annotated bibliography

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 33:127–143, 2012 Copyright © National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators ISSN: 1090-1027 print / 1745-5642 online DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2012.675835

The Culture of Family: How a Model Early Childhood Teacher Preparation Program

Navigates a Limited Context

ELENA NITECKI

Department of Childhood Education, Mercy College, Dobbs Ferry, New York, USA

This article examines an extraordinarily successful early childhood education teacher preparation program at an urban 2-year college struggling with retention. The Early Childhood Education Program in this case study is able to maintain a graduation rate that is over four times greater than that of the college average and has a repu- tation for producing high-quality early childhood educators. The faculty and students in the program explain that the key to the program’s success is a “culture of family,” a strength-based approach that appreciates and builds upon the assets of the faculty and students, fosters meaningful relationships by focusing on the whole student, and creates a strong commitment to the program. The findings are especially impressive, given the extremely limited institutional context of the 2-year college. Considering the demand for high-quality early childhood teacher preparation and the fact that many students seek this training at the accessible 2-year college, it is important to examine the potential of these programs to produce student success. This case study provides a starting point in examining how quality early childhood teacher preparation can exist within the limited confines of the 2-year college.

Teacher preparation is a vital component of quality early childhood education. Current research demonstrates that “teachers with a bachelor’s degree specifically related to early childhood play an integral role in the provision of high-quality early care and education” (Ackerman, 2005; Norris 2010). However, only about half of teachers who work in private preschool settings or Head Start have an associate’s degree or a bachelor’s degree (Saluja, Early, & Clifford, 2002). Programs serving infants and toddlers are even less likely to have teachers with college degrees (Norris, 2010). Given the lack of early childhood teach- ers who currently have college degrees, meeting this demand could strain early childhood teacher education programs (Lobman & Ryan, 2008). As pressures build for early child- hood teachers to have some higher education, many students are pursuing one of the most popular and accessible means of early childhood teacher preparation—the 2-year college, either for an associate degree or as a starting point for transfer to a baccalaureate program.

Received 27 December 2010; accepted 23 May 2011. This article is based on the author’s 2009 unpublished dissertation, “Heating Up and Cooling

Out at the Community College: The Potential of Student-Faculty Interactions to Contribute to Student Aspiration,” Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

Address correspondence to Elena Nitecki, Department of Childhood Education, Mercy College, 555 Broadway, Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

127

128 E. Nitecki

Numerous issues complicate the provision of quality early childhood teacher prepara- tion, including the challenges that 2-year colleges face, the ambiguity of the early child- hood profession, the variety in state certification requirements, transfer and articulation issues with 4-year colleges, larger educational policy, and the students and faculty them- selves. The purpose of this paper is to describe how one early childhood teacher preparation program, which exists within the confines of an extremely limited 2-year college, has fostered success by building a unique culture of family. This “culture of family” is a strength-based approach that appreciates and builds upon the assets of the faculty and students, fosters meaningful relationships by focusing on the whole student, and creates a strong commitment to the program, thereby resulting in higher rates of student success.

The Challenges That Limit Quality Early Childhood Teacher Preparation Programs

Education in the United States is moving toward the inclusion of preschool in its formalized system of education and is placing more emphasis on quality infant and toddler programs. Internationally, many countries have turned their attention to “very early” education of chil- dren from birth to preprimary ages. As a result, focused development of early childhood education programs is now in demand (Lee & Hayden, 2009). In the United States, the cur- rent movement of including preschool in public education and greater emphasis on quality early education is accompanied by a demand for a coordinated system of teacher prepara- tion and professional development (Lobman & Ryan, 2008; Norris 2010). Consequently, the field of early childhood education is scrambling to professionalize, research, and create quality teacher preparation programs.

Darling-Hammond (2000b) defines the quality of a teacher preparation program as being characterized by two factors—the content of the curriculum and the available resources or capacity of an institution to provide that content through its faculty and struc- tural characteristics. Early childhood teacher preparation is underresearched, but there is some evidence that a gap exists between standards, best practices, and what teach- ers are actually getting in their preparation programs (Bredekamp, 1996; Hyson, 2003). Bowman, Donovan, and Burns (2001) found that early childhood teacher preparation pro- grams convey outdated child development knowledge, resulting in early childhood teachers underestimating the competence of young children. Areas such as teaching within spe- cific content areas (Isenberg, 2000) and linguistic and cultural diversity and children with disabilities (Early & Winton, 2001) are also lacking in most early childhood teacher preparation programs.

In addition to the content delivered, the context and resources of the delivery must be considered. First, consider the typical early childhood student. The average early childhood educator is female and approximately 39 years of age (Saluja et al., 2002). These stu- dents often have work and family obligations outside of school. Consider the typical early childhood faculty member. In their national study of 2- and 4-year institutions preparing early childhood teachers, Early and Winton (2001) found that only 53% of early childhood faculty had a degree in early childhood education or a related field, and only 64% had experience working with 3- or 4-year-old children. Most teacher education programs have difficulty finding and keeping faculty that have specialized knowledge and experience in preschool education (Early & Winton, 2001). These findings call into question the ability for these professors to prepare teachers adequately for the intricacies of teaching young children. In addition, early childhood departments have a disproportionate number of part- time and adjunct faculty members. As a result, the ratio of students to full-time faculty in

The Culture of Family 129

early childhood education programs is 61 to 1 as opposed to 39 to 1 in higher education overall (Early & Winton, 2001).

Lastly, consider the context of the 2-year college. National research suggests that most institutions of higher education do not have the infrastructure to adequately meet the demand for preschool teachers (Early & Winton, 2001; Isenberg, 2000; Lobman & Ryan, 2008). This is especially true in the 2-year college, which has less funding, more adjunct faculty, and a more fragmented mission than 4-year colleges (Brint & Karabel, 1989; Dougherty, 1994; Phillipe & Sullivan, 2005; Provasnik & Planty, 2008). Many nontradi- tional students, which comprise the majority of early childhood teacher candidates, pursue the 2-year college to obtain an associate degree or en route to a baccalaureate degree.

Two-year colleges face a myriad of institutional and policy challenges, which often result in lower quality programs and lower rates of student retention (Brint & Karabel, 1989; DiMaria, 2006; Dougherty, 1994; Grubb, 1991). Even though the potential exists for programs to overcome the institutional effects of the 2-year college, early childhood educa- tion programs at 2-year colleges are deeply affected by these challenges (Early & Winton, 2001). There is a shortage of qualified early childhood education faculty. Furthermore, there is limited diversity within the existing pool of early childhood teacher educators. Another major issue is that of articulation with 4-year colleges as early childhood edu- cators ascend the early childhood professional development “lattice” (Lobman & Ryan, 2008). Articulation problems raise concerns since many reviewers of early childhood edu- cation have concluded that the best quality programs are those in which teachers hold BA degrees, particularly in childhood development or related fields (Norris, 2010; Whitebook, Gomby, Bellm, Sakai, & Kipnis, 2009).

Resources to improve faculty, training, articulation efforts, and programs are typically a challenge, especially at a 2-year college. Even though community colleges in some states offer bachelor’s degrees, it is contentious, partly because of the lack of clarity in various models (Floyd, Skolnik, & Walker, 2005). For the most part, the 2-year college remains conflicted with its mission and functions. This ambiguity, in addition to the community college’s commitment to diverse community needs and the community college’s negative institutional effect on retention, makes it the perfect context to examine how individual programs can overcome these odds.

Aside from these institutional challenges, a myriad of policy issues complicate the provision of high-quality early childhood teacher preparation. This context is daunting as faculty in early childhood teacher preparation programs strive to meet the demand for quality early childhood teachers. Lobman, Ryan, and McLaughlin (2005) describe how New Jersey developed a high-quality system of teacher preparation, which “requires the coordination of human and financial resources so that there is equity and quality in the programs offered by institutions within a state” (p. 14). Larger policy and systemic change is positive, but how can individual programs increase quality, especially in states without such a cohesive system of early childhood teacher preparation?

Perhaps struggling early childhood teacher preparation programs can start on the indi- vidual level. Darling-Hammond’s research (2000a) has demonstrated that intensive and personal interaction between faculty and students is a critical component of teacher prepa- ration. Although the emergence of online education raises some interesting questions about the nature of intensive interaction between faculty and students, this study is limited to in-class interactions. Literature on 2-year colleges has also revealed that student–faculty interaction and relationships are powerful in offsetting some of the negative institutional effects characteristic of the 2-year college (Astin, 1999; Cain, 1999; Jenkins et al., 2006; Karp, Hughes, & O’Gara, 2008). Building these personal interactions into relationships

130 E. Nitecki

and a larger program culture may be the key in creating a successful program and success- ful graduates (Shaw, Valadez, & Rhoads, 1999). This paper is an attempt to examine how an early childhood teacher preparation program in an extremely limited 2-year college has created a unique culture of family to overcome institutional barriers.

Method

The Institutional Context

This case study was part of a larger case study examining the success rates and levels of support in various programs at a struggling urban 2-year college. This case study examined how successful programs navigated the institutional challenges at Fairview Community College (a pseudonym is used for confidentiality purposes). Success was defined in terms of graduation rates, as well as the perceptions of faculty and students that the program was successful in preparing high-quality early childhood teachers. This paper will focus on the findings within the Early Childhood Program, which had a student graduation rate over four times higher than the college-wide graduation rate.

Fairview Community College (a pseudonym used to protect anonymity of the insti- tution) is an extremely large 2-year college, serving over 44,000 students at multiple campuses in a large northeastern city. Fairview has a contentious history rooted in politi- cal influence and organizational ambiguity, as it has strived to serve the extremely diverse needs of its large student population. The student body is diverse in terms of age, with 53% of the students being “traditional” (under age 25) and 47% “nontraditional” (age 25 and over). Female students are the majority (68%), compared to male students (32%). Since Fairview serves an urban community, it is not surprising that 71% of the students receive financial aid, which is higher than the statewide average. Among the faculty, including 473 full-time and 856 part-time members, there is also considerable diversity.

The mission of Fairview has been transfer-oriented since it opened in the mid-1960s, although the college has assumed numerous vocational and community education pro- grams. Despite an emphasis on transfer and academic excellence, Fairview has some of the lowest success rates in the state, with an overall graduation rate of 12.5% and a 20% transfer-out rate. Like many community colleges, Fairview stresses transfer and student retention, but the statistics continue to be disappointing. There are major institutional barriers, including lack of funding, bureaucratic confusion, poor advisement, ambiguous policies, and most importantly, a lack of institutional commitment on the part of the stu- dents. There is great variation among the programs in terms of graduation rates, support, and retention. The Early Childhood Education Program has a graduation rate of 51%, which is among the highest at Fairview and impressive for community colleges in general.

Data Collection and Analysis

The researcher employed an inductive, exploratory approach in this case study to examine how an early childhood teacher preparation program was succeeding within the limited context of the 2-year college. As an early childhood educator at another community college, I was interested in the success of early childhood educator teacher preparation pro- grams at community colleges. I was an outside observer and had no previous connection to Fairview prior to this study. During 10 months of data collection, institutional background information and program data were collected. Interviews of all full-time faculty and one adjunct professor were conducted, totaling five faculty interviews. (See Appendix A for

The Culture of Family 131

faculty interview protocol.) The classes of these professors were observed several times, including an observation at an off-site practicum site in a child care center. After the class observations, I solicited student volunteers for a brief interview about their experiences at Fairview. The student volunteers were grouped randomly into eight small focus groups and interviewed within one month following the class observations. (See Appendix B for student interview protocol.) The qualitative data were coded and analyzed to find simi- lar themes from all three sources: the institutional documentation, the interviews, and the observations. Data analysis focused on how the Early Childhood Education Program fac- ulty and students overcame numerous barriers at Fairview Community College to produce successful graduates and qualified early childhood teachers.

Findings and Discussion

Fairview is a large, diverse 2-year college with many issues that present barriers to the growth of a quality early childhood teacher preparation program. According to the stu- dents and faculty college-wide, many institutional issues contributed to such disappointing graduation and retention rates. These barriers included a complicated bureaucracy, institu- tional confusion, disconnected student services, inconsistent remediation, lacking funding, and poor, conflicting advisement, which often resulted in student enrollment in unneces- sary classes that resulted in longer stays at the community college than should have been necessary.

These issues also contributed to one of the most pervasive factors that negatively affect student engagement and retention—the “lack of institutional commitment” (Strauss & Volkwein, 2004). A student’s level of “institutional commitment” is a result of the sum of his or her education and social experiences at college (Strauss & Volkwein, 2004). Community college students are generally less committed to their colleges, due to their lack of residence at the college, limited involvement in college social activities, and com- peting obligations outside of the college. It seems that at Fairview, most students had a low level of institutional commitment, or attachment to the college, which made depar- ture much easier. Despite administrator attempts to engage students through orientation and college-wide social events, students said that Fairview was “not like a university.” A student recalled his first experience at Fairview, during which he was registering for his first semester and asked the advisor, “How many credits do I need before I can transfer to a real college?” According to the student participants, lack of institutional commitment was a major factor contributing to attrition, since students “just don’t care and they leave.” There were a few exceptions to this generally negative sentiment, which can be attributed mostly to the students’ experience in a particular program.

The Exception of the Early Childhood Education Program

The Early Childhood Education Program at Fairview stood in stark contrast to the rest of the college. In addition to a graduation rate over four times that of Fairview as a whole, the program had a reputation around campus and in the local early childhood community as one that “really supports its students” and “turns out good pre-school teachers.” Several professors and students described the Early Childhood Education Program as a “family.” By building a “culture of family,” Fairview’s Early Childhood Education Program not only retained and graduated students, but helped students build on their personal strengths and become high-quality early childhood professionals. Forging this culture of family was similar to community building, since the program built on the strengths of its faculty and

132 E. Nitecki

students to create a sense of belonging. However, the culture of family produced stronger bonds through its recognition of the whole student, including social and emotional compo- nents. The Early Childhood Program, like a family, provided a bond and sense of belonging that is deeper than ties to a larger community.

The Early Childhood Program was a smaller tight-knit program, compared to other programs at Fairview. There were four full-time professors, a part-time professor, who was as involved as a full-timer, adjuncts, and about 350 students. The Early Childhood Education Program had a much higher graduation rate of 51.3%, compared to the 12.5% overall graduation rate at Fairview. The following discussion will describe the students, faculty, and program characteristics that contributed to the culture of family.

Students Who Care About Children

Like all of the other students at Fairview, the Early Childhood Education students were diverse. There were more females in this program, which is to be expected of this female- dominated profession. Professors described the diversity in the program in very positive ways:

Very eclectic. There isn’t a descriptor. Coming from a variety of income lev- els, backgrounds, faiths, family lifestyles. The main thing our students have in common is the desire to make a difference in the lives of children.

In the program, I would say they’re . . . non-traditional students in the urban environment who a large majority of them are already practitioners and have been practitioners for a number of years. Because of the state’s many incentives and initiatives in quality improvement, they have been motivated to return back to school or now have funding opportunities to return back to school. They are a glorious group of practitioners and students who are investing in their learning. And are changing really the trajectory of their own lives, as well as their family’s lives.

The interviews in the Early Childhood Education Program revealed that the program’s students struggled with personal challenges, but they also had some notable strengths, which contributed to the program’s success. The common love for children and passion for the field of Early Childhood Education was the most obvious strength of these students, creating especially fertile ground for developing high-quality and committed teachers of young children. The Early Childhood Education students reported that they were in school because they wanted to be better teachers and that they were committed to their field. Most Early Childhood Education students had previous experience with children, either at work or at home, which was an asset in the classroom. The professors noted their students’ commitment and how their prior experiences with children were an asset:

[Students] are usually very committed. They really want to be in this field. They have a real commitment . . . that’s one strength. Most of them that are interested really have a personality that lends itself to Early Childhood Education. Because many of them have children and grandchildren of their own, they know, they’re flexible, they roll with the punches, they understand. They’ve had life experiences, so they know what the field is like, the disap- pointments. They’re willing to accept . . . the kinds of rewards you receive are not always tangible kinds of things.

The Culture of Family 133

Overall, the Early Childhood Education students demonstrated a strong commitment to the field, which fueled their determination to persevere at Fairview and become better teachers. Students recognized that their internal motivation was an important asset:

I did different jobs and went back to Early Childhood Education. I got a job with the school district as a teacher’s assistant in a comprehensive program. Then I decided to go back to school so I could get a better feel for it. I just didn’t want to work. I wanted to have the experience and the knowledge, so I could be a better teacher to children. I got my associate’s. Then my heart and soul got into it and I wanted to further my education even more and be a better teacher to the children. I wanted to be . . . everything to the children.

You do not get into this field for money. So we know if you get into this field, you . . . love children. You have to be motivated. This is something where most people are already working in the field and then they make the decision . . . to stay in it and further [their] education.

Both the students and professors recognized and built upon the students’ strengths, includ- ing their prior experiences with children and their professional and personal commitment to the field. This strength-based perspective is important in building a culture of family.

A Faculty Committed to the Students and Profession

The Early Childhood Education professors emulated a strength-based approach in work- ing with their students. They were satisfied with their work at Fairview and cared for their students. The faculty’s commitment was demonstrated by the lengthy tenure of the full- time faculty. Three of the professors had been at Fairview for over 25 years. The seasoned professors jokingly referred to the “new” professor, who had been in the program for only 12 years. The professors found their work rewarding. One professor, who helped to estab- lish the program in the 1970s, recalled, “I think it’s really rewarding. I love teaching at the college level, especially these students. They’re motivated, they’re willing, they’re excited about what they’re doing. They really want to be in the field. . . . These are the people that are going to be dealing with our kids so it’s important work that we’re doing.” One professor attributed the passion and commitment of the faculty to the fact that “all of us come from out of classrooms working with small children. I think that’s a huge factor.” The students noticed that when professors were “passionate about what [they are] doing, that made you passionate about it too.” When professors conveyed passion for the field, they sparked student interest in working with young children and ignited it. The shared interest in working with young children was the common bond between the students and faculty.

The professors’ strength-based perspective supported student growth, in spite of per- sonal challenges. One professor viewed the adversity that many students faced as a key element in making the students stronger. Professors recognized this strength and build upon it.

Perhaps the majority of them have incredible life challenges, things that deter them from completing their degree. They’re almost all working, most of them full-time, and have families, but it’s the hardships they all face, the financial hardships, the family hardships, the deaths, the illnesses, their own children and the issues they have with their children and the schools that they have to battle with. So I find that their ability to come in and focus, to stay with us, and

134 E. Nitecki

complete the course is just an incredible strength. They have real understanding in most cases for each other and often reach out. So they have great social skills in that way, great personal skills.

Even though the Early Childhood Education students struggled with personal challenges, the professors’ perceptions of them were strength-based. They tried to frame these chal- lenges as opportunities for growth, which is a testament to the professional philosophy of the field of early childhood education, focusing on the whole child and understanding that development takes time. The Early Childhood Education Program was shaped by the phi- losophy of Early Childhood Education: meeting the child where s/he is, focusing on the whole child, nurturing, and guiding. One professor explained how this philosophy shaped the faculty’s relationships with students:

We’re concerned about the whole student. I think that the philosophy that’s the hallmark of our profession is part of the hallmark of this program. We talk about young children that it’s about the whole child. So our faculty meetings are characterized a lot of times by saying, ‘Do you know what’s going on with this student?’ Sometimes it’s at the meetings, sometimes in the hallways, or resource room, just a constant flow of information back and forth about who our students are, what strengths they bring, what barriers exist to them being successful.

This shared philosophy of the students (a commitment to young children) and of the faculty (embodying the holistic and developmental philosophy of early childhood education) was the starting point in creating a program culture that fostered success.

The Culture of Family

Building on the strengths of the students and their commitment to young children, as well as the faculty’s shared vision of living the early childhood philosophy, the Early Childhood Education Program created a unique program subculture with which students could identify—the culture of family, a familiar and crucial component of early childhood education. Culture is difficult to describe and define, but this was how the faculty and students described it:

I think that . . . we create a community within the community, if you will. And I think that’s extremely important. Our students know that it’s family- like. That our concern extends beyond their grades to whatever things might interfere with their success. They make it like a family atmosphere. We [sic] all in this thing together. Because any time you have difficulties or problems, you can always go to the teachers and they will help you, they will support you, they will go that extra mile to make sure you make it.

The culture of family in the Early Childhood Education Program was obvious. Like a family, they had a comfortable home, a dedicated classroom for the Early Childhood Education courses. Modeled after an actual preschool classroom, the room had centers with blocks, a dramatic play area, a small kitchen, bulletin boards, and developmentally appropriate teaching materials. This “small corner of the big college” was the program’s

The Culture of Family 135

home. Students’ work was posted on the walls. Faculty had reminders and motivating state- ments posted in the hallways. A professor explained the significance of the classroom: “We have this room here, which makes it special. It is our home here . . . there is a sense of being here.” In the large, confusing bureaucracy of Fairview Community College, the Early Childhood Education Program had this little corner of the college that they called “home.”

Academic support. In addition to a home, family bonds of support were also evident. The faculty reinforced the culture of family in their daily contact with students. Students and faculty shared a common bond, a love for children and their work. They offered support and guidance in the midst of a larger, intimidating world. Students navigated the Fairview bureaucracy by going directly to the program for support. A student with financial aid problems reported that she went to a professor in the program and he made some phone calls for her: “He was a great help to me where I had hurdles and obstacles. I felt as though he had my back.” A professor noted that her colleagues “will go out on a limb for students.” The program will also help students financially, through its own departmental scholarships, for which they have sought out funding, and assistance with books.

The Early Childhood Education Program assumed some additional vital functions that the students and faculty perceived as failing on the institutional level, such as advisement and information transmission. The “family” became the source of clarity and support for students who otherwise would be confused by Fairview’s bureaucracy. For example, the Early Childhood professors conducted all of their own advisement. They gave students an advisement sheet with all of the classes necessary to obtain the Early Childhood Education degree in the introductory classes. Then one-on-one advisement was strongly encouraged in every class. The students reported success with this uniform advisement, echoing the appreciation for “a plan . . . a system” and “a Bible to get through this program.”

Similar tactics were used in terms of remediation. Professors brought the writing tutors into their classes so that “students would not get lost trying to find this help on their own.” Most of the participating Early Childhood Education students reported that they never considered dropping out because they felt supported and validated by the faculty. This phe- nomenon is consistent with Barnett’s finding (2007) that faculty validation contributes to students’ sense of integration and persistence at community colleges. Like every program at Fairview, student underpreparedness, remediation, personal challenges, and time con- straints are problems. The interesting difference was the approach of the Early Childhood Education Program in handling these issues. In class, the professors met students where they were and worked from there. Professors built on students’ strengths and addressed weaknesses in a consistent, student-centered manner.

Personal support. In addition to academic support, the Early Childhood professors also provided personal support, which differentiates building a culture of family with prac- tices of community building. The students often interacted with professors in multiple classes and for advisement, allowing relationships to be forged. A family is available for emotional support, as students reported being comfortable approaching their professors and peers with personal issues:

You can meet with [professors] on a separate issue. You know, sometimes you have personal things going on that will hinder your ability to focus at that moment. So a lot of them are really open to that. If you have something else you need to discuss apart from class, you know, why your struggle may be so

136 E. Nitecki

difficult at this time, it has nothing to do [with] what they [are] teaching, but they listen about your personal life, so I’ve done that too.

Professors explained how they supported students on personal matters that may affect student success:

Sometimes I will make it my business when there is a change in the student’s behavior. If they appear stressed, weepy, I have often walked a student up to counseling, called on the phone to [a counselor]. She is one of the counselors that has worked with Early Childhood. I will call to see if she is in her office to take a student on an emergency basis. That’s for the most extreme of cir- cumstances. I try to listen and if the advice is largely professional in nature, for example if the student is having a problem at their agency that is really distressing them, I may try to give support or advice. If it is familial, medical, then I want to direct them to a counselor.

We’ve noticed over the years that there are students who sort of slip through the cracks. They’ll be just marginal in class, then they’ll move on to another class and they’re marginal so we try to tighten that up so that we’re talking about those marginal students, either because they seem to have issues or . . . just marginal skills that they have. So we reach out to them.

For students with motivation problems, the professors were also family-like with tough love, like a parent setting boundaries, as this professor described:

I’m also a tough love teacher. I don’t take any stuff of any kind. With students that have ability, most students have ability, but especially the students I can see that there are things interfering, I will pull them aside and say “You need to stop this stuff. Look at all the gifts you have and you’re squandering them because you don’t have any discipline, you’re allowing this, or that or the other thing to get in the way of it.” I tell stories in class, I laugh a lot, but I do not take excuses. I don’t talk down to them.

The professors were not the only source of personal support. Students also provided a great deal of support to one another, which is strongly encouraged by the faculty, as the Chair of the program described:

The [students] are very supportive of each other. We are often able to build nice networks and a nice secure place inside of the classroom. There is a certain amount of safety and they tend to build connections. So those that are absent or have a planned absence they tend to build connections or people to call, study groups. We put them into groups regularly from the beginning of the semester. Some of the people don’t like working in groups and we ask them to work through it. We ask them to seriously consider why you don’t like working in a group and give them a chance to work through it.

The students hate to leave here because they feel really like it’s a family. We try to make it that way. And a lot of them, even if they don’t bond here, they bond with each other, they call each other, they have their own network. They really

The Culture of Family 137

miss it when they leave here because we are supportive. . . . They have a whole system of friendship from here that really helps.

Being a part of the family, students felt connected and engaged, which certainly sup- ported retention. The family was built through caring relationships between professors and students, as well as peer relationships. These peer networks were crucial in terms of gain- ing information, persisting, and having a positive college experience (Karp et al., 2008). This family culture was reflective of the Early Childhood Education profession, which recognizes the family as a fundamental part of the child’s life (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).

Quality Teacher Preparation

Most importantly, the Early Childhood students “left the nest” as successful, competent early childhood teachers. Fairview’s Early Childhood Education Program provided qual- ity instruction and high expectations in the four general areas that early childhood teacher preparation should include: child development theory, content area–specific pedagogical methods, planning and assessment for diverse populations, and direct practicum experience (Hyson, 2003; Katz & Goffin, 1990; Norris, 2010; Saracho & Spodek, 1983; Spodek & Saracho, 1990). In several courses, child development and subject-specific approaches to teaching young children were covered. Addressing diversity in the curriculum was also cru- cial, given the location and population of children served in the city. All content was taught in the context of real-life application, which appealed to the students. Every theory in class was illustrated with an example of “my child did this . . . ” or “in my classroom . . .” One professor explained the importance of connecting content with experience:

[Class content] is always connected with your own personal experiences. So I do a lot of that with the students, getting in touch with their own experiences. We’re talking about the emotional development of young children and they have lost touch with their own. So it’s a combination of very high expectations. I demand a lot and I allow a lot of flexibility.

The students actually practiced what they would do with children. It was crucial that the Early Childhood Education students experienced the same learning opportunities as the children. Students reported actually “getting down on the floor and learning how to play again.” Play has a crucial role in children’s optimal physical, social, and cognitive growth (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). The Early Childhood professors revived the student’s inner child and played, thereby helping students relate with the children they will be teaching. For example, one professor demonstrated age-appropriate summer activities for toddlers. She set up stations with bubbles and experiments for the students to try for themselves. The students loved the activity, saying, “I’m doing this with my kids tomorrow” and “They should have shown moms these things!” Of course, the professor also related this lesson to pedagogical methods of teaching science to young children, developmentally appropriate practice, and accommodating diversity. Overall, the students described the course content as “really valuable information.” The students thoroughly enjoyed the hands-on practical nature of some of the courses. This finding is supported by Astin’s research in 2-year colleges (1999) that a practical approach engages students, which is a crucial factor in terms of retention.

138 E. Nitecki

The link between theory and practice was epitomized in the practicum course, a required, vital piece of the program. The practicum course is an intensive, one-semester field experience in an early childhood setting. Under the supervision of a cooperating teacher and the practicum instructor, the student observed the classroom, assisted the teacher, and conducted several lessons independently. The professor handling practicum had been working in the field of Early Childhood Education for over 30 years and knew many of the local schools. The program faculty also maintained relationships with staff at cooperating schools through their program’s Advisory Board. Many of the student internships led to jobs for them upon graduation. This experience was important to stu- dents, not only professionally, but personally by forging friendships and professional connections. Students and faculty referred to the practicum as the “cornerstone of the program.”

I had the opportunity to visit both the practicum class and go on a site visit with the practicum professor. The professor visited students twice per semester, which allowed the professor to maintain contact with the center and observe the student. When we visited, the professor knew all of the teachers at the center. Some were graduates of the program. The professor observed the student “in action,” conducting a lesson plan with a group of 3-year- olds. The visits were not only academic, but social. As we made our way through the center, the professor stopped and talked to the director, former students who were employed at the center, and even the children. This visit reminded me of the culture of family and visiting. It was never all business; there was always a social, emotional, and personal component in this program, which solidified the culture of family. This key practicum experience not only reinforced the classroom content, but placed the student into the field as a professional and allowed them to make meaningful connections between theory and practice.

Another important component of a quality early childhood teacher preparation program is the connection to the local early childhood community and professional organi- zations. All of the professors are connected to the local chapter of the National Association for the Education for Young Children (NAEYC). There was a student chapter of NAEYC, in which many students participated, despite their busy lives. Students and faculty attended local conferences. The Chair of the program reported that the program faculty made efforts to incorporate NAEYC standards and best practices into the curriculum to maintain a high-quality teacher preparation program, even if based at a 2-year college.

Limitations and Implications

A major limitation of the study methodology is that it was bound by its context. Although the study findings are internally generalizable to a specific population (i.e., the Early Childhood Education Program at Fairview), they do not necessarily apply to other commu- nity colleges or programs. The findings are also limited by the participant sample, which was relatively small and voluntary. Nonetheless, the study highlights the potential impor- tance of the program in building a culture that will engage and retain early childhood education students. This should be examined in larger scale comparative case studies or quantitative analyses, perhaps including the experiences of online early childhood teacher education programs.

The Early Childhood Education Program at Fairview was an excellent example of an early childhood education teacher preparation program that is succeeding, despite being housed in a challenging institutional setting and serving an extremely diverse population. Despite the success that the Early Childhood Education Program has enjoyed, the program constantly struggled with institutional issues. In addition to general bureaucratic issues characteristic of most programs at Fairview, the Early Childhood Education Program faced

The Culture of Family 139

articulation problems with 4-year colleges. The findings associated with this case support the need to build strong partnerships between 2-year and 4-year colleges, which would increase visibility and credibility of early childhood education programs and produce a more accessible means to produce quality teachers.

The Early Childhood Education Program at Fairview demonstrated the importance of building a program based on the faculty and student strengths. The faculty were extremely dedicated and did much more than what was required of a typical professor. Fairview provided marginal support, but the program succeeded because of its faculty, students, orientation, and commitment. The students’ commitment to young children and prior expe- riences were strengths that the faculty recognized and built upon. This strength-based approach presents a refreshing alternative to deficit models that highlight the failures and shortcomings of early childhood teacher preparation programs.

The faculty’s commitment to the field and their students, in addition to the common bond they share with their students, was a solid foundation on which a distinct culture of family had been built. The Program was family-oriented, cared for the whole stu- dent, and emphasized nurturance. The culture of family in the Early Childhood Education Program was evident in the approach to students, the classroom space, and the fact that the “whole student” was the main concern. This approach was reflective of Early Childhood Education’s professional commitment to guidance, development, hands-on learning, and individualized attention. In addition, the program offered quality curriculum and was com- mitted to meeting standards. Students and faculty in the program reported that the culture of family was the factor that kept students involved. It is this positive program culture in the context of larger institutional limitations that not only retains students, but prepares the next generation of quality early childhood teachers.

References

Ackerman, D. J. (2005). Getting teachers from here to there: Examining issues related to an early care and education teacher policy. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 7. Retrieved from http:// ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n1/ackerman.html

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 518–529.

Barnett, E. A. (2007, May). Validation experiences and persistence among urban community college students. Binghamton, NY: Institute for Community College Research. (ERIC Document Services Reproduction No. ED497658)

Bowman, B., Donovan, S., & Burns, M. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy.

Bredekamp, S. (1996). Early childhood education. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 323–347). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early child- hood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900–1985. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cain, M. S. (1999). The community college in the twenty-first century: A systems approach. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000a). Solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand, and stan- dards: How we can ensure a competent, caring, and qualified teacher for every child

140 E. Nitecki

[Online]. New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. Retrieved from http://www.nctaf.org/documents/supply-demand-standards.pdf. Also available at http:// ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/digests/ed-cite/ed463337.html [ED463337])

Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (2000b). Studies of excellence in teacher education: Preparation in a five-year program. Washington, DC: AACTE Publications. Retrieved from http://ceep.crc.uiuc. edu/eecearchive/digests/ed-cite/ed468995.html (ED468995)

DiMaria, F. (2006). Keeping our engaged, at-risk kids in college. Education Digest, 72(2), 52–57.

Dougherty, K. J. (1994). The contradictory college: The conflicting origins, impacts, and futures of the community college. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Early, D. M., & Winton, P. J. (2001). Preparing the workforce: Early childhood teacher prepa- ration at 2- and 4-year institutions of higher education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 285–306. Retrieved from http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/digests/ej-cite/ej637860.html (EJ637860)

Floyd, D. L., Skolnik, M. L., & Walker, K. P. (2005). The community college baccalaureate: Emerging trends and policy issues. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Grubb, W. N. (1991). The decline of community college transfer rates: Evidence from National Longitudinal Surveys. The Journal of Higher Education, 62, 194–222.

Hyson, M. (Ed.). (2003). Preparing early childhood professionals: NAEYC’s standards for programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Isenberg, J. P. (2000). The state of the art in early childhood professional preparation. In D. Horm- Wingerd (Ed.), New teachers for a new century: The future of early childhood professional preparation (pp. 17–58). Washington, DC: National Institute on Early Childhood Development and Education, U.S. Department of Education.

Jenkins, D., Bailey, T. R., Crosta, P., Leinbach, T., Marshall, J., Soonachan, A., & Van Noy, M. (2006). What community college policies and practices are effective in promoting student suc- cess? A study of high- and low-impact institutions. New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED491599)

Karp, M. M., Hughes, K. L., & O’Gara, L. (2008). An exploration of Tinto’s integration frame- work for community college student (CCRC Working Paper No. 12). New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teacher’s College, Columbia University.

Katz, L. G., & Goffin, S. G. (1990). Issues in the preparation of teachers of young children. In B. Spodek & O. N. Saracho (Eds.), Yearbook in early childhood education: Vol. 1. Early childhood teacher preparation (pp. 192–208). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Lee, Y., & Hayden, M. (2009). Early childhood care and education: Worldwide challenges and progresses. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 11, 3–5. Retrieved from http://www.tc. edu/cice

Lobman, C. R., & Ryan, S. (July 2008). Creating an effective system of teacher prepara- tion and professional development: Conversations with stakeholders. Educational Policy, 22, 515–540.

Lobman, C. R., Ryan, S., & McLaughlin, J. (2005). Reconstructing teacher education to prepare qualified preschool teachers: Lessons from New Jersey. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 7(2). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n2/lobman.html

Norris, D. J. (2010). Raising the educational requirements for teachers in infant toddler class- rooms: Implications for institutions of higher education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Preparation, 31, 146–158.

Phillipe, K. A., & Sullivan, L. G. (2005). National profile of community colleges: Trends and statistics (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.

Provasnik, S., & Planty, M. (2008). Community colleges: Special supplement to the condi- tion of education 2008 (NCES 2008-033). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

The Culture of Family 141

Saluja, G., Early, D. M., & Clifford, R. (2002). Demographic characteristics of early childhood teach- ers and structural elements of early care and education in the United States. Early Childhood Research & Practice [Online], 4(1). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/saluja.html

Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (1983). Preparing teachers for bilingual/multicultural classrooms. In Olivia N. Saracho & Bernard Spodek (Eds.), Understanding the multicultural experience in early childhood education (pp. 125–146). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. (ED238560)

Shaw, K. M., Valadez, J. R., & Rhoads, R. A. (Eds.). (1999). Community colleges as cultural texts: Qualitative explorations of organizational and student culture. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Spodek, B., & Saracho, O. N. (1990). Preparing early childhood teachers. In B. Spodek & O. N. Saracho (Eds.), Yearbook in early childhood education: Vol. 1. Early childhood teacher preparation (pp. 23–44). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Strauss, L. C., & Volkwein, J. F. (2004). Predictors of student commitment at two-year and four-year institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 75, 203–227.

Whitebook, M., Gomby, D., Bellm, D., Sakai, L., & Kipnis, F. (2009). Preparing teachers of young children: The current state of knowledge and a blueprint for the future. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, University of California, Berkeley.

Appendix A: Interview Protocol for Faculty

1. Background Information a. How did you end up teaching at Fairview? b. Why did you decide to teach community college?

2. Perception of Students a. How would you describe your students? b. What are some of the major strengths of your students? c. What are some of your students’ weaknesses? d. What are typically the goals of your students? How do you know? e. How successful are your students in reaching their goals? f. Do you feel like you influence or contribute to their goals? If so, how?

3. Student–Faculty Interactions (In Class) a. How many students do you typically have in your classes? b. How would you describe your teaching style or methods (lecture, discussion, group

work, etc.)? c. How do you get your students engaged or interested in the course content? d. What kinds of assignments do you give to students? e. What kind of feedback do you provide to your students on their work? f. How do you handle students that are not interested, may not attend, or are performing

poorly? g. Do you teach first-year college students? If so, are there any issues that you have

noticed? How do you handle them? h. Was there a particular student that you reached out to? If so, how?

4. Student–Faculty Interactions (Outside of Class) a. Do you have your own office in which to meet with students? b. How many students/advisees do you typically see in a semester? c. How available are you for your students? d. How do you communicate with students outside of class (e-mail, meetings, phone)?

142 E. Nitecki

e. What does out-of-class communication usually consist of (grades, assignments, course content, feedback, personal)?

f. Are you expected to conduct student advisement? If so, how do you handle it? g. Do you work with students on any other activities outside of class (clubs, newspaper,

honor society, student events)? How many hours per week on average do you spend on these activities?

h. How do you think your academic department supports students outside of class? 5. Resource-Related Issues

a. What resources are available to help you work with your students? (writing/tutoring center, professional development, class size, classrooms, access to technology)

b. Which areas do you see as lacking in terms of resources that would help you or your students? (probe, see above)

6. Is there anything else that I did not ask that you would like to tell me about?

Appendix B: Interview Protocol for Students

1. Background Information a. How did you end up at Fairview?

2. Perception of Aspirations a. What are your goals? b. Have they changed? If so, why? c. Who or what inspired you to pursue that particular goal? d. Is there anything that is making it difficult to reach your goals? If so, what? e. Is there anything that is helping you succeed in reaching your goals? f. How do you feel your professors support you in reaching your goals?

3. Student–Faculty Interactions (In Class) a. How many students do you typically have in your classes? b. How would you describe the way your professors teach (lecture, discussion, group

work, etc.)? c. Which courses have you been particularly interested in and why? d. What kind of assignments do you enjoy the most? Why? e. Do you feel that the feedback provided by your professors is helpful? f. Which courses have you been uninterested in and why? g. What did you do about that course (persisted, dropped it)? h. What did your professor do if you stopped attending, struggled through it, or did not

enjoy the material? i. What did you struggle most with during your first semester in college? j. Did your teachers address this issue and how? k. Was there a particular teacher that reached out to you? If so, how?

4. Student–Faculty Interactions (Outside of Class) a. How available do you feel like your professors are for you? b. How do you communicate with professors outside of class (e-mail, meetings,

phone)? c. What does out-of-class communication usually consist of (grades, assignments,

course content, feedback, personal)? d. Do you ever seek advisement, help selecting courses, or discussing possible careers

from teachers? If so, how do they help you?