Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
CHAPTER 3 - CONTEXT OF PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION: DIVERSITY AMONG FAMILIES, SCHOOLS, AND COMMUNITIES
| In this chapter:
Impact of Diversity on Program Implementation |
As we describe in some detail in the chapters that follow, the Transition Demonstration Project was not a single program enacted in 31 separate locations. Rather, it was 31 separate programs, each designed to address the unique characteristics and needs of the community, schools, agencies, and families participating in the program while also meeting the broad program guidelines set forth by ACYF. As noted earlier, this feature which encouraged local adaptation and control was planned by ACYF. In addition, the selection criteria for the Transition Demonstration Program grantees indicated that no two programs would be awarded in a single state until all states with applicants had at least one grantee. This ensured that programs would be distributed across the United States. The resulting diversity among the grantees, and participating families, schools, school districts, and communities was substantial. This diversity is important to understand because it influenced both the plans for local programs as well as implementation at the local level.
DIVERSITY AMONG COMMUNITIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS
As described in some detail in previous reports (see Head Start Children’s Entry into Public School: An Interim Report on the National Head Start-Public School Early Childhood Transition Demonstration Study, 1996 ), the 31 participating communities were very different in terms of their economic, political, and historical climates and in the strength of previous collaborative relationships between Head Start and public schools. To add additional evidence of the diversity across sites, Table 3 summarizes populations characteristics for the 53 participating counties and their school districts (data available for 81 of the 85 school districts). It can be readily seen that the communities within which the Transition Demonstration Programs were implemented were quite different, compared to each other and compared to national averages.
| National |
Average
in Participating School Districts |
Demonstration Schools |
Comparison Schools |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean |
Min. |
Max. |
Mean |
Min. |
Max. |
|||
| Percent nonwhite
(minority) |
32.0 |
14.4 |
41.6 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
42.2 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
| Percent of households
in which a language other than English is spoken |
16.0 |
- |
13.0 |
0.0 |
59.1 |
11.5 |
0.9 |
49.9 |
| Percentage of
children who speak English “not well” or “not
at all” |
2.0 |
1.2 |
2.0 |
0.0 |
14.1 |
1.9 |
0.0 |
14.0 |
| Percentage of
households deemed “linguistically isolated” |
3.0 |
- |
2.6 |
0.0 |
19.7 |
2.2 |
0.0 |
13.0 |
| Percentage of
adults with less than high school diploma |
24.0 |
27.0 |
27.5 |
3.7 |
59.8 |
27.7 |
6.8 |
66.1 |
| Percentage of
adults with college degree |
19.0 |
19.1 |
19.0 |
2.4 |
70.5 |
16.9 |
0.0 |
66.1 |
| School enrollment
(number of students) |
- |
- |
468 |
112 |
965 |
460 |
94 |
1102 |
| Sources: School District Analysis Book, 1990 Census (National Center for Education Statistics); Common Core Data, 1991-92 (National Center for Education Statistics) |
Key observations include:
* Cultural and linguistic diversity. Taken together, the communities of the Transition Demonstration Project were more homogeneous and less ethnically and culturally diverse than the nation as a whole. They typically included lower percentages of minority or ESL children and had lower percentages of households in which a language other than English was spoken. There was, however, substantial variability among the participating communities. For example, the percentage of minority students in the 81 school districts ranged from nearly zero to nearly 100 percent, and the percentage of foreign language households ranged from less than one percent to more than 40 percent.
* Financial and economic circumstances. Economically, the Transition communities and school districts appear to be very similar to national averages. For example, the average percentage of children in poverty (20%) was not substantially different from the national percentage (22%). There was, however, substantial variation across sites. For example, the median income for households with children ranged from $15,603 (nearly half of the national median) to $89,649 (more than two and a half times the national figure).
* Educational attainment. While the average percentage of adults with less than a high school diploma appeared close to national averages, percentages across sites ranged from 5 percent to 55 percent.
There was also important variation among the participating school districts in their organizational and financial characteristics, as shown below in Table 4. Participating school districts ranged in size from some of the smallest (less than 200 students) to some of the largest (nearly a million students). Annual per-pupil school district expenditures ranged widely (from $2,900 to $8,500 per student) as did the percentage of district revenues from federal sources.
| School District (n=81) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean |
Minimum
|
Maximum |
|
| Enrollment |
27,040 |
197 |
890,612 |
| National size
ranking |
3,827 |
1 |
12,578 |
| Teacher-pupil
ratio |
16.8 |
11.2 |
21.2 |
| Per pupil expenditures
|
$4,587 |
$2,863 |
$8,507 |
| Percent of district
revenues from federal |
7.5 |
0.6 |
28.5 |
| Percent of district
revenues from local |
41.9 |
12.9 |
89.6 |
DIVERSITY AMONG SCHOOLS AND CLASSROOMS
The Transition Demonstration Project was implemented in a total of 453 schools (219 demonstration and 234 comparison schools) and more than 5600 classrooms over the six years of implementation. As might be expected, these schools and classrooms mirrored the diversity of their communities, their school districts, and their student populations in many ways (see Table 3 above). Overall, the profiles of the individual schools were similar to those of their counties and school districts in the areas of linguistic diversity, educational attainment, and enrollment. However, there is much variation across schools (as there was among school districts and counties) in the study. One notable difference between schools in the Transition Demonstration Project and their local school district as a whole was that they served much larger percentages of minority students. Specifically, the average percentage of minorities within the participating school districts was 14 percent, while the average percentage among participating schools was 42 percent (the actual values ranged from zero to 100%).
Schools also varied greatly in terms of the percentage
of students eligible for free or reduced price meal programs. Principals
reported that, on average, half of their student populations were
eligible for free or reduced-price meals. Percentages within individual
schools ranged from nearly zero to 100 percent1.
Similarly, the proportion of students eligible for Chapter 1 programs
was reported to be between zero and 100 percent, with the average
being 30 percent of students eligible and 23 percent of students
receiving services from Chapter 1 programs. These proportions are
not unexpected, since not all eligible schools participate in the
Chapter 1 program and some schools are designated as school-wide
programs, meaning, in effect, that all students are eligible for
and may receive services through the program.
The 5,629 classrooms participating in the Transition Demonstration
Project included those in both demonstration or comparison schools
participating in the program. Over the six years of implementation,
a total of 1573 kindergarten, 1583 first grade, 1072 second grade,
1121 third grade, and 280 other classrooms participated in the project.
The majority of “other” classrooms were multigrade classrooms,
although a few were self-contained special education classrooms.
Classrooms ranged in size from 4 to 5 students (in special education
self-contained classrooms) to 50 or more students (in team-teaching
classrooms with multiple teachers). The average class size was 20
students.
DIVERSITY AMONG FORMER HEAD START FAMILIES
Families are eligible for Head Start based solely
on income below the federal poverty line at the time of enrollment,
unless the child has a disability. (Note: the majority of Head Start
children with disabilities also come from families with poverty
level incomes.) Within poverty, however, there is wide variation
in family structure, life circumstances, and family strengths and
risks (cf. Huston, 1992; C. Ramey, Ramey, & Lanzi, 1998).
Family types. A series of special analyses was completed to
adequately represent the diversity among former Head Start families
as the children enter kindergarten. Fifteen family characteristics2
were chosen, representing a combination of risk conditions and life
challenges, as well as factors that previously have been associated
with non-optimal school outcomes for children. Cluster analytic
techniques that were applied to data from the kindergarten year
were used to determine whether distinctive groups of families
could be identified reliably (see Technical Report 2 for more information
on specific methodology). The results of the cluster analyses reveal
that, within this National Transition Demonstration Study, there
are remarkably clear major distinctions within the low-income families
that Head Start serves. A clear identification of seven major family
types emerged (see Table 5 below). A brief characterization of the
seven family types follows. (Note: all major ethnic/cultural groups
are represented in all types of families.) The family types can
be depicted as:
| Diversity Among Families Seven major types of families
Site variation in preponderance of family type |
“Resourceful families.” The largest group of the former Head Start families (42%) may be described as “resourceful” in terms of income, employment, caregiver education, and father involvement. These families have average incomes just above the poverty line (105% of poverty) one year after being in Head Start. About half of the primary caregivers (48%) are employed full-time and the majority (79%) have at least finished high school. In two-thirds of the families, the fathers live with the child or are reported to assume regular parenting responsibilities. These families also are not challenged by homelessness, frequent moves, or major parental illness.
“Single parent families receiving cash assistance.” This group represents nearly one-third (30%) of the participating families. Their distinguishing characteristics are that most receive some form of cash assistance: either AFDC (85%) and/or SSI (27%). In addition, the majority (64%) are single parents (primarily single mothers) heading the household. Typically, fathers are not present or active in their children’s lives (68%). Only a small percent are employed full-time (12%).
“Foreign language families.” These families speak a language other than English as their primary language at home. Most parents (91%) were born outside the United States. More than three fourths (77%) of the families have a father active in the child’s life and two parents at home. Self-report of parent education was lowest in this group (42% finished high school), although differences in education across countries make accurate assessment difficult. These families represent about a tenth (11%) of the participants in the National Transition Demonstration Study. These families are similar to the Resourceful families in parent age, family size, residential stability, and parental health.
“Highly mobile families.” This family type is distinguished by families having changed residences at least twice in the past year. Their average income is quite low, with mean incomes at 77 percent of the poverty level. About half (49%) receive AFDC, and 14 percent receive SSI.
| VARIABLES USED IN CLUSTER ANALYSIS |
Total Sample | FAMILY TYPE | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resourceful | Single Parent Welfare | Foreign Language | Highly Mobile | Absent Mother | Chronic Health Problem | Recently Homeless | ||
| Receives AFDC | 38% | 4% | 85% | 21% | 49% | 40% | 50% | 59% |
| Receives SSI | 12% | 0.9% | 27% | 5% | 14% | 21% | 27% | 13% |
| Primary Caregiver Employed Full-time | 32% | 48% | 12% | 37% | 31% | 40% | 15% | 19% |
| Percent of Poverty (Family Income) | M=79.4 | M=105.1 | M=49.7 | M=76.6 | M=70.5 | M=93.1 | M=67.7 | M=50.5 |
| Primary Caregiver Finished High School | 67% | 79% | 64% | 42% | 68% | 63% | 63% | 59% |
| Primary Caregiver Age (When Child Entered) | M=31.2 | M=31.05 | M=29.3 | M=32.0 | M=28.1 | M=43.1 | M=34.3 | M=29.8 |
| Primary Caregiver with Depressive Signs | 43% | 37% | 48% | 40% | 53% | 36% | 62% | 67% |
| Primary Caregiver has a Chronic Health Problem | 4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 5% |
| Father Active in Child's Life | 52% | 64% | 32% | 77% | 43% | 38% | 51% | 41% |
| Mother Absent from Child's Life | 5% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 8% | 4% |
| Number of Children in Family | M=2.9 | M=2.6 | M=3.0 | M=2.9 | M=2.8 | M=3.0 | M=2.7 | M=3.1 |
| Parent(s) Born Outside the United States | 17% | 6% | 0.9% | 91% | 11% | 6% | 14% | 12% |
| Language other than English Spoken in Home | 14% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 8% | 4% | 9% | 9% |
| Family Moved 2 or More Times in Last Year | 8% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 6% | 6% | 43% |
| Homeless in Past 12 Months | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
Over half (53%) of the primary caregivers screened
positive for depression. Less than half (40%) of the families have
fathers who are active in the child’s life.
“Recently homeless families.” This family type represents only three percent of the study sample. All of these families were homeless at least some time in the past 12 months. This family type represents the lowest income family type with the mean percent of poverty at 50 percent. AFDC is received by 59 percent of these families, and 13 percent receive SSI. Only 19 percent of the families are employed full-time. Nine percent of the families do not speak English as their first language at home.
“Mother absent families.” This family type represents five percent of the study families. The distinguishing features of this family type are that the mother is absent from the child’s life in all of these families and the primary caregiver is older -- by an average of 9 to 15 years -- than the primary caregivers in other families. Interestingly, 45 percent of the caregivers in this group were grandmothers, 22 percent fathers, 11 percent foster parents, 9 percent stepparents, and 9 percent “other relative.” Thirty-eight percent of the fathers were reported to be active in the child’s life. None of the caregivers reported a chronic health problem or being homeless in the past year.
“Chronic health problem families.” This family type represents only three percent of the study sample. In all of these families, the primary caregiver has a chronic major health problem sufficient to interfere with regular parenting responsibilities. Only 15 percent of these families were employed full-time. On average, these families were at 67 percent poverty, with 50 percent receiving AFDC and 27 percent receiving SSI. Two-thirds of the primary caregivers screened positive for depression. This family type represents the second oldest group, with the average caregiver age of 34 years.
Family strengths and challenges. Taking a somewhat different look at the diversity among former Head Start families, we investigated the challenges and strengths reported by participating families. Two indices were created, one reflecting the self-reported strengths of families and the second capturing circumstances that are likely to pose a risk to families. The Family Strengths Index was created based on six characteristics judged to be positive for child outcomes, including: primary caregiver has college degree or higher; both mother and father are active as parents (defined as either living in the home or being active in helping with regular parenting duties); income is greater than or equal to 150% of poverty; family perceives living in the neighborhood as positive for children’s futures (e.g., graduating from high school, attending college); a family member reads daily to the child; and family routines are positive and well organized. These variables (each scored as present or not present) were summed to create a Family Strength Index, with a possible range of 0 to 6.
|
|
Similarly, a Family Challenge Index was created, based on 12 characteristics. These characteristics included: primary caregiver has less than a high school diploma or GED; primary caregiver has a chronic health problem; primary caregiver screened positive for depression; primary caregiver was less than 24 years old when the child entered kindergarten (i.e., teen parent); family income was less than 50% of poverty; family receives AFDC; family is homeless or in a shelter; family has moved two or more times in the past year; four or more children live in the home; the family rates the probability for success in the neighborhood as low to very low; the child is read to only 1 to 2 times a week or almost never; and the family’s positive routines are highly disorganized. These variables were scored as present or absent and then summed to create a Family Challenges Index, with a possible range of 0 to 12.
The distribution of family strengths and challenges reported by families is depicted in Figures 3.1 and 3.2. The majority of families had either one (39%) or two (22%) strengths. Only about 12 percent of the families reported having three or more strengths. Interestingly, more than a quarter of the families did not report any strengths. There were approximately equal numbers of families who reported one challenge (19%), two challenges (22%), and three challenges (18%). Somewhat fewer, but still a fair number of families, reported four challenges (14%) or five or more challenges (14%). Interestingly, more than one out of ten former Head Start families (13%) reported that they did not have any of these challenges3.
Looking across the sites, all of our identified family types -- except the Foreign Language families -- were evident in each of the 31 sites. There was marked variation, however, in the distribution of family types in these sites. Figure 4 (next page) illustrates five different sites and the proportion of seven family types they served. There were also some interesting patterns in the relationships between family type and the number of strengths and challenges reported by families. As shown in Table 6 below, Resourceful and Foreign Language families tended to report many more strengths and fewer challenges, while the Single Parent Welfare and the Recently Homeless Families reported the opposite -- experiencing many challenges with few strengths. An unanticipated finding was that the Mother Absent families reported the fewest strengths and also the fewest challenges, whereas Chronically Ill families reported a high number of challenges but also had many strengths.
| Strengths | Challenges | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Few (0 to 1) |
Many (3 or more) |
Few (0 to 1) |
Many (5 or more) |
||||
| Mother Absent | (79%) | Resourceful | (22%) | Resourceful | (54%) | Recently Homeless | (58%) |
| Single Parent Welfare | (77%) | Foreign Language | (19%) | Foreign Language | (31%) | Chronically Ill | (35%) |
| Recent Homeless | (75%) | Chronically Ill | (12%) | Absent Mother | (32%) | Highly Mobile | (28%) |
| Single Parent Welfare | (21%) | ||||||
IMPACT OF DIVERSITY ON PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
It was predicted that the differences seen among
communities, schools, and families would create substantial differences
in the programs designed and implemented in the 31 sites. In fact,
as discussed in more detail in the chapters that follow, there was
substantial variation in program design and implementation (see
Chapter 4). It appears that an important amount of this diversity
in implementation can be attributed to differences in the communities,
school districts, schools, and families participating in the local
Transition Demonstration programs ( see Chapter 6).
|
|
|
|
|
SUMMARY FINDINGS
Although the National Transition Study is not exactly representative of either the national elementary school population or Head Start families, tremendous diversity in all characteristics of the schools, school districts, and families existed. Further, an important finding confirmed tremendous variation in former Head Start families in terms of their most salient demographic characteristics. Distinctive types of Head Start families differed in their relative family strengths and their challenges and risks. Documentation of this tremendous diversity in families served by Head Start has helped to guide subsequent data analyses about the impact of transition supports on children’s academic and social development as well as parent involvement in their children’s education.
1Of the nine schools which reported no students eligible for meal programs, six were located in a single site. Where the Transition Demonstration Project was implemented in locations across the state, locations were chosen for their diversity rather than their poverty status. The one school that reported 100 percent eligibility for meal programs was located in a school district that established an entirely new Transition Demonstration Project school, serving only former Head Start children. (back)
2The fifteen variables included: family receiving AFDC; family receiving SSI; primary caregiver employed full-time; percent of poverty; caregiver has high school diploma or GED; caregiver age when child entered school; caregiver has positive depression screen; caregiver has chronic health condition that interferes with parenting duties; father active in child’s life; mother absent from child’s life; number of children in home; primary caregiver born outside United States; family speaks language other than English in the home as primary language; family moved two or more times in year prior to kindergarten entry; family was homeless at some time in year prior to kindergarten. (back)
3It is important to note that there are some important aspects of family life that are known to affect children about which we did not have information. Factors such as the presence of a special mentor or special person who is actively engaged in a child’s life, substance abuse, domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, parental intellectual disability, and incarceration, among others, were not always known. (back)
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |