Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2022 Dec 8:1–12. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s10643-022-01429-9

‘Staying Afloat’: A Mixed Methods Study of the Financial and Psychological Well-being of Early Childhood Educators

Colleen K Vesely 1,✉, Elizabeth Levine Brown 1, Swati Mehta 1, Christy Galletta Horner 2
PMCID: PMC9734917  PMID: 36531564

Abstract

Early childhood educators play a critical role in the lives of young children, especially through their sensitive interactions. Educators’ capacities to engage in high-quality interactions are shaped by their mental health. Studies examining early childhood educators’ mental health often focus on psychopathology or negative aspects of mental health, despite the importance of understanding mental health through a well-being lens. This study explores the connection between two important areas of well-being: psychological and financial well-being. Using mixed methods, we examined 123 early childhood educators’ financial well-being and psychological well-being. Financial well-being predicted psychological well-being, but the relationship was curvilinear; those with the highest and lowest financial well-being had the highest psychological well-being. Qualitative findings suggest possible buffers for psychological well-being among educators with low-financial well-being and highlight struggles of those with low psychological well-being. Implications for how early childhood educators’ well-being might be supported with policy and practice initiatives are discussed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10643-022-01429-9.

Keywords: Teacher well-being, Financial well-being, Psychological well-being, Early childhood educators, Early childhood education

“The research picture is clear—quality of care and education matters to the lives of young children, and teachers and caregivers are central to providing that quality,” (National Academy of Sciences, 2012, p. ix). Specifically, early childhood (EC) educators working with children and families living in poverty, facing systemic inequalities, and living in historically disinvested communities, play an even more critical role (Johnson et al., 2020).

“Good quality care requires an environment that values adults as well as children,” (Whitebook et al., 1989, p. 2). Research shows that educators face pressures to conform to professional standards and navigate increased workloads, and challenges to their practice, autonomy, and well-being (Day & Smethen, 2009), which contribute to their emotionally sensitive and cognitively stimulating relationships with children (NICHD, 2006; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Vandell & Wolfe, 2000). EC educators are expected to be “everyday heros” (Johnson et al., 2020, p. 973), especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and thus more research is necessary to support their health and well-being (Eadie et al., 2021; Jennings et al., 2020). This study begins to explore the connection between two areas of well-being for EC educators: psychological and financial well-being.

Early Childhood Educators’ Well-being

Dual Factor Model of Mental Health: Situating Psychological Well-being

The Dual Factor Model of Mental Health integrates psychopathology (i.e., mental illness including depression) and aspects of subjective well-being (i.e., positive psychology including happiness), or how individuals perceive, experience, or evaluate these objective aspects of well-being and their lives more generally (Diener, 1984; Fox et al., 2020) for a holistic understanding of mental health. Studies focused on EC educators’ mental health (Whitaker et al., 2013), have been specifically focused more on psychopathology or negative aspects of mental health, including stress (Corr et al., 2014; Curbow et al., 2000; Johnson et al., 2020; Zhai et al., 2011), burnout (Blochliger & Bauer, 2018; Rentzou, 2012) and depression (Hindman & Bustamante, 2019; Jeon et al., 2014). Early childhood educator mental health literature related to psychopathology (e.g., stress and depression) is growing; however, inconclusive connections between EC educator mental health and child outcomes remain (Johnson et al., 2020). These inconsistent findings may be explained by the narrow conceptualization of EC educator mental health solely focused on psychopathology or negative psychology, without consideration for the role of psychological subjective well-being. Hall-Kenyon et al. (2014) implored the importance of deepening our understanding of EC educators’ well-being by understanding “the everyday emotional lives of teachers [that] are messy, complex and intertwined” (p. 159).

Ryff’s (1989) multidimensional model of psychological well-being specifically conceptualized psychological subjective well-being to consider both social and emotional influences of an individual’s perception of what does it mean to be well, psychologically? Ryff and Keyes (1995) confirmed that psychological subjective well-being is a “multidimensional structure” (pp. 723–724) with six components: positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, personal growth and self-acceptance. Positive relations with others refers to how trusting and satisfied one feels about relationships with others. Autonomy reflects independence and how an individual regulates behavior using an internal locus of control based on personal standards and guideposts. Environmental mastery includes how an individual seeks and creates contexts to promote personal needs. Purpose in life is described as meaning in life derived from having goals and directions for the future. Personal growth addresses the evolution of self-knowledge and how an individual perceives new experiences as informing their growth and development. Self-acceptance reflects the individual's positive attitude towards oneself inclusive of seeing both good and bad qualities (Ryff & Keyes, 1995).

Research recently illustrated direct relations between these areas of psychological subjective well-being among EC educators; however, most studies were conducted in international K-12 educational contexts (Greenier et al., 2021; Poormahmood et al., 2017; Villarosa & Ganotice, 2018). Results show that making strong connections with other teachers (Jones et al., 2019) or positive relations with others, and autonomy of teaching environment related to work schedules and freedom to express ideas about practice, informed enhanced psychological well-being (Royer & Moreau, 2016). Jones et al. (2019) showed relationships of EC educators’ psychological well-being to workplace flow and input on environmental mastery. The significant role of environmental mastery for EC educators’ well-being was also found in a study of Finnish educators that described limited control regarding “insurmountable demands” related to administrative work that left less time for work with children (Ylitapio-Mäntylä et al., 2012). Despite these important contributions, psychological well-being may vary by country, especially in terms of environmental mastery and purpose in life (Özü et al., 2017) necessitating the expansion of research on US EC educators’ psychological well-being.

Financial Well-being

Early childhood educators’ wages today–without other household earnings–would classify them as low-income or at about 150% of the poverty threshold (Assistant Secretary for Planning & Evaluation, 2015; Whitebook et al., 2014). This financial strain may lead to higher rates of stress experienced by EC educators (Ryu & Fan, 2022). For instance, data show among EC educators with higher wages, children experience higher quality interactions with their peers and educators (Whitebook et al., 1989, 1990, 2014).

Beyond compensation, financial well-being can account for household income. Household income encompasses the sum of incomes earned by a sole household (Pew Research Center, 2015). Families with lower household incomes are at heightened risks of stress, and thus, greater conflict, chaos and marital strain (Dearing, 2014), and deficits in cognitive, social, emotional and physical attributes of well-being (Conger & Donnellan, 2007). However, compensation and household income alone, are objective representations of financial well-being, not fully reflecting EC educators’ satisfaction with their financial situation (e.g., compensation, cost of living, perceptions of debt), nor the control one feels regarding finances (abilities to navigate changes in finances and financial goals) (Vlaev & Elliot, 2014). Comprehensive investigation of financial well-being includes how much one decides is ‘needed’ (Prawitz et al., 2006; Vlaev & Elliot, 2014), and an individual’s assessment of their economic condition (Joo & Grable, 2004).

Early Childhood Educator Financial Well-being and Mental Health

Research points to initial connections between financial well-being and mental health (worry and stress) among EC educators. A study of over 600 educators working in Head Start and public Pre-K programs in one state, found EC educators reported high levels of worry and anxiety regarding their financial situations with over half the sample expressing worry related to barriers to pay for basic expenses of living including food, housing, transportation, and health care (Whitebook et al., 2014). These authors also found that educators with lower worry were working in the highest quality programs. However, worry represents an indicator of psychopathology (Purdon & Harrington, 2006), which has revealed inconsistent connections to child outcomes (Johnson et al., 2020). This encourages further examinations of connections between EC educators’ financial well-being and psychological subjective well-being.

In this study, we examined EC educators’ subjective psychological and financial well-being via a mixed method approach asking two research questions: (1) How do early childhood educators describe their financial well-being and psychological well-being? and (2) What is the relationship between early childhood educators’ financial well-being and psychological well-being?

Method

We employed an integrated mixed methods approach (Creamer, 2017) with a qualitative emphasis, concurrent data collection and iterative data analysis (QUAL + quant) to promote triangulation and expansion (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). To achieve triangulation, we addressed the central research questions both qualitatively and quantitatively and continuously assessed convergence of the data. We achieved expansion by examining the qualitative data to deepen our sensemaking of the quantitative findings and used integrative blending (Greene, 2007) between qualitative and quantitative analysis phases with each phase informing the next.

Participants and Sites

Following Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, researchers recruited participants from publicly funded early childhood education (ECE) programs in a major metropolitan area. To yield variation, we used purposive sampling (Patton, 1990) to ensure our participants were educators with varied experience and education, and role (i.e., lead or assistant educator1) in the program. We recruited from program staff meetings where we explained and answered questions about the study.

Participants included 123 early childhood educators working in six publicly funded ECE programs (Head Start (n = 76); programs funded by local and/or state governments (n = 47)) in a metropolitan area of the US. We recruited educators from programs that worked with families living in poverty. Three of these programs were Head Start programs; two programs received state universal preschool; one program received city funding (see Table 1). About one-third of participants had at least a four-year degree (n = 42) and were in their late 40 s, earning on average $30,000 per year. Of 123 educators, a subsample of 27 agreed to participate in follow-up interviews related to their well-being. See Tables 2 and 3 for full participant and subsample participant demographics and Tables 4 and 5 for average income and years of experience by six programs for the full sample and subsample.

Table 1.

Descriptive information about six programs

Site Number of in-depth interview participants (n = 27) Predominant funding source Age of children (in years) Program hours (all are Monday–Friday) Community-based program OR school-based program Single site or multi-site program Enrollment of children living in poverty only (Yes/ No)
1 2 Head Start 3–5 8:30AM–3:00PM Community-based Multi-site Yes
2 2 Universal Pre-K (state) 3–5 7:00AM–5:00PM Community-based Single site No
3 1 Head Start 3–5 8:30AM–3:00PM School-based Multi-site Yes
4 8 Head Start 3–5 9:00AM–5:00PM Community-based Single site Yes
5 7 City 4–5 7:30AM–3:30PM Community-based Multi-site Yes
6 7 Universal Pre-K (state) 3–5 8:00AM–3:00PM Community-based Multi-site No
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Demographic information for all participants (n = 123)

Total teachers (N = 123) Lead teachers (n = 56) Assistant teachers (n = 67)
Age
Mean age (in years) 48.50 49.32 47.81
Education
High school 27 5 22
2-year college 35 15 20
4-year college 42 25 17
Master’s degree 11 9 2
Mean Income
Annual $28,189 $31,392 $25,513
Household $47,985 $53,714 $43,197
Race/Ethnicity
African American 56 31 25
White 30 16 14
Latino/a 26 4 22
Asian/ Pacific Islander 6 2 4
Years of experience 11.96 13.59 10.61
Open in a new tab

Some teachers declined to answer demographic questions: 12 did not report their age, 28 did not report their income, 36 did not report their household annual income, five did not report their race/ethnicity, and one did not report years of experience

Table 3.

Demographic information for the subsample (n = 27)

Total teachers (N = 27) Lead Teachers (n = 15) Assistant Teachers (n = 12)
Age
Mean age (in years) 49.29 48.92 49.66
Education
High school 3 1 2
2-year college 8 4 4
4-year college 9 4 5
Master’s degree 6 6 0
Mean Income
Annual $30,297 $35,929 $24,666
Household $43,303 $46,622 $39,984
Race/Ethnicity
African American 13 8 5
White 7 5 2
Latino/a 6 1 5
Asian/ Pacific Islander 1 1 0
Years of experience 14.66 14.56 14.79
Open in a new tab

Table 4.

Mean income and average year of experience for all participants by programs (n = 123)

Site Mean income Average years of experience
Annual Household
1 $28,587 $42,930 11.53
2 $28,890 $79,496 10.47
3 $28,361 $45,494 11.52
4 $28,572 $51,096 14.32
5 $28,824 $40,392 10.16
6 $26,059 $43,870 13.32
Open in a new tab

Table 5.

Mean income and average year of experience for the subsample by programs (n = 27)

Site Mean income Average years of experience
Annual Household
1 $33,500 $45,000 6.19
2 $31,500 $66,500 11
3 – – 30
4 $32,000 $50,800 16.88
5 $31,609 $36,077 13.19
6 $24,047 $32,750 15.17
Open in a new tab

The information on annual and household income was missing from participants in the ECE program numbered 3

Data Collection

Participants (1) completed a survey instrument (n = 123), which included demographic and closed-ended questions, and (2) participated in a qualitative interview (n = 27).

Measures

Subjective Psychological Well-being

We used the psychological well-being subscale from the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) survey (Ryff, 1989). Participants responded to 18 items like “I am good at managing the responsibilities of daily life” on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The MIDUS is widely used with considerable reliability and validity evidence (Ryff & Keyes, 1995, van Dierendonck et al., 2008, see Ryff, 2014 for further review). There is some evidence for the use of six subscales, but reliability testing in previous studies (e.g., Keyes et al., 2002) yielded low to moderate alpha coefficients. Our sample also demonstrated low to moderate internal consistency for these subscales; therefore, we used the average of all items to capture overall psychological well-being with acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.71).

Perceived Financial Well-being

The InCharge Financial Distress/Well-being Scale (IFDFW, Prawitz et al., 2006) captured EC educators perceived financial distress and well-being. Educators responded to eight items on 10-point scales with higher scores indicating financial well-being and lower scores indicating financial distress. These 10-point scales aligned with four descriptors across each continuum that ranged from “Overwhelming Stress” to no “Stress at All”, or “All the Time” to “Never”, or “No Confidence” to “High Confidence.” The items measured educators’ level of financial stress associated with their current financial situation and their level of financial stress in general, along with satisfaction and feelings for their current personal financial situation (Prawitz et al., 2006). Prior testing for reliability and validity of the eight-item IFDFW Scale found one construct of financial distress/financial well-being with robust internal consistency (α > 0.9) (Prawitz et al., 2006); we found excellent internal consistency in our sample as well (α = 0.94).

In-Depth Qualitative Interviews

Interviews followed a semi-structured protocol exploring EC educators’ perceptions about their financial well-being and psychological well-being (e.g., How would you describe you/ your family’s financial well-being? How do you feel when you work with the children/families in your class? How can ECE programs can help improve the well-being of educators?). Interviews ranged 45 to 90 min and were recorded and transcribed. Sample size was determined based on reaching saturation, or no longer hearing new information (Daly, 2007).

Data Analyses

To maximize the potential for meta-inferences across qualitative and quantitative findings, we engaged in two phases of iterative qualitative and quantitative data analyses (see Greene, 2007; Creamer, 2017).

Initial Qualitative Analyses

The first phase of qualitative analysis comprised open, axial, and selective coding (LaRossa, 2005). During open coding, we created initial a priori codes based on sensitizing concepts that reflected the literature (i.e., stress; spillover; role of administration; perspectives on compensation) and the research question (e.g., connections between areas of well-being). Constant comparison was used to determine whether a previously created code fit or a new code should be created (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). During axial coding, each of the salient categories (e.g., financial concerns, connections across areas of well-being, feeling valued, role of colleagues on well-being) or codes that emerged during open coding were examined by looking across cases to understand the various dimensions of each category. During selective coding, we made connections across the most salient codes (LaRossa, 2005). To understand an emergent connection between financial and psychological well-being, we turned to the quantitative data.

Quantitative Analyses

Initial quantitative analysis was guided by the question: Does early childhood educators’ financial well-being predict their psychological well-being, even after accounting for household income? We first examined scatter plots; they appeared to depict a U-shaped curvilinear relationship between financial and psychological well-being. That is, while financial well-being seemed to be positively associated with psychological well-being as expected, a number of participants reported low financial well-being but high psychological well-being. Therefore, we conducted a hierarchical multiple regression in SPSS 24 to test the non-linear effect of financial well-being on psychological well-being while controlling for household income. We median-centered the independent variables and created a new variable, financial well-being squared (FWB2). Then, we performed a linear regression in two steps. The first block included only financial well-being, and the second included both financial well-being and FWB2. We used this method (rather than quadratic curve estimation) to observe the R2 change from the first to the second model.

Mixed Methods Analyses

To understand the curvilinear relationship between financial and psychological well-being, we returned to the qualitative data. We divided the sample into two groups based on the quantitative variables (higher financial well-being, and lower financial well-being, split on the median). Using simple linear regression, we observed the relationship between household income and psychological well-being at each level of financial well-being. Then, we purposely selected participants groups based on their position on the curvilinear shape (the quadratic relationship between financial and psychological well-being) depicted in Fig. 2. First, we first numbered the cases in a scatterplot with the curvilinear regression line plotted. Then, we drew circles to define each of three positions on the curvilinear regression line. We selected all quantitative participants who also had participated in qualitative interviews that fell within each of the three circles for further analysis (additional cases that fell within these areas did not have qualitative data). Figure 2 illustrates this selection process. Through focused coding, we examined these groups of cases looking for commonalities, differences, and possible explanations of the relationship between financial and psychological well-being.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Extreme case sampling: three groups of qualitative participants

Results

These results illustrate the connection between perceived financial well-being and subjective psychological well-being. Broader dimensions of EC educators’ finances, professional relationships and family lives examined across qualitative and quantitative analyses highlight the complex relations between financial well-being, psychological well-being, and household income.

Determining an Association Between Perceived Financial Well-being and Subjective Psychological Well-being

Initial Qualitative Findings

Initial qualitative analyses showed that psychological well-being, evidenced through discussions on positive relations, environmental mastery, and autonomy, connected to experiences of financial well-being. Because many participants did not earn enough to live close to their programs, they often moved away from their previously established personal networks, leaving them disconnected from important positive relationships and challenging their psychological well-being. Long commutes were stressful and limited the time participants were able to spend with their own families, straining relationships at home also. Taylor, a lead teacher, felt socially isolated: “…when I first got down here, I didn’t have many friends. I didn’t live near any of them …It was a little lonely.”

Data reflected the importance of environmental mastery, control over their contexts, as well as autonomy, independence to structure daily routines, as connected to their perceptions of financial well-being. At work, participants noted frustration with meeting on-going, often last- minute administrative demands, amidst teaching. For some, limited autonomy and environmental mastery was also present in their home lives. For example, Claudia, an assistant teacher with 11 years of experience, described how her husband was unemployed and provided limited support to the family. She noted that if she and her husband could afford living separately, they would be separated, but his unemployment and her low wage made that impossible. In this way, her limited environmental mastery or autonomy was informed by her financial well-being.

Quantitative Findings

Given the nature of the connections in the qualitative data between financial and psychological well-being, as well as the importance of partners’ earnings (which shaped household income), we hypothesized that financial well-being would predict psychological well-being even after controlling for household income. We found that household income and financial well-being explained 16.5% of the variance in psychological well-being, (F(3,77) = 4.861, p = 0.004). Financial well-being explained variance in psychological well-being over and above the variance explained by household income alone; both household income and financial well-being were significant predictors of psychological well-being (p = 0.02; p = 0.007, respectively) in the final model, model 3. Table 6 shows the regression results for each model, and Table 7 shows descriptive statistics for psychological well-being, financial well-being, and household income.

Table 6.

Hierarchical multiple regression analysis predicting psychological well-being by household income and financial well-being

Models
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Blocks of predictors B β p B β p B β p
HH income .008 .273 .015 .009 .284 .015 .008 .246 .029
Financial WB −.012 −.044 .704 −.025 −.088 .429
Financial WB2 .032 .304 .007
∆R2 0.1% 8.9%
Total R2 7.5% 7.6% 16.5%
F, p (model) 6.135 .015 3.106 .051 4.861 .004
Open in a new tab

Predictor variables are centered on the median. HH income = annual household income in thousands of dollars; Financial WB = financial well-being. Each progressive block included the variable(s) previously entered

Table 7.

Descriptive statistics

N Range Min Max M SD
Financial Well-being 117 9.00 1.00 10.00 5.25 2.31
Psychological Well-being 108 3.00 3.94 6.94 5.79 0.63
Household income 82 82,000 $18,000 $100,000 $42,728.61 $20,202.40
Open in a new tab

It is notable that the relationship between financial well-being and psychological well-being is non-linear. Financial well-being was not a significant predictor in model 2, but became significant with the addition of the quadratic term, which increased the R2 from 0.076 to 0.165, thus explaining an additional 8.9% of the variance in psychological well-being. Figure 1 shows the shape of this relationship, which was a surprising finding as we hypothesized a linear relationship.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Curvilinear relationship between financial and psychological well-being

Role of Household Income

Next, we sought insight into this relationship using both the quantitative survey data and the qualitative interview data (presented in the next section). First, we tested for an interaction between household income and financial well-being. The interaction term did not contribute significantly to predicting psychological well-being or increase the variance explained, so we did not include it in Table 6.

Because of the relatively small sample size, we next divided the sample into two groups: a high financial well-being group and a low financial well-being group divided on the median score of 5.25 (this score corresponds with 0 in Fig. 1, because the variable in the figure is centered on the median). We used household income to predict psychological well-being within each group to see if this relationship differed. Indeed, we found that for the group with low financial well-being (n = 44, financial well-being mean = 3.36; annual household income minimum = $18,000, maximum = $100,000, mean = $38,865; psychological well-being mean = 5.81), annual household income did not predict psychological well-being (F(1,39) = 1.001, p = 0.323). But, for the high group (n = 38; financial well-being mean = 7.1; annual household income minimum = $19,200, maximum = $100,000, mean = $47, 202; psychological well-being mean = 5.8), annual household income was a significant predictor (F(1,37) = 17.653, p < 0.001), explaining 32.9% of the variance in psychological well-being. This indicates that while household income explains a rather large amount of the variance in psychological well-being for those with higher financial well-being, for those with low financial well-being, factors other than household income must explain the variance in psychological well-being.

Examining Experiences Across the Curve: Links Between Financial and Psychological Well-being

Next, we examined three groups of qualitative participants (exemplar cases) based on their position on the regression line (see Fig. 2): low financial but high psychological well-being, low financial and low psychological well-being high financial and high psychological well-being. These analyses revealed interesting qualitative differences in how participants described their well-being, which we describe next.

‘I have all of their smiles…’: Low Financial Well-being and High Psychological Well-being

Low financial and high psychological well-being scores represented the top left of the curvilinear model. The four extreme cases highlighted here had some of the lowest financial well-being scores. Many referenced “making ends meet” as a formidable financial struggle. All four participants described limited raises commensurate with increases in costs of living, and living in a high cost area in the US. Alanya, an assistant teacher with 16 years of experience in ECE, noted not having a raise “since President Bush took office.” However, she stayed at this Head Start program because she had friends who lived closer to her home, who made far less money. Bennett, a lead teacher with 14 years of experience, echoed a similar sentiment,

I feel like [with] all the things that we do here why are we not compensated. I’ve been here 10 years, almost and I’ve only had cost of living raises not pay raises…And I have to live so I even have to choose what I’m going to eat or to get gas in my car to get here.

Soniya, a lead teacher with 14 years of experience, worked a second job until 10 PM most evenings to “make ends meet”.

Alanya, Aliyah, and Bennett emphatically shared their love of children and how this key element of their teaching reflected within their professional identities kept them in the field despite low wages. Aliyah described how seeing the children always made their moods more positive, explaining aspects of their high psychological well-being. Aliyah, a lead teacher with 30 years of experience, described:

Because I see all of these little faces coming towards me. ‘Hi Ms. Aliyah! Hi Ms. Aliyah!’ Truthfully, I forget whatever is bothering me because I have all of their smiles…and truthfully it goes all out the door. And I focus on them.

Bennett similarly noted that she does not work in early childhood for the money but for her love of children, “I’m not here for paycheck. I do this for love. This is my passion” Aliyah went on and further echoed these sentiments when asked if she would consider leaving her job, given the low pay; she indicated that would only happen if she found a job as rewarding.

Beyond their profound love and enjoyment of young children, all four of these ECE educators had emotional support at home either from family or close friends deepening our understanding of their psychological well-being. However, unlike the right curvilinear side (i.e., high financial well-being and high psychological well-being) these participants on the top/left side of the curve were either single or did not have partners with high incomes which helped explain their struggling financial well-being. For example, Bennett lived by herself expressing challenges to pay rent while also denoting the role of her mother “to talk regularly with.” Although home support was positive for these four extreme cases, work support was mixed.

Alanya and Aliyah felt less supported by other teachers and administrators at work but created boundaries and a strong separation between home and work to bolster their psychological well-being. Soniya indicated the importance of her co-educator, Ana, whom she had worked with for seven years, as key to her enjoyment of work. For these participants having strong relationships at home and/or at work seemed to buffer the negative psychological impacts of their financial well-being.

‘Staying Afloat’: Low Financial Well-being and Low Psychological Well-being

Low financial and low psychological well-being scores represented the bottom of the curvilinear model. The four extreme cases highlighted here described earning just enough to pay their bills (e.g., food and rent), or “staying Afloat”, and how these feelings of financial satisfaction aligned with their psychological well-being. All four cases here expressed living paycheck to paycheck or needing a second job. However, unlike the top/left of the curvilinear model (low financial, high psychological), these participants experienced psychological demands along with these financial strains. For some this was linked to meager financial support at home and feelings of financial concern that accompanied. Zainab, a lead teacher with seven years of experience, shared that her husband was unemployed, and simultaneously questioned any purchases that Zainab made, as well as her abilities to manage money, “I need this money…the only bread winner in my household is me, not my husband…I bought a house and I have a mortgage and I have bills to come one after the other.”

Despite low perceptions of financial well-being, these four cases described how they budgeted to survive on low and stagnant wages, by “making things work”, “living “a simple life” and only buying what was needed and nothing “extra.” Despite these strategies to try to cushion concerns of financial well-being, their psychological well-being was compromised by low social support.

These four exemplar cases noted challenges with co-workers, paperwork, and “last minute requests” coupled with ineffective communication as implications on their autonomy, environmental mastery and overall satisfaction with the job. Zainab detailed the difficulties she and a co-educator experienced when the co-educator did not address tasks necessary for planning and preparation, and generally disrespected Zainab. Zainab gave an example of something her co-educator said to her: ‘I’ve been here…girl, what you are saying to me, I’ve been here longer than you. You don’t have to explain to me.’ In addition, Zainab, felt emotionally unsupported at home by her husband, further explaining her psychological well-being.

All four of these participants indicated challenges related to timely communication and last-minute requests made by administrators, which made them at times feel “devalued”, contributing to their low psychological well-being. Majida, a lead teacher with 25 years of teaching experience, repeatedly indicated her lack of control over elements of her practice was most stressful in her job. It was not that she disagreed with the administrative request, but rather she felt discouraged not having the pedagogical resources and administrative support to complete them. For these participants, with challenged relationships at home and work, the negative psychological impacts of their financial well-being were not buffered.

‘We’re making it good…’: High Financial Well-being and High Psychological Well-being

High financial and high psychological well-being scores represented the top right curvilinear point. The three extreme cases highlighted here described financial stability with support of a long-term partner. As Julieta, an assistant teacher with two years of teaching expressed: “I’m good, because my husband pay(s) everything” further indicating that her job does not influence her family’s finances. Gail, a lead teacher with 30 years of experience echoed, “I think we’re making it good. We don’t have any financial struggles.” All three participants acknowledged that there were financial struggles for early childhood educators in general, but that their own employment supplemented their partner’s earnings. Sofia, a lead teacher with seven years of experience, and Julieta even noted that, from a financial standpoint, they did not need their job but they remained in the field as they enjoyed their work. Julieta felt “lucky” she did not worry about the financial struggles that many of her colleagues encounter and her psychological well-being was bolstered more because of her feelings about work “Why stay at home if I can get here and help and be here for families and sometimes a lot of families…”.

Like Julieta, the other two participants also expressed happiness at work and a supportive social network. Gail and Sofia spoke specifically about support from their students, coworkers and administrators. Sofia, shared how she “expresses” what she feels to her co-workers, and that her connections with coworkers were what made her feelings about the job positive. For these participants, experiencing positive relationships at home and at work coupled with limited concerns related to their finances shaped their high psychological well-being.

Discussion and Implications for Research, Practice and Policy

Importance of Positive Relationships with Others and Mental Health Supports

Our qualitative extreme case sampling analyses revealed that for those who feel as though they are really struggling financially, it may be that positive relations with others, is an important aspect of subjective psychological well-being. Like Roffey (2012), our work suggested that EC educators’ workplace relationships mattered for fostering one’s emotions and feelings about the job (e.g., self-acceptance) and oneself (Cole et al., 2000). Ryff (1989) highlighted how trusting interpersonal relationships, and empathy and concern for others were key elements of positive relations with others. The EC educators with high psychological well-being here, expressed the importance of relationships with others including children, colleagues, administrators, and their own families and friends, even if concerned with finances. Further, research on ECE educator mental health speaks to role of relationships with colleagues (Løvgren, 2016; Rentzou, 2012), specifically the importance of time, space, and energy to nurture these professional relationships during the day and across the school calendar (Johnson et al., 2020). Fostering supportive relationships at work for greater psychological well-being (Jovanovic, 2013) may reduce the deep need for social support outside of work and in turn provide greater equity for professional success for all early childhood educators regardless of their personal and home lives. As the US faces a growing educator shortage in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic (Steiner & Woo, 2021) these relational supports and connections at work are increasingly important (Pate, 2020).

In addition, ECE programs ought to build their knowledge regarding educator mental health, inclusive of well-being, and acquire resources for dissemination. Specifically creating policies to that focus on supporting EC educators’ mental health and well-being, including adding educator mental health and well-being to Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS). This might include educators having access to Infant-Early Childhood Mental Health (IECMH) consultants to not only support their work with children’s mental health needs but also their own mental health and well-being needs (Smith & Lawrence, 2019). As educators experience pressures amplified by the pandemic, all educators, even those with high levels of financial and psychological well-being, require ongoing structural supports.

Autonomy of Instructional Practices and the Classroom

For participants who experienced autonomy of instructional practice and environmental mastery of the classroom, they described how these feelings created a sense of belonging, value, and connectedness, in their classrooms and programs. EC educators with higher psychological well-being noted feeling valued and confident in their roles, despite potential financial challenges faced in the profession, which may further explain experiences of the participants on the left side of the U curve.

Research indicates the importance of open communication and transparency between EC educators and administrators for educator well-being (Fox et al., 2020). School leaders that foment cultures of trust, mutual respect, and open communication while also prioritizing and protecting educators’ time, experience higher educator morale and satisfaction (Kraft et al., 2020). It seems that more opportunities for promoting autonomy and fostering environmental mastery vis-a-vis providing increased time for planning, decreased last minute requests from administrators, and ensuring educators have input into their co-teaching partnerships, are important. Moreover, further understanding on how these aspects of psychological well-being operate similarly or differently across EC educators depending on their role (e.g., lead or assistant) will be important for future research.

Beyond Compensation

Despite ongoing advocacy to address compensation issues over the last 25 years (see Whitebook et al., 2014) raising EC educator compensation to livable wages remains elusive. Recent recommendations put forth by the Power to the Profession National Task Force (2020) indicate ensuring that early childhood educators who are “professionally prepared” are “professionally compensated” (p. 2). Achieving parity across ECE programs requires government intervention and support, and cannot be placed solely on individual ECE programs or teachers.

In extension of the importance of compensation, EC educators who had both high financial and psychological well-being had one thing in common: a partner who shouldered much or most of the households’ financial burden. Uniquely for participants with low financial well-being, factors other than household income explained the variance in psychological well-being, and perhaps other factors acted as buffers (e.g., access to various supports). These findings further highlight how the ECE field, historically, has been organized to accommodate educators who are already situated in privileged circumstances and further marginalize educators who are already disenfranchised, particularly in terms of family structure and socioeconomic status. This remains a critical area of continued research, especially as we emerge from the Covid-19 pandemic, and as educators continue to leave the field (or not return to the field post pandemic) in search of better employment options for their financial and psychological well-being (Coffey & Khattar, 2022; Walker, 2022).

Limitations, Future Research and Conclusions

Limitations of this study require consideration, particularly in reference to future research. First, despite tapping into participants’ previous experiences, in-depth interviews were retrospective, not longitudinal, and thus the data were limited in terms of elucidating the nature of EC educators’ well-being in relation to time. Educators’ well-being experiences likely change over their careers, across each individual year given the varying pressures at different times of the school year, and with changing family circumstances. Future research might examine EC educators’ well-being longitudinally to understand how the intersection of financial and psychological well-being may shift. Second, we did not have enough statistical power due to our sample size to examine different aspects of psychological well-being using the MIDUS. Although the results provide relevance for exploring psychological well-being among early childhood educators, future studies should consider using the individual subscales of the MIDUS (i.e., Positive Relations with Others, Self-Acceptance, Autonomy, Environmental Mastery, Personal Growth, and Purpose in Life) to understand connections among different aspects of psychological well-being. Third, future research may consider examining educators’ workplace relationships and educators’ home supports to further understand how these contribute to psychological and financial well-being.

Teachers are ‘everyday heros’ (Johnson et al., 2020). However, the demands and stressors of the job, inclusive of financial and psychological strains, have only increased since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. How teachers feel about their daily work and the value of their impact has consequences on their instruction, classroom relationships and student outcomes (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). This study elucidates how EC educators’ financial and psychological well-being serve as critical components in the ongoing discussions regarding ECE quality care in support of educator and student outcomes.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 33 KB) (33.1KB, docx)
Supplementary file2 (DOCX 16 KB) (15.7KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

The data used in this paper were collected with support from the Center for the Advancement of Well-being at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.

Footnotes

1

Despite differences in role and title, in an independent samples t-test we found no significant different between lead teachers and assistant teachers on financial well-being t (115) = 1.09, p = .278”. or psychological well-being t(106) = 1.442, p = .152”.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. (2015). 2015 Poverty guidelines. Retrieved from: https://aspe.hhs.gov/2015-poverty-guidelines#threshholds
  2. Blochliger OR, Bauer GF. Correlates of burnout symptoms among child care teachers: A multilevel modeling approach. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2018;26(1):7–25. doi: 10.1080/1350293X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Coffey, M., & Khattar, R. (2022). The child care sector will continue to struggle hiring staff unless it creates good jobs. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-child-care-sector-will-continue-to-struggle-hiring-staff-unless-it-creates-good-jobs/
  4. Cole RP, Scott S, Skelton-Robinson M. The effect of challenging behavior and staff support on the psychological well-being of staff working with older adults. Aging & Mental Health. 2000;4(4):359–365. doi: 10.1080/713649966. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Conger RD, Donnellan MB. An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007;58:175–199. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085551. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Corr L, Davis E, LaMontagne AD, Waters E, Steele E. Childcare providers’ mental health: A systematic review of its prevalence, determinants and relationship to care quality. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion. 2014;16(4):231–263. doi: 10.1080/14623730.2014.931067. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Creamer EG. An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research. Sage; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  8. Curbow B, Spratt K, Ungaretti A, McDonnell K, Breckler S. Development of the child care worker job stress inventory. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2000;15(4):515–536. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(01)00068-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Daly K. Qualitative methods for family studies and human development. SAGE Publications; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  10. Day C, Smethen L. The effect of reform: Have teachers really lost their sense of professionalism? Journal of Educational Change. 2009;10(2–3):141–157. doi: 10.1007/s10833-009-9110-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dearing E. The state of research on children and families in poverty: Past, present, and future empirical avenues of promise. In: McCartney K, Yoshikawa H, Forcier L, editors. Improving the odds for America’s children. Harvard Education Press; 2014. pp. 203–216. [Google Scholar]
  12. Diener E. Subjective wellbeing. Psychological Bulletin. 1984;95:542–575. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Eadie P, Levickis P, Murray L, Page J, Elek C, Church A. Early childhood educators’ well-being during the Covid-19 pandemic. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2021;49:903–913. doi: 10.1007/s10643-021-01203-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Fox HB, Tuckwiller ED, Kutscher EL, Walter HL. What makes teachers well? A mixed methods study of special education teacher well-being. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education. 2020;9:223–248. [Google Scholar]
  15. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing Company; 1967. [Google Scholar]
  16. Greene JC. Mixed methods in social inquiry. Jossey-Bass; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  17. Greenier V, Derakhshan A, Fathi J. Emotions regulation and psychological well-being in teacher work engagement: A case of British and Iranian English language teachers. System. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.system.2020.102446. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hall-Kenyon KM, Bullough RV, MacKay KL, Marshall EE. Preschool teacher well-being: A review of the literature. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2014;42:153–162. doi: 10.1007/s10643-013-0595-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hindman AH, Bustamante AS. Teacher depression as a dynamic variable: Exploring the nature and predictors of change over the head start year. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2019;61:43–55. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2018.09.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jennings PA, Jeon L, Roberts AM. Early care and education professionals’ social and emotional well-being. Early Education and Development. 2020;31:933–939. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2020.1809895. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jennings PA, Greenberg MT. The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research. 2009;79(1):491–525. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325693. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Jeon L, Buettner CK, Snyder AR. Pathways from teacher depression and child care quality to child behavioral problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2014;82(2):225–235. doi: 10.1037/a0035720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Johnson AD, Phillips DA, Partika A, The Tulsa Seed Study Team. Castle S. Everyday heroes: The personal and economic stressors of early care and education teachers serving low-income children. Early Education and Development. 2020;31:973–993. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2020.1785266. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher. 2004;33(7):14–26. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033007014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Jones C, Hadley F, Waniganayake M, Johnstone M. Find your tribe! Early childhood educators defining and identifying key factors that support their workplace well-being. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood. 2019;44:326–338. doi: 10.1177/1836939119870906. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Joo S, Grable JE. An exploratory framework of the determinants of financial satisfaction. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2004;25(1):25–50. doi: 10.1023/b:jeei.0000016722.37994.9f. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Jovanovic J. Retaining early childcare educators. Gender, Work & Organization. 2013;20(5):528–544. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2012.00602.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Keyes CLM, Shmotkin D, Ryff CD. Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2002;82:1007–1022. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.1007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kraft, M. A., Simon, N. S., & Lyon, M. A. (2020). Sustaining a sense of success: The importance of teacher working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. (EdWorkingPaper: 20–279). Retrieved from Annenberg Institute at Brown University. 10.26300/35nj-v890.
  30. LaRossa R. Grounded theory methods and qualitative family research. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2005;67(4):837–857. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00179.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Løvgren M. Emotional exhaustion in daycare workers. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2016;24(1):157–167. doi: 10.1080/1350293X.2015.1120525. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Özü O, Zepeda SJ, Abdurrahman I, Ata A, Jimenez AJ, Akram M. Teachers’ psychological well-being: A comparison among teachers in USA, Turkey, and Pakistan. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion. 2017;19(3):144–158. doi: 10.1080/14623730.2017.1326397. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Pate, C. (2020). Self-care strategies for educators during the Coronavirus crisis. Retrieved from WestEd: https://www.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Self_Care_Strategies_for_Educators_During_the_Coronavirus_Crisis-1.pdf
  34. Patton M. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  35. Pew Research Center. (2015). The American middle class is losing ground: No longer the majority and falling behind financially. Retrieved from: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/methodology/
  36. Poormahmood A, Moayedi F, Alizadeh KH. Relationships between psychological well-being, happiness and perceived occupational stress among primary school teachers. Archives of Hellenic Medicine. 2017;34:504–510. [Google Scholar]
  37. Power to the Profession National Task Force. (2020). Unifying framework for the early childhood education profession: Executive summary. Retrieved from Power to the Profession: http://powertotheprofession.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Power-to-Profession-Framework-exec-summary-03082020.pdf
  38. Prawitz AD, Garman ET, Sorhaindo B, O’Neill B, Kim J, Drentea P. InCharge financial distress/financial well-being scale: Development, administration, and score interpretation. Financial Counseling and Planning. 2006;17(1):34–50. doi: 10.1037/t60365-000. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Rentzou K. Examination of work environment factors relating to burnout syndrome of early childhood educators in Greece. Child Care in Practice. 2012;18(2):165–181. doi: 10.1080/13575279.2012.657609. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Roffey S. Pupil well-being-teacher well-being: Two sides of the same coin? Educational and Child Psychology. 2012;29:8–15. [Google Scholar]
  41. Royer N, Moreau C. A survey of Canadian early childhood educators’ psychological wellbeing at work. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2016;44(2):135–146. doi: 10.1007/s10643-015-0696-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Ryff CD. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1989;57:1069–1081. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Ryff CD. Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudemonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. 2014;83:10–28. doi: 10.1159/000353263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Ryff CD, Keyes CLM. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995;69(4):719–727. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.69.4.719. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Ryu S, Fan L. The relationship between financial worries and psychological distress among US adults. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2022;1:1–18. doi: 10.1007/s10834-022-09820-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Smith, S., & Lawrence, S. M. (2019). Early care and education teacher well-being: Associations with children’s experience, outcomes, and workplace conditions: A research-to-policy brief. Retrieved from http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_1224.pdf
  47. Steiner, E. D., & Woo, A. (2021). Job-related stress threatens the teacher supply: Key findings from the 2021 State of the U.S. Teacher Surveywhitebook. Retrieved from RAND Corporation: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1108-1.html
  48. van Dierendonck D, Diaz D, Rodriguez-Carvajal R, Blanco A, Moreno-Jimenez B. Ryff’s six-factor model of psychological well-being, a Spanish exploration. Social Indicators Research. 2008;87(3):473–479. doi: 10.1007/s11205-007-9174-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Villarosa J, Ganotice FA. Construct validation of Ryff’s psychological well-being scale: Evidence from Filipino teachers in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Psychology. 2018;51:1–20. doi: 10.31710/pjp/0051.01.01. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Vlaev I, Elliot A. Financial well-being components. Social Indicators Research. 2014;118(3):1103–1123. doi: 10.1007/s11205-013-0462-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Walker, T. (2022). NEA: Real solutions, not band-aids, will fix educator shortage. Retrieved from https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/nea-real-solutions-not-band-aids-will-fix-educator-shortage
  52. Whitebook M, Howes C, Phillips D. The national child care staffing study: Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America: Executive summary. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project; 1989. [Google Scholar]
  53. Whitebook M, Howes C, Phillips D. Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America: Final report, national child care staffing study. Child Care Employee Project; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  54. Whitebook M, Phillips D, Howes C. Worthy work, still unlivable wages: The early childhood workforce 25 years after the national child care staffing study. Center for the Study of the Child Care Employment, University of California; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  55. Ylitapio-Mäntylä O, Uusiautti S, Määttä K. Critical viewpoint to early childhood education teachers’ well-being at work. International Journal of Human Sciences. 2012;9:458–483. [Google Scholar]
  56. Zhai F, Raver CC, Li-Grining C. Early childhood research quarterly classroom-based interventions and teachers’ perceived job stressors and confidence. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2011;26:442–452. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq1.2011.03.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 33 KB) (33.1KB, docx)
Supplementary file2 (DOCX 16 KB) (15.7KB, docx)

Articles from Early Childhood Education Journal are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES