Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 84
4
Quality of Child Care:
Perspectives of Research and
Professional Practice
DEFINING QUALITY
In the previous chapter we concluded that, in general, quality of care
has an impact on children's development. Is it possible to be more specific,
to identify the dimensions of quality that are most closely linked with the
development of day care children?
Researchers who have gone beyond summary measures (a center's
quality is "high" or "low") to identify particular qualitative dimensions in
child care settings have generally focused on one of two approaches to
defining or measuring quality: children's daily experiences in care (e.g.,
Anderson et al., 1981; Carew, 1980) or specific structural features of the
care environment, such as group size, ratio, caregiver training, available
space, and equipment (e.g., Berk, 1985; Fosburg, 1981; Ruopp et al., 1979~.
Of these two approaches, the one that most closely links day care participa-
tion with developmental outcomes is that focusing on children's experiences
(Belsky, 1984; Bredekamp, 1986~. Children's development is particularly
closely associated with caregiver-child interactions. For example, the com-
prehensive study of child care centers carried out on the island of Bermuda
showed that one aspect of interaction, caregiver speech to children, was
the strongest predictor of development (McCartney et al., 1982~.
If children's daily experience in child care is key, what is the role of
structural features? They appear to support and facilitate more optimal
interactions (Belsky, 1984~. In the National Day Care Study (ND CS),
for example, structural features of the environment were associated with
caregiver and child behaviors observed in centers (Ruopp et al., 1979~.
Observed behaviors in turn were predictive of gains children made in
a year on measures of cognitive development. Although environmental
84
OCR for page 85
QUALITY OF CHILD CARE
85
features cannot ensure that more optimal patterns of interaction will occur,
they can increase the likelihood of responsive and stimulating interactions
and thus of closer to optimal developmental outcomes.
The distinction between structural and interactive dimensions of quality
made in research is useful in differentiating between the two arenas in which
efforts can be made to enhance the quality of child care: government
regulations and professional standards.
Regulations establish minimum standards that are enforceable by state
licensing authorities. Most regulations aim at structural dimensions of
quality. For example, in a survey of state regulations for child care centers
carried out for the panel, we found that all states regulate staff/child ratios
and the square footage per child of indoor space in child care centers.
Many states further specie training required of center staff (directors,
teachers, and assistants) and square footage available per child outdoors
(see Appendix A). Although many state regulations consider such factors as
the nature of disciplinary interactions permitted (i.e., corporal punishment),
the focus of regulations is generally not on the interactive aspects of quality.
In contrast, professional standards cover structural features and in-
teractive aspects of child care quality.) Unlike regulations, professional
standards specify goals for quality care.
The accreditation criteria of the National Academy of Early Childhood
Programs of the National Association for the Education of Young Children
(NAEYC), for example, go beyond structural features such as group size and
ratio to include criteria for quality interactions among staff and children,
as well as for staff-parent interaction. The NAEYC accreditation criteria
include the following statements regarding staff-child interactions (National
Association for the Education of Young Children 1984:8~:
Staff interact frequently with children. Staff express respect for and
affection toward children by smiling, holding, touching, and speaking to
children at their eye level throughout the day.... Staff are available
and responsive to children; encourage them to share experiences, ideas,
and feelings, and listen to them with attention and respect.
These criteria were developed on the basis of a review of research and
of approximately 50 evaluation documents (i.e., program standards in lo-
calities), as well as the judgments of 175 early childhood specialists. 1b
1 Appendix B summarizes four professional standards of quality: the accreditation criteria of the
National Academy of Early Childhood Programs of the National Association for the Education
of Young Children; the Early Childhood :Environment Rating Scale; the National Black Child
Development Institute's safeguards; and the Child Welfare League of America's standards for
day care service. It also presents the criteria for quality given in two sets of requirements for
receipt of federal funds: the Federal Interagency Day Care Requirements and the Head Start
performance standards.
OCR for page 86
86
WHO CARES FOR AMERICA'S CHILDREN?
date, 675 child care centers in 47 states have completed the process of self-
study and external observation necessary for accreditation. Research with
the observation component of the accreditation program has supported
the reliability and validity of the assessment of interactions in early child-
hood settings and underscored the importance of staff-child interactions in
evaluations of program quality (Bredekamp, 1986~.
Federal and state legislative efforts to ensure the quality of care that
children receive in child care centers and family day care have primarily
addressed regulatable aspects of care. Accordingly, we summarize below
the evidence regarding the structural aspects of quality. The NAEYC
accreditation program serves as a reminder, however, that it is possible
to delineate well-grounded guidelines for high-quality interactions in early
childhood programs and that child care professionals view such guidelines
as attainable. Although focusing on the "regulatable aspects" of quality in
the following discussion, we affirm Morgan's (1982) view that regulations
and standards are important in improving the quality of child care services.
RESEARCH FINDINGS ON STRUCTURAL ASPECTS OF QUALITY
Conclusions regarding the structural aspects of quality rest on the com-
plementary perspectives of research and professional practice. Research has
examined empirically the question of which features of center and family
day care settings are most closely associated with children's development,
but there Is an Important gap In the existing research: with few exceptions,
it has not addressed the question of acceptable versus unacceptable ranges
on the key structural dimensions. At what point, for example, does group
size become too large to support development? Research has determined
whether a structural feature Is important; however, determining where "to
draw the line" between what Is acceptable and what is unacceptable comes
from standards developed for professional practice.
The emst~ng body of research on the structural dimensions of quality
identifies three important sets of vanables: major policy variables (identified
in the National Day Care Study), i.e., group size, ratio, and caregiver
qualifications;2 additional variables (which pertain to both family and center
21he NDCS (Ruopp et al., 1979) defined group size in a day care center as the total number of
children present in or assigned to a class or to a principally responsible earegiver, ratio in center
day care as the number of earegivers divided by group size; and caregiver qualifications in terms
of total years of education, whether or not a earegiver had child-related training, and years of ex-
perienee in day care. Child-related "raining was defined as presence or absence of special training
received by earegivers in high school, junior college, vocational or technical school, college, or
graduate school that was directly related to young children (in such fields as day care, early ehild-
hood education, child development, child psychology, or elementary education). Child-related
training almost always involved a combination of field work and classroom instruction.
OCR for page 87
QUALITY OF CHILD CARE
87
day care), i.e., caregiver stability, structure or curriculum, and space and
equipment; and factors specific to family day care, i.e., licensing and age mix
of children. In this chapter, after evaluating the evidence for these three
sets of variables, we identifier several other aspects of quality that have not
received extensive research attention, notably, overall center size, parent
involvement, and sensitivity to the cultural ethnic and racial backgrounds
of children. We also consider professional standards on acceptable ranges
on the key structural dimensions of quality.
Group Size, Ratio, Qualifications:
The Iron Triangle
The NDCS (Ruopp et al., 1979) proposed that the debate on quality
focus on three variables that it called the policy variables. These three
variables, recently redubbed the "iron triangle" (Phillips, 1988) are group
size, caregiver/child ratio, and caregiver qualifications. The NDCS (Ruopp
et al., 1979; Slavers et al., 1979) concluded that of the three key policy
variables, group size had the most consistent and pervasive effects on
teacher and child behavior in child care centers and on children's gains on
cognitive tests from fall to spring. In that study, ratio was clearly important
for infants and toddlers, but had less effect on preschoolers. Of the three
aspects of caregiver qualifications considered education, training in child
development, and experience in child care-only specialized training in
child development had consistent positive correlations with development
for preschoolers.
Much of the subsequent research on structural aspects of quality has
continued to focus on these three key variables. That research affirms in part
the conclusions of the NDCS. For group size, the findings are consistent
concerning the benefits of smaller groups. For caregiver/child ratio, the
findings are mixed: the findings on ratio for infants and toddlers are more
consistent than the findings for preschoolers. For caregiver qualifications,
research confirms the importance of both child-related training and overall
education.
Group Size
Findings concerning group size clearly pertain to both family day care
and center care. In family day care settings, larger groups are associated
with less positive patterns of interaction (Fosburg, 1981; Howes, 1983;
Howes and Rubenstein, 1985;3 Stith and Davis, 1984), and less advanced
3Howes and Rubenstein (1985) present their findings in terms of ratio, but in their study ratio
and group size are the same for family day care.
OCR for page 88
88
WHO CARES FOR AMERICA'S CHILDREN?
development (Clarke-Stewart, 1987). In center care settings, larger groups
have again been reported to be associated both with less positive interaction
patterns (Howes, 1983; Howes and Rubenstein, 1985) and developmental
outcomes (Holloway and Reichhart-Erickson, 1988; though see also Clarke-
Stewart, 1987; Kontos and Fiene, 1987~.
A decade ago, the NDCS (Ruopp et al., 1979) pointed out that despite
findings concerning the importance of group size, this structural aspect of
quality was not consistently regulated, but ratio, which was found to be a
less important structural feature, was. The report urged wider inclusion of
group size in child care regulations. Our survey of state regulations shows
that 10 years later, while group size in family day care is regulated in all but
3 states, only 20 states and the District of Columbia regulate size for all the
age groups we examined in child care centers. Five other states regulate
group size only for infants. Group size continues to be a dimension of
quality in which important research findings have not influenced policy.
Ratio
In family day care, ratio is usually synonymous with group size; there-
fore the findings summarized here focus on center care. In the NDCS, ratio
did not have widespread correlates for preschoolers, but it was important in
predicting the daily experiences of infants and toddlers. Higher ratios (i.e.,
more children per adult caregiver) were found to be associated with more
distress in infants as well as toddlers. For infants, it was also associated
with more child apathy and with more situations involving potential danger
to the child.
In further research involving infants and toddlers, ratio does appear to
be an important factor. Howes (1983), for example, found that in centers
with lower ratios for toddlers, caregivers were better able to facilitate
positive social interactions and to foster a more positive emotional climate.
In another study involving toddlers, Howes and Rubenstein (1985) found
that children in groups with more children per adult engaged in significantly
less talk and play behavior. Most recently, lower ratios have been found to
be associated with a higher incidence of secure attachment to caregivers by
toddlers (Howes et al., 1988~.
Like the findings of the NDCS, the subsequent research on ratios
for preschool-age children is not consistent. Howes and Rubenstein (1985)
found ratio to be important in predicting caregiver and child behaviors
in center child care, and Holloway and Reichhart-Erickson (1988) found
that children spent less time in solitary play in classes with better ratios.
Yet, McCartney (1984) did not find better ratio to be a positive predictor
of child language development, and Clarke-Stewart (1987) reports that
OCR for page 89
QUALITY OF CHILD CARE
89
children from classes with more children per teacher were more cooperative
with peers and adults in an observation setting.
Thus, it appears that ratio is particularly important for infants and
toddlers. Further research is needed to clarify the mixed findings for
preschoolers. Would differentiating between equal ratios in groups of
varying sizes make a difference? The NDCS, for example, suggested that in
larger groups with several teachers, lead teachers tend to manage classroom
activities and direct other teachers rather than interact directly with the
children. The NDCS continues to stand alone in attempting to study ratio
and group size as related variables. More work of this kind is needed.
Ratio is nearly universally regulated by states (see Appendix A), with
all but one state specifying ratios. However, there is substantial variation
in what states view as acceptable ratios for children of different ages. For
example, California and the District of Columbia require a 1:4 stafI/child
ratio for infants up to 1 year of age, whereas Georgia accepts a ratio of
1:7 for infants. Similarly, for children of 3 years, North Dakota specifies
a ratio of 1:7, whereas Arizona, North Carolina, and Texas permit more
than twice this number, 1:15. The substantial range in ratios in regulations,
particularly for infants, contradicts the research on optimal ratios for the
youngest children.
Qualifications
The NDCS (Ruopp et al., 1979; Wavers et al., 1979) concluded that
for preschoolers the key caregiver qualification variable was child-related
training. It was associated with more caregiver social interaction with
children, with more cooperation and task persistence among children, and
with less time children spent uninvolved in activities. However, three issues
qualify the basic conclusion that child-related training is central. First, the
correlations among the different components of staff qualifications child-
related training, years of education, and experience while moderate, were
"high enough to warrant caution in interpreting individual effects" (Ruopp
et al., 1979:37~. Second, the findings again differed by age of child: for
example, for infants and toddlers, overall education, rather than child-
related training, showed positive correlates. Third, the ranges of caregiver
education and training may be important to the findings in any one study.
For example, the NDCS involved caregivers with an average of 2 years of
education beyond completion of high school, but other studies, reaching
different conclusions (e.g., Berk, 1985; see below), involved caregivers with
college educations.
Findings from the National Day Care Home Study (NDCHS) (Fosburg,
1981) on family day care strongly support the NDCS findings concerning
child-related training. Caregiver training had strong and positive effects
OCR for page 90
9o
WHO CARES FOR AMERICA'S CHILDREN?
in all three types of family day care homes studied: sponsored, regulated,
and unregulated. For example, in sponsored and regulated family day care
homes, training was associated with more teaching, helping, and dramatic
play and with less activity that did not involve interacting with children.
Raining was found to be a predictor of caregiver behavior in further studies
of this type of care by Howes (1983) and Rosenthal (1988~. Yet findings
from other studies point to positive correlates of caregiver overall education.
Berk (1985) found caregiver education to be the most important predictor
of caregiver communicative behavior with children in child care centers,
with the distinction being made between caregivers with high school only
and those with at least 2 years of college. Education predicted caregiver
behavior with infants in the NDCS (Ruopp et al., 1979) and some caregiver
behaviors in family day care (Fosburg, 1981~. The evidence, then, points to
positive correlates of both caregiver education and training specific to child
development. We note, however, that the two studies of national scope (the
NDCS focusing on center care and the NDCHS focusing on family day
care) are in agreement in showing a stronger impact of training specific to
child development.
There is little indication that the third approach to measuring quali-
fications, greater caregiver experience, is positively associated with either
interactions or outcomes (Howes, 1983; Rosenthal, 1988~. Indeed, Ruopp
and colleagues (1979) found less cognitive and social stimulation of in-
fants and more apathy among infants and toddlers with more experienced
caregivers, and Kontos and Fiene (1987) did not find caregiver experience
considered alone to be a predictor of child outcomes.
Into approaches in future research would greatly clarify the role of
caregiver qualifications. First, no study to date has involved random assign-
ment of caregivers to receive different training or education experiences.
Such an approach would help eliminate the possibility that caregivers with
more and less training or education already differ in ways that would have
implications for the development of children in their care. Second, there is
a need for greater specificity in defining both training and education. For
example, is the key aspect of training the experience of supervised teaching,
of coursework, or of something else? Although the research alarms the
importance of caregiver qualifications, states do not consistently regulate
this dimension of child care. Indeed, only 27 states and the District of
Columbia require preservice training for teachers in child care centers, and
only about one-quarter of the states require prese~vice training for family
day care providers.
OCR for page 91
QUALITY OF CHILD CARE
Summary
91
From the existing research we conclude that group size is an important
determinant of children's development in child care settings, and that the
ratio of staff to children in centers is particularly important for infants and
toddlers. Further study is needed on the relationship between ratio and
group size. While both Caregiver training specific to child development and
caregiver overall education are associated with outcomes among children
in child care, the two existing national studies point to Caregiver training
as the more important factor.
Existing state regulations do not resect these research findings. A
minority of states regulates group size for all ages in child care centers.
Ratios, while consistently regulated, vary substantially, with some states
permitting a single Caregiver to care for seven babies. And only a little
more than one-half of the states require prese~vice training for center
teachers. There are, then, serious gaps in the regulation even of these
three so-called "regulatable" dimensions of child care quality.
Stability, Structure, Facilities:
Beyond the Iron Triangle
Recent research has moved beyond the iron-triangle variables to iden-
tify additional characteristics of child care environments that foster chil-
dren's development. The evidence points, in particular, to the importance
of Caregiver stability and continuity, structure of daily routine, and ade-
quacy of physical facilities. Caregiver stability is not directly regulatable,
but it is a structural feature of quality that could probably be affected by
higher salaries for caregivers.
Caregiver Stability and Continuity
Chapter 3 summarized the research pointing to children's needs for
enduring relationships with particular caregivers. In both family day care
and center care, these needs are more adequately fulfilled if children do
not experience frequent changes of caregivers caused by staff turnover
or families changing their child care arrangements. In center care, these
needs are further assured when children become involved with particular
caregivers among the several caregivers to whom they are exposed. (In
Chapter 5, we discuss in more detail findings pointing to the importance of
enduring relationships among particular children in child care).
The number of changes a child experiences in child care arrangements
has Implications for both short- and long-term development. Multiple
changes in child care arrangements have been found to be associated with
OCR for page 92
92
WHO CARES FOR AMERICA'S CHILDREN?
higher rates of insecure attachment to mother (see Chapter 3) both in a
highly stressed, lower income sample (Vaughn et al., 1980) and in a middle-
class sample (Suwalsky et al., 1986~. Howes and Stewart (1987) found that
when children in family day care experience a greater number of different
child care arrangements, they demonstrate lower levels of complexity in
their play with adults and peers and with objects. Stable care was also
found to be related to positive longer term development in a recent study
by Howes (1988~: greater early stability of care predicted better school
adjustment in first grade.
Researchers have focused not only on the number of changes children
experience in care arrangements, but also on the extent to which children
in center care form relationships with individual caregivers. Several studies
indicate that children's involvement with particular caregivers in center care
is associated with greater security in their behavior. Cummings (1980) found
infants and toddlers to be less distressed when transferred from mother to
a more familiar, as opposed to a less familiar, caregiver upon arrival at a
child care center. In a study by Anderson and colleagues (1981), toddlers
in center care who were observed in a laboratory setting with a highly
involved (in contrast to a less involved) caregiver more freely explored an
unfamiliar room and more often made physical and visual or vocal contact
with the caregiver-behaviors suggestive of secure attachment.
Structure and Content of Daily Activities
Researchers have explored two issues concerning daily activities in
child care: structure and content. Child care can be viewed as a custodial
setting in which physical care is ensured and children's major activity is free
play. Alternatively, it can be viewed as a setting in which there are some
structured daily activities intended to facilitate social and cognitive devel-
opment. Does child care with some daily routine differ from unstructured
custodial care in terms of the outcome for children? In addition, child care
settings that follow a structure or curriculum differ greatly in the particular
content of their programs. Is there any indication of differing outcomes
associated with differing early childhood curricula?
The contrast of custodial care and some degree of organized learning
is well illustrated by the findings of the comprehensive study of child care
centers in Bermuda (McCartney, 1984~. In that study, the daily amount
of free play time in child care centers predicted less advanced language
development for children, and the amount of group activity time positively
predicted language development. If the director's goal was that the center
should simply provide a good, safe place for children to stay, children's
language was less developed than that of children in centers in which the
director's stated goal was to prepare children for school. Similarly, in
OCR for page 93
QUAD OF CHILD CARE
93
the NDCS, when teachers managed children's activities and when children
engaged in more structured than open-ended activities, they showed greater
gains on cognitive measures from fall to spring (Ruopp et al., 1979~. These
studies do not indicate that free play and unstructured time are inherently
negative. Rather, they suggest that a great deal of unstructured time
in child care does not contribute to children's cognitive development;
some emphasis on organized teaching activities appears to be beneficial to
children.
For content, research indicates that a range of quality preschool curric-
ula can facilitate intellectual development, particularly among children in
`'high-risk" groups. Thus, for example, in a longitudinal study, Royce and
colleagues (1983:442) found that pa variety of curricula are equally effective
in preparing children for school and that any of the tested curricula is better
than no program at all." The Perry Preschool contrast of differing curricular
approaches reached a similar conclusion regarding measures of intellectual
development (Schweinhart et al., 1986:41~: "iD]iverse curriculum models
can be equally effective in improving children's education."
However, when social development is considered, findings indicate that
differing curricula do have differing implications. In particular, the High/
Scope Preschool Study (Schweinhart et al., 1986), which randomly assigned
children to preschools with different curricula, reported differences accord-
ing to whether early curricula were structured around teacher-initiated or
child-initiated learning activities. This long-term longitudinal study found
that the group that had been in a teacher-directed preschool program
demonstrated less adequate social adaptation than the groups of children
assigned to preschool programs in which children initiated and paced their
own learning activities in environments prepared by teachers. While em-
phasizing the limitations of this study and the need for replication, the
authors note that the finding points to the importance not only of the
content a curriculum attempts to convey, but also of the process through
which learning occurs. Children's active initiation and pacing of their learn-
ing activities may have implications for their social development. Further
research on learning processes points also to the need for curricula to
allow for individual differences in learning styles and to the importance of
learning through interactions (Greenfield and Lave, 1982~.
Space and Facilities
The adequacy of space as a qualitative dimension differs for family
day care and center care. In family day care, the issue that emerges in the
research is whether children are cared for in a space that remains primarily
designed for adults or whether adaptations have been made such that the
space could be called "child designed." In center care, where space is
OCR for page 94
94
WHO CARES FOR AMERICA'S CH LD0N?
uniformly child designed, the relevant issues instead are sufficiency and
organization of space and equipment.
Howes (1983) found that in family day care the degree to which space
was child designed was associated with a number of caregiver behaviors:
restrictiveness and responsiveness to children, establishment of a positive
emotional climate, and ability to facilitate positive social relations. In
considering the results of this study, it is important to note the possibility
that caregiver behavior may not differ because of differences in space
but rather that caregivers who already differ on psychological variables
do or do not modify their homes according to children's needs. FIowes
(1983) raises the important possibility that the need to restrict behavior
and monitor safety in an adult-oriented space may have implications for
caregiver behavior. However, further work is needed to clarify the causal
direction.
In center care, specific aspects of the physical environment appear
to be linked to different aspects of children's behavior and development,
although, again, issues of causal direction are unresolved. Holloway and
Reichhart-Erickson (1988), for example, found that in more spacious child
care centers, children spent more time in focused solitary play. In contrast,
a child's social problem-solving skills were more influenced by whether
the center had a variety of age-appropriate materials and was arranged to
accommodate groups of varying sizes. Clarke-Stewart (1987) found that
children demonstrated better cognitive and social skills in centers that were
more orderly, that had more varied and stimulating materials, and in which
space was organized into activity areas.
Summary
Children's development in child care environments is enhanced by the
formation of relationships with particular caregivers and by the stability
of such relationships over time. Development is supported in settings
that caregivers define as learning rather than custodial environments, and
where they provide some structured learning. Preliminary findings suggest
that children benefit when the learning process involves child-initiated and
-paced learning activities rather than teacher-directed learning. Finally,
research raises the possibility that more adequate space and physical design
in child care settings may be linked with positive caregiver and child
behaviors. However, further research is needed to examine the causal
direction of these findings.
The dimensions of quality of stability, structure, and space are rarely
the subject of state regulations. Caregiver stability is of course not regu-
latable, although it is clearly important. As we discuss in Chapter 6, as a
result of high staff turnover rates, a large proportion of children experience
OCR for page 97
QUALITY OF CHILD CARE
97
Dimensions of Quality That Need Study
There are several further structural features of child care settings that
have received minimal research attention and yet may be important to the
quality of care. In particular, little is known about the role of overall center
size, parent involvement, and sensitivity to children's ethnic, racial, and
cultural backgrounds, although some evidence suggests that these factors
may be significant.
Although group size within child care centers has been repeatedly
studied, the work of Prescott (1970) indicates that overall center size may
also be important. Prescott found that in centers with more than 60
children, teachers spent more time in managing behavior and emphasizing
rules. In smaller centers, serving 30 to 60 children, teachers were more
often rated as sensitive, and children were more often rated as highly
interested and enthusiastically involved in activities. Prescott observes that
large centers appear to lack a dimension of personalization as childrearing
environments. Given the recent shift toward use of child care centers, it
is particularly important that additional research attempt to replicate and
extend these preliminary findings on center size.
Examination of the professional standards (summarized in Appendix
B) helps identify features of quality that are viewed by professionals as
important components of child care quality but have not yet been the focus
of research: parent involvement and recognition and active appreciation
of children's cultures. For example, regarding parent involvement, the
National Black Child Development Institute (1987:5) states that "the entire
school atmosphere as well as organized activities should reflect respect for
and welcome to parents at all times," and the National Association for the
Education of Young Children (1984:16) sets as a goal that "parents and
other family members are encouraged to be involved in the program."
Parent involvement is a key feature of Head Start programs, but its
implications for parents and children have not been carefully evaluated.
Slaughter and colleagues (1988) note three distinct patterns of parent in-
volvement through Head Start: participation in children's education, partic-
ipation in program administration, and participation in skills development
programs for parents. Existing research confirms that parents are satisfied
with Head Start as a program both for themselves and for their children.
Yet no studies have evaluated the differential impact of these three types of
parental involvement. Just as Slaughter and colleagues (1988:5) conclude
that "Head Start's parental involvement component should be systemat-
ically evaluated," we highlight the need to assess the impact of parent
involvement in other forms of child care.
Professional standards also stress that curriculum materials should
reflect respect for cultural diversity and affirm children's multiple cul-
tures. The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS), for
OCR for page 98
98
WHO CARES FOR AMERICA'S CHILDREN?
example, gives "cultural awareness evidenced by liberal inclusion of mul-
tiracial . . . materials" (Harms and Clifford, 1980:8) as a characteristic
of high-quality care. Head Start has played a pioneering role in making
multicultural sensitivity an integral part of its program (Slaughter et al.,
1988~. Indeed, Head Start performance standards require a multicultural
approach, and a great deal of work has been done in the context of
Head Start to develop and implement multicultural curricula, most recently
through the National Head Start Multicultural Fisk Force (1987~. How-
ever, as with parent involvement, the research has been sparse. Slaughter
and colleagues (1988:8) conclude that "to date the opportunity to use Head
Start for the collection of information that would provide a data base on
ethnic minority children has not been seized."
The importance of examining the implications for children of a mul-
ticultural approach in child care settings is also underscored by develop-
mental research. Findings over a 40-year period have been consistent in
indicating that young children in the United States show a Eurocentric
bias for racial connotations, attitudes, and preferences, independent of
socioeconomic status, race, and sex (Aboud, 1988; Alejandro-Wright, 1985;
Clark and Clark, 1939, 1940; Comer, 1989; Goodman, 1964; Phinney and
Rotheram, 1988~. Linkages between own-group cultural identity and aca-
demic competence have been found for minority group children both in
the United States (see Chapter 5) and in other countries (e.g., evidence
regarding achievement in minority group children in Japan reviewed by
Ogbu [1986] and by Spencer et al. [19873~. Future research is needed
on approaches in child care settings that affirm children's cultural identi-
ties in relation to children's development. Research with older children
(Cummins, 1986) suggests that this factor m~v he. n~rtio,'l~riv imnnrt~nt for
children's cognitive development.
~; A_ red ^ ~ ^~^r~^V~
-cry I
European research on child care also helps to identify dimensions of
quality that have not been explored in research in the United States. One
such dimension, that of caregiver autonomy in child care centers, emerged
in the work of Tizard and colleagues (1972) regarding residential nurseries
in England. Nursery groups in which child care staff had more autonomy
(for example, to make decisions about activities, schedules, and menus
for children) differed in terms of observed verbal behaviors from nursery
groups with low autonomy (rigid daily schedule and decisions made by an
administrator rather than by the staff of the individual group). In the high-
autonomy groups, staff played and conversed more with children than did
staff in low-autonomy groups. Similar findings were reported from a study
of day nurseries (child care centers) (Garland and White, 1980~. Together,
these findings raise the possibility that the organizational structure of child
care centers may be a dimension of quality worthy of further study. In U.S.
OCR for page 99
QUAIJIY OF CHILD CARE
99
child care centers, is there variation in degree of caregiver autonomy, and
is this linked to other quality measures or to indices of development?
In summary, empirical examinations of quality should be expanded to
take account of these additional dimensions of quality that are reflected
either in the professional standards or in academic research.
PROFESSIONAL GUIDELINES ON
STRUCTURAL ASPECTS OF QUALITY
Although research is helpful in identifying which structural dimensions
of quality are important, it is less helpful in clarifying the magnitude of
the effects associated with graded improvements in quality (effect sizes)
or appropriate limits on such structural dimensions as group size or ratio.
In order to identify ranges and limits for specific quality dimensions for
example, at what point does group size exceed acceptable limits, or how
many 1-, 2-, or 3-year-olds should a single caregiver be responsible for it is
necessary to turn to program evaluations and professional expertise. These
sources provide the basis for four sets of standards for professional practice
and two sets of requirements for receipt of federal funding identified by
the panel (see Appendix B). For example, the accreditation criteria of the
NAEYC were developed following reviews of approximately 50 program
evaluation documents, as well as academic research, and by 186 early
childhood specialists and the NAEYC membership (Bredekamp, 1986~.
The four sets of standards and two sets of requirements for federal
funding were developed for a variety of reasons. The accreditation criteria
of the NAEYC were developed in 1984 to establish a procedure for center-
based programs to engage in a voluntary process of self-evaluation regarding
quality, which leads to certification when externally validated. The safe-
guards of the National Black Child Development Institute (NBCDI) (1987)
suggest means of ensuring that programs for early education in public
schools are positive learning environments for black children. The ECERS
was developed by Harms and Clifford (1980) for research and to help center-
based programs engage in a process of self-evaluation regarding quality.
The standards developed by the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA)
(1984), first published in 1960 and revised in 1984, describe practices con-
sidered most desirable for the care of children in center-based programs
and in family day care homes. The Head Start performance standards (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, 1984) were promulgated in
1975 as a condition of the receipt of federal Head Start funding. Finally,
the Federal Interagency Day Care Requirements (FID CR), which were de-
veloped in 1968 (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S.
Office of Economic Opportunity, and U.S. Department of Labor), revised
OCR for page 100
100
WHO CARES FOR AMERICA'S CHILDREN?
in 1980, and have since been suspended, reflected an effort to standard-
ize the requirements for federally funded child care programs providing
comprehensive services to children.
As Appendix B indicates, these sets of standards and requirements
provide guidelines for establishing acceptable limits on the structural di-
mensions of quality. Although the guidelines detailed in the appendix do
not always agree precisely, they can be combined to define an accept-
able range for each dimension. For example, three professional organiza-
tions provide guidelines for maximum ratios and group sizes, though only
NAEYC does so for group sizes in the infant and toddler years. For ratios,
there is clear agreement across standards that in the first 2 years of life,
the staff/child ratio should not exceed 1:4. For older ages, the differences
across standards can be used to identify a range within which quality care is
possible: for 2-year-olds, the range of acceptable ratios is from 1:3 to 1:6;
for 3-year-olds, from 1:5 to 1:10; and for children aged 4 to 5, from 1:7 to
1:10. For group size, professional standards identify the ranges at between
14 and 20 for 3-year-olds, between 16 and 20 for 4-year-olds, and between
16 and 20 for 5-year-olds. The NAEYC-proposed maximum group size in
center programs for younger children is 8 for infants and 12 for toddlers.
Four of the organizations provide guidelines for professional qualifi-
cations of child care staff. For full teachers in centers, the standards agree
on requiring training specific to early childhood education or development.
CWLA, NAEYC, and NBCDI standards call for such training as a part of
a bachelor's degree or other professional education, whereas the FIDCR
specifies only training or demonstrated ability with children. The academic
research and professional standards agree, however, that specific training
in child development is important for teachers and caregivers of young
children.
Beyond the "iron-triangle" dimensions, the professional standards
specify that child care programs should provide a daily organization that
is both structured and flexible, that curricula should encompass social as
well as cognitive components, and that there should be options for children
to select and pace their own activities from among several possibilities
provided by caregivers (see Appendix B). In addition, professional stan-
dards specify the need for a physical environment that is designed for
children, orderly, and differentiated. Professional standards also comple-
ment the academic research by recommending parent involvement and the
affirmation of cultural diversity. Furthermore, the professional standards
complement the research by providing specific descriptions of how such
dimensions of quality can be addressed in actual practice.
Finally, we note that until quite recently standards of quality specific
to family day care programs have been seriously lacking. The professional
standards summarized in Appendix B. and the discussion above, pertain
OCR for page 101
QUALITY OF CHILD CARE
101
almost entirely to center care. However, in June 1988, the National As-
sociation for Family Day Care (NAFD C), Washington, D.C., launched a
program of accreditation for family day care homes to address this need.
Like the NAEYC accreditation program, the NAFDC program involves a
process of self-evaluation as well as external validation. It encompasses
the dimensions of indoor safety, health, nutrition, indoor and outdoor play
environments, interactions, and professional responsibility. To date, there
are 36 accredited family day care providers, and 250 providers who have
requested applications (Sandra Gellert, NAFD C, personal communication,
January 25, 1989~. A study guide, now in development, will soon make
it possible to add to the professional standards for center day care the
perspective from professional practice on dimensions of quality in family
day care.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
We have noted the need to draw on both academic research and
standards for professional practice in order to extract a picture of the
components of high-quality care. These sources are most clear regarding
the importance of six structural aspects of quality: group size, stafflchild
ratio, caregiver training, stability of care, daily routine, and the organization
of space.
Research shows group size to be a particularly important factor in
children's development in child care. Larger groups are associated with
less positive interactions and child development. Professional standards
provide ranges seen as acceptable for group sizes for children of different
ages, with the following as maximums:
to 1 year of age, between 6 and 8 per group;
1- to 2-year-olds, between 6 and 12 per group;
3-year-olds, between 14 and 20 per group;
4- and 5-year-olds, between 16 and 20 per group.
The effect of staff/child ratios appears to be greatest for infants and
toddlers. There is a need to examine in future research the differing
implications of ratios in groups of different sizes: that is, 1 caregiver for
every 4 children may have differing correlates in groups of 4, 8, 12, 16, and
24. Professional standards again provide ranges for acceptable ratios for
different age groups:
first 2 years, not higher than 1:4;
2-year-olds, 1:3 to 1:6;
3-year-olds, 1:5 to 1:10;
4- and 5-year-olds, 1.7 to 1:10.
OCR for page 102
102
WHO CARES FOR AMERICA'S CHILDREN?
Caregiver training specific to child development, and perhaps also
overall years of caregiver education, emerge in the academic research as
important to children's experiences and development in child care. There is
consensus across professional standards that caregivers should have training
specific to child development.
Research indicates that children's development is enhanced by the
formation of a relationship with a particular caregiver when several are
available and by the stability of that relationship over time. Those profes-
sional standards that address this issue identify the need for the assignment
of specific caregivers to particular groups of children, and continuity over
time in these assignments, in order to foster the development of affectionate
relationships between individual caregivers and children.
Research points to the importance of some daily learning activities in
child care settings, complementing unstructured time, rather than an envi-
ronment that is strictly custodial. Learning activities that permit children
some choice, initiation of activities, and pacing of activities are also bene-
ficial. Professional standards emphasize the need for a daily organization
of activities that is both structured and flexible, that incorporates learning
activities that foster both cognitive and social development, and that permit
the child choice and self-pacing.
Research suggests that children's experiences in child care are more
positive when space is well organized, differentiated, orderly, and, in family
day care, designed for children's use. Professional standards concur in
identifying the need for a physical setting that is orderly and differentiated,
as well as child oriented.
Although we have examined these factors and their influences sepa-
rately, the overall quality of child care In any one setting Is determined by
a profile across the multiple quality dimensions. The simultaneous opera-
tion of dimensions of quality is clearly portrayed in Grubb's (1987:59-60)
description of the "covert curriculum" In high-qualibr center care:
The physical space is carefully arranged to provide a variety of activities
where children in one area will not interfere with those in another,
and where areas for active play and those for quieter activities and
privacy are segregated. Activities are carefully paced throughout the day,
geared to the rhythms of children coming and going and to different
levels of alertness. While most centers devote some time to relatively
formal cognitive development, most of the "curriculum" is embedded in
games, toys, and different activity centers, and most of it allows children
to initiate activities rather than being told what to do on schedule.
Teachers circulate constantly, interacting with children, engaging non-
participating children in activities, and anticipating problems before
they develop.... me best teachers are in fact warm and loving, but
warmth alone is insufficient; an effective teacher . . . understands the
developmental stages and thoughts of young children and responds to
OCR for page 103
QUALITY OF CHILD CARE
them intelligently as well as lovingly. A well-run child care class, bustling
with actively, seems to be running itself, but in fact the influence of the
teacher is pervasive though covert
103
Similarly, Grubb's portrayal of poor-quality care shows the joint func-
tioning of inadequate sta~Ychild ratio, poor daily organization, and un-
trained caregivers (Grubb, 1987:60~:
Many children will spend large amounts of time unfocused, drifting
among activities in ways that leave them both bored and frazzled.
Without constant monitoring some children may become wild, especially
if they are bored, and then kicking, throwing and pushing may become
dangerous. Under these circumstances untrained teachers . . . may be
pushed to the limits of their patience, and then correction becomes harsh
and belittling.... If the center has cut corners on adult/child ratios not
difficult to do, especially with lax enforcement of licensin~then chaos,
the inattention of teachers, the management problems, and the resort to
harsh direction and punishment become even more serious.
In conclusion, the combined perspectives of academic research and
professional practice together provide a picture of the key features of
quality child care. To be sure, as we have noted, there are ways in which
this picture needs tome extended. Yet the present state of knowledge
is significant, with good agreement between researchers and professionals
working with children about features of quality in child care.
State regulations very often fall short of this picture of quality. In
some instances these regulations do not appear to be informed by research
or professional practice regarding quality. For example, only a minority
of states regulates group size for all age groups and some states have
regulations that violate what is known about optimal size~espite evidence
that this is an important feature of quality. There are states in which a
single caregiver can provide child care for seven infants. Only a minority
of states makes any requirement for preservice training for family day care
providers. State regulations do not address issues of daily structure or
curriculum of child care. In a substantial number of states, there is no
space requirement set for family day care homes, either regarding square
footage or design of space. Even on a universally recognized aspect of
quality such as staff/child ratio, states show major discrepancies in their
regulations, with one permitting for 3-year-olds only 6 per caregiver and
others as many as 15. Although the evidence points to the importance
for children of enduring relationships with caregivers, the United States is
experiencing a major problem with staff turnover in child care settings (see
Chapter 6~.
Our review points to the need for a reevaluation of state child care
regulations in light of the available evidence. We also believe steps could be
OCR for page 104
104
WHO CARES FOR AMERICA'S CHILDREN?
taken to encourage voluntary programs (such as the NAEYC and NAFDC
accreditation programs) to improve quality.
REFERENCES
Aboud, F.
1988 Children and Prejudice. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Alejandro-Wright, M.N.
1985 The child's conception of racial classification: A socio-oognitive developmental
model. Pp. 185-200 in M.B. Spencer, G.K Brookins, and W.R. Allen, eds.,
Beginnings. The Social and Affective Development of Black Children. Hillsdale,
NJ.: Erlbaum.
Anderson, C.W., R.J. Nagle, W.A Roberts, and J.W. Smith
1981 Attachment to substitute caregivers as a function of center quality and caregiver
involvement. Child Development 52:53-61.
Belsky, J.
1984 Leo waves of day care research: Developmental effects and conditions of
quality. Pp. 1-34 in R.C Anslie, ea., The Child and the Day Care Setting. New
York: Praeger.
Berk, L.
1985 Relationships of educational attainment, child-oriented attitudes, job satisfaction,
and career commitment to caregiver behavior toward children. Child Care
£?uarterly 14:103-129.
Bredekamp, S.
1986 The reliability and validity of the early childhood classroom observation scale
for accrediting early childhood programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly
1:103-ll8.
Carew, J.
1980 Experience and the development of intelligence in young children at home
and in day care. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development
45(6-7~:Serial No. 187.
Child Welfare League of America
1984 Standards for Day Care Service (rev. em.. New York: Child Welfare League of
America.
Clark, K.B., and M.K. Clark
1939 The development of consciousness of self and the emergence of racial identity
in Negro preschool children. Formal of Social Psychology 10:591-599.
1940 Skin color as a factor in racial identification of Negro preschool children.
Joumal of Social Psychology 11:159-169.
Clarke-Stewart, K.A.
1987 Predicting child development from child care forms and features: The Chicago
study. Pp. 2142 in D.A. Phillips, ea., Quality in Child Care: What Does
Research Tell Us? Washington, D.C.: National Association for Education of
Young Children.
Comer, J.
1989 Racism and the education of young children. Teachers Coded Record 90:352-362.
Cummings, E.M.
1980 Caregiver stability and day care. Developmental Psychology 16:31-37.
Cummins, J.
1986 Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Educa-
tional Review 56:18-36.
OCR for page 105
QUALITY OF CHILD CARE
Fosburg, S.
105
1981 Family Day Care in the United Sates: National Day Care Home Study, VoL
I, Summary of Findings. Office of Human Development Services. DHHS
Publication No. (OHDS) 80-30282. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
Garland, C., and S. White
1980 Children and Day Nursenes. London: Grant McIntyre.
Goelman, H., and JAR. Pence
1987 Effects of child care, family, and individual characteristics on children's lan-
guage development: The Victoria Day Care Research Project. Pp. 89-104
in D.A. Phillips, ea., Quality in Child Care: What Does Research Tell Us?
Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Goodman, M.E.
1964 Race Awareness in Young Children. New York: Crowell-Collier.
Greenfield, P., and J. Lave
1982 The cognitive aspects of informal education. Pp. 181-207 in D. Wagner and
H. Stevenson, eds., Cultural Perspectives on Chdd Development. San Francisco:
W.H. Freeman and Co.
Grubb, W.N.
1987 The Conundrums of Early Childhood and Child Care Programs in California.
Unpublished paper. School of Education, University of California, Berkeley.
Harms, T., and R.M. Clifford
1980 Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale. New York: Teachers College Press.
Holloway, S.D., and M. Reichhart-Erickson
1988 The relationship of day-care quality to children's free play behavior and social
problem solving skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 3:39-54.
Howes, C.
1983 Caregiver behavior and conditions of caregiving. Joumal of Applied Develop
mental Psychology 4:99-107.
1988 Relations between early child care and schooling. Developmental Psychology
24:53-57.
Howes, C., and J. Rubenstein
1985 Determinants of toddlers' experiences in dayeare: Age of entry and quality of
setting. Child Care Quarterly 14:140-151.
Howes, C., and P. Stewart
1987 Child's play with adults, toys, and peers: An examination of family and child
care influences. Developmental Psychology 23:423-430.
Howes, C., C. Rodning, D.C. Galluzzo, and L. Myers
1988 Attachment and child care: Relationships with mother and earegiver. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly 3:403-416.
Kontos, S., and R. Gene
1987 Child care quality, compliance with regulations, and children's development:
The Pennsylvania Study. Pp. 57-80 in D.N Phillips, ea., (duality u: Child Care:
What Does Research Tell Us? Washington, D.C.: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
McCartney, K.
1984 Effect of quality of day care environment on children's language development.
Developmental Psychology 20:244-260.
1987
OCR for page 106
106
WHO CARES FOR AMERICA'S CHILDREN?
McCartney, K., S. Scarr, D. Phillips, S. Grajok, and J.C. Schwarz
1982 Environmental differences among day care centers and their effects on children's
development. Pp. 126-151 in E. Zigler and E. Gordon, eds., Day Care: Scientific
and Social Policy Issues. Boston: Auburn House.
Morgan, G.
1982 Regulation of early childhood programs in the eighties. Pp. 375-398 in B.
Spodek, ea., Handbook of Research in Early Childhood Education. New York:
Free Press.
National Association for the Education of Young Children
1984 Accreditation Criteria and Procedures of the National Academy of Early Childhood
Programs. Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young
Children.
National Black Child Development Institute
1987 Safeguards: Guidelines for Establishing Child Development Programs for Four
Year Olds in the Public Schools. Washington, D.C.: The National Black Child
Development Institute, Inc.
National Head Start Multicultural Task Force
1987 Report of Fiat Meeting. December 10-11, 1987. Administration of Children,
Youth, and Families, Office of Human Development, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Washington, D.C.
Ogbu, J.U.
1986 Consequences of the American caste system. Pp. 19-56 in U. Neisser, ea., We
School Achievement of Minority Children. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Phillips, D.
1988 Quality in Child Care: Definitions at the AL. Mailman Family Foundation,
Inc. Paper presented at symposium on dimensions of quality in programs for
children. White Plains, N.Y., June.
Phinney, J.S., and M.J. Rotheram
1988 Children Ethnic Socialization. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Prescott, E.
1970 The Large Day Care Center as a Child-Reanng Environment. Unpublished
paper, Pacific Oaks College.
Rosenthal, M.K.
1988 Social Policy and Its Effects on the Daily Experiences of Infants and Toddlers
in family day care in Israel. Draft 1988, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Royce, J.M., R.B. Darlington, and H.\U Murray
1983 Pooled analyses: Findings across studies. Pp. 411-460 in Consortium for
Longitudinal Studies, As the Twig Is Bent . . . Lasting Effects of Preschool
Programs. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Ruopp, R., J. leavers, F. Glantz, and C. Coelen
1979 Children at the Center: Final Results of the National Day Care Study. Boston:
Abt Associates.
Schweinhart, L.J., D.P. Weikart, and M.B. Lamer
1986 Consequences of three preschool curriculum models through age 15. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly 1:15-45.
Slaughter, D.T., V. Washington, U.J. Oyemade, and R.W. Lindsey
1988 Head Start: A Backward and Forward Look. Social Policy Report, Vol. III, No.
2. Washington Liaison Office and Committee on Child Development and Social
Policy. Washington, D.C: Society for Research in Child Development.
OCR for page 107
QUALITY OF CHILD CARE
107
Spencer, M.B., S.R. Kim, and S. Marshall
1987 Double stratification and psychological risk: Adaptational processes and school
achievement of black children. Journal of Nemo Education 56:77-87.
Stith, S.M. and AJ. Davis
1984 Employed mothers and family day care: A comparative analysis of infant care.
Child Development 55:1340-1348.
Suwalsky, J.T.D., M. Zaslow, R. Klein, and B. Rabinovich
1986 Continuity of Substitute Care in Relation to Infant-Mother Attachment. Pa-
per presented at the convention of the American Psychological Association,
Washington, D.C., August.
Tizard, B., O. Cooperman, A. Joseph, and J. Tizard
1972 Environmental effects on longitudinal development. A study of young children
in long-stay residential nurseries. Child Development 43:337-358.
Wavers, J., B.D. Goodson, J.D. Singer, and D.B. Connell
1979 Final Report of the National Day Care Study: Research Results of the National
Day Care Study. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity,
and U.S. Department of Labor
1968 Federal Interagency Day Care Requirements. DHEW Publication No. (OHDS)
78-31081. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
1984 Head Start Program Performance Standards. (Codified at 45 C.F.R. Part 1304.)
Office of Human Development Services, Administration for Children, Youth and
Families, Head Start Bureau. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.
Vaughn, B.E., F.L Gove, and B. Egeland
1980 The relationship between out-of-home care and the quality of infant-mother
attachment in an economically disadvantaged population. Child Development
51:1203-1214.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
day care
