Final

  I NEED THIS TODAY ASAP. BIG PART OF MY GRADE. EVERYTHING MUST BE FOLLOWED AND COMPLETED. 

READ EVERYTHING COMPLETELY. 1-4 BREAKS DOWN WHAT THE POWERPOINT IS ABOUT. 5 IS THE SKILLS TO BE ADDRESS. YOU HAVE TO USE THESE SKILLS ONLY! A-D IS WHAT EACH OF THE THREE SKILLS NEED TO ADDRESS.

Director’s Presentation
 

The Final Project will illustrate how family-centered programs, theories, and concepts support the early childhood classroom and the child’s family. 

The family-centered approach asserts that family involvement is important for a young child’s cognitive and social development. 

1. The Final Project, which will be presented via PowerPoint, will address the following scenario:
 

2. You are the director of a preschool program that serves children ages three to five. 

3. You are giving a presentation to teachers and parents to encourage partnerships in the education of the whole child. 

4. The objective of your presentation is to encourage adaptive skills and to facilitate strategies in which to maximize these abilities that can be taught in the classroom and extended at home. 

5. Address the following skills:

· Self-help skills.

· Pro-social skills.

· Self-regulation skills.

For each of the three skill-sets above:

a. Explain the desired skills and how they relate to the classroom and home.

b. Identify and discuss two to three strategies for teaching the skill-set to children in the classroom.

c. Explain how you will help parents to utilize the strategies to reinforce the desired ability at home.

d. Identify and describe a resource (either community or web-based) for the parents to use to continue their learning at home.

The PowerPoint presentation must be 18 to 20 slides in length, not including title and reference slides. 

· You are encouraged to creatively address the material by including graphics, visuals, charts, graphs, and/or sound. 

· Slides should be designed to clearly and concisely address the material. 

· The PowerPoint presentation must be formatted according to APA style (i.e., include the title and reference slides and citations within each slide when appropriate.) 

· The notes section of the PowerPoint must be utilized to expand on your presented points. 

· The notes section should also include any additional information necessary to explain or show your point of view.  

· You must also use at least two scholarly sources in addition to the course text and include at least four community resources (with websites included). 

I HAVE ATTACHED CHAPTERS FROM THE TEXT BOOK TO USE TO HELP WITH THIS ASSIGNMENT

2.1 Attachment Theory

John Bowlby, a British pediatrician, and Mary Ainsworth, an American researcher, were the architects of the current understanding of attachment theory. Bowlby presented his work in a series of papers and writings, based on observations of children aged 1 to 4 years old in British hospitals (1969, 1973, 1980), while Mary Ainsworth studied infants and their mothers in Uganda (1967). Ainsworth and Bowlby later met and continued to explore various issues associated with attachment. Ainsworth developed an experiment to determine the quality of attachment between an infant and the infant’s mother. From this experiment, she described three different categories of attachment: secure, insecure-resistant/ambivalent, and insecure-avoidant.

Types of Attachment

Mary Ainsworth observed infants, aged 12 to 18 months old, in an experiment in which the infant and mother entered a playroom containing both toys and a stranger to the infant. The mother then left, and the infant interacted with the stranger. Later, the mother re-entered, and the stranger left. This sequence was then repeated. Based on the infant’s behavior with the mother, attachment was determined. Ainsworth called this the Strange Situation experiment.

Ainsworth categorized attachment under securely attached and insecurely attached. In addition, she described two kinds of insecure attachments. Infants who mildly protest when their mothers leave but then actively seek reunion with them when they return are those with secure attachment. The securely attached infant then goes back to explore and play with the toys, using his or her mother as a strong psychological base, checking in once in a while.

Infants who are extremely upset when their mothers leave, often clinging to them and crying, and who initially seek comfort from their mothers or other caregivers on their return but then turn away in anger and irritability or struggle to get away, have an insecure-resistant/ambivalent attachment. Infants who ignore their mothers and continue to play when they leave as well as when they return to the room have an insecure-avoidant attachment. Insecurely attached infants are often angry at home, and hostile and unfeeling in the preschool with peers (Honig, 2002).

Since Ainsworth’s work, another distinct category of attachment has been added. Infants who display conflicting behaviors both when their mothers leave and when they return have disoriented/disorganized attachment (Hesse & Main, 2000). On the return of their mothers, the infants may initially move toward them, then stop and redirect their attention, or they may avoid them on their return and then seek closeness later. They appear to be confused about what they should do (Main & Solomon, 1990).

The Role of the Mother (and Other Caregivers)

Infants attach to significant adults in their lives. These adults are usually the child’s mother, but not always. The infant establishes a primary attachment relationship with this person, which determines the nature and quality of the child’s development. For example, mothers who have securely attached children engage in nurturing behaviors with their children, whereas mothers of insecurely attached children tend to be inconsistent, intrusive, and unpredictable (Belsky, Rovine, & Taylor, 1984). Specifically, mothers of securely attached infants

are sensitive and responsive

hold their infants tenderly and carefully

enjoy playfully interacting with their infants

feed their infants when they are hungry and in a way they like

let the infants play freely on the floor

sensitively respond to the infants’ emotional changes

respond sensitively and immediately to the infants’ physical and emotional distress

provide face-to-face feedback to the infants on language, behavior, and emotions (Honig, 2002)

Mothers of insecurely attached infants, on the other hand, inconsistently or rarely exhibit behaviors (e.g., cuddling, picking up, soothing, providing feedback, and playing) that allow their infants to feel secure. These mothers may engage in these behaviors only when it suits them. They can be intrusive and controlling and seem insensitive to the emotional and physical needs of their infants. Mothers of insecurely attached infants are often under extreme stress both at home and in the workplace. The mothers of avoidant/insecure infants seem to dislike contact with their infants and do not enjoy interacting with them. They are resentful and angry; they appear to reject the infant and have few positive feelings toward them. Mothers of disoriented infants are often severely depressed or mentally ill; they may also be dependent on drugs. They exhibit distant and inappropriate behaviors toward their infants.

There are many reasons for the difference in behavior between mothers of securely attached and insecurely attached infants. Parenting skills, knowledge of child development, stress, drug dependency, and mental illness are all contributing factors.

The Effects of Early Attachment

Through physical and emotional closeness to their mothers or other caregivers, infants develop a sense of security (Ainsworth, 1973). This feeling of closeness and emotional warmth allows infants to develop expectations of their attachment future—that significant people in their lives will respond to their needs, and that significant people in their lives will be available to them when needed.

Secure attachment grows when an infant’s basic needs are immediately and warmly addressed by the mother, father, and/or other caregivers. When an infant cries in distress and his or her caregiver responds, this attachment behavior continues to grow. If the pattern of behavior becomes one of coldness, unavailability, and inattention, the infant develops defenses against stress, unhappiness, and insecurity (Honig, 2002). This may exhibit itself by the infant avoiding or ignoring their parent or other caregiver.

Attachment also affects an infant’s own sense of worthiness. A rejected child may begin to see himself or herself as a victim, as someone whom others do not love or care for. This self-view is the child’s internal working model. The more a negative working model is reinforced by the behavior of adults in the child’s environment, the stronger it becomes, and the more difficult it is to change. Further, the child’s feelings of rejection may produce negative behaviors that result in teachers and caregivers responding negatively to the child, thus fulfilling the child’s negative expectations.

A key element of attachment is this internal working model. If children believe their caregivers love and accept them for who they are, they will develop positive attachments (Bowlby, 1958). When attachment is produced through warm, responsive personal relationships, a child develops expectations of comfort, security, and a deep sense of self-worth. Warm, personal, physical touch from a caregiver is one way secure attachment is developed. See Helping Children Develop: The Importance of Touch for more about the critical need for touch in the development of secure attachment.

Although the initial development of attachment is important, it is a process that continues to evolve, especially during the early years. Thus, if a child’s initial experiences are negative, subsequent positive interactions with parents, teachers, and others can help that child develop greater security. However, this may be difficult to accomplish because adults often see children who are insecurely attached as more difficult to love and care for in a responsive, warm, sensitive manner.

The Child’s Temperament and Attachment

So far, we have discussed the impact of the behavior of a parent or other caregiver on the development of secure and insecure attachment in children. But what about the child’s behavior—does it also have an influence on attachment? After all, attachment is the result of a dynamic relationship between the child and the caregiver.

Every human has a distinct personality. Some people are happy-go-lucky and spontaneous. Others are serious and careful, and some people always seem to be tense and upset. Much of this distinct personality is caused by a genetically inherited predisposition to emotions, activity, and self-regulation, called temperament. Temperament traits originate with nature—they are inherited from our parents. However, experiences in early childhood can—and will—modify a person’s later personality (Goldsmith et al., 1987). In the 1950s and 1960s, a famous study was conducted on the temperament of infants, known as the New York Longitudinal Study (Thomas, Chess, & Birch, 1968). This study of temperament was conducted on the same children over a six-year span. According to the study, infants as young as 4 months old exhibit a variety of temperamental traits that can be categorized into four groups.

Easy. An infant with an easy temperament displays regular biological functions (e.g., going to sleep, eating) and a positive approach to change and new stimuli, adapts well to new situations, and exhibits a mild to moderate intensity when reacting to change. Easy children are generally in a positive mood, and adults enjoy being around them.

Difficult. A child with a difficult temperament displays irregular biological functioning (e.g., is very difficult to get to sleep at night, eats at different times of the day) and negative and often intense responses to new situations and to any kind of change. In general, a child with this temperament is frequently in a negative mood, and adults often avoid contact with the child.

Slow-to-warm. The slow-to-warm temperament manifests in somewhat irregular biological functions. Slow-to-warm children exhibit a negative response to new stimuli and adapt slowly to change. The child’s mood is initially negative but then improves to a more positive one over time. In common language, we tend to call a child with this temperament “shy.” Adults must be very sensitive to the changes in mood in these children and adapt sensitively to them.

We know that a child’s temperament affects the way a parent or caregiver responds to the infant. For example, difficult infants (i.e., fragile, needy, and often crying) are at the greatest risk of child abuse (Bugenthal & Happaney, 2004; Rothbart, Pott, Azuma, Miyake, & Weitsz, 2004), as are premature infants, children with disabilities, and children who are irritable and not easily soothed (Thompson & Wyatt, 1999).

Children with difficult temperaments pose a particular challenge for parents and other caregivers. Not only do they exhibit behaviors that required a great deal of patience, flexibility, and understanding, but they produce fewer joyful and engaging behaviors that trigger positive responses in adults (Thomas & Chess, 1986). According to Kostelnik, Whiren, Soderman, and Gregory (2009), children with difficult temperaments require lots of patience, persistence, and care from very secure adults who are not under stress and have time to give to them. Parents and other caregivers who lack these critical attributes are more likely to engage in the kinds of behaviors with difficult children that lead to insecure attachment. This is also true to an extent for slow-to-warm children, particularly if the child does not meet the expectations of the parent or other caregiver.

This is one critical reason why each child must be treated as an individual and not compared to other children, either at home or in the program. For example, a father who is frustrated when his 5-year-old daughter is very upset because her mother momentarily left the table at a restaurant should not say to his daughter, “Why can’t you behave nicely like your brother? He’s not upset.” Rather, the father should empathize with the child and patiently say, “I know you want your mother. She’ll be back in a few minutes.” In a similar vein, a teacher who tries to encourage a slow-to-warm boy to enter a game with other children should not say to the boy, “Look, all the other children are playing together happily.” In this case, the teacher might suggest, “When you are ready to join in, I am sure the other children will welcome you.”

The ability of the caregiver to respond in a timely and sensitive manner to the temperamental differences of children is called goodness-of-fit, or the ability to match the physical and emotional environment to the unique temperament of each child. Caregivers need to learn how to treat each child as a unique individual whose daily rhythms, emotional responses to the environment, and overall temperament require a careful behavioral match by the caregiver.

2.2 The Parent’s and Teacher’s Roles in Each of Erikson’s Stages

In Chapter 1, we introduced Erikson’s psychosocial stage theory. This is an eight-stage theory that covers birth to death—a lifespan theory. Recall that the first three stages are trust versus mistrust (birth to 1 year old), autonomy versus shame or doubt (1 to 3 years old), and initiative versus guilt (3 to 6 years old). Both the parent and the caregiver in an early care and education program have a direct influence on the successful completion of each of these stages.

Caregivers who offer a loving, responsive relationship that provides focused attention to the needs of infants and young children are most likely to rear well-motivated and prosocial children with high self-esteem (Honig, 2005). However, caregivers need to be aware of developmental crises to help children overcome these specific challenges more effectively. For example, an infant’s development includes a series of challenges to caregivers (e.g., learning to walk and toilet training). These challenges can serve as a potential opportunity for positive social interactions between the caregiver and the infant. Clearly, the progression of the child through the first three of Erikson’s stages, and the caregiver’s ability to provide support for the resolution of each stage, directly affects the development of attachment in young children (Bretherton & Waters, 1986; Sameroff & Emde, 1990).

Trust Versus Mistrust

To support the positive development of this stage, parents and other caregivers must be able to interpret the infant’s signals of distress and other needs, and care for the infant’s unique needs through cuddling, turn-taking in communication, games, and joyful play. Other caregiver behaviors that increase the development of secure attachment in the infant include lots of intimate touch and meeting the child’s unique social, emotional, and physical needs. Each child’s basic needs must also be met uniquely: diaper changes, feeding, comforting, and sleep. Through these responsive behaviors by the caregiver, the infant learns he or she is important and that the world can be trusted.

Autonomy Versus Shame/Doubt

During this stage, caregivers need to find an appropriate goodness-of-fit between adult expectations (e.g., neatness, schedules, obedience to rules) and what the toddler is developmentally capable of doing. Firm, pleasant control—without a sense of shame—and calm, accepting handling of conflicts can increase toddler autonomy. Caregivers should not focus on the toddler’s temporary failures; rather, support should be given to help the toddler achieve developmental tasks.

This sensitive yet firm support of the child’s struggle for autonomy increases a sense of secure attachment because it builds a bond between the child and the caregiver as the caregiver responds to the child’s unique needs, provides feedback to the child’s behavior, interprets his or her signals, and plays affectionately with him or her.

Initiative Versus Guilt

Piaget was a developmental scientist from Switzerland who studied how children think and develop cognