Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
IV. Program Quality
One of the key questions in the Head Start family child care evaluation is whether services provided in the family child care home setting meet the Head Start Program Performance Standards. Head Start staff were also interested in how an agency’s family child care home services compared to those provided in the same agency’s center classroom programs. In addition to assessing compliance with the Head Start Program Performance Standards, the evaluation team collected data using other measures of program quality: caregiver characteristics, developmental appropriateness of the home or center classroom environment, and caregiver behaviors. This chapter presents the findings for each of these measures for Cohort 2.
Head Start Program Performance Standards
The OSPRI was developed for monitoring teams to use in evaluating compliance with Head Start Program Performance Standards at the level of Head Start agencies or grantees. The evaluation team applied the instrument at the level of family child care homes and center classrooms and observed all participating homes and comparison center classrooms. In addition, the evaluation team reviewed the records of a randomly selected child in each home and center classroom and interviewed parents and staff to evaluate compliance with OSPRI items. The evaluation team conducted analyses across family child care homes and center classrooms in each agency and across agencies.
Types of Items: Records, Observations, and Interviews
Head Start Program Performance Standards require agencies to use record keeping systems that document the implementation of various program activities. Agencies may use record keeping systems developed by ACYF (e.g., the Child Health Record) or develop their own systems. Descriptions of the specific record keeping systems are included in each of the component plans, which are approved annually by each agency's policy council.
Depending on the agency, records maintained might be comprehensive, well-organized, and centrally located or scant and diffuse.
For the OSPRI records form, local data collectors reviewed specific documents related to agency, center, and family child care home activities. Depending on the nature of the specific Head Start standard, records may be maintained by family child care coordinators, center directors, or by center classroom teachers and family child care providers. Records include documentation of:
-
Activities for children and their parents (e.g., scheduled field trips, parent meetings, medical treatments, meals);
-
Required responsibilities of staff (e.g., written information about each child's growth and development, social service needs, and home visits; staff training on specific
-
topics);
-
Parent involvement (e.g., classroom participation, training, meetings with staff); and
-
Advisory board and policy council meetings.
The OSPRI observations form includes items that require data supervisors to record such observations about the educational program as:
-
The physical learning environment (e.g., how space and materials are configured, whether children's work is displayed);
-
Interactions between providers and children; and
-
Materials, supplies, and equipment available to the children (e.g., whether materials reflect cultural, ethnic, and gender diversity; whether toys and equipment are clean and in good repair).
Many OSPRI items were evaluated using responses to parent or staff interview questions. Such items included parents’ training in home activities, the children’s development, the handling of special needs and behavioral problems, health and safety practices, and the availability of a mental health professional to work with parents and children and to train staff.
The OSPRI record and observation instruments were administered in each family child care home and comparison center classroom in spring 1995. Each item and indicator on the record and observation forms required a rating of yes, no, or not determined. Data collectors assigned a yes rating only if evidence supporting the intent of the standard was clearly observed or indicated. If the intent of the standard was not evident, data collectors assigned the item or indicator a no rating. Data collectors assigned not determined ratings infrequently.
Evaluating whether a center classroom or family child care home had passed an item with multiple indicators posed a challenge to the evaluation team because each indicator received a separate rating. In consultation with Region 10 Head Start staff, the evaluation team identified the indicators for each item that best provided assurance that the intent of the standard had been met. All of those key indicators had to be rated yes for a center classroom or family child care home to pass the item (for most items, this included all of the indicators).
Ability of Family Child Care Homes and Center Classrooms to Meet Head Start Program Performance Standards
Each Head Start agency is required to provide services in the component areas of education, health, mental health, nutrition, social services, parent involvement, and disabilities services. Program coordinators for each of these component areas are expected to assist and train center directors, center classroom teachers, and assistants to meet the standards in each area. In this demonstration project, the family child care coordinators usually worked with the family child care home providers in each of the component areas. However, in some sites the component program coordinators and the family child care coordinators provided assistance to family child care homes.
Exhibit IV-1 illustrates the mean number and percentage of OSPRI items passed by family child care homes and center classrooms in each program component area. The differences in means across family child care homes and center classrooms are nonsignificant except in the area of parent involvement, for which center classrooms passed significantly more OSPRI items.
| Component Area | No. Items |
FCC | Homes | (n= 118) | Center | Classrooms | (n= 135) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | Percent | M | SD | Percent | ||
| Education | 37 | 28.1 | 5.4 | 75.9 | 29.4 | 4.1 | 79.3 |
| Disabilities services | 7 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 40.4 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 33.8 |
| Health | 31 | 23.5 | 4.8 | 75.9 | 23.6 | 4.6 | 76.2 |
| Mental health | 16 | 14.2 | 2.9 | 88.6 | 14 | 2.8 | 87.6 |
| Nutrition | 27 | 21.7 | 3.5 | 80.3 | 22.3 | 2.8 | 82.5 |
| Social service | 15 | 13 | 2 | 86.4 | 12.5 | 2 | 83.1 |
| Parent involvementa | 17 | 11.7 | 3.4 | 68.9 | 12.6 | 2.4 | 74.5 |
| Total | 143 | 112.1 | 17.4 | 78.4 | 114.2 | 13.9 | 79.9 |
| Note. Total does not include disabilities services items due to a large number of missing cases. aDifference between family child care homes and center classrooms statistically significant p < .01. (back) |
Some of the largest significant differences between settings occurred on items that required center classroom teachers and family child care providers to maintain records on individual children and families. For example, center classrooms were more likely to document parent conferences, home visits, and parent participation, but family child care homes were more likely to identify and document family social service needs and provide information about community services. Some family child care providers reported that they were not familiar with the records they were required to keep or that they did not have time to keep the records current.
Differences between family child care homes and center classrooms on observation items also generally favored the center classrooms. For example, center classrooms were more likely to be rated as having clean and safe facilities; having appropriate furniture, equipment, and materials; and providing fluoride treatments. However, on interview items family child care parents were more likely than center classroom parents to report having received health resource information, and family child care providers were more likely than center classroom teachers to report having received nutrition education.
It is interesting that in the Cohort 1 pilot year, for which only 47 OSPRI items were assessed, center classrooms performed significantly better than family child care homes on 40% of the items. By the Cohort 2 year, however, center classrooms performed better than family child care homes on only 9% of the 143 items, and family child care homes outperformed the classrooms on 4% of the items. Clearly, it took time for family child care home providers to learn the Head Start Program Performance Standards and record keeping requirements, but by the second year of operation there was little difference in their ability to meet those standards and requirements.
Caregiver Characteristics
The evaluation examined the differences between the professional and personal characteristics of caregivers in family child care homes and center classrooms to describe the caregiver population and determine how differences between the two groups related to child and program outcomes. In the spring of Cohort 2, 127 caregivers operated 114 family child care homes. Of those homes, 13 relied on assistants in addition to the primary provider and 101 were operated by a single caregiver. The 134 Head Start center classrooms that comprised the comparison group were staffed by 302 caregivers, nearly half of whom were considered assistants. (Because the term assistant did not reflect clearly defined criteria, the connotation of the term may have varied across agencies.)
Gender
Nearly all caregivers in this evaluation were female. No male caregivers operated family child care homes and only six male caregivers worked in center classroom settings.
Age
The age of the caregiver has not been shown to have a great influence on the quality of child care, although it is an important descriptive variable for understanding who provides Head Start services. The mean age of caregivers was 38 years in family child care homes and 40 years in the centers classrooms. These ages are consistent with the average age of caregivers reported in other studies (Kontos, 1992). The youngest caregiver was 21 and the oldest was 66.
Race
Exhibit IV-2 illustrates that the racial composition of the caregivers in center classrooms and family child care homes was similar. However, a slightly higher percentage of African American caregivers were in the center classrooms (28.8%) than in the family child care homes (25.8%).
Primary Language
Exhibit IV-2 shows that for the entire population of caregivers the predominant primary language was English (85%), followed by Spanish (11%) and other languages (4%). The percentages were similar for the two settings. Of the 11% of family child care caregivers who did not speak English as their primary language, 85% rated themselves as fair or good speakers of English. The remaining 15% (3 caregivers) reported that they spoke English not at all.
| FCC | Center | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race | |||
| White | 50.8 | 45.4 | 47.7 |
| African American | 25.8 | 28.8 | 27.6 |
| Hispanic | 16.7 | 20.2 | 18.7 |
| Asian | 5.8 | 4.3 | 4.9 |
| Native American | 0 | 1.2 | 0.7 |
| Other | 0.8 | 0 | 0.4 |
| Primary Language | |||
| English | 85.1 | 85.5 | 85.3 |
| Spanish | 10.7 | 11.5 | 11.2 |
| Other | 4.1 | 3 | 3.5 |
Education
Previous studies have indicated that a high school diploma is the typical educational level of family child care providers (Abbot-Shim & Kaufman, 1986; Rosenthal, 1988; Fischer, 1989). Several of those studies included a significant proportion of caregivers with 1 to 2 years of postsecondary education. In a summary of other studies, Krause-Eheart and Leavitt (1986) reported that the percentage of family child care providers with a college degree ranged from 12 to 35%. Data from this evaluation suggest that the level of education of the family child care providers was slightly higher than that reported elsewhere for home caregivers. However, family child care home providers' education levels were significantly lower than the center classroom teachers’ education levels.
Exhibit IV-3 shows that the difference in educational attainment between family child care providers and center classroom teachers was significant. Almost 60% of center classroom teachers held college degrees, whereas less than 27% of family child care providers held college degrees. Furthermore, 1 out of 6 family child care providers had no more than a high school diploma. According to the authors of the Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers study, higher quality centers tend to have more highly educated caregivers (Helburn et al., 1995). Clarke-Stewart and Gruber's (1984) finding that caregivers’ formal education is associated with social and cognitive competence in children attending family child care homes renders this finding particularly noteworthy. Many of the expected advantages of family child care home care, such as low child-to-staff ratios and small group sizes, might be counteracted by the comparatively low level of educational attainment achieved by family child care providers.
Coursework and Training in Early Childhood Education
Many studies have demonstrated that specific training in early childhood education—not general education—is related to the quality of care provided (Ruopp, Travers, Glantz, & Coelen, 1979). All family child care providers and center classroom teachers had at least some training in early childhood education, but as Exhibit IV-3 shows, center classroom teachers were more likely than family child care providers to have attained an Associate’s, Bachelor’s, or Master’s degree in early childhood education. Over half of the degrees held by family child care providers were in a field not related to early childhood education, whereas most of the degrees held by center classroom providers were in early childhood education or a related field.
Another indicator of the early childhood training of caregivers is the possession of, or progress toward, a Child Development Associate (CDA) credential. There were significant differences in CDA status between family child care providers and center classroom teachers. Exhibit IV-3 shows that 25% of family child care providers already held a CDA credential and 40% were in the process of obtaining the credential; in comparison, 43% of the center classroom teachers held a CDA credential and another 18% were making progress toward obtaining the credential. Some of the caregivers who did not hold a CDA credential and were not working toward one already possessed a degree in early childhood education: 23% of center classroom teachers and 7% of family child care providers held a state license in early childhood education.
| FCC | Center | |
|---|---|---|
| Education* | ||
| Less than high school completion | 0.8 | 0 |
| High school diploma or GED | 16.5 | 5.4 |
| Some college | 56.2 | 35.2 |
| Associate’s degree | 13.2 | 19.4 |
| Bachelor’s degree | 11.6 | 35.2 |
| Master’s or doctoral degree | 1.6 | 4.8 |
| Early Childhood Education Training | ||
| Some training* | 61.2 | 47 |
| Associate’s degree* | 5 | 19.3 |
| Bachelor’s degree* | 4.1 | 25.3 |
| Master’s degree* | 0 | 3.6 |
| CDA Certificate | ||
| Holds CDA* | 24.8 | 43.4 |
| Holds state ECE license* | 6.6 | 22.9 |
| CDA or state ECE license in progress | 39.7 | 18.1 |
| Years of Child Care Experience | ||
| FCC home setting | 5.6 | 4.3 |
| Center classroom setting* | 3.1 | 9.9 |
Experience in Child Care
The findings from previous studies of the impact of a caregiver’s level of experience on child care quality are mixed. For example, Howes (1983) found that more experienced caregivers were more responsive to children's bids for attention, whereas Stallings and Porter (1980) found no effects for experience. Given a choice, however, most parents favor experienced caregivers over inexperienced caregivers.
Center classroom teachers were more experienced as a group than the family child care providers. Exhibit IV-3 shows that center classroom teachers averaged 14.2 years of experience, whereas family child care providers averaged less than 9 years of child care experience (these totals represent experience as child care providers in either home or center settings). According to Kontos (1992), it is difficult to characterize the experience of family child care providers because of the different ways these data have been reported. Even so, there is some consensus that the average number of years of caregiver experience for family child care providers in the United States ranges from 4½ to 7 years (Mansfield, 1986; Bollin, 1989; Jones, 1991). Compared to these findings, Head Start family child care providers were more experienced than other family child care providers but had on average about 5½ years less experience than center classroom teachers. Breaking down experience by the type of child care experience indicates that family child care providers were slightly more experienced in home-based child care, and center classroom teachers were three times more experienced in center-based child care.
Experience in Head Start Settings
Center classroom teachers had an average of 7.2 years of experience in Head Start, whereas family child care providers averaged only 1.4 years of Head Start experience. Most family child care providers had previous family child care experience, but they were not required to have had previous Head Start experience. The lack of Head Start experience may have made it more difficult for family child care providers to meet certain Head Start Program Performance Standards—particularly those that required substantial amounts of record keeping.
Family Child Care Provider Compensation and Benefits
All center classroom teachers were Head Start employees, and the majority of family child care providers were contractors. This distinction appeared to have an impact on both the wages and benefits provided to the caregivers in the two settings. Using information reported by the agencies, the mean hourly wage of center classroom teachers was $8.73 and the mean hourly wage of family child care providers was $9.78. Helburn et al. (1995) found that average teacher wage rates were an important discriminating factor in distinguishing between poor-, mediocre-, and high-quality child care centers.
Although the pay discrepancy between the two settings is noteworthy, a more striking difference was found between the Head Start centers and family child care homes in terms of the benefits provided to the caregivers. Less than 10% of family child care providers received dental benefits, less than 20% received medical or retirement benefits, and less than 50% received paid vacation or sick leave. In contrast, 100% of center classroom teachers received medical benefits, sick leave, and paid holidays; over 80% enjoyed paid vacation and retirement benefits; and over 50% received dental benefits. In all, a higher percentage of center classroom teachers than family child care home providers received every type of benefit.
Absenteeism
Center classroom teachers were absent from work an average of 12.9 days a year, whereas the family child care providers were absent 10.5 days a year. In addition to being more likely to have sick leave benefits, center classroom teachers were more likely than family child care providers to have available substitutes.
Turnover
Turnover refers to the stability of caregivers in a program over time. It is difficult to confirm empirically the significance of caregiver stability because studies have used different measures of turnover—including the percentage of caregivers who leave during the year, the number of new caregivers hired during the year, and the number of years a caregiver has been in the setting—in measuring caregiver stability. According to Clarke-Stewart (1987), evidence of a positive relationship between caregiver stability and child development is inconsistent at best. In the Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers study (Helburn et al., 1995) researchers reported evidence that caregiver tenure increased quality. Interviews with agency staff revealed that approximately 2% of the family child care providers from Cohort 1 were replaced with new providers in Cohort 2. In center classrooms, 7% of the teachers and 9% of the assistants were replaced. The family child care homes, therefore, demonstrated a greater degree of caregiver stability.
Program Structure
Program structure refers to aspects of the child care setting that tend to be stable, such as the child/staff ratio, group size, scheduling and planning, physical organization, materials and equipment, and safety. The evaluation sought to determine whether any of these program characteristics differed significantly between family child care homes and center classrooms and how differences related to child and family outcomes.
Child/Staff Ratio
Ratio is considered an important quality indicator because it is assumed to affect caregivers’ ability to mediate children's experiences with the social and physical world (Phillips & Howes, 1987). Many studies have found that ratio has a significant effect on the behavior of children and caregivers (Bruner, 1980; Field, 1980; Helburn et al., 1995; Howes, 1983; Howes & Rubenstein, 1985; Smith & Connolly, 1981). Lower child/staff ratios and group sizes are related to higher quality care and more positive caregiver behaviors.
Exhibit IV-4 shows that the center classroom settings had a mean ratio of 8.26 children per adult, whereas the family child care homes maintained a mean ratio of 4.79. The mean ratio by agency ranged from a low of 5.83 children per adult to a high of 11.06 in the center classrooms and from 3.00 to 6.00 in the family child care homes. The wide range of ratios suggests that the family child care homes and center classrooms were far from uniform, but on the average the family child care homes maintained a child/staff ratio roughly half that of the center classrooms. These differences were largely a function of licensing requirements, staffing patterns for center classrooms, and the evaluation requirement that family child care homes include no more than 6 children.
Group Size
Group size refers to the number of children in the setting. Many studies have documented the positive effect of smaller group size on the quality of child care (Howes, 1983; Howes & Rubenstein, 1985; Stith & Davis, 1984). In the family child care homes group size tended to be equivalent to the child/staff ratio because most family child care homes had only one caregiver. As shown in Exhibit IV-4, the mean group size of the family child care homes by agency was 5.11 children and ranged from a low of 3.00 to a high of 6.00. In the center classrooms mean group size was 17.79 and ranged from a low of 15.60 to a high of 23.20, but the majority (85 of the 134 classrooms) reported a group size between 17 and 20. Thus, the average child/staff ratio and group size in the family child care homes were considerably lower than those in the center classrooms.
| Agency | No. of Center Classrooms |
Center Classrooms | Number of FCC Homes |
FCC Homes | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average Enrollment |
Average Ratioa |
Average Enrollment |
Average Ratiob |
|||
| A | 2 | 17.5 | 8.75 | 6 | 5.17 | 5.17 |
| B | 8 | 16 | 6.65 | 6 | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| C | 6 | 16 | 8 | 9 | 4.44 | 4.44 |
| D | 15 | 17.53 | 8.48 | 8 | 4.75 | 4.75 |
| E | 6 | 15.67 | 7.83 | 7 | 5.86 | 5.86 |
| F | 9 | 18.67 | 9.33 | 5 | 5.6 | 5.6 |
| G | 5 | 23.2 | 7.02 | 7 | 4.71 | 4.71 |
| H | 11 | 18.91 | 9.86 | 6 | 5 | 5 |
| I | 10 | 16.3 | 6.87 | 8 | 5.38 | 5.38 |
| J | 5 | 15.6 | 6.27 | 8 | 5.63 | 5.63 |
| K | 12 | 17.33 | 8.67 | 2 | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| L | 9 | 17 | 8.5 | 5 | 5.2 | 5.2 |
| M | 8 | 17.13 | 7.85 | 10 | 4.9 | 4.9 |
| N | 7 | 17.43 | 6.67 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| O | 4 | 17.5 | 5.83 | 4 | 4.25 | 4.25 |
| P | 2 | 19.5 | 9.75 | 6 | 5.67 | 3.83 |
| Q | 8 | 22.13 | 11.06 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| R | 7 | 18.43 | 9.21 | 6 | 6 | 3 |
| Total | 134 | 17.79 | 8.26 | 114 | 5.11 | 4.79 |
| Note. Differences between settings significant at p < .01. aAverage child/staff ratio for center classrooms = number of enrolled children ¸ (number of teachers + assistants) (back) bAverage child/staff ratio for family child care homes = (Head Start children + caregiver's children aged 0–4 + other children aged 0–4) ¸ (number of family child care providers + assistants) (back) |
Providing Care for Other Children
The center classrooms enrolled only 3- and 4-year-olds, whereas the family child care homes sometimes included children younger than 3 years and other non-Head Start children. Grantees were expected to operate between 8 and 10 family child care homes, each with 4 to 6 Head Start children. If a family child care provider had 1 or 2 preschool children of her own, she was allowed to have only 4 or 5 Head Start children so that the total number of preschool children in the home did not exceed 6. Because some agencies were not able to recruit enough families to reach the maximum of 6 children in each home, the family child care providers were permitted to care for other non-Head Start children to maintain their incomes. Some agencies guaranteed the family child care providers payment for 4 children, regardless of whether the openings were filled.
Exhibit IV-5 shows the number of children in each category across all family child care homes. Overall, 69% of the providers had children of their own at home, but only 30% had preschool children. Forty-one percent of the family child care providers cared for other children in addition to their own and the demonstration project children. The term non-demonstration in Exhibit IV-5 refers to Head Start children who were placed in the family child care homes after the pretest period, and thus were not part of the demonstration evaluation.
| Category | Age | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–4 | 5–9 | 10 + | |
| Head Start demonstration children | 387 | ||
| Head Start non-demonstration children | 123 | ||
| Provider’s children | 43 | 36 | 25 |
| Other children | 30 | 29 | 13 |
| Note. Number of family child care homes = 114. |
Scheduling, Planning, and Organization
Scheduling, planning, and organization of children's activities have been found to differ across types of child care settings (Divine-Hawkins, 1981; Fosberg, 1982; Goelman & Pence, 1987a; Helburn et al., 1995). In general, unlicensed family child care homes are the least likely settings to rely on a schedule and feature planned learning activities. Regulated and licensed homes like those in this evaluation are more likely to maintain a schedule and include some planned activities. Higher levels of structure and planning are commonly found in center-based settings. However, there is no clear agreement in the research literature and among practitioners regarding the value of scheduling and planning. Some researchers and practitioners contend that it is the very nature of family child care homes to operate with an informal structure in which the highly flexible schedule mirrors the ongoing life of a home (Gramley, 1990; Nelson, 1990). This viewpoint suggests that scheduling and planning are not necessarily essential to high quality in family child care (Washburn & Washburn, 1985). An alternate perspective maintains that scheduling and planning are essential aspects of high-quality care, regardless of the setting. According to Kontos (1992), research is needed to determine whether the presence or absence of structure and planning in family child care affects children's development.
The evaluation examined scheduling and planning in terms of the existence of and adherence to daily schedules. All center classrooms and family child care homes were licensed and required by the Head Start Program Performance Standards to develop a schedule. Exhibit IV-6 shows that family child care homes and center classrooms were equally likely to include the full range of activities and groupings identified in the Head Start Program Performance Standards.
| Indicator | Percent of FCC Homes (n = 112) |
Percent of Center Classrooms (n = 133) |
|---|---|---|
| Quiet time | 99 | 95 |
| Active, large-muscle activity | 97 | 99 |
| Small-muscle activity | 100 | 100 |
| Outdoor activity | 96 | 93 |
| Child-initiated activity | 95 | 89 |
| Teacher-directed activity | 99 | 99 |
| Small-group activity | 96 | 99 |
| Large-group activity | 97 | 95 |
| Note. Differences between settings were not significant. |
Bredekamp and Copple (1997) underscored the critical role child-initiated activities play in fostering children's development in Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children From Birth Through Age Eight. Such activities are regarded as the cornerstone of high-quality programs. Therefore, the high percentage (95%) of family child care homes that included child-initiated activities in their daily schedules is notable. Data supervisors observed, however, that the family child care homes did not follow posted schedules to the extent that the center classrooms did. Anecdotal reports suggested that family child care homes rarely followed schedules as posted and often extended particular activities or changed plans based on unforeseen circumstances. For example, one family child care provider took an impromptu field trip to the park when the weather unexpectedly cleared up. In another family child care home, the provider did not refer to or follow the schedule of activities, but explained that it was posted “so parents can see what we usually do.” In other family child care homes the schedule might have been viewed more as an administrative requirement than as an important planning and organizational tool.
Curricular Materials and Equipment
Appropriate curricular materials are a necessary component of high-quality child care programs, and they influence the types of program activities conducted (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Similarly, an absence of certain materials may indicate potential weaknesses in the child care setting. In family child care homes the arrangement of materials was constrained by the physical characteristics of the setting because in homes less space was available for program purposes than in classroom settings. Also, access to some parts of the house was usually restricted because homes have furniture, adornments, and personal belongings that are not part of the child care environment. As a result, traditional learning centers that one might find in a classroom were less common in the home setting. Some homes displayed only a subset of curricular materials at one time, while others were stored.
Significant differences were found between the family child care homes and center classrooms in the types of materials available, the arrangement of the materials, and the furniture and equipment provided. Exhibit IV-7 shows that center classrooms were consistently more likely to have various curricular materials, to arrange the materials in appropriate ways, and to provide individual space for each child's belongings (cubbies) than family child care homes. Over 90% of the family child care homes contained active play equipment, art supplies, creative movement materials, manipulatives, and blocks. Similarly, over 90% of family child care homes had materials geared to the developmental needs of children and materials that encourage exploration and experimentation. Over 80% of the family child care homes had culturally and ethnically relevant materials and picture books. In almost 90% of the family child care homes the materials were consistent with their educational objectives. Less than 80% of family child care homes contained sufficient dramatic play, science, health or nutrition materials, or materials that reflected cultural, ethnic, and gender diversity. The sizes of the differences between family child care homes and center classrooms provide clues to the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two settings. Differences in curricular materials ranged from less than 2% for the art and active play materials indicators to over 10% for the picture books, dramatic play, science, and health/nutrition indicators.
Arrangement of Materials
In over 90% of family child care homes the curricular materials were accessible, in good condition, orderly, separated into individual and small group areas, separated into quiet and active areas, and stored safely. In nearly 90% of family child care homes the curricular materials were arranged in an attractive and inviting manner and divided into learning centers.
Furniture and Equipment
Both family child care homes and center classrooms contained appropriate furniture and equipment. However, only 84% of the family child care homes maintained individual spaces for each child’s belongings—whereas 99% of the centers did so—resulting in a statistically significant difference (p < .01) between the two settings on the furniture and equipment indicator, as shown in Exhibit IV-7.
Safety
Safety issues in child care environments include the storage of dangerous materials, the existence of hazards, evidence of emergency preparedness, and appropriate outdoor supervision. The OSPRI was used to evaluate the safety features of family child care homes and center classrooms.
| Indicator | Percent of FCC Homes (n = 112) |
Percent of Center Classrooms (n = 129) |
|---|---|---|
| Curricular Materials* | ||
| Active play equipment | 98 | 100 |
| Art | 99 | 100 |
| Creative movement | 96 | 99 |
| Manipulatives | 93 | 100 |
| Blocks | 92 | 98 |
| Culturally/ethnically relevant | 84 | 91 |
| Picture books | 81 | 93 |
| Dramatic play | 79 | 90 |
| Science | 78 | 89 |
| Health/nutrition | 79 | 92 |
| Reflect culture, ethnic, and gender diversity | 70 | 83 |
| Consistent with educational objectives | 89 | 95 |
| Geared to children's developmental needs | 93 | 98 |
| Encourage exploration and experimentation | 92 | 98 |
| Arrangement of Materials* | ||
| Accessible | 94 | 100 |
| Good condition | 97 | 100 |
| Attractive, inviting | 89 | 99 |
| Orderly | 91 | 100 |
| Individual/small group areas | 96 | 100 |
| Stored safely | 92 | 99 |
| Learning centers | 88 | 99 |
| Quiet/active areas separated | 93 | 98 |
| Furniture/equipment* | ||
| Child-sized furniture | 98 | 100 |
| Soft elements | 100 | 100 |
| Individual space for belongings (cubbies) | 84 | 99 |
| Note. Materials in family child care homes that were rotated and thereby periodically available received yes ratings. *Differences between settings significant for subcategory at p < .01. |
Emergency Plans
Exhibit IV-8 shows the percentages of family child care homes and center classrooms that received a yes rating on the emergency plans indicators. Over 80% of family child care homes had emergency information in the language of the caregivers, had the telephone location posted, and had emergency procedures for fires and storms available. Less than 80% of family child care homes had emergency procedures and numbers posted, dental emergency and first-aid information, first-aid kits, and accessible emergency files with an emergency contact for each child. For most of these indicators, the family child care homes were somewhat less likely than the center classrooms to demonstrate emergency preparedness.
| Indicator | Percent of FCC Homes (n = 109) |
Percent of Center Classrooms (n = 125) |
|---|---|---|
| Information in language of caregivers | 93 | 83 |
| Emergency contact for each child | 79 | 71 |
| Accessible medical emergency information | 76 | 80 |
| Emergency phone numbers posted | 79 | 84 |
| First-aid kit | 73 | 77 |
| Telephone location posted | 87 | 70 |
| First-aid information posted | 73 | 70 |
| Emergency procedures for fire and storms | 81 | 89 |
| Dental emergency information | 69 | 77 |
| Written procedures posted | 56 | 60 |
| Note. Overall differences between settings were not significant. |
Storage, Hazards, and Outdoor Safety
Exhibit IV-9 shows the percentages of family child care homes and center classrooms that received a yes rating on the storage, hazards, and outdoor safety indicators. Over 90% of the family child care homes and center classrooms received yes ratings on all of the storage, hazards, and outdoor safety indicators except for two: trash emptied daily and adequate number of covered trash cans. In comparison, virtually all center classrooms emptied their trash daily. Aside from this, there were no large practical differences in the percentage of family child care homes and center classrooms that passed individual storage, hazards, and outdoor safety indicators. Differences on the storage and hazard scales, however, were statistically significant (p < .01).
| Indicator | Percent of FCC Homes (n = 112) |
Percent of Center Classrooms (n = 134) |
|---|---|---|
| Storage* | ||
| Toxic products in original containers | 96 | 99 |
| Food items away from poison | 99 | 100 |
| Aerosol can inaccessible to children | 96 | 100 |
| Hazards* | ||
| Heating units covered | 100 | 100 |
| Shelves stable | 98 | 100 |
| No splinters/nails | 94 | 99 |
| Toys clean | 95 | 98 |
| Trash emptied daily | 85 | 99 |
| Electrical sockets covered | 91 | 91 |
| Adequate number of covered trash cans | 83 | 89 |
| Outdoors | ||
| Area enclosed | 98 | 100 |
| Supervision | 99 | 99 |
| *Differences between settings significant at p < .01. |
Program Dynamics
Program dynamics, or process variables, refer to features that determine children's daily experiences, such as learning activities, grouping, caregiver and child interactions, and caregiver behaviors. Each of these areas contributes critically to the overall quality of the child care environment. The evaluation examined program dynamics within the family child care homes and center classrooms to determine whether program dynamics differences between the two settings were evident.
Curricular and Learning Activities
A complete understanding of the curriculum used in family child care homes and center classrooms can best be achieved by describing both the types of activities conducted and the processes used to carry out the activities. Both aspects of curriculum are crucial to developmentally appropriate, high-quality programs (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Exhibit IV-10 shows the percentage of family child care homes and center classrooms that carried out particular learning activities. Overall, no significant differences between the settings were evident. Over 90% of the family child care homes and center classrooms actively engaged children in play, provided activities for sorting and classifying, conducted health and safety activities, and provided physical skill development activities. Fewer family child care homes and center classrooms provided food selection and nutrition activities, promoted multicultural awareness, promoted awareness of children with disabilities, conducted trips to local businesses, and invited parents to share their culture.
| Learning Activity | Percent of FCC Homes (n = 108) |
Percent of Center Classrooms (n = 128) |
|---|---|---|
| Active play | 98 | 99 |
| Health and safety | 94 | 98 |
| Sorting and classifying | 97 | 99 |
| Food selection/nutrition experiences | 79 | 81 |
| Trips to businesses | 63 | 54 |
| Trips to local events | 80 | 76 |
| Reflects language and culture of community | 84 | 91 |
| Parents invited to share culture | 62 | 82 |
| Promotes multicultural awareness | 74 | 85 |
| Promotes awareness of children with disabilities | 79 | 77 |
| Physical skills | 94 | 94 |
| Guidance during physical development | 88 | 94 |
| Note. Differences between settings were not significant. |
Learning Approach
As shown in Exhibit IV-11, the family child care homes and center classrooms demonstrated similar approaches to learning. Both settings excelled at promoting language use in an atmosphere that encouraged easy communication, providing many opportunities for success, and using a variety of groupings. Family child care homes were better able to maintain a balance of caregiver-directed and child-initiated activities than the center classrooms but slightly less likely to work toward the recognition of letters and numbers. This finding suggests that the family child care providers might have been less likely to focus on skills traditionally considered to be important for school readiness. Over 80% of family child care homes and center classrooms integrated Head Start components into the program day. Less than 65% of family child care homes and center classrooms, however, provided individualized activities.
The way children are grouped in early childhood programs can have a significant effect on the quality of care they receive. Grouping practices mediate the group size and the child/staff ratio, thus influencing the social dynamics and adult-child interactions in the child care setting. Generally, the excessive use of any single type of grouping—individual, small group, or large group—is inconsistent with good practice (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Ideally, programs integrate different grouping schemes freely throughout the day, selecting a grouping that is best suited to the curricular activity at hand. As shown in Exhibit IV-11, approximately 96% of family child care homes and 97% of center classrooms used a balance of group sizes to promote the children’s social and emotional development. (In family child care homes, large group was defined as the entire group). These high percentages reflect that grouping practices in the family child care homes and center classrooms were generally consistent with high-quality early childhood procedures.
| Learning Approach | Percent of FCC Homes (n = 110) |
Percent of Center Classrooms (n = 131) |
|---|---|---|
| Use of individual, small, and large groupings | 96 | 97 |
| Provision of many opportunities for success | 94 | 98 |
| Promotion of language understanding | 97 | 94 |
| Promotion of letter and number recognition | 83 | 88 |
| Organization of experiences and understanding of concepts | 78 | 80 |
| Balance of caregiver-directed and child-initiated activities | 96 | 84 |
| Individualized activities | 58 | 63 |
| Integration of Head Start components | 84 | 85 |
| Note. Differences between settings were not significant. |
Atmosphere
Atmosphere is defined here as the general tone of the center classrooms and family child care homes. The evaluation of atmosphere included OSPRI indicators that deal with dialogue between adults and children; spontaneity; freedom of movement; waiting time; and the absence of shouting, crying, and fighting. Exhibit IV-12 shows that both settings performed very well on atmosphere indicators—nearly 90% of the family child care homes and center classrooms passed each indicator.
| Atmosphere | Percent of FCC Homes (n = 112) |
Percent of Center Classrooms (n = 132) |
|---|---|---|
| Children and adults in dialogue | 96 | 93 |
| Absence of shouting, crying, and fighting | 94 | 90 |
| Relaxed, cheerful environment | 92 | 91 |
| Spontaneous, buzzing with activity | 94 | 90 |
| Children free to move between activities | 92 | 92 |
| Waiting time short and well managed | 88 | 89 |
| Note. Differences between settings were not significant. |
Displays
Over 95% of family child care homes and center classrooms used displays that encouraged ethnic pride. Only 70% of family child care homes, however, displayed the children's artwork, whereas over 80% of center classrooms did so. This statistically significant difference (p < .05) suggests that family child care home providers might need to consider ways to display children's artwork that do not otherwise disrupt the other everyday uses of the home. For example, at least one provider purchased a portable bulletin board that could be put away at the end of each day.
Teaching Methods and Developmentally Appropriate Practices
The DPI (Goodson, 1990) provides additional information on curricular practices in the family child care homes and center classrooms. The DPI assesses a broad range of program components at the same time, including instructional style, grouping practices, and adult-child interactions. DPI scores are reported as developmentally appropriate practices (DAP), developmentally inappropriate practices (DIP), and total developmental practices (Total DPI). Each item is rated using a 5-point scale on which 1 represents not at all like this classroom and 5 represents very much like this classroom. The Total DPI score is constructed by reversing the scale of the developmentally inappropriate items and adding them to the developmentally appropriate items.
Exhibit IV-13 shows that in the fall family child care homes and center classrooms scored an average of 3.45 and 3.64, respectively, on DAP. These scores demonstrate that both settings scored above the level of somewhat developmentally appropriate. In terms of DIP at pretest time, family child care homes and center classrooms scored an average of 1.69 and 1.63, respectively, which indicates that both settings avoided developmentally inappropriate practices. The Total DPI scores at pretest were 3.88 for the family child care homes and 4.06 for the center classrooms. This statistically significant difference shows that overall, the center classrooms were slightly more developmentally appropriate than the family child care homes in the fall. The spring DPI assessments resulted in trends similar to the pretest data, although differences between the two settings were not statistically significant. The pretest and posttest scores suggest a slight improvement in the developmental appropriateness of both the center classrooms and family child care homes during the year. Family child care homes also reduced the degree of developmentally inappropriate practices from pretest to posttest, whereas center classrooms remained unchanged from pretest to posttest in terms of their use of developmentally inappropriate practices.
| Scale | FCC Homes (n = 114) | Centers (n = 133) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretest | Posttest | Pretest | Posttest | |
| Developmental Appropriateness (DAP) | 3.45 | 3.69 | 3.64 | 3.79 |
| Developmental Inappropriateness (DIP) | 1.69 | 1.63 | 1.53 | 1.53 |
| Total DPI* | 3.88 | 4.03 | 4.06 | 4.13 |
| *Differences between settings on Total DPI significant at pretest at p < .05. |
Although overall differences between family child care homes and center classrooms on Total DPI posttest scores were not significant, using effect sizes, Exhibit IV-14 explores the differences between settings for each agency. Effect size, which is the difference between family child care homes and center classrooms expressed as standard deviation units, offers a standard way to compare differences across measures and across agencies. Effect sizes for Total DPI posttest scores in Exhibit IV-14 range from -1.70 to 1.15. Positive effect sizes indicate that family child care homes outperformed center classrooms, and negative effect sizes indicate that family child care homes underperformed compared to center classrooms. Three agencies had center classrooms that scored more than one standard deviation above the family child care homes. In two agencies the family child care homes scored more than one standard deviation above the center classrooms. For the remaining 13 agencies, family child care homes and center classrooms were more alike, with effect sizes ranging from -.79 to .86. Differences between agencies on Total DPI posttest scores were statistically significant.
| Agency | FCC Homes | Center Classrooms | Pooled SD | Effect Size | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | n | M | SD | n | |||
| A | 3.97 | .29 | 6 | 3.98 | .07 | 2 | .24 | -.04 |
| B | 4.15 | .25 | 6 | 4.12 | .34 | 8 | .29 | .10 |
| C | 3.67 | .86 | 9 | 2.65 | .55 | 6 | .89 | 1.15 |
| D | 3.18 | .52 | 8 | 4.20 | .57 | 15 | .73 | -1.40 |
| E | 3.56 | .91 | 7 | 3.30 | .97 | 7 | .92 | .28 |
| F | 3.76 | .40 | 5 | 4.62 | .18 | 9 | .50 | -1.70 |
| G | 4.06 | .32 | 7 | 3.69 | .16 | 5 | .32 | 1.15 |
| H | 3.69 | .63 | 6 | 3.91 | .69 | 12 | .66 | -.33 |
| I | 3.87 | .45 | 8 | 4.17 | .24 | 10 | .38 | -.79 |
| J | 4.83 | .13 | 8 | 4.91 | .10 | 5 | .12 | -.67 |
| K | 4.28 | .17 | 2 | 4.03 | .38 | 12 | .36 | .69 |
| L | 3.81 | .48 | 5 | 4.00 | .35 | 7 | .40 | -.48 |
| M | 4.57 | .39 | 10 | 4.75 | .23 | 5 | .35 | -.51 |
| N | 4.39 | .60 | 6 | 4.63 | .32 | 9 | .45 | -.53 |
| O | 4.82 | .04 | 4 | 4.63 | .27 | 5 | .22 | .86 |
| P | 3.96 | .58 | 6 | 4.77 | N/A | 1 | .61 | -1.33 |
| Q | 3.55 | .62 | 5 | 3.91 | .38 | 8 | .50 | -.72 |
| R | 4.65 | .20 | 6 | 4.68 | .15 | 7 | .17 | -.18 |
| Total | 4.03 | .67 | 114 | 4.13 | .66 | 133 | .53 | -.19 |
| Note. Differences between agencies on posttest means were significant at p < .01. Differences between settings on posttest means were not significant. |
Adult-Child Interactions
Caregiver behavior strongly influences children’s experiences in terms of language development (McCartney, 1984), social development (Clarke-Stewart, 1987), and cognitive development (Phillips, Scarr, & McCartney, 1987). The evaluation team examined adult-child interactions by using the OSPRI to assess the caregivers’ language use and the Arnett Scale of Caregiver Behavior to assess caregivers’ supportive behaviors (e.g., behaviors that promote self-management, attentive and encouraging behaviors) and nonsupportive behaviors (e.g., controlling, detached, harsh, and critical behaviors). Exhibit IV-15 shows the percentage of family child care homes and center classrooms with caregivers who exhibited particular behaviors.
Percent of FCC Homes |
Percent of Center Classrooms |
|
|---|---|---|
| Language Use | ||
| Listens and responds to children | 96 | 96 |
| Uses children's names | 96 | 97 |
| Encourages children to talk about themselves | 83 | 86 |
| Avoids negative verbalizations | 94 | 88 |
| Avoids stereotypes | 96 | 98 |
| Uses open-ended questions | 65 | 65 |
| Adult voice does not dominate | 90 | 89 |
| Language Match | ||
| Aware of language of each child | 100 | 97 |
| Person available who speaks language of each child | 90 | 98 |
| Other Interactions | ||
| Interacts with smiles and hugs | 95 | 95 |
| Uses positive approach to discipline | 90 | 83 |
| Interacts at eye level | 94 | 92 |
| Encourages appropriate behaviors | 98 | 99 |
| Note. Differences between settings on language use, language match, or other interactions were not significant. |
Over 90% of caregivers in family child care homes and center classrooms engaged in positive language behaviors, including using children's names, listening and responding to children with attention and respect, avoiding stereotypes, avoiding negative verbalizations, and refraining from dominating classroom talk. In contrast, only 65% of family child care home and center caregivers used open-ended questions. Because using open-ended questions is considered a critical language technique for promoting children's higher order thinking skills and encouraging oral expression, the relatively low percentage of caregivers who engaged in this behavior is noteworthy. More than 90% of the family child care providers interacted with smiles and hugs, encouraged appropriate behaviors, used positive approaches to discipline, and interacted at eye level with children. Over 90% of center classroom teachers also engaged in all of these behaviors except using positive approaches to discipline; only 83% of the center classroom teachers exhibited this behavior.
Exhibit IV-16 shows the Arnett Scale of Caregiver Behavior mean scores for caregivers’ supportive and nonsupportive behaviors in family child care homes and center classrooms. Scores differed significantly between the settings on the attentive and encouraging and Total Arnett scales, with family child care providers receiving higher ratings. Most caregivers were rated in the quite a bit category for positive behaviors and the not at all or somewhat categories for negative behaviors.
| Scale | FCC Homes (n = 114) |
Center Classrooms (n = 134) |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretest | Posttest | Pretest | Posttest | |
| Attentive and encouraging* | 3.23 | 3.29 | 3.04 | 3.03 |
| Promotes self-management | 2.67 | 2.84 | 2.63 | 2.71 |
| Harsh and critical | 1.15 | 1.18 | 1.22 | 1.25 |
| Controlling | 1.30 | 1.31 | 1.40 | 1.40 |
| Detached | 1.29 | 1.27 | 1.36 | 1.29 |
| Total Arnett* | 3.42 | 3.45 | 3.31 | 3.32 |
| Note. Rating was reversed on negative behavior items in computing total scores. *Differences between settings at pretest and posttest on the attentive and encouraging and Total Arnett scales were significant at p < .05. |
Exhibit IV-17 shows that several agencies experienced differences between family child care homes and center classrooms on the posttest Total Arnett caregiver behavior scores. Effect sizes greater than 1 or -1 were found in 6 agencies, and in 5 of those 6 agencies the family child care providers were rated higher than the center classroom teachers. Of the 12 remaining agencies, 6 showed positive effect sizes and 6 showed negative effect sizes. Overall, Total Arnett score differences, both between the family child care homes and center classrooms and between agencies, were statistically significant.
| Agency | FCC Homes | Center Classrooms | Pooled SD | Effect Size | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | n | M | SD | n | |||
| A | 3.33 | 0.23 | 6 | 3.1 | 0.17 | 2 | 0.23 | 1 |
| B | 3.42 | 0.23 | 6 | 3.25 | 0.18 | 8 | 0.21 | 0.81 |
| C | 3.45 | 0.59 | 9 | 2.45 | 0.47 | 6 | 0.73 | 1.34 |
| D | 3.03 | 0.22 | 8 | 3.34 | 0.37 | 16 | 0.36 | -0.86 |
| E | 3.25 | 0.6 | 7 | 3.17 | 0.46 | 7 | 0.52 | 0.15 |
| F | 3.22 | 0.44 | 5 | 3.48 | 0.29 | 9 | 0.36 | -0.72 |
| G | 3.33 | 0.23 | 7 | 3.02 | 0.22 | 5 | 0.27 | 1.15 |
| H | 3.41 | 0.48 | 6 | 3.3 | 0.47 | 12 | 0.46 | 0.24 |
| I | 3.29 | 0.37 | 8 | 3.56 | 0.24 | 10 | 0.33 | -0.81 |
| J | 3.91 | 0.07 | 8 | 3.89 | 0.13 | 5 | 0.09 | 0.22 |
| K | 3.5 | 0.18 | 2 | 3.04 | 0.35 | 12 | 0.37 | 1.24 |
| L | 3.32 | 0.3 | 5 | 3.11 | 0.44 | 7 | 0.39 | 0.54 |
| M | 3.76 | 0.14 | 10 | 3.84 | 0.1 | 5 | 0.13 | -0.62 |
| N | 3.49 | 0.51 | 6 | 3.55 | 0.38 | 9 | 0.42 | -0.14 |
| O | 3.99 | 0.02 | 4 | 3.66 | 0.17 | 4 | 0.21 | 1.57 |
| P | 3.59 | 0.3 | 6 | 3.91 | 0.03 | 2 | 0.29 | -1.1 |
| Q | 3.05 | 0.51 | 5 | 3.08 | 0.34 | 2 | 0.39 | -0.08 |
| R | 3.66 | 0.35 | 6 | 3.59 | 0.22 | 7 | 0.28 | 0.25 |
| Total | 3.45 | 0.43 | 114 | 3.32 | 0.45 | 134 | 0.38 | 0.34 |
| Note. Differences between agencies were significant at p < .01. Note. Differences between family child care home and center classroom settings were significant at p < .05 |
Relationships Among Measures of Program Quality
To better understand the relationship between the OSPRI and other measures of program quality, correlations between the OSPRI Education scale, the total OSPRI, the DPI and its two subscales, and the Arnett Scale were calculated. The correlation matrix is presented in Exhibit IV-18. As might be expected, the Education scale of the OSPRI correlates very highly (.83) with the Total OSPRI. The Education scale also correlates highly with the DPI Appropriate scale (.62), the DPI Total (.54) and the Arnett Total (.53). Each of these correlations suggests that the Education scale of the OSPRI seems to be measuring the same general domain as the DPI and Arnett, and their results show the same classrooms scoring high and low on these measures.
Although it is not verifiable from the available data, a content review of the Education scale of the OSPRI suggests it may measure other aspects of quality as well. For example, the Education scale of the OSPRI has several items devoted to linguistic and culturally appropriate activities and materials and involving parents in classroom activities. Neither of these two topics are included in the DPI or Arnett, which may partially explain the .53 to .62 correlations between the OSPRI and these measures.
| Education OSPRI |
DPI Appropriate |
DPI Inappropriate |
DPI Total | Arnett Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total OSPRI | 0.83 | 0.48 | -0.21 | 0.4 | 0.39 |
| Education OSPRI | 0.62 | -0.32 | 0.54 | 0.53 | |
| DPI Appropriate | -0.62 | 0.82 | 0.82 | ||
| DPI Inappropriate | -0.88 | -0.57 | |||
| DPI Total | 0.79 |
| Note. Differences between agencies were significant at p < .01. Note. Differences between family child care home and center classroom settings were significant at p < .05 |
Meal Times
Adult-child interactions and other features of meal times are important in Head Start programs because a significant portion of the day is devoted to meal times, including preparing and eating meals and cleaning up afterward. Exhibit IV-19 shows the percentage of family child care homes and center classrooms that received a yes rating for each meal time evaluation indicator. Over 90% of family child care homes held child-centered conversations, did not use food as a punishment or reward, and ensured that children ate in small groups. More than 80% of family child care homes served meals family style and encouraged children to serve themselves. Less than 70% of family child care providers ate the same food with the children and only 75% used child-sized furniture. In contrast, over 90% of center classroom teachers ate the same food with the children and used child-sized furniture. These differences were statistically significant (p < .01).
| Indicator | Percent of FCC Homes (n = 107) |
Percent of Center Classrooms (n = 127) |
|---|---|---|
| Children eat in small groups | 99 | 96 |
| Staff eat with children | 65 | 94 |
| Staff eat same food as children | 69 | 94 |
| Conversation is child centered | 92 | 89 |
| Meals are served family style | 81 | 86 |
| Furniture is child sized | 75 | 98 |
| Children serve themselves | 84 | 86 |
| Food is not used as punishment or reward | 100 | 99 |
| Note. Overall differences between settings were significant at p < .01. |
Race and Language Diversity
One of the goals of the Head Start program is to teach children to appreciate cultural diversity. Several OSPRI items are concerned with this issue (e.g., display and use materials that encourage ethnic pride; learning environments that reflect the language and culture of the children enrolled; field trips to events and places that represent the cultures of the children served; persons available who speak the language of each child; programmatic promotion of cultural and ethnic awareness). In a classroom environment, where larger numbers of children gather, there is a greater chance for cultural diversity than in the home environment. A related concern is the degree to which a family child care home, typically with only one caregiver, can provide children with diverse role models. In light of these issues, the evaluation team examined the extent to which children in the family child care homes were matched with caregivers of the same race or language background, and the extent to which family child care homes were able to provide a racially heterogeneous group within each home.
Exhibit IV-20 portrays the race and language diversity found in family child care homes. Across all agencies, 58% of the children were in the same racial category as their caregivers. The match ranged from a low of 13% in Agency G to 100% in Agency P. The racial diversity of children within homes ranged from no diversity in any home in Agency P, to diversity in all of the homes in agencies G and K. Overall, only 43% of the family child care homes included children from more than one racial group. Exhibit IV-20 also shows that most of the children (92%) were in homes in which the caregivers spoke the same primary language as the children. Although 8% of the children did not speak the same primary language as their caregivers, many children and caregivers were bilingual or were developing skills in a second language.
| Agency | Percent of Children Who Matched Race of Caregiver | Percent of Homes With Racial Heterogeneity | Percent of Children Who Matched Language of Caregiver |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 80 | 17 | 100 |
| B | 53 | 50 | 100 |
| C | 44 | 56 | 100 |
| D | 38 | 33 | 81 |
| E | 46 | 14 | 100 |
| F | 46 | 83 | 69 |
| G | 13 | 100 | 52 |
| H | 80 | 50 | 88 |
| I | 76 | 13 | 100 |
| J | 61 | 75 | 100 |
| K | 67 | 100 | 100 |
| L | 25 | 40 | 92 |
| M | 90 | 30 | 100 |
| N | 80 | 50 | 100 |
| O | 92 | 20 | 100 |
| P | 100 | 0 | 100 |
| Q | 58 | 50 | 75 |
| R | 15 | 28 | 98 |
| Total | 58 | 43 | 92 |
Overall, family child care homes and center classrooms were comparable in meeting objective standards of program quality. The next chapter discusses the relative success of the family child care homes and center classrooms in achieving desirable child outcomes such as cognitive growth, and physical and emotional well-being.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |