Tapping Educator Agency to Guide Children’s Social and Emotional Learning
By Sara D. Hooks, Jennifer K. Pett, Janese Daniels, and Nicole Vasanth
Social and emotional development are important aspects of the early childhood years. Children who develop these competencies are more likely to have positive academic experiences beyond preschool as well as positive lifetime outcomes (Alzahrani et al. 2019; NASEM 2024). Promoting and nurturing this developmental domain are key responsibilities for early childhood educators. Children’s social and emotional learning are impacted through the experiences educators plan, the practices they use, and the ways they model appropriate responses and actions to enhance and support social and emotional growth (Jennings & Greenberg 2009).
Social and emotional learning (SEL) should be an integral part of the preschool curriculum (NASEM 2024). It is the process by which children learn to use their knowledge, attitudes, and skills to develop healthy identities, manage emotions, show empathy for others, maintain relationships, and make responsible decisions (Durlak et al. 2022). However, research has shown that when implemented as a prescribed scope and sequence, commercial or prepackaged SEL curricula can limit teachers’ autonomy, creativity, and flexibility to address individualized social and emotional needs as they arise (Hogan et al. 2018). Early childhood educators must be able to intentionally create and implement SEL throughout the day (NASEM 2024).
We (the authors) are a group of early childhood professors (first, second, and third authors) and an early childhood center director (fourth author) at Towson University in Towson, Maryland. We worked collaboratively with early childhood educators to create Project RISE (Respect, Inclusivity, Support, and Equity). Project RISE was designed to empower early childhood educators to work with children and families to foster children’s social and emotional development. We have shared this work with early childhood educators from around the state as they consider quality SEL practices in their own settings.
In this article, we discuss the importance of educator agency in creating and implementing SEL instruction, then detail our multifaceted, holistic approach. We end with steps that early childhood educators can take to adapt these practices to their own settings.
Educator Agency in SEL
Educator agency, or the ability to make choices and influence events (Cong-Lem 2021), is a critical component of instruction and interactions that scaffold children’s social and emotional development (Jennings & Greenberg 2009). This agency, however, is often misunderstood. Rather than implementing short-term goals that focus only on process (Biesta et al. 2015), teachers exercise agency when they “make decisions, take initiatives, act proactively rather than reactively, and deliberatively strive and function to reach a certain end” (Imants & Van der Wal 2020). Agency is also relational, in that educators’ decisions and actions are influenced by and impact their larger communities (Pietarinen et al. 2016).
Similarly, children are influenced by interactions within interconnected environments (Bronfenbrenner 2005; Bronfenbrenner & Morris 2006). According to developmental psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner, these environments, or ecosystems, range from the immediate, or micro environments (home, work, friends, school), to larger macrosystems, such as public policy, laws, and programs that “create the environments that shape the course of human development” (Bronfenbrenner 2005, xxvii; Bronfenbrenner & Morris 2006; Guy-Evans 2025; Shimek et al. 2025). Each ecosystem plays a unique role in shaping individuals’ behavior and growth over time.
In early childhood education, the microsystems that impact a child’s development include family, staff, and peers. The macrosystems involve connections between families and early childhood programs. By considering the influences of children’s cultures and contexts (Wilder et al. 2024) and creating trusting, collaborative partnerships among programs and families, educators can advance equity through the social and emotional practices they use (Lewis et al. 2023). This is a key part of developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) and its emphasis on creating caring communities of learners that are inclusive, safe, and consistent (NAEYC 2020).
Effective SEL Practices in Action
Our work offers an example of how educator agency can positively impact SEL instruction and children’s interconnected environments. Project RISE traces its beginnings to May 2022, when the leadership of the Towson University Child Care Center (TUCC) identified several strengths at the center (positive teacher-child interactions, a shared vision for DAP) as well as areas for growth. Center data spanning 15 years showed that leaders often had to support teachers in addressing challenging behavior in the classroom. For example, teachers often called the center director for help with a child having a tantrum. This sometimes resulted in temporarily removing the child from the class.
That response is consistent with the findings from a large-scale survey of center directors, most of whom reported removing a child from a classroom or center within the past year due to behavioral challenges. These included aggression, tantrums, and poor self-regulation (Clayback & Hemmeter 2021).
Programs often need to build capacity to implement equitable social and emotional learning practices that address the complex issues surrounding exclusion (Mahoney et al. 2021). They can do this by
Supporting the emotional well-being of preschool-age children
Providing teachers with quality preparation and ongoing professional development
Supporting family education related to social and emotional development and learning (Stegelin 2018)
To build TUCC’s capacity for addressing challenging behavior, the center’s leadership and staff decided they needed professional development aimed at promoting agency and enhancing the positive relationships that already existed with children and families. They wanted to increase the use of equitable practices, and they aimed to reduce or prevent the need for intervention from center leadership. The center’s director connected with Towson’s Early Childhood Education Department, and a faculty member observed classrooms. Leaning on NAEYC resources and the broader literature (Blake & Gibbs 2024; NAEYC 2025), the faculty member identified practices that educators were implementing to foster children’s social and emotional development, particularly in curriculum, teaching, and relationships with families. Then, she created an educator resource with evidence-based practices and a guide for implementation.
Project RISE came about through these efforts and collaborative conversations among multiple stakeholders (center leaders, teachers, university faculty, and undergraduate students). It builds educators’ agency to communicate more effectively with families and to address challenging behavior by offering professional development and integrating SEL experiences throughout the learning day.
Professional Development Activities
Challenging behavior and social and emotional development are two of the most common concerns raised by both families and early childhood educators (Martinsone et al. 2022). Yet research points to discrepancies in how each may perceive children’s social and emotional development and behaviors (Winsler & Wallace 2002; Major et al. 2015). For example, behavioral expectations may differ between home and school. Likewise, similar behaviors may be addressed or responded to differently based on the environments in which they occur. Findings also indicate that teachers’ perceptions about the quality of their relationships with families can impact exclusionary decisions, with positive perceptions being related to a lower risk of exclusion from early care and learning settings (Zulauf‐McCurdy & Zinsser 2021).
Such research illuminates the importance of establishing mutually caring relationships with families, which is also a guideline of DAP (NAEYC 2020). Conversations with families about a child’s social, emotional, and behavioral needs are essential to children’s overall well-being and learning. However, these discussions can be difficult and uncomfortable for both practitioners and families (Graham-Clay 2024).
Because of this tension, it is crucial to offer professional development that supports intentional conversations with families (Smith & Sheridan 2019). These opportunities allow early childhood professionals to practice communication skills, receive real-time feedback, and reflect on the type of language used to discuss children’s social, emotional, and behavioral strengths and needs. Professional development can be high- or low-tech (Dieker et al. 2014; Kilgour et al. 2015). High-tech options include computer-simulated environments with live avatars; low-tech practices include structured role-playing.
Research shows that technology-enhanced simulated experiences can be an effective tool for teachers to practice and refine their skills (Wang & Li 2024). For example, during avatar simulations, teachers can practice their skills, receive feedback and coaching, and reflect on their practice (Dotger 2015; Dieker et al. 2023). Simulated experiences help nurture educators’ agency and their confidence and beliefs in their abilities to be effective at their jobs (Song et al. 2025).
Our program’s funding allowed us to offer high-tech professional development. Simulated scenarios were developed based on the real-life experiences teachers had in addressing behavioral, social, and emotional topics with families. Educators engaged in two-way communication, with an avatar acting as a parent or other caregiver. After the simulation, faculty coaches offered feedback about the language educators used: Was it sensitive, strengths-based, and actionable? This is important because language can influence families’ perceptions of how educators address concerns and can impact future interactions (Pennington et al. 2024).
For an example of how this type of professional development can improve communication between educators and families, consider the “Family-Educator Conference” scenario outlined below. This activity took place via a simulation, but it could also be used in a role-playing exercise.
Family-Educator Conference
Mrs. Friedman is meeting with Mr. Lee, whose son, David, is learning to engage socially with his peers.
Mrs. Friedman: Good morning, Mr. Lee! Thank you for coming to the center today to talk about how things have been going with David.
Mr. Lee: (smiling) Of course! I was anxious about how David was doing when you asked me to meet with you.
Mrs. Friedman: David has a lot of great qualities, and we enjoy having him here. However, we have noticed some behavioral concerns.
Mr. Lee: (frowning, crossing arms, and leaning forward) What do you mean? What kind of behavioral concerns?
Mrs. Friedman: (showing discomfort with Mr. Lee’s body language) Over the past few weeks, David has been having a difficult time sharing and taking turns. He gets frustrated when he doesn’t get his way. When teachers can’t get to him fast enough, he can be aggressive and has even hit other children.
Mr. Lee: (shifting in his seat and elevating his voice) Are you saying David is a problem? He is only 3 years old! It sounds like the staff here aren’t watching him or the other children very well!
After this exercise, Mrs. Friedman debriefs with her coach. They talk about what she did well (thanking Mr. Lee for the meeting; starting the conversation with a positive comment about David) and what could be improved. For example, Mrs. Friedman could have asked Mr. Lee if he observed similar interactions outside of school or what strategies he used when David became frustrated. The coach also asks if Mrs. Friedman could connect Mr. Lee’s body language to the language she used. After debriefing, Mrs. Friedman repeats the exercise.
Mrs. Friedman: Good morning, Mr. Lee! Thank you for coming to the center to talk about David’s progress transitioning to the 3-year-olds’ class.
Mr. Lee: (smiling) Of course! I was curious to learn more about how David was doing in his new class.
Mrs. Friedman: David has a lot of great qualities, such as his expansive vocabulary and his newfound curiosity about different types of insects. He has a great memory and seems to enjoy learning. We also want to talk about some areas we have been working on during interactions with peers during less structured play activities. How does David interact with other children outside of school?
Mr. Lee: (leaning forward) I am so glad to hear that he is enjoying learning at school. He mainly interacts with his older siblings and doesn’t seem to have any problems.
Mrs. Friedman: (nodding) We have noticed that David needs support to share materials with other children. There was an instance when the teachers were with other children across the room, and David yelled and put his hands on another child who had a toy that he wanted. We have observed times when David will happily share with others. For example, when one of the teachers is close, they can prompt David to take turns and use his words to ask his peers for a toy when he wants it. He also benefits from a visual timer so that he knows it is another friend’s turn when the time runs out.
Mr. Lee: (tilting head to the side) As far as what I am seeing with him interacting with other children, he is mainly around his older siblings. They are used to giving him what he wants because he is the baby. So I can see how that might be hard for him to share in school. Maybe I will try to get him together with other children his own age so that he gets used to playing and sharing with others.
Professional development such as this enhances educator agency through structured practice, immediate feedback, and opportunities for reflection and self-correction. It also empowers families to share their observations and experiences. As noted in the second scenario, teachers and families describe behaviors objectively and respectfully, which leads to productive conversations about effective strategies for preventing or redirecting challenging behavior.
Threading SEL Throughout the Curriculum
Children need practice to develop their social and emotional skills and behaviors. This requires educators to use their agency to intentionally plan learning experiences that are built around social and emotional goals as well as content areas (NASEM 2024). Besides planning both teacher- and child-directed activities, educators must also be prepared to guide spontaneous situations (Giordano 2025).
Interactive read alouds promote young children’s language and literacy development (Baker & Santoro 2023) while cultivating a learning community that builds meaning together (Vlach et al. 2023). By purposefully choosing texts that represent social and emotional ideas and skills, educators can guide children’s self-awareness, self-management, and responsible decision-making skills as a group or individually (Doyle & Bramwell 2006; Deliman et al. 2024). Books also “enhance and deepen students’ comprehension, vocabulary, and understanding while offering space for different perspectives” (Leung et al. 2018, 23–24).
Given that both SEL and literacy outcomes are necessary for young children’s developmental flourishing, integrating these two components is effective and efficient (Cipriano et al. 2023; Deliman et al. 2024). For example, consider the scenario below.
During center time, Mrs. Hicks notices Leo, age 3, paging through Waiting Is Not Easy!, by Mo Willems. In this book, Piggie makes Gerald wait for a surprise (hijinks ensue). Mrs. Hicks decides to use it as a springboard for talking with Leo about self-awareness and self-management.
“Leo,” she asks, “do you know what it means to wait for something?”
“Like, when there’s a long line for the slide, and I can’t go yet?” Leo answers.
“Yes! That’s exactly right,” Mrs. Hicks says. “When you want to have something or do something, and there’s a reason that it can’t happen in that moment, that’s called waiting. How do you feel when you are waiting for your turn at the slide?”
“Sometimes I get wiggly, like excited, but sometimes I get mad when people take too long,” Leo says.
Mrs. Hicks begins reading Waiting Is Not Easy!, embedding a few questions and observations along the way that guide Leo to consider how Gerald manages his feelings as he waits for Piggie to show him the surprise. She helps Leo think about how Gerald could manage his feelings of frustration and impatience and how Leo might do the same in similar situations. As the story draws to a close, Mrs. Hicks engages with Leo about what he has learned about Gerald and himself.
“Wow! That beautiful starry sky was a surprise worth waiting for!” she says. “Gerald had a really hard time waiting all during this story. What do you think might have made waiting easier?”
“Maybe if Gerald played with something?” Leo suggests.
“That’s a great idea, Leo!” Mrs. Hicks says. “Gerald could have played with something while he was waiting.” She then asks what Leo can do the next time he has to wait for something and encourages him to try out his ideas.
Early childhood educators need agency when selecting children’s literature so that they can address social and emotional development for each learner. When selecting books, we recommend they consider the following questions (e.g., Gunn et al. 2022):
Is the content developmentally appropriate for the children they’re working with? For example, is the text engaging, and are the illustrations visually appealing?
Are SEL themes integrated within the text through an authentic narrative structure?
Are the characters, plot, and problems relevant to children’s lives? Do they serve as windows, mirrors, and sliding glass doors for readers (Bishop 1990)?
Do the books read over time include children with diverse identities, abilities, and cultures?
As with all learning, educators should work to connect families to the instruction occurring at school (Schmidtke et al. 2025). We introduced the SEL/Literacy initiative as part of Project RISE to share our social and emotional language and literacy curricula with children’s families. In addition to using books during the learning day, educators in our program send books home each week along with a tipsheet for families. This informal guide identifies the overarching SEL principles represented in the text and ways a family can interact with it and their child. Suggestions include asking and answering questions, labeling and explaining concepts, and helping children make connections to the text (Vallotton et al. 2023). Teachers encourage families to read the book multiple times before returning it at the end of the week.
To strengthen the impact of this initiative, we invited families and other caregivers to participate in an informational webinar. We encouraged families to share any recommendations with the team about possible texts and SEL concepts that they thought would be helpful for their children to embrace. We received positive feedback from both families and educators about the relevance and quality of the discussions prompted by the books.
Applications for Early Childhood Educators
Since implementing Project RISE in 2023, TUCC has been acknowledged as a model for social and emotional learning. More than 80 providers from across the state have visited the center to observe practices in real time. Participants have reported that they feel more equipped to prevent and address challenging behavior. Based on these outcomes and our experiences, we encourage educators in other early childhood settings to introduce intentional, agentic instruction. Consider these first steps to get started:
Evaluate your existing practices and curriculum to foster social and emotional development. Do they align with developmentally appropriate practice? How are they implemented? How can educators be empowered to incorporate social and emotional ideas and skills into learning activities?
Engage in robust professional development. Investigate both high- and low-tech options that will help educators improve their SEL knowledge in general and for individual learners and families.
Embed social and emotional content in the curriculum. Look for ways to thread SEL throughout content areas and domains and through both child- and teacher-directed experiences.
Partner with families. Work to build reciprocal relationships with families so that they are partners in their children’s social and emotional development.
About the Authors
Sara D. Hooks, EdD, has been in the Department of Early Childhood Education at Towson University since August 2015. Her research and service interests focus on preparing teacher candidates to work effectively with children with diverse learning and behavioral needs and to engage families in meaningful ways. shooks@towson.edu
Jennifer K. Pett, MEd, is an assistant teaching professor at Towson University, where she has instructed teacher candidates for over 15 years. She has also worked as a literacy professional developer in urban schools, a curriculum developer, and an elementary classroom teacher.
Janese Daniels, PhD, is chair of the Department of Early Childhood Education at Towson University. With a focus on children at risk, she has taught and advised many students, published extensive research, presented at conferences, and served on various committees.
Nicole Vasanth, MEd, is the director of the Towson University Child Care Center. She also serves on the College of Education (COE) University leadership team, teaches graduate courses in the Department of Early Childhood Education, and partners with COE faculty to support teacher candidates during supervised observations.
References
Alzahrani, M, M. Alharbi, & A. Alodwani. 2019. “The Effect of Social-Emotional Competence on Children Academic Achievement and Behavioral Development.” International Education Studies 12 (12): 141–49. doi.org/10.5539/ies.v12n12p141.
Baker, D., & L. Santoro. 2023. “Quality Read-Alouds Matter: How You Teach is Just as Important as What You Teach.” The Reading Teacher 77 (3): 310–20. doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2241.
Biesta, G., M. Priestley, & S. Robinson. 2015. “The Role of Beliefs in Teacher Agency.” Teachers and Teaching 21 (6): 624–40. doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325.
Bishop, R.S. 1990. “Mirrors, Windows, and Sliding Glass Doors.” Perspectives: Choosing and Using Books for the Classroom 6 (3): ix–xi. Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
Blake, L, & M.W. Gibbs. 2024. “Navigating Quality: One Public School System’s Approach to NAEYC Reaccreditation.” Young Children 79 (4): 16–27.
Bronfenbrenner, U. 2005. Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human Development. Sage.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & P.A. Morris. 2006. “The Bioecological Model of Human Development.” In Handbook of Child Psychology: Theoretical Models of Human Development, eds. R.M. Lerner & W. Damon. 6th ed. John Wiley & Sons.
Cipriano, C., M.J. Strambler, L.H. Naples, C. Ha, M. Kirk, et al. 2023. “The State of Evidence for Social and Emotional Learning: A Contemporary Meta-Analysis of Universal School-Based SEL Interventions.” Child Development 94 (5): 1181–1204. doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13968.
Clayback, K.A., & M.L. Hemmeter. 2021. “Exclusionary Discipline Practices in Early Childhood Settings: A Survey of Child Care Directors.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 55 (2): 129–36. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.11.002.
Cong-Lem, N. 2021. “Teacher Agency: A Systematic Review of International Literature.” Issues in Educational Research 31 (3): 718–38. iier.org.au/iier31/cong-lem.pdf.
Deliman, A., M. Robertson, & R. Turner. 2024. “Combining Social-Emotional Learning Competencies and Contemporary Concerns Picturebooks to Foster Early Literacy Practices: An Interdisciplinary Approach.” The Reading Teacher 78 (3): 165–76. doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2357.
Dieker, L., C. Hughes, & M. Hynes. 2023. “The Past, the Present, and the Future of the Evolution of Mixed Reality in Teacher Education.” Education Sciences 13 (11): 1070. doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111070.
Dieker, L., C.L. Straub, C.E. Hughes, M.C. Hynes, & S. Hardin. 2014. “Learning from Virtual Students.” Educational Leadership 71 (8): 54–58. learntechlib.org/p/153594.
Dotger, B.H. 2015. “Core Pedagogy: Individual Uncertainty, Shared Practice, Formative Ethos.” Journal of Teacher Education 66 (3): 215–26. doi.org/10.1177/0022487115570093.
Doyle, B.G., & W. Bramwell. 2006. “Promoting Emergent Literacy and Social-Emotional Learning through Dialogic Reading.” The Reading Teacher 59 (6): 554–64. doi.org/10.1598/rt.59.6.5.
Durlak, J.A., J.L. Mahoney, & A.E. Boyle. 2022. “What We Know, and What We Need to Find Out About Universal, School-Based Social and Emotional Learning Programs for Children and Adolescents: A Review of Meta-Analyses and Directions for Future Research.” Psychological Bulletin 148 (11–12): 765–82. doi.org/10.1037/bul0000383.
Giordano, K. 2025. “Social and Emotional Learning.” In The Intentional Teacher: Choosing the Best Strategies for Young Children’s Learning, ed. A. Schmidtke. NAEYC.
Graham-Clay, S. 2024. “Difficult Conversations with Parents: Practical Skills for Teachers.” School Community Journal 34 (1): 61–84. adi.org/journal/SS2024/Graham-Clay2.pdf.
Gunn, A.A., S.V. Bennett, & B.J. Peterson. 2022. “Exploring Multicultural Picturebooks with Social-Emotional Themes.” The Reading Teacher 76 (3): 362–74. doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2145.
Guy-Evans, O. 2025. “Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory.” Simply Psychology. simplypsychology.org/bronfenbrenner.
Hogan, A., E. Enright, M. Stylianou, & L. McCuaig. 2018. “Nuancing the Critique of Commercialisation in Schools: Recognising Teacher Agency.” Journal of Education Policy 33 (5): 617–31. doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1394500.
Imants, J., & M.M. Van der Wal. 2020. “A Model of Teacher Agency in Professional Development and School Reform.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 52 (1): 1–14. doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1604809.
Jennings, P.A., & M.T. Greenberg. 2009. “The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher Social and Emotional Competence in Relation to Student and Classroom Outcomes.” Review of Educational Research 79 (1): 491–525. doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693.
Kilgour, P., D. Reynaud, M. Northcote, & M. Shields. 2015. “Role-Playing as a Tool to Facilitate Learning, Self-Reflection and Social Awareness in Teacher Education.” International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research 2 (4): 8–20. scispace.com/pdf/role-playing-as-a-tool-to-facilitate-learning-self-2dpm3n5rbt.pdf.
Leung, C.B., L.L. Moore, S.V. Bennett, & A.A. Gunn. 2018. “Classroom Storybook Reading as a Dialogic Speech Event.” Literacy Practice & Research 44 (1): 16–25. files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED599640.pdf.
Lewis, H.R., S.T. Lipscomb, B.E. Hatfield, R. Weber, B. Green, et al. 2023. “Family–Teacher Relationships and Child Engagement in Early Care and Education.” Societies 13 (3): 67. doi.org/10.3390/soc13030067.
Mahoney, J.L., R.P. Weissberg, M.T. Greenberg, L. Dusenbury, R.J. Jagers, et al. 2021. “Systemic Social and Emotional Learning: Promoting Educational Success for all Preschool to High School Students.” American Psychologist 76 (7): 1128–42. doi.org/10.1037/amp0000701.
Major, S.O., M.J. Seabra-Santos, & R.P. Martin. 2015. “Are We Talking about the Same Child? Parent-Teacher Ratings of Preschoolers’ Social-Emotional Behaviors.” Psychology in the Schools 52 (8): 789–99. doi.org/10.1002/pits.21855.
Martinsone, B., I. Supe, I. Stokenberga, C. Cefai, L. Camilleri, et al. 2022. “Social Emotional Competence, Learning Outcomes, Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties of Preschool Children: Parent and Teacher Evaluations.” Frontiers in Psychology 12: 760782. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.760782.
NAEYC. 2020. “Developmentally Appropriate Practice.” Position statement. NAEYC. naeyc.org/resources/position-statements/dap/contents.
NAEYC. 2025. “Early Childhood Program Standards: Supporting Evidence.” NAEYC. naeyc.org/resources/position-statements/early-childhood-program-standards.
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2024. A New Vision for High-Quality Preschool Curriculum. National Academies Press.
Pennington, S.E., J.H. Tang, K. Divoll, & P. Correll. 2024. “A Scoping Literature Review on Parent Interactions with Teachers and School Environments at the Middle Level." Education Sciences 14 (12): 1364. doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121364.
Pietarinen, J., K. Pyhältö, & T. Soini. 2016. “Teacher’s Professional Agency—A Relational Approach to Teacher Learning.” Learning: Research and Practice 2 (2): 112–29. doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2016.1181196.
Schmidtke, A., T. Jolley, & K. Telford. 2025. “Effective Practices for Intentional Teaching.” In The Intentional Teacher: Choosing the Best Strategies for Young Children’s Learning, ed. A. Schmidtke. 3rd ed. NAEYC.
Shimek, C., A. Morewood, & A.S. Dagen. 2025. “Structures of Support: Developing Early Literacy Leadership Ecosystems.” Young Children 80 (3): 45–53.
Smith, T.E., & S.M. Sheridan. 2019. “The Effects of Teacher Training on Teachers’ Family-Engagement Practices, Attitudes, and Knowledge: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 29 (2): 128–57. doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2018.1460725.
Song, Y., J. Wang, Y. Chen, J. Zhang, & C. Xu. 2025. “Exploring the Potential of Adopting an Interactive Mixed-Reality Tool in Teacher Professional Development: Impact on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Practical Competencies of Dialogic Pedagogy.” Computers & Education 238: 105390. doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105390.
Stegelin, D.A. 2018. Preschool Suspension and Expulsion: Defining the Issues. Institute for Child Success. instituteforchildsuccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ICS-2018-PreschoolSuspensionBrief-WEB.pdf.
Vallotton, C.D., N. Gardner‐Neblett, L. Kim, T. Harewood, & N.K. Duke. 2023. “Ready for Read‐Alouds: 10 Practices for Book‐Sharing with Infants and Toddlers.” The Reading Teacher 76 (4): 459–69. doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2176.
Vlach, S.K., T.S. Lentz, & G.E. Muhammad. 2023. “Activating Joy Through Culturally and Historically Responsive Read-Alouds.” The Reading Teacher 77 (1): 121–30. doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2203.
Wang, Q., & Y. Li. 2024. “How Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality and Mixed Reality Facilitate Teacher Education: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 40 (3): 1276–94. doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12949.
Wilder, T.L., A.Y. Grays, F. Young, D. Moise, & S. Theodore. 2024. “The LEARN Framework: Supporting Self-Regulation in Diverse Early Childhood Settings.” Young Children 79 (2): 46–55.
Winsler, A., & G.L. Wallace. 2002. “Behavior Problems and Social Skills in Preschool Children: Parent-Teacher Agreement and Relations with Classroom Observations.” Early Education and Development 13 (1): 41–58. doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1301_3.
Zulauf‐McCurdy, C.A., & K.M. Zinsser. 2021. “How Teachers’ Perceptions of the Parent–Teacher Relationship Affect Children’s Risk for Early Childhood Expulsion.” Psychology in the Schools 58 (1): 69–88. doi.org/10.1002/pits.22440.
Photographs: first photo, © Getty Images; second and third photos, courtesy of authors
Copyright © 2026 by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. See permissions and reprints online at NAEYC.org/resources/permissions.