California is a notable, laudable exception to this trend. , under the leadership of Gov. Gavin Newsom, the state embarked on an ambitious effort to more than double its number of public pre-K and transitional kindergarten (or “TK”) seats for 4-year-old Californians from just over 147,000 to roughly 400,000. (TK began in 2008 for children who just missed the state’s cutoff for kindergarten enrollment, but has significantly expanded to serve more 4-year-olds since 2021). 

This would be a major accomplishment for the state and for early education advocates. The key, of course, is to show how policymakers can dramatically grow pre-K and TK access while maintaining crucial quality elements that support children’s development. The best way to do that is to ensure that the state’s new early education classrooms have great teachers prepared to meet their students’ needs. 

According to the Migration Policy Institute, in 2022, of California children under 5 years old have at least one parent who speaks a non-English language at home. As such, it’s particularly that the state fill its new pre-K and TK classrooms with bilingual early educators. 

How’s the state doing at building bilingualism into its new public early education system? Let’s start with the good news. California had a wealth of bilingual early educators before it launched its early education expansion. In 2020, according to data from the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment at UC-Berkeley, nearly half of staff members working in early childhood education centers , and around 40% identified as Latina. Furthermore, as of that year, the state’s early educators were overwhelmingly (98%) women, and had, on average, working in early childhood education settings. As California expands its early education system to fund — and operate — the bulk of classrooms for its 4-year-olds, this diverse workforce provides a strong foundation of experience. 

In a , which I co-authored with my colleague Jonathan Zabala in my role as a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, we uncovered something troubling. The requirements to become an early educator in the state’s growing public early education system are likely to exclude many of these women — and their valuable linguistic and cultural assets — from careers in the state’s growing public early education system. As we note in the report, California is rolling out a new kind of credential, which, over time, will become the standard for TK teachers. That credential “requires candidates to have a bachelor’s degree, complete specific coursework and assessments demonstrating competence, pass the CalTPA, and perform 600 hours of student teaching.”

These credential requirements reflect a choice by state policymakers to align TK teaching credentials with K–12 requirements, which are generally more stringent than early education requirements. This makes California’s public TK classrooms more accessible to K–12 public school teachers whose credentialing largely aligns, but it places these jobs out of reach for many early educators with decades of experience working in private pre-K classrooms.

In the American early care and education system, credentialing and licensure is complicated. Regulations vary by state and there’s no single model that’s been written in the stars as the one true and best policy. Rather, the rules policymakers set reflect a host of tradeoffs that influence the demographics of the teachers children get. And because of an array of factors both substantively wide and historically deep — , racial and ethnic wealth gaps, cost increases in higher education, and more — even seemingly neutral training requirements can produce a surprisingly homogeneous teaching workforce ill-suited to supporting a diverse population of students. 

For instance, there’s nothing inherently racist or monolingually-biased about requiring teacher candidates to practice their future profession as student teachers before getting their license to be a lead teacher. But if the clinical hours spent as a student teacher aren’t paid, even though student teachers are still required to pay tuition to their training programs during that time, then candidates without significant financial resources may be less likely to make it over this hurdle. And that’s part of why, in a country where and are disproportionately likely to be growing up below — or near — the poverty line, we have such persistent shortages of bilingual teachers and teachers of color. 

Nearly every teacher credential requirement involves this sort of tradeoff — for early educators or for K–12 teachers. The more standardized and less flexible a state’s licensure system is, the more difficult it can be for diverse candidates to reach the classroom. What’s more, as we note in our report, “frustratingly, research indicates that many licensure requirements don’t generally produce higher-quality instruction or better outcomes for students.” 

What can California policymakers do to ensure that more of their current, experienced, linguistically diverse early educators reach the state’s new pre-K and TK classrooms? Well, when it comes to policy reforms for diversifying the teacher workforce, there really are only two main options. Policymakers can either: 

1) Pursue investments that can provide financial support for non-traditional teacher candidates going through traditional training and licensure systems, including scholarships, large stipends for student-teaching and additional pay to help people miss work to go to classes. 

2) Introduce more flexibility into their credential requirements, such as alternative training pathways, credential waivers and equivalency provisions, which would make it possible for candidates with years of early childhood experience to be counted toward clinical hours.

That’s it. There really isn’t some other clever mechanism. Either California needs to invest significantly more so that more bilingual early educator candidates get the (mostly monolingual) credentials the state requires or it needs to change the credentials it requires. 

So, as we note in the report, California policymakers urgently need reforms that help early childhood educators have their “language skills and instructional expertise as partially or fully equivalent to the credentials required for becoming a TK teacher.” This could involve creating new provisional credentials that allow long-time early educators to become lead TK teachers in the new public system for five to seven years while they complete further training. It could involve major state investments in waiving tuition or providing student teaching stipends for bilingual TK teacher candidates. 

The story of the last big cycle of early education investments makes it clear that effective implementation matters at least as much as political momentum. And when it comes to supporting young, linguistically diverse kids, that means building systems that support the training and hiring of bilingual early educators. California is an emerging national leader in early education, so it’s critical that it gets this early education expansion right. The state already has the bilingual teacher candidates it needs. The next big step is making sure it keeps them in its new public early education system. 

These choices manifest themselves in a variety of ways, including how much money states provide for their public schools, how many people work in those schools and in what types of roles, and how teachers are recruited and trained. Here are five big differences: 

1. Per-pupil spending 

At the national level, public schools an average of $15,810 per pupil in 2019-20, not including debt or construction costs. But that figure hides tremendous variation across the country. Idaho and Utah schools, for instance, spent less than $10,000 per pupil, whereas Vermont; Washington, D.C., and New York schools spent upward of $25,000 per student. 

In real, inflation-adjusted terms, school spending nationally is 6% higher than it was a decade ago, and it’s up 28% over the last two decades. The gap between states is also growing over time. Over the last 20 years, the 10 lowest-spending states have increased their school funding by 16%, while the top-spending states have boosted theirs by 48%. 

These figures are not adjusted for cost-of-living differences, and it is clearly cheaper to live in Boise than in New York City. But other decisions are driving these spending differences as well. 

2. Student-to-teacher ratios 

According to the most recent , Vermont has the lowest student-to-teacher ratio in the country, at 10.5 students for every teacher. Maine, D.C., New Hampshire, New Jersey and New York were all under 12 to 1. The data are in terms of full-time equivalent employees, or FTEs, which account for the number of hours an employee actually works.  

In contrast, states in the South and West tend to have far more students per teacher. Oregon, Idaho, Louisiana, Florida, Alaska and Washington are all clustered together at just under 18 to 1. Alabama comes next, at 19 to 1, followed by California, Arizona and Utah at over 22 students per teacher. 

To put it another way, in per-student terms, Vermont public schools employ more than twice as many teachers as California, Arizona or Utah schools do. 

3. Total staffing levels 

Nationally, teachers make up just under half of all public school employees. But that ranges from 31% in Ohio up to 60% in Idaho. That is, Idaho’s investments in education are more likely to go to teachers, whereas Ohio’s are more likely to go to other types of staff. 

As with teachers, Vermont has the lowest student-to-staff ratio, with just 4.5 students for every full-time equivalent staff member. Maine, Connecticut, D.C., Ohio and New Hampshire are all below 5.5 students per school employee. Some of these states are among the most expensive places to live, but their staffing choices also make their schools more expensive.

On the other end, some states operate with much leaner staffing models. For example, public schools in Alabama, Arizona, Idaho and Washington schools all have 10 to 12 students per staff member. In other words, the typical public school in some states employs about half the staff as is common in other states.

4. Teacher preparation programs 

States also get their teachers through very different pathways. According to the 2020-21 , about 30% of educators in their first three years in the classroom came through an alternative certification program. 

Midwestern and Northeastern states tend to rely less on alternative routes and more heavily on traditional training. Among states with reliable data, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, Michigan, Connecticut and Kansas all have less than 20% of their new teachers coming through alternative programs. 

On the higher end, more than half of all new teachers enter through nontraditional routes in Florida and Texas. New Mexico topped the list, with nearly two-thirds of all new teachers entering teaching in this way. These states may be making pragmatic decisions about local supply and demand, but relying more heavily on alternative programs also improves teacher and likely lowers for teachers, while it may come at the cost of .  

5. Teacher credentials 

Teachers are very well educated, and more than 60% have earned a master’s degree or higher by their third year in the profession ( of all American adults). 

But those national trends mask wide variation across the states. Only 30% to 40% of teachers in Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and South Dakota have earned a master’s, versus 87% in Massachusetts, 91% in Connecticut and 96% in New York. 

In other words, the teaching profession looks very different depending on which state you happen to live in. What might appear weird to people in New York or Massachusetts may be standard practice for teachers, educators and schools in Florida or Arizona. As schools across the country work to re-engage students and get them back on track academically, it’s worth learning from these differences and understanding what can be ignored versus might be worth replicating.