I am going to reach on this assignment and share the Executive Summary of the NAEYC National Dialogue Phase I and II. This is a process and ultimately a research study I have been deeply involved with since it's beginning in Anaheim, CA in November of 2010. The executive summary explains as concisely as possible, 2 years of information gathering as well as the conclusions and recommendations made based on the obtained data. Upon implementation of the recommendations, NAEYC will become a more nimble, high preforming organization, prepared to lead our field into the future. I truly believe this process and the transition within NAEYC that must occur based on the research findings will have a major lasting positive effect on our field and the children and families with whom we work.
For the Children,
Betsy Carlin
NAEYC Affiliate Council Past Chair
PS Unfortunately the embedded links do not work as they are password protected. If you are a member of NAEYC you can access any of the described documents in the members area of the NAEYC website.
NAEYC Executive Summary: Revised National Dialogue Recommendations
Purpose of the National Dialogue
The NAEYC Governing Board (GB) initiated a National Dialogue to strengthen the relationships among and between all component (Affiliate) parts of the Association: local, state, regional, and national. It charged the Affiliate Council (AC) with the oversight of this critically important work. Three recommendations emerged from the National Dialogue themes; 1) mission, 2) structural relationship, and 3) member voice.
Navigating the Executive Summary
Throughout the Executive Summary links are inserted directing the reader to key guiding documents describing the principles and decision-making process agreed to jointly by the NAEYC Governing Board and the Affiliate Council. Reading the White Paper may be particularly helpful to those who are relatively new to the National Dialogue. The reader can access each of the three recommendations in their entirety; including sections on evidence and rationale, impact grids that address implications for sustainability, infrastructure, and fiscal requirements online, or by following the link in each recommendation outlined in brief below. A complete archive of National Dialogue meetings, documents, and updates can be found in the Affiliate Resource Center. The Affiliate Council responses to recommendations are included in this summary with the full AC approval report also available online.
Phase I and Phase II of the National Dialogue
In Phase I of this initiative, which took place between January 2010 and June 2012, 4 national and 11 regional dialogues were conducted. Phase II began in July 2012 with the appointment of AC members to the AC Subcommittee. Their charge was to draft recommendations for review by the AC and GB, accompanied by a rationale and justification for the recommendations gleaned from the culminating results of nationally and regionally convened dialogues. By design, recommendations are to be viewed through the jointly approved Guiding Principles, Evaluative Lens and Decision-Making Criteria, and HPIO (high-performing, inclusive organizations) documents.
The GB received and accepted each of the recommendations as approved by the AC and the GB Subcommittees at their January 2013 board meeting in Washington, DC. They acknowledged the work of the Affiliate Council, the Subcommittees, staff and all involved in developing these recommendations which are seen as three core and critically important issues facing the Association. The GB envisions a process (Phase III) that will include a work plan, timeline, and the need to gather and review additional data with stakeholder input. Implementation of Phase III will position the Association as a stronger and more viable organization and must:
Recognize the interdependent nature of the relationship among and between components Achieve the ultimate goal of strengthening the relationship across components
Recognize that all stakeholders are necessary to address each of the recommendations
Identify both policy and operational implications
Affirm the Association’s commitment to HPIO, high performing and inclusive organizations Continue work in collaboration using The Guiding Principles and Decision Making Criteria
The NAEYC Governing Board (GB) initiated a National Dialogue to strengthen the relationships among and between all component (Affiliate) parts of the Association: local, state, regional, and national. It charged the Affiliate Council (AC) with the oversight of this critically important work. Three recommendations emerged from the National Dialogue themes; 1) mission, 2) structural relationship, and 3) member voice.
Navigating the Executive Summary
Throughout the Executive Summary links are inserted directing the reader to key guiding documents describing the principles and decision-making process agreed to jointly by the NAEYC Governing Board and the Affiliate Council. Reading the White Paper may be particularly helpful to those who are relatively new to the National Dialogue. The reader can access each of the three recommendations in their entirety; including sections on evidence and rationale, impact grids that address implications for sustainability, infrastructure, and fiscal requirements online, or by following the link in each recommendation outlined in brief below. A complete archive of National Dialogue meetings, documents, and updates can be found in the Affiliate Resource Center. The Affiliate Council responses to recommendations are included in this summary with the full AC approval report also available online.
Phase I and Phase II of the National Dialogue
In Phase I of this initiative, which took place between January 2010 and June 2012, 4 national and 11 regional dialogues were conducted. Phase II began in July 2012 with the appointment of AC members to the AC Subcommittee. Their charge was to draft recommendations for review by the AC and GB, accompanied by a rationale and justification for the recommendations gleaned from the culminating results of nationally and regionally convened dialogues. By design, recommendations are to be viewed through the jointly approved Guiding Principles, Evaluative Lens and Decision-Making Criteria, and HPIO (high-performing, inclusive organizations) documents.
The GB received and accepted each of the recommendations as approved by the AC and the GB Subcommittees at their January 2013 board meeting in Washington, DC. They acknowledged the work of the Affiliate Council, the Subcommittees, staff and all involved in developing these recommendations which are seen as three core and critically important issues facing the Association. The GB envisions a process (Phase III) that will include a work plan, timeline, and the need to gather and review additional data with stakeholder input. Implementation of Phase III will position the Association as a stronger and more viable organization and must:
Recognize the interdependent nature of the relationship among and between components Achieve the ultimate goal of strengthening the relationship across components
Recognize that all stakeholders are necessary to address each of the recommendations
Identify both policy and operational implications
Affirm the Association’s commitment to HPIO, high performing and inclusive organizations Continue work in collaboration using The Guiding Principles and Decision Making Criteria
Phase III begins with Affiliate leadership (volunteer and staff) reviewing the approved recommendations
along with an invitation post their comments online during a 15 day window beginning Monday,
February 11th. Members are afforded the same opportunity beginning February 18th. All comments will
be summarized and sent initially to the GB and AC before they are posted online. Your contributions are
not only valued, but necessary as the collaborative nature of this organizational work studies the impact
of each recommendation through additional data. The GB is committed to the National Dialogue
process moving forward.
The National Dialogue Recommendations
Mission
Introduction
The AC Subcommittee wrestled with the concept of whether the Association should have a child or professional focus versus a child and professional focus. After much discussion and data-review of the evidence, the AC Subcommittee determined that the focus should be on both the professional and the child. In support of the AC Subcommittee’s second recommendation to the GB, the AC Subcommittee further agreed that it was essential to develop guidelines to support the Association’s network components in reviewing and reworking their mission statements to ensure all components’ missions were aligned with the mission of the national component. Specific phrasing should be crafted for network components to choose from.
The process for soliciting feedback and approval from the AC and Affiliate Council Executive Committee (ACEC) was implemented in accordance with the AC Subcommittee Charge. All comments were considered, and it was determined that no modifications to the recommendations were required. The AC and the ACEC approved the recommendations as written by a unanimous vote. Council members comments are reflected in the following; “It is appropriate that all affiliate’s mission align for strength and unity of the Association. It is also important that we not only support children, but as an organization that is comprised of individuals and relies on them for support, that we include those professionals in our Association’s mission statement”, and “If the Governing Board decides to review the mission.....I encourage NAEYC to include members of local affiliates, senior staff, AC members as each has a unique, valued, and invested perspective of what the mission is of NAEYC”. Read the full report here.
The National Dialogue Recommendations
Mission
Introduction
The AC Subcommittee wrestled with the concept of whether the Association should have a child or professional focus versus a child and professional focus. After much discussion and data-review of the evidence, the AC Subcommittee determined that the focus should be on both the professional and the child. In support of the AC Subcommittee’s second recommendation to the GB, the AC Subcommittee further agreed that it was essential to develop guidelines to support the Association’s network components in reviewing and reworking their mission statements to ensure all components’ missions were aligned with the mission of the national component. Specific phrasing should be crafted for network components to choose from.
-
The Association’s mission statement should be reviewed by the NAEYC Governing Board and
potentially revised.
-
Should the NAEYC Governing Board decide to revise the Association’s mission statement, then
the local, state, and regional components should review and potentially revise their respective
mission statements to be in alignment with the national component and in accordance with any
forthcoming guidelines by the NAEYC Governing Board. Read the full 9 page recommendation.
The process for soliciting feedback and approval from the AC and Affiliate Council Executive Committee (ACEC) was implemented in accordance with the AC Subcommittee Charge. All comments were considered, and it was determined that no modifications to the recommendations were required. The AC and the ACEC approved the recommendations as written by a unanimous vote. Council members comments are reflected in the following; “It is appropriate that all affiliate’s mission align for strength and unity of the Association. It is also important that we not only support children, but as an organization that is comprised of individuals and relies on them for support, that we include those professionals in our Association’s mission statement”, and “If the Governing Board decides to review the mission.....I encourage NAEYC to include members of local affiliates, senior staff, AC members as each has a unique, valued, and invested perspective of what the mission is of NAEYC”. Read the full report here.
Governing Board Response
The GB received the mission recommendation as approved by the AC at their January 2013 board meeting in Washington, DC identifying it as one of the core issues facing this Association.
Structural Relationship
Introduction
These structural relationship recommendations are built on the foundation of the AC Subcommittee’s first recommendation, which called for a review and potential change of the Association’s mission statement. These recommendations address the structural relationship among and between components and are designed to: 1) reconfigure the way in which components affiliate with the national component, 2) simplify the responsibilities of local components, 3) set the stage for more effective services to members, and 4) recognize the unique role of city-states within the Association.
Fundamental change is at the heart of these recommendations regarding the structural relationship— specifically between the local and national components. This change would significantly impact the relationship between the local and state components and address the consistent theme revealed throughout the National Dialogue meetings: Locals struggle with the non-profit business requirements in the current Affiliation model.
These recommendations are based upon the findings from Regional and National Dialogue meetings, component leadership surveys; the results of Program Alignment; and documented, effective practices of other non-profit membership associations. In addition to the recommendations presented, the AC Subcommittee recommends further research and dialogue regarding several specific points found in these recommendations.
Structural Relationship Recommendations
The AC voted to approve this recommendation (49 approved, 1 do not approve). Council member responses reflected concerns with fiscal implications for all components, and additionally needed supports for all volunteer state component boards. An ongoing concern for those local components who may feel disconnected; “ We would not want to experience the unintended consequence for those very committed local affiliate Board members to pull back from the association if they even think ‘they don't count’ as much. Enhanced clarity and reassurance around their continued role to do what they do best, at a local level, such as providing professional development opportunities access to resources, ‘touching’ the members locally, and building upon what NAEYC and the states have to offer would be helpful as this material moves forward”. Read the full report here.
The GB received the mission recommendation as approved by the AC at their January 2013 board meeting in Washington, DC identifying it as one of the core issues facing this Association.
Structural Relationship
Introduction
These structural relationship recommendations are built on the foundation of the AC Subcommittee’s first recommendation, which called for a review and potential change of the Association’s mission statement. These recommendations address the structural relationship among and between components and are designed to: 1) reconfigure the way in which components affiliate with the national component, 2) simplify the responsibilities of local components, 3) set the stage for more effective services to members, and 4) recognize the unique role of city-states within the Association.
Fundamental change is at the heart of these recommendations regarding the structural relationship— specifically between the local and national components. This change would significantly impact the relationship between the local and state components and address the consistent theme revealed throughout the National Dialogue meetings: Locals struggle with the non-profit business requirements in the current Affiliation model.
These recommendations are based upon the findings from Regional and National Dialogue meetings, component leadership surveys; the results of Program Alignment; and documented, effective practices of other non-profit membership associations. In addition to the recommendations presented, the AC Subcommittee recommends further research and dialogue regarding several specific points found in these recommendations.
Structural Relationship Recommendations
-
The structure among and between components should be revised in a manner that simplifies,
clarifies, and strengthens relationships. This structure must acknowledge that all components
share members and must also support members. The intent is to have fewer components
directly affiliated with the national component.
-
The national component remains the standard bearer for the early childhood profession, leading
national advocacy efforts and setting standards for programs and professional practices. All
components serve members by reaching out to professionals in the field—providing
professional development opportunities, sharing resources on best practices, and creating
networks or communities of practice. State and local components are more able to “touch” the
member directly while leading local advocacy efforts. Read the full 14 page recommendation.
The AC voted to approve this recommendation (49 approved, 1 do not approve). Council member responses reflected concerns with fiscal implications for all components, and additionally needed supports for all volunteer state component boards. An ongoing concern for those local components who may feel disconnected; “ We would not want to experience the unintended consequence for those very committed local affiliate Board members to pull back from the association if they even think ‘they don't count’ as much. Enhanced clarity and reassurance around their continued role to do what they do best, at a local level, such as providing professional development opportunities access to resources, ‘touching’ the members locally, and building upon what NAEYC and the states have to offer would be helpful as this material moves forward”. Read the full report here.
Governing Board Response
The GB received the structural relationship recommendation as approved by the AC at their January 2013 board meeting in Washington, DC identifying it as one of the core issues facing this Association.
Member Voice
Readers Note: There are no policy implications inherent in this recommendation as it addresses the
operational side of member outreach and engagement.
Introduction
The national component remains the standard bearer for the early childhood profession, leading national advocacy efforts and setting standards for programs and professional practices. All components share the responsibility to serve members through outreach and engagement efforts to professionals in the field, providing professional development opportunities, sharing resources on best practices, and creating networks or communities of practice. State and local components are more able to “touch” the member directly while leading local advocacy efforts. The intent of this recommendation is to create multiple ways to recognize shared members’ areas of expertise, and to increase the opportunity for their active engagement and influence throughout this Association.
-
The programs and services of the Association need to be aligned with its mission and the
AC Subcommittee offers the member voice recommendation with the assumption that the
mission statement will be revised to include the early childhood professional.
-
Member expertise should be leveraged; Interest Forums are a good example.
-
Given the shared nature of membership, all components should collaborate to
identify issues and priorities as seen from the member perspective.
-
Components should consider how member voice relates to choice and the value of member
benefits.
-
All components should consider cost- and revenue-sharing opportunities when offering
products and services.
-
All components should provide opportunities for member engagement through
easily accessible mechanisms and personal contact when possible.
- All components should have the necessary tools and processes to gather information from members—including member preference regarding how their voice can influence their Association.
-
All components should have a timely process in place to respond to a member’s
interest in engagement.
-
All components should offer experiences that allow volunteers a variety of time-
commitment opportunities (for example, one-time involvement, committee work,
advocacy, board position, etc.) to engage members. Read the full 10 page report.
The AC voted to approve this recommendation (42 approved, 1 abstention.)Council member responses reflected potential fiscal implications with a specific focus on technology needs, and the importance of coordinating efforts and resources across components. One Council member summarized the thoughts of many; “If approved by the Governing Board the success of recommendation three will hinge on a strong implementation plan. The plan will need to foster a climate of continuous improvement through ongoing evaluation of implementation at all component levels, mutual support and communication”. Read the full report here.
Governing Board Response
The GB received the member voice recommendation as approved by the AC at their January 2013 board meeting in Washington, DC identifying it as one of the core issues facing this Association.
Conclusion
The National Dialogue was initiated to strengthen the relationship among and between the Association component parts. Phase I and II are completed with the GB receiving each of the recommendations; mission, structural relationship between and among Association components, and member voice. The GB recognizes the importance of continuing to engage in the National Dialogue by engaging Association leadership in a collaborative process that will identify additional, necessary data to determine the final outcome and implementation of each recommendation.
Phase III begins with the publication of this Executive Summary and the National Dialogue Recommendations as approved by the AC and received by the GB. Leadership and members have the opportunity to contribute their comments, questions, and suggestions in an online comment period. Timelines, communication plans, and an implementation process for Phase III will begin by early March of 2013. This is truly an important opportunity to create an Association that is nimble enough to face the future, effective enough to engage and grow membership, and with enough commitment to honor the principles of a high performing, inclusive organization.
NAEYC Affiliate and Member Relations February 2013. Posted 2.11.2013. Revised and Posted 2.12.2013. Retrived from:
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/Revised%20Final%20Executive%20Summary_GS_02122013.pdf
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/Revised%20Final%20Executive%20Summary_GS_02122013.pdf
