Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
CHAPTER III
Relationship Between Curricula and Family, Program, and Classroom Characteristics
There is a lack of substantial evidence about the relative efficacy of various types of standardized curricula available to preschool programs and their relationship to children’s school readiness. Accordingly, the Head Start Program Performance Standards require that programs have a curriculum, and delineate the areas that must be covered by it, but do not prescribe one. Programs may use curricula from a variety of sources, develop one of their own, or use a combination of curricula. In 2001-2002, the Head Start Program Information Report queried local programs about the curricula they use. In descending order of frequency, center-based programs were most likely to use the Creative Curriculum, High/Scope, a locally designed curriculum, and High Reach (beyond these a variety of other curricula were used). This chapter examines the following: the curricula Head Start programs in the FACES sample are using; the training and ongoing support teachers receive in the use of their curricula; teacher satisfaction with their curricula; and the relationships between the type of curricula used and child, family, program, and classroom characteristics. The relationship between curricula and Head Start classroom quality is discussed in Chapter IV. Chapter V discusses the relationships between curricula and children’s cognitive gains and social development in Head Start.
METHODS
The sample for this chapter includes 231 center-based Head Start teachers from 43 Head Start programs in the FACES 2000 study. Field staff conducted personal income data (N = 1,859) and child ethnicity data (N = 1,988) come from parent interviews conducted in fall 2000. These parent interview numbers are less than the total number of parents interviewed in fall 2000 (N =2,488) because of non-response or missing data on monthly family income or child ethnicity variables.
Weighted percentages, correlations, independent-sample t-tests, and multivariate analysis of variance were used to answer the research questions. Data presented in this chapter are weighted to represent the universe of Head Start programs.
FINDINGS
A. Head Start Teachers Report Using a Specific Curriculum, Receiving Training, and Having Access to Their Curriculum
Types of Curricula
Head Start teachers were asked if they used a single specific curriculum,
a combination of curricula, or no curriculum. About 70 percent of
the teachers used a single curriculum, 21 percent used a combination
of curricula, and 9 percent did not use a curriculum. Teachers who
reported using a single curriculum or a combination of curricula were
asked to name their principal curriculum. The majority (59.1 percent)
said that they used either Creative Curriculum or High/Scope (see
Figure 3.1). Almost 41 percent used a curriculum other than Creative
Curriculum or High/Scope, which will be referred to as Other curricula.
Other curricula mentioned by teachers were High Reach, Scholastic,
Los Cantos Los Ninos, R.E.A.L, Global Curriculum, Creating Child Centered
Classrooms - Step by Step, Building Bridges, Northern Kentucky Curriculum,
Teacher Planning Wellbook, Therapeutic Intervention Program, Kid College
Curriculum, Newport, and Montessori. Some said they used the “Head
Start” curriculum or “theme units” (although there
is no “official” Head Start curriculum).
Curricular Training and Support
Teachers were asked if they received training in their curriculum
and who provided this training (teachers could respond with only one
source). Ninety-three percent reported receiving training in their
curricula. Of those that received training, most had received it from
their own program staff (58.5 percent), followed by curricula developers
(14 percent), a Head Start Quality Improvement Center or HSQIC (10.3
percent), another Head Start program (5 percent), a University School
of Education (4.4 percent), or another source (7.9 percent).
[D] |
Almost 92 percent of the teachers received ongoing support in the use of their curriculum and this support could come from several sources. Of those who received support, it most often came from their supervisor or the education coordinator (70.3 percent), other teachers (23.9 percent), the HSQIC (20 percent), curriculum developers (19.3 percent), or a mentor/master teacher (14 percent). Support also came from other Head Start programs (10.8 percent), Schools of Education (6.6 percent), the disability services quality improvement center or DSQIC (4.1 percent), and other sources (8.6 percent).
Teacher Access to Curricula
Ninety-seven percent of the teachers responded that teachers and assistant
teachers in their program had access to a copy of their curriculum.
Teacher Satisfaction With Curricula
The majority of the teachers (92.3 percent) said that they liked their
curriculum. Figure 3.2 indicates that an overwhelming majority of
the teachers said they liked their curriculum because it addressed
multiple domains of learning (99.1 percent), was easy to use and adapt
(98.3 percent), involved parents (96.6 percent), had room for teacher
creativity (96.4 percent), and had adequate learning materials/resources/examples
of activities (92.1 percent).
B. Relationship Between Curricula and Family, Program, and Classroom Characteristics
Relationship Between Curricula
and Family Characteristics
In the context of the study’s conceptual framework described
in Chapter IV, the relationship between the use of particular curricula
and the characteristics of the families served by the programs were
examined. The mean monthly family income of families from classrooms
using the High/Scope curriculum was $1,641.18, from classrooms using
Creative Curriculum was $1,559.60, and from classrooms using Other
curricula was $1,319.43. This indicates that classrooms using Other
curricula served the poorest families compared to classrooms using
Creative Curriculum or High/Scope. The percentage of non-White children
served by teachers using Other curricula was 75.8 percent, for teachers
using High/Scope it was 69.6 percent and for teachers using Creative
Curriculum it was 48.8 percent. Thus, teachers using Other curricula
served the highest percentage of non-White children.
[D] |
[D] |
Relationship Between Curricula
and Program Characteristics
Figure 3.3 shows that more teachers from the Northeast (78.7 percent),
Midwest (59.4 percent), and West (69.4 percent) used Creative Curriculum
or High/Scope than Other curricula while the majority of teachers
from the South used Other Curricula (54.4 percent).
The majority of urban teachers (51.4 percent) used either Creative Curriculum or High/Scope while the majority of rural teachers (57.5 percent) used Creative Curriculum. As shown in Table 3.1, although urban and rural teachers were equally likely to use the High/Scope curriculum (20 percent), urban teachers were more likely than rural teachers to use Other curricula (48.6 percent versus 22.4 percent).
Relationship Between Curricula
and Classroom Quality
The relationship between curricula and classroom quality was examined
using three different scores of classroom quality—ECERS-R Total
score, ECERS-R Language score, and Quality Composite score.
| Creative Curriculum |
High/Scope | Other | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Urban | 31.4 | 20 | 48.6 |
| Rural | 57.5 | 20 | 22.4 |
The ECERS-R Total score is derived from the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R), which provides a global rating of classroom quality based on structural features of the classroom. Scores can range from 1 (inadequate) to 7 (excellent). As displayed in Figure 3.4, the average ECERS-R Total scores for classrooms using Creative Curriculum (5.02) and High/Scope (5.04) were significantly higher (p < .05) than those for classrooms using Other curricula (4.55). However, the average ECERS-R Total scores for High/Scope and Creative Curriculum were not significantly different from each other.
The ECERS-R Language score is a subscale of the ECERS-R and assesses classroom quality as it pertains to encouraging language-reasoning experiences (Figure 3.4). Scores can range from 1 (inadequate) to 7 (excellent). Classrooms of teachers who used Creative Curriculum (5.03) and High/Scope (5.12) had significantly higher average ECERS-R Language scores (p < .05) than classrooms of teachers using Other curricula (4.58). However, the average ECERS-R Language scores of classrooms that used Creative Curriculum (5.03) and High/Scope (5.12) were not significantly different from one another.
The Quality Composite score is derived from a principal components factor analysis of the ECERS-R Language score, Assessment Profile Scheduling raw score, and Assessment Profile Learning Environment raw score. The standardized factor scores were calculated, so that the scores are in standard deviation units, with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. As displayed in Figure 3.5, the classrooms of teachers who used Creative Curriculum (0.27) and High/Scope (0.26) had significantly higher Quality Composite scores (p < .05) than classrooms of teachers using Other curricula (-0.18). However, the Quality Composite scores of classrooms that used Creative Curriculum (0.27) and High/Scope (0.26) were not significantly different from one another.
[D] |
[D] |
| Type of Curricula Used | Weighted Percentage of Head Start Teachers | Average Total ECERS-R Score | SD | Average ECERS-R Language Score | SD | Quality Composite Score | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Creative Curriculum | 39.1 | 5.02 | .92 | 5.03 | 1.32 | 0.27 | .96 |
| High/Scope | 20.0 | 5.04 | .73 | 5.12 | 1.01 | 0.26 | .84 |
| Widely Available Curricula | 9.8 | 4.82 | .63 | 5.15 | .96 | 0.07 | .95 |
| All Other Curricula | 31.1 | 4.47 | .86 | 4.4 | 1.19 | -0.27 | .95 |
|
[D] |
Other Curricula and Classroom
Quality
In order to determine the relationship of curricula within the “Other”
category to classroom quality, “Other” curricula have
been further categorized as Widely Available Curricula and All Other
Curricula. Widely Available Curricula include High Reach, Scholastic
Curriculum, Newport Curriculum, and Montessori. These curricula appear
to be established (for example High Reach has been commercially available
for about 17 years, Scholastic for more than 82 years, and Montessori
for 96 years), have information about the curricular goals and practices,
printed materials, and in some cases have research available on their
efficacy. All Other curricula includes curricula not specified by
teachers, as well as curricula termed “Head Start”, Los
Cantos Los Ninos, Theme Units, R.E.A.L, Global Curriculum, Creating
Child Centered Classrooms - Step by Step, Building Bridges, Early
Childhood Lesson Plan, Curriculum Workbook, Northern Kentucky Curriculum,
Teacher Planning Wellbook,Therapeutic Intervention Program, and Kid
College Curriculum. This group of curricula appears to be designed
by programs locally or from sources not widely available.
The classroom quality scores for Widely Available curricula, All Other curricula, Creative Curriculum, and High/Scope are presented in Table 3.2. The average ECERS-R Total scores and average ECERS-R Language scores for Creative Curriculum, High/Scope, and Widely Available Curricula are similar, although the Quality Composite score for Widely Available Curricula is lower (see Figures 3.6 and 3.7).
[D] |
Multivariate analyses of variance were used to examine if the classroom quality scores were significantly different between classrooms using Creative Curriculum versus High/Scope, Creative Curriculum versus Widely Available curricula, Creative Curriculum versus All Other curricula, High/Scope versus Widely Available curricula, High/Scope versus All Other curricula, and Widely Available Curricula versus All Other curricula. Significant differences (p < .05) were found between classrooms using Creative Curriculum versus All Other on all three classroom quality scores; and between classrooms using High/Scope versus All Other on all three classroom quality scores. Classroom quality scores between classrooms using Widely Available Curricula versus All Other curricula were not significantly different.
-
Classrooms using the Creative Curriculum when compared to classrooms using All Other curricula had significantly higher average ECERS-R Total scores (5.02 versus 4.47), average ECERS-R Language scores (5.03 versus 4.4), and Quality Composite scores (0.27 versus - 0.27).
-
Classrooms using the High/Scope curriculum when compared to classrooms using All Other curricula had significantly higher average ECERS-R Total scores (5.04 versus 4.47), average ECERS-R Language scores (5.12 versus 4.4), and Quality Composite Scores (0.26 versus - 0.27).
-
Classrooms using Widely Available Curricula when compared to classrooms using All Other curricula were not significantly different. Classrooms using Widely Available Curricula were also not significantly different from those using Creative Curriculum, or those using High/Scope. Classrooms using Creative Curriculum were not significantly different from those using High/Scope.
Overall, these findings suggest that classrooms using curricula such as Creative Curriculum and High/Scope have relatively higher classroom quality than Head Start classrooms using other curricula.
IMPLICATIONS
-
The Head Start Performance Standards mandate that programs use a curriculum although curricula are not prescribed. Findings indicate that the great majority of the Head Start programs comply with this standard consistent with the goal of providing a planned, developmentally appropriate early childhood program for children.
-
There is a relationship between program characteristics (region, urban-rural, characteristics of children/families) and whether or not a program uses a curriculum and the type of curriculum used.
-
The relationship between curricula and classroom quality may reflect the influences of other factors (such as the resources available to programs for purchasing and training in specific curricula), or may demonstrate the effect of certain curricula on quality (see Chapter IV). Programs may want to consider whether using curricula related to higher levels of classroom quality would enhance their programs.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |