the region’ s community of early childhood professionals. Over a span of four years, cohort members developed close relationships with their professors and each other as they met weekly to talk about course content.
One of the cohort’ s classes focused on antibias pedagogy and working with families. This was taught by Christine Pegorraro Schull( author one) and included conversations with Leslie La Croix( author six) from George Mason University. That institution is a local transfer partner for early childhood associate degree students. The class examined how cohort members could incorporate identity, diversity, justice, and activism— the four goals of anti-bias education— into their settings. Its culminating activity was to examine where anti-bias practices emerged in the educators’ routines and instructional practices, materials and curriculum, and relationships and interactions.
In this article, we( the six authors) examine how cohort-based learning and intentional engagement with anti-bias education can foster professional growth among early childhood educators. Elevating the voices and experiences of the four extended day educators, we explore how learning in community deepened their professional practice, their capacity to guide children, and their connections with families.
Why Anti-Bias Education Matters
As outlined in NAEYC’ s advancing equity position statement, all children have the right to equitable learning opportunities that help them achieve their full potential. Early childhood educators are tasked with ensuring that each and every child flourishes and is celebrated for their individual contexts and strengths. Antibias education is a perspective and framework that can help with this.
In their book Anti-Bias Education for Young Children and Ourselves, authors Louise Derman-Sparks, Julie Olsen Edwards, and Catherine M. Goins outline four goals educators can work toward to prevent the harmful impacts of prejudice and bias( see“ The Four Core Goals of Anti-Bias Education”). This book is the foundation for Christine’ s and Leslie’ s work with early childhood education students, and it was particularly relevant to Sandra P., Sandra C., Sicili, and June as they earned their associate degrees. The extended day programs where they work draw from Arlington County’ s 26 elementary schools, and the children and families served span a broad range of racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds( see“ What Is Extended Day?”).
Christine and Leslie considered the cohort’ s rich cultural diversity to be the most valuable resource influencing each educator’ s learning space. Leaning on self-reflection and analysis, they designed their class to explore both teachers’ and families’ cultural contexts and assets. This included reflecting on life experiences and considering how various events, relationships, and circumstances connected to educators’ practices and expectations of children. Such a reflective process surfaced both the assets and potential biases that can influence a teacher’ s interactions with children from diverse backgrounds.
While Sandra P., Sandra C., Sicili, and June talked about equity and quality practices frequently, this course prompted them to reflect more deeply on their growth as educators and the ways they could implement antibias practices more effectively. Following, each educator shares how she strategically integrated one of the four goals of anti-bias education in her extended day setting.
Fall 2026 Educating Young Children 43