Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
CHAPTER IV
Understanding Quality in Head Start Classrooms
Reports on the first cohort of FACES have demonstrated that Head Start is providing children with high-quality educational services as measured by standard observational instruments. In this chapter, we present results of quality analysis from the second FACES cohort (FACES 2000), consisting of a new national sample of 43 Head Start programs and classrooms, collected during the fall of 2000 and the spring of 2001. This chapter describes the nature of quality in Head Start programs and the factors that help explain variations in quality across Head Start classrooms. Findings about the relationship between classroom quality and child outcomes are described in Chapter V.
A. What Quality Means and How We Appraise It
A variety of indices were used to measure quality in FACES because of the different elements of quality cited in the research literature (Phillips, Mekos, Scarr, McCartney, & Abbott-Shim, 2000). In addition to “structural” indices, such as staff-child ratio (Cost, Quality and Outcome Studies Team, 1995; Howes, Phillips, & Whitebook, 1992) and group size (Ruopp, Travers, Glantz, & Coelen, 1979), the backgrounds and experiences of early childhood teachers are important (Cost, Quality and Outcome Studies Team, 1995).Additionally, a variety of “process” aspects of the classroom environment, including teacher-child interactions, child-child interactions, as well as curriculum, the schedule of activities, and materials have been considered important (Bredekamp, 1986; Hayes, Palmer, & Zaslow, 1990; Phillips & Howes, 1987; Scarr & Eisenberg, 1993). Recent research has also shown that factors “beyond the classroom door,” which are features of the centers in which classrooms are located, may have potentially powerful influences on children’s experiences of quality care in early childhood classrooms (Blau, 1997; Hofferth & Chaplin, 1998 cited in Phillips, Mekos, Scarr, McCartney, & Abbott-Shim, 2000).
In FACES, quality was considered to include not only the number of children and adults in each classroom, but process factors such as the availability of learning materials, the types of classroom activities, the scheduling, and the variety of learning opportunities provided to all children. We also interviewed lead teachers11 in Head Start classrooms to collect teacher background information (experience and qualifications) as well as more detailed information about their curriculum, classroom activities, and attitudes and knowledge about early childhood education practices.
The classroom quality measures used in FACES 2000 provide direct evidence for the extent to which Head Start programs employ qualified teachers and provide rich learning environments and curricula for the children. In FACES 2000, we used the same measures as those employed in the earlier cohort, in order to make some comparisons in quality, and we added several key measures. The classroom quality measures are fully described in the Appendix, and will only be briefly mentioned here.
The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS-R). This revised version (Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998) consists of 37 scales measuring a wide variety of quality related processes occurring in the classroom, including: routines; teacher-child interaction, particularly in the use of language; learning activities; classroom tone, creative, dramatic, and gross and fine motor activities; equipment and furnishings; and staff and parent facilities. A high score on the total ECERS-R indicates higher classroom quality, in terms of equipment, space, and play materials, as well as the range of activities and staff-child interactions.
The ECERS-R Language Subscale.This measure consists of four items from the ECERS-R that assess the quality of the language environment in Head Start classrooms. A high score indicates a classroom with a rich language environment, in terms of the availability and use of books and printed materials, receptive and expressive language activities, language to engage logical and reasoning skills, and the informal use of language throughout the classroom day.
The Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs: Research Edition Scheduling Scale. This scale from the Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs (Abbott-Shim & Sibley, 1998) assesses the written plans for classroom scheduling and how classroom activities are implemented. A high score indicates that the teacher takes a planful approach to the classroom schedule and has been intentional regarding a variety of socialization and learning experiences for children throughout the day.
The Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs: Research Edition Learning Environment Scale. This scale from the Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs (Abbott-Shim & Sibley, 1998) measures the variety of learning materials available and accessible in the classroom that provide learning experiences in different developmental areas. It also assesses the degree to which the classroom provides for a “language-rich” environment through language learning materials as well as the labeling of objects, and the amount of printed material in the classroom. A high score on this scale is indicative of a greater variety of materials accessible, that stimulate growth in all developmental domains.
The Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs: Research Edition Individualizing Scale. This is based on a scale from the Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs (Abbott-Shim & Sibley, 1998). For FACES 2000 it has been revised and shortened to five observational items measuring how the teacher plans the classroom activities to meet the varying learning needs of each child, how the teacher keeps track of the children’s work during the year through the use of individual child portfolios, and how the teacher is able to accommodate children with disabilities.A high score indicates that teachers are able to adjust classroom activities to meet the learning needs of individual children.
The Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale (Arnett, 1989). This rating scale consists of 26 items that measure the teacher’s sensitivity, punitiveness, detachment, permissiveness, and encouragement of child independence and self-help skills. A high score indicates greater teacher sensitivity, responsiveness and encouragement of children’s independence and self-help skills, and lower levels of punitiveness and detachment.
