Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Introduction: Head Start Faces 2000 Technical Report
In 1997, as part of the Head Start Program Performance Measures Initiative, the Head Start Bureau launched the Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), a study with a nationally representative sample of 3,200 children and their families, to describe the characteristics, experiences, and outcomes for children and families served by Head Start. FACES also observed the relationship among family and program characteristics and outcomes. In the Fall of 2000, Head Start began data collection on a new national cohort of FACES, called FACES 2000. The FACES 2000 sample included 2,800 children and their families in 43 different Head Start programs across the nation.
FACES complements other Head Start data in many ways. It provides Head Start with the capacity to report on important aspects of outcomes and quality and practices beyond aggregated administrative data. FACES provides the ability for Head Start to examine all facets of key outcomes and children’s school readiness on an ongoing basis. Prior to FACES, Head Start had no national data on child or family outcomes.
This introductory chapter provides a brief review of the research literature on early intervention programs and the link between program quality and children’s outcomes. In addition, it discusses the history, conceptual framework, and terminology of the Head Start Program Performance Measures Initiative, of which FACES is an integral component. The chapter also describes the research design of FACES, and closes with an overview of the report.
Research Context: Brief Review of the Effectiveness and Quality of Early Intervention Programs
A broad base of research exists demonstrating the effectiveness of high-quality, intensive early childhood education programs for improving children's cognitive and social outcomes. For example, the most influential studies demonstrating the positive effects of early childhood education for children living in poverty comprised the Consortium for Longitudinal Studies, including Ira Gordon's Parent Education Program, Francis Palmer's Harlem Training Project, and the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project, among others (Consortium for Longitudinal Studies, 1983; Lazar and Darlington, 1982). Across these studies, the children showed large positive immediate benefits from the programs and even years later, children who had attended preschool were less likely to have failed a grade in school or to have been assigned to special education classes.
Other program evaluations also indicate that high quality early interventions enhance children’s cognitive and language development. For example, children participating in the Abecedarian Project had significantly better outcomes in reading achievement and grade retention rates than children in control groups (Seitz, 1990). Children participating in the Infant Health and Development Project also had enhanced cognitive and language development (IHDP, 1990). Recently, a national evaluation of the Early Head Start program (Administration for Children and Families, 2002) showed a consistent pattern of modest yet significant favorable impacts across a range of child and parent outcomes when children were 2- and 3-years-old, with larger impacts in several subgroups. Specifically, positive effects were found in the areas of children’s cognitive, language, and social-emotional development.
Other early intervention research highlights that attaining positive outcomes for children can be elusive, particularly for programs that do not directly focus services on children. For example, an evaluation of the Comprehensive Child Development Program (CCDP), a program designed to help low-income families with children from birth to age 5 attain self-sufficiency and enhance child outcomes, showed that CCDP did not produce any important positive effects on families (St. Pierre, Layzer, Goodson, and Bernstein, 1997). Similarly, an evaluation of the New Chance Demonstration, a two-generation program designed to assist low-income young mothers achieve self-sufficiency and enhance the development of their children, found that the children’s preschool readiness scores did not improve (Quint, Bos, and Polit, 1997).
Research on the Effectiveness of Head Start
While these evaluated programs share many common features with Head Start, such as the population served, goals, and program strategies, little large-scale research on Head Start’s quality or outcomes of participating children and families has been conducted. However, numerous smaller scale studies have examined questions of Head Start’s efficacy. In 1985, the Administration on Children, Youth and Families published the final report of the Head Start Evaluation, Synthesis and Utilization Project (McKey, Condelli, Ganson, Barrett, McConkey, and Plantz, 1985). This synthesis provides the most comprehensive assessment of Head Start’s effectiveness, reporting the results of a meta-analysis of over 75 Head Start research studies. Overall, the analysis showed that Head Start produced immediate, meaningful gains in all areas of cognitive development, as well as in social behavior, achievement motivation, and health status. However, the cognitive and socio-emotional gains of Head Start children appeared to fade over time.
In addition, a study using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) from 1979 through 1992 compared the outcomes of Head Start children to those of siblings who did not attend Head Start but either attended another type of preschool or did not attend preschool. The study found large and significant gains in receptive vocabulary for both the White and African American children attending Head Start over their siblings, as well as gains for Hispanic children (Currie and Thomas, 1995; Currie and Thomas, 1999). However, the gains of African American children faded by age 8. For White children, the effects of Head Start were greater than the effects of other preschool programs. Children who attended Head Start also had better health outcomes as measured by immunization status and height-for-age (Currie and Thomas, 1995). A second study using a subsample of children from the National Educational Longitudinal Survey who had attended Head Start explored possible reasons that the gains of African American children faded more quickly than those of White children. The results indicated that African American eighth grade students who had attended Head Start were enrolled in schools of significantly lower quality than African American students who did not attend Head Start. However, little difference was found in the quality of schools between White children who did and did not attend Head Start (Currie and Thomas, 1998).
Unfortunately, the data used in these studies is dated. To provide current information on Head Start’s quality and effectiveness, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has undertaken the national Head Start Impact Study, a longitudinal study that involves approximately 5,000 3- and 4-year-old preschool children across an estimated 75 nationally representative grantee/delegate agencies in communities where there were more eligible children and families than could be served by the program. Data collection for this randomized study began in Fall 2002. The study’s goals were to answer two important questions: How does Head Start affect the school readiness of children participating in the program as compared to children not enrolled in Head Start? Secondly, under which conditions does Head Start work best and for which children? More information about the Head Start Impact Study can be found at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/index.html.
The Link Between Program Quality and Outcomes for Children and Families
Research in the early childhood education field has pointed to the necessity of high-quality programming to achieve both short- and long-term positive results (Lazar and Darlington, 1982; Weikart and Schweinhart, 1991). While the success of programs such as the Perry Preschool Project and the Abecedarian Project is impressive, the intensity and duration of such programs are difficult and expensive to implement on a wide scale. Indeed, a review of the research found that “the general level of child care quality available to millions of young children is one that many experts consider to be inadequate, mediocre, and perhaps even detrimental to children’s well-being. Furthermore, children from low socioeconomic status families under stress are more likely to receive lower-quality out-of-home care” (Love, Schochet, and Meckstroth, 1996, p. 12).
In light of such findings, researchers have continued to study the aspects of high-quality programs that lead to positive outcomes in a cost-effective manner. For example, Bryant, Burchinal, Lau, and Sparling (1994) found that Head Start classroom ratings on the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) significantly predicted children's cognitive skills and school readiness. In addition, analyses from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care indicated that the overall quality of child care, and language stimulation in particular, were consistently, but modestly related to cognitive and language outcomes at ages 15, 24, and 36 months (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2000). Furthermore, in the Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers study, researchers from Colorado, California, North Carolina, and Connecticut found that children in higher quality classrooms had more advanced pre-mathematical skills than those in lower-rated classrooms (Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study Team, 1995). This study also found that staff:child ratios were the most significant determinant of center quality and that children at risk of not doing well in school were more sensitive to the negative effects of poor quality child care and received more benefits from high quality child care. Center quality also increased as the percentage of center staff with a high level of education increased, and with an increase in the center administrator's prior experience.
Another study, using a measure of classroom quality based on the National Association for the Education of Young Children's (NAEYC) Guidelines for Developmentally Appropriate Practice and the High/Scope curriculum, reported that children from classrooms with high quality scores scored significantly higher on a battery of cognitive skills in first grade (Frede, Austin, and Lindauer, 1993).
Howes, Phillips, and Whitebook (1992) reported that children in classrooms with better teacher: child ratios were more likely than children in classrooms with worse ratios to experience both appropriate caregiving and developmentally appropriate classroom activities. Children in classrooms rated higher on "appropriate caregiving" were more likely to be classified as secure, according to the Waters and Deane Attachment Q-Set. Similarly, children who attended preschool classrooms with 18 or fewer children were more likely than children in classrooms not meeting these standards to experience developmentally appropriate activities. These findings support earlier results by Ruopp, Travers, Glantz, and Coelen (1979), who demonstrated that smaller group sizes were consistently associated with better care and more socially active children. Additionally, children in classrooms where caregivers exhibited high levels of social interaction made greater gains in receptive language abilities.
The existing research base documenting the potential benefits of high-quality early intervention programs for low-income preschoolers, coupled with the dearth of recent national research on Head Start, made it critical for the Head Start Bureau to conduct a study of the program’s quality and outcomes, particularly as the program underwent rapid expansion and entered an era of increased program accountability.
The Head Start Program Performance Measures Initiative
FACES was launched as a key component of the Head Start Program Performance Measures Initiative. In 1995, Head Start embarked on an initiative to design and implement an outcome-oriented accountability system. This initiative combines the best attributes of scientific research with program-level reporting and monitoring and is based on a consensus-driven set of criteria for program accountability.
The Head Start Program Performance Measures Initiative is a response to a specific legislative mandate, strategic planning for Head Start, and broader public emphasis on accountability and the general movement toward results-oriented evaluation. Specifically, the Program Performance Measures were developed in accordance with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion, the mandate of Section 641A (b) of the Head Start Act (42 USC 9831 et seq.) as reauthorized in 1994, and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)(Public Law 103-62).
The Head Start Act defines Program Performance Measures as “methods and procedures for measuring, annually and over longer periods, the quality and effectiveness of programs operated by Head Start agencies” that will be used to identify strengths and weaknesses in the Head Start program—both nationally and by region—and pinpoint areas requiring additional training and technical assistance.
In 1995, Head Start undertook a consensus-building process to develop the Head Start Program Performance Measures that drew on the opinions of Head Start program staff and parents; early childhood organization representatives; researchers; experts in the education, child development, and early intervention fields; and Head Start Bureau officials (Administration on Children, Youth and Families, 1995). In 1996 it began the FACES study, with data collection commencing in 1997. In 2000, Head Start collected data on the second cohort of FACES (FACES 2000).
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for the Program Performance Measures Initiative unifies and organizes the Measures to display the linkages between process and outcome measures for Head Start children and families.1 (See Figure 1 for the graphical representation of the framework.) The framework is based on the ultimate goal of Head Start, which is to promote the school readiness of children.
Head Start has adopted the “whole child” view of school readiness that was recommended by the Goal One Technical Planning Group of the National Education Goals Panel (Goal One Technical Planning Group, 1991, 1993). This view sees school readiness as a multifaceted phenomenon comprising five developmental domains that are important to the child’s readiness for school: physical well-being and motor development, social and emotional development, approaches to learning, language usage and emerging literacy, and cognition and general knowledge. Each of these domains is represented in the
[D]
Figure 1. Head Start program performance measures conceptual framework |
battery of measures being used in FACES to assess how well Head Start programs are performing. It takes into account the interrelatedness of cognitive, emotional, and social development; physical and mental health; and nutritional needs. School readiness is depicted at the top of the pyramid, with five objectives supporting it:
-
Objective 1. Enhance children’s healthy growth and development;
-
Objective 2. Strengthen families as the primary nurturers of their children;
-
Objective 3. Provide children with educational, health, and nutritional services;
-
Objective 4. Link children and families to needed community services; and
-
Objective 5. Ensure well-managed programs that involve parents in decision-making.
Each of these objectives is critical to helping children of low-income families attain their full potential. They also represent the cornerstones of the Head Start program. Objectives 1 and 2 represent outcomes or results that the program is designed to produce. Achieving both of these objectives is critical to the ultimate success of Head Start. As parent involvement and family support are key tenets of Head Start, both child and family-oriented outcome measures are included here. Objectives 3, 4, and 5 comprise the lower tiers of the pyramid and contain the process measures that are the basis for the attainment of Objectives 1 and 2 and the ultimate goal of enhancing children’s social competence. An important aspect of the pyramid is the strong empirical connection between the provision of quality services (process measures) and improvements in child development (outcome measures).
The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey
The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) is a central part of Head Start’s Program Performance Measures Initiative. FACES is gathering comprehensive data on the cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development of Head Start children; the characteristics, well-being, and accomplishments of families; the quality of Head Start classrooms; and the characteristics, needs, and opinions of Head Start teachers and other program staff.
Each cohort of FACES employs a nationally representative sample of Head Start programs, centers, classrooms, children, and parents. The sample is stratified by three variables: region of the country (northeast, midwest, south, or west); urbanicity (urban vs. rural); and percentage of minority families in the program (50 percent or more vs. less than 50 percent).
The first cohort of FACES had six phases of data collection:
-
Phase One involved a Spring 1997 field test in which approximately 2,400 children and parents were studied in a nationally stratified random sample of 40 Head Start programs. The field test was an opportunity to assess the feasibility of interviewing parents and assessing children on a large scale using the selected instruments. Although it was a field test, it provided valuable information on the status of Head Start programs, children, and families;
-
Phases Two and Three of FACES occurred in Fall 1997 and Spring 1998 when data were collected on a sample of 3,200 children and families in the same 40 Head Start programs. Spring 1998 data collection included assessments of both Head Start children completing the program and Head Start graduates completing kindergarten (kindergarten field test), as well as interviews with their parents and ratings by their kindergarten teachers;
-
Phase Four occurred in Spring 1999 with data collection in the 40 Head Start programs, plus a kindergarten followup for former Head Start children;
-
Phase Five, in Spring 2000, completed the kindergarten followup for the children completing Head Start in Spring 1999 and first grade followup for children who completed Head Start in Spring 1998; and
-
Phase Six, in Spring 2001, completed the first grade followup for the children who completed Head Start in Spring 1999.
These phases allow for pre-post comparisons, examining children and parents before their exposure to Head Start and determining their status at the end of the program and in the early school years.
Because Head Start is committed to regular, longitudinal, ongoing accountability measurements and program improvement, a new national cohort of FACES was launched in 2000. FACES 2000 sampled 2,800 children and their families from a new sample of 43 Head Start programs across the nation. This cohort features four phases of data collection and followed 3- and 4-year-old Head Start children from program entry through the Spring of their kindergarten year. Figure 2 presents the FACES 2000 study design.
[D]
Figure 2. FACES 2000 study design |
Survey Measures and Instruments
The FACES 2000 battery has four main components: the child assessment, parent interview, teacher and staff interviews, and classroom observations. The child outcomes include the major components of school readiness, and are collected through direct child assessments and rating scales completed by parents and teachers. Parent interviews are conducted with the primary caregiver of the Head Start child, and tap parenting behaviors, the socioeconomic characteristics of the family, and parental health and well-being. Interviews are administered to classroom teachers, center directors, program directors, and component coordinators to collect data on staff experience, education, and training, as well as knowledge and beliefs about child development and educational activities with children and parents. Classroom observations collect data on both the structure of the classroom and classroom processes, such as teacher-child interactions. This battery has remained largely the same since 1997, with some minor revisions based on field experiences and newly released versions of instruments.2
FACES Response Rates
Through the full cooperation of the Head Start programs studied, FACES has been able to achieve high instrument completion rates, over 85 percent return on all survey measures. A detailed list of response rates by study phase and respondent is available in the appendix.
The FACES Embedded Case Study
An additional feature of the 1997 cohort of FACES was the embedded case study of a longitudinal sample of 120 randomly selected families from the larger FACES sample (Vaden-Kiernan, D’Elio, and Sprague, 1999). The goal of the case study was to provide a more complete profile of Head Start families and children, their neighborhoods, and the nature of their interactions with Head Start. The FACES case study provides in-depth cross-sectional and longitudinal descriptive data, both qualitative and quantitative, over a two-year period. Findings from the case study are described in previous FACES reports, including A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: FACES Technical Report I, (Administration on Children, Youth and Families, 2002), which integrates extensive data from the case studies with parent and staff interviews from the FACES national sample.
Dissemination of Study Findings
The FACES team strives to disseminate study findings in a timely fashion to the Head Start community as well as the general public. Several reports have been published detailing the development of Head Start’s Program Performance Measures and findings from FACES from the Spring 1997 field test and the 1997 and 2000 cohorts. The following reports can be accessed at the website http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/index.html:
-
Head Start FACES (2000): A Whole Child Perspective on Program Performance - Fourth Progress Report (June 2003);
-
A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: FACES Technical Report I (January 2002);
-
Head Start FACES: Reaching Out to Families: Head Start Recruitment and Enrollment Practices (January 2001);
-
Head Start FACES (1997): Longitudinal Findings on Program Performance–Third Progress Report (January 2001);
-
FACES Findings: New Research on Head Start Program Quality and Outcomes (June 2000); and
-
Head Start FACES (Pilot): Program Performance Measures–Second Progress Report (June 1998).
The website also houses numerous papers presented at national conferences as well as details about the FACES study design and data collection instruments.
Overview of Report
This current document is the final report for FACES 2000. Subsequent chapters describe:
-
Cognitive gains of Head Start children and their achievement in kindergarten;
-
Changes in social skills and problem behavior in Head Start;
-
Relationship between curricula and family, program, and classroom characteristics;
-
Quality in Head Start programs and the factors that help explain variations in quality across Head Start classrooms;
-
The relationship of program, classroom, and child characteristics and cognitive gains;
-
The relationship of program, classroom, child, and family characteristics and social behavior in Head Start;
-
The social-emotional and cognitive development of children with disabilities;
-
Longitudinal changes in family structure and other household characteristics of Head Start children;
-
Family risk factors, parental involvement, and Head Start’s protective role; and
-
Predictive validity of the FACES 2000 battery.
The technical appendix details the FACES study design, field test, data collection and processing, sample weights and analysis considerations, survey measures and derived variables, and data tables.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |