PRE-KINDERGARTEN TEACHER WELL-BEING IN RURAL WEST TEXAS

A QUICK OVERVIEW

WHY THIS WORK

Seemingly minor, the distinction between kindergarten and pre-kindergarten (pre-k) teachers is important given variability in stress they may experience. A well-examined mechanism of teacher stress is compensation. Preschool teachers are usually paid less than kindergarten teachers (Barnett, 2003; Bassok et al., 2021; Darling-Hammond, 2001; Deery-Schmidt & Todd, 1995; Farley & Chamberlain, 2021), which is important when considering stress and potential outcomes of children in their care. The literature demonstrates that 1) preschool teacher pay is positively related to children’s positive emotional expression and classroom behaviors (King et al., 2015), 2) teacher stress may result in a negative and cyclical dynamic with students (Raver et al., 2008; Zhai et al., 2011), and 3) such disconnect between teachers and children considered to be at risk of school failure may compound the potential for school failure (Ladd & Burgess, 2001).

Our RPP’s 2021 Symposium for Understanding and Improving Educator Well-Being: A Hybrid Event on K12 Mental Health Needs in the Paso del Norte Region provided 1) regional mental health data, 2) secondary trauma, burnout, and stress insights, and 3) an opportunity for mindfulness. Given the impacts of COVID-19, district leaders and partners prioritized teacher well-being, requesting research in this area. In response, we launched an ongoing study examining teacher well-being with one rural school district partner in West Texas. We collaboratively determined to focus on early childhood education (ECE) teacher (i.e., pre-k) stress, specifically beginning with pre-k teachers.

WHAT THE WORK EXAMINES

To begin, university researchers met with district partners, listening to questions and concerns about teacher well-being. With their support, we examined teacher stress in the district’s sample of pre-k teachers (N = 17) using an explanatory, sequential, mixed-method design (Creswell & Creswell, 2017) in three[1] timepoints (T1, T2, T3). At T1, we implemented both self-reported instruments of perceived stress (i.e., Perceived Stress Scale; Cohen et al., 1983) and physiological measures of stress (i.e., hair cortisol concentration). The hair sample will allow us to understand chronic stress, that which gets “under the skin.” Following preliminary analyses of survey and demographic data, a qualitative semi-structured, individual interview (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007) protocol was developed to record participating pre-k teachers’ lived experiences, histories and stories (T2), asking pre-k teachers:

1) In what ways are personal and professional stress intertwined for you?
2) By what means do you cope?
3) How can our RPP convey well-being as a priority to pre-k administration?

FINDINGS

We are still continuing to collect data for this sequential study. For the purposes of this article, we share data collected at T1 and T2, respectively:

Timepoint	Tasks of Timepoint	Participation Period
Timepoint 1 (T1)	Self-reported instruments of perceived stress and physiological measures of stress	May-August 2022
Timepoint 2 (T2)	Individual, semi-structured interviews	September-December 2022
Timepoint 3 (T3) – in process	Focus group interviews	January-March 2023

Measuring PreK Teachers’ Perceived Stress

Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) Transactional Theory of Stress characterizes teachers according to their conception of resources and demands as either being balanced (resources and demands are equal), resourced (resources outweigh demands), or demanded (demands outweigh resources). Using this theoretical framework as a lens, we describe how teachers reported stress, operationalized as resources, demands, and control, the three domains of the Childcare Worker Job Stress Inventory (CCW-JSI; Curbow et al., 2000).

Childcare Worker Job Stress Inventory (Curbow et al., 2000)
Scale: 1 = rarely/never, 5 = most of the time

Domain	Example Question 17 items in each domain	Mean	Standard Deviation	Range
Resources	“I know the children are happy with me.”	4.39	0.42	3.52-5
Demands	“I feel there are major sources of stress in the children’s lives that I can’t do anything about.”	3.77	0.63	2.94-4.87
Control	“When daily activities take place.”	2.7	0.88	1.35-4.43

Results demonstrated that the pre-k teachers in our sample were more resourced than demanded. We interpreted this cautiously as the sample is small and demands had a wider range and standard deviation. Report of control was demonstrated as average.

To understand personal stress, we operationalized the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI; Beck & Steer, 1993), measuring frequency of anxiety symptoms; the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9; Kroenke et al., 2001), measuring the severity of depression; and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen et al., 1983), measuring perception of stress. Data demonstrated that pre-k teachers were mildly taxed regarding anxiety (Carney et al., 2011), moderately-severely taxed regarding severity of depression (Kroenke et al., 2001), and moderately taxed regarding stress (Cohen et al., 1983).

Beck Anxiety Inventory (Beck & Steer, 1993)
Scale: 0 = not at all, 1 = mildly, 2 = moderately, 3 = severely
Instrument value range: 0-63

Example Question 21 Items	Mean	Standard Deviation	Range
“In the past week, how often have you been bothered by numbness, feeling terrified, hands shaky?”	18.29	14.00	1-50

PhQ-9 (Kroenke et al., 2001)
Scale: 0 = not at all, 1 = several days, 2 = more than half of the days, 3=nearly every day
Instrument value range: 0-27

Example Question 9 Items	Mean	Standard Deviation	Range
“In the past two weeks, how often have you felt little interest or pleasure in doing things?”	9.7	7.95	0-26

Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen et al., 1983)
Scale: 0 = never, 1 = almost never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = fairly often, 4 = very often
Instrument value range: 0-40

Example Question 10 Items	Mean	Standard Deviation	Range
“In the last month, how often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?”	20.64	6.05	6-32

Examination of demographic data demonstrated home caregiving responsibilities as a fact for many. Nearly the entire sample (n = 15) cared for individuals at home and in addition to their caregiving role in school. One-third of participants cared for an elderly or disabled friend/family member (n = 5); more than half cared for children (n = 10).

We implemented independent samples t-tests to compare professional and personal stress between pre-k teachers without (No) and with (Yes) at-home caregiving responsibilities (i.e., elderly or disabled family/friend, children). Comparing professional stress between pre-k teachers without (No) and with (Yes) at-home caregiving responsibilities for elderly or disabled friend/family member, independent samples t-test demonstrated a statistically significant difference regarding 1) positive perception of supervisor support and 2) supportive perception of school. In both cases, the Yes group was less positive in perceptions. Concerning personal stress between pre-k teachers without (No) and with (Yes) at-home caregiving responsibilities for children, independent samples t-test demonstrated a statistically significant difference regarding self-reported scores on the 1) PSS (Cohen et al., 1983) and 2) PHQ-9 (Kroenke et al., 2001; see Figures 1, 2). In both cases, the Yes group reported higher levels of stress and depressive symptomatology.

Figure 1: Comparing Perceived Stress of PreK Teachers Without and With At-Home Caregiving Responsibilities for Children

Figure 2: Comparing Depressive Symptomology of PreK Teachers Without and With At-Home Caregiving Responsibilities for Children

These data informed the development of the semi-structured, individual interview (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007) protocol, paying particular attention to at-home caregiving responsibilities.

Hearing Directly From PreK Teachers

Individual interviews with pre-k teachers (n = 10) revealed the 2021-22 academic year as more challenging when compared to previous years. Several of the teachers we interviewed used the term “COVID babies” (ID14) to describe the children in this cohort. This label, upon further scrutiny, described these children, at age 4, as experiencing school for the first time. While this is not atypical, the teachers explained that children ordinarily have socio-emotional interactions with adults and peers outside of the family before formal schooling begins. Given COVID-19 closures in 2020-21 however, teachers described children, for example, as having “no knowledge of school” (ID16), “[don’t] want to be [in school]” (ID16), and as “displaying language and social delays” (ID10, ID13). These descriptions contrast teachers’ previous year’s descriptions. “The first…days are usually hard, but after that, the kids are actively engaged. They want to be there. They socialize a lot with the others” (ID02). The most recent year, however, was “difficult” (ID14), “every day is a challenge” (ID07), “see[ing] a big difference from last year to this year” (ID09).

When asked how these differences affected teaching, one teacher described the year as restrictive and their approach to managing the classroom as “teacher-directed; constantly redirecting, redirecting, redirecting” (ID09). Another teacher described implications faced because of these differences as “harder because I know what’s headed for [my students] in kinder[garten]…it’s not just centers and play anymore and observing things. It’s, ‘you have to know how to read’” (ID14), indicating that pre-k play-as-learning opportunities will be replaced by mandated/scripted curriculum in kindergarten and subsequent grades.

Revealed distinctions were pursued through additional questions. For example, we asked pre-k teachers to account for differences they were experiencing because of the difference regarding children, preparedness, and/or the challenge of the year. As one teacher described it:

“[I] realize that I’m tired sometimes, like I need help, you know? I don’t know if it was the stress or what it was, but I was feeling very tense. And because of the whole tension, my body was aching everywhere. And I did not want to admit that it was becoming a problem until I couldn’t really deal well with the kids.” (ID14)

Teachers also shared that tension at school led to tension at home—school-worries carried over to home. When asked specifically about being a caregiver at school and at home, one teacher replied, “It’s very hard. Um, at the end of the day, my patience for my own child is very, very little” (ID02). When asked how they coped, the teacher replied that she instructs her child, “’Give me 45 minutes on my own.’ And I tell her what time she can come in [my room…she can] watch TV, play, do whatever she wants in the [other] room.” 

When we asked pre-k teachers what would be important for researchers to communicate to district partners, they were of one voice: to ensure pre-k teacher well-being, more attention needed to be paid to the importance of pre-k. Teachers expressed an incongruence: They described their knowledge and understanding of pre-k as foundational for children’s long-term academic and socio-emotional success, but that they did not feel elevated in a way that aligned with this notion. Participating teachers felt ancillary to what happens in the rest of the school community rather than as the bedrock of upward success for children. One teacher described, for example, that the “lower grades” were left out of mathematics planning, reserved for upper grades who were most directly affected by state-mandated testing (ID14). Another teacher described rotating staff in pre-k and the subsequent lack of consistency for the children (ID04). PreK teachers also voiced a desire that district leaders understood that principals, although former teachers, had never taught pre-k and/or had not worked in the day-to-day of a classroom in “a long time” (ID14). Teachers understood this as a limitation in how supervisors could support them and empathize with them.

LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The first two phases of our study revealed several limitations and implications that are also informing future directions. First, as this sample was too small to draw generalizable conclusions, we recognize the importance of scale, aiming to increase reach by building relationships with additional school districts. 

Despite this limitation, findings demonstrated the status of pre-k teachers, both quantitatively and qualitatively, as burdened by effects of COVID-19, time poverty, and from dual responsibilities of at-school and at-home caregiving.

PreK teachers indicated that greater communication with school leadership could help alleviate some of this burden; that recognition of their voices, the uniqueness of pre-k pedagogy, and their skillset would benefit them.

Our RPP recognizes the potential challenges of results and findings for district leadership. PreK is a product of district public schooling and is informed by rules and regulations that govern all classrooms. While pre-k is important for its focus on play, child choice, and flexibility for child-directed learning, there are systemic obstacles (e.g., testing, curriculum requirements) that may limit aspects of pre-k education. Despite these challenges, we are hopeful that the opportunity to think about future research at the leadership level investigating pre-k teachers’ challenges could lead to a future intervention focused on teacher well-being and healing. The results and findings from this study may be important for districts to consider when making pragmatic and programmatic decisions. Perhaps something as innocuous as carving out time for Professional Development training during school hours only may be consequential to a group of teachers who are exceedingly burdened once they arrive at home.

NEXT STEPS

Our RPP team is now turning to the analysis of the physiological measures of stress (T1) and to the forthcoming focus group interviews (T3). We look forward, upon completion of these analyses, to learning what differences between self-reported (i.e., PSS; Cohen et al., 1983) and hair cortisol concentration determinants of stress exist. May it be the case that as good teachers, participating teachers under-report? We also look forward to learning about how pre-k teachers may discuss experiences collectively. It is our hope that in conducting focus group sessions, teachers are empowered to find solutions, to understand how levels of chronic stress may (or may not) differ from perceived stress, and how these may further inform the conversation of pre-k teacher well-being.

The RPP anticipates collectively analyzing data from all three timepoints, thereafter integrating the results and findings to further elevate the voices of pre-k teachers, working toward mutually beneficial solutions that reduce stress and increase resources and control. The research team is grateful to the 17 pre-k teachers who shared their time and insights and to district leaders for their consistent support.

Cynthia A. Wiltshire is Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education at The University of Texas at El Paso; Holly Fields is Assistant Director of Research Practice Partnerships of the Paso del Norte Partnership for Education Research; and Sanga Kim is Research Assistant Professor at The University of Texas at El Paso.

REFERENCES

Acar, I. H., Torquati, J. C., Garcia, A., & Ren, L. (2018). Examining the roles of parent-child and teacher-child relationships on behavior regulation of children at risk. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 64(2), 248-274.

Adams, M. E., Bell, L. A. E., & Griffin, P. E. (2007). Teaching for diversity and social justice. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Ayers, W. (1989). The good preschool teacher. Teachers College Press.

Barnett, W. S. (2003). Low wages = low quality: Solving the real preschool teacher crisis. Preschool Policy Matters, 3(8), 1-8.

Bassok, D., Hall, T., Markowitz, A. J., & Doromal, J. B. (2021). Teacher turnover in child care: Pre-pandemic evidence from Virginia.                                                    

Beck, A.T., & Steer, R.A. (1993). Beck Anxiety Inventory Manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

Carney, C. E., Moss, T. G., Harris, A. L., Edinger, J. D., & Krystal, A. D. (2011). Should we be anxious when assessing anxiety using the Beck Anxiety Inventory in clinical insomnia patients?. Journal of psychiatric research, 45(9), 1243-1249.

Cartwright, S. (1999). What Makes Good Early Childhood Teachers?. Young Children, 54(4), 4-7.

Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 386–396.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.

Curbow, B., Spratt, K., Ungaretti, A., McDonnell, K., & Breckler, S. (2000). Development of the child care worker job stress inventory. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(4), 515-536.

Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 49(1), 91-96.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The challenge of staffing our schools. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 12-17.

Deery-Schmitt, D. M., & Todd, C. M. (1995). A conceptual model for studying turnover among family child care providers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10(1), 121-143.

Farley, A. N., & Chamberlain, L. M. (2021). The teachers are not alright: A call for research and policy on teacher stress and well-being. The New Educator, 17(3), 305-323.

Guglielmi, R. S., & Tatrow, K. (1998). Occupational stress, burnout, and health in teachers: A methodological and theoretical analysis. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 61-99.

Jandrić, P., Martinez, A. F., Reitz, C., Jackson, L., Grauslund, D., Hayes, D., Lukoko, H. O., Hogan, M., Mozelius, P., Arantes, J. A., Levinson, P., Ozolinš, J. J., Kirylo, J. D., Carr, P. R., Hood, N., Tesar, M., Sturm, S., Abegglen, S., Burns, T., Sinfield, S., Stewart, G. T., Suoranta, J., Jaldemark, J., Gustaffson, U., …& Hayes, S. (2022). Teaching in the age of Covid-19—The new normal. Postdigital Science and Education, 4(3), 877-1015.

Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491-525.

Jeon, L., Buettner, C. K., & Hur, E. (2016). Preschool teachers’ professional background, process quality, and job attitudes: A person-centered approach. Early Education and Development, 27(4), 551-571.

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.                                                                    

Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2001). The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9): 606-613.

Krueger, R. A., Casey, M. A., Donner, J., Kirsch, S., & Maack, J. N. (2001). Social analysis: Selected tools and techniques. Social Development Paper, 36. 

Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (2001). Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the linkages between childhood aggression and early psychological and school adjustment?. Child development, 72(5), 1579-1601.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups as qualitative research (Vol. 16). Sage. 

Noddings, N. (2008). Caring and peace education. Encyclopedia of peace education, 87-91.

Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C., Metzger, M., Smallwood, K., & Sardin, L. (2008). Improving preschool classroom processes: Preliminary findings from a randomized trial implemented in Head Start settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(1), 10-26.

Zhai, F., Raver, C. C., & Li-Grining, C. P. (2011). Classroom-based interventions and teachers’ perceived job stressors and confidence: Evidence from a randomized trial in Head Start settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(4), 442-452.

NOTES

[1] Timepoint 3 will entail focus group interviews (Krueger et al., 2001; Morgan, 1996) in order to understand how the community of PreK teachers in the district coalesce (or not) around particular findings illuminated in T2 individual interviews.

Suggested citation: Wiltshire, C. A., Fields, H., & Kim, S. (2023). PreKindergarten Teacher Well-Being in Rural West Texas. NNERPP Extra, 5(1), 9-16. https://doi.org/10.25613/AXMH-GZ19