Teacher Interview. The teacher from each classroom was asked specific questions about the nature of the curriculum used, attitudes and knowledge about early childhood education practice, how they monitor the progress of individual children, and what accommodations the teacher makes to meet the learning needs of each student, including those with special needs. The interview also collected extensive information about the teachers’ backgrounds (e.g., age, ethnicity), experience (e.g., total years teaching, years teaching Head Start), and qualifications (e.g., whether the teacher has a BA or AA, whether the teacher had some graduate school education, whether the teacher has a Child Development Associate, the course of study, and licensure). Ethnicity was included in these analyses because it may be linked to differences in teacher qualifications and experience and because the types of teachers in the classrooms may be influenced by the backgrounds of the families and children attending the Head Start program as well as the larger community served by the program.12
Teacher Attitudes and Knowledge. The 24-item Teacher Beliefs Scale (Burts, Hart, Charlesworth, & Kirk, 1990) was included in the teacher interview, and consists of statements worded to reflect positive attitudes and knowledge of generally accepted practices in preschool settings, or to reflect a lack of these attitudes and knowledge. In FACES 2000 we used one factor comprising 9 items that explained most of the variation in scores for the entire scale. A high score indicates higher positive attitudes and knowledge about early childhood education practices.
Quality Composite Score. We found that several of the key quality indicators were highly correlated with each other, suggesting that for analytical purposes we can explain a greater amount of variation in quality by reducing the three indicators in question to one measure. Scores from the ECERS-R Language Scale score and the Assessment Profile Scheduling and Learning Environment were combined to form this single score for quality. A higher score indicates higher levels of quality.
Child:Adult Ratio. Classroom observers counted the number of children, the number of adults, and the number of paid staff at two time periods during the classroom day. The two occasions were separated by at least one hour and involved one structured (teacher-directed) and one unstructured activity. A higher child-adult ratio is indicative of lower quality.
During the fall 2000 data collection period, which operated from September 2000 to December 2000, we collected classroom quality and teacher data from 225 Head Start centers in 43 programs around the country. We observed 278 classrooms out of 286 possible for a completion rate of 97 percent.13 Percent agreement between two independent observers in a sample of classrooms averaged 93.5 percent for the Assessment Profile Scheduling Scale, 87.9 percent for the Assessment Profile Learning Environment Scale, and 86.7 percent for the Assessment Profile Individualizing Scale. Percent agreement across all ECERS scales (which includes direct hits and being off by one on a seven-point scale) averaged 79.5 percent, agreement on the ECERS-R Language subscale averaged 85.7 percent, and agreement on the Caregiver Interaction Scale averaged 93.9 percent.
FINDINGS
B. The Quality of Most Head Start Classrooms Continues To Be Good
In the first FACES cohort, fall 1997 to spring 1998, we reported that the quality of Head Start classrooms was good and above that usually found among center-based preschools. In FACES 2000, using a new sample of 43 programs, we continue to find that quality is good and above that found among other center-based preschools. Figure 4.1 compares the two FACES cohorts with other studies using the overall ECERS score as the measure of quality. Not only is the average score higher, but the variation is less than that found in many other preschool settings.14
The Early Childhood Environment
Rating Scale (ECERS)
In the new cohort of 43 programs, the overall average ECERS-R score
for the 258 classrooms observed in fall 2000 was 4.84 (with a standard
deviation of .87). This compares with an overall average ECERS score
for the 518 classrooms in the first FACES cohort (fall 1997) of 4.93
(with a standard deviation of 0.63). While the FACES 2000 average
score is comparable to that found earlier, the variability in the
scores was higher, and approached that reported by the test developers
for the revised measure. Overall, the average scores are consistent
and indicate that Head Start classrooms continue to show good quality.
Figure 4.2 compares the FACES 1997 and FACES 2000 cohorts on the ECERS total score, with 1 indicating “inadequate” quality and 7 indicating “excellent” quality. In FACES 1997, no classrooms were scored in the “inadequate” range (1 or 2) and only 4 of 518 classrooms were scored in the “minimal” range (score of 3). In FACES 2000, using the revised version of the ECERS which more strictly differentiated the highest and lowest ends of the scale, 5 of 258 classrooms (1.9 percent) were scored in the “inadequate” range and 15 of 258 classrooms (5.7 percent) scored in the “minimal” range. Thus, compared to the earlier cohort, in FACES 2000 a small number of classrooms were rated lower in quality, but low-scoring classrooms still represented only 20 of 258 classrooms overall (7.6 percent). On the other hand, the number of classrooms rated “excellent” (ECERS scores of 6 or higher) increased from FACES 1997 to FACES 2000.
[D] |
[D] |
In FACES 1997, there were 97 out of 518 (18.7%) classrooms rated “excellent” while in FACES 2000, 21.6 percent of classrooms (56 out of 258) were rated “excellent” (scores of 6 or higher).
Assessment Profile Scheduling,
Learning Environment, and Individualizing Scales
On the Scheduling scale, the raw scores were virtually identical from
FACES 1997 to FACES 2000 (average raw scores of 11.17 in 1997 and
11.12 in 2000). On the Learning Environment scale, there was a slight
but non-statistically significant increase in raw scores over the
two cohorts, from 13.46 in 1997 to 14.44 in 2000. Finally, on the
Individualizing Scale, a new measure in FACES 2000, the average raw
score was 3.58 (out of a maximum raw score of 5), with a standard
deviation of 1.2, indicating that overall Head Start classrooms provide
an environment that takes into account the learning needs of individual
students, but there is room for improvement. In particular, on the
Individualizing Scale, 60 percent of classrooms maintained portfolios
on individual children but only 37 percent of classrooms provided
opportunities for children to evaluate their work, or to decide which
products are included in their portfolios. However, with regard to
the inclusion of children with disabilities, and making accommodations
to allow these children to be included in classroom activities, 94
percent of classrooms were rated as having full inclusion and 90 percent
of classrooms had provisions for accommodating children with special
needs.
Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale
On this scale, measuring the sensitivity and responsiveness of teachers
in Head Start classrooms, the average score in FACES 2000 was 71.5,
almost identical to the score of 71.3 in FACES 1997.
The fact that the scores for three measures of classroom quality, the ECERS, the Assessment Profile measures, and the Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale, were consistent across both cohorts adds support to the conclusion that, in general, quality in Head Start classrooms was consistent over the two cohorts of classrooms, from 1997 to 2000.
Child:Adult Ratio
The average child:adult ratio for the FACES Head Start classrooms
in Fall 2000 was 5.4 children per adult, compared with 6.3 children
per adult at the fall 1997 observation and 6.2 children per adult
during the spring 1998 observation.15 Looking
only at paid staff, fall 2000 classrooms averaged 6.5 children per
paid staff. When we include other adults assisting paid staff in classroom
activities, the child:adult ratio averaged 5.4, which is somewhat
lower than that found in fall 1997. The difference in these ratios
suggests the important influence of volunteers on improving child:adult
ratios in Head Start classrooms (lower ratios indicate higher quality).
These ratios are far better than the NAEYC accreditation standard
of eight or fewer 3-year-olds or 10 or fewer 4-year-olds for each
adult and exceed the Head Start Program Performance Standards of 7.5
to 8.5 or fewer 3-year-olds or 10 or fewer 4-year-olds per adult.
Teacher Backgrounds, Qualifications,
and Experience
In fall 2000, we continue to find that Head Start teachers overall
are experienced and qualified (see Table 4.1). Teachers in Head Start
classrooms have been teaching in Head Start for 7.9 years and they
have been teaching for an average of 11.8 years in all educational
settings. These data are almost identical to those reported for the
earlier cohort, fall 1997. Teachers spent most of their teaching careers
in Head Start classrooms but there was a wide range of teaching experience.
Approximately 21 percent of the Head Start teachers were relatively
new, having been teaching in Head Start for less than two years, and
28 percent had taught in Head Start for 10 years or more.
Compared to the fall 1997 cohort, there were several statistically significant differences.16 More new teachers (21 percent) taught in fall 2000, compared with fall 1997 when only 14 percent had taught Head Start for less than 2 years. Also, the percentage of teachers who taught from five to nine years declined from 34 percent in fall 1997 to 28 percent in fall 2000. Approximately the same number of teachers in both cohorts had been teaching in Head Start for ten years or more (28 percent in fall 2000 and 29 percent in fall 1997).
Most Head Start teachers have good teaching qualifications, but lower than those of teachers in public elementary schools. In a survey of pre-kindergarten classrooms in the U. S. public schools in 2000-2001, 86 percent of pre-kindergarten teachers had a bachelor’s or higher degree (Smith, Kleiner, Parsad, & Farris, 2002). In the FACES fall 2000 cohort, 27.8 percent had a bachelor’s degree, 18.6 percent had an associate’s degree, and another 32.2 percent had some college but no degree. Overall, 46.4 percent of teachers had either a bachelor’s or an associate’s degree with 38.7 percent having a bachelor’s degree or higher and 57 percent having an associate’s degree or higher. Seventy-four percent of all teachers reported having the Child Development Associate (CDA) credential or a state-awarded preschool certificate, with 58 percent having the Child Development Associate only.
The proportion of teachers with a bachelor’s degree or higher increased significantly from 28.1 percent in fall 1997 to 38.7 percent in fall 2000, primarily due to an increase in the proportion of teachers with graduate level degrees, defined as a master’s degree, its equivalent, or higher. In fall 2000, 10.9 percent of teachers reported having these advanced degrees compared with only 3.2 percent in fall 1997, and in fall 2000 16 percent of teachers reported having received some graduate level training.17 This increase was significantly correlated with the increase in the proportion of new teachers in Head Start, from 14 percent to 21 percent over the same time period. In fall 2000, 32.9 percent of teachers with graduate level education or higher were new teachers, compared with only 13.3 percent in fall 1997.18 These results suggest that there is an increased number of new teachers with advanced degrees entering Head Start.
In addition to an increase in teachers with advanced degrees, more teachers are reporting having studied Early Childhood Education or Child Development in their studies for their highest degree, whether for an associate’s or bachelor’s degree or higher. In fall 2000, 78 percent indicated that their field of study included Early Childhood Education or Child Development, compared with approximately 62 percent in fall 1997. However, the proportion of teachers having a Child Development Associate or state preschool certificate has stayed approximately the same (74 percent in fall 2000 compared with 76 percent in fall 1997).
There was also an increase in the membership of teachers in a national professional association for early childhood educators (e.g., NAEYC, NHSA, and NEA), from 53 percent in fall 1997 to 62 percent in fall 2000.
| Fall
1997 (N=437) |
Fall
2000 (N=257) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Years Teaching Head Start | 1-2 YRS | 14.20% | 21.10% |
| 3-4 YRS | 22.70% | 23.50% | |
| 5-9 YRS | 34.10% | 27.60% | |
| 10+ YRS | 29.00% | 27.80% | |
| Total | 100% | 100% | |
| Highest Level of Education Achieved | High School or Equivalent | 10.80% | 10.40% |
| Some College | 31.40% | 32.20% | |
| Associates Diploma | 29.70% | 18.60% | |
| Bachelor's Degree or Equivalent | 24.90% | 27.80% | |
| Graduate or Professional Degree | 3.20% | 10.90% | |
| Total | 100% | 100% | |
| Teacher Age Category | 18-29 | 14.70% | 14.90% |
| 30-39 | 33.30% | 33.40% | |
| 40-49 | 31.80% | 28.30% | |
| 50-59 | 15.90% | 16.30% | |
| 60 or Older | 4.30% | 7.10% | |
| Total | 100% | 100% | |
| Membership in Early Childhood Education Association | No | 47.10% | 38.00% |
| Yes | 52.90% | 62.00% | |
| Total | 100% | 100% | |
| CDA Certificate/Credential | No | 23.90% | 26.00% |
| Yes | 76.10% | 74.00% | |
| Total | 100% | 100% | |
| Teacher Ethnicity | Caucasian, non-Hispanic | 41.10% | 48.10% |
| African-American, non-Hispanic | 34.20% | 33.70% | |
| Hispanic* | 22.40% | 15.40% | |
| Asian | 2.30% | 1.20% | |
| Multiple Race/Other | na | 1.70% | |
| Total | 100% | 52% | |
| * Puerto Rico was represented in FACES 1997, but not in the FACES 2000 sample, explaining the lower percentage of Hispanic teachers. (back) |
Head Start teachers were, on average, 41.4 years old with a range from 23 to 73 years of age (standard deviation of 11.1 years). One third of teachers belonged to the 30 to 39 year age group and another 28 percent were between the ages of 40 and 49 years. There were no differences in the proportions of teachers in each of the ten-year age groupings between the earlier cohort (fall 1997) and this cohort (fall 2000), with the exception that this cohort reflects an aging of teachers at the upper end of the distribution. Whereas only 4 percent of teachers were 60 years of age or older in fall 1997, in this newest cohort (fall 2000), 7 percent of teachers were 60 years of age or older.
In terms of racial and ethnic background, 33.7 percent of the teachers were African American, 15 percent were Hispanic, 1 percent were Asian, and 48 percent were Caucasian. Compared with the fall 1997 data, teachers in fall 2000 were slightly less likely to be Black (the percentage of African American teachers declined to 33.7 percent from 34.2 percent in Fall 1997). Although it may appear that there was a strong decline in the percentage of Hispanic teachers, this decline is due entirely to the fact that Puerto Rico was included in the fall 1997 but excluded from the fall 2000 cohort. In FACES 2000, there was an increase in the proportion of teachers who were Caucasian, from 41 percent in fall 1997 to 48 percent in fall 2000.
In general, the data reveal that Head Start teachers are experienced and qualified to teach early childhood education. Compared with the first FACES cohort, Head Start teachers in FACES 2000 are more qualified than were teachers in 1997. They are more likely to be Caucasian, younger, new to teaching Head Start and entering with higher educational levels including graduate degrees. They are also more likely to be trained in early childhood education and to be members of a professional organization.
Teacher Attitudes and Knowledge
In fall 2000, on average, Head Start teachers showed generally positive
attitudes and knowledge about instructional practice in early childhood
education, with a mean score for all teachers of 7.9 out of a maximum
score of 10. For example, they tended to agree with statements indicating
positive attitudes and knowledge about early childhood education practices
such as: “Head Start classroom activities should be responsive
to individual differences in development” and “Children
should be allowed to select many of their own activities from a variety
of learning areas that the teacher has prepared (writing, science
center, etc.).” Head Start teachers tended to disagree with
statements indicating negative attitudes and a lack of knowledge about
early childhood education practices such as: “Each curriculum
area should be taught as a separate subject at separate times”
and “Students should work silently and alone on seatwork.”
C. Teacher Qualifications and Experience Are Related to Classroom Quality
When correlating teacher backgrounds, qualifications, and experience with quality, we found that teachers with more experience and higher levels of education tended to be in classrooms rated higher in classroom quality. Specifically, we found that:
-
teachers with higher levels of education tend to be in classrooms rated higher on a number of quality indicators, including the ECERS-R Language subscale, the Caregiver Interaction Scale, and the ECERS-R total score;
-
teachers with a BA or AA degree were in classrooms with lower child:adult ratios (indicating higher quality) but teachers with a Child Development Associate tended to be in classrooms with higher ratios, indicative of lower quality;
-
teachers who had more years teaching overall (not just in Head Start) were rated higher in their sensitivity and responsiveness, as measured by the Caregiver Interaction Scale and had higher overall ECERS-R scores;
-
teachers with more years teaching preschool or Head Start were in classrooms rated higher on the Quality Composite score;
-
teachers who were members of an early childhood education professional association were rated higher in their sensitivity and responsiveness, as measured by the Caregiver Interaction Scale, and were in classrooms rated higher in ECERS-R Language, the Assessment Profile Individualizing Scale, with higher Quality Composite scores;
-
teachers with a Child Development Associate certificate or a state-sponsored equivalent (versus no certificate) were in classrooms rated higher on the Assessment Profile Individualizing scale;
-
teachers with at least some graduate school education (versus no graduate school education) were also in classrooms rated higher in quality as measured by the ECERS-R total score; and
-
teachers who had a teaching certificate (versus no certificate) were in classrooms rated higher on the overall ECERS-R and the ECERS Language scale, with lower child:adult ratios (indicating higher quality).
However, years of experience teaching Head Start (rather than overall years of teaching at any level) and the teachers’ total annual salaries were not significantly correlated with any of the quality indicators.
These results indicate that teacher backgrounds and qualifications are related to higher levels of quality in Head Start classrooms. However, the above results are based only on simple correlations, and do not take into account the complex interplay between the various teacher-related factors. To understand these links between factors, we must also consider how teacher backgrounds and experience are related to their attitudes and knowledge about early childhood education practice.
D. Teacher Backgrounds and Experience Are Related to Their Attitudes and Knowledge
Teachers who had higher levels of knowledge about early childhood education practices tended to be more experienced and better educated. Specifically, teachers with higher scores for attitudes and knowledge were more likely to:
-
have higher levels of educational attainment,
-
have some graduate school education or higher,
-
have more total years teaching,
-
belong to an early childhood education association,
-
teach in another language (not including Spanish or English),19 and
-
be Caucasian, Hispanic, or Asian.
Teachers’ attitudes and knowledge were not significantly correlated with: teacher salary, years teaching Head Start, having a teaching certificate, having a Child Development Associate certificate, or having a course of study in early childhood education.
This relationship between teacher education and attitudes and knowledge about early childhood education practices is supported by findings from other studies. Abbott-Shim, Lambert, and McCarty (2000) reported that teachers with higher levels of education also showed more positive attitudes and knowledge about early childhood education practices.
Our results suggest that teachers who are better trained, with higher levels of educational attainment especially at the graduate school level, with more years of teaching experience overall, and who enroll in a related professional association are more likely to have knowledge and positive attitudes about early childhood education practices. These attitudes and knowledge should be expected to influence classroom quality, particularly since teacher credentials were related to classroom quality. In the next step toward building a model explaining the connection between teacher backgrounds, qualifications, and experience and classroom quality, we test the relationship between teacher attitudes and knowledge and classroom quality.
E. Teacher Attitudes and Knowledge Are Related to Classroom Quality in Head Start
Teachers with more positive attitudes and knowledge about early childhood education practices tend to be in classrooms rated higher in quality.This relationship was found for a wide variety of quality indicators, including the Assessment Profile Learning Environment scale, the ECERS-R total score, the ECERS-R Language scale, the Assessment Profile Individualizing scale, the Quality Composite score, and the Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale (see Figure 4.3).
Teachers holding more positive attitudes and knowledge of early childhood education practices were more sensitive and responsive to children, as measured by the Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale. They were also more likely to adjust activities to meet the varying needs of individual children, as indicated by the Assessment Profile Individualizing scale. Teachers holding more positive attitudes and knowledge of practices in early childhood education were also in classrooms rated higher in overall quality on the ECERS-R and in classrooms with higher quality language activities, as rated by the ECERS-R Language scale.
The above findings show that teacher backgrounds, experience, and qualifications, notably their level of education, are significantly related to both teachers’ attitudes and knowledge about early childhood education practice, and classroom quality. The teacher attitudes and knowledge score alone was also significantly correlated with classroom quality. Thus, in predicting high or low quality in Head Start classrooms, both teacher qualifications as well as their attitudes and knowledge about early childhood education practices are important.
[D] |
These results are limited because we cannot specify from the simple correlations above whether the relationships with classroom quality are independent, suggesting that teacher education, for example, and teacher attitudes and knowledge contribute separately and uniquely to variations in quality, or whether they are linked in some way. Additionally, the research literature and earlier analysis of FACES data indicate that there are factors existing at the level of the program that may influence classroom quality. The Second Performance Measures Report described how classroom quality varies across classrooms and across programs suggesting that factors at the level of the Head Start program may help to explain variations in quality. Thus, in developing a comprehensive model for understanding the many sources of influence on classroom quality, it is important to look at factors at both the classroom and the program levels.
F. Teacher and Program-Level Factors Explain Significant Variations in Classroom Quality
To determine the joint influence of both program- and classroom-level factors in predicting classroom quality, we used a multilevel approach with two levels of factors: program and classroom.20 This approach tests a model for explaining quality in Head Start that builds from the previous analyses, which were done only at the level of the classroom, and then adds factors at the level of the Head Start program. Head Start programs consist of the grantee and delegate agencies that administer the centers and classrooms within its purview. A program comprises the administrative entity primarily responsible for determining budgets, staffing, and the allocation of resources across centers and classrooms, as well as for choosing curricula for its classrooms and providing training and resources to support the curricula. Programs also define the geographic areas they serve and identify the needs of low-income families and children living there. Thus, in order to understand variations in classroom quality we must include program-level factors. The model we are testing will explain how variations in the quality of Head Start classrooms may be due to those teacher factors identified earlier, as well as factors that exist at the level of the program, such as the characteristics of families participating in the program, the curriculum used in the majority of classrooms, and the average annual teacher salary (see Figure 4.4).
The results of these analysis are summarized in Table 4.2.
Predicting ECERS-R Total Score
High quality classrooms are those in which programs have a higher
percentage of non-minority students, a higher percentage of language-minority
students (e.g., Spanish speakers), and teachers who have greater knowledge
about early childhood education practices.
Predicting ECERS-R Language Scale
Classrooms with higher quality of language activities and materials
were those whose teachers had higher scores for attitudes and knowledge
about early childhood education practice. Having a teacher with a
BA or AA, or having a higher percentage of non-minority students or
a higher percentage of language-minority students was associated with
higher quality at the trend level, but did not reach statistical significance.
[D] |
| Predicting
ECERS-R Total (Intercept=4.8) |
Predicting
AP Individualizing (Intercept=3.5) |
Predicting
Caregiver Interaction Scale (Intercept = 70.96 |
Predicting
Child-Adult Ratio (Intercept= 5.4) |
Predicting
ECERS R Language (Intercept=4.80) |
Predicting
Quality Composite Score (Intercept=.003) |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | Signif1 | Estimate | Signif1 | Estimate | Signif1 | Estimate | Signif1 | Estimate | Signif1 | Estimate | Signif1 | |
| Program-Level Factors | ||||||||||||
| Percent parents with some college or higher | 0.55 | 0.52 | 10.59 | -2.57 | 0.4645 | 0.4629 | 0.06 | |||||
| Percent parents earning $1500/month or more | 0.44 | 3.82 | 0.01 | 2.83 | 0.50 | 0.3601 | 0.1883 | |||||
| Percent non-minority students | 0.82 | 0.01 | 0.14 | 3.24 | -0.87 | 0.6781 | 0.06 | 0.4254 | 0.06 | |||
| Percent language-minority students | 1.04 | 0.02 | 0.22 | -1.98 | -1.31 | 0.8444 | 0.10 | 1.2704 | 0.01 | |||
| High Scope Curriculum | 0.30 | -0.40 | 5.33 | 0.10 | -0.88 | 0.2408 | 0.2171 | |||||
| Creative Curriculum | 0.33 | -0.38 | 6.41 | 0.02 | -0.56 | 0.2676 | 0.2639 | |||||
| Average Annual Teacher Salary | 0.10 | -0.34 | 0.10 | 1.62 | -0.81 | 0.01 | 0.08252 | -0.1082 | ||||
| Classroom-Level Factors | ||||||||||||
| Teacher having BA or AA | -0.09 | 0.10 | -1.09 | -0.04 | -0.2349 | 0.09 | -0.09462 | |||||
| Teacher Attitudes & Knowledge | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 1.55 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.159 | 0.00 | 0.1363 | 0.00 | ||
| Years Teaching Experience | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.01154 | 0.006333 | |||||
| African-American Teacher | -0.14 | 0.06 | -1.75 | 0.14 | -0.2208 | -0.04489 | ||||||
| Hispanic Teacher | -0.18 | 0.04 | -3.91 | 0.21 | -0.3437 | -0.2133 | ||||||
| Teacher Salary (deviation from program mean) | 0.03 | 0.15 | 1.09 | 0.04 | 0.1074 | -0.03496 | ||||||
| 1. Significance levels in bold indicate statistically significant effects at p <.05. |
Predicting Assessment Profile
Individualizing Score
Family income was significant and teacher salary was a non-significant
trend in explaining the variation in teacher individualizing practices.
Classrooms with a focus on individualizing the classroom activities
for individual students (an indicator of greater quality) are located
in Head Start programs with greater numbers of families with relatively
higher incomes.
Predicting Teacher Arnett Caregiver
Interaction Scale Score
Curriculum, teacher experience, and teacher attitudes and knowledge
were significant predictors, with the strongest being the teachers’
attitudes and knowledge of early childhood education practice, followed
by programs that used the Creative Curriculum. Programs that used
the High/Scope Curriculum had classrooms with somewhat higher scores
for teacher sensitivity, although this did not reach statistically
significant levels. Classrooms with sensitive and responsive teachers
are those that use the Creative Curriculum, where the teachers have
more years of teaching experience, and where the teachers hold more
positive attitudes and knowledge about practices in early childhood
education.
The teachers’ education level, indicated by whether teachers had an associate’s or bachelor’s degree or not, was not significantly related to teacher sensitivity, even though it was related in earlier analysis without program level factors included. These results further suggest that the relationship between teacher education and classroom quality is not direct, but rather is mediated by their knowledge and attitudes towards early childhood education practice as well as by the type of curriculum used and the teacher’s level of experience.
Predicting Quality Composite Score
Classrooms with higher scores for quality on this indicator (comprising
the ECERS-R Language Scale, and the Assessment Profile Scheduling
and Learning Environment Scales) were those from Head Start programs
with a higher percentage of language-minority students, and whose
teachers had more positive attitudes and knowledge of early childhood
education practice.
Predicting Child:Adult Ratio
Even after controlling for other factors within the classroom, high
quality classrooms in terms of lower child:adult ratios are those
where teachers are paid more.
Summary of Multilevel Model Results
Overall the results support the model and enhance our understanding
of factors that explain quality in Head Start. The results suggest
that Head Start programs that provide for a common integrative curriculum
across classrooms and that pay their teachers well have sufficient
resources available to positively influence classroom quality, through
the quality of teachers hired, and their experience and attitudes
and knowledge. The factors included in the model do a good job of
explaining the more “process-oriented” aspects of quality,
such as learning materials, quality of language activities, and teacher-child
interactions, but they do less well at predicting the more structural
aspects of quality, such as child-adult ratios.
G. Summary
Head Start classrooms continue to show good levels of quality, based on the indicators of quality measured in FACES 2000. These levels of quality are consistent from the first cohort, and the consistency is evident across a wide variety of the indicators. Head Start teachers are qualified and experienced (although as a group they do not have the same level of credentials as public school teachers), and there appear to be substantially more teachers with higher educational attainment in this cohort compared with the first FACES cohort, in 1997.
The role of teacher attitudes and knowledge, experience, and education has been illuminated by these analysis. In general, when all three factors are included, the direct relationships occur most consistently and strongly for attitudes and knowledge about early childhood education practice, and to a lesser extent, teacher experience, rather than with teacher education.When these other factors were not included we found a significant relationship between teacher education and classroom quality, suggesting that the role of teacher education in influencing classroom quality is an indirect one. Teachers with higher levels of education have more positive attitudes and knowledge about early childhood education practice, and they are more likely to be in classrooms rated higher in quality. Thus, teacher attitudes and knowledge mediate the role of teacher education in explaining classroom quality.
Interestingly, programs using an integrated curriculum (such as High/Scope and Creative Curriculum) also have teachers with positive attitudes and knowledge about early childhood education practice. Both of these factors appear to have the strongest effect on teacher sensitivity and responsiveness compared with other indicators of quality.
The multilevel results suggest that variations in the quality of Head Start classrooms may be explained by characteristics of the families and children they serve, by the curriculum used in the program, and by teacher attitudes and knowledge about early childhood education practice.The results suggest that Head Start classroom quality may be affected by factors beyond the classroom door that are characteristics of the program and the families who participate.
KEY FINDINGS
-
Head Start quality has been observed to be consistently good over time, using a variety of indicators;
-
Head Start teachers have lower teaching qualifications compared with pre-k teachers in public elementary schools, but as a group they have become more qualified in 2000, with more of them having a graduate school degree;
-
Head Start teachers in 2000 are also younger, compared with those in 1997-1998, and more of them have been teaching in Head Start for two years or less. These newer teachers are also the ones most likely to have a graduate school degree;
-
Teacher backgrounds, qualifications, and experience are related to their attitudes and knowledge of early child development practices;
-
Classrooms with higher levels of quality are those whose teachers have higher levels of education, experience, and knowledge and attitudes of early childhood education practices;
-
The relationship between teacher education and classroom quality is explained by teachers’ attitudes and knowledge of early childhood education practices, so that teachers who are more educated have more positive attitudes and knowledge, which translates into higher levels of classroom quality; and
-
Factors at the program level, including curriculum use, teacher salaries, and parent demographics, are also related to observed quality in Head Start classrooms and to the characteristics of teachers placed in these classrooms.
REFERENCES
Abbott-Shim, M. & Sibley, A. (1998). Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs: Research version. Atlanta, GA: Quality Assist.
Abbott-Shim, M., Lambert, R., & McCarty, F. (2000). Structural model of Head Start classroom quality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(1), 115-134.
Arnett, J. (1989). Caregivers in day-care centers: Does training matter? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 541-552.
Blau, D. (1997).The production of quality in child care centers. Journal of Human Resources, 32, 354-387.
Bredekamp, S. (1986). The reliability and validity of the early childhood classroom observation scale for accrediting early childhood programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, 103-118.
Burts, D.C., Hart, C.H., Charlesworth, R., & Kirk, L. (1990). A comparison of frequencies of stress behaviors observed in kindergarten children in classrooms with developmentally appropriate versus developmentally inappropriate practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 407-423.
Cost, Quality & Child Outcomes Study Team. (1995). Cost, quality and child outcomes in child care centers, public report, second edition. Denver: Economics Department, University of Colorado at Denver.
Harms,T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale: Revised Edition. New York:Teachers College Press.
Hayes, C., Palmer, J., & Zaslow, M. (1990). Who cares for America’s children? Child care policy for the 1990s. Report of the Panel on Child Care Policy, Committee on Child Development Research and Public Policy, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Howes, C., Phillips, D., & Whitebook, M. (1992). Thresholds of quality: Implications for the social development of children in center-based child care. Child Development, 63, 449-460.
Layzer, J., Goodson., B., & Moss, M. (1993). Final report volume 1: Life in preschool. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, Inc.
Phillips, D. & Howes, C. (1987). Indicators of quality in child care: Review of the research. In D. A. Phillips (Ed.), Quality in child care:What does research tell us? (pp. 1-19). Research Monograph of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, Vol. 1.Washington, DC: NAEYC.
Phillips, D., Mekos, D., Scarr, S., McCartney, K., & Abbott-Shim, M. (2000). Within and beyond the classroom door:Assessing quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15 (4), 475-496.
Resnick, G., McKey, R. H., & Klayman, D. (2001). The evaluation of early childhood education programming in the 30 Abbott School Districts: First-year report on program implementation and descriptions of children and families. (Contract No. A43078). Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Human Services and New Jersey Department of Education.
Ruopp, R., Travers, J., Glantz, F., & Coelen, C. (1979). Children at the center: Final results of the National Day Care Study. Boston: Abt Associates.
Scarr, S., & Eisenberg, M. (1993). Child care research: Issues, perspectives and results. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 613-644.
Scarr, S., Eisenberg, M., & Deater-Deckard, K. (1992). Measurement of quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 131-151.
Singer, J. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24(4), 323-355.
Smith,T., Kleiner, A., Parsad, B., & Farris, E. (2002). Prekindergarten in U.S. public schools: 2000-2001 (NCES 2003-019). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1989). Who Cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America (Final report of the National Child Care Staffing Study). Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project.
11The results of teacher data presented in this chapter were based on interviews and ratings of the lead or senior teacher in each classroom.(back)
12While age was also included in the teacher interview, it was so highly correlated with the teacher’s years of experience that it was not included in analyses beyond the descriptive level. However, since ethnicity did prove to be related to other factors in classroom quality, we continued to include it in our analyses.(back)
13Due to some missing data among one or more of the quality indicators, the analytic sample was comprised of 258 classrooms.(back)
14It should be noted that, with the exception of the New Jersey study, all other studies used the original ECERS, and at this writing there are no published reports attesting to the appropriateness of comparing scores on the two versions.(back)
15In Fall 1997 we only measured total number of adults in the classroom so that the discrepancy between 1997 and 2000 could be due to the slightly different measurement methods. In the remaining analyses in this chapter, we use the child-adult ratio rather than the child-staff ratio, to remain consistent with the earlier cohort. In fact, the two measures are so highly correlated that results of statistical analyses using each will be almost identical.(back)
16The chi-square comparison using unweighted data on the independent samples was statistically significant at p<.05. Unweighted data were used because no classroom weights were created for the fall 1997 sample.(back)
17The chi-square comparison using unweighted data on the independent samples was statistically significant at p<.01.(back)
18In Fall 2000 the chi-square test using weighted data was statistically significant at p<.001. Further, a comparison of the two proportions from Fall 1997 to Fall 2000 using unweighted data also revealed a statistically significant increase at p<.01 (z = 4.441).(back)
19In FACES 2000 only 1 percent of teachers indicated they taught at least part of the instructional day in a language other than English or Spanish.(back)
20We used the PROC MIXED statistical procedure in SAS, asoutlined by Singer (1998).(back)
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |