Professional Learning Opportunities for Public School–Based Pre-K Teachers

Photo by SDI Productions/Getty Images

Providing pre-kindergarten (pre-K) teachers with effective, ongoing professional learning (PL) is crucial for high-quality early childhood education. The Committee on the Science of Children Birth to Age 8 described PL as “all opportunities to gain and reinforce necessary knowledge and competencies for quality professional practice” (Allen and Kelly, 2015, p. 357). PL is critical for ensuring that pre-K teachers implement their instructional materials with fidelity, therefore reducing implementation variation across teachers and allowing children to reap the benefits of high-quality materials (Jenkins and Duncan, 2017; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2024). Research has found that pairing high-quality materials with ongoing PL, especially coaching, is associated with positive impacts on child outcomes (Weiland, 2016).

Recent RAND research has found that most pre-K teachers do have access to some form of PL, especially professional learning communities (PLCs) (Shapiro et al., 2025). However, we have less information on PL topics that teachers think they might benefit from or the modes of PL that they find most useful. Moreover, many public school–based pre-K teachers use multiple instructional materials but lack sufficient dedicated planning time to learn how to adapt and use those materials effectively with the children they teach (Shapiro et al., 2025; Woo et al., 2025), highlighting a need to better understand the supports to which pre-K teachers have access and their needs for additional PL.

This report provides a national picture of the PL experiences of public school–based pre-K teachers. We asked teachers about whether they had received PL on various topics related to child learning and instructional materials, the additional PL they need, the forms of PL they find most useful, and barriers to accessing PL. Our findings are relevant to district and pre-K program leaders, principals, and early childhood teachers and advocates who can use this information to understand teachers’ perceptions of where PL may be needed to strengthen classroom practices.

We used a nationally representative American Public School Pre-K Teacher Survey (PKTS) panel and focus groups with 36 PKTS respondents to capture the perspectives of public school–based pre-K teachers on PL and other topics, such as instructional material use (Grant, Levine, et al., 2025a; Grant, Levine, et al., 2025b; Grant, Shapiro, et al., 2025).⁠^[1] In this report, we define a pre-K program as one that is situated in a public school and serves children one to two years before they begin kindergarten.

In this report, we draw on findings from the spring 2025 administration of the PKTS. These results are nationally representative of pre-K teachers in public schools but do not represent teachers in other settings. We include data from the focus groups to add depth to the survey responses, but these data are not nationally representative. See the “Data Sources and Methods” section for full details.

Among Topics Related to Supporting Child Learning, Pre-K Teachers Were Least Likely to Receive Professional Learning on Teaching Math, Child Cognition and Development, and Supporting Motor and Physical Development

On average, pre-K teachers reported spending eight hours per month in PL focused on supporting their pre-K instruction. Nearly all pre-K teachers reported receiving PL on teaching social and emotional skills, teaching language and literacy, and managing student behavior at some point in their professional careers. Teachers were least likely to receive PL on other topics related to supporting child learning, such as teaching math, child cognition and development, and supporting motor and physical development (Figure 1).

Teachers’ survey responses indicate a need for additional PL opportunities. A majority of teachers who indicated receiving PL on each of the topics we asked about said that they still needed at least a little more PL on each topic. They were most likely to report a need for more PL on managing children's behavior (64 percent), how to teach math (61 percent), and child cognition and brain development (59 percent).

Our focus group results shed light on teachers’ challenges related to behavior management and math instruction, providing insights on potentially impactful areas for additional PL. For instance, teachers in nearly all focus groups said that their students needed more support related to developing their social and emotional skills or approaches to learning, such as cooperating and interacting with others, following routines, and developing independence and the ability to self-regulate. When describing math learning challenges, some teachers said that students struggled with such basic skills as identifying numbers, counting, and grouping items, while others noted that their students needed to be challenged with more-engaging activities.

Among Topics Related to Supporting the Use of Instructional Materials, Teachers Were Least Likely to Receive Professional Learning on Supporting English Learners and Students with Disabilities

About three-quarters or more of teachers participated at some point during their careers in each type of PL related to the use of instructional materials that we asked about (Figure 2).⁠^[2] Teachers were least likely to report receiving PL related to adapting or supplementing materials to incorporate the backgrounds of the children in their classrooms and to meet the needs of students with disabilities or English learners. Among teachers who received PL on each of the instructional material–related topics we asked about, teachers were most likely to report a need for more PL on supporting these groups of learners, especially students with disabilities.

Our focus group results provide insights about the features of instructional material–focused PL that teachers find useful. Teachers in nearly half of our focus groups said that it was helpful when their PL focused on implementing the curriculum in practice. For instance, teachers found it helpful when training focused on how to use their materials or concretely walked them through steps to use their curricula. One teacher described the features of a PL session that they found particularly helpful for supporting curriculum implementation:

[I]t’s literally walking step by step what your entire reading instruction should look like. And we’re literally pulling out, ‘Okay, this question is a check for understanding and this is the strategy we’re going to use.’

Teachers also said that it was helpful to learn about developmentally appropriate teaching strategies to support their curriculum use. Teachers in about one-third of our focus groups mentioned learning about brain-based research and how students learn math, language, and fundamental components of literacy. Teachers said that these trainings provided them with more knowledge on how to plan their instruction, teach skills with an understanding of students’ developmental progression, and find and use instructional materials aligned with developmentally appropriate strategies. One teacher described their experience of attending Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) training, a PL course focused on the science of reading:

[The LETRS training] really kind of ran the gamut for all things literacy, starting at the very basic language and communication, phonemic awareness, and just built on all of these different touchstones of literacy and what that sequence looks like for different age groups. . . . it kind of broke down the progression of each of those where students may fall with oral language or what would be appropriate at different ages and how you can build on those skills based on where they are at.

Teachers Rated Observing Other Teachers’ Instruction and Peer Support as the Most-Useful Forms of Professional Learning

The most common forms of PL that teachers reported experiencing were administrator observations with feedback and collaborative learning (e.g., common planning or PLCs) (Figure 3).

Seventy percent or more of teachers who received each type of PL we asked about rated that type of PL as a little or very useful; there was more variation in the percentage of teachers reporting that the type of PL was very useful (Figure 3). Teachers had the most positive perceptions of the opportunity to observe other teachers’ instruction, followed by collaboration time and the opportunity to receive feedback from other teachers. They were least likely to find online PL (e.g., videos or webinars by curriculum developers, virtual coaching) to be very useful.

When describing useful PL experiences, teachers in about half of our focus groups mentioned their experiences learning from other teachers and school staff. These collaborative opportunities included PLCs, common planning time, and peer or coaching observations. Teachers said that these collaborative opportunities helped them understand how to use their curricula and learn about new strategies and resources. One teacher discussed peer support to implement their curriculum, Frog Street:

Being able to work with someone that has already [used] Frog Street or is [using] Frog Street . . . . [the teachers at the other school] were able to help us and guide us in how we can implement Frog Street daily. . . . they were able to guide us with how Frog Street [is] used so that we can use our time wisely and do it every day.

Teachers Experienced Challenges with Accessing Professional Learning, Including Professional Learning Relevant to Pre-K Classrooms

Teachers expressed challenges with accessing relevant PL. Sixty-four percent of surveyed teachers reported that their PL infrequently (i.e., half the time or less) featured facilitators who were pre-K experts or focused on topics relevant to their classrooms (Figure 4). Fifty-eight percent of teachers also reported that PL was infrequently designed for pre-K teachers.

	Never	Less than half the time	About half the time	Total: Never, Less than half the time, About half the time	More than half the time	Every time	Total: More than half the time, Every time
The PL facilitators are pre-K experts.	11%	28%	26%	64%	23%	13%	36%
My school administrators provide me with guidance about which PL to attend.	22%	22%	18%	62%	18%	20%	38%
The PL available to me focuses on topics relevant to my classroom.	4%	28%	29%	61%	26%	13%	39%
The PL available to me is designed for pre-K teachers.	6%	29%	23%	58%	24%	18%	42%
My school provides funding for me to attend PL.	22%	19%	15%	56%	15%	29%	44%
If needed, I can usually find someone to cover my classroom so I can participate in PL.	18%	20%	16%	54%	18%	27%	46%
PL is offered at times I can attend.	4%	16%	22%	42%	30%	27%	58%

NOTE: This figure depicts response data for the following survey item: “Indicate how infrequently or frequently each of the following statements about the professional learning (PL) available to you are true.” Totals at the end of the bars might not equal the sum of percentages shown because of rounding. n = 1,538–1,539.

Teachers in about one-third of our focus groups explained that PL at their schools primarily focused on kindergarten through 12th grade (K–12) staff rather than pre-K teachers, making their PL less relevant. As one teacher put it, “I never realized how much time is wasted in staff meetings or professional development as a [transitional kindergarten] teacher because so much of it doesn’t apply.” Teachers also noted that, when someone without pre-K teaching experience led the PL, the expectations embedded in the PL were not realistic for their classrooms. One teacher said,

I feel like the people that are doing these professional learnings have not been in the classroom for a while. So they have all these expectations for us. . . . you’re telling me the kids shouldn’t be sitting for more than 15 minutes, but you’re giving me this whole curriculum and standards that I need to be teaching and giving me these ridiculously long books that you’re pushing. . . . So I feel like it’s very unclear what’s really expected of me through all these professional developments.

Many teachers also reported challenges with accessing PL. Sixty-two percent of teachers said that they infrequently received guidance from their school administrators on which PL to attend. Slightly more than half of teachers also said that their schools infrequently provided funding or coverage so that they could attend PL.

Teachers in slightly more than one-third of our focus groups reported that pre-K PL was not a priority in their schools or districts. For example, these teachers said that their schools or districts opted not to invest in pre-K–specific PL opportunities because they were too expensive. These teachers also said that they carried the onus of finding their own PL opportunities. As expressed by one teacher,

It’s up to you wanting to figure some of this stuff out and how to better yourself. There’s not a whole big push to be in a [professional development] group or have a [professional development]. . . . It’s more left up to the individual.

Summary and Implications

Most pre-K teachers reported receiving PL related to child learning domains and the use of instructional materials during their pre-K careers. The most common PL topics included behavior management, social and emotional skills, and language and literacy. Conversely, PL for teaching math was the least common among academic domains. PL about helping teachers use instructional materials to support diverse learners was also uncommon.

These gaps in PL mirror challenges that teachers faced in using their instructional materials, which teachers reported focused less on teaching math and were inadequate for supporting diverse learners (Woo et al., 2025). Consequently, teachers often turned to such sources as Teachers Pay Teachers and self-created materials to supplement their instructional materials (Woo et al., 2025). Teachers may use created materials because their available PL did not adequately prepare them to adapt instructional materials for diverse learners or to teach math. However, without adequate PL, teachers may also lack knowledge about how to identify effective supplemental materials.

Our data also suggest that many teachers desire more PL on these topics, even if they had already received some. PL may be a critical lever for helping teachers use their instructional materials effectively with the children they teach, especially for adapting and supplementing materials for diverse learners and math instruction.

Our results suggest actionable opportunities to improve PL for pre-K teachers. First, schools should ensure that pre-K teachers are learning from pre-K experts and that PL is relevant to their classrooms. If school leaders face challenges providing such PL in their schools, they could explore external pre-K–focused opportunities, such as those covering the science of reading.

Second, like K–12 teachers, pre-K teachers highly value collaborative opportunities, such as opportunities to engage in peer observations, receive peer feedback, and share actionable resources and strategies to enhance instruction (Johnston and Berglund, 2018). If schools struggle to provide collaborative opportunities for a small number of pre-K teachers, districts might more efficiently offer these activities.

Finally, a majority of teachers reported limited access to resources that might help them access PL, such as leader guidance, funding, and classroom coverage. Providing teachers with these resources is a critical step to ensuring that they are able to attend PL that is relevant and useful.

Limitations

Our study had several limitations. Limited publicly available data on school-based pre-K teachers required us to modify our typical weighting procedure for the American Educator Panels (AEP).⁠^[3] This weighting procedure is described in further detail in Grant, Levine, et al. (2025a). We caution readers that the findings in this report are not generalizable to all publicly funded pre-K programs, since our surveys included responses from public school–based pre-K teachers only. Finally, our results rely on individual responses to survey items and focus group questions, and teachers’ responses are self-reports of their experiences, which may be subject to imperfect recollection. Results should be interpreted strictly as descriptive characterizations of patterns in educators’ responses.

Data Sources and Methods

In this report, we present selected findings from the spring 2025 PKTS, conducted with public school–based pre-K teachers on the American Teacher Panel (ATP). The ATP is one of three survey panels that make up the AEP.

RAND researchers administered the spring 2025 PKTS to 1,586 pre-K teachers in April and May 2025 (Grant, Levine, et al., 2025a; Grant, Levine, et al., 2025b). The PKTS is the only nationally representative standing panel of public school–based pre-K teachers in the United States (Grant, Shapiro, et al., 2025). To be included in the survey, teachers had to teach pre-K in a public school.⁠^[4] The survey sample includes responses from pre-K teachers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia who teach in a variety of public school settings. For a full description of our recruitment, screening, and sampling approach, as well as a complete description of the demographic characteristics of responding teachers, see Grant, Levine, et al., 2025b.

All survey results presented in this report are sample-wide estimates that are unadjusted for statistical controls. Estimates are produced using cross-sectional survey weights designed specifically to provide nationally representative estimates at the time the survey was administered. Each pre-K survey respondent was assigned a weight to ensure that estimates reflect the national population of teachers. Characteristics that factor into this process include descriptors at both the individual level (e.g., age, race/ethnicity) and the school level (e.g., school size, locale). More information about survey sampling and weighting is available in our technical reports (Grant, Levine, et al., 2025a; Grant, Levine, et al., 2025b). The intent of this report is to provide exploratory, descriptive information rather than to test specific hypotheses.

In December 2024, we conducted 13 60-minute virtual pre-K teacher focus groups. We invited 103 pre-K teachers who had participated in the fall 2024 PKTS (which was administered in October and November 2024), and 36 agreed to participate in a focus group. Each focus group consisted of about two to five teachers, and each participating teacher received a $75 gift card for their participation. Using a semi-structured protocol, we asked teachers about PL to support their use of instructional materials, among other topics.

To analyze the data, we used recordings of each focus group to create transcripts. We conducted two stages of thematic coding. In the first stage, we coded transcripts using high-level constructs asked about during the focus groups (e.g., teachers’ participation in PL activities, barriers to effective PL). After this initial sorting of transcript excerpts, we coded the data using a more-granular set of inductive codes. When presenting findings, we present the proportion of focus groups in which themes arose to provide a sense of the prevalence of teachers’ sentiments. We determined this by considering all focus groups in which at least one teacher expressed a sentiment aligned with the finding. We present proportions of focus groups rather than counts of teachers because not every teacher necessarily answered every question during the focus group. However, we acknowledge that there is nuance in understanding the prevalence of teachers’ sentiments. For instance, just because a theme was present in the majority of focus groups does not necessarily mean that it was expressed by a majority of teachers.

Acknowledgments

We are extremely grateful to the educators who agreed to participate in the panels. Their time and willingness to share their experiences were invaluable for this effort and for helping us understand how to better support their hard work in schools. We thank Brian Kim for serving as the survey manager and Ruolin Lu and Gretchen Swabe for serving as data managers for this survey. We thank Julie Newell and Tim Colvin for programming the survey and Roberto Guevara for programming the enrollment survey. We thank Dorothy Seaman and Claude Setodji for serving as the statisticians for these surveys. We also greatly appreciate the administrative support provided by Tina Petrossian. We thank Justin B. Doromal and Elaine Wang for helpful feedback that greatly improved this report. Finally, we thank Emily Ward for her editorial expertise and Babitha Balan for overseeing the publication process for this report.

Notes

1. The sections describing the survey panel and our data, methods, and limitations contain recycled text from the technical documentation and prior reports that used the data (Berne, Doss, and Shapiro, 2025; Grant, Levine, et al., 2025a; Grant, Levine, et al., 2025b; Grant, Shapiro, et al., 2025; Woo et al., 2025). Return to content ⤴
2. In the survey, the phrase instructional materials was described to teachers as the materials they use to guide instructional activities and support the learning and development of children in their pre-K classrooms. Return to content ⤴
3. The AEP are nationally representative samples of teachers, school leaders, and district leaders across the country. The panels are a proud member of the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s Transparency Initiative. If you are interested in using AEP data for your own surveys or analysis or in reading publications using AEP data, please email aep@rand.org or visit www.rand.org/aep. Return to content ⤴
4. We screened recruited teachers into the survey using a standard ATP approach, which involved first asking about a comprehensive list of grades and subjects taught. If a teacher reported teaching pre-K and additional grades, then that teacher was eligible for the survey only if they taught kindergarten or 1st grade in addition to pre-K. Eligible teachers could report teaching any of the following subjects as their main subject: elementary education (including pre-K), special education, English and language arts, English as a second language, mathematics, natural sciences, and social sciences. Return to content ⤴

References

• Allen, LaRue, and Bridget B. Kelly, eds., Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth Through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation, The National Academies Press, 2015.
• Berne, Jordy, Christopher Joseph Doss, and Anna Shapiro, Pre-K Teachers Are Optimistic About Educational Technology, Though Current Use Varies Widely: Findings from the American Pre-K Teacher Survey, RAND Corporation, RR-4412-2, 2025. As of December 16, 2025: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4412-2.html
• Grant, David, Phoebe Rose Levine, Anna Shapiro, Elizabeth D. Steiner, Ashley Woo, Jill S. Cannon, Christopher Joseph Doss, Lynn A. Karoly, and Emma B. Kassan, American Public School Pre-K Teacher Survey: Fall 2024 Technical Documentation and Survey Results, RAND Corporation, RR-A3279-7, 2025a. As of October 9, 2025: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3279-7.html
• Grant, David, Phoebe Rose Levine, Anna Shapiro, Elizabeth D. Steiner, Ashley Woo, Jill S. Cannon, Christopher Joseph Doss, Lynn A. Karoly, and Emma B. Kassan, American Public School Pre-K Teacher Survey: Spring 2025 Technical Documentation and Survey Results, RAND Corporation, RR-A3279-6, 2025b. As of October 9, 2025: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3279-6.html
• Grant, David, Anna Shapiro, Elizabeth D. Steiner, Joshua Eagan, Dorothy Seaman, Cyril Cherian, Gerald P. Hunter, Ashley Woo, Jill S. Cannon, Christopher Joseph Doss, and Lynn A. Karoly, Creating a Nationally Representative Survey Panel of Public School Pre-K Teachers, RAND Corporation, RR-A3279-1, 2025. As of October 9, 2025: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3279-1.html
• Jenkins, Jade Marcus, and Greg J. Duncan, “Do Pre-Kindergarten Curricula Matter?” in Pre-Kindergarten Task Force, ed., The Current State of Scientific Knowledge on Pre-Kindergarten Effects, Brookings and Duke University, 2017.
• Johnston, William R., and Tiffany Berglund, The Prevalence of Collaboration Among American Teachers: National Findings from the American Teacher Panel, RAND Corporation, RR-2217-BMGF, 2018. As of October 9, 2025: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2217.html
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, A New Vision for High-Quality Preschool Curriculum, The National Academies Press, 2024.
• Shapiro, Anna, Elizabeth D. Steiner, Ashley Woo, Jill S. Cannon, Christopher Joseph Doss, Lynn A. Karoly, and Emma B. Kassan, Instructional Resources in Public School–Based Pre-K: Findings from the Spring 2024 American Pre-K Teacher Survey, RAND Corporation, RR-A3279-3, 2025. As of October 9, 2025: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3279-3.html
• Weiland, Christina, “Launching Preschool 2.0: A Road Map to High-Quality Public Programs at Scale,” Behavioral Science & Policy, Vol. 2, No. 1, April 2016.
• Woo, Ashley, Christopher Joseph Doss, Anna Shapiro, and Elizabeth D. Steiner, Use of Instructional Materials in Public School–Based Pre-K: Findings from the American Pre-K Teacher Survey, RAND Corporation, RR-A4412-1, 2025. As of December 16, 2025: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4412-1.html

Topics

• Preschool
• Teacher Training
• United States