Evaluative
research takes a critical approach to all types of early childhood programs,
seeking to identify all their costs and benefits, strengths and weaknesses. Head Start, public school prekindergarten programs, and preschool child
care programs define the landscape of early childhood programs in the United
States today. Understanding what these three programs have in common and how
they are different from each other will help develop an accurate overall
perspective on early childhood programs. In the United States today, early
childhood programs follow one of three staffing patterns – Head Start, public school,
or child care. These three patterns strongly depend on the corresponding
funding and regulatory source. The Head Start staffing pattern is a
multidisciplinary team of teachers, family service workers, and various
coordinators. The teachers are low-paid and required to have a competency-based
Child Development Associate credential. In recent years, Head Start has
been engaging in a continuing effort to improve quality, including requiring
teachers to have an associate-level college degree and increasing
teacher salaries. Nonetheless, the Head Start staffing pattern places teachers
alongside family service workers and a step below various coordinators. It
places the classroom as one component alongside parent support, health and
mental health services, and social services referrals. The public school
staffing pattern places teachers in charge, supervised by a building principal.
There are no family service workers or coordinators of other services, except
sometimes school nurses. Relative to Head Start or child care, teachers are
better-paid and better-educated, generally with a teaching certificate
based on a bachelor’s degree. Because of this staffing, the classroom teacher
predominates, and there is less emphasis on separate positions that provide
parent support, health and mental health services, and social services
referrals. Unlike child care, both Head Start and public school prekindergarten
programs typically have part-day classes for children and, thus, can serve
twice as many children by having double sessions, serving one classroom
group in the morning and the other in the afternoon. The apparent
efficiencies, however, severely limit the time available for non-classroom
activities, such as teacher planning and home visits, which may be critical to
program effectiveness. Both Head Start and public school staffing patterns are
designed to help children develop and prepare for school. While the
public school pattern focuses primarily on education, the Head Start pattern
provides multiple services with intermediate goals, such as parents’ economic
self-sufficiency, that may become ends in themselves. Indeed, some Head Start
practitioners consider Head Start to be primarily a parent program. The child
care staffing pattern resembles the director and teaching staff portion of the
Head Start pattern. Unlike Head Start, there are no family service workers and
no coordinators of other services.
research takes a critical approach to all types of early childhood programs,
seeking to identify all their costs and benefits, strengths and weaknesses. Head Start, public school prekindergarten programs, and preschool child
care programs define the landscape of early childhood programs in the United
States today. Understanding what these three programs have in common and how
they are different from each other will help develop an accurate overall
perspective on early childhood programs. In the United States today, early
childhood programs follow one of three staffing patterns – Head Start, public school,
or child care. These three patterns strongly depend on the corresponding
funding and regulatory source. The Head Start staffing pattern is a
multidisciplinary team of teachers, family service workers, and various
coordinators. The teachers are low-paid and required to have a competency-based
Child Development Associate credential. In recent years, Head Start has
been engaging in a continuing effort to improve quality, including requiring
teachers to have an associate-level college degree and increasing
teacher salaries. Nonetheless, the Head Start staffing pattern places teachers
alongside family service workers and a step below various coordinators. It
places the classroom as one component alongside parent support, health and
mental health services, and social services referrals. The public school
staffing pattern places teachers in charge, supervised by a building principal.
There are no family service workers or coordinators of other services, except
sometimes school nurses. Relative to Head Start or child care, teachers are
better-paid and better-educated, generally with a teaching certificate
based on a bachelor’s degree. Because of this staffing, the classroom teacher
predominates, and there is less emphasis on separate positions that provide
parent support, health and mental health services, and social services
referrals. Unlike child care, both Head Start and public school prekindergarten
programs typically have part-day classes for children and, thus, can serve
twice as many children by having double sessions, serving one classroom
group in the morning and the other in the afternoon. The apparent
efficiencies, however, severely limit the time available for non-classroom
activities, such as teacher planning and home visits, which may be critical to
program effectiveness. Both Head Start and public school staffing patterns are
designed to help children develop and prepare for school. While the
public school pattern focuses primarily on education, the Head Start pattern
provides multiple services with intermediate goals, such as parents’ economic
self-sufficiency, that may become ends in themselves. Indeed, some Head Start
practitioners consider Head Start to be primarily a parent program. The child
care staffing pattern resembles the director and teaching staff portion of the
Head Start pattern. Unlike Head Start, there are no family service workers and
no coordinators of other services.
The staffing
is set up for teachers to take care of children. The teachers surely engage in
some educational activity and may well aspire to do more, but they are
not accorded the status and compensation that public school teachers receive.
While Head Start and public school programs are fully supported by public tax
dollars, child care programs are paid for primarily by families; government
subsidies are either partial or nonexistent. Child care hours are longer, in
response to family needs. The relatively low cost of child care staffing is
done in the interest of greater affordability and responsiveness to families.
Each of these staffing patterns involves tradeoffs relative to the other two.
Public schools employ tax dollars to give teachers greater responsibility and
compensation than Head Start or child care teachers. Head Start employs tax
dollars to give children and families access to other support services as well
as education. Child care programs, with no or
partial support from tax dollars, strive to take care of children at a level of
quality that families can afford. Head Start, public school prekindergarten
programs, and preschool child care programs all have the goal of contributing
to children’s development, and all value and support parent involvement
in the service of contributing to children’s development. But each definitely
offers its own variations on these themes. Head Start also has the goal of
encouraging and supporting families’ self-sufficiency by referrals to needed
social, health, and mental health services as well as support for adult
literacy, employment, and freedom from drug abuse. Head Start’s adult goals
generally support children’s development, but can on occasion compete with, or
even replace, this goal. Public school prekindergarten programs focus
single-mindedly on contributing to children’s development, but may
narrow this goal to focus only on children’s academic readiness for
school. Preschool child care programs really have as their primary goal taking
care of preschool aged children while parents are otherwise occupied.
Contributing to children’s development is an enhancement of this primary goal,
which is at the discretion of the caregivers involved, their supervisors, and
the parents who support these programs. Quality practices are either structural
or process. Structural practices are established program characteristics, such
as group size, staff-child ratio, and teacher qualifications. Process practices
are the behaviors that adults and children engage in during the program.
Structural practices are more easily set by rules and regulations, but process
practices directly affect children’s behavior and development, so that they
mediate any effects of structural practices on children’s development.
is set up for teachers to take care of children. The teachers surely engage in
some educational activity and may well aspire to do more, but they are
not accorded the status and compensation that public school teachers receive.
While Head Start and public school programs are fully supported by public tax
dollars, child care programs are paid for primarily by families; government
subsidies are either partial or nonexistent. Child care hours are longer, in
response to family needs. The relatively low cost of child care staffing is
done in the interest of greater affordability and responsiveness to families.
Each of these staffing patterns involves tradeoffs relative to the other two.
Public schools employ tax dollars to give teachers greater responsibility and
compensation than Head Start or child care teachers. Head Start employs tax
dollars to give children and families access to other support services as well
as education. Child care programs, with no or
partial support from tax dollars, strive to take care of children at a level of
quality that families can afford. Head Start, public school prekindergarten
programs, and preschool child care programs all have the goal of contributing
to children’s development, and all value and support parent involvement
in the service of contributing to children’s development. But each definitely
offers its own variations on these themes. Head Start also has the goal of
encouraging and supporting families’ self-sufficiency by referrals to needed
social, health, and mental health services as well as support for adult
literacy, employment, and freedom from drug abuse. Head Start’s adult goals
generally support children’s development, but can on occasion compete with, or
even replace, this goal. Public school prekindergarten programs focus
single-mindedly on contributing to children’s development, but may
narrow this goal to focus only on children’s academic readiness for
school. Preschool child care programs really have as their primary goal taking
care of preschool aged children while parents are otherwise occupied.
Contributing to children’s development is an enhancement of this primary goal,
which is at the discretion of the caregivers involved, their supervisors, and
the parents who support these programs. Quality practices are either structural
or process. Structural practices are established program characteristics, such
as group size, staff-child ratio, and teacher qualifications. Process practices
are the behaviors that adults and children engage in during the program.
Structural practices are more easily set by rules and regulations, but process
practices directly affect children’s behavior and development, so that they
mediate any effects of structural practices on children’s development.
Head Start
has family self-sufficiency as a secondary goal, so Head Start program quality
is defined as those practices that contribute to children’s development or
families’ self-sufficiency. Public school prekindergarten programs place
special emphasis on children’s school readiness as the defining construct of their
contribution to early childhood development, so the quality of these
programs emphasizes those practices that help prepare children for school.
Preschool child care programs place a premium on those practices that take care
of children while parents are otherwise occupied. These programs can be evaluated
against the common core of criteria for all three – structural and process
practices that contribute to children’s development. In addition, Head Start
programs can examine practices that contribute to families’ self-sufficiency;
public school prekindergarten programs can concentrate on practices that
contribute to children’s readiness for school; and preschool child care
programs can examine practices that enable parents to be otherwise occupied
when they need to be. Of course, it would also be possible to apply these
idiosyncratic criteria to the other types of programs. We could examine how
well public school prekindergarten programs and preschool child care programs
contributed to families’ self-sufficiency, a particularly apt criterion for
programs serving families living in poverty. We could examine how well any of
these programs contributed to children’s readiness for school, a
criterion that is beginning to break boundaries anyway because of our national
interest in it. We could examine how well Head Start and public school
prekindergarten program meet families’ child care needs. Such ideas go to the
heart of the question of whether the differentiation of types of early
childhood programs is a good idea or not. Should publicly funded programs be
expected to meet families’ child care needs, or should we continue with our
national policy of no or partial subsidy of such programs? Should early
childhood programs address families’ self-sufficiency needs for families not
living in poverty? Until these questions are answered, however, we can stick
with the universal definition of early childhood program success – structural and process practices that contribute to children’s
development.
Nonetheless, it is very difficult, perhaps impossible, to compare the
effectiveness of Head Start, public school prekindergarten, and preschool child
care programs for the simple reason that they serve different populations. The
main entry criterion for Head Start is that families have poverty-level
incomes. Low family income may be a factor in the entry criteria for public
school prekindergarten programs, but it is only one factor among others; and
low family income may play no role at all in the entry criteria for preschool
child care. The criterion for enrollment in preschool child care is that the
family needs child care to permit parents to be otherwise employed, a criterion
that tends to increase family income and also renders impossible the idea of
randomly assigning children who need child care to an unserved control group.
On the other hand, it is possible to compare the quality of the various types
of early childhood programs. The question is not which funding source is
best, but rather what funding levels per child and staffing and governance
patterns lead to programs of the best structural and process quality. Such
comparisons lead to thorny dilemmas that need to be faced. Funding levels and
policies interact in complex ways, making interpretation of findings difficult.
It would be quite reasonable to conduct evaluative research on all types of
early childhood programs together. But it will only happen if those who fund
evaluative research rise above their positions of employment for one or the
other of these programs. Federal and state legislators are well-positioned to
be asking questions of all these programs, but they need to figure out ways to
transcend program positioning in the funding agencies. All of us who care about
young children should find ways to place their education and welfare above the
status of the programs in which they find themselves.
has family self-sufficiency as a secondary goal, so Head Start program quality
is defined as those practices that contribute to children’s development or
families’ self-sufficiency. Public school prekindergarten programs place
special emphasis on children’s school readiness as the defining construct of their
contribution to early childhood development, so the quality of these
programs emphasizes those practices that help prepare children for school.
Preschool child care programs place a premium on those practices that take care
of children while parents are otherwise occupied. These programs can be evaluated
against the common core of criteria for all three – structural and process
practices that contribute to children’s development. In addition, Head Start
programs can examine practices that contribute to families’ self-sufficiency;
public school prekindergarten programs can concentrate on practices that
contribute to children’s readiness for school; and preschool child care
programs can examine practices that enable parents to be otherwise occupied
when they need to be. Of course, it would also be possible to apply these
idiosyncratic criteria to the other types of programs. We could examine how
well public school prekindergarten programs and preschool child care programs
contributed to families’ self-sufficiency, a particularly apt criterion for
programs serving families living in poverty. We could examine how well any of
these programs contributed to children’s readiness for school, a
criterion that is beginning to break boundaries anyway because of our national
interest in it. We could examine how well Head Start and public school
prekindergarten program meet families’ child care needs. Such ideas go to the
heart of the question of whether the differentiation of types of early
childhood programs is a good idea or not. Should publicly funded programs be
expected to meet families’ child care needs, or should we continue with our
national policy of no or partial subsidy of such programs? Should early
childhood programs address families’ self-sufficiency needs for families not
living in poverty? Until these questions are answered, however, we can stick
with the universal definition of early childhood program success – structural and process practices that contribute to children’s
development.
Nonetheless, it is very difficult, perhaps impossible, to compare the
effectiveness of Head Start, public school prekindergarten, and preschool child
care programs for the simple reason that they serve different populations. The
main entry criterion for Head Start is that families have poverty-level
incomes. Low family income may be a factor in the entry criteria for public
school prekindergarten programs, but it is only one factor among others; and
low family income may play no role at all in the entry criteria for preschool
child care. The criterion for enrollment in preschool child care is that the
family needs child care to permit parents to be otherwise employed, a criterion
that tends to increase family income and also renders impossible the idea of
randomly assigning children who need child care to an unserved control group.
On the other hand, it is possible to compare the quality of the various types
of early childhood programs. The question is not which funding source is
best, but rather what funding levels per child and staffing and governance
patterns lead to programs of the best structural and process quality. Such
comparisons lead to thorny dilemmas that need to be faced. Funding levels and
policies interact in complex ways, making interpretation of findings difficult.
It would be quite reasonable to conduct evaluative research on all types of
early childhood programs together. But it will only happen if those who fund
evaluative research rise above their positions of employment for one or the
other of these programs. Federal and state legislators are well-positioned to
be asking questions of all these programs, but they need to figure out ways to
transcend program positioning in the funding agencies. All of us who care about
young children should find ways to place their education and welfare above the
status of the programs in which they find themselves.
Jeff C. Palmer is a teacher, success coach,
trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and founder of https://Ebookschoice.com. Jeff is a prolific writer, Senior
Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and
special reports.
trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and founder of https://Ebookschoice.com. Jeff is a prolific writer, Senior
Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and
special reports.
