Module 4
Presentation 4
a. What Is Early Childhood Education?
Early childhood education benefits greatly from increasing public recognition,
respect, and funding. In fact, a bipartisan poll reported that 86% of American voters
believe that “ensuring children get a strong start in life” should be a national priority,
second only to increasing job opportunity and growing the economy (First Five Years
Fund, 2014). A Gallup poll found that 70% of voters supported federal funding to
make high-quality preschool programs available for all children (Jones, 2014).
Although higher percentages of Democrats and Independents supported such funding,
a majority of Republicans were also in favor. Forty states—as diverse as Oklahoma,
Georgia, New Mexico, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Florida—
provide funding for prekindergarten programs (Barnett, Carolan, Squires, & Brown,
2013).
Continued funding even in challenging economic times reflects growing
public recognition of the benefits of early education, especially for children at risk of
later school failure, but also for middle-class children. A great many policy makers,
parents, and researchers now consider early childhood programs essential for
fostering school readiness and long-term success in life (Barnett, 2013a). Groups such
as the prestigious Committee for Economic Development (2012) consider quality
child care and early education a necessary investment in the future of our country. A
powerful advocate for early education, Nobel Prize–winning economist James
Heckman (2013) believes that investing in early education is a cost-effective strategy
that will improve educational and health outcomes, strengthen the economy, help
solve America’s social problems, and produce a more capable, productive workforce.
Early education is also considered an effective crime-prevention strategy. A
prestigious group of America’s police officers and prosecutors call themselves, “the
guy you pay later” because America’s failure to pay for quality services for young
children increases the costs of the criminal justice system (Fight Crime: Invest in
Kids, 2014). Several factors have contributed to the rise in status of early childhood
education. These include an impressive body of research on the positive effects of
early childhood programs and concerns about the persistent achievement gap in our
schools. Next, we examine the overall landscape of the field, including the types of
settings where children are served.
Although early childhood terminology is not uniform across diverse settings,
throughout this text we will use vocabulary that is consistent with that used by the
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and that we feel
best represents the present and future of the field. NAEYC, headquartered in
Washington, D.C., is the world’s largest professional organization of early childhood
educators. Founded in 1926, NAEYC’s mission is to act on behalf of the needs, rights,
and well-being of all young children from birth through age 8. One way the
association achieves its mission is by establishing standards for teacher preparation at
the associate, baccalaureate, and graduate-degree levels (NAEYC, 2011b). NAEYC’s
standards have considerable influence in the field; it is likely that the course you are
now taking is designed to meet the association’s teacher education standards. NAEYC
(2008b) also administers an accreditation system for high-quality children’s programs
and provides resources such as publications and conferences to support teachers’
continuing professional development.
The term child care typically refers to care and education provided for young
children during the hours that their parents are employed. To accommodate work
schedules, child care is usually available for extended hours, such as from 7:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. In some settings, such as hospital-affiliated child care centers, care is
offered for longer hours to accommodate evening, weekend, or even night-shift
employment. Child care is typically provided in two types of group programs: child
care centers and family child care homes. In either setting, children’s care may be
privately funded by parent tuition or publicly subsidized for low-income families.
Child care centers usually enroll children from infancy through preschool-age
children, and many also offer before- and after-school care for primary grade children.
In family child care homes, caregivers provide care in their own homes for a small
group of children, often of varying ages. Family child care is the setting of choice for
many parents of infants and toddlers because of its home-like atmosphere.
Preschool programs, as the name implies, serve 3- and 4-year-olds prior to
their entrance into kindergarten. Preschool programs may be operated by community
organizations or by churches, temples, or other faith-based organizations and also by
parent cooperatives, which are run and partially staffed by groups of parents.
Preschools often operate half-day, although extended hours—the school day—are
becoming more common. Some colleges and universities operate laboratory schools,
which usually serve children of students and faculty and also act as models for student
teachers. Preschools are called by various names, including nursery schools and
prekindergartens. (To further complicate matters, child care centers are also called
preschools.) Preschool programs are both privately and publicly funded. Those that
are primarily funded by parent tuition tend to serve middle- or upper-income families.
Two particular types of preschool are designed primarily for children from low-
income families: public prekindergarten and Head Start.
The term prekindergarten (pre-K) usually refers to preschools that are funded
by state and local departments of education. Currently, public prekindergarten is in the
news media regularly and is the fastest-growing sector of the field, with enrollment
increasing enormously in recent years. In 1980, 96,000 preschoolers were served in
public elementary schools; in 2012, enrollment had increased to more than 1.3 million
children across 40 states (Barnett, Carolan, et al., 2013). The primary purpose of
prekindergarten is to improve school readiness; that is, to prepare children for
kindergarten.
The majority of public prekindergarten programs are designed for children
from lowincome families or those who are considered at risk for school failure due to
conditions such as low levels of maternal education or speaking a language other than
English in the home. However, a growing number of people, including the president
and members of the U.S. Congress, are calling for funding of universal voluntary
prekindergarten, the goal of which is to make these programs available to families of
all income levels who choose to use them. Publicly funded prekindergarten has
contributed to the field’s growth; today the number of 4-year-olds in state pre-K
programs exceeds the number enrolled in Head Start.
Head Start is a federally funded, national program that promotes school
readiness by enhancing the social and cognitive development of children ages 3, 4,
and 5. Head Start provides educational, health, nutritional, social, and other services
to the nation’s poorest children and families whose incomes fall below the official
poverty level (Head Start, 2013). Head Start’s goal is to improve school readiness by
supporting all areas of children’s development and promoting the early reading and
math skills needed for later success. In addition to these comprehensive services,
parent involvement is a special focus of the program. Parents volunteer in the
classroom and also serve in governance roles, with the goal of empowering families to
move out of poverty. In fact, 23% of Head Start staff members are parents of current
or former Head Start children (Head Start, 2013). Children with disabilities make up
about 12% of Head Start’s enrollment (Head Start, 2014b). Head Start programs are
quite diverse. Most Head Start children are served in classroom-based preschool
programs, although in rural or remote areas, a home-based option is available. One of
the smallest serves 30 children on the Havasupai reservation in the Grand Canyon,
accessible only by helicopter or donkey, while the largest programs serve over 22,000
children in 400 centers across Los Angeles.
Early childhood special education serves children with disabilities or special
needs who meet eligibility guidelines that are determined on a state-by-state basis,
according to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In addition to
serving children with identified disabilities, some states provide early intervention
services for infants and toddlers who are at risk of developmental delay and their
families. Federal legislation enacted during the past three decades has fundamentally
changed the way in which early childhood services are organized and delivered to
children with disabilities and special needs (Division for Early Childhood & NAEYC,
2009). These children, including children who are at risk for disabilities or who
exhibit challenging behaviors, are far more likely to participate in a typical early
childhood program than in the past. This trend, called inclusion, is defined and
described in the Including All Children: What Does Inclusion Mean? feature. All early
childhood educators are likely to work with children with disabilities at some point in
their careers. This inevitability broadens what teachers need to know right from the
start, and requires that general early childhood teachers develop skills to collaborate
with special educators.
Participation in early childhood programs has increased steadily for many
decades as more children participate in group programs at younger ages. In 1965, only
60% of 5-year-olds went to kindergarten, whereas today about 95% do (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2014b). A similar but steeper growth trend is apparent
for younger children. In 1960, only 10% of 3- and 4-year-olds were enrolled in any
type of early childhood program. By 2012, 64% of 3- to 5-year-olds were enrolled in
preprimary programs (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014b). Although the
economic downturn has affected enrollment, all types of early childhood programs
have seen growth over the years, including private preschools and child care centers,
state-funded prekindergartens, preschool special education, and Head Start.
The 2010 U.S. census revealed that the population is highly diverse, both
racially and culturally. The white population of children declined from 60% to 53%.
By 2018, the majority of young children will be children of color—members of
groups currently identified as minorities (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2014). In many
school districts today, this is already the case (Ennis, Ríos-Vargas, & Albert, 2011).
The largest increase is among individuals who identify themselves as Hispanic or
Latino. Between 2000 and 2010, the Hispanic population grew by 43%, accounting
for over half of the total increase in the U.S. population (Ennis et al., 2011). Due to
both higher birth rates and immigration, Latinos now constitute 24% of the nation’s
children. Many of these children are dual language learners because they are learning
to speak two languages at the same time—their home language and English. These
demographic shifts have important implications for early childhood educators as
discussed in the feature Language Lens: Preparing to Teach Dual Language Learners.
The recent economic crisis led to millions of children and families falling into
poverty, with potentially devastating impacts on children’s health, development, and
learning. Almost 25% of all children under 6 live in poverty, but African American
and Latino children are about three times as likely to be poor as White, non-Hispanic
children (CDF, 2014). Most alarming, in 2014, 2.5 million children, or nearly 1 in 30,
experienced homelessness, an 8% increase in one year (National Center on Family
Homelessness at American Institutes for Research, 2014). Children growing up in
poverty are especially in need of high-quality early childhood experiences and good
teachers. Increased unemployment also negatively affects enrollments in early
childhood programs as families struggle to pay for child care (NACCRRA, 2011). In
some situations, families remove their children from preschool or child care centers
because they can no longer afford or do not need these services. Some employers are
less willing or able to subsidize child care as a benefit. The effects of the economic
downturn on children, families, and early childhood programs are real. However,
increased funding for child care and early education at this difficult time in the
nation’s history is solid evidence of its broad support and the recognition of its value.
b. Why Become an Early Childhood Educator?
Working with children demands patience and the willingness to care for and
about other people’s children, even or especially the least lovable of those children.
Teaching young children is truly rewarding work, even when it is most challenging
(Colker, 2008). Each day brings new discoveries, accomplishments, and joys for
children and teachers. Picture a 4-year-old child. What are the first thoughts that come
to mind? Is he or she curious? Eager to learn? Excellent early childhood teachers take
advantage of young children’s deep desire to actively engage with and make sense of
the world around them. Recall the sense of satisfaction you felt when you mastered a
difficult task such as learning to read or ride a bike. Children, too, gain great pleasure
from the sense of mastery that comes from learning something new or overcoming an
obstacle. Another word that comes to mind when thinking of children is fun.
Yes, early childhood programs prepare children for success in school, but they
also provide them with joyful learning experiences every day of their young lives.
Children should have fun in child care centers and homes, preschools, and schools.
They love to joke, tease, and be silly; to sing, move, and dance; to play by themselves
and with friends; to know that adults care for them; to wonder about and explore the
natural world; and to generally enjoy living. When teachers create a safe and
supportive place for children to experience the unique joys of childhood, children will
thrive—and their teachers will also.
A key theme of this book is the important role that culture plays in
development and learning. Broadly defined, culture is the rules and expectations for
behavior of members of a group that are passed on from one generation to the next.
These rules determine to a large extent what group members regard as important and
what values shape their actions and judgments. Like other professional groups, the
early childhood profession has its own culture. This culture is transmitted both
explicitly and implicitly from more experienced, competent members to new initiates
in three ways: through formal education, through onthe-job experiences, and through
mentoring in either setting. New teachers may become confused or flustered when the
cultural rules transmitted in one setting, such as their college classroom, do not seem
to match the expectations for behavior in another, such as their first teaching
assignment. Cultural groups define themselves in many ways, including through the
language they use, how they identify themselves, the values they share, and their
fundamental beliefs. We discuss these topics in the following sections.
One aspect of early childhood culture is a shared vocabulary. Shared language
facilitates communication and minimizes misunderstandings within groups. The
profession gives particular meaning to terms like developmentally appropriate, play,
relationships, comprehensive services, or inclusion (all of which are defined in this
book). Their definitions are tailored to our profession and may not mirror how these
words are used in other professions or everyday life. An essential part of joining a
profession is learning its language. For example, although the larger society uses the
term day care, within the profession the accepted term is child care. We believe that
saying child care is more respectful of children and a more accurate description of the
setting and the job.
Most professionals feel a sense of belonging to their group. They identify
themselves as members of the profession, whether it is as a doctor, a lawyer, or an
accountant. In early childhood education, it is often harder to “name” ourselves. The
profession itself does not have an agreed-on name (Goffin & Washington, 2007).
Among the names it is known by are early care and education, child care, early
education, and early development and learning. In this book, we refer to the field as
early childhood education. We prefer this term because it contains the word child,
which is an ever-present reminder of the primary focus of our work. We also believe
that the term encompasses the key elements of caring, development, and learning.
Another challenge to establishing a clear identity is what to call the role itself. Infant/
toddler teachers and teachers in center-based care are often called caregivers. In
family child care, adults are called providers. But we embrace the term teacher
because it is the broadest term, captures most of the job responsibilities, commands
society’s respect, and is after all what children usually call the adults who care for and
educate them no matter what the setting.
c. Early Childhood Program Quality and Effectiveness
Child care centers and, in some states, family child care homes, are regulated
by each state’s child care licensing standards. These set minimum requirements for a
program to operate legally. Such standards usually establish a minimum number of
teachers required per child (teacher/child ratios), teacher qualifications, and health and
safety requirements. These standards, designed to ensure children’s protection, vary
considerably from state to state. For example, one state requires a teacher for every
four infants, whereas another permits a ratio of one to six. Child Care Aware® of
America (2013) evaluates state licensing standards and monitoring of centers’
compliance. They find that no states rank at the highest level, while 21 states rate a
grade of D and 20 are failing to provide basic protection for children’s health and
safety and support for their development.
Because licensing standards vary and represent minimums, the quality of child
care also varies considerably. Some licensed programs exceed the required standards,
whereas others barely meet them (Child Care Aware® of America, 2013). To address
this issue and help parents make informed decisions, many states now operate quality
rating and improvement systems (QRIS). These tiered systems rate program quality
according to achievement of benchmarks beyond those required for minimal
licensing, such as having more highly qualified teachers or better ratios (Mitchell,
2012). The state recognizes centers that meet higher standards with more stars and
pay higher reimbursement rates for children served. In some states, achieving
accreditation is the highest level. QRIS also helps families make informed decisions
about choosing child care.
To understand what we mean by quality, it is important to see the relationships
among the standards rather than to see them as a discrete list. In the accreditation
system, the primary focus is on children as described in the first five standards:
relationships, curriculum, teaching, assessment of children’s progress, and health. The
other five standards address teachers, partnerships with families and communities, and
administration, including the physical environment and leadership and management.
Meeting these standards establishes a supportive context that makes it possible to
achieve and maintain the quality of life for children described in the first five
standards.
The largest employer-sponsored child care system in the world is the U.S.
military. Its voluntary workforce of men and women depends on the provision of
high-quality child care. In 1989, Congress passed the Military Child Care Act to
ensure consistently high standards of quality in these programs. The act required that
centers seek NAEYC accreditation, and also included provisions for teacher training
and a career ladder tying compensation to increased professional development. The
Military Child Care Act resulted in significantly improved quality and learning
outcomes for children that have been maintained for decades. In addition, the military
child care system is now seen as a model for improving all child care systems.
The early childhood field defines quality as having two dimensions: structural
and process (Minervino, 2013). Structural quality includes features such as maximum
group sizes, teacher/child ratios, and teacher qualifications, which are relatively easy
to quantify and measure. Process quality, on the other hand, refers to the quality of the
relationships and interactions among teachers and children, and the appropriateness of
the materials, learning experiences, and teaching strategies. These features are more
difficult to evaluate, and yet they are the key aspects of the quality of children’s
experiences. They describe what life should be like for children in a program, how
they should be treated, and how their learning and development should be promoted.
Structural quality and process quality are interconnected. For example, well-qualified
teachers are needed to plan and implement an engaging curriculum and teach
effectively. Similarly, positive relationships between teachers and children are more
likely to be established when the size of the group and ratio of adults to children is
relatively small. An age-appropriate, well-equipped, and organized environment is
needed to protect children’s health and safety and to promote active learning.
The most difficult challenge is determining how to measure compliance with
quality standards. To see if a program is meeting requirements, it is relatively easy to
examine transcripts of teachers or count the number of children in a group. But it is
much harder— especially for an outside evaluator—to decide if teachers have positive
relationships with each child and family or if they are using effective teaching
strategies. These standards can be assessed only by directly observing what goes on in
classrooms (FPG Child Development Institute, 2008). To provide consistent ways of
measuring quality, researchers have developed observation tools. The most widely
used observational measure is the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS),
with versions for infants, toddlers, preschoolers and primary grades. The CLASS
focuses on the quality of teachers’ relationships with children and the instructional
strategies they use to support children’s learning. Research shows that how well
classrooms and teachers score on these measures predicts how well children score on
measures of language, literacy, mathematics, and social-emotional abilities. The
CLASS has been adopted as a tool for monitoring quality in Head Start, state
prekindergartens, and QRIS.
As we have seen, program quality is usually defined and measured in terms of
“inputs”— the environments children experience and their interactions with teachers.
However, program effectiveness is usually defined in terms of “outcomes”—the
effects of these experiences on children’s development and learning. As a result,
effectiveness is measured against specific, usually age- or grade-related goals. For
preschoolers, the most common source of outcome goals are state early learning
standards, which describe what children should know and be able to do before
entering kindergarten (Scott-Little, 2011). All 50 states have comprehensive learning
guidelines for preschool children, and 30 states have such goals for infants and
toddlers (Barnett, Carolan, et al., 2013). Head Start has established its own set of
comprehensive goals for children—the Head Start Child Development and Early
Learning Framework. Head Start programs are required by law to periodically assess
children’s progress toward the framework’s goals.
d. The Positive Effects of Early Childhood Education
Among the most exciting achievements in developmental psychology in the
past century were new insights into how the brain grows and functions during the
earliest years of life. Brain research, which had previously been confined to
laboratories, is now reported regularly in popular newspapers and magazines.
Technologies such as positron emission tomography (PET) scans and functional
magnetic resonance imagery (fMRI) reveal the inner workings of babies’ brains to
policy makers, educators, and the public.
Dramatic evidence, along with powerful visual images of brain scans, has
raised awareness of the vital importance of early experiences. For example, brain
scans of maltreated children provide striking evidence of smaller brain volumes than
those of children who have not suffered maltreatment, with more negative effects the
earlier the abuse began and the longer it lasted (De Bellis et al., 1999). Findings such
as these demonstrate the critical importance of early intervention.
The Perry Preschool Project, which began in the early 1960s in Ypsilanti,
Michigan, was one of the first studies to demonstrate the lasting effects of a high-
quality preschool program on educational and economic outcomes. (Perry Preschool
later became the HighScope Educational Research Foundation.) Researchers found
that Perry Preschool graduates were less likely to be assigned to special education or
be retained in grade and had better achievement test scores than children who did not
attend preschool (Berrueta-Clement, Schweinhart, Barnett, Epstein, & Weikart, 1984).
Preschool participation was also related to less involvement in delinquency and crime
and a higher rate of high school graduation (Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikart, 1993).
At age 40, program participants were significantly more likely to have higher levels of
education, be employed, earn higher wages, and own their own homes; they were less
likely to be welfare dependent and had fewer arrests (Schweinhart et al., 2005). These
outcomes benefited not only the participants but the larger society as well.
Economists estimated that for every dollar spent on the program, as much as $16 was
returned on the original investment (Schweinhart et al., 2005). This means that
Americans saved money in terms of the decreased costs of crime, special education,
grade retention, and welfare payments, as well as increased taxes paid by those
children who achieve in school and later earn higher incomes.
The University of North Carolina’s Abecedarian Early Childhood Intervention
Project demonstrated that intensive early intervention (five years of full-day, high-
quality child care with parent involvement) can greatly enhance the development of
children whose mothers have low income and education levels (Campbell etQal.,
2008). The Abecedarian program produced positive effects on achievement in reading
and mathematics throughout elementary and high school. Children who participated
were significantly less likely to be retained in grade or placed in special education,
and they were more likely to attend 4-year colleges and to have skilled jobs. Access to
free child care improved the mothers’ long-term employment opportunities and
earnings.
As publicly funded prekindergarten programs have expanded, a great deal of
research evaluating their effectiveness has become available. Numerous states across
the country have found positive effects on children’s readiness for school (Camilli,
Vargas, Ryan, & Barnett, 2010; Minervino, 2014). For example, a longitudinal study
of Michigan’s prekindergarten program found that it decreased grade repetition and
increased the number of children who passed the state’s reading and mathematics tests
and graduated from high school on time, and all these differences were greatest for
children of color. A study involving more than 60,000 children found that
prekindergarten was related to improved literacy and less kindergarten retention.
Results were most positive for Hispanic and African American students and also
children with disabilities, and persisted through first grade. Some of the strongest,
most positive results were found in an evaluation of Tennessee’s statewide
prekindergarten program. Children who attended prekindergarten improved on
measures of literacy, language, and math between 37% and 176% more than did
children who did not attend. The greatest gains were in language, which is very
difficult to improve.
Perhaps no other federally funded project has been as thoroughly studied as
Head Start over the nearly 50 years of its existence. An overall conclusion that can be
drawn is that Head Start has positive effects on children’s overall development, health
and dental care, and preparation for school, including improved literacy skills and
social-emotional development. Although there is evidence that Head Start needs to be
improved and participation does not close the achievement gap between poor and
middle-class children, it does narrow the gap. The effects are most positive for
children who enter at age 3 and participate in full-day programs that include regular
home visiting (Walters, 2014; Yoshikawa et al., 2013). Child care research
consistently finds that children who participate in high-quality programs demonstrate
better language and mathematics ability and fewer behavior problems than do
children in poor-quality care. Positive effects are evident for all groups of children but
are greater for children from lower-income families.
One of our nation’s greatest challenges is addressing the persistent gap that
exists between the school achievement of African American and Latino children and
their white peers (Aud, Fox, & KewalRamani, 2010; Hemphill & Vanneman, 2011).
Scholars tend to agree that these differences result primarily from the fact that race
and ethnicity are strongly associated with socioeconomic status (SES) in the United
States (National Center for Children in Poverty, 2014). For example, 42% of African
American children and 35% of Latino children under the age of 5 are in the lowest
socioeconomic level of U.S. citizens compared with 15% of white non-Hispanic
children (CDF, 2014). And children of color are much more likely to live in
conditions of extreme poverty (CDF, 2014). Achievement differences between racial
and ethnic groups narrow considerably among children when they are from similar
socioeconomic backgrounds (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014).
As we have seen, the number of young children growing up poor in our country is
increasing, with the largest growth in poverty among children under age 5 and
children of color, which could further widen the achievement gap in the future. The
achievement gap has profound consequences for our nation’s future and its ability to
compete in a global, highly technological society. Moreover, the potentially
devastating effects on the life trajectories of individuals cannot be ignored.
s Differences in children’s cognitive abilities are substantial at a very early age
and widen over time (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014). By 18
months of age, SES differences in language development are evident, and by 24
months, economically disadvantaged children are as much as 6Qmonths behind their
more advantaged peers (Fernald, Marchman, & Weislader, 2013). At age 4, children
who live below the poverty line may be 18 months below what is considered normal
for their age group. In fact, inequity in socioeconomic status is the most important
predictor of children’s cognitive skills (Aud et al., 2010; McLoyd & Purtell, 2008). To
describe this discrepancy, a more accurate term than achievement gap is really
knowledge gap. The differences in achievement are likely the result of differences in
children’s opportunities to gain knowledge from a variety of learning experiences. For
example, children from higher-income families are much more likely to attend
preschool.
Children from low-income families not only enter kindergarten with fewer
cognitive skills than their more affluent peers, but also are more likely to encounter
poorer-quality elementary schools (Neuman, 2008). These schools are likely to have
fewer resources and qualified teachers, more negative teacher attitudes, and poorer
neighborhood or school conditions. As a result, the inequalities in cognitive abilities
that are present even before kindergarten entry are not eliminated and often are
magnified by their elementary school experience (Parkinson & Rowan, 2008). One of
the frequent criticisms of Head Start and prekindergarten is that the gains children
make “fade-out” by later grades. These criticisms focus on standardized test scores
rather than lasting social-emotional and meaningful life outcomes, and fail to take into
account the quality of children’s education in primary school (Barnett & Carolan,
2014). A more accurate term than fade-out is convergence (Yoshikawa et al., 2013).
Children’s achievement scores converge in the early grades because their school
experiences do not build on preschool gains.
Children who begin school behind tend to stay behind. Although achievement
has improved on average in the last few years, problems remain. By fourth grade,
only 41% of public school students are proficient or above in mathematics and only
34% are proficient in reading (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013).
Reading achievement at the end of first grade predicts reading skill at the end of
fourth grade (Hernandez, 2011), which subsequently predicts high school graduation.
Moreover, deep-seated inequities in communities and schools tend to increase rather
than diminish these early achievement gaps over time. As one child advocacy group
states, “Our children are not failing to learn. Our schools are failing to teach them
effectively”
e. Today’s Families
Louise’s child care class consists of fifteen 3- to 5-year-olds. Four of the
children live with their biological mothers and fathers; Blake and Debra are only
children, Madeline is the youngest of four, and Stephen is the eldest of three. Five
children live with their mothers only, but among them Joseph and Lauren are in
shared custody arrangements and split days of the week living with their fathers. Both
Joseph and Lauren have stepmothers as well as stepsiblings. Lauren also has a baby
half-brother. Of the other three children who live with their mothers, Marin doesn’t
know her father at all, and Jackson has infrequent contact with his biological father.
Jeanine’s mom is serving in the military overseas. Marta lives with her two dads, and
Logan lives with his two moms. Kim lives with his parents and siblings and also his
paternal grandparents, aunt, and one cousin. David has lived with his grandmother
and two brothers since his mother died, and his father is in prison. The diverse family
configurations represented in Louise’s class are typical of America today: two-parent,
single-parent, families of divorce, blended/stepfamilies, LGBT
(lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender) families, and extended families.
Despite statistics and experience to the contrary, many people still think of the
family as consisting of two first-time married parents and their biological or adopted
children, known as the nuclear family. About 1 in 8 of these children lives in a family
with a stepparent or adoptive parent (Kreider & Ellis, 2011). Mother-only families
account for 24%, and 4% of children live with their fathers only (Child Trends,
2014a). Another 4% of children live with neither parent but rather with other family
members, usually grandparents, or nonrelatives. A significant trend is the difference in
children’s living arrangements by race and ethnicity (Children’s Defense Fund [CDF],
2011). More than half of African American children live with their mothers only, as
do about 28% of Latino children (Child Trends, 2014a). By contrast, 15% of white
children and only 11% of Asian children live in mother-only households. In addition,
more than twice as many African American children (6%) as white children do not
live with either parent (Child Trends, 2014a). Increasing numbers of children live in
extended families, which are defined as a family unit where two or more generations
of close family relatives live together in one household. Here again we see racial and
ethnic diversity, with about 9% of white, 17% of African American, and 14% of
Latino children living with at least one grandparent.
Joelynn and Jeff Robeson already have 18-month-old twins when their third
child, Eric, is born with spina bifida, a physical disability that requires repeated
hospitalizations and considerable care. Just when Joelynn and Jeff are beginning to
adjust to the strain on their marriage of caring for three young children, including one
with special needs, the factory where Jeff works closes down and he loses his job.
Suffering from depression and alcohol abuse, Jeff leaves Joelynn without child
support, forcing her to seek public assistance. After a while, however, the rules for
continuing on public assistance require Joelynn to work full time, and she must leave
her three young children in the care of her sister, who also has two preschool-age
children. Joelynn suffers from the stresses of caring for her children and supporting
them on her minimum wage salary. As is true for every family, the development of
each member of the Robeson family is affected by many different factors, both
internal and external to the family. Two theoretical perspectives are helpful for
thinking about families: Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory of human development
and family systems theory. Each of these frameworks helps explain the complex
interactions known as family dynamics.
At the center of Bronfenbrenner’s model is the individual child, whose
development is influenced by biology, and by the proximal processes of daily
interactions in the family microsystem. In the Robeson family, Eric’s disability at
birth is a biological contributor to his development, but other variables also contribute
to his development and mediate his disability. For example, Eric’s personal
characteristics, such as his above-average intelligence and his lively personality,
attract the positive attention of everyone he meets. In the Robeson family, Eric was
born into a family that was already caring for very young twins. His siblings’
existence was part of the context into which he was born, but his birth and his
disability dramatically changed the family’s context. As a result, Eric’s aunt provided
child care; this event occurs within the microsystem in which experiences interact and
affect each other. The interactions that Eric has with his parents, siblings, and
extended family—proximal processes, or daily routines—bear the most influence on
his development.
Consider how changes in various elements of the exosystem could alter
outcomes for the Robeson family and their children, especially Eric. With Jeff out of
work and Joelynn working for minimum wage, the family’s income is below poverty
level, making them eligible for Early Head Start. This federal program provides child
care for children from birth to age 3, early intervention services for Eric, and family
support. The early intervention team helps Joelynn learn how to support Eric’s
development at home. They put Jeff in touch with mental health counselors to help
him deal with his depression, and they also connect him to Alcoholics Anonymous
and career retraining. Through the counseling offered by Early Head Start, Jeff gets a
maintenance job while he attends computer school. Joelynn begins training as a
nurse’s aide, inspired by her newfound abilities to care for Eric’s health. The twins
thrive in the social atmosphere at the child care center. The family reunites, and its
emotional as well as financial security improves. The changes in Eric’s family will
have lasting benefits for his development as well. When aspects of the child and
family systems provide substantive supports outside of their home life, families have
what they need to have positive interactions inside their home—and children benefit.
Now that you have seen how various ecological systems interact to influence the
family and children’s development, we focus on family systems theory, which
explains more about the internal workings of family dynamics.
Understanding family dynamics is an important aspect of working with
children of any age, but of young children in particular because they don’t always
have the language to describe their emotions and needs. Rodney may be angry
because his father was just deployed, which makes his mother sad and nervous and
his big sister silent. To describe how this one event impacts the entire family, family
systems theory views family members as interconnected parts, with each member
influencing the others in predictable and recurring ways (Welch, 2011). Family
systems theory focuses on explaining family behavior—that is, why individual family
members behave as they do in relation to one another and to those outside the family.
Understanding how families function as systems can help teachers serve diverse
children and build family partnerships more effectively. Family systems theory
describes some common characteristics of families, including boundaries, roles, rules,
hierarchy, climate, and equilibrium (Christian, 2006). Each of these characteristics can
be described on a continuum. For example, all families have rules regarding the
acceptable behavior of members; some families operate according to strict and
inflexible rules, whereas others have few rules or apply rules inconsistently.
government defines as less than $22,050 per year for a family of four. Because
research shows that almost twice this income is required to adequately cover
expenses, the National Center for Children in Poverty (2014) estimates that almost
45% of children live in lowincome families. In 2012, almost 25% of children under
the age of 6 were living in poverty or extreme poverty (less than half the poverty
level)—an increase of 33% in the first decade of the 21st century (Children’s Defense
Fund [CDF], 2014). Growing up in poverty is related to many negative outcomes for
children, including increased likelihood of abuse, neglect, school failure, delinquency,
and violence. Child poverty continues to grow despite the fact that most poor children
live in working families (CDF, 2014). Moreover, a disproportionate number of
children of color live in poverty (CDF, 2014). Compared to 12% of white children,
40% of African American, 34% of Hispanic, and 37% of American Indian children
under age 5 are poor.
Children living in poverty are at risk for poor physical and dental health, more
likely to experience hunger and malnutrition, and less likely to have access to health
care (CDF, 2014). African American children are more than twice as likely as white
children not to have medical insurance. In addition, homelessness is on the rise; in
fact, families with children, including many preschoolers, are the fastest growing
group of homeless people (CDF, 2014). Cumulative risk factors increase the
likelihood of poor outcomes for children. Poverty coupled with other factors such as
low level of parent education (less than high school), single-parent family, or teen
parent multiplies risk. Economic stress also affects two-parent families. Almost 60%
of mothers of children under age 5 are in the workforce, which adds the cost of child
care for many financially strapped families.
Despite difficult family circumstances and challenges, it is important to note
that poverty, neglect, and discrimination do not necessarily set children up for failure.
Families’ assets or strengths—their protective factors—can counter the potential
negative effects of risks (Cabrera, 2013). Although public attention tends to focus on
all that is wrong with the American family, compelling evidence exists that many
families— including those living in the most difficult circumstances—have inner
strengths that counter risk factors and predict positive results for children (Iruka,
2013). Contemporary families have high levels of important family strengths:
closeness, concern, caring, and interaction (Moore, Chalk, Scarpa, & Vandivere,
2002). Moreover, a positive, caring relationship with a parent can mitigate many risk
factors (Bandy & Moore, 2008). Similarly, ongoing positive relationships with other
adults, especially caregivers and teachers, are important protective factors.
Child Trends (2007) finds that about 10% of children growing up in two-
parent, lowconflict families have problems, whereas 20% of all other children
experience problems. Their conclusion is somewhat contrary to the popular images of
at-risk children and families today: Most kids do fine. Some children with highly
stable families will have problems; more children whose families experience several
risk factors will struggle. The takeaway message with regard to risk and protective
factors is that there are no guarantees. Poor outcomes are not inevitable for children
placed at risk, just as low risk is not a guarantee of success in life. Given the critical
role of families in children’s development and learning, the simple conclusion is that
anything we can do to strengthen families is a good idea, we discuss family-centered
practice, which includes research-based, effective strategies to support families.
Because they work directly with families as well as children, early childhood
educators have the opportunity as well as the responsibility to strengthen families. In
the next section, we address ways teachers can build reciprocal relationships with
families toward the goal of achieving better outcomes for all children.
f. Reciprocal Relationships with Families
In her book on partnerships with parents, Janis Keyser (2006, p. xi) describes
her development as an early childhood professional as progressing through three
stages of relationship with parents: save the child, save the parents, and draw on
parents’ expertise. These stages are identical to my own experience and that of many
other early childhood teachers. Like many others in the early childhood profession,
Keyser chose this field because of her love of children. In the earliest days of her
practice, when she encountered a child whose needs were great, she entered the first
stage: “save the child.” Inevitably there would be several children whom she thought
if only she could save them from their parents, their lives would be better.
She quickly realized the futility of this approach and moved on to the next
stage of her development, which she calls “save the parents.” Realizing that it would
be impossible to save all of the children from their parents, she determined to fix the
parents. She thought that if she taught them everything early childhood professionals
know, they would become better parents. Soon, however, she realized that this notion
fails to recognize that families bring funds of knowledge—experiences, traditions,
goals, resources, and rich culture to their roles. In fact, she concluded that families
add unique value to the knowledge of early childhood teachers. In the final stage of
development in her relationships with families, she rejected both goals of saving
children and saving parents in favor of drawing on parents’ expertise to work in
partnerships with them in ways that are in the children’s best interests.
One of the challenges to building effective partnerships for early childhood
teachers is that the younger the child in their care, the more blurred the lines become
between families and teachers. Nevertheless, there are definite distinctions between
the roles of parent and teacher. Children’s relationships with their family members
often last a lifetime. They view their children’s development and learning more
emotionally. Their relationships are often intense, and culturally embedded. While
family members are considered children’s “first teacher,” they typically have no
training in how to care for and educate their child. While teachers’ relationships with
children are very important for their learning and development they typically have
short-term relationships with children and find it easier to be objective. Furthermore,
teachers benefit from formal education related to supporting children’s learning and
development. These distinctions help explain why both perspectives are essential in
providing high-quality care and education for each child.
Reciprocal relationships can develop only in an atmosphere of mutual respect,
trust, cooperation, and shared responsibility. These are the elements of what is now
called family-centered care or family-centered practice (Child Welfare Information
Gateway, 2014). Family-centered practice is a term that originated in the early
childhood special education community. According to special educators, family-
centered practice provides to families the resources and supports that promote
children’s development and learning and, at the same time, strengthen the competence
of families in their roles and improve family well-being (Dunst, 2011). Professionals
may provide parent education to support parents’ competence, confidence, and
enjoyment of interactions with their child. To achieve these goals, professionals must
actively involve families, be responsive to their requests, and treat them with dignity
and respect. Considerable research documents the benefits of family-centered practice
for children and families, especially for children with disabilities and special needs
(Trivette, Dunst, & Hamby, 2010). The Including All Children feature demonstrates
the value of family-centered practice for children and their families. Although family-
centered practices have been at the heart of early childhood special education, they are
also now recognized as essential elements of all high-quality early childhood
programs (NAEYC, 2014).
Family-centered practice is interpreted slightly differently by general
educators than by special educators because the needs of the families they work with
are different, and because of the child’s specific needs. For general educators, family-
centered practice focuses on building partnerships with families. These partnerships
are characterized by several key principles: mutual respect and trust; regular, frequent
twoway communication; collaboration, shared decision making, and shared power;
and negotiation of conflicts toward win-win solutions (Bredekamp, 1997a, 1997b).
When working with families who are racial and ethnic minorities, Iruka (2013)
suggests that professionals employ a bi-directional approach, which integrates the
families’ culture and perspectives, and capitalize on a strengths-based approach. What
this means for teachers is that efforts to increase family engagement should include
extensive, meaningful input from families on their family traditions, interaction
preferences, and individual needs.
Mutual trust and respect develop gradually after numerous interactions.
Although teachers and parents may initially disagree on certain issues, the goal is to
recognize and respect one another’s knowledge and expertise (Keyser, 2006). If
parents feel respected, they are more likely to share information that teachers need to
know. Differences of opinion and goals are inevitable when working with other
people’s children. If mutual trust and respect are to be maintained and parents are to
continue to be empowered, such conflicts must be negotiated toward win-win
solutions. There are instances, however, when negotiation is not an option, such as in
cases of suspected child abuse or neglect. Policies regarding teachers’ responsibilities
for reporting child abuse should be clearly communicated to families as well as
teachers (National Research Council [NRC], 2014).
g. Communication with Families
Effective communication between teachers and families means more than
sharing information; it means developing shared understanding about who the child is,
each party’s goals, and how to achieve them. Early childhood education covers a
broad age span— from birth through age 8. During the earliest years, children are
most likely to be served in some form of child care while parents work. At the other
end of the age continuum, children are in school and perhaps child care for part of the
day. In each of these situations, communication problems can arise.
Competition. Parents may feel jealous if the child becomes attached to another
adult. Three-year-old Madison has been in child care for 1 month. Her mother feels
conflicted about it and threatened by the growing relationship between Madison and
her teacher. She tells her husband, “I’m afraid Madison loves her teacher more than
me. When I left the center, Madison called her teacher ‘Mommy’ and I cried all the
way to work.”
Guilt and loss. At times, parents feel a sense of loss over missed experiences.
Jacob is 11 months old. His mother is torn between her desire to spend more time with
him and her rewarding but demanding career. She worked very hard to earn her law
degree, and her job is stressful. At the same time, she feels guilty about neglecting
Jacob. She thinks, “I’m going to miss seeing my baby’s first steps.”
Differing child-rearing goals. Disagreements between parents and teachers,
both large and small, are inevitable. Tawanna, who is 4½ years old, enrolled in a new
center recently, and her father has concerns about the informality and lack of
emphasis on academic skills. He tells his wife, “I don’t like Tawanna getting dirty at
school. And I want her to learn to read to be ready for school, but they say that’s not
important yet. And they let the children call them by their first names in that school. I
want Tawanna to learn good manners.”
Confusion about regulations and policies. Parents may lack the information
they need about the school’s goals, procedures, and policies. For example, Summit
School has a policy that parents need to be alerted in the middle of first grade about
whether their children’s reading is below grade level so that an intervention plan can
be set up. Shelley’s mother becomes very anxious: “It’s only January, and the teacher
thinks that Shelley will have to stay back in first grade because she’s not reading at
grade level. I don’t want my little girl to flunk, but what can I do?” Lack of
flexibility. The school may not be sensitive to parents’ individual needs and concerns.
Mr. Jenkins is a concerned father who wants to be involved in his children’s
education, but he is frustrated: “That school always has meetings and events during
the day, but I can’t take off work.”
Communication problems can arise when parents don’t understand how the
school functions and how they can influence decisions. They may feel powerless to
alter a policy or the teacher’s perceptions about their child. Teachers may think they
provide adequate information, but if the parent doesn’t understand the message,
considerable anxiety and confusion may result for the parents and the child as well. At
other times, power struggles can ensue due to conflicting goals. Some families have
very high expectations for their children’s success in school, so they may pressure
teachers and children to ensure academic achievement. The term helicopter parent
describes parents who “hover over” their children and try to control everything in
their lives. Some parents will come forward and complain often, whereas others are
too intimidated to voice even the gentlest concerns. To address these communication
problems openly and honestly, teachers can use a variety of strategies, discussed next,
that will benefit both the child and the family.
Arguing that technology devices should be used responsibly and respectfully,
Kaldor (2015) provides guidelines for how to do a BYOD (Bring Your Own Device)
Night. Rather than leaving devices behind, families bring their devices and learn how
to connect with their child’s classroom and school, and see demonstrations of
children’s technology use in the classroom. Families learn how to respect boundaries
around technological communication, and sign a digital contract. Families may turn to
early childhood professionals to learn about using technology with their children.
Teachers can provide important information regarding how children use technology
and how much they use it. Children under 3 years old should have few, short periods
of screen time, combined with lively interaction with family members (Lerner & Barr,
2014). Early Connections provides guidelines and ideas for families to use technology
to enhance social relationships and learning.
In addition to their everyday, routine communication with families, teachers
and parents need to meet for more formal regular conferences. Traditionally, the
purpose of parent-teacher conferences has been for teachers to report on children’s
progress. These conferences are usually a one-way communication, with teachers
providing information to parents, who serve as the passive audience. With one-way
communications, however, parents might feel as though the teachers are issuing a
report card on their parenting. More effective conferences promote two-way
communication (Hanhan & Kartoshkina, 2012). Teachers not only provide parents
with information about their child’s progress but also listen to what parents say about
their child’s development and learning. In this setting, parents and teachers have a
conversation and ask as well as answer questions.
Because families have diverse needs and schedules, arranging conference
times can be tricky. Consider Noreen Hayes, a kindergarten teacher in a large, urban
school district. Three months into the school year, she is preparing for her first set of
formal family conferences. Because many of the families work two jobs or odd hours,
she is concerned that scheduling conferences will be difficult. To ease the stress for
families, she offers a full week of times for them to sign up, including early morning,
evening, and weekend hours. To make sure she can accommodate these families, she
arranges for community volunteers to provide babysitting and translation services as
needed. She also arranges for snacks to be available for parents arriving after work.
She organizes the seating arrangement with adult-sized chairs comfortably facing
each other. Before conferences, she carefully collects samples of drawings, writing,
and photos of projects and other work to share with each child’s parents.
In recent years, teacher home visits have become more challenging for several
reasons. They are time consuming, and union contracts may discourage them.
Because children do not live in self-contained communities and take transportation to
school, home visits become logistically difficult. Teachers may feel unsafe visiting
communities where there have been incidents involving violence or drugs. Likewise,
some families may be uncomfortable about teachers’ visiting for reasons of poverty or
differences in language and cultural background. Given that home visiting and
conferencing at school can be threatening or difficult, some teachers find that meeting
families on neutral ground such as a local coffee shop or fast-food restaurant may be
the best strategy (Powell, 2013). Talking in a less formal setting over a cup of coffee,
parents and teachers may be more relaxed and able to work out solutions to difficult
problems.
h. Family Engagement in Programs and Schools
More than 40 years of research confirms that family engagement has a positive
impact on children’s achievement in school (Powell, 2013; Sheldon, 2009). The
benefits are so well established that they are written into public law. For example, the
Head Start program requires parent involvement at all levels, from classroom
interaction with children to representation on policy-making boards. Special education
laws also dictate specific roles for families as decision makers about services for their
children. In the sections that follow, we examine research on the benefits of family
involvement and then describe ways to engage families meaningfully in their
children’s education.
Family involvement in school has the greatest benefit for children at risk of
school failure (Dearing, Kreider, Simpkins, & Weiss, 2007). When low-income
families become more involved in school from kindergarten to fifth grade, children’s
literacy performance increases significantly (Dearing et al., 2007). Typically there is
an achievement gap in literacy performance between children of more- and less-
educated mothers, but this gap is nonexistent when family involvement levels are high
(Dearing et al., 2007). However, white, middle-class families are more likely to be
involved in school and to be better informed about how to help their children at home.
Therefore, schools need to make extra effort to involve all families because this would
be an effective way to address the achievement gap between children of color growing
up in poverty and their more affluent, white peers.
As we have seen, the benefits of family involvement for children’s success in
school and life are well documented. In addition, family engagement has significant
benefits for schools, including increased job satisfaction among teachers and
principals, despite the necessary additional work. Meaningful family engagement
requires effort on the part of teachers and parents. For instance, volunteering is one of
the most common ways of involving parents. Sometimes, however, volunteers are
used only to wipe tables, clean playgrounds, or bake cookies for bake sales. These
may be necessary tasks, but more meaningful opportunities are available. If the school
prepares parents in advance, classroom volunteers can provide one-on-one
conversation or small-group reading for young children. If families engage in such
learning experiences with children at school, they are more likely to do these things at
home with their children. Too often, “parent” involvement is based on the assumption
that the engaged parent will be the mother. However, there are distinct benefits to
fathers’ engagement in children’s education (Minnesota Fathers & Families Network,
2013). To learn more about involving fathers, read the What Works: Father-Friendly
Practices feature.
Teachers, especially beginning teachers, may feel overwhelmed by the idea of
building partnerships with communities in addition to carrying out their other
responsibilities. However, community linkages can enhance their work and make it
more effective. All communities have unique individuals with talents to share. A local
orchestra might have musicians who are willing to visit and perform for the children.
Artists of all kinds can enrich children’s experiences with demonstrations and skill
instruction. Doctors, nurses, dentists, or hygienists can demonstrate healthy practices
for children. One preschool has an annual Truck Touch as a community experience
and fund-raiser in which the nearby International Harvester company lends giant
tractor trailers for the children to see and explore under careful supervision. The Truck
Touch is open to all children in the community for free, and an accompanying snack
bar raises funds for the preschool’s library. Schools can also inform families about
child-related events or activities in the community such as concerts, puppet shows,
museum exhibits, storytelling, and the like. Connecting families, including siblings,
through such community events can help create a network of family support, which is
especially helpful for single or teen parents. Such a network can serve as a protective
factor for families in communities at risk (Bryant, Maxwell, & Burchinal, 1999).
In addition, teachers can use knowledge of the community in planning
curriculum. For example, a town has an ongoing project to clean up the environment
around a creek area that was once a beaver dam. Each class in the local primary
school takes on an aspect of the project and expands its study of ecology over several
years. When early childhood programs fully integrate into the community by inviting
participation and by taking advantage of what the community has to offer, positive
outcomes result for everyone involved.
Throughout this, we have delved deeply into the multifaceted importance of
cultivating strong, meaningful relationships with families. This topic has been
explored from various angles, emphasizing not only the foundational role that these
relationships play in the overall development and well-being of children but also the
mutual benefits that arise for families and educational institutions alike. We have
examined how positive partnerships with families can enhance children's learning
experiences, contribute to their emotional and social development, and create a
supportive community environment. These relationships are instrumental in fostering
a sense of belonging and security among children, which is crucial for their growth
and resilience.
In the subsequent section, we will shift our focus towards a more practical
approach by introducing a conceptual framework designed to guide you through the
process of building and maintaining effective partnerships with families. This "how
to" guide is intended to provide you with a clear, step-by-step methodology that can
be adapted to various contexts and needs. We will outline essential principles and
strategies that underpin successful family engagement, drawing on both theoretical
insights and practical experiences.
Additionally, we will delve into specific skills that are critical for negotiating
conflicts that may arise in the course of these partnerships. Conflict, while often
viewed negatively, can be an opportunity for growth and deeper understanding when
managed effectively. We will provide you with tools and techniques for effective
communication, active listening, and empathy, which are key to resolving
misunderstandings and building trust. These skills will not only help in addressing
conflicts but also in preventing them by fostering a climate of open, honest, and
respectful dialogue.
Furthermore, this section will include case studies and real-life examples that
illustrate common challenges and successful strategies in building family
partnerships. By examining these scenarios, you will gain a deeper understanding of
the complexities involved and how to navigate them. We will also discuss the
importance of cultural competence and sensitivity, recognizing that families come
from diverse backgrounds and that acknowledging and respecting these differences is
crucial for effective engagement.
In summary, this upcoming section aims to equip you with a comprehensive
toolkit for building and nurturing partnerships with families. By combining theoretical
knowledge with practical skills and real-world examples, we hope to empower you to
create strong, positive, and lasting relationships that benefit children, families, and the
broader community. Whether you are a teacher, administrator, or family liaison, the
insights and strategies provided will help you to foster a collaborative environment
where all parties feel valued and supported.
