Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Chapter 3: Children’s Experiences
This chapter has two purposes: (1) to present findings of the impact of Head Start on the types of preschool and child care arrangements that parents select for their children and (2) to present descriptive information (not program impacts) on the characteristics of different types of early care arrangements used for children. The descriptive section focuses on a comparison between the Head Start and other center-based classrooms that study children attended and uses observational data (the ECERS-R and Arnett Scale of Teacher Behavior) and survey data on the reported types of activities teachers did with children and the types of curricula they used in their classrooms. Together these descriptions provide a context for understanding the impact findings presented in subsequent chapters. 1
Highlights
Impact Findings
- The importance of Head Start as an early care option for low-income families is demonstrated by comparing the care arrangements used by parents of children in the Head Start and non-Head Start groups. Providing children with access to Head Start had a statistically significant impact on children’s use of parent care and center-based care. Specifically:
Non-Head Start group children were substantially more likely than the Head Start group children to be in parent care in spring 2003. Children were considered in parent care if they did not have a preschool or child care arrangement for at least 5 hours per week. Among children in the 3-year-old group, 39.2 percent of non-Head Start group children were in parent care as compared to only 6.8 percent of children in the Head Start group. Among the 4-year-old group, the figures were 41.6 and 8.7 percent, respectively.
Head Start group children were twice as likely as the non-Head Start group children to use a center-based program in spring 2003. Approximately 90 percent of children in the Head Start group in both age groups were using a center-based program compared to 43 percent of children in the 3-year-old non-Head Start group and 48 percent of the 4-year-old group.
-
The child care arrangements used for children in the study did not differ substantially by age group. This is a somewhat surprising finding given that research about the use of center-based programs by 3- and 4-year-olds in population-based samples tends to show that 4-year-olds are more likely than younger children to be enrolled in center-based programs.
Head Start group children were more likely than non-Head Start group children to be in a center-based environment in both the fall 2002 and spring 2003 and to have been in their spring 2003 setting since the start of the 2002-03 program year.
Descriptive Findings
These findings focus on some initial quality indicators for the Head Start centers and other center-based programs attended by study children. On the initial indicators assessed, children in the Head Start centers were in environments that more often had positive interactions between children and teachers, used curriculum and activities to enhance children's skills, and had higher scores on the ECERS-R. Specifically:
Children in the 3-year-old group in Head Start classrooms were significantly more likely to be in classrooms with higher average total scores than children in other center-based programs. The average ECERS-R score was 5.17 as compared to 4.44 for the other center-based programs. Similarly for children in the 4-year-old group, the mean ECERS-R score in Head Start classrooms was 5.29 as compared to 4.62 for the other center-based classrooms.
As measured by the Arnett Scale of Teacher Behavior, children in the 3-year-old group in Head Start Centers had teachers who were rated as more sensitive and who promoted more independence than the teachers of children in other center-based programs. For the children in the 4-year-old group, Head Start teachers were rated to be less harsh and to have promoted more independence than those in other center-based programs.
Teachers of children in the 3-year-old group in Head Start classrooms reported using language and literacy activities more frequently than teachers in other center-based classrooms (almost half of the 11 literacy activities). No significant difference was found in the frequency of these activities for children in the 4-year-old group.
Teachers of children in Head Start classrooms (for both age groups) reported conducting math activities more frequently than teachers in other center-based classrooms.
Children enrolled in Head Start were more likely to have teachers who used a curriculum. For children in other center-based classrooms, approximately 14 percent of the 3-year old group and 17 percent of the 4-year-old group were in classrooms that did not use a curriculum. This compares to about 2 percent of the children in the 3-year-old group and 4 percent of the children in the 4-year-old group who were in Head Start classrooms.
In classrooms where a curriculum was used, there was more uniformity in the type of curriculum used by Head Start classrooms as compared to other center-based classrooms. More than three-fourths of children in Head Start classrooms were in classrooms using High Scope or Creative Curriculum compared to about half of the children in other center-based classrooms.
Impact on Children’s Early Care Settings
The findings in this section describe the impact of having access to Head Start on the preschool and child care arrangements used by low-income families that apply to, and are eligible for, Head Start. Specifically, the results highlight the extent to which families who have access to Head Start are actually enrolled at various points in time and what early care services they used when they did not gain access to Head Start services.
As discussed in Chapter 1, the parents of children in the control group were not precluded from enrolling their children in other types of preschool or child care arrangements. Consequently, the impact of Head Start is being evaluated against a mixture of alternatives available in the community, ranging from parent care to center-based programs as defined in Exhibit 3.1. In some cases, these alternative arrangements may look very much like Head Start in their characteristics, while others may look very different from Head Start. Understanding the extent to which children in the control group children use various alternatives is, therefore, vital for understanding the services to which Head Start is being compared and for interpreting the estimates of Head Start’s impact.
Exhibit 3.1: Definition of Children's Preschool and Child Care Arrangements
Types of Care ArrangementsHead Start: center-based, home-based, and combination programs funded with Federal Head Start dollars. Children in center-based programs with a mix of funding sources were placed into this category if they were enrolled in a classroom that received any FederalHead Start dollars. Non-Head Start Center: center-based programs as differentiated from care that takes place in someone’s home or federally funded Head Start programs. Some children in this category are enrolled in centers that receive Federal Head Start dollars but are not in classrooms that receive any Federal Head Start dollars. Relative’s and Non-Relative’s Home: non-parental care that takes place in a home that is not the child’s own home, either by a relative or a non-relative of the child. This category includes regulated family child care providers as well as home-based child care providers who are exempt from regulation by state and/or local licensing agencies. Child’s Home with a Relative or Non-Relative: non-parental care that takes place in the child’s own home, either by a relative or a non-relative of the child. Caregivers in this category are typically not subject to regulation by state and/or local licensing agencies. Parent Care: care by the child’s parent or guardian, typically in the child’s own home. Definition of Focal ArrangementA child’s focal arrangement is defined as either the treatment or primary alternative to the treatment. Head Start is always defined as the focal arrangement for children enrolled in Head Start. For all other children, the focal arrangement is generally defined as the non-parental arrangement (if there was one) the child attended between the hours of 8 AM and 6 PM Monday through Friday, for at least 5 hours per week. For children in multiple arrangements that met these criteria, the following hierarchy was used to prioritize and select a setting: center-based programs, followed by non-relative’s homes, relative’s homes, and finally care by a non-parental relative in the child’s home. In the absence of non-parental care that meets the time criteria, the child’s focal setting is parent care. |
Because there is reason to believe that families applying to Head Start may be different from the overall population of low-income families, at least in terms of motivation to enroll their children in a preschool program prior to kindergarten, the data do not speak to the arrangements used by low-income families more generally; they speak only to those families who applied to Head Start. Additionally, the Head Start centers are nationally representative of Head Start. In contrast, the non-Head Start centers are not nationally representative, but instead represent the types of center-based care families use when their children could not go to Head Start.
Data and Methods
The results reported in this section rely on data collected through parent interviews completed in fall 2002 and spring 2003. Parents were asked where their child regularly spends time Monday through Friday, who was responsible for him/her during that time period, and the start dates of the reported arrangements. Head Start children may attend other programs during the hours they are not in Head Start and, as a consequence, may be exposed to numerous other experiences at home and elsewhere that shape their development. Similarly, children assigned to the non-Head Start group also may have a variety of experiences that affect their development, such as care provided in their own home, as well as time spent in other settings.
Although all care experiences are important in understanding children’s developmental outcomes, practical considerations and differences in the nature of the settings limit the type and depth of data that can be collected across these various arrangements. Consequently, criteria were developed to help identify, categorize, and prioritize the range of settings in which children spend time and to identify a focal arrangement (see Exhibit 3.1). For children attending Head Start, the focal arrangement is defined as Head Start. For children not attending Head Start, the focal arrangement is generally defined as the non-parental arrangement (if there was one) attended for at least 5 hours per week, at least in part between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday. If children participated in multiple non-parental arrangements, a hierarchy was used to prioritize and select the focal arrangement as follows: center-based programs, followed by non-relatives’ homes, relatives’ homes, and care by someone other than the parent in the child’s home. In the absence of any non-parental arrangement, the focal arrangement is parental care.
This definition of children’s focal arrangements ensured consideration of arrangements that, though not necessarily occupying the majority of the child’s time, may well affect the child’s development by offering at least some of the supplementary educational, social, and access to service opportunities offered by Head Start. We also explored an alternative definition of the focal arrangement that was based on where children spent the most time between 9 AM and 3 PM. Differences in results across the definitions were minimal.2 Furthermore, expanding the definition to capture non-parental settings of at least 5 hours provides the opportunity to capture the effect that preschool and child care services might have on the development of each group. Home environment influence is captured through the parent interview. The findings in this section are based on the child’s focal care setting. Observations and teacher input were obtained at the child’s focal setting.
Impact on Children’s Spring 2003 Focal Arrangements
Exhibit 3.2 presents, by age group, the percentage of children in the Head Start and non-Head Start groups who were in each of seven types of focal arrangements at the time of the spring 2003 data collection. As shown, providing children with access to Head Start had a statistically significant impact on the preschool and child care arrangements used by children in the study.3 These differences are most notable in terms of the different rates at which families rely on parent care and center-based programs.
Among children in the 3-year-old group, 39 percent of the children in the non-Head Start group used parent care as the primary form of care compared to only 6.8 percent of the children in the Head Start group. Similarly, among children in the 4-year-old group, the figures were 41.6 and 8.7 percent, respectively. Approximately 90 percent of Head Start group families (for both age groups) were using some type of center-based care (including Head Start).4 In contrast, among non-Head Start group families, only 43 percent of the 3-year-old group and 48 percent of the 4-year-old group were in some form of center-based care.
All of the parents of the study population were interested in having their children attend Head Start. Yet, when the study created an “alternative world” in which Head Start was not available to them, two out of five non-Head Start group families kept their children at home with a parent. About the same fraction of these families enrolled their child in a non-Head Start center-based program. The remaining children in the control group were found in care in their own, or someone else’s, home with an individual other than the parent. As also shown in this table, and as discussed in Chapter 2, some children assigned to the Head Start group did not attend Head Start, and some children assigned to the non-Head Start group managed to gain entrance into the program. (Note: the figures shown here are as of spring 2003 only and, as a consequence, differ slightly from data reported in Chapter 2.)
| Type of Focal Arrangement | Head Start Group (Sample Size=1,336) | Non-Head Start Group (Sample Size=821) | Head Start Group (Sample Size=1,068) | Non-Head Start Group (Sample Size=662) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of 3-year-old group | Percentage of 4-year-old group | ||||
| Parental Care | 6.8 *** | 39.2 | 8.7 *** | 41.6 | |
| Non-Parental Care | Total | 93.2*** | 60.8 | 91.3*** | 58.4 |
| Head Start | 84.1 *** | 17.5 | 76.4 *** | 13.4 | |
| Non-Head Start center | 6.9 *** | 25.0 | 11.9 *** | 34.7 | |
| Non-relative's home | 0.7 *** | 6.0 | 1.4 * | 5.0 | |
| Relative's home | 1.0 *** | 8.7 | 0.9 | 3.1 | |
| Child's home w/relative | 0.6 ** | 3.5 | 0.5 * | 2.2 | |
| Child's home w/non-relative | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | |
| Total percent | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | |
| *=p≤.05, **=p≤.01, ***=p≤.001 |
These findings emphasize that the impact of Head Start is being evaluated against a mixture of alternative care settings rather than against a purely “no-services” condition. All types of alternatives, including parent care, may offer an environment that effectively supports children’s development. However, parent care and center-based programs may generally be thought of as falling on opposite ends of a continuum in terms of the likelihood that the environment delivers a set of services and experiences that is similar to Head Start. Children in the non-Head Start group tend to be concentrated at the two ends of this continuum, with a much smaller share in the center-based category than is true of children given access to Head Start.
Also, the child care arrangements for children in the non-Head Start group do not differ substantially between the two age groups. This is a somewhat surprising finding, given that research about the use of center-based programs by 3- and 4-year-olds in population-based samples tends to show that 4-year-olds are more likely than younger children to be enrolled in center-based programs.5 Furthermore, public funding for pre-kindergarten and preschool programs is often targeted at 4-year-olds, which would suggest that low-income parents of 4-year-olds might find it easier to access center-based services than parents of 3-year-olds. As a result, it was hypothesized that 3-year-olds assigned to the non-Head Start group would use center-based programs at a lower rate than 4-year-olds assigned to the non-Head Start group. However, parents of children in the 3-year-old group who want, but cannot access, Head Start tend to use other types of center-based care at roughly the same rate as parents of children in the 4-year-old group.
Exposure to Head Start or Center-Based Care in Fall 2002 and/or Spring 2003
This section extends the analysis of arrangements used in spring 2003 to consider whether children were enrolled in Head Start or another center-based program, in either fall 2002, spring 2003, or both time points. This analysis estimates how many children assigned to the Head Start and non-Head Start groups might have been exposed, over the entire course of the 2002-03 program year, to a program that may have offered the types of educational, social, and access-to-services opportunities that are offered by Head Start. In addition, this analysis begins to explore, in a general sense, how much exposure children had to these types of preschool opportunities by examining whether children were enrolled in these types of programs during at least two points in time.
Considering fall 2002 and spring 2003, Exhibit 3.3 shows that Head Start group children were significantly more likely than non-Head Start group children to be enrolled in Head Start or another center-based program in one or both points in time. Only 4 percent of the Head Start group children were not enrolled in either Head Start or another center-based program in fall 2002 and/or spring 2003. In contrast, a much larger proportion (47 percent of the 3-year-olds and 40 percent of the 4-year-olds) of the non-Head Start group children were not enrolled in some type of center-based program in fall 2002 and/or spring 2003.
| Type of Center Attended | Head Start Group (Sample Size =1,333) | Non-Head Start Group (Sample Size=769) |
Head Start Group (Sample Size =1,047) | Non-Head Start Group (Sample Size =623) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of 3-year-old group | Percentage of 4-year-old group | |||
| Attended Head Start | 89.4 *** | 21.3 | 85.6 *** | 18.1 |
| Did not attend Head Start but attended a center-based program | 6.2 *** | 31.9 | 10.8 *** | 42.5 |
| No center-based arrangement attended | 4.4 *** | 46.8 | 3.6 *** | 39.4 |
| Total percent | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| *=p≤.05, **=p≤.01, ***=p≤.001 |
Furthermore, children in the Head Start group were more likely than children in the non-Head Start group to be in Head Start or another center-based program in both the fall and the spring. Among the Head Start group children who attended Head Start or a center-based program in fall or spring, over 90 percent of both age groups were in one of these types of programs at both points in time (see Exhibit 3.4). In contrast, only 40 percent of the non-Head Start group children were in one of these types of programs in both the fall and the spring.
| Attended Head Start or a Center-Based Program | Head Start Group (Sample Size =1,231) | Non-Head Start Group (Sample Size =717) | Head Start Group (Sample Size =999) | Non-Head Start Group (Sample Size =582) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of 3-year-old group | Percentage of 4-year-old group | |||
| Fall 2002 and spring 2003 | 91.0 *** | 38.3 | 89.8 *** | 40.9 |
| Fall 2002 only | 3.2 | 5.4 | 5.6 | 7.5 |
| Spring 2003 only | 0.8 *** | 4.1 | 0.6 ** | 6.8 |
| Neither fall 2002 nor spring 2003 | 4.9 *** | 52.3 | 4.0 *** | 44.9 |
| Total percent | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| *=p≤.05, **=p≤.01, ***=p≤.001 |
Stability of Children’s Settings
The previous section examined the proportion of children that attended Head Start and/or a center-based program at two points in time during the 2002-03 program year. Those results identified the length of time that children were likely exposed to specific types of preschool and child care arrangements that could affect school readiness. However, those estimates did not consider whether children were in the same arrangement over time. Additional insight into the length of time Head Start and non-Head Start group children were exposed to a particular preschool or child care arrangement is provided in Exhibit 3.5. This analysis is not considered an impact finding because it focuses on a subgroup of children whose childcare arrangement was affected by access to Head Start. The subgroup is those children whose focal arrangement was not parental care. For this analysis, length of time is measured by whether children had been in their spring 2003 focal arrangements since the start of the 2002-03 year. These results may also be used to gain a preliminary understanding of the stability of arrangements among children not exclusively in parental care. This is considered a preliminary understanding because the research team has not yet been able to fully explore the extent to which later start dates are a reflection of higher turnover in arrangements among certain groups of children versus a reflection of families making a single transition to preschool or Head Start later, rather than earlier, in the school year.
| Began Non-Parental Focal Arrangement | Head Start Group (Sample Size=1,222) | Non-Head Start Group (Sample Size =446) | Head Start Group (Sample Size=964) | Non-Head Start Group (Sample Size =382) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of 3-year-olds | Percentage of 4-year-olds | |||
| September 2002 or earlier | 88.9** | 77.2 | 90.7** | 81.4 |
| October 2002 to December 2002 | 6.0 | 7.8 | 4.8 | 8.6 |
| January 2003 or later | 5.1*** | 15.0 | 4.5* | 10.0 |
| *=p≤.05, **=p≤.01, ***=p≤.001 |
Exhibit 3.5 indicates that approximately 90 percent of children in both cohorts assigned to the Head Start group who used non-parental arrangements began their spring 2003 arrangements in September 2002 or earlier, as compared to the non-Head Start group (77 percent of the 3-year-old group and 81 percent 4-year-old group). Thus, of children using non-parental arrangements, those in the Head Start group were more likely to have been in the same setting since the beginning of the school year than those in the non-Head Start group.
As presented in this section, the majority of study children were in some type of center-based care in spring 2003. The next section provides further descriptive information about these center-based environments, focusing on some of the quality differences between Head Start centers and other center-based programs.
Description of Center-Based Classroom Environments
This section compares some initial quality indicators of the Head Start and other center-based programs that were attended by study children, without taking into account treatment and control group differences. Therefore, it provides a description of a preliminary set of quality characteristics that children experienced in these two different environments, rather than an estimate of the impact of Head Start on the quality of care. Although the sample of Head Start centers is nationally representative, the other center-based programs included in this analysis are not nationally representative. Instead they represent the types of center-based care families use when their children cannot go to Head Start. Future analyses will expand on the description of setting characteristics and determine how the child impacts vary with the quality of their early care experience.
Preschool programs are typically rated on two important dimensions of quality—process and structural (Phillips et al., 2000).6 Process characteristics of the classroom environment generally include the nature of teacher-child interactions, use of curriculum, schedule of activities, and use of instructional materials. Structural indices refer to measures such as staff-child ratio, group-size, and teacher’s education. As discussed in Chapter 1, this study collected information (through classroom observations, teacher surveys, and parent interviews) on a variety of setting structural and process characteristics (e.g., classroom resources, teacher-child ratio, teacher characteristics, the nature of children’s every day experiences, comprehensive services provided, and parent involvement and satisfaction).
This report provides a first look at a few of the process indicators, using data from the ECERS-R, the Arnett Scale of Lead Teacher Behavior, and teacher reports on activities and curricula used in classrooms. Trained observers conducted classroom observations in spring 2003. Each classroom was visited one time, and the observers were on site for approximately 4 hours. Teachers were also given surveys and asked to self-report on a variety of elements related to teaching young children. Observations, teacher surveys and teacher reports on children were obtained from each child’s focal setting. Analysis was conducted at the child level. The effect of clustering on standard errors has been accounted for through replicate weights (see Appendix 1.2 for discussion on weighting).
The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale – Revised
The revised ECERS-R (Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998)7 is a 37-item instrument that measures a wide variety of quality-related processes occurring in the preschool classroom. It is divided into six subscales:
-
Space and Furnishings: Eight items that rate the adequacy of the furniture and gross motor equipment and how that furniture or equipment is arranged to allow children to play, learn, relax, and have some privacy. It also rates child-related displays within the classrooms.
-
Personal Care Routines: Six items that rate greetings/departures, meals/snacks, nap, toileting, and heath and safety practices.
-
Language and Reasoning: Four items that rate the range of accessible books and how they are used, whether children are encouraged to communicate, use of language to develop reasoning skills, and the level of conversation between staff and children.
-
Activities: Ten items that rate whether a variety of activities are available and used—fine motor, art, music/movement, blocks, sand/water, dramatic play, nature/science, and math/number activitites. This section also rates use of TV/Video and computers in the classroom and the materials and activities used to promote cultural diversity.
-
Interaction: Five items that rate the supervision of children (gross motor and general supervision), discipline used, staff-child interactions, and interaction among children.
-
Program Structure: Four items that rate the use of a daily schedule, amount of free play and the materials provided, amount of group time, and the provisions made for children with disabilities.
Each item on the ECERS-R is given a score from 1 to 7, and items are grounded by the odd numbers with 1 = inadequate, 3 = minimal, 5 = good, and 7 = excellent care. Scores for each subscale as well as for the overall total score are reported in Exhibit 3.6 for Head Start and other center-based programs.
For children in both the 3- and 4-year-old groups, the total ECERS-R mean scores were significantly higher for the settings attended by children in Head Start classrooms than for the other center-based programs.8 On average, the scores for children in the Head Start classrooms were in the “good” range (5.17 for the 3-year-old group and 5.29 for the 4-year-old group), while children in the other center-based programs averaged scores toward the upper end of the “minimally adequate” range (4.44 for the 3-year-old group and 4.62 for the 4-year-old group).9
With the exception of the interaction subscale score for the 3-year-old group, Head Start subscale mean scores were significantly better than for the other center-based programs for both age groups. As context for understanding children’s language and literacy outcomes, it is particularly noteworthy that for both age groups, children in Head Start center classrooms had significantly better scores on the language and reasoning subscale than did children in the other center-based programs. A higher score indicates a richer language environment. Head Start classrooms for both age groups of children scored in the “good” range as compared to scores in the “minimally adequate” range for children in non-Head Start classrooms.
| Scale/Subscale | Head Start Centers Means 1i | Other Center-Based Programs Means 1ii | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3-Year-Old Group | (N=1,154) | (N=187) | ||
| Total score | 5.17 | 4.44 | 0.73*** | |
| Space & furnishings subscale | 5.16 | 4.64 | 0.52*** | |
| Personal care routines subscale | 5.45 | 4.65 | 0.80*** | |
| Language-reasoning subscale | 5.11 | 4.44 | 0.67* | |
| Activities subscale | 4.67 | 3.66 | 1.01*** | |
| Interactions subscale | 5.64 | 5.26 | 0.38 | |
| Program structure subscale | 5.60 | 4.62 | 0.98*** | |
| 4–Year-Old Group | (N=860) | (N=269) | ||
| Total score | 5.29 | 4.62 | 0.67*** | |
| Space & furnishings subscale | 5.22 | 4.79 | 0.43** | |
| Personal care routines subscale | 5.58 | 4.76 | 0.82*** | |
| Language-reasoning subscale | 5.26 | 4.67 | 0.59** | |
| Activities subscale | 4.70 | 3.96 | 0.74*** | |
| Interactions subscale | 5.91 | 5.35 | 0.56** | |
| Program structure subscale | 5.84 | 4.82 | 1.02*** | |
| *=p≤.05, **=p≤.01, ***=p≤.001 1 Center-level means calculated using individual child-level weights. (back: 1i, 1ii) |
Exhibit 3.7 compares the Head Start Impact Study ECERS-R scores (for both Head Start and other center-based programs) with other studies using the overall ECERS-R score, to provide some context for the data from this study.10 Studies of both Head Start and other center-based programs are provided. As shown, the ECERS-R total mean scores are similar, if not slightly higher, than reported scores in other studies of center-based care. Specifically, the total mean score for Head Start centers in FACES fall 2000 was 4.84; for the Georgia Pre-K Study of Head Start classes it was 4.5, as compared to 5.22 for the 3- and 4-year-old children in the Head Start Impact Study.
[D] |
Total ECERS-R mean scores for center-based programs (other than Head Start) range from 3.5-4.7, compared to 4.52 for the other center-based programs in the Impact Study.11
Arnett Scale of Lead Teacher Behavior
A critical aspect of quality education for young children is a classroom environment in which children are nurtured, respected, and challenged.12 The Arnett Scale of Lead Teacher Behavior is a 30-item scale that rates the lead teacher’s behavior toward children in the class using a 4-point scale. A total score for the 30 items has been computed for the Head Start study, as well as for each of the five subscales measuring the lead teacher’s behavior:
- Sensitivity: Ten items, a higher score indicates a teacher is more sensitive.
- Harshness: Nine items, a higher score indicates the teacher is less harsh.
- Detachment: Four items, a higher score indicates the teacher is less detached.
- Permissiveness: Three items, a higher score indicates the teacher is less permissive.
- Independence: Four items, a higher score indicates the teacher encourages the children to be independent and use self-help skills.
As shown in Exhibit 3.8, for children in the 4-year-old group in Head Start classrooms, teachers have significantly higher total Arnett scores than teachers in the other center-based classrooms (77.1 compared to 73.3). It is somewhat less certain, but still likely (p=.0504) that the overall score for the 3-year-old group in Head Start centers was higher than for the children in other center-based programs (75.09 compared to 70.30). Children in the 3-year-old group in Head Start had teachers who were rated more sensitive and who promoted more independence in children. For the 4-year-old group, Head Start teachers were rated as less harsh and who promoted more independence in children than non-Head Start teachers.
| Scale/Subscale | Head Start Centers Mean 1i | Other Center-Based Programs Mean 1ii | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3-year-old Group | (N=1,154) | (N=187) | ||
| Total score | 75.09 | 70.20 | 4.89 | |
| Sensitivity subscale | 23.18 | 20.57 | 2.53* | |
| Harshness subscale | 24.74 | 24.19 | 0.55 | |
| Detachment subscale | 11.13 | 10.71 | 0.42 | |
| Permissiveness subscale | 7.74 | 7.42 | 0.33 | |
| Independence subscale | 8.78 | 7.37 | 1.41** | |
| 4-year-old Group | (N=860) | (N=269) | ||
| Total score | 77.10 | 73.30 | 3.79* | |
| Sensitivity subscale | 23.61 | 21.88 | 1.73 | |
| Harshness subscale | 25.25 | 24.21 | 1.05* | |
| Detachment subscale | 11.39 | 11.08 | 0.31 | |
| Permissiveness subscale | 7.95 | 7.68 | 0.27 | |
| Independence subscale | 9.10 | 8.46 | 0.65* | |
| *=p≤.05, **=p≤.01, ***=p≤.001 1 Center-level means calculated using individual child-level weights. (back: 1i, 1ii) |
Teacher Activities and Curriculum
Early education settings need directed and rich interactions between children and teachers in which teachers purposefully challenge and extend children’s skills (Pianta, 2004)13. The higher scores on ECERS-R and Arnett for the Head Start classrooms are indicators that these programs are likely to promote better learning environments for children. To further explore the intentionality of classroom instruction, teachers in both Head Start and other center-based classrooms were asked how often they, or someone else, engaged the children in literacy, numeracy, or other activities such as arts and crafts, sports, indoor toys, or classroom chores. Teachers were asked to focus on how often these activities were done with the class in general and not to specifically focus on the children who were participating in the study. The respondents were given the choice of six responses: Never, once a month or less, two or three times a month, once or twice a week, three or four times a week, every day. These responses were collapsed into three broader categories: Never, Sometimes (included once a month or less, two or three times a month, and once or twice a week) and Frequently (three or four times a week and every day). Many of the activities selected were intended to focus on children’s active involvement in learning. The results are discussed below.
Language and Literacy Activities
Early literacy may be promoted through learning letters, phonics, and exposure to a rich vocabulary and variety of printed materials. Preschool children need to learn certain concepts to become competent readers, including vocabulary and language; phonological awareness; knowledge of print, letters and words; comprehension; understanding books; and literacy for enjoyment (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).14 Teachers were asked about the frequency with which they implemented 11 different activities aimed at these concepts, including naming and writing letters, learning letter sounds and rhyming words, and understanding story and print concepts. The 3-year-old group children in Head Start classrooms were provided significantly more instruction for 5 of these 11 activities (see Exhibit 3.9). Specifically, teachers reported implementing activities in discussing new words, oral comprehension, and writing skills. However, for the teachers of children in the 4-year-old group, no significant differences were found between Head Start and other center-based classrooms.
Math Activities
The National Standards in Mathematics identify key components of math instruction for preschool children, including number concepts, patterns and relationships, shapes and spatial sense, and measurement. Teachers were asked about a number of these concepts as shown in Exhibit 3.10. Children in both age groups in Head Start classrooms were more frequently provided math activities than children in other center-based classrooms. As shown in Exhibit 3.10, Head Start teachers of the 3-year-old group more frequently used almost all of the eight activities (6 of the 8 showed significant differences). Head Start teachers of the 4-year-old group were significantly more likely to use math games, music, and dance to learn math concepts and activities emphasizing measurement. Significant differences were not found in the other areas among teachers of the 4-year-old group.
Other Types of Activities
Teachers were also asked how frequently they work on art and craft activities, play with games or toys indoors, play sports or exercise, and have children help with chores to promote independence. Children in both age groups in Head Start classrooms were more frequently provided art and craft activities and more frequently engaged in chores to promote independent behavior (see Exhibit 3.11). Indoor games and sports were very frequently used in both Head Start and non-Head Start centers.
Use of Curriculum
Curriculum plays an important role in shaping how the classroom day is structured and the types of activities the teachers focus on in class. For children in other non-Head Start center-based program classrooms, approximately 14 percent of the children in the 3-year-old group and 17 percent of children in the 4-year-old group were in classrooms that did not use a curriculum (see Exhibit 3.12). This compares to about 2 percent of the children in the 3-year-old group and 4 percent of the children in the 4-year-old group that were in Head Start classrooms.
The philosophies and scope of curricula commonly used in preschool classrooms often vary widely. As shown in Exhibit 3.12, a high percentage of children in Head Start classrooms are exposed to common curricula. More than three-quarters of the 3-year-old group and approximately 80 percent of children in the 4-year-old group were in classrooms that used either High Scope or The Creative Curriculum. In FACES 2000, similar findings indicated that the majority of teachers in Head Start used either The Creative Curriculum or High Scope.15 Thus, there has been consistency in the use of these two curricula over time in the Head Start program. Both of these curricula have similar philosophies that support developmentally appropriate practices that encourage children to make choices about materials and activities during the day. This philosophy encourages children to actively learn concepts by playing with or manipulating materials (Dodge, Colker, & Heroman, 2002) 16. This matches the earlier finding that children in Head Start center classrooms were exposed to developmentally appropriate “hands on” activities more frequently.
| Language and Literacy Activities | 3-Year-Old Group | 4-Year-Old Group | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Head Start Centers | Other Center-Based Programs | Head Start Centers | Other Center-Based Programs | |||||||||
| Never | Some-times | Freq-uently | Never | Some-times | Freq-uently | Never | Some-times | Freq-uently | Never | Some-times | Freq-uently | |
| Name Letters | 1.1 | 20.7 | 78.2 | 9.9 | 24.5 | 65.6 | 0.9 | 15.7 | 83.4 | 0.8 | 20.3 | 78.9 |
| Write Letters (3-year-old group**) | 4.0 | 39.3 | 56.6 | 21.8 | 34.9 | 43.3 | 2.3 | 30.9 | 66.7 | 5.2 | 43.2 | 51.7 |
| Letter sounds (phonics) | 3.5 | 33.9 | 62.6 | 11.2 | 30.5 | 58.2 | 3.1 | 27.6 | 69.3 | 2.9 | 32.2 | 64.8 |
| Write/ spell name (3-year-old group*) | 3.3 | 27.4 | 69.3 | 18.4 | 25.8 | 55.9 | 1.7 | 20.0 | 78.3 | 2.2 | 34.4 | 63.4 |
| Discuss new words (3-year-old group*) | 0.5 | 23.9 | 75.5 | 7.7 | 41.3 | 51.0 | 0.6 | 22.3 | 77.1 | 0.6 | 33.9 | 65.5 |
| Have children tell stories | 0.5 | 42.9 | 56.5 | 4.3 | 55.2 | 40.5 | 0.0 | 48.7 | 51.3 | 2.1 | 57.5 | 40.4 |
| Read to children (show print) | 0.4 | 15.0 | 84.6 | 3.9 | 23.3 | 72.8 | 0.3 | 16.5 | 83.2 | 0.2 | 19.6 | 80.2 |
| Retell/ make up stories (3-year-old group*) | 0.9 | 48.8 | 50.4 | 8.4 | 59.9 | 31.6 | 0.1 | 53.6 | 46.4 | 4.1 | 61.4 | 34.6 |
| Show how to read a book | 0.7 | 28.5 | 70.7 | 5.0 | 34.9 | 60.0 | 0.3 | 24.2 | 75.5 | 2.2 | 29.6 | 68.1 |
| Teach directional words | 0.4 | 33.3 | 66.3 | 4.9 | 39.2 | 55.9 | 0.0 | 38.5 | 61.5 | 0.7 | 45.4 | 53.8 |
| Learn rhyming words | 5.5 | 48.7 | 45.8 | 15.1 | 55.3 | 29.5 | 2.1 | 47.8 | 50.1 | 3.8 | 56.7 | 37.5 |
| *=p≤.05, **=p≤.01, ***=p≤.001 |
| Math Activities | 3-Year-Old Group | 4-Year-Old Group | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Head Start Centers | Other Center- Based Programs | Head Start Centers | Other Center-Based Programs | |||||||||
| Never | Some-times | Freq-uently | Never | Some-times | Freq-uently | Never | Some-times | Freq-uently | Never | Some-times | Freq-uence | |
| Count aloud | 0.0 | 4.5 | 95.5 | 2.0 | 11.8 | 86.2 | 0.0 | 4.9 | 95.1 | 0.0 | 6.5 | 93.5 |
| Calendar/ days of the week | 2.8 | 11.3 | 85.8 | 5.2 | 21.4 | 73.4 | 1.8 | 15.3 | 82.9 | 0.5 | 15.7 | 83.9 |
| Work with shape blocks (3-year group**) | 0.4 | 11.6 | 88.0 | 1.8 | 23.4 | 74.9 | 0.1 | 16.9 | 82.9 | 0.5 | 18.4 | 80.8 |
| Count small toys (3-year-old group**) | 0.0 | 14.3 | 85.8 | 5.1 | 26.5 | 68.5 | 0.0 | 16.1 | 83.9 | 0.3 | 25.6 | 74.2 |
| Play math games (3-year-old group**, 4-year-old group*) | 0.7 | 34.7 | 64.7 | 8.6 | 47.9 | 43.6 | 0.4 | 34.4 | 65.2 | 4.5 | 44.5 | 50.1 |
| Use music to learn math (3-year-old group**, 4-year-old group*) | 3.8 | 36.8 | 59.4 | 21.8 | 42.9 | 35.3 | 2.2 | 47.1 | 50.7 | 20.1 | 42.5 | 37.4 |
| Use dance to learn math (3-year-old group*, 4-year-old group*) | 3.5 | 43.9 | 52.5 | 16.7 | 51.8 | 31.6 | 2.0 | 46.5 | 51.5 | 16.1 | 51.8 | 32.1 |
| Use rulers/ measuring cups (3-year-old group ***, 4-year-old group***) | 3.7 | 46.5 | 49.9 | 16.0 | 54.2 | 29.8 | 0.1 | 53.7 | 46.3 | 8.9 | 69.9 | 22.1 |
| *=p≤.05, **=p≤.01, ***=p≤.001 |
| Other Activities | 3-Year-Old Group | 4-Year-Old Group | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Head Start Centers | Other Center- Based Programs | Head Start Centers | Other Center-Based Programs | |||||||||
| Never | Some-times | Freq-uently | Never | Some-times | Freq-uently | Never | Some-times | Freq-uently | Never | Some-times | Freq-uence | |
| Work on arts and crafts (3-year-old group*, 4-year-old group*) | 0.2 | 9.3 | 90.6 | 1.8 | 22.5 | 75.8 | 0.5 | 9.7 | 89.9 | 0.0 | 22.6 | 77.4 |
| Play indoor games or toys | 0.0 | 5.3 | 94.7 | 1.0 | 8.0 | 90.9 | 0.0 | 1.7 | 98.3 | 0.0 | 3.3 | 96.7 |
| Play sports or exercise | 0.0 | 6.3 | 93.7 | 2.8 | 13.6 | 83.7 | 0.0 | 5.9 | 94.1 | 0.2 | 13.2 | 86.6 |
| Help with chores (3-year-old group**, 4-year-old group*) | 0.1 | 5.1 | 94.7 | 3.9 | 19.7 | 76.3 | 0.1 | 3.9 | 95.9 | 2.3 | 10.5 | 87.2 |
| *=p≤.05, **=p≤.01, ***=p≤.001 |
There was significantly more variation in curricula among the other center-based teachers surveyed for both age groups (see Exhibit 3.12). Only 41 percent of the 3-year-old group was in classrooms in which teachers reported using High Scope or The Creative Curriculum. Similarly, for children in the 4-year-old group, approximately 46 percent of the children were in classrooms that used High Scope or The Creative Curriculum. A wide array of other curricula were mentioned by the teachers in the other center-based classrooms, with state-developed curricula mentioned most frequently.
| Type of Curriculum | 3-Year-Old Group (N=1,259) | 4-Year-Old Group (N= 1,067) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Head Start Centers | Other Center-Based Programs | Head Start Centers | Other Center-Based Programs | |
| High Scope or Creative Curriculum | 76.7*** | 41.0 | 79.7** | 46.2 |
| Other curriculum | 21.6 | 45.1 | 16.8 | 36.5 |
| No curriculum | 1.7 | 13.9 | 3.5 | 17.3 |
| Total percent | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| *=p≤.05, **=p≤.01, ***=p≤.001 |
1 The current analyses of quality provide only a comparison of Head Start and non-Head Start centers and do not look at how impacts vary as a function of varying levels of quality. Future analyses will address this issue. (back)
2 Appendix 3.1 provides an exhibit showing the percentage of children in Head Start and non-Head Start groups by main care arrangement. (back)
3 Significance tests used in this exhibit, as well as Exhibits 3.3 and 3.4, are based on two-tailed t-tests. This approximates the mean of a 0/1 variable in a large sample, as described in Chapter 2. (back)
4 The term “non-Head Start center” is used for convenience because this category generally represents preschool and child care programs that cannot be classified as Head Start. However, Head Start services have been defined somewhat more narrowly for the purpose of this study. As a result, the category of “non-Head Start centers” actually includes some children in centers that meet Head Start Performance Standards, but these children were not enrolled in classrooms receiving Federal Head Start funding. (back)
5 See: (1) US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). The Condition of Education 2002. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office (NCES Publication No. 2002-025.; and (2) The Urban Institute, (2003). Percentage of Three- and Four-Year Olds in Poverty in Different Types of Child Care Arrangements. Unpublished calculations based on data from the 1999 National Survey of America’s Families. (back)
6 Phillips, D., D. Makos, S. Scarr, K. McCartney, and M. Abbott-Shim. “Within and beyond the classroom door: Assessing quality in child care centers.” Early Childhood Research Quality, 15 (4), 475-496. (back)
7 Harms, T., R.M. Clifford, and D. Cryer. (1998). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale: Revised Edition. New York: Teachers College Press. (back)
8 Recall that these figures pool the experiences of children in both the Head Start and non-Head Start groups and represent the differences for children in Head Start classrooms versus other center-based programs, rather than impacts of the Head Start programs on quality. (back)
9 The standard deviation for total mean ECERS-R score for Head Start centers is 0.91 and is 1.14 for other center-based programs. (back)
10 To make these comparisons, the mean score combines the 3- and 4-year-old groups for Head Start centers and for other center-based programs. (back)
11 Henry, G.T., L.W. Henderson, D.P. Bentley, C.S. Gordon, A.J. Mashburn and D.K. Rickman. (2003). Report of the Findings From the Early Childhood Study: 2001-02. Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies.
Bryant, D., O. Barbarin, R, Clifford, D, Early and R. Pianta. (2004). The National Center for Early Development and Learning: Multi-state Study of Pre-Kindergarten. Symposium Presentation at the Biennial Head Start Research Conference, Washington, DC. (back)
12 Espinoza, L. (2004). “High-Quality Preschool: Why We Need It and What It Looks Like,” Pre-School Policy Matters, Issue 1, Nov. 2004, National Institute for Early Education Research. (back)
13 Pianta, R. (2004). “Transitioning to School: Policy, Practice, and Reality.” The Evaluation Exchange, Vol. 10, #2, 2004, Harvard Family Research Project. (back)
14 Snow, C.E., M.S. Burns, and P. Griffin (Eds). (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. (back)
15 Administration on Children & Families (2003). Retrieved from: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/reports/faces00_4thprogress/faces00_title.html. (back)
16 Dodge, D.T., L.J. Colker & C. Herman. (2002). The Creative Curriculum for Pre-School. Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, Inc. (back)
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |