’s (2020) study reported more designated breaks than preschool educators. The same study found that fewer I/T educators indicated having health insurance compared to preschool 138 educators. Given these relations between working conditions, administrative supports, educators’ well-being, and differences in I/T and preschool educators, working conditions were placed as the most outer layer to portray the mutual influence between working conditions and administrative support and included components of the physical environment, organizational climate, compensation and benefits, job demands, and age-group specific conditions. Associations of Specific Types of Administrative Supports on Educators’ Well-being The two studies from this dissertation revealed that there are four different types of administrative supports: 1) emotional support, 2) instrumental support, 3) well-being support, and 4) well-being resources which have a direct impact on I/T and preschool educators’ physical, psychological, and professional well-being. Emotional support is administrators respecting, trusting, acknowledging and showing appreciation through communication and having relationships with educators. Instrumental support is providing necessary resources for educators to complete their work. Administrators providing support for educators’ well-being is considered as well-being support and well-being resources refer to specific services or resources available for educators’ well-being. From Study 1, anecdotes were shared by administrators and educators about how insufficient staffing, which is considered instrumental support, makes educators feel stressed out (psychological ill-being) and get sick (physical ill-being). Educators also mentioned that feeling micromanaged and undervalued (emotional support) by their administrators makes them feel like the administrators do not trust educators to do their jobs (professional ill-being). Additionally, the four types of administrative supports were significant predictors of ECE educators’ well-being in Study 2. Educators who perceived higher emotional support from their administrators reported more positive mental well-being and preschool educators’ higher perception of well-being support 139 was associated with lower levels of perceived stress. In contrast, higher perception of instrumental support was associated with worse physical pain, and preschool educators who perceived more well-being resources reported higher burnout. Furthermore, more well-being support was negatively associated with ECE educators’ depressive symptoms and joy in teaching as well as I/T educators’ mental well-being. Hence, for the conceptual model, the component of administrative support should be enhanced by adding the four specific types of administrative supports. As found in Study 1, ECE administrators discussed work-life balance for educators’ well- being, which is considered as providing well-being support for educators. Administrators indicated that they support their educators to have a good work-life balance by respecting their personal time and making sure that educators do not feel guilty about taking time off for themselves. Moreover, administrators shared that stressors from educators’ personal lives also impact their well-being, and the evidence from current literature about the spillover effect of work and personal life where one affects the other in educators’ well-being (Simone, 2014; Cassidy et al., 2016) point to the importance of considering work-life balance to conceptualize the well-being of ECE educators. Workplace Relationships as Social Well-being Equally important to reflect on is the discussion in Study 1 among administrators about having relationships with their educators in terms of providing emotional support and I/T and preschool educators about how their well-being is impacted by co-teacher relationships. Administrators expressed that they connect with their educators individually and establish relationships to know when educators are stressed out and need support. Educators shared that having good relationships with their co-teachers is crucial for their job satisfaction because they spend the bulk of their working hours together in a classroom and it would be difficult to work with someone who they do not get along with. One of the educators shared that they even 140 considered leaving the job because of stressful co-worker relationships. In fact, previous studies found that positive relationships with colleagues predicted educators’ job satisfaction (McMullen et al., 2020) and job commitment (Kwon et al., 2021) as well as a positive association with lower stress levels (Cumming, 2017). Collectively, the findings from this dissertation informed the refinement of the Early Childhood Educator Well-being framework to include various components of working conditions, specific types of and the associations of administrative supports on I/T and preschool educators’ well-being as well as social well-being. Both administrative supports (emotional support, instrumental support, well-being support, well-being resources) and working conditions (job demands, physical environment, organizational climate, compensations and benefits, and age- group specific conditions) impact I/T and preschool educators’ physical, psychological, professional, and social well-being. Thus, the refined model of Early Childhood Educator Well- being provides a framework to comprehensively examine ECE educators’ well-being while considering external factors and systems in place such as working conditions and administrative support. Contribution to Existing Literature This dissertation adds to the ECE workforce well-being literature by, first, introducing a definition of ECE administrative support, along with the development of the Early Childhood Administrative Support-Educator tool which provides ways to conceptualize and measure four types of administrative supports: emotional support, instrumental support, well-being support, and well-being resources. Second, findings from the two studies highlight the importance of and show some specific relationships between types of administrative support for I/T and preschool educators’ physical, psychological, and professional well-being, which is the first in the current 141 literature. Third, although this was not the primary research question that was explored, administrative supports were associated with working conditions and working conditions were significant in predicting educators’ well-being. Moreover, the importance of co-teacher relationships to educators’ well-being was elevated from Study 1 as part of social well-being in the refined model. Additionally, Study 1 captured how I/T educators feel like they are forgotten by their administrators and left behind in communication and professional development trainings which is commonly shared among I/T educators in the field and has not been prominently documented in research. Lastly, the refined Early Childhood Educator Well-being framework contributes to examining ECE educators’ well-being more holistically as it includes specific types of administrative supports which have not been studied before these two studies. Limitations Even with many contributions, this dissertation has several limitations to consider. First, the Early Childhood Administrative Support-Educator (ECAS-E) tool needs further validation and it only measures educators’ perception of administrative supports and does not ask whether they want these supports for their work and well-being which are important to measure given that some supports might be unwanted and can be detrimental to educators’ well-being (Gray et al., 2020; Hughes et al., 2022). Similarly, ECAS-E is only applicable to educators and cannot be used with administrators to assess the degree to which they provide emotional support, instrumental support, well-being support, and well-being resources for their educators which can be beneficial to identify areas of alignment and differences in educators’ and administrators’ perception of administrative support. Second, this dissertation did not take the multiple levels of administration in ECE programs into account which resulted in not measuring administrative supports from all levels when examining the interplay between supports from various levels of administration can provide 142 valuable insights into the impact of educators’ well-being. Finally, working conditions were not measured as to whether these were provided by or decided by administrators, thus, making it difficult to understand the mechanism of working conditions and administrative support on educators’ well-being. Future Directions for Research The findings from this dissertation provide many outlets to continue the much-needed research in administrative supports and workforce well-being in ECE. This dissertation can be replicated in other parts of the U.S. with diverse ECE educators and administrators to get a full picture of how administrative supports and working conditions impact ECE educators’ well-being throughout the nation. Also, it would be necessary to explore the perception of administrative supports in relation to whether educators want or need these administrative supports because there were findings that indicated higher administrative support predicted lower well-being. The relations between administrative support and working conditions need further examination to understand how these two aspects work together or separately to promote educators’ well-being. It will be valuable to consider various program and administrative structures to investigate how these different systems cohesively support or negatively affect educators’ well-being, given that educators from Study 1 focus group indicated that they feel supported by their immediate supervisors but feel undervalued by higher-up administrators. Last, administrative supports should be studied to assess how these affect educators’ social well-being, especially the co-teacher relationships because a common practice in ECE is to switch the teaching team periodically which can influence how educators build and maintain positive relationships with their co-teachers. 143 Implications for Practice and Policy Overall, findings from these two studies provide several implications for practice and policy. The refined Early Childhood Educator Well-being framework can be used by administrators and educators to have conversations about the current state of each component of the framework and identify areas of strengths and improvements. Even more so, ECAS-E will be a useful tool to incorporate into ECE programs where educators can fill out their responses to share with their administrators about what kinds of supports they want or need for their work and well- being. Likewise, administrators can ask their educators to complete ECAS-E, perhaps anonymously to account for power imbalances, to gauge how much and what kind of supports educators perceive as helpful and compare the results to what administrators believe they provide for their educators. This will ultimately reduce administrators’ efforts in providing supports that are not needed or unwanted by educators because providing unwanted support can negatively affect educators’ well-being. Further, administrators already have many other equally important responsibilities to oversee the ECE programs in providing high-quality care and education for young children and families. Thus, utilizing this tool can help administrators to distribute their time and efforts more effectively. The practice of assessing existing administrative supports and communication between administrators and educators can be placed as a policy in ECE programs to be completed quarterly or twice a year because the types of supports administrators can provide and what educators need can change over time. Similarly, the conceptual framework of ECE well- being and ECAS-E can be used to advocate the need for state-level implementation of educator well-being and even on a federal level with findings from future studies across the states in the U.S. 144 REFERENCES Baumgartner, J. J., Carson, R. L., Apavaloaie, L., & Tsouloupas, C. (2009). Uncovering common stressful factors and coping strategies among childcare providers. Child & Youth Care Forum, 38(5), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-009-9079-5 Berlin, L. J., Shdaimah, C. S., Goodman, A., & Slopen, N. (2020). “I’m literally drowning”: A mixed-methods exploration of infant-toddler child care providers’ wellbeing. Early Education and Development, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1766915 Brophy-Herb, H. E., Stacks, A. M., Frosch, C., Brincks, A. M., Cook, J. L., Vallotton, C. D., Perkins, H. A., Kim, L. E., Carson, R., Muzik, M., Rosenblum, K., & Jennings, P. A. (2022). The effects of a relationship-focused professional development intervention on infant and toddler teachers’ mindfulness-based strategies for coping. Early Childhood Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01416-0 Cancio, E. J., Albrecht, S. F., & Johns, B. H. (2013). Defining administrative support and its relationship to the attrition of teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 36(4), 71–94. Carson, R. L., Baumgartner, J. J., Ota, C. L., Kuhn, A. P., & Durr, A. (2017). An ecological momentary assessment of burnout, rejuvenation strategies, job satisfaction, and quitting intentions in childcare teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(6), 801–808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0831-9 Cassidy, D. J., King, E. K., Wang, Y. C., Lower, J. K., & Kintner-Duffy, V. L. (2016). Teacher work environments are toddler learning environments: Teacher professional well-being, classroom emotional support, and toddlers’ emotional expressions and behaviours. Early Child Development and Care, 187(11), 1666–1678. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1180516 Conley, S., & You, S. (2017). Key influences on special education teachers’ intentions to leave: The effects of administrative support and teacher team efficacy in a mediational model. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(3), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215608859 Cumming, T. (2017). Early childhood educators’ well-being: An updated review of the literature. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(5), 583–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643- 016-0818-6 Faulkner, M., Gerstenblatt, P., Lee, A., Vallejo, V., & Travis, D. (2016). Childcare providers: Work stress and personal well-being. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 14(3), 280– 293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X14552871 Fox, H. B., Tuckwiller, E. D., Kutscher, E. L., & Walter, H. L. (2020). What makes teachers well? A mixed methods study of special education teacher well-being. Journal of 145 Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 9(2), 223–248. https://doi.org/10.32674/jise.v9i2.2170 Grant, A. A., Jeon, L., & Buettner, C. K. (2019). Relating early childhood teachers’ working conditions and well-being to their turnover intentions. Educational Psychology, 39(3), 294–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1543856 Gray, C. E., Spector, P. E., Lacey, K. N., Young, B. G., Jacobsen, S. T., & Taylor, M. R. (2020). Helping may be harming: Unintended negative consequences of providing social support. Work and Stress, 34(4), 359–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2019.1695294 Hatton-Bowers, H., Clark, C., Parra, G., Calvi, J., Bird, M. Y., Avari, P., Foged, J., & Smith, J. (2023). Promising findings that the Cultivating Healthy Intentional Mindful Educators’ program (CHIME) strengthens early childhood teachers’ emotional resources: An iterative study. Early Childhood Education Journal, 51(7), 1291–1304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01386-3 Hughes, I. M., Freier, L. M., & Barratt, C. L. (2022). “Your help isn’t helping me!” Unhelpful workplace social support, strain, and the role of individual differences. Occupational Health Science, 6(3), 387–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-022-00115-x Jeon, L., Buettner, C. K., & Grant, A. A. (2018). Early childhood teachers’ psychological well- being: Exploring potential predictors of depression, stress, and emotional exhaustion. Early Education & Development, 29(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1341806 King, E. K., Johnson, A. V., Cassidy, D. J., Wang, Y. C., Lower, J. K., & Kintner-Duffy, V. L. (2016). Preschool teachers’ financial well-being and work time supports: Associations with children’s emotional expressions and behaviors in classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44(6), 545–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015-0744-z Kwon, K.-A., Ford, T. G., Jeon, L., Malek-Lasater, A., Ellis, N., Randall, K., Kile, M., & Salvatore, A. L. (2021). Testing a holistic conceptual framework for early childhood teacher well-being. Journal of School Psychology, 86, 178–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.03.006 Kwon, K.-A., Ford, T. G., Salvatore, A. L., Randall, K., Jeon, L., Malek-Lasater, A., Ellis, N., Kile, M. S., Horm, D. M., Kim, S. G., & Han, M. (2020). Neglected elements of a high- quality early childhood workforce: Whole teacher well-being and working conditions. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50, 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020- 01124-7 McMullen, M. B., Lee, M. S. C., McCormick, K. I., & Choi, J. (2020). Early childhood professional well-being as a predictor of the risk of turnover in child care: A matter of quality. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 34(3), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2019.1705446 146 National Association for the Education of Young Children (2024, February). “We are NOT OK”: Early childhood educators and families face rising challenges as relief funds expire. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/our- work/public-policy-advocacy/feb_2024_brief_wearenotok_final_1.pdf Roberts, A. M., Gallagher, K. C., Daro, A. M., Iruka, I. U., & Sarver, S. L. (2019). Workforce well-being: Personal and workplace contributions to early educators’ depression across settings. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 61, 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.09.007 Russell, E. M., Williams, S. W., & Gleason-Gomez, C. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of administrative support and antecedents of turnover. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24(3), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2010.487397 Simone, S. D. (2014). Conceptualizing wellbeing in the workplace. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(12), 118–122. Stanford Center on Early Childhood. (n.d.). Child care providers experience high levels of anxiety and depression. RAPID Survey. https://rapidsurveyproject.com/our- research/child-care-providers-experience-high-levels-of-anxiety-and-depression Wang, H., & Hall, N. C. (2019). When “I care” is not enough: An interactional analysis of teacher values, value congruence, and well-being. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102906 147 APPENDIX A: IRB AND RECRUITMENT INFORMATION Study 1 IRB Approval 148 Study 2 IRB Approval 149 Study 1 Sample Recruitment Email Dear Early Childhood Program Director, My name is Loria Kim and I am a doctoral student at Michigan State University. I am conducting research on administrative support and educator well-being in early childhood programs. As you know, there is a critical need to support the well-being of educators who work with our youngest children. Their well-being impacts the quality of interactions and practices with children in their classrooms which can ultimately impact the quality of the early childhood programs and children’s development. This study will examine how administrators and educators define and think about administrative support and educators’ work-related well-being. We hope this study will help us understand how to better support the well-being of this important workforce. I would greatly appreciate it if you would distribute the email below to invite staff members in your program to participate in the study. If you would like to participate in a focus group for administrators, please reply directly to this email so I can send you more information about this study. All results from the focus group will be kept confidential. Focus groups will be done remotely via zoom and outside of the working hours. All participants will be compensated with a $50 gift card. Thank you so much for taking the time to send this email to staff members in your program, and please feel free to contact me with any questions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Early Childhood Educators, My name is Loria Kim and I am a doctoral student at Michigan State University. I am conducting research on administrative support and educator well-being in early childhood programs. As you know, there is a critical need to support your well-being as you provide care and education for our youngest children. Your well-being matters with the quality of interactions and practices you provide for the children in your classroom. This study will examine how you define and think about your own work-related well-being and the support you get from administrators. If you decide to participate in this study, you will be asked to join a focus group to discuss how you define and conceptualize administrative support and early childhood educators’ well-being. Focus groups will be done remotely via zoom and outside of the working hours for about 1.5-2 hours. After your participation, you will receive a $50 gift card. All results from the focus group will be kept confidential. If you are interested in participating, please send an email to me at kimeun32@msu.edu, and I will send you more information about the study. Also, feel free to send emails with any questions. 150 Study 2 Sample Recruitment Email Dear Early Childhood Program Director, My name is Loria Kim, and I am a doctoral student at Michigan State University. I am researching administrative support and educator well-being in early childhood programs, aiming to improve support for educators which, in turn, impacts the quality of early childhood programs and ultimately the development of our children. My study aims to learn how administrators provide support and how educators see and experience this support, and how it affects their well-being of educators in their professional roles. We hope that insights gained from this study can guide programs and policy on how to support this invaluable workforce. Please consider participating in this study and inviting your teaching staff to participate as well. Participants will complete an online survey at their own convenience. For administrators, it will take about 15-20 minutes, for educators it will take about 30-40 minutes. All survey responses will be kept confidential. Participants will be compensated for completing the surveys: administrators get a $25 gift card, and educators get a $40 gift card. Thank you for considering joining our study, and inviting your teaching staff to join as well. If you want to participate, reply to this message and I will send you the survey link for the administrator survey, and an email template for you to invite your teaching staff to join us. We appreciate your time and help in supporting our crucial early childhood workforce! Sincerely, Loria Kim, MEd (she/her/hers) PhD Candidate Human Development and Family Studies Michigan State University --- **Email Template for Teaching Staff Invitation:** Subject: Invitation to Participate in a Well-being Research Study Dear [Teaching Staff's Name/Group], I hope this message finds you well. We have an exciting opportunity to contribute to an important research study that focuses on the well-being of educators in early childhood programs, led by Loria Kim, a doctoral student at Michigan State University. The study aims to understand how administrative supports are related to educator well-being in early childhood programs. By participating, you can help our field understand how to better support educators like yourself in your important work with children and families. 151 **Study Details:** • What you’ll do: Take an online survey, which takes about 30-40 minutes. • What you’ll receive: A $40 gift card for your valuable time. • Your responses are confidential: The research team will keep your responses strictly confidential. No one else will see them. Click the link below if you want to participation in the study: [Insert Survey Link] Your input is so valuable, and your participation will help us understand how to enhance support systems for educators. Thank you for considering this opportunity. If you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to reach out to Loria Kim at kimeun32@msu.edu or 224-522-1320. Warm regards, [Your Name] [Your Contact Information] 152 Figure 5.1 Study 1 Recruitment Flyer 153 Figure 5.2 Study 2 Recruitment Flyer 154 APPENDIX B: STUDY 1 MEASURES Educator Questionnaire (Qualtrics) Administrative Support and Infant/Toddler and Preschool Educator Well-being Study Coordinator: Loria Kim Human Development and Family Studies Michigan State University 224-522-1320 kimeun32@msu.edu Principal Investigator: Claire Vallotton Human Development and Family Studies Michigan State University vallotto@msu.edu Purpose This is a study about administrative support in early childhood programs. We would like to learn about your work-related well-being and the support you receive or need from the administrators in your program. In order to participate in this study, you must: • be working full-time, at least 40 hours per week • have worked more than 6 months at the current program • be working directly with children • be working with children between the ages of 0 and 5 years To participate in this study, please answer the following questions to determine whether these criteria apply to you. Are you working full-time (at least 40 hr/wk)? (If you have a question about this criterion, please contact Loria at kimeun32@msu.edu or 224- 522-1320) o Yes o No 155 Have you worked more than 6 months at your current program? (If you have a question about this criterion, please contact Loria at kimeun32@msu.edu or 224- 522-1320) o Yes o No Are you working directly with children? (If you have a question about this criterion, please contact Loria at kimeun32@msu.edu or 224- 522-1320) o Yes o No Are you working with children younger than 5 years of age? (If you have a question about this criterion, please contact Loria at kimeun32@msu.edu or 224- 522-1320) o Yes o No Eligible You met all the criteria to participate in this study! Please proceed to the next page to read more about the study and fill out the consent form. Administrative Support and Infant/Toddler and Preschool Educator Well-being Educators Study Coordinator: Loria Kim Human Development and Family Studies Michigan State University 224-522-1320 kimeun32@msu.edu Principal Investigator: Claire Vallotton Human Development and Family Studies Michigan State University Purpose You are invited to participate in a study about administrative support in early childhood programs. We would like to learn about your work-related well-being and the support you receive or need from the administrators in your program. You are being invited to participate in this study because you are an early childhood care provider working with either infants, toddlers, or preschoolers. Study Procedures If you choose to take part in the study, you will participate in an online focus 156 group which will last about 1.5 to 2 hours. Before you join the focus group, you will be asked to fill out a short survey about your work with young children and your background, including how long you have worked as an early childhood educator, and the administrative structure in your program. Neither your name or any information about you will not be linked to your comments in the focus groups. We will audio record and transcribe the focus groups. Your answers to the questions during the focus group will remain confidential and we will not transcribe any information, such as personal names and specific locations, that could link you to your comments in the focus group. Protecting your confidentiality is a priority for us. It is always your choice whether to answer questions we ask and how much information to provide in any conversations we have. Your participation is voluntary and can be stopped at any time. Benefits As a participant in this research study, there may be no direct benefit for you; however, information from this study may benefit other people now or in the future by helping us understand how administrative support impacts the well-being of early childhood educators. We hope to use this information to develop resources and supports that promote early childhood educators’ well-being in early childhood programs. Risks By taking part in this study, some of the questions may make you uncomfortable. You do not have to respond to all questions and can skip any questions you choose not to answer. Once the study is completed, we will delete any identifiable information, such as your name and contact information. You can stop participating in the study at any time without any penalty. Costs There will be no costs to you for participation in this research study. Compensation You will receive a $50 gift card for participating in the focus group. Privacy and Confidentiality The study team will make sure to keep the information you provide confidential. Only the researchers and the Institutional Review Board staff (as required by the university) will have access to your study information. To additionally protect your privacy, no individual participant will be identified in study reports, publications, and presentations. Data from the research study (without any personal identifiers) will be kept for three (3) years after the project closes, per MSU policy, and the research team and the Institutional Review Board will have access to the data. Questions If you have any questions about this study now or in the future, you may contact Loria Kim at kimeun32@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517- 355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or email irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 4000 Collins Road, Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. Consent for Participation Participation is voluntary. You may choose not to participate at all. You may refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions or discontinue your participation at any time without consequence. 157 Do you want to participate in this study? o Yes, I want to participate. o No, I do not want to participate. Q33 Thank you so much for your participation! To participate in this study, select each line and sign below: ▢ I agree to participate in a focus group, and it is my right to refuse to answer any particular question that I do not want to answer. I agree that my answers to questions from the focus group can be used in I understand that I will receive a $50.00 gift card for participating in the focus ▢ research. ▢ group. Signature Q5 Please provide an answer to the following questions. First and Last Name ________________________________________________________________ Email address ________________________________________________________________ 158 Position o Assistant teacher o Head teacher/lead teacher o Support staff o Other: Write in your answer __________________________________________________ Q10 For Questions 4-6, answer based on the main age group of children you are currently working with. Which age group are you currently working with? Choose all that apply. ▢ ▢ ▢ Infants (Birth-14 months) Toddlers (14-36 months) Preschoolers (3-5 years old) How many children and teachers are in your classroom when it is at full capacity? If you work in more than one classroom, just choose the one you work in most. Slide the bar to indicate the number of children and teachers in your classroom. 0 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 3 6 Children Teachers How many years have you worked with 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Infants (Birth-14 months)? Toddlers (14-36 months)? Preschoolers (3-5 years old)? 159 Q18 Following section will ask you about the program you work in. If you work in more than one program, answer the questions based on the program that you were invited to participate in this study. Which early childhood setting are you currently working in? Check all that apply. ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ Center-based University-based Early Head Start Head Start Other: Write in answer __________________________________________________ What is the name of the specific early childhood center/program/organization you are currently working in? ________________________________________________________________ Slide the bar to indicate the total number of years working in this current early childhood program. Place the bar at 0 if you have worked less than 1 year. If you worked more than 30 years, place the bar at 30. 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 Total number of years working as an early childhood educator ________________________________________________________________ Q36 Think about the administrative structure in your program and please describe as much as possible. Q23 Who is the director of your program? Provide their initials, name the title of their position, and describe what the director is responsible for (e.g. the director is responsible for everyday operations, hiring staff). ________________________________________________________________ 160 ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Q24 Who is the assistant director of your program? Provide their initials, name the title of their position, and describe what they are responsible for. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Q48 Is there an associate director in your programs? If so, please provide their initials, name the title of their position, and describe what they are responsible for. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Q35 Is there anyone else who supervises you on a daily basis? By this, we mean the person who is tasked with evaluating your work. Please write NA if there is not one in this role in your program. Otherwise, please include that person’s initials. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Q25 Who consults with teachers on a frequent basis relative to curriculum? By this we mean, who consults with teachers about curriculum and program planning? Please write NA if there is not one in this role in your program. Otherwise, please include that person’s initials. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Q49 Who consults with teachers on a frequent basis relative to supporting children’s mental health needs? Please write NA if there is not one in this role in your program. Otherwise, please include that person’s initials. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 161 ________________________________________________________________ Q50 Is there anyone else you can think of in your administrative team that you have not described yet? Please provide that person's initials, name the title of their position, and describe their role. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Q48 Please choose when you prefer to participate in the focus group. Choose all of your preferences. ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ Mondays 5-7 pm Thursdays 5-7 pm Thursdays 7-9 pm Fridays 5-7 pm Fridays 7-9 pm Saturdays 9-11 am Saturdays 1-3 pm Saturdays 3-5 pm Sundays 9-11 am Sundays 1-3 pm Sundays 3-5 pm 162 Q49 Would you be willing to be contacted for additional participation in other parts of this study? o Yes o No Q28 Gender o Male o Female o Non-binary o Prefer not to answer Q29 Age o 18-25 o 26-30 o 31-40 o 41-50 o Over 50 years old o Prefer not to answer 163 Other __________________________________________________ American Indian or Alaska Native Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Q30 Race Asian ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ White ▢ ▢ Prefer not to answer Q31 Highest level of education o Some high school, but no diploma o High school diploma or equivalent (GED) o Some college, but no degree o Associates degree o Bachelors o Graduate or professional degree Q32 Are you currently working towards a degree? o Yes o No 164 Display This Question: If Are you currently working towards a degree? = Yes Q34 If yes, which degree? o High school diploma or equivalent (GED) o Some college, but no degree o Associates degree o Bachelors o Graduate or professional degree Q35 Do you have a degree in early childhood? o Yes o No Q36 What was your major in the highest degree you studied? o Elementary education o Special education o Child development or psychology o Early education or early or school-age care o Other: write in your answer __________________________________________________ 165 Q37 Do you have a state certificate or endorsement for early care/education? o Yes o No Q38 Do you have a Child Development Associate (CDA) certificate? o Yes o No Display This Question: If Do you have a Child Development Associate (CDA) certificate? = Yes Q39 If yes, do you have any of the following? Choose all the apply. ▢ ▢ ▢ Infant/Toddler endorsement Preschooler endorsement Other __________________________________________________ 166 Administrator Questionnaire (Qualtrics) Study Coordinator: Loria Kim Human Development and Family Studies Michigan State University 224-522-1320 kimeun32@msu.edu Principal Investigator: Claire Vallotton Human Development and Family Studies Michigan State University vallotto@msu.edu Purpose This is a study about administrative support in early childhood programs. We would like to learn about the work-related well-being of your teaching staff and the support you provide for them in your program. In order to participate in this study, you must: • be working full-time, at least 40 hours per week • have worked more than 6 months at the current program • be working as an administrator in ECE programs To participate in this study, please answer the following questions to determine whether these criteria apply to you. Q2 Are you working full-time (at least 40 hr/wk)? (If you have a question about this criterion, please contact Loria at kimeun32@msu.edu or 224- 522-1320) o Yes o No Q3 Have you worked more than 6 months at your current program? (If you have a question about this criterion, please contact Loria at kimeun32@msu.edu or 224- 522-1320) o Yes o No 167 Q4 Are you working as an administrator in an early childhood program? (If you have a question about this criterion, please contact Loria at kimeun32@msu.edu or 224- 522-1320) o Yes o No Q6 You met all the criteria to participate in this study! Please proceed to the next page to read more about the study and fill out the consent form. Consent Form Administrative Support and Infant/Toddler and Preschool Educator Well-being Administrators Study Coordinator: Loria Kim Human Development and Family Studies Michigan State University 224-522-1320 kimeun32@msu.edu Principal Investigator: Claire Vallotton Human Development and Family Studies Michigan State University vallotto@msu.edu Purpose You are invited to participate in a study about administrative support in early childhood programs. We would like to learn about the work-related well-being of your teaching staff and the support you provide for them in your program. You are being invited to participate in this study because you are an early childhood administrator working with either infant, toddler, or preschooler educators. Study Procedures If you choose to take part in the study, you will participate in an online focus group which will last about 1.5 to 2 hours. Before you join the focus group, you will be asked to fill out a short survey about your work with infants, toddlers, and preschool educators and your background, including how long you have worked as an early childhood administrator and the administrative structure in your program. Neither your name nor any information about you will be linked to your comments in the focus groups. We will audio record and transcribe the focus groups. Your answers to the questions during the focus group will remain confidential and we will not transcribe any information, such as personal names and specific locations, that could link you to your comments in the focus group. Protecting your confidentiality is a priority for us. It is always your choice whether to answer questions we ask and how much information to provide in any conversations we have. Your participation is voluntary and can be stopped at any time. Benefits As a participant in this research study, there may be no direct benefit for you; however, information from this study may benefit other people now or in the future by helping us 168 understand how administrative support impacts the well-being of early childhood educators. We hope to use this information to develop resources and supports that promote early childhood educators’ well-being in early childhood programs. Risks By taking part in this study, some of the questions may make you uncomfortable. You do not have to respond to all questions and can skip any questions you choose not to answer. Once the study is completed, we will delete any identifiable information, such as your name and contact information. You can stop participating in the study at any time without any penalty. Costs There will be no costs to you for participation in this research study. Compensation You will receive a $50 gift card for participating in the focus group. Privacy and Confidentiality The study team will make sure to keep the information you provide confidential. Only the researchers and the Institutional Review Board staff (as required by the university) will have access to your study information. To additionally protect your privacy, no individual participant will be identified in study reports, publications, and presentations. Data from the research study (without any personal identifiers) will be kept for three (3) years after the project closes, per MSU policy, and the research team and the the Institutional Review Board will have access to the data. Questions If you have any questions about this study now or in the future, you may contact Loria Kim at kimeun32@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517- 355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or email irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 4000 Collins Road, Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. Consent for Participation Participation is voluntary. You may choose not to participate at all. You may refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions or discontinue your participation at any time without consequence. Do you want to participate in this study? o Yes, I want to participate. o No, I do not want to participate. Q57 To agree to participate in this study, select each line and sign below: ▢ I agree to participate in a focus group, and it is my right to refuse to answer any particular question that I do not want to answer. ▢ research. ▢ group. I agree that my answers to questions from the focus group can be used in I understand that I will receive a $50.00 gift card for participating in the focus 169 Q5 Please provide an answer to the following questions. Q6 First and Last Name ________________________________________________________________ Q7 Email address ________________________________________________________________ Position o Director o Associate director o Assistant director o Principal o Other: Write in your answer __________________________________________________ Which age groups do you serve in your program? Choose all that apply. ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ Infants (Birth-14 months) Toddlers (14-36 months) Preschoolers (3-5 years old) Older than 5 years of age How many classrooms do you have in your program for each of the following age groups? Slide the bar to indicate the number of classrooms in each age group. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 170 Infant Infant/Toddler Toddler Preschool How many teachers work in your program for each of the following age groups? Slide the bar to indicate the number of teachers working in each age group. 4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 6 Infant Infant/Toddler Toddler Preschool Which of these describe your program? Choose all that apply. Structure (Choose all that apply) ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ Center-based Home-based University-based/campus-based School-based Other: Write in answer __________________________________________________ 171 Funding (Choose all that apply) ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ Early Head Start Head Start Non-profit For-profit State-funded Tuition-based Other: Write in answer __________________________________________________ What is the name of the specific early childhood center/program/organization you are currently working in? ________________________________________________________________ Is your program accredited? o Yes o No Display This Question: If Is your program accredited? = Yes accredited by If so, by whom? ________________________________________________________________ 172 Do you participate in a Quality Rating Improvement System (QRIS)? o Yes o No o I am not sure Slide the bar to indicate the total number of years working in your current program, including any time before you became an administrator. Place the bar at 0 if you have worked less than 1 year. If you worked more than 30 years, place the bar at 30. 5 15 20 10 30 25 0 12 Slide the bar to indicate the total number of years working as an early childhood administrator, including time as an administrator in other programs. Place the bar at 0 if you have worked less than 1 year. If you worked for more than 30 years, place the bar at 30. 25 10 20 15 0 5 30 Total number of years working in the early child care and education field (serving children ages 5 and younger) ________________________________________________________________ At some point in your career, have you been an educator or caregiver in early care and education as your main position? o Yes o No Display This Question: If At some point in your career, have you been an educator or caregiver in early care and education... = Yes If yes, please indicate the total number of years you worked as an early childhood educator. ________________________________________________________________ 173 Q40 For the following section, please describe the administrative structure in your program as much as possible. Name the title or role of each administrator in your program (e.g., Director, Associate Director, Principal, building supervisor etc.). Then, describe what the person in that role is responsible for (e.g. the director is responsible for everyday operations, hiring staff; the assistant director is responsible for training educators, and managing educators’ schedules). Q41 Name the title of your position and describe your role. ________________________________________________________________ Q42 Who is in the administrative team at your program? Please provide each person's initials, name the title of their position, and describe their role. ________________________________________________________________ Q43 Who supervises teachers on a daily basis? By this, we mean the person who is tasked with evaluating teachers’ work. Please write NA if there is not one in this role in your program. Otherwise, please include that person’s initials. ________________________________________________________________ Q44 Who consults with teachers on a frequent basis relative to curriculum? By this we mean, who consults with teachers about curriculum and program planning? Please write NA if there is not one in this role in your program. Otherwise, please include that person’s initials. ________________________________________________________________ Q45 Who consults with teachers on a frequent basis relative to supporting children’s mental health needs? Please write NA if there is not one in this role in your program. Otherwise, please include that person’s initials. ________________________________________________________________ Q60 Is there anyone else you can think of in your administrative team that you have not described yet? Please provide that person's initials, name the title of their position, and describe their role. ________________________________________________________________ Q61 Please describe the organizational structure of your administrative team in terms of who supervises whom and who work together as smaller unit. ________________________________________________________________ 174 Q51 How do these people that you described above and yourself work together as a team or set of administrators (e.g., how do you communicate together, how do you coordinate your roles, etc.)? ________________________________________________________________ Preference day/time Please choose when you prefer to participate in the focus group. Choose all of your preferences. ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ Mondays 5-7 pm Thursdays 5-7 pm Thursdays 7-9 pm Fridays 5-7 pm Fridays 7-9 pm Saturdays 9-11 am Saturdays 1-3 pm Saturdays 3-5 pm Sundays 9-11 am Sundays 1-3 pm Sundays 3-5 pm 175 Q27 Would you be willing to be contacted for additional participation in other parts of this study? o Yes o No Q28 Gender o Male o Female o Non-binary o Prefer not to answer Q29 Age o 18-25 o 26-30 o 31-40 o 41-50 o Over 50 years old o Prefer not to answer 176 Other __________________________________________________ American Indian or Alaska Native Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Q30 Race Asian ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ White ▢ ▢ Prefer not to answer Q31 Highest level of education completed o Some high school o High school diploma or equivalent (GED) o Some college, but no degree o Associates degree o Bachelors o Graduate or professional degree Q32 Are you currently working towards a degree? o Yes o No 177 Display This Question: If Are you currently working towards a degree? = Yes Q34 If yes, which degree? o High school diploma or equivalent (GED) o Some college, but no degree o Associates degree o Bachelors o Graduate or professional degree Q35 Do you have a degree in early childhood? o Yes o No Q36 What was your major in the highest degree you studied? o Elementary education o Special education o Child development or psychology o Early education or early or school-age care o Family services/family sciences o Other: write in your answer __________________________________________________ Q38 Have you had any training in business/administration? o Yes o No 178 Display This Question: If Have you had any training in business/administration? = Yes Q52 Choose all the training experiences you had in business/administration. Online courses not affiliated with a college or university College courses on business College courses on administration ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ Workshops or training offered by my program/agency ▢ ▢ Conference workshops Personal study (e.g., reading books on business/administration) Other training or educational experiences focus on business/administration. Please describe. __________________________________________________ 179 Administrator Focus Group Protocol Introduction Thank you so much for being here! My name is Loria Kim. I am a PhD student at Michigan State University, and I will be your facilitator for this focus group. My work focuses on our youngest learners, infants, and toddlers, and what families, educators, and communities can do to support and enhance children’s educational experiences. The goal of today’s focus group is for us to learn from you about the well-being of early childhood educators and how you define and conceptualize administrative support. Consent and Procedures We won’t go through the consent form line-by-line, but I did want to highlight a few things. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You are free to decide not to participate or withdraw at any time. We appreciate your time during this study, as your perspective provides valuable insights. You are the expert and possess important knowledge over your experiences as an administrator and in sharing your perspectives and experiences. As such, your honest, candid feedback is appreciated. By staying in this focus group, you are giving me permission to record our conversation and use the information you provide us for the purpose of research. Confidentiality All names will be removed prior to data analysis and no identifying information will be provided in any reports written up. Due to the nature of focus groups, complete confidentiality of the information disclosed during focus groups cannot be guaranteed, but we ask all focus group participants to not share what is said in the focus group with others. Any information obtained during this study that could identify you will be kept confidential. Those who will have access to the data are study personnel and the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The information from this study may be published in scientific journals or presented at scientific meetings and may be reported individually, as a group, or summarized data, but your identity will be kept confidential at all times. Establish Ground Rules Before we get started, I just wanted to establish a few ground rules. ● If you have never participated in a focus group before, it is simply a group discussion- Anyone is free to jump in when they please, we don’t have to go in a specific order ● I ask that one participant speaks at a time ● All responses are valid, there are no right or wrong answers ● (If a larger group, more than 8) - We have a lot of questions to get to, so in the interest of time, if I have to limit some of your comments, don’t feel that what you have to say is not important. I want to make sure everyone in the focus group gets a chance to share their experiences/thoughts. ● It is important to hear all sides of an issue - both the positive and the negative ● Let’s help protect others’ privacy by not discussing details outside this group 180 Does anyone have any questions before we get started? PRESS RECORD. 1. To start, let’s get to know each other a little bit. Please share your role, how long you have worked in your current position and something that you find rewarding about your work. PART I: Educator Well-being 1. Well-being includes many aspects of a person’s life and consists of personal and workplace aspects. Today, I’m going to ask you about early childhood educators’ well- being related to work, focusing on those who work directly with infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. How do you define the well-being of early childhood educators in the workplace? a. Optional probe: i. Some people also include physical health, psychological health, and professional well-being. How do you see these related to your work? ii. What are some of the differences between infant/toddler and preschool educators' well-being in the workplace? 2. I’d like to ask you questions more specific about the well-being of early childhood educators. Whenever I say educators, keep in mind that I am referring to your early childhood educators who work with infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. a. Educator well-being became really important during COVID-19, what have you learned about the educators’ well-being throughout the pandemic? a. How would you describe the climate of your workplace? b. What aspects of an early childhood educator’s work seem most stressful to you? i. What is specific to infant/toddler educators? What about preschool educators? c. What are some signs you see that an educator is getting stressed or exhausted? d. What seems to help prevent educators’ stress and exhaustion? e. What do you think could help reduce stress and prevent burnout? PART II: Administrative Support 3. Now I will ask you questions about administrative support. a. How do you define and think about administrative support in the early care setting? i. Optional probe: 1. What are some words that come to your mind when you hear the word “administrative support”? 1. Some people say administrative support is… (include definitions from literature). What do you think about this definition? b. How do you help educators to do their work? c. What types of support do you provide for the educators in your program? d. What types of support are important for educators to work with children and families? e. How often do you acknowledge and/or appreciate your early childhood educators? 181 PART III: Administrative Support and Educator Well-being 4. How do administrators support educators’ well-being? a. What are some of the challenges in supporting educators’ well-being? 5. How would you like to support educators’ well-being? a. Optional probe: i. If there are unlimited resources, how would you support educators’ well- being? Conclusion I want to thank you for participating in this project and for the time you took today to talk with me. The information you provided will help to inform our understanding of well-being in the ECE context. Please feel free to contact us with any other questions that you have. Educator Focus Group Protocol Introduction Thank you so much for being here! My name is Loria Kim. I am a PhD student at Michigan State University, and I will be your facilitator for this focus group. My work focuses on our youngest learners, infants, and toddlers, and what families and educators can do to support and enhance children’s educational experiences. I was a former infant/toddler educator and I am passionate about promoting and supporting the well-being of early childhood educators. The goal of today’s focus group is for us to learn from you about the well-being of early childhood educators and how you define and conceptualize administrative support. Consent and Procedures We won’t go through the consent form line-by-line, but I did want to highlight a few things. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You are free to decide not to participate or withdraw at any time. We appreciate your time during this study, as your perspective provides valuable insights. You are the expert and possess important knowledge over your experiences as an administrator and in sharing your perspectives and experiences. As such, your honest, candid feedback is appreciated. By staying in this focus group, you are giving me permission to record our conversation and use the information you provide us for the purpose of research. Confidentiality All names will be removed before data analysis and no identifying information will be provided in any reports written up. Due to the nature of focus groups, complete confidentiality of the information disclosed during focus groups cannot be guaranteed, but we ask all focus group participants to not share what is said in the focus group with others. Any information obtained during this study that could identify you will be kept confidential. Those who will have access to the data are study personnel and the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The information from this study may be published in scientific journals or presented at scientific meetings and may be reported individually, as a group, or summarized data, but your identity will be kept confidential at all times. 182 Establish Ground Rules Before we get started, I just wanted to establish a few ground rules. ● If you have never participated in a focus group before, it is simply a group discussion- Anyone is free to jump in when they please, we don’t have to go in a specific order ● I ask that one participant speaks at a time ● All responses are valid, there are no right or wrong answers ● (If a larger group, more than 8) - We have a lot of questions to get to, so in the interest of time, if I have to limit some of your comments, don’t feel that what you have to say is not important. I want to make sure everyone in the focus group gets a chance to share their experiences/thoughts. ● It is important to hear all sides of an issue - both the positive and the negative ● Let’s help protect others’ privacy by not discussing details outside this group Does anyone have any questions before we get started? PRESS RECORD. 1. To start, let’s get to know each other a little bit. Please share your role, how long you have worked in your current position and something that you find rewarding about your work. PART I: Educator Well-being 1. Well-being includes many aspects of your life and consists of personal and workplace aspects. Today, I’m going to ask you about your well-being related to work. How do you define well-being related to your work? a. Optional probe: i. Some people also include physical health, psychological health, and professional well-being as well as relational well-being. How do you see these related to your work? 2. I’d like to ask you questions more specific about the well-being of early childhood educators. a. Educator well-being became really important during COVID-19, what have you learned about your well-being throughout the pandemic? b. How would you describe the climate of your workplace? c. What aspects of your work are most stressful? d. What are some signs you see that a colleague(s) is getting stressed or exhausted? e. What helps to prevent stress and exhaustion related to your work? f. What were some of the reasons for those you’ve seen leave the field? g. What could help to reduce stress and prevent burnout? PART II: Administrative Support 3. Now I will ask you questions about support from administrators in your program. a. How do you think about and define administrative support in the early care setting? i. Optional probes: 1. What are some words that come to your mind when you hear the word “administrative support”? 183 2. Some people say administrative support is… (include definitions from literature). What do you think about this definition? ii. Follow-up questions: 1. How do your administrators help you to do your work? 2. What types of support have you received from your administrators? b. What types of support would you like to have that are not currently available to you? c. What types of support are important to you to work with children and families? d. How much do you think your supervisor understands your job demands? e. How often do you feel acknowledged and/or appreciated by your administrators? PART III: Administrative Support and Educator Well-being 4. How do your administrators support educators’ well-being? Conclusion I want to thank you for participating in this project and for the time you took today to talk with me. The information you provided will help to inform our understanding of well-being in the ECE context. Please feel free to contact us with any other questions that you have. 184 APPENDIX C: STUDY 2 MEASURES Qualtrics Educator Survey Study Coordinator: Loria Kim Human Development and Family Studies Michigan State University 224-522-1320 kimeun32@msu.edu Principal Investigator: Claire Vallotton Human Development and Family Studies Michigan State University vallotto@msu.edu Purpose This is a study about administrative support in early childhood programs. We would like to learn about your work-related well-being and the support you receive or need from the administrators in your program. In order to participate in this study, you must: • be working full-time, at least 40 hours per week • have worked as an educator for more than 6 months at the current program • be working directly with children • be working with children between the ages of 0 and 5 years To participate in this study, please answer the following questions to determine whether these criteria apply to you. E-Full-time Are you working full-time (at least 40 hr/wk)? (If you have a question about this criterion, please contact Loria at kimeun32@msu.edu or 224- 522-1320) o Yes (1) o No (2) E-6mos Have you worked more than 6 months at your current program? (If you have a question about this criterion, please contact Loria at kimeun32@msu.edu or 224- 522-1320) o Yes (1) o No (2) 185 E-Work w/children Are you working directly with children? (If you have a question about this criterion, please contact Loria at kimeun32@msu.edu or 224- 522-1320) o Yes (1) o No (2) E-Children younger 5 Are you working with children younger than 5 years of age? (If you have a question about this criterion, please contact Loria at kimeun32@msu.edu or 224- 522-1320) o Yes (1) o No (2) You met all the criteria to participate in this study! Please proceed to the next page to read more about the study and fill out the consent form. Administrative Support and Infant/Toddler and Preschool Educator Well-being Educators Study Coordinator: Loria Kim Human Development and Family Studies Michigan State University 224-522-1320 kimeun32@msu.edu Principal Investigator: Claire Vallotton Human Development and Family Studies Michigan State University Purpose You are invited to participate in a study about administrative support in early childhood programs. We would like to learn about your work-related well-being and the support you receive or need from the administrators in your program. You are being invited to participate in this study because you are an early childhood care provider working with either infants, toddlers, or preschoolers. Study Procedures If you choose to take part in the study, you will participate in an online survey which will last about 30-40 minutes. The survey link will first take you to a screening survey to determine eligibility. If you are eligible to participate, the survey will proceed to ask you about your work with young children and your background, including how long you have worked as an early childhood educator, the administrative structure in your program, and the types of administrative support you receive from your early childhood administrators. Neither your name nor any information about you will be linked to your survey responses when the study results are shared with the public. 186 Your answers to the questions from the survey will remain confidential and we will delete all information that could link you to your responses from the survey. Protecting your confidentiality is a priority for us. It is always your choice whether to answer questions we ask and how much information to provide in any questions we have. Your participation is voluntary and can be stopped at any time. Benefits As a participant in this research study, there may be no direct benefit for you; however, information from this study may benefit other people now or in the future by helping us understand how administrative support impacts the well-being of early childhood educators. We hope to use this information to develop resources and supports that promote early childhood educators’ well-being in early childhood programs. Risks By taking part in this study, some of the questions may make you uncomfortable, or you may worry that your answers will be revealed. You do not have to respond to all questions and can skip any questions you choose not to answer. To further protect your confidentiality, we will delete any identifiable information that we collect from you after the study is complete. You can stop participating in the study at any time without any penalty. Costs There will be no costs to you for participation in this research study. Compensation You will receive a $40 gift card for participating in the survey. Privacy and Confidentiality The study team will make sure to keep the information you provide confidential. Only the researchers and the Institutional Review Board staff will have access to your study information. To additionally protect your privacy, no individual participant will be identified in study reports, publications, and presentations. Data from the research study will be kept for three (3) years after the project closes, per MSU policy, and the research team and the MSU Human Research Protection Program will have access to the data. Questions If you have any questions about this study now or in the future, you may contact Loria Kim at kimeun32@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355- 187 2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or email irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 4000 Collins Road, Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. Consent for Participation Participation is voluntary, you may choose not to participate at all, or you may refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions or discontinue your participation at any time without consequence. Do you want to participate in this study? o Yes, I want to participate. (7) o No, I do not want to participate. (8) Select all Thank you so much for your participation! To participate in this study, please read each line and check the box indicating that you understand and agree to each statement: ▢ I agree to participate in a survey, and it is my right to refuse to answer any particular question that I do not want to answer. (1) ▢ ▢ (3) I agree that my answers to questions from the survey can be used in research. (2) I understand that I will receive a $40.00 gift card for participating in the survey. Q5 Please provide an answer to the following questions. Name First and Last Name ________________________________________________________________ Email address ________________________________________________________________ 188 Position o Assistant teacher (1) o Head teacher/lead teacher (2) o Support staff (3) o Other: Write in your answer (4) __________________________________________________ Q10 The following questions ask you about your current and past work with young children, including questions about your current program and classroom. If you work in more than one early childhood program, answer the questions based on the program that invited you to participate in this study. If you work in more than one classroom in that program, answer about the classroom you work in most. What is the age of children you work with? (If you work in more than one classroom, just choose the one you work in most.) ▢ ▢ ▢ Infants (Birth-14 months) (1) Toddlers (14-36 months) (2) Preschoolers (3-5 years old) (3) How many children are in the classroom when it’s a its full capacity? (If you work in more than one classroom, just choose the one you work in most.) 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 0 6 Children () Q53 How many teachers are in the classroom when it’s a its full capacity? (If you work in more than one classroom, just choose the one you work in most.) 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 0 3 Teachers () How many years have you worked with 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 189 Infants and toddlers (Birth-36 months)? () Preschoolers (3-5 years old)? () Q151 How many children with diagnosed disabilities do you have in your classroom? o 0 (1) o 1 (2) o 2 (3) o 3 (4) o 4 (5) o 5 (6) o 6 (7) o more than 6 (8) Q152 What forms of support are you receiving for the children with disabilities in your class? Please check all that apply. Therapists (1) ▢ ▢ Workshops (2) ▢ ▢ In-service training (3) Others - please specify: (4) __________________________________________________ ▢ Not applicable (5) Q153 Do you feel that you have enough training or information to work with children with disabilities in your classroom? o Yes (1) o No (2) o Not applicable (3) 190 Q18 Following section will ask you about the program you work in. If you work in more than one program, answer the questions based on the program that you were invited to participate in this study. Which early childhood setting are you currently working in? Check all that apply. ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ Center-based (1) University-based (2) Early Head Start (3) Head Start (4) Other: Write in answer (5) __________________________________________________ What is the name and city/town of the specific early childhood center/program/organization you are currently working in? ________________________________________________________________ What is the total number of years you worked in this current early childhood program? Slide the bar to indicate the total number of years. Place the bar at 0 if you have worked less than 1 year. If you worked more than 30 years, place the bar at 30. 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 () What is the total number of years working as an early childhood educator? ________________________________________________________________ Q89 Is your administrator a former teacher? If you have more than one administrators, answer based on the administrator who oversees everyday operations (e.g., site supervisor). o Yes (1) o No (2) o Don't know (3) 191 Q36 Which of the following positions do you have in your program? Please check all that apply. ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ Director (4) Assistant director (5) Associate director (6) Site supervisor (7) Coach (8) Specialists (9) Other (10) __________________________________________________ 99 For the following statements, please select the number that best represents your answer. If you have more than one administrator, answer based on the administrator who oversees everyday operations (e.g., site supervisor, assistant director, program coordinator, etc.). Q98 I feel like my administrator understands my job because they have been a teacher themselves. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q100 My administrator does individual check-ins with me, for example, to talk about classroom or things going on in personal life. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) 192 Q101 My administrator knows me well enough to know when I am stressed out and what helps me to relieve stress. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q102 My administrator is interested in knowing me as a human being with a personal life. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q103 My administrator provides a safe space for me to talk to them about work and/or things unrelated to work. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q104 I feel comfortable to go to my administrator to talk or vent when I am stressed out or having issues in the classroom. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) 193 Q105 I feel appreciated by my administrator. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q106 My administrator knows what makes me feel appreciated. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q107 My administrator provides snacks and food to show appreciation. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q108 My administrator praises me and compliments my work. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) 194 Q109 I receive more criticisms than positive feedback from my administrator. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q110 My administrator trusts me to do my job as an early childhood educator. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q111 My administrator micromanages me to do my job as an early childhood educator. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q112 I feel respected and valued by my administrator. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) 195 Q113 I feel disrespected and devalued by my administrator. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q114 My administrator is available to talk whenever I need to talk to them. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q115 My administrator is unavailable to talk whenever I need to talk to them. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q116 My administrator communicates changes in policies and expectations. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) 196 Q117 My administrator doesn’t communicate changes in policies and expectations. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q120 For the following statements, please select the number that best represents your answer. If you have more than one administrator, answer based on the administrator who oversees everyday operations (e.g., site supervisor, assistant director, program coordinator, etc.). Q118 My administrator tries to help me get my work done by coming in the classroom so I can do paperwork. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) o N/A (6) Q122 My administrator supports my work by coming in the classroom to help out when it’s more chaotic than usual. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) o N/A (6) 197 Q123 My administrator does paperwork for me so I can focus on working with children and families. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) o N/A (6) Q125 I can count on my administrator to hear my problems and help me come up with solutions. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) o N/A (6) Q132 My administrator provides sufficient staffing so I can have paid office hours/planning time. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) o N/A (6) 198 Q133 I can count on my administrator to have my back when I must have difficult conversation with families about their children. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) o N/A (6) Q131 I can count on my administrator to sit in on meetings with families when I need them to. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) o N/A (6) Q130 My administrator supports me when I am handling a difficult situation with children and families by providing resources and following up. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) o N/A (6) 199 Q129 My administrator directly communicates with families about licensing regulations and program policies. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) o N/A (6) Q128 My administrator makes sure I have materials for my classroom. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) o N/A (6) Q127 My administrator provides professional development and trainings for me so that I have the expertise I need for my work. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) o N/A (6) 200 Q126 I have coaches or specialists (e.g., family advocates, mental health specialists, early intervention specialists) whom I can go to for help in working with children and families. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) o N/A (6) Q121 For the following statements, please select the number that best represents your answer. If you have more than one administrator, answer based on the administrator who oversees everyday operations (e.g., site supervisor, assistant director, program coordinator, etc.). Q119 My administrator is supportive when I call in sick or take personal days. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q146 My administrator shows they care about my physical well-being by offering services, such as exercise classes, meditation, yoga, etc. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) 201 Q145 I am provided with mental health day(s). o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q144 I can access counseling or mental health services through my insurance and/or benefits package. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q143 My administrator provides opportunities for all teachers and staff in the program to get together and get to know each other as people. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q136 My administrator doesn’t know the workload that they’re giving the teachers and they ask us to do more. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) 202 Q142 My administrator takes teachers’ suggestions into consideration, and takes action to incorporate these suggestions. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q141 My administrator consults with teachers for things that they need to implement in the classroom. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q140 My administrator provides me the autonomy to make decisions for my classroom. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q139 I can get paid overtime when it is necessary for me to get my work done. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) 203 Q138 My administrator tries to create a positive organizational climate in the program. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q137 My administrator knows the workload that they’re giving the teachers and they are intentional about the things they ask us to do. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q135 My administrator makes sure that I get designated breaks, including lunch. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q147 My administrator makes sure that I get personal care breaks (e.g., bathroom break, breather, or mental break) when I need it. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) 204 Q148 My administrator supports work-life balance by respecting teachers’ personal time and when they are taking time off. o 1 (not true) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (somewhat true) (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (very true) (5) Q235 Please read the following statements and prioritize them based on their importance to your well-being, from most to least important. Drag each item to place them in the order of importance. (1 being the most important and 9 being the least important). ______ My administrator supports my work by providing materials, space, resources, planning time, and support for handling difficult situations with children and families. (1) ______ My administrator shows respect, trust, and concern toward me through open communication, expressing appreciation, and interest in my work and recommendations. (2) ______ My administrator creates a positive organizational climate in the program. (3) ______ My administrator is interested in knowing me as a human being with a personal life. (4) ______ I feel comfortable going to my administrator when I am stressed or having issues in the classroom, and to get help problem-solving. (5) ______ My administrator shows they care about my well-being by offering services, such as exercise classes, meditation, yoga, etc., and/or mental health day(s). (6) ______ My administrator makes sure that I get designated breaks, including lunch, and personal care breaks (e.g., bathroom break, breather, or mental break) when I need it. (7) ______ I have coaches or specialists (e.g., family advocates, mental health specialists, early intervention specialists) whom I can go to for help in working with children and families. (8) ______ My administrator supports work-life balance by respecting my personal time (e.g., not expecting me to finish my work at home, supportive of my time-off requests). (9) 205 Q56 How much do you agree or disagree with the following items? Q160 How satisfied with your career as an early childhood educator? o 1 (strongly disagree) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (4) o 4 (5) o 5 (6) o 6 (7) o 7 (strongly agree) (8) Q161 How satisfied are you with your current position? o 1 (strongly disagree) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (4) o 4 (5) o 5 (6) o 6 (7) o 7 (strongly agree) (8) Q231 Knowing what I do now, if I could decide all over again, I would become an early childhood educator again. o 1 (strongly disagree) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (strongly agree) (8) 206 Q232 Within the next 12 months, I will continue to be an early childhood educator. o 1 (strongly disagree) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (strongly agree) (8) Q233 Within the next 12 months, I will remain at my current program. o 1 (strongly disagree) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (strongly agree) (8) Q234 This job is a short-term career for me. o 1 (strongly disagree) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (strongly agree) (8) Q162 Do you have adult-sized furniture in your classroom? o Yes (1) o No (2) Q163 Do you have ergonomic furniture in office spaces? o Yes (1) o No (2) 207 Q164 Do you have workspace lighting control? o Yes (1) o No (2) Q165 Do you have workspace temperature control? o Yes (1) o No (2) Q166 Do you have disturbing noise level? o Yes (1) o No (2) Q167 Do you have storage space for personal belongings? o Yes (1) o No (2) Q168 Do you have space for relaxation? o Yes (1) o No (2) Q169 Do you have designated breaks during the workday? o Yes (1) o No (2) Compensation From your job as an early childhood educator, what is your current annual salary range? ▼Below $10,000 (1) … $50,001 or higher (22) Q59 From your job as an early childhood educator, what is your current hourly wage? ▼ $7.00 - $8.00 (1) ... $30.01 or higher (3) 208 Q60 Do you believe your salary is fair in relation to what the work you do? o Yes (1) o No (2) Q61 Do you believe your salary is fair in relation to what other teachers in your center earn? o Yes (1) o No (2) Q62 Do you believe your salary is fair in relation to what others in the profession earn? o Yes (1) o No (2) Q63 Is your salary enough to cover your basic expenses/make ends meet? o Yes (1) o No (2) Q237 Do you have more than one job to cover your basic expenses/make ends meet? o Yes (2) o No (1) Display This Question: If Do you have more than one job to cover your basic expenses/make ends meet? = Yes Q238 How many jobs do you have in total including your current position as an early childhood educator? ________________________________________________________________ Q240 What is your total income from all sources of income? ________________________________________________________________ 209 Q65 What is your current family/household income? o N/A - single income (12) o Below $10,000 (1) o $10,001 – 20,000 (2) o $20,001 – 30,000 (3) o $30,001 – 40,000 (4) o $40,001 – 50,000 (5) o $50,001 – 60,000 (6) o $60,001 – 70,000 (7) o $70,001 – 80,000 (8) o $80,001 – 90,000 (9) o $90,001 – 100,000 (10) o $100,000 or higher (11) Q66 Do extended family members provide financial support for you (and your immediate family)? o 1 (no support) (4) o 2 (5) o 3 (some support) (6) o 4 (7) o 5 (a lot of support) (8) 210 Q67 How are starting salaries, salary increases, and promotions determined in your workplace? Please check all that apply. ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ Annual Raise (1) Education (2) Experience (3) Performance/evaluation (4) Don’t know (5) Q68 Do you think the policies for starting salaries, salary increases, and promotions are fair? o Yes (1) o No (2) o N/A (3) Q69 Does your center have a written salary scale available to you that reflects how starting salaries and salary increases are determined? o Yes (1) o No (2) o Don't know (3) 211 Q70 In the past year (January-December), how many days did your center close for holidays? o 0 days (1) o 1-3 days (2) o 4-6 days (3) o 7-10 days (4) o 11-15 days (5) o 16 or more days (6) Q71 Were you paid for these days? o Yes (1) o No (2) Q95 How do you earn paid time off? o Separate vacation and sick time (1) o Combined paid time off (2) Display This Question: If How do you earn paid time off? = Combined paid time off Q76 How many days of paid time off did you earn this past year? o 0 days (1) o 1-3 days (2) o 4-6 days (3) o 7-10 days (4) o 11-15 days (5) o 16 or more days (6) 212 Display This Question: If How do you earn paid time off? = Separate vacation and sick time Q93 How many days of vacation time did you earn this past year? o 0 days (1) o 1-3 days (2) o 4-6 days (3) o 7-10 days (4) o 11-15 days (5) o 16 or more days (6) Display This Question: If How do you earn paid time off? = Separate vacation and sick time Q94 How many days of sick time did you earn this past year? o 0 days (1) o 1-3 days (2) o 4-6 days (3) o 7-10 days (4) o 11-15 days (5) o 16 or more days (6) Q72 How concerned are you about your retirement? o 1 (not at all) (6) o 2 (7) o 3 (somewhat) (8) o 4 (9) o 5 (very) (10) 213 Q77 Does your workplace have a retirement plan? (Not social security) o Yes (1) o No (2) o Don't know (3) Display This Question: If Does your workplace have a retirement plan? (Not social security) = Yes Q90 Does your employer contribute to a retirement plan for you? o Yes (1) o No (2) Display This Question: If Does your workplace have a retirement plan? (Not social security) = Yes Q91 Do you participate in the retirement plan? o Yes (1) o No (2) Q87 Do you have any other forms of retirement/savings? o Yes (1) o No (2) Q88 Does your program offer health insurance to employees? o Yes (1) o No (2) 214 Display This Question: If Does your program offer health insurance to employees? = Yes Q154 Health insurance for the employee only is available at: o No cost to employee (1) o Some cost to employee (2) o Full cost to employee (3) o Don't know (4) Display This Question: If Does your program offer health insurance to employees? = Yes Q155 Do you participate in a health insurance plan? o Yes (1) o No (2) Q234 Following questions ask you about your physical well-being. Think about how much pain you have experienced within the last 12 months and indicate your response. Q171 How much pain have you experienced in your neck? o No pain (1) o Mild pain (2) o Moderate pain (3) o Severe pain (4) o Unbearable pain (5) Q172 How much pain have you experienced in your shoulder? o No pain (1) o Mild pain (2) o Moderate pain (3) o Severe pain (4) o Unbearable pain (5) 215 Q174 How much pain have you experienced in your upper back? o No pain (1) o Mild pain (2) o Moderate pain (3) o Severe pain (4) o Unbearable pain (5) Q173 How much pain have you experienced in your lower back? o No pain (1) o Mild pain (2) o Moderate pain (3) o Severe pain (4) o Unbearable pain (5) Q175 How much pain have you experienced in your your elbows? o No pain (1) o Mild pain (2) o Moderate pain (3) o Severe pain (4) o Unbearable pain (5) Q176 How much pain have you experienced in your hands and wrists? o No pain (1) o Mild pain (2) o Moderate pain (3) o Severe pain (4) o Unbearable pain (5) 216 Q178 How much pain have you experienced in your thighs? o No pain (1) o Mild pain (2) o Moderate pain (3) o Severe pain (4) o Unbearable pain (5) Q177 How much pain have you experienced in your knees? o No pain (1) o Mild pain (2) o Moderate pain (3) o Severe pain (4) o Unbearable pain (5) Q179 How much pain have you experienced in your feet and ankles? o No pain (1) o Mild pain (2) o Moderate pain (3) o Severe pain (4) o Unbearable pain (5) 217 Q80 Check the most affected region o Neck (1) o Shoulder (2) o Upper back (3) o Lower back (4) o Elbow (5) o Hand & wrist (6) o Thigh (7) o Knee (8) o Foot & ankle (9) Q170 How is the most affected region affecting your work performance? o Not affected (1) o Mild (2) o Moderately (3) o Severely (4) o Cannot work (5) Q82 Below are some statements about feelings and thoughts. Please select the answer that best describes your experience of each over the last 2 weeks. Q180 I’ve been feeling optimistic about the future. o None of the time (1) o Rarely (2) o Some of the time (3) o Often (4) o All of the time (5) 218 Q181 I’ve been feeling useful. o None of the time (1) o Rarely (2) o Some of the time (3) o Often (4) o All of the time (5) Q182 I’ve been feeling relaxed. o None of the time (1) o Rarely (2) o Some of the time (3) o Often (4) o All of the time (5) Q183 I’ve been dealing with problems well. o None of the time (1) o Rarely (2) o Some of the time (3) o Often (4) o All of the time (5) Q184 I’ve been thinking clearly. o None of the time (1) o Rarely (2) o Some of the time (3) o Often (4) o All of the time (5) 219 Q185 I’ve been feeling close to other people. o None of the time (1) o Rarely (2) o Some of the time (3) o Often (4) o All of the time (5) Q186 I’ve been able to make up my own mind about things. o None of the time (1) o Rarely (2) o Some of the time (3) o Often (4) o All of the time (5) Q83 For each question, please select the answer that best describes your experience within the last month. Q187 How often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly? o Never (1) o Almost never (2) o Sometimes (3) o Fairly often (4) o Very often (5) Q188 How often have you felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life? o Never (1) o Almost never (2) o Sometimes (3) o Fairly often (4) o Very often (5) 220 Q189 How often have you felt nervous and stressed? o Never (1) o Almost never (2) o Sometimes (3) o Fairly often (4) o Very often (5) Q190 How often have you felt confident about your ability to handle your personal problems? o Never (1) o Almost never (2) o Sometimes (3) o Fairly often (4) o Very often (5) Q191 How often have you felt that things were going your way? o Never (1) o Almost never (2) o Sometimes (3) o Fairly often (4) o Very often (5) Q192 How often have you found that you could not cope with all the things that you had to do? o Never (1) o Almost never (2) o Sometimes (3) o Fairly often (4) o Very often (5) 221 Q193 How often have you been able to control irritations in your life? o Never (1) o Almost never (2) o Sometimes (3) o Fairly often (4) o Very often (5) Q194 How often have you felt that you were on top of things? o Never (1) o Almost never (2) o Sometimes (3) o Fairly often (4) o Very often (5) Q195 How often have you been angered because of things that happened that were outside of your control? o Never (1) o Almost never (2) o Sometimes (3) o Fairly often (4) o Very often (5) Q196 How often have you been angered because of things that happened that were outside of your control? o Never (1) o Almost never (2) o Sometimes (3) o Fairly often (4) o Very often (5) 222 Q84 Consider each of the following questions about you and your current work situation. Select the number that honestly reflects how frequently you experienced these things in the last 30 days. Q198 I am happy. o 1 = never (1) o 2 = rarely (2) o 3 = sometimes (3) o 4 = often (4) o 5 = very often (5) Q199 I feel connected to others. o 1 = never (1) o 2 = rarely (2) o 3 = sometimes (3) o 4 = often (4) o 5 = very often (5) Q200 I am not as productive at work because I am losing sleep over traumatic experiences of children and families I work with. o 1 = never (1) o 2 = rarely (2) o 3 = sometimes (3) o 4 = often (4) o 5 = very often (5) 223 Q201 I feel trapped by my job as an educator. o 1 = never (1) o 2 = rarely (2) o 3 = sometimes (3) o 4 = often (4) o 5 = very often (5) Q202 I have beliefs that sustain me. o 1 = never (1) o 2 = rarely (2) o 3 = sometimes (3) o 4 = often (4) o 5 = very often (5) Q203 I am the person I always wanted to be. o 1 = never (1) o 2 = rarely (2) o 3 = sometimes (3) o 4 = often (4) o 5 = very often (5) Q204 I feel worn out because of my work as an educator. o 1 = never (1) o 2 = rarely (2) o 3 = sometimes (3) o 4 = often (4) o 5 = very often (5) 224 Q205 I feel overwhelmed because my workload seems endless. o 1 = never (1) o 2 = rarely (2) o 3 = sometimes (3) o 4 = often (4) o 5 = very often (5) Q206 I feel “bogged down” by the system. o 1 = never (1) o 2 = rarely (2) o 3 = sometimes (3) o 4 = often (4) o 5 = very often (5) Q207 I am a very caring person. o 1 = never (1) o 2 = rarely (2) o 3 = sometimes (3) o 4 = often (4) o 5 = very often (5) Q85 Below is a list of the ways you might have felt or behaved. Mark how often you have felt this way during the past week. Q208 I was bothered by things that usually don’t bother me. o Rarely or none of the times (less than 1 day) (1) o Some or little of the time (1-2 days) (2) o Occasionally or a moderate amount of time (3-4 days) (3) o Most of all of the time (5-7 days) (4) 225 Q209 I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing. o Rarely or none of the times (less than 1 day) (1) o Some or little of the time (1-2 days) (2) o Occasionally or a moderate amount of time (3-4 days) (3) o Most of all of the time (5-7 days) (4) Q210 I felt depressed. o Rarely or none of the times (less than 1 day) (1) o Some or little of the time (1-2 days) (2) o Occasionally or a moderate amount of time (3-4 days) (3) o Most of all of the time (5-7 days) (4) Q211 I felt that everything I did was an effort. o Rarely or none of the times (less than 1 day) (1) o Some or little of the time (1-2 days) (2) o Occasionally or a moderate amount of time (3-4 days) (3) o Most of all of the time (5-7 days) (4) Q212 I felt hopeful about the future. o Rarely or none of the times (less than 1 day) (1) o Some or little of the time (1-2 days) (2) o Occasionally or a moderate amount of time (3-4 days) (3) o Most of all of the time (5-7 days) (4) Q213 I felt fearful. o Rarely or none of the times (less than 1 day) (1) o Some or little of the time (1-2 days) (2) o Occasionally or a moderate amount of time (3-4 days) (3) o Most of all of the time (5-7 days) (4) 226 Q214 My sleep was restless. o Rarely or none of the times (less than 1 day) (1) o Some or little of the time (1-2 days) (2) o Occasionally or a moderate amount of time (3-4 days) (3) o Most of all of the time (5-7 days) (4) Q215 I was happy. o Rarely or none of the times (less than 1 day) (1) o Some or little of the time (1-2 days) (2) o Occasionally or a moderate amount of time (3-4 days) (3) o Most of all of the time (5-7 days) (4) Q216 I felt lonely. o Rarely or none of the times (less than 1 day) (1) o Some or little of the time (1-2 days) (2) o Occasionally or a moderate amount of time (3-4 days) (3) o Most of all of the time (5-7 days) (4) Q217 I could not get “going”. o Rarely or none of the times (less than 1 day) (1) o Some or little of the time (1-2 days) (2) o Occasionally or a moderate amount of time (3-4 days) (3) o Most of all of the time (5-7 days) (4) 227 Q86 Below you find a list of statements describing your experiences as a teacher. Please indicate your personal response to each of these statements by selecting the number that best represents your answer. Q218 I generally enjoy teaching. o 1 = strongly disagree (1) o 2 = disagree (2) o 3 = agree (3) o 4 = strongly agree (4) Q219 I generally have so much fun teaching that I gladly prepare and teach my lessons. o 1 = strongly disagree (1) o 2 = disagree (2) o 3 = agree (3) o 4 = strongly agree (4) Q229 I often have reasons to be happy while I teach. o 1 = strongly disagree (1) o 2 = disagree (2) o 3 = agree (3) o 4 = strongly agree (4) Q228 I generally teach with enthusiasm. o 1 = strongly disagree (1) o 2 = disagree (2) o 3 = agree (3) o 4 = strongly agree (4) 228 Q227 I often have reasons to be angry while I teach. o 1 = strongly disagree (1) o 2 = disagree (2) o 3 = agree (3) o 4 = strongly agree (4) Q226 I often feel annoyed while teaching. o 1 = strongly disagree (1) o 2 = disagree (2) o 3 = agree (3) o 4 = strongly agree (4) Q225 Sometimes I get really mad while I teach. o 1 = strongly disagree (1) o 2 = disagree (2) o 3 = agree (3) o 4 = strongly agree (4) Q224 Teaching generally frustrates me. o 1 = strongly disagree (1) o 2 = disagree (2) o 3 = agree (3) o 4 = strongly agree (4) Q223 I generally feel tense and nervous while teaching. o 1 = strongly disagree (1) o 2 = disagree (2) o 3 = agree (3) o 4 = strongly agree (4) 229 Q222 I am often worried that my teaching isn’t going so well. o 1 = strongly disagree (1) o 2 = disagree (2) o 3 = agree (3) o 4 = strongly agree (4) Q221 Preparing to teach often causes me to worry. o 1 = strongly disagree (1) o 2 = disagree (2) o 3 = agree (3) o 4 = strongly agree (4) Q220 I feel uneasy when I think about teaching. o 1 = strongly disagree (1) o 2 = disagree (2) o 3 = agree (3) o 4 = strongly agree (4) Q230 Below you find a list of statements describing your experiences as a teacher in your current workplace. Please indicate your personal response to each of these statements by selecting the number that best represents your answer. Q157 I am happy working for this program. o 1 (strongly disagree) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (5) o 6 (6) o 7 (strongly agree) (7) 230 Q158 I feel like I am making a positive impact on the children in my classroom. o 1 (strongly disagree) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (5) o 6 (6) o 7 (strongly agree) (7) Q159 My work environment has a pleasant atmosphere that makes me want to do outstanding. o 1 (strongly disagree) (1) o 2 (2) o 3 (3) o 4 (4) o 5 (5) o 6 (6) o 7 (strongly agree) (7) Q28 Gender o Male (1) o Female (2) o Non-binary (3) o Prefer not to answer (4) 231 American Indian or Alaska Native (1) Black or African American (3) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (4) Q29 Age o 18-25 (1) o 26-30 (2) o 31-40 (3) o 41-50 (4) o Over 50 years old (5) o Prefer not to answer (6) Q30 Race Asian (2) ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ White (5) ▢ ▢ Prefer not to answer (6) Q236 Ethnicity o Hispanic or Latino (1) o Not Hispanic or Latino (2) 232 Other (7) __________________________________________________ Q31 Highest level of education o Some high school, but no diploma (1) o High school diploma or equivalent (GED) (2) o Some college, but no degree (3) o Associates degree (4) o Bachelors (5) o Graduate or professional degree (6) Q32 Are you currently working towards a degree? o Yes (1) o No (2) Display This Question: If Are you currently working towards a degree? = Yes Q34 If yes, which degree? o High school diploma or equivalent (GED) (1) o Some college, but no degree (2) o Associates degree (3) o Bachelors (4) o Graduate or professional degree (5) Q35 Do you have a degree in early childhood? o Yes (1) o No (2) 233 Q36 What was your major in the highest degree you studied? o Elementary education (1) o Special education (2) o Child development or psychology (3) o Early education or early or school-age care (4) o Other: write in your answer (5) __________________________________________________ Q37 Do you have a state certificate or endorsement for early care/education? o Yes (1) o No (2) Q38 Do you have a Child Development Associate (CDA) certificate? o Yes (1) o No (2) Display This Question: If Do you have a Child Development Associate (CDA) certificate? = Yes Q39 If yes, do you have any of the following? Choose all the apply. ▢ ▢ ▢ Infant/Toddler endorsement (1) Preschooler endorsement (2) Other (3) __________________________________________________ 234 APPENDIX D: EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS Before conducting the EFA, preliminary analyses were executed to determine the appropriateness of using EFA with this study’s data. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index was .95, which is well above the recommended value of .6 (Kaiser, 1974). The Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (1954) was statistically significant (p < .001, 𝜒! (1035) = 5997.11) which indicated that these items would be worth factoring since the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix. Cronbach’s alpha for the 46 items was .93. For EFA, eigenvalues indicated that it would be appropriate to consider up to seven factors, scree plot suggested seven factors, and parallel analysis showed four eigenvalues greater than 1. Upon exploring four factors to seven factors, it was deemed that four-factor model was the most appropriate given that items loaded fairly well to each factor. Communalities ranged from .25 to .84. With the four-factor model (Table 1), 21 items loaded on the first factor, Emotional Support, which explained 42.16% of the variance. The items reflected administrators supporting educators by respecting, trusting, acknowledging, and showing appreciation through communication and relationships. The second factor was labeled as Well-Being Support which comprised of 11 items and explained 3.91% of the variance. These items represented what administrators do to support educators’ well-being. There were 10 items loaded to the third factor which was named as Instrumental Support (2.98% of variance explained) as the items included administrators providing necessary resources for educators to complete their work. The fourth factor consisted of 4 items, Well-Being Resources, and explained 2.55% of variance. These items were more specific to resources and services that are available for educators’ well-being. 235 Table 5.1 Results From a Factor Analysis of Early Childhood Administrative Support-Educator (ECAS-E) ECAS-E item Factor 1: Emotional Support ES10. My administrator praises me and compliments my work. ES7. I feel appreciated by my administrator. ES2. My administrator does individual check-ins with me, for example, to talk about classroom or things going on in personal life. ES8. My administrator knows what makes me feel appreciated. ES14. I feel respected and valued by my administrator. ES4. My administrator is interested in knowing me as a human being with a personal life. ES5. My administrator provides a safe space for me to talk to them about work and/or things unrelated to work. ES6. I feel comfortable to go to my administrator to talk or vent when I am stressed out or having issues in the classroom. ES3. My administrator knows me well enough to know when I am stressed out and what helps me to relieve stress. ES1. I feel like my administrator understands my job because they have been a teacher themselves. ES18. My administrator communicates changes in policies and expectations. ES16. My administrator is available to talk whenever I need to talk to them. IS4. I can count on my administrator to hear my problems and help me come up with solutions. ES15. I feel disrespected and devalued by my administrator. (R) ES19. My administrator doesn’t communicate changes in policies and expectations. (R) IS8. My administrator supports me when I am handling a difficult situation with children and families by providing resources and following up. WB6. My administrator takes teachers’ suggestions into consideration, and takes action to incorporate these suggestions. ES9. My administrator provides snacks and food to show appreciation. ES17. My administrator is unavailable to talk whenever I need to talk to them. (R) Factor loading 1 2 3 4 .91 .86 -.10 .10 .01 -.11 .01 .06 .84 -.09 .09 .08 .84 .83 .24 -.25 -.18 .20 .01 .06 .77 .07 .03 -.11 .76 .11 -.02 .01 .73 .21 -.03 -.08 .68 -.08 .20 -.05 .63 .04 .11 -.04 -.58 -.43 .26 -.11 .57 .03 .05 .27 -.56 .04 .00 -.28 .55 .17 .05 .06 .55 .37 .04 -.11 .53 .18 .22 -.01 .53 .05 .20 .03 .46 -.02 .39 -.16 .45 .10 .14 .03 236 Table 5.1 (cont’d) IS6. I can count on my administrator to have my back when I must have difficult conversation with families about their children. IS7. I can count on my administrator to sit in on meetings with families when I need them to. -.44 -.03 -.05 -.05 .35 .02 .28 .08 Factor 2: Well-being Support ES13. My administrator micromanages me to do my job as an early childhood educator. (R) WB15. My administrator supports work-life balance by respecting teachers’ personal time and when they are taking time off. ES11. I receive more criticisms than positive feedback from my administrator. (R) ES12. My administrator trusts me to do my job as an early childhood educator. WB14. My administrator makes sure that I get personal care breaks (e.g., bathroom break, breather, or mental break) when I need it. WB1. My administrator is supportive when I call in sick or take personal days. WB13. My administrator makes sure that I get designated breaks, including lunch. WB8. My administrator provides me the autonomy to make decisions for my classroom. WB10. My administrator tries to create a positive organizational climate in the program. WB11. My administrator knows the workload that they’re giving the teachers and they are intentional about the things they ask us to do. WB12. My administrator doesn’t know the workload that they’re giving the teachers and they ask us to do more. (R) .03 -.80 .33 .00 .06 .66 .10 .04 .01 .59 .29 .02 -.35 -.57 .28 .04 .16 .57 -.03 .09 .33 .54 -.12 -.08 -.16 .54 .28 .16 .22 .45 .06 -.08 .36 .40 .06 .14 .26 .40 .04 -.09 -.29 -.39 -.12 .12 Factor 3: Instrumental Support IS1. My administrator tries to help me get my work done by coming in the classroom so I can do paperwork. IS3. My administrator does paperwork for me so I can focus on working with children and families. IS10. My administrator makes sure I have materials for my classroom. IS2. My administrator supports my work by coming in the classroom to help out when it’s more chaotic than usual. .01 -.22 .63 .09 .05 -.25 .62 .03 .28 .08 .48 -.12 .24 .14 .46 -.09 237 Table 5.1 (cont’d) IS9. My administrator directly communicates with families about licensing regulations and program policies. WB7. My administrator consults with teachers for things that they need to implement in the classroom. WB9. I can get paid overtime when it is necessary for me to get my work done. IS5. My administrator provides sufficient staffing so I can have paid office hours/planning time. WB5. My administrator provides opportunities for all teachers and staff in the program to get together and get to know each other as people. IS11. My administrator provides professional development and trainings for me so that I have the expertise I need for my work. .20 .04 .41 -.12 .38 .16 .39 -.08 -.07 .29 .38 -.21 .19 -.07 .38 .13 -.07 .28 .36 .26 -.02 .26 .31 .09 Factor 4: Well-being Resources WB4. I can access counseling or mental health services through my insurance and/or benefits package. IS12. I have coaches or specialists (e.g., family advocates, mental health specialists, early intervention specialists) whom I can go to for help in working with children and families. WB3. I am provided with mental health day(s). WB2. My administrator shows they care about my physical well-being by offering services, such as exercise classes, meditation, yoga, etc. .01 -.22 -.25 .62 .20 -.25 .02 .58 -.21 .08 .24 .55 .07 .14 .20 .53 Note. N = 188. Principal axis factoring with Promax rotation was used. Factor loadings above .30 are in bold. (R) indicates reverse-coded items. 238 REFERENCES Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various χ2 approximations. Journal of the Royal. Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 16(2), 296–298. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02291575 239 APPENDIX E: UNADJUSTED MULTILEVEL ESTIMATES FOR STUDY 2 Table 6.1 Unadjusted vs. Adjusted Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Predicting Physical Ill-being Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Unadjusted Adjusted Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a Well-being Resources x Age Group a Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Yrs of Experience with ITs Yrs of Experience with Ps Yrs at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age 9.59 -0.32 1.26 0.41 -0.16 0.47 <.001 .755 1.01 .116 0.80 .787 1.51 .747 0.50 9.53 0.80 1.59 0.32 -0.44 -0.39 0.76 <.001 .601 1.52 .131 1.05 .884 2.21 .510 0.67 .721 1.09 -1.73 1.95 .377 -0.62 1.62 .705 0.10 2.99 .975 0.42 0.92 .646 9.85 -1.83 1.82 0.77 -0.38 0.45 <.001 .058 0.95 .020 0.77 .593 1.44 .428 0.48 9.27 -0.97 2.23 0.44 -0.55 0.82 0.74 <.001 .534 1.56 .034 1.04 .840 2.15 .416 0.67 .463 1.11 -1.15 1.88 .542 -0.76 1.57 .631 0.72 2.90 .805 0.00 0.90 .999 -0.69 -1.29 -0.21 0.03 0.03 0.08 -0.97 0.30 0.53 0.23 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.74 .022 .017 .363 .671 .649 .302 .193 -0.67 -1.31 -0.19 0.01 0.04 0.08 -0.92 0.31 0.54 0.23 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.76 .034 .017 .417 .885 .537 .341 .229 -0.55 -1.08 -0.02 0.04 0.08 0.06 -1.28 0.28 0.52 0.21 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.69 .048 .041 .931 .518 .202 .381 .068 -0.47 -1.02 -0.03 0.04 0.08 0.04 -1.18 0.30 0.54 0.21 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.71 .113 .061 .884 .531 .223 .592 .099 240 Table 6.1 (cont’d) Random Effects Intercept ECE sites a 0 = infant/toddler teachers, 1= preschool teachers. Table 6.2 24.64 3.42 <.001 .963 1.53 0.07 25.33 3.28 <.001 0.00 <.001 0.00 Unadjusted vs. Adjusted Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Predicting Mental Well-being Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Unadjusted Adjusted Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a Well-being Resources x Age Group a Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate 23.61 1.20 -0.31 0.68 -0.27 0.29 <.001 .058 0.63 .533 0.50 .473 0.95 .396 0.31 23.57 2.52 -0.39 -1.60 -0.34 0.12 0.47 <.001 .008 0.94 .544 0.65 .244 1.37 .413 0.42 .865 0.68 -2.11 1.20 .083 0.06 1.00 .952 4.16 1.85 .026 -0.11 0.57 .854 23.79 1.28 0.47 -0.25 -0.08 0.30 <.001 .047 0.64 .368 0.52 .799 0.96 .799 0.32 24.26 1.97 0.62 -3.25 -0.07 -0.63 0.50 <.001 .056 1.02 .371 0.69 .022 1.40 .872 0.44 .385 0.72 -1.11 1.23 .368 -0.26 1.03 .800 5.40 1.89 .005 -0.10 0.59 .862 0.22 1.37 0.19 .241 0.33 <.001 0.24 1.34 0.19 .219 0.33 <.001 0.10 0.95 0.19 0.35 .606 .008 0.04 0.80 0.19 0.35 .835 .025 241 Table 6.2 (cont’d) Compensation and Benefits Yrs of Experience with ITs Yrs of Experience with Ps Yrs at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age 0.08 -0.05 0.01 -0.10 2.10 0.09 .595 0.14 -0.06 .203 0.04 -0.01 .899 0.04 -0.09 .044 0.05 0.46 <.001 2.31 0.14 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.47 .540 .154 .831 .085 <.001 0.11 -0.01 0.04 -0.10 1.59 .432 0.14 .788 0.04 .351 0.04 .046 0.05 0.47 <.001 0.15 -0.03 0.03 -0.05 1.72 .305 0.14 .474 0.04 .548 0.04 .325 0.05 0.46 <.001 Random Effects Intercept ECE sites a 0 = infant/toddler teachers, 1= preschool teachers. Table 6.3 11.15 0.00 1.42 <.001 10.43 1.50 <.001 0.66 0.35 0.00 <.001 0.80 Unadjusted vs. Adjusted Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Predicting Perceived Stress Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Unadjusted Adjusted Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 17.23 0.04 0.09 -1.86 0.68 0.42 <.001 .969 0.91 .904 0.72 .174 1.36 .133 0.45 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a 17.33 -1.60 -0.22 1.53 0.76 -0.15 0.67 <.001 .237 1.35 .815 0.93 .438 1.97 .203 0.60 .880 0.97 2.45 1.73 .160 0.92 1.44 .523 -6.41 2.66 .017 242 17.10 0.04 -0.40 -1.91 0.19 0.44 <.001 .962 0.89 .581 0.73 .156 1.34 .684 0.45 16.41 -0.70 -0.41 1.81 -0.04 0.91 0.70 <.001 .619 1.41 .671 0.96 .351 1.94 .952 0.62 .370 1.01 1.21 1.70 .479 0.19 1.42 .893 -6.79 2.61 .010 Table 6.3 (cont’d) Well-being Resources x Age Group a Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Yrs of Experience with ITs Yrs of Experience with Ps Yrs at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age 0.25 0.81 .758 0.49 0.82 .552 -0.48 -1.58 -0.17 -0.01 -0.06 0.11 -2.43 .074 0.27 .001 0.48 .416 0.20 .886 0.05 .343 0.06 0.07 .120 0.67 <.001 .061 -0.53 0.28 .002 -1.54 0.48 .352 -0.19 0.20 .883 0.06 0.01 .541 -0.04 0.06 0.09 .197 0.07 -2.75 0.68 <.001 -0.34 -0.73 -0.14 -0.02 -0.06 0.08 -1.81 0.26 0.49 0.20 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.64 .195 .136 .488 .768 .269 .254 .005 -0.25 -0.53 -0.16 0.01 -0.05 0.02 -1.98 0.27 0.49 0.20 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.64 .352 .276 .410 .884 .439 .824 .003 Random Effects Intercept ECE sites a 0 = infant/toddler teachers, 1= preschool teachers. Table 6.4 20.26 1.10 2.89 1.67 <.001 19.48 2.83 <.001 .439 .509 1.30 1.68 Unadjusted vs. Adjusted Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Predicting Burnout Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Unadjusted Adjusted Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a 24.59 -0.72 -0.12 -0.21 0.59 0.38 <.001 .377 0.81 .850 0.64 .862 1.22 .145 0.40 24.12 -1.10 -0.71 2.72 0.18 0.80 0.60 <.001 .360 1.20 .387 0.82 .121 1.74 .728 0.53 .357 0.86 24.29 -1.04 -0.42 -0.08 0.58 0.40 <.001 .201 0.81 .523 0.66 .946 1.22 .162 0.41 22.87 -0.83 -0.09 2.51 -0.55 1.91 0.64 <.001 .507 1.24 .916 0.85 .141 1.69 .314 0.55 .033 0.89 243 Table 6.4 (cont’d) Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a Well-being Resources x Age Group a Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Yrs of Experience with ITs Yrs of Experience with Ps Yrs at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age 0.36 1.53 .814 1.74 1.28 .176 -5.96 2.35 .013 1.11 0.72 .128 -0.09 1.49 .950 -0.62 1.25 .622 -5.22 2.27 .023 2.31 0.73 .002 -0.54 -2.98 -0.18 0.01 0.00 0.16 -2.83 0.24 .028 0.43 <.001 .336 0.18 .900 0.05 .986 0.05 0.06 .013 0.60 <.001 -0.49 -2.95 -0.20 0.04 0.00 0.13 -3.14 0.25 .050 0.42 <.001 .265 0.18 .447 0.05 .934 0.05 0.06 .041 0.60 <.001 -0.58 -2.68 -0.14 -0.02 -0.02 0.15 -2.57 0.24 .015 0.44 <.001 .443 0.18 .607 0.05 .729 0.05 0.06 .015 0.58 <.001 -0.36 -2.48 -0.16 0.02 -0.01 0.06 -2.64 0.24 0.43 0.17 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.56 .127 <.001 .361 .653 .864 .313 <.001 Random Effects Intercept ECE sites a 0 = infant/toddler teachers, 1= preschool teachers. 16.83 0.87 2.58 <.001 14.32 1.94 .634 1.82 2.28 1.98 <.001 .329 244 Table 6.5 Unadjusted vs. Adjusted Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Depressive Symptoms Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Unadjusted Adjusted Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a Well-being Resources x Age Group a Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Yrs of Experience with ITs Yrs of Experience with Ps Yrs at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age 10.54 -1.12 0.38 -1.08 1.07 0.44 <.001 .178 0.83 .580 0.68 .387 1.24 .013 0.43 10.70 -0.35 0.88 -1.34 1.16 0.38 <.001 .667 0.81 .173 0.64 .276 1.22 .005 0.40 10.50 -1.64 0.75 1.54 1.30 0.39 0.60 <.001 .180 1.21 .369 0.84 .385 1.77 .017 0.54 .660 0.87 1.93 1.56 .217 0.59 1.30 .649 -5.26 2.39 .030 -0.04 0.73 .956 9.45 -1.80 0.84 1.56 0.62 1.65 0.67 <.001 .170 1.30 .352 0.89 .380 1.77 .289 0.58 .079 0.93 1.22 1.56 .436 -0.81 1.31 .539 -4.62 2.39 .055 0.81 0.76 .294 -0.45 -2.56 -0.15 0.08 -0.03 0.10 -2.88 0.24 .062 0.43 <.001 .428 0.18 .080 0.05 .569 0.05 0.06 .135 0.60 <.001 -0.47 -2.51 -0.18 0.10 -0.02 0.08 -3.13 0.25 .066 0.43 <.001 .334 0.18 .047 0.05 .715 0.05 0.07 .252 0.61 <.001 -0.14 -2.00 -0.18 0.06 -0.03 0.05 -2.42 0.24 .575 0.45 <.001 .335 0.18 .253 0.05 .612 0.05 0.06 .412 0.59 <.001 0.03 -1.77 -0.19 0.09 -0.02 -0.01 -2.48 0.25 .909 0.45 <.001 .296 0.18 .085 0.05 .687 0.05 0.07 .823 0.59 <.001 245 Table 6.5 (cont’d) Random Effects Intercept ECE sites a 0 = infant/toddler teachers, 1= preschool teachers. Table 6.6 16.38 2.39 <.001 15.68 2.33 <.001 .182 2.10 1.75 1.77 .229 2.36 Unadjusted vs. Adjusted Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Predicting Joy in Teaching Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Unadjusted Adjusted Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a Well-being Resources x Age Group a Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate 13.70 -0.57 0.11 0.48 -0.21 0.16 <.001 .112 0.35 .696 0.28 .364 0.53 .245 0.18 13.44 -0.76 0.31 0.34 -0.17 0.52 0.27 <.001 .156 0.53 .395 0.37 .664 0.78 .469 0.24 .174 0.38 0.41 0.68 .545 -0.45 0.57 .425 0.46 1.05 .664 -0.14 0.32 .667 13.65 -0.26 0.22 0.09 -0.38 0.17 <.001 .466 0.35 .452 0.28 .873 0.53 .037 0.18 13.37 -0.39 0.38 -0.24 -0.22 0.64 0.27 <.001 .492 0.57 .317 0.38 .764 0.78 .371 0.25 .112 0.40 0.19 0.68 .786 -0.30 0.57 .598 0.85 1.05 .420 -0.43 0.33 .191 -0.07 0.86 0.11 .528 0.19 <.001 -0.03 0.88 0.11 .767 0.19 <.001 -0.12 0.65 0.10 0.19 .226 .001 -0.10 0.70 0.11 .348 0.20 <.001 246 Table 6.6 (cont’d) Compensation and Benefits Yrs of Experience with ITs Yrs of Experience with Ps Yrs at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age 0.08 0.00 -0.02 -0.01 0.42 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.26 .318 .837 .298 .636 .109 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.02 -0.03 0.02 -0.02 0.03 0.27 0.44 .363 .889 .184 .536 .103 0.09 -0.01 -0.03 0.00 0.47 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.26 .232 .757 .161 .893 .071 0.08 0.00 -0.04 0.00 0.52 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.26 .301 .972 .072 .991 .048 Random Effects Intercept ECE sites a 0 = infant/toddler teachers, 1= preschool teachers. Table 6.7 3.33 0.04 0.47 0.24 <.001 .861 3.31 0.03 0.47 <.001 .888 0.22 Unadjusted vs. Adjusted Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Predicting Anger in Teaching Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Unadjusted Adjusted Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 6.50 -0.08 0.12 -0.80 0.04 0.17 <.001 .830 0.37 .688 0.29 .150 0.55 .847 0.18 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a 6.31 -0.58 0.21 -0.11 0.01 0.36 0.28 <.001 .301 0.56 .577 0.38 .893 0.81 .961 0.25 .373 0.40 0.86 0.71 .232 -0.17 0.59 .774 -1.21 1.10 .270 247 6.48 -0.27 0.11 -0.77 -0.01 0.18 <.001 .469 0.37 .718 0.30 .166 0.56 .969 0.19 6.31 -1.13 0.30 0.07 -0.07 0.32 0.30 <.001 .062 0.60 .465 0.41 .934 0.82 .781 0.26 .458 0.43 1.29 0.72 .076 -0.32 0.60 .597 -1.53 1.10 .169 Table 6.7 (cont’d) Well-being Resources x Age Group a Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Yrs of Experience with ITs Yrs of Experience with Ps Yrs at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age 0.10 0.34 .769 0.21 0.35 .542 0.01 -0.77 0.11 -0.01 0.00 0.04 -0.70 0.11 .936 0.20 <.001 .178 0.08 .691 0.02 .983 0.02 .132 0.03 .011 0.27 0.03 -0.75 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.04 -0.77 0.12 0.20 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.28 .785 <.001 .214 .944 .945 .234 .007 0.05 -0.69 0.14 -0.01 0.00 0.04 -0.71 0.11 .630 0.20 <.001 .097 0.08 .675 0.02 .998 0.02 .114 0.03 .009 0.27 0.09 -0.62 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 -0.77 0.11 0.21 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.27 .420 .003 .117 .912 .998 .326 .006 Random Effects Intercept ECE sites a 0 = infant/toddler teachers, 1= preschool teachers. Table 6.8 3.62 0.07 0.51 <.001 .795 0.25 3.48 0.24 0.51 <.001 .445 0.32 Unadjusted vs. Adjusted Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Predicting Anxiety in Teaching Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Unadjusted Adjusted Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a 6.64 -0.08 0.24 -0.99 0.14 0.17 <.001 .844 0.38 .417 0.30 .082 0.57 .446 0.19 6.63 -0.02 0.20 -1.11 0.14 0.04 0.29 <.001 .979 0.58 .617 0.40 .188 0.84 .578 0.26 .923 0.41 6.59 -0.38 0.08 -0.75 0.10 0.18 <.001 .318 0.38 .788 0.30 .188 0.57 .584 0.19 6.62 -0.49 0.01 -0.42 0.19 -0.04 0.30 <.001 .430 0.62 .986 0.41 .627 0.86 .475 0.27 .924 0.44 248 Table 6.8 (cont’d) Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a Well-being Resources x Age Group a -0.11 0.74 .884 0.09 0.62 .880 0.20 1.13 .859 -0.01 0.35 .987 0.13 0.75 .859 0.17 0.63 .788 -0.59 1.16 .614 -0.15 0.36 .671 -0.06 -0.47 0.15 0.02 0.01 0.02 -0.99 .588 0.11 .024 0.21 .073 0.08 .342 0.02 .599 0.02 0.03 .527 0.27 <.001 -0.07 -0.46 0.15 0.02 0.01 0.02 -1.01 .535 0.12 .034 0.22 .092 0.09 .390 0.02 .588 0.03 0.03 .579 0.28 <.001 3.875 0.492 <.001 4.02 0.00 <.001 0.00 0.00 0.52 <.001 0.00 <.001 Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate 0.08 0.09 .359 Compensation and Benefits 0.08 0.09 0.02 0.02 .369 Yrs of Experience with ITs 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 .653 0.01 0.02 Yrs of Experience with Ps 0.02 0.03 Yrs at Current ECE Site 0.03 0.03 .410 -0.98 0.28 <.001 -0.97 0.29 Educators’ Age .269 -0.13 0.11 -0.71 0.20 <.001 -0.72 0.20 <.001 .378 .394 .715 .418 .001 -0.13 0.12 .236 Random Effects Intercept ECE sites a 0 = infant/toddler teachers, 1= preschool teachers. 249 Table 6.9 Unadjusted vs. Adjusted Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Predicting Job Satisfaction Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Unadjusted Adjusted Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a Well-being Resources x Age Group a Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Yrs of Experience with ITs Yrs of Experience with Ps Yrs at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age 5.30 0.15 0.12 0.25 -0.14 0.11 <.001 .525 0.24 .515 0.19 .485 0.36 .231 0.12 5.16 0.13 0.23 0.19 -0.14 0.24 0.18 <.001 .725 0.36 .350 0.25 .721 0.53 .387 0.16 .348 0.26 0.09 0.46 .851 -0.23 0.38 .545 0.20 0.71 .776 -0.05 0.22 .815 5.36 0.15 0.19 0.30 -0.15 0.11 <.001 .498 0.22 .304 0.18 .372 0.33 .186 0.11 5.26 0.38 0.16 -0.17 -0.11 0.27 0.18 <.001 .291 0.36 .503 0.24 .724 0.49 .483 0.16 .288 0.25 -0.37 0.43 .387 0.08 0.36 .821 0.93 0.65 .157 -0.15 0.21 .474 0.06 0.52 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.07 .371 0.13 <.001 .213 0.05 .859 0.01 .930 0.02 .962 0.02 .005 0.18 0.08 0.53 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.07 .283 0.13 <.001 .241 0.05 .983 0.02 .907 0.02 .856 0.02 .005 0.18 0.10 0.46 0.04 -0.01 0.00 0.02 0.44 0.06 .129 0.12 <.001 .408 0.05 .713 0.01 .865 0.01 .313 0.02 .006 0.16 0.10 0.46 0.03 0.00 -0.01 0.02 0.49 0.07 .127 0.12 <.001 .507 0.05 .765 0.01 .726 0.02 .259 0.02 .003 0.16 250 Table 6.9 (cont’d) Random Effects Intercept ECE sites a 0 = infant/toddler teachers, 1= preschool teachers. Table 6.10 1.21 0.09 0.18 0.12 <.001 1.21 0.11 .441 0.18 <.001 .384 0.13 Unadjusted vs. Adjusted Multilevel Estimates for Administrative Support Predicting Job Commitment Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Unadjusted Adjusted Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 4.06 -0.03 0.04 0.08 -0.02 0.08 <.001 .862 0.17 .758 0.14 .770 0.26 .846 0.09 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a Well-being Resources x Age Group a 4.12 -0.03 0.10 0.06 -0.11 0.09 <.001 .839 0.17 .471 0.14 .800 0.25 .221 0.09 4.02 0.18 0.05 -0.42 -0.08 0.27 0.13 <.001 .499 0.27 .784 0.18 .263 0.37 .516 0.12 .159 0.19 -0.36 0.32 .264 0.14 0.27 .601 0.88 0.50 .082 -0.09 0.16 .561 3.95 0.10 0.04 -0.05 -0.06 0.21 0.13 <.001 .699 0.26 .811 0.18 .898 0.38 .637 0.12 .271 0.19 -0.20 0.33 .545 0.02 0.28 .949 0.23 0.51 .658 0.04 0.16 .796 251 Table 6.10 (cont’d) Covariates Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Yrs of Experience with ITs Yrs of Experience with Ps Yrs at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age -0.01 0.33 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.22 0.05 .856 0.09 <.001 .001 0.04 .459 0.01 .847 0.01 .685 0.01 .091 0.13 0.01 0.34 0.13 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.23 0.05 .910 0.09 <.001 .002 0.04 .346 0.01 .639 0.01 .789 0.01 .086 0.13 0.03 0.29 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.23 .541 0.05 0.09 .002 0.04 <.001 .357 0.01 .943 0.01 .483 0.01 .063 0.12 0.04 0.28 0.12 0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.26 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 .496 .003 .002 .304 .456 .370 .036 Random Effects Intercept ECE sites a 0 = infant/toddler teachers, 1= preschool teachers. 0.72 0.05 0.11 <.001 .519 0.07 0.73 0.03 0.11 <.001 .636 0.06 252 APPENDIX F: EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Table 7.1 Exploratory Analysis Results for Administrative Support Predicting Physical Ill-being Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Covariates Yrs of Experience with ITs Yrs of Experience with Ps Yrs at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age Random Effects Intercept ECE sites 9.91 -2.73 1.55 -0.16 -0.57 0.46 <.001 .003 0.90 .046 0.77 .906 1.39 .225 0.47 0.04 0.11 0.05 -1.37 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.70 .449 .059 .472 .052 9.86 -1.84 1.82 0.79 -0.41 -0.57 -1.09 -0.01 0.03 0.07 0.07 -1.29 0.45 <.001 .055 0.95 .020 0.77 .581 1.43 .395 0.48 .042 0.28 .040 0.52 .956 0.21 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.69 .539 .227 .290 .064 25.24 0.39 3.51 <.001 .822 1.72 24.46 0.20 3.41 <.001 .899 1.57 253 Table 7.2 Exploratory Analysis Results for Administrative Support Predicting Depressive Symptoms Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits Covariates Yrs of Experience with ITs Yrs of Experience with Ps Yrs at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age Random Effects Intercept ECE sites 10.60 -2.57 0.40 -2.73 0.85 0.47 <.001 .002 0.82 .577 0.71 .030 1.25 .056 0.44 10.54 -1.19 0.42 -1.07 1.03 -0.18 -2.01 -0.17 0.44 <.001 .150 0.82 .541 0.68 .386 1.23 .017 0.42 0.24 .464 0.44 <.001 .349 0.18 0.07 -0.03 0.08 -2.76 .181 0.05 .597 0.05 0.06 .172 0.62 <.001 0.05 -0.04 0.09 -2.50 .348 0.05 .421 0.05 0.06 .103 0.59 <.001 18.37 2.49 2.66 <.001 .215 2.01 16.07 2.14 2.33 <.001 .208 1.70 254 Table 7.3 Exploratory Analysis Results for Administrative Support Predicting Depressive Symptoms by Age Group Predictors Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Intercept Emotional Support Instrumental Support Well-being Support Well-being Resources Age Group a Emotional Support x Age Group a Instrumental Support x Age Group a Well-being Support x Age Group a Well-being Resources x Age Group a Physical Environment Organizational Climate Compensation and Benefits 9.35 -3.48 1.01 0.49 0.57 1.92 1.91 -0.94 -5.20 0.60 0.70 <.001 .009 1.31 .281 0.93 .790 1.84 .328 0.58 .044 0.95 .243 1.63 .487 1.35 .040 2.50 .446 0.78 Covariates Yrs of Experience with ITs Yrs of Experience with Ps Yrs at Current ECE Site Educators’ Age 0.10 -0.04 0.03 -2.81 .054 0.05 .463 0.05 .618 0.06 0.61 <.001 9.56 -1.82 0.85 1.26 0.66 1.48 1.14 -0.75 -4.16 0.69 -0.03 -1.80 -0.18 0.07 -0.04 0.04 -2.56 0.67 <.001 .165 1.30 .344 0.89 .476 1.76 .252 0.57 .113 0.93 .467 1.56 .568 1.30 .085 2.39 0.76 .369 .914 0.25 0.45 <.001 .319 0.18 .157 0.05 .469 0.05 .462 0.06 0.59 <.001 Random Effects 17.26 Intercept ECE sites 2.83 a 0 = infant/toddler teachers, 1= preschool teachers. 2.55 <.001 .162 2.02 15.67 2.27 2.32 <.001 .190 1.73 255