Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Chapter Nine: Interactions between Providers and Children in the Family Child Care Home
At this point, we turn our attention to the interactions and activities that occurred in the child care setting. This chapter and the one that follows examine the interactions between caregivers and children, children’s activities in the care setting and, finally, the family child care experience from the perspective of an individual child.
In family child care, the provider is the critical determinant of the children’s experiences. How she interacts with children and structures their activities and experiences, her responsiveness to the children and her verbal interactions with them, define children’s daily experience in care. A major part of the observation of the family child care homes involved rating multiple aspects of the caregiver’s interactions with the children in her care. The description below is derived from the Abt Provider Rating (Parts I and II) and the Arnett Global Caregiver Rating Scale. These measures evaluate a variety of aspects of the caregiver’s interaction with children. Taken together, the measures give us rounded picture of caregiver behavior.
Provider Warmth, Guidance and Supervision
Providers were rated in terms of how well they communicated interest in and affection for children; their responsiveness to children’s requests and needs; the use of positive guidance and discipline and avoidance of negative and harmful interactions with children; and the adequacy of their supervision of children.
Overall, family child care providers were affectionate and responsive towards children, and used positive rather than negative techniques to guide children’s behavior. Children’s activities were closely supervised, especially in situations where there might be risk to the child. As Exhibit 9-1 shows, providers received high average ratings on the total scores in each of these areas, with scores ranging from 2.7 to 2.9 on 1 three-point scale, where 3 was defined as consistently positive practice. There were two individual items on which a substantial number of providers were rated as inconsistent. Only half of the providers were rated as consistently helping children work out their conflicts with words. Another area on which providers had lower ratings was interactive play. Only 36 percent of providers were rated as consistently playing interactively with children, and just over one-third of providers were rated as rarely or never playing with children.
Ratings of provider behavior did not differ substantially by the type of home (Exhibit 9-2). Providers in homes with all children under 5 years of age had significantly higher ratings on Caring and responding, compared with providers in homes with school-age and children less than 5 years (Exhibit 9-3).
| Provider Ratings | Rarely/ Never % |
Sometimes % | Consistently/ Usually % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total: Caring and responding | Average rating = 2.7 out of 3 | ||
| Shows interest in children | 0.9 | 17.8 | 81.3 |
| Responds to children’s language | 1.7 | 16.4 | 81.9 |
| Converses with each child | 2.8 | 22.1 | 75.1 |
| Shows affection to each child | 3.0 | 23.0 | 74.0 |
| Acknowledges child’s efforts | 4.4 | 28.1 | 67.5 |
| Offers children help | 1.0 | 14.6 | 84.5 |
| Accepts children’s feelings | 1.7 | 17.5 | 80.7 |
| Recognizes, responds to signs of distress | 1.7 | 11.7 | 86.5 |
| Plays with children interactively | 33.8 | 30.6 | 35.7 |
| Holds babies | 5.3 | 20.4 | 74.2 |
| Total: Positive guidance and discipline | Average rating = 2.7 out of 3 | ||
| States limits and consequences | 2.1 | 21.6 | 76.4 |
| Helps children express feelings | 8.5 | 31.9 | 59.6 |
| Helps children notice other’s needs | 8.9 | 31.9 | 60.1 |
| Helps children experience consequences | 2.8 | 16.6 | 80.6 |
| Does not force children into activities | 2.9 | 9.5 | 87.6 |
| Focuses on what to do, not what not to do | 2.4 | 22.1 | 75.6 |
| Helps children resolve conflicts verbally | 16.6 | 33.8 | 50.0 |
| Redirects children who are frustrated | 2.5 | 17.2 | 80.2 |
| Time-out for self-control, not punishment | 1.4 | 4.3 | 94.3 |
| Total: Does no harm | Average rating = 2.9 out of 3 | ||
| No physical punishment | 1.3 | 2.0 | 96.7 |
| No rough handling of children | 1.4 | 1.1 | 97.5 |
| No criticism, shame, threats | 1.6 | 4.7 | 93.7 |
| Does not dominate play with children | 1.7 | 3.3 | 95.0 |
| Avoids power struggles with children | 2.0 | 3.2 | 94.8 |
| Total: Supervision, monitoring | Average rating = 2.9 out of 3 | ||
| Can see, hear children at all times | 1.7 | 14.5 | 83.8 |
| Supervises children as appropriate | 2.0 | 18.1 | 79.8 |
| Extra supervision of hazardous activities | 0.3 | 1.3 | 98.4 |
| Uses restraining equipment for short time | 7.5 | NA | 92.5 |
| Total across four areas | Average rating = 2.8 out of 3 | ||
Sample size (n=637 family child care homes) |
|||
| Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Provider Rating System |
| Provider Ratings | A | B | All Family Child Care Homes | Significant Difference by Type of Home | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Related to Provider | Some/No Children Related to Provider | ||||
| Mean | Mean | Mean | p-valuea | ||
| Subscores | Caring and responding | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.7 | ns |
| Positive guidance, discipline | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.7 | ns | |
| Does no harm | 2.9 | 3.0 | 2.9 | ns | |
| Supervision, monitoring | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.9 | ns | |
| Total score | Total for caring, no harm, guidance, supervision | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.8 | ns |
| Sample size | 173 | 464 | 637 | ||
| a Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Provider Rating System |
| Provider Ratings | A | B | C | D | Significant Difference by Age Mix | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Under 3 Years | All Children Under 5 Years | School-Age Only | School-age and Youngera | |||
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | p-valueb | ||
| Subscores | Caring and responding | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.6 | B>D** |
| Positive guidance, discipline | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.7 | ns | |
| Does no harm | 2.9 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 3.0 | ns | |
| Supervision, monitoring | 2.9 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 2.8 | ns | |
| Total score | Total for caring, no harm, guidance, supervision | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 2.7 | ns |
| Sample size | 42 | 256 | 53 | 286 | ||
| a Includes homes with school-age & preschool, school-age & infant/toddler, and school-age & preschool & infant/toddler b Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Provider Rating System |
Fostering Children’s Social Learning
One of the things that many parents want their children to learn in their care setting is how to relate to other children in positive way—learning to take turns, to share, to be empathetic. One part of the Provider Rating assessed the extent to which providers foster these types of social learning and understanding in the children in their care.
Providers received relatively low ratings on their support for children’s acquisition of social skills, relative to their ratings on other aspects of interactions with and instruction of children. On average, providers received an average rating score of 2.3 out of 3 on the items in this domain (Exhibit 9-4). On most items, at least a third of providers were rated as providing inconsistent support for children to learn social skills or develop social understanding. There were no significant differences in the ratings of providers by ages of children present in the home (Exhibit 9-6). However, providers caring for all related children had significantly lower average ratings, compared with providers caring for at least some unrelated children (Exhibit 9-5).
| Provider Ratings | Rarely/ Never % |
Sometimes % | Consistently/ Usually % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total: Fostering children’s social skills | Average rating = 2.3 out of 3 | ||
| Opportunities for children to work together | 9.4 | 28.2 | 62.4 |
| Teach children to share/cooperate/take turns | 7.8 | 26.6 | 65.6 |
| Teach older children to care for younger | 19.1 | 31.2 | 49.7 |
| Teach social rules or limits | 11.6 | 35.4 | 53.0 |
| Attention to bullying and standing up for self | 1.7 | 10.2 | 88.0 |
| Teach children about community | 63.1 | 23.9 | 13.1 |
| Teach children about similarities, differences | 18.7 | 40.0 | 41.3 |
| Sample size (n=637 homes) | |||
| a Some items on the rating scale are coded as only "No" or "Yes," with no code for "Sometimes." Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Provider Rating System |
| A | B | All Family Child Care Homes | Significant Difference by Type of Home | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Related to Provider | Some/No Children Related to Provider | |||
| Mean | Mean | Mean | p-valuea | |
| Total: Fostering children’s social skills | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.3 | B>A* |
| Sample size | 173 | 464 | 637 |
| a Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Provider Rating System |
| A | B | C | D | Significant Difference by Age | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Under 3 Years | All Children Under 5 Years | School-Age Only | School-age and Youngera | ||
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | p-valueb | |
| Total: Fostering children’s social skills | 2.2 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 2.4 | ns |
| Sample size | 42 | 256 | 53 | 286 |
| a Includes homes with school-age & preschool, school-age & infant/toddler, and school-age & preschool & infant/toddler b Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Provider Rating System |
Supporting Children’s Play
For young children, play of all types--dramatic play, creative play, fine motor and more active physical or gross motor play--is a crucial avenue for learning and development. In any good environment for children, there are plenty of opportunities for play activities in which children may independently choose an activity and engage freely with peers and materials. Settings with too much structure or with no opportunities for free play are not ideal for children.
Most providers consistently encouraged children’s play, receiving an average rating of 2.7 on the three-point scale (Exhibit 9-7). Further, providers received high ratings on each of the individual items in this domain. They consistently offered opportunities for free play and provided support for play through attention, suggestions, and provision of materials for play.
| Provider Ratings | Rarely/ Never |
Sometimes | Consistently/ Usually |
|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | |
| Total: Supporting children’s play | Average = 2.7 out of 3 | ||
| Free play opportunities with choice, 2 hrs+/day | 13.4 | 0 | 86.6 |
| Provider provides materials/suggestions for play | 5.8 | 19.7 | 74.5 |
| Daily time for active physical play | 7.3 | 12.5 | 80.3 |
| Sample size (n=637 homes) | |||
| Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Provider Rating System |
Neither the type of home nor the age mix of children in the home was strongly related to providers’ level of support for children’s play (Exhibits 9-8 and 9-9).
| A | B | All Family Child Care Homes |
Significant Difference by Type of Home | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Related to Provider |
Some/No Children Related to Provider |
|||
| Mean | Mean | Mean | p-valuea | |
| Total: Supporting children’s play | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.7 | ns |
| Sample size | 173 | 464 | 637 |
| a Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Provider Rating System |
| A | B | C | D | Significant Difference by Age | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Under 3 Years | All Children Under 5 Years | School-Age Only | School-age and Youngera | ||
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | p-valueb | |
| Total: Supporting children’s play | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.7 | ns |
| Sample size | 42 | 256 | 52 | 286 |
| a Includes homes with school-age & preschool, school-age & infant/toddler, and school-age & preschool & infant/toddler b Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Provider Rating System |
Supporting Children’s Cognitive Development
With parents, the child care provider is one of the child’s first teachers. Although there may be some disagreement about the extent to which preschool-age and younger children need to be taught pre-academic skills, there is little disagreement about the importance of the child’s first five years, and especially the first three years, as a critical time for the child’s acquisition of knowledge and intellectual skills. Daily life for children provides constant opportunities for learning, through the child’s own experimentation and play with materials and peers. At the same time, the adults in the child’s life can support this learning by providing opportunities for the child to explore and experiment with objects and peers in his or her world or by direct instruction.
The Provider Rating System assessed the extent to which providers supported children’s learning in literacy, math, science and creative arts, either formally or informally in the course of everyday activities. Providers were rated separately on their teaching strategies with children and on the learning opportunities they provided. In both of these areas, providers received relatively low ratings: 2.3 for their teaching behaviors and 2.1 for the learning opportunities provided (Exhibit 9-10). On twelve of the seventeen items in this area, fewer than half of the providers consistently supported children’s learning, either through active involvement in teaching or by providing activities that communicate a variety of concepts or information. Providers received especially low ratings on to extent to which they provided learning opportunities. Less than half of the providers read even one book to children over a half-day or encouraged children to read or look at books on their own. Only one-quarter of providers consistently introduced any early math concepts, such as counting or measuring, into their everyday activities with children.
| Provider Ratings | Rarely/Never % | Sometimes % | Consistently/ Usually % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total: Strategies to support learning | Average rating = 2.3 out of 3 | ||
| Builds on “teachable moments” | 18.1 | 36.8 | 45.2 |
| Provides child activities at all times | 9.6 | 28.0 | 62.4 |
| Uses open-ended questions | 20.6 | 39.4 | 40.0 |
| Helps children learn specific skills | 14.1 | 38.9 | 47.0 |
| Teaches children to care for equipment | 5.9 | 34.2 | 59.9 |
| Introduces children to new activities | 23.9 | 33.7 | 42.4 |
| Total: Learning activities in the homes | Average rating = 2.1 out of 3 | ||
| Reads at least one book to children | 58.6 | NA | 41.5 |
| Encourages children to read books on own | 36.5 | 25.4 | 38.1 |
| Opportunities to learn shapes/sounds of letters/words | 30.4 | 30.2 | 39.4 |
| Encourages use of math in everyday contexts | 43.5 | 29.0 | 27.5 |
| Opportunities to explore natural environment | 30.9 | 29.1 | 40.0 |
| Open-ended, child-directed creative activities | 19.5 | 27.9 | 52.6 |
| Evidence of children’s art available | 41.1 | 17.4 | 41.6 |
| Opportunities for children to make music | 41.5 | 26.0 | 32.6 |
| Opportunities to dance or move creatively | 31.7 | 21.5 | 46.8 |
| No more than 1 hour of TV, computer, video | 37.6 | NA | 62.4 |
| Sample size (n=637 homes) | |||
| a Some items on the rating scale are coded as only “No” or “Yes,” with no code for “Sometimes.” Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Provider Rating System |
There were significant differences in providers’ support for learning across different types of homes or ages of children present. Higher ratings on the learning opportunities provided were received by providers who cared for at least some unrelated children (Exhibit 9-11).
| Provider Ratings | A | B | All Family Child Care Homes |
Significant Difference by Type of Home |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Related to Provider |
Some/No Children Related to Provider |
|||
| Mean | Mean | Mean | p-valuea | |
| Provider strategies to support learning | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.3 | ns |
| Learning activities provided | 2.0 | 2.2 | 2.1 | B>A*** |
| Sample size | 173 | 464 | 637 |
| a Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Provider Rating System |
Also, homes with school-age children were rated significantly lower than homes where all children were less than 5 years of age (Exhibit 9-12). These ratings suggest that providers found it more difficult to provide appropriate support for learning for older children.
| Provider Ratings | A | B | C | D | Significant Difference by Age |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Under 3 Years | All Children Under 5 Years | School-Age Only | School-age and Youngera | ||
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | p-valueb | |
| Provider strategies to support learning | 2.2 | 2.4 | 2.3 | 2.3 | ns |
| Learning activities provided | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 2.0 | B>D,B>C *** |
| Sample size | 42 | 256 | 53 | 286 |
| a Includes homes with school-age & preschool, school-age & infant/toddler, and school-age & preschool & infant/toddler b Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Provider Rating System |
Provider Style of Engaging Children
In addition to rating the provider on many specific items related to her behavior with children, two overall qualitative ratings summarized the provider’s behavior and emotional tone with children: the Provider Rating System (Part II) and the Arnett Global Caregiver Rating. These ratings are particularly important, since the provider’s emotional responsiveness to children has been shown to be related to the child’s learning and development in care.
Provider Rating System
On the Provider Rating System, nine characteristics of the provider were rated on a five-point scale, from “very much like” the provider to “not at all like” the provider. The measure focused on the provider’s level of energy with and interest in the children, as well as her warmth and positive management. On this scale, providers received high ratings on all nine qualities (Exhibit 9-13). The average overall score across all nine characteristics was 4.6 out of 5, which suggests that providers were seen very positively in terms of their energy, flexibility, interest in and enjoyment of children, and their overall treatment of children. There were no differences in provider ratings by type of home (Exhibit 9-14) or the age mix of children present in the home (Exhibit 9-15).
| Provider Ratings | Not Like Provider % | Somewhat Like Provider % |
Much Like Provider % |
Very Much Like Provider % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total: Overall style | Average = 4.6 out of 5a | |||
| Relaxed with children | 1.2 | 3.8 | 17.8 | 76.2 |
| Gentle with children | 1.7 | 3.9 | 26.7 | 67.7 |
| In control of children | 0.8 | 4.1 | 16.9 | 78.2 |
| Physically competent | 1.9 | 4.3 | 20.2 | 73.6 |
| Enjoyment of children | 1.4 | 6.2 | 17.5 | 74.9 |
| Attentive to children | 2.2 | 4.1 | 14.2 | 79.5 |
| Patient with children | 2.5 | 4.0 | 14.9 | 78.6 |
| Flexible with children | 3.1 | 5.5 | 22.6 | 68.8 |
| Interactive with children | 7.2 | 13.4 | 25.6 | 53.7 |
Sample size (n=637 homes) |
||||
| a For purposes of summary, scores of 1 and 2 on the 5-point scale were combined as “Not like provider.” Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Provider Rating System—Summary Rating of Provider |
| A | B | All Family Child Care Homes |
Significant Difference by Type of Home | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Related to Provider |
Some/No Children Related to Provider |
|||
| Mean | Mean | Mean | p-valuea | |
| Provider style of engaging children | 4.6 | 4.6 | 4.6 | ns |
| Sample size | 173 | 464 | 637 |
| a Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Provider Rating System |
| A | B | C | D | Significant Difference by Age | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Under 3 Years | All Children Under 5 Years | School-Age Only | School-age and Youngera | ||
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | p-valueb | |
| Provider style of engaging children | 4.7 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 4.6 | ns |
| Sample size | 42 | 256 | 53 | 286 |
| a Includes homes with school-age & preschool, school-age & infant/toddler, and school-age & preschool & infant/toddler b Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Provider Rating System |
The Arnett Global Caregiver Rating
The Arnett Global Caregiver Rating is a commonly-used measure of emotional responsiveness which produces scores for three aspects of the provider’s emotional responsiveness to children: warmth, detachment, and harshness. Each of these scores is the sum of seven or eight items, each scored from 1 (“Not at all like the provider”) to 4 (“Very much like the provider”).
The average score on the Arnett for provider warmth was 3.2 out of 4 (Exhibit 9-16), indicating that providers were, in general, warm and emotionally responsive to children. The average score for harshness was 1.1, meaning that providers did not typically act harshly with children. On the third construct, detachment, the average score was 2.3, suggesting that providers were not consistently engaged with children and sometimes appeared distant or uninterested in the children’s activities. These ratings compare favorably with ratings of teachers in center-based preschool programs.1
The average scores on the Arnett did not differ as a function of the type of home (Exhibit 9-16). Scores did differ based on the age mix of children in the home (Exhibit 9-17). Providers in homes with school-age children were rated significantly lower than providers in homes where all children were less than 5 years of age.
| Provider Ratings | A | B | All Family Child Care Homes |
Significant Difference by Type of Home |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Related to Provider |
Some/No Children Related to Provider |
|||
| Mean | Mean | Mean | p-valued | |
| Warmtha | 3.0 | 3.2 | 3.1 | ns |
| Harshnessb | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | ns |
| Detachmentc | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.3 | ns |
| Sample size | 173 | 464 | 637 |
| a Warmth: Average on 10 items, each rated on a 4-point scale: 1 = “Not at all like provider” to 4 =”Very much like provider.” b Harshness: Average of 7 items rated on a 4-point scale: 1 = “Not at all like provider” to 4 = “Very much like provider.” c Detachment: Average of 4 items rated on a 4-point scale: 1 = “Not at all like provider” to 4 = “Very much like provider.” d Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Arnett Global Caregiver Rating |
| Provider Ratings | A | B | C | D | Significant Difference by Age |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Under 3 Years | All Children Under 5 Years | School-Age Only | School-age and Youngerd | ||
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | p-valuee | |
| Warmtha | 3.2 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 3.1 | B>D,B>C ** |
| Harshnessb | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.1 | ns |
| Detachmentc | 2.4 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.3 | ns |
| Sample size | 42 | 256 | 53 | 286 |
| a Warmth: Average on 10 items, each rated on a 4-point scale: 1 = “Not at all like provider” to 4 =”Very much like provider.” b Harshness: Average of 7 items rated on a 4-point scale: 1 = “Not at all like provider” to 4 = “Very much like provider.” c Detachment: Average of 4 items rated on a 4-point scale: 1 = “Not at all like provider” to 4 = “Very much like provider.” d Includes homes with school-age & preschool, school-age & infant/toddler, and school-age & preschool & infant/toddler e Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Arnett Global Caregiver Rating |
Summary of Findings
-
Family child care providers were affectionate and responsive towards children, and used positive rather than negative techniques to guide children’s behavior. Children’s activities were closely supervised, especially in situations where there might be risk to the child.
-
Providers consistently encouraged children’s play, providing opportunities, suggestions and materials for play.
-
Providers were inconsistent in their support for children’s social and cognitive development, although providers with some or all unrelated children were rated more highly than those who cared for related children only.
-
Providers of all types were emotionally responsive and seemed to enjoy the children in their care.
1 Layzer, J.I., Goodson, B.D., Moss, M. (1993). Life in preschool. Volume I. Observational study of early childhood programs for disadvantaged four-year-olds. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc. (back)
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |