Scalability of Leadership Development Program in a State Professional Development System

Abstract

Cultivating leadership within the early care and education (ECE) workforce is crucial for driving quality improvement and systems change. However, there is limited understanding of how to develop and scale leadership development programs for early educators. To address this need, Leading for Change (LFC) was intentionally designed to provide scalable, affordable, and accessible leadership development opportunities for early educators from diverse racial, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds. The present study examined whether the scaled version of LFC (delivered by locally trained facilitators) could achieve outcomes comparable to the pilot version (delivered by the original LFC developers). The results showed similar improvements in participants’ entrepreneurial leadership mindset and knowledge across both versions. Also, interviews with facilitators revealed key factors, strengths, and challenges that could influence the success of scaling efforts. These findings offer valuable insights into how leadership development models can be effectively developed and scaled to ensure equitable and widespread access for the ECE workforce.

1. Introduction

Cultivating leadership within the early care and education (ECE) workforce can drive quality improvement and systems change (Kirby et al., 2021; Bratsch-Hines et al., 2023; Halpern et al., 2021; Movahedazarhouligh et al., 2023). Research shows that when early educators embrace their professional identity as leaders and acquire relevant knowledge and skills, they can design innovative approaches and initiate positive changes for the field (A. L. Douglass, 2019; Lee et al., 2022). However, there is a lack of affordable and accessible leadership development opportunities for early educators from diverse racial, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds (A. Douglass, 2017; Goffin & Gager, 2021). To unlock the full potential of these leaders, it is crucial to develop scalable leadership development models that ensure equitable and widespread access for the broader ECE workforce (A. Douglass & Kirby, 2022; Movahedazarhouligh et al., 2023). To achieve this goal, we need a deeper understanding of the factors that facilitate successful scale-up.

Successful scale-up refers to the expansion or replication of an evidence-based model to different locations, settings, or populations, while maintaining its effectiveness (Sacks et al., 2015). However, a model’s effectiveness during the pilot phase does not guarantee it will remain effective when scaled up. Many interventions that performed well in pilots often lose their impact at a larger scale (Gupta et al., 2021). Achieving successful scale-up requires careful planning and strategies, yet there remains a significant gap in understanding how to scale up while maintaining its effectiveness. The present study explored the early stage of scaling up Leading for Change (LFC) through an existing state professional development (PD) system. This study examined whether the scaled version could be as effective as the pilot version and conducted interviews with LFC facilitators to identify key components, strengths, and challenges important for successful scaling.

1.1. The ECE Professional Development Scaling Framework

Insights from multiple disciplines, including health, medicine, and prevention and intervention science (e.g., Barker et al., 2015; Larson et al., 2017; Meyers et al., 2012; Miller et al., 2006; Selekman et al., 2020; World Health Organization & ExpandNet, 2010) have informed the development of this study’s conceptual framework, the “ECE Professional Development Scaling Framework”. This framework highlights five key elements to consider in making high-quality professional development opportunities more available and accessible to a broader ECE workforce.

The first element is an effective PD model that has clearly defined core components and a proven track record of making a positive impact (Needels et al., 2020). Having well-defined core components allows flexibility in adapting the PD model to various scaling contexts (Sacks et al., 2015). Evidence of impact can come from various methods such as randomized control trials, pre–post designs, qualitative case studies, and observations (Larson et al., 2017). It is worth noting that some scaled-up programs lack this evidence of impact (Sacks et al., 2015), which can hinder the PD model’s ability to achieve positive outcomes at scale (Indig et al., 2018). Ensuring evidence of impact not only benefits participants but also opens doors for funding, replication, and scalability.

The second element involves establishing a strong infrastructure to ensure program fidelity. Fidelity refers to delivering the PD model as intended, including its core components and activities that drive its impact. Successful scaling efforts rely on strategies such as facilitator certification programs, technical assistance, facilitation guides, and fidelity monitoring mechanisms (Borko et al., 2014; Elliott et al., 2009; Koellner et al., 2011). Facilitator preparation programs are especially important for building a pool of skilled facilitators. These programs equip facilitators with essential skills and a deep understanding of the PD model they deliver (Clark et al., 2008; Jarry-Shore et al., 2023).

The third element is the program’s adaptability to specific implementation contexts and participant characteristics. It is crucial for the program to be flexible and tailored to meet the different needs of populations across diverse settings (B. R. Cooper et al., 2016; Moore et al., 2013). Along with maintaining fidelity, accommodating context-specific needs is equally important for maintaining the program’s impact at scale (Spicer et al., 2016; Hall et al., 2016; Huey et al., 2014). In this regard, need assessments and fit assessments are valuable tools. Conducting a need assessment helps program developers better understand the local context, community needs, and participants (Supplee & Metz, 2015). Fit assessment evaluates the compatibility and alignment between the program and the implementing context (Sacks et al., 2015; Supplee & Metz, 2015).

The fourth element is establishing a robust data collection system with a feedback loop to monitor program implementation and its effectiveness. This system gathers valid and reliable data from various sources, such as need assessments, administrative data, participant feedback surveys, self-reports, and observations. It identifies areas of success and areas for improvement, enabling timely adjustments to maintain the program’s impact at scale (Needels et al., 2020; Sacks et al., 2015).

The fifth element is building partnerships with diverse stakeholders, including policymakers, funders, and community partners. These partnerships are essential for leveraging collective knowledge, resources, and expertise, which drives effective scaling processes and positive outcomes (Bulthuis et al., 2020; Johnson, 2017). Establishing respectful partnerships fosters trust and mutual commitment, ensuring that all parties work toward shared visions and goals. This alignment promotes quality implementation, sustains program impacts at scale, and enhances long-term sustainability (Larson et al., 2017). It also creates opportunities for innovation and adaptability, enabling programs to address challenges and build capacity as they scale.

1.2. LFC Readiness Through the Lens of the ECE PD Scaling Framework

Effective PD Model. Leading for Change (LFC) is a 40-h leadership program, including 30 h of direct instruction and 10 h of asynchronous learning activities (e.g., readings, video reflections, and assignments). The program integrates three core components: (a) cultivating leadership mindsets, (b) enhancing knowledge to drive change and foster innovation, and (c) equipping educators to design and implement practical solutions for quality improvement. Participants identify problems of practice, gain personal empowerment as entrepreneurial leaders, and develop and test innovative solutions. Evidence from previous studies has demonstrated significant improvements in participants’ entrepreneurial mindset, leadership skills, and confidence in initiating positive change (A. Douglass, 2018; Lee et al., 2022). Participants report an increased ability to apply leadership skills effectively and drive meaningful change in their work settings. Reviews of leadership models have also recognized LFC as ready for replication and well suited for scaling due to its demonstrated impact.

Fidelity and Adaptability. The FCP training, certification process, and ongoing support are integral components of the LFC scaling strategy, designed to promote fidelity and adaptability in scaling up LFC. Drawing from the Training of Trainers (ToT) framework (Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2019), the LFC developers run the Facilitator Certification Program (FCP) as a key scaling strategy. Facilitators from diverse backgrounds are recruited and participate in an intensive 40-hour training that provides in-depth knowledge of LFC and comprehensive facilitation guidance. Certification is performance-based, requiring facilitators to demonstrate strong facilitation skills and mastery of the content. To ensure program delivery with high quality and fidelity over time, mandatory annual re-certification is required. Also, facilitator trainers and the peer learning community (PLC) provide ongoing support.

Robust Data Collection and Feedback Loop. The LFC developers have established a robust data system with a feedback loop. Key indicators, such as attendance and completion rates, are tracked through administrative data. They also gather data through pre- and post-surveys and focus group interviews to better understand participant experiences and program effectiveness. This ongoing evaluation process helps refine facilitation practices, enhance participant outcomes, and inform future improvements.

Building Partnerships. Collaborations with state and local government agencies, funding organizations, and community groups expand the organization’s capacity to reach a wider audience of ECE educators. Through partnerships with state agencies, the LFC developers aim to deliver the program across multiple states. Community partners, such as regional ECE professional development hubs (PDHs) and organizations directly connected to educators, also play a pivotal role. Their knowledge, networks, and established relationships help the LFC developers effectively introduce and implement the program in diverse settings.

1.3. The Present Study: Assessing the Scalability of Leading for Change

Leading for Change (LFC), developed by the Early Education Leaders institute at UMass Boston, was delivered from 2021 to 2022 through an existing PD system in one Eastern U.S. state. The state’s regional ECE professional development hubs (PDHs) served as delivery partners, with their training specialists certified as LFC facilitators through the Facilitator Certification Program (FCP). To address the diverse linguistic needs of early educators, facilitators from various linguistic backgrounds were recruited and certified. The program was offered in five languages, including English, Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, and Cantonese. Facilitators received support including coaching, course materials, a facilitation guide, and scripted slides for all course sessions. Additionally, a professional learning community (PLC) was offered to exchange strategies and reflect on their facilitation experiences.

LFC successfully reached 285 early educators, representing the diversity of the ECE workforce in many ways. Participants worked in various settings including center-based programs, family child care, and out-of-school programs. They served children across age groups: infants and toddlers (72%), preschoolers (83%), kindergartners (34%), and school-aged children (24%). In terms of racial and ethnic diversity, 39% self-identified as White, 35% as Hispanic/Latinx, 15% as Asian, 9% as Black, and 2% as other racial backgrounds. The program was offered in five languages: 42% of participants took LFC in English, 25% in Spanish, 14% in Mandarin, 14% in Portuguese, and 5% in Cantonese. Importantly, 92% of participants were able to take the program in their preferred language.

This study aimed to assess the scalability of LFC by examining its first delivery led by certified facilitators rather than the original developers. Guided by the ECE PD Scaling Framework, the present study focused on two research questions:

• Does the scaled version of the LFC maintain its significant impact compared to the pilot version delivered by the original developer?
• What key factors, strengths, and challenges identified through interviews with LFC facilitators contribute to the successful scaling of the program?

2. Methods

2.1. Data Source

To achieve our first aim, we analyzed pre- and post-survey data from participants in the scaled version and the pilot version. The pre-survey was distributed three days before the first session, and the post-survey was distributed immediately after the final session. Right after the final session, we sent a post-survey to everyone who successfully completed the LFC program. Not all completers filled it out, so our analysis focuses on the 84 individuals who did—48 from the scaled version and 36 from the pilot version.

To achieve our second aim, we conducted interviews with 11 facilitators who had facilitated the entire LFC curriculum at least once. Invitations were sent via email and text to 13 eligible facilitators, and 11 agreed to participate. The majority of the interviewees were women (90.9%) with an average age of 52.29 (SD = 12.65). Six facilitators delivered the course in non-English languages, including Spanish (18.2%), Portuguese (18.2%), Mandarin (9.1%), and Cantonese (9.1%), though all were also capable of delivering the program in English. Facilitators came from various professional backgrounds—63.6% were part of the state PD system as facilitators, trainers, or coaches. Other roles include adjunct professors (18%), family child care providers (18.2%), and center-based educators (9.1%).

2.2. LFC Impact Measures

Entrepreneurial Leadership Mindset. Entrepreneurial leadership mindset was assessed before and after the 14-session LFC coursework. A 12-item scale was used, where participants rated their agreement with each item on a scale of 1 (none) to 5 (always). Example items include “I think of myself as a leader” and “I can lead changes in early education and care”. The ratings were then averaged to create a composite indicator of entrepreneurial leadership mindset (α = 0.91). Higher scores indicate a stronger perception of oneself as a leader and greater leadership efficacy. Before this scale, no reliable and valid measure was available to assess the entrepreneurial leadership of early educators across all positions. Thus, the LFC developers and their research team developed this scale in 2018. These items were developed based on a literature review on leadership development and educator leadership, and they were tested with diverse LFC participants during the pilot phase.

Leadership Knowledge on Driving Change and Fostering Innovation. LFC participants’ knowledge regarding driving change and fostering innovation was assessed before and after the LFC coursework. Using 5 items, participants rated their knowledge on a scale of 1 (no knowledge) to 10 (expert knowledge). These ratings were then averaged to create a composite measure of perceived knowledge (α = 0.92). Example items include “I know how to identify a set of steps to implement a plan for improvement or change,” “I know strategies for partnering or collaborating with others to make the change,” and “I know how to develop and use a theory of change”. Higher scores represent a greater self-perception of knowledge in driving change and fostering innovation. The scale was developed in 2018 by LFC developers and their research team. During the pilot stage, the items were tested with LFC participants from diverse backgrounds.

2.3. Interview Procedures

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 LFC facilitators. These interviews were held virtually, recorded with the interviewees’ permission, and typically lasted 30 to 45 min. To accommodate facilitators’ primary languages, the interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Portuguese, and Cantonese. The interview questions focused on facilitators’ experiences with the FCP, fidelity in delivering the LFC curriculum and core activities, and recommendations for enhancing future facilitator training efforts. Sample interview questions included the following:

• To what extent did the Facilitator Certification Program prepare you to support participants’ learning and engagement?
• What forms of support were beneficial to you during the facilitation?
• What challenges did you encounter, and what additional support do you wish you had received?

Participants had the option to decline to answer any question and were encouraged to follow up via email to revise or add to their responses after further consideration.

2.4. Analytic Strategies

We began by comparing the baseline characteristics of the participants in the scaled and the pilot versions using t-tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables. Next, we assessed whether the impacts of the scaled version were similar to those of the pilot version. To evaluate the impacts, we conducted paired t-tests within each version to compare pre- and post-scores. We then calculated the pre–post difference scores for each version and compared them using an independent t-test. Finally, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to examine differences in post-scores between the two groups. Assumptions of linearity, normality, homoscedasticity, and homogeneity of regression for ANCOVA were met, and there were no extreme outlier cases.

Facilitator interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed by trained research assistants. We applied an iterative thematic analysis approach to systematically analyze the data in three phases (Creswell, 2014). Initially, three researchers independently reviewed the interview transcripts before collectively generating initial codes. In the subsequent phase, we derived thematic categories from these codes. In the final phase, we employed Dedoose to confirm and refine the identified themes, addressing any disagreements through group discussions. This comprehensive process aimed to rigorously explore the interview data, enhancing reliability and validity. The entire research team then met to confirm thematic analyses, make necessary adjustments, discuss interpretations, and explore alternative explanations, thus ensuring a robust understanding of the interview data. Pseudonyms have been used for all interviewees in the presentation of findings to ensure their confidentiality.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1. Background characteristics of LFC participants.

	Pilot Version LFC (n = 36)		Scaled Version LFC (n = 48)
Variables	n	(%)	n	(%)	t or χ2
Demographic characteristics
Age (M, (SD))	40.78	(10.11)	47.62	(9.39)	−2.84	**
Female	31	(96.9)	33	(94.3)	0.26
Race/ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White	15	(46.9)	6	(18.2)	6.12	*
Non-Hispanic Black	7	(21.9)	1	(3.0)	5.35	*
Hispanic/Latinx	5	(15.6)	13	(39.4)	4.58	*
Other races	4	(12.5)	12	(36.4)	4.99	*
Non-English language speaker	12	(37.5)	22	(68.8)	6.27	*
Education
Lower than BA	7	(21.9)	22	(64.7)	12.28	***
Bachelor’s degree (BA)	7	(21.9)	11	(32.4)	0.91
Higher than BA	18	(56.2)	1	(2.9)	22.85	***
Professional characteristics
Years in the ECE field
5 years or less	6	(19.4)	8	(22.9)	0.12
More than 5 years to 10 years	4	(12.9)	12	(34.3)	4.09	*
More than 10 years to 15 years	5	(16.1)	4	(11.4)	0.31
More than 15 years	16	(51.6)	11	(31.4)	2.77
Current position
Director/administrator	7	(19.4)	21	(43.8)	5.47	*
Lead teacher/assistant teacher	4	(11.1)	12	(25.0)	2.57
Other roles (e.g., coach, curriculum coordinator)	25	(69.4)	15	(31.2)	12.03	***
Number of children to serve (M, (SD))	81	(89.0)	26	(49.7)	2.60	*

Note. N = 84. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

compares the demographic and professional characteristics of participants in the pilot and the scaled versions of the program. The scaled version had a higher representation of Black and Hispanic/Latinx participants than the pilot version. Specifically, the scaled version included 39.4% Hispanic/Latinx, 36.4% other races, 18.2% non-Hispanic White, and 3% non-Hispanic Black. In contrast, the pilot cohort had 46.9% non-Hispanic White, 21.9% non-Hispanic Black, 15.6% Hispanic/Latinx, and 12.5% other races. Regarding education, 64.7% of participants in the scaled version had a bachelor’s degree or lower, whereas 56.2% of participants in the pilot version had a bachelor’s degree or higher. In terms of current positions, 43.8% of the scaled cohort were directors/administrators, 31.2% held other roles (e.g., curriculum coordinators and PD coaches), and 25% were lead or assistant teachers. On the other hand, the pilot cohort included 69.4% in other roles (e.g., program coordinators, college instructors, curriculum specialists, and PD coaches), 19.4% directors/administrators, and 11.1% lead or assistant teachers.

3.2. Entrepreneurial Leadership Mindset Between the Scaled and Pilot LFCs

A paired sample t-test with each cohort showed that LFC participants demonstrated a significantly higher entrepreneurial leadership mindset at post-LFC compared to pre-LFC (see

Table 2. Pre- and post-LFC entrepreneurial leadership mindset scores by cohort.

Cohort	Pre-LFC M (SD)	Post-LFC M (SD)	t	p	Cohen’s d
Scaled LFC	7.44 (1.81)	8.64 (1.20)	−4.80	<0.001	0.82
Pilot LFC	7.80 (1.08)	8.23 (0.98)	−2.65	0.013	0.47

). Specifically, in the scaled LFC cohort, there was a significant increase in entrepreneurial leadership mindset after completing the program (M_post = 8.64, SD_post = 1.20) compared to before starting the program (M_pre = 7.44, SD_pre = 1.81), t(33) = −4.80, p < 0.001, d = 0.82. Similarly, in the pilot LFC cohort, entrepreneurial leadership mindset at post-LFC (M_post = 8.23, SD_post = 0.98) was significantly higher than at pre-LFC (M_pre = 7.80, SD_pre = 1.08), t(31) = −2.65, p = 0.013, d = 0.47. A two-sample independent t-test was conducted to compare the pre–post score differences between the two cohorts. The mean difference in the scaled cohort was 1.17 (SD = 1.42), whereas the mean in the pilot cohort was 0.50 (SD = 1.07). The difference between the two cohorts was statistically significant, t(64) = −2.14, p = 0.036, d = −0.53. Furthermore, an ANCOVA was performed to compare the post-LFC entrepreneurial leadership mindset between the two cohorts at post-LFC while controlling for participants’ pre-LFC scores. The results revealed a statistically significant difference in post-LFC scores between the scaled and the pilot cohorts, F(1, 63) = 4.03, p = 0.049.

3.3. Leadership Knowledge Between the Scaled and Pilot LFCs

Within the scaled LFC cohort, leadership knowledge significantly increased from pre-LFC (M_pre = 6.30, SD_pre = 2.31) to post-LFC (M_post = 8.57, SD_post = 1.35), t(32) = −7.12, p < 0.001, d = 1.24. Likewise, in the pilot cohort, leadership knowledge also significantly improved from pre-LFC (M_pre = 6.54, SD_pre = 1.76) to post-LFC (M_post = 8.06, SD_post = 1.02), t(32) = −4.53, p < 0.001, d = 0.79 (see

Table 3. Pre- and post-LFC leadership knowledge scores by cohort.

Cohort	Pre-LFC M (SD)	Post-LFC M (SD)	t	p	Cohen’s d
Scaled LFC	6.30 (2.31)	8.57 (1.35)	−7.12	<0.001	1.24
Pilot LFC	6.54 (1.76)	8.06 (1.02)	−4.53	<0.001	0.79

).

Next, a two-sample independent t-test was conducted to compare the pre–post score differences between the scaled and pilot LFC participants. The mean difference in the scaled cohort was 2.28 (SD = 1.84), whereas in the pilot cohort, it was 1.55 (SD = 1.97). The pre–post score difference between the two cohorts was not statistically significant, t(64) = −1.55, p = 0.13, d = −0.38. Finally, using an ANCOVA, we compared the post-LFC leadership knowledge between the two cohorts at post-LFC while controlling for participants’ pre-LFC scores. The results showed a marginally significant difference in post-LFC scores between the two cohorts, F(1, 63) = 3.93, p = 0.052.

3.4. Findings from Facilitator Interviews: Strengths and Challenges

3.4.1. Facilitator Certification Program (FCP) Increased Confidence

The Facilitator Certification Program (FCP) was highly valued by facilitators, leading to a significant increase in their self-confidence. They valued the immersive nature of the program, which enabled them to experience LFC core activities as if they themselves were participants. They reported that their firsthand experiences influenced their own leadership mindsets and increased their trust in the effectiveness of LFC. One facilitator noted that the course “changed their own mindset and thinking about leadership”. Furthermore, the FCP afforded facilitators a deeper understanding of the core activities, equipping them to effectively guide LFC participants. Another facilitator said “We did a lot of practicing to make sure that we felt confident enough to provide the content and facilitate the content. I felt super prepared. I never felt like that before”. Another facilitator Aya’s comment also reflected their increased confidence:

Having the training and the exercises and doing the assignments. Those definitely were great tools to assist with sharpening my tools, sharpening the way of speaking, speaking with tough subjects, and those that are maybe more sensitive. So, the classes we took to prepare us to be facilitators were definitely helpful, because I must say I was able to utilize the tools that we were given.

3.4.2. Connections to Coaches and Peers Served as a Support System

Throughout the delivery of LFC, facilitators had access to LFC facilitator trainers through one-on-one coaching for ongoing support for fidelity and quality improvement. This coaching between the certified facilitator and the facilitator trainer fostered growth in facilitation skills and provided a sense of support to the facilitators. Belinda said “The check-ins, where we can just kind of drop in… those are always really helpful. Anytime I have a question, I volley it out. It’s right back to me. So, I feel super supported”. Dara also mentioned:

My trainers are just like a phone call or email away. When I was frustrated with my session, I told my trainer, I really want to talk about this. They were always available and I was just confident that I can always reach out to them.

The facilitators also highly valued the Professional Learning Community (PLC). This peer network allowed facilitators to learn from one another, share best practices, and gain insights from a wide range of experiences. They felt a strong sense of connection with their fellow facilitators, as they were all going through the same experience of delivering LFC for the first time. The PLC created a space for facilitators to share their insights and knowledge, as well as support each other. Jasmine said

Before I started, I found that two people from my cohort had already begun. They mentioned that it was a bit challenging due to the volume of content and there were times when they ran behind schedule. I took note of their experiences and was very mindful of the time when I started. Even though we weren’t on the same exact week, I could still draw valuable feedback from them. It’s really beneficial to be able to throw your question out there, get answers or just listen to others’ struggles and successes, and learn what’s working. You can then apply these insights to your own teaching.

3.4.3. Accessibility of Facilitator Materials and Resources

Facilitators had convenient access to course materials, readings, spreadsheets, and documents through a Google folder. The availability of these resources in different languages was found to streamline the facilitation process, ensuring that the facilitators had all the tools to guide participants effectively. One of non-English LFC facilitators said “Everything has been already translated to Chinese. I think it is a very good support”. Belinda shared their experience:

The skills and resources provided were really helpful, like having access to spreadsheets and collaborative documents. Without access to all those documents that way, I would have had a more difficult time explaining to my participants how to do it and how to engage in it. Especially for me utilizing the Google Docs and the associated documents was invaluable.

3.4.4. Mixed Perspectives on Scripted Slides Emerged

Some facilitators found that slides with embedded scripts provided valuable guidance, helping them stay focused and on track during course delivery. These resources were seen as beneficial in covering all core content while maintaining the intended instructional design. Fabiana shared their thoughts:

This was the first training that I ever did where I could have presenter view. At first, I was concerned that it might seem like I was reading a script and I wouldn’t feel authentic… However, I kept emphasizing that I was using the notes because this is such rich content. So, I really appreciated this feature, and wish I had it when teaching other training sessions.

However, not all facilitators held the same view. Some mentioned challenges arising from the use of scripted notes, expressing a preference for using their own voices to establish a more personal connection with participants. They noted that relying on scripted content made them feel less natural and less authentic, which hindered their ability to build deeper relationships with participants and limited their effectiveness as facilitators. Additionally, time constraints posed by scripted notes were mentioned as they sometimes led to rushed discussions, reducing opportunities for in-depth exploration and feedback. Carla explained

Well, one thing that was ingrained in us during FCP was fidelity to the scripted notes. I found it extraordinarily difficult to implement. As someone with experience coaching and engaging with students, I believe strongly in developing relationships. I found it kind of inauthentic. It wasn’t my voice. It sounded very mechanical… I would prefer to use my own voice, not the one in the script because it doesn’t represent me.

3.4.5. Challenges Related to Race, Equity, and Cultural Considerations

LFC includes core content on the topic of racial justice and equity. A few facilitators encountered various challenges in addressing race and equity topics within the LFC course. They recognized their own need for more support and guidance in navigating these discussions around race and in creating a safe space for exploration. Evelyn shared their perspective:

There were pieces around conversations that had to do with race and racism that concerned me… I was worried that perhaps the way these topics were presented did not account for the fact that not everybody is at the same place in their understanding of anti-racism work or their own awareness of their biases and inherent racism, particularly if you’re White. I remember feeling worried that I might unintentionally harm someone simply by my own ignorance and inherent racism being born into being a White person and born with privilege and entitlement.

Also, facilitators of non-English LFC pointed out the need for additional resources and examples that are culturally and linguistically responsive to non-English LFC participants. They highlighted the importance of providing diverse references to enrich the learning experience, particularly for non-English LFC participants. Kai explained

Most of my students come from mainland China and they are Mandarin speakers. It would be beneficial if we had some references or examples to share with them. It would greatly enrich the learning experience if the program offered a selection of such examples for us to use.

Facilitators of the non-English LFC faced challenges in editing the translated course materials to better suit their cultural contexts. This required substantial time and effort to ensure accurate translations, adapt examples, and maintain cultural relevance for non-English LFC participants. Dara described their experience:

Sometimes, examples or references are from USA. Because my students are coming from mainland China, they have different backgrounds and ideas about that. So, some examples did not resonate with them, and some references may not be a perfect fit. It is something I need to consider, or perhaps we need to address these cultural differences.

These challenges underscore the need to provide facilitators with a range of tools, resources, and support to effectively address issues of racial and cultural equity, social justice, and language considerations during the delivery of the LFC program.

Table 4. Summary of key themes on strengths and challenges during LFC implementation.

Theme	Description	Illustrative Quote
FCP Increased Confidence	The FCP helped facilitators feel more confident and prepared by allowing them to experience the LFC activities as if they were participants.	Having the training and the exercises and doing the assignments… were great tools to assist with sharpening my tools, sharpening the way of speaking, speaking with tough subjects… the classes we took to prepare us to be facilitators were definitely helpful… I was able to utilize the tools that we were given.
Connections to Coaches and Peers Served as a Support System	Coaching and peer learning gave facilitators helpful and timely feedback and a strong sense of support.	The check-ins… those are always really helpful. Anytime I have a question, I volley it out. It’s right back to me. So, I feel super supported.
Accessibility of Facilitator Materials and Resources	Access to centralized, multilingual resources made it easier to lead the sessions.	Everything has been already translated to Chinese. I think it is a very good support.
Mixed Perspectives on Scripted Slides	Some facilitators liked the scripted slides, while others felt the slides hindered authenticity and relationship-building with participants.	I really appreciated [the scripted notes] because this is such rich content.
		I found it kind of inauthentic… It wasn’t my voice. I would prefer to use my own voice.
Challenges Related to Race, Equity, and Cultural Considerations	Facilitators wanted more help talking about race and adapting content for different cultures and languages.	Some examples did not resonate with [Mandarin-speaking participants]… we need to address cultural differences.
		I was worried… not everybody is at the same place… I might unintentionally harm someone… by my own ignorance and inherent racism.

summarizes the strengths and challenges found from facilitator interview.

4. Discussion

This study compared the effectiveness of LFC between the scaled and pilot LFC cohorts. By examining the entrepreneurial leadership mindset and knowledge between pre- and post-LFC among participants from these two cohorts, our goal was to assess whether the scaled LFC can achieve the desired outcomes found in the pilot version. Our findings confirm that the scaled LFC had a comparable impact to the pilot version. In both cohorts, participants’ entrepreneurial leadership mindset and knowledge at post-LFC were significantly higher than their pre-LFC scores, which was consistent with a previous efficacy test study (Lee et al., 2022). Our findings provide compelling evidence that our LFC has the potential to be effectively scaled up without losing its impact. This aligns with emerging research on scaling in education, which emphasizes the importance of infrastructure, facilitator support, and fidelity strategies in sustaining outcomes during scale-up efforts (Gupta et al., 2021; Clements et al., 2015; Jarry-Shore et al., 2023).

Furthermore, our findings suggest that the scaled LFC could potentially have a more significant program impact compared to the initial impact found in the pilot phase’s efficacy test. Through an analysis of pre–post score differences and ANCOVA, we found a greater increase in entrepreneurial leadership mindset among the scaled LFC participants compared to their counterparts in the pilot LFC. While our hypothesis was that LFC impact would be similar between the two cohorts, we did not expect a greater increase in the scaled cohort. In the scaling literature, it is commonly reported that programs at scale often fail to maintain the comparable impact found in a pilot study (List et al., 2021).

The unexpected, larger impact may be attributed to the characteristics of the participants in the scaled version. This cohort included a higher proportion of Black and Hispanic/Latinx ECE educators, non-English language speakers, family child care providers, and educators without a college degree. In contrast, the pilot version had greater representation of non-Hispanic White, monolingual English-speakers, educators with college or higher degrees, and educators in roles such as program coordinators, curriculum specialists, and PD coaches. The leadership development opportunities likely had a greater impact on those who may have had limited prior access to leadership development opportunities. Our findings highlight the potential of the scaled LFC to create significant positive change among historically marginalized early educators (M. Cooper, 2023). By addressing inequities and ensuring access to quality professional learning, we can foster meaningful growth in the ECE workforce (A. Douglass, 2017; Bratsch-Hines et al., 2023; Movahedazarhouligh et al., 2023).

Findings from the facilitator interviews shed light on key facilitating factors, strengths, and challenges that can guide successful scaling efforts. First, the 14-week FCP played a pivotal role in creating a pool of facilitators equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills. Through FCP, facilitators not only gained confidence but also developed a deeper understanding of the LFC model, foundational knowledge, and facilitation skills. These factors are likely to be key contributors to the comparable impact between the pilot and scaled versions of LFCs. Moreover, the immersive nature of participating in the LFC as if they were participants had a profound impact on facilitators. This immersive experience equipped facilitators to not only foster leadership skills in early educators but also to apply these lessons to their own lives, leading to transformative changes in both their and the educators’ mindsets. This process cultivated a strong belief in the LFC program’s effectiveness, crucial for its successful scaling (Clements et al., 2015).

Beyond FCP, facilitators had access to two additional support systems: one-on-one coaching with facilitator trainers and participation in the professional learning community (PLC). FCP laid the foundation by equipping facilitators with essential skills and knowledge, while coaching and the PLC seamlessly extended this support, nurturing continuous growth and development in facilitation practice. The one-on-one coaching with facilitator trainers provided facilitators with a valuable avenue for seeking advice, sharing challenges, and receiving feedback. Simultaneously, the PLC played an important role in connecting facilitators, serving as a platform for the exchange of ideas and discussions on best practices, creating a robust peer support network. Consistent with the literature (Jarry-Shore et al., 2023), these support mechanisms likely contributed to sustaining and enhancing facilitators’ abilities, ensuring a consistently high standard of facilitation, and ultimately leading to comparable impacts among scaled and pilot LFC participants.

The accessibility of a repository of course materials emerged as a key facilitating factor in the delivery of LFC. The LFC developers established a shared platform where all course materials, including readings and slides for each session, are gathered, streamlining the preparation process for facilitators. However, regarding the use of scripted slides, diverse perspectives were found among facilitators. The majority found these scripted slides to be invaluable tools that helped them stay on track and maintain a focused delivery. However, one facilitator felt that using scripts hindered their ability to establish an authentic connection with participants. These findings emphasize the importance of helping facilitators understand that fidelity does not necessarily require a rigid adherence to scripted slides word by word. Instead, facilitators should recognize the importance of adapting the content to align with the unique needs of their participants (Jarry-Shore et al., 2023; Leufer et al., 2019). Scripted slides should serve as valuable resources that enhance, rather than limit, facilitators’ capacity to tailor the course to their specific facilitation contexts. To address this, the FCP may benefit from developing more concrete guidance and practice for using scripted content in ways that support both fidelity and, where appropriate, adaptation.

Effectively delivering the core content of racial justice and equity in the LFC curriculum has presented challenges for some facilitators. To effectively support facilitators facilitating these critical discussions, it is essential to provide comprehensive training that includes practical guidance, culturally responsive materials, and structured support. Investing in the professional development and cultural competence of facilitators not only empowers them to confidently address complex issues but also fosters an inclusive learning environment that promotes meaningful dialogue and understanding among participants (Matschiner, 2023).

Furthermore, our findings highlight the importance of developing resources to support facilitators delivering LFC in non-English languages. This support may include improved quality in the translated course materials and access to a network of experienced facilitators in the same language. By offering comprehensive support, facilitators delivering LFC in non-English languages can effectively convey nuanced concepts, select appropriate terminology, and ensure a high-quality learning experience for participants in all language versions of the program. Prioritizing equitable access is essential to ensure that participants in all language versions of the LFC course receive an equally high-quality learning experience. This scaling effort was one of the first in this state where a PD course is offered in five languages. Our study findings can inform ongoing improvement and future efforts in this and other states to make high-quality leadership development more accessible to diverse linguistic groups.

The study findings should be considered alongside its limitations. First, we used a relatively small sample size in examining the impact of LFC on participants, which limits the statistical power and generalizability of the findings. Since the LFC scaling initiative was launched in 2020, 208 participants had enrolled in the program and 88 participants had completed it from May 2021 to June 2022. The smaller analytic sample may be attributable to the LFC scaling initiative being rolled out during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies could explore whether similar findings can be found with larger and more diverse samples of LFC participants across different states and settings. Also, due to the small sample size, we did not divide the sample further to detect differences in LFC impact across the two cohorts (e.g., differences by gender, language, race/ethnicity, and program type). The larger sample sizes with rich covariates will allow researchers to detect group differences.

Second, we relied on self-reported data to examine the impacts of LFC on participants’ entrepreneurial leadership mindset and knowledge. Although self-report instruments are valuable for capturing educators’ perceptions and confidence, they are subject to response bias, including social desirability bias. In future research, it could be worth considering objective performance measures—such as observations of leadership behaviors or evaluations of participants’ applied leadership practices—to assess program impact. Lastly, it may be valuable for future studies to consider long-term measures to better understand the sustained effects of the scaling initiative. For example, tracking participants’ leadership progression over time, through post-program surveys, interviews, or evaluations of participants’ initiatives, could offer stronger evidence of the program’s long-term effectiveness.

5. Conclusions

Developing sustainable and scalable leadership development programs is crucial for enhancing the capacity of the early childhood education (ECE) field to drive change and quality improvement (A. Douglass & Kirby, 2022). However, leadership development opportunities in ECE are often limited in scope and scale. This study makes a significant contribution by demonstrating that an evidence-based ECE leadership model can be effectively scaled through a state professional development system while maintaining high quality and achieving positive outcomes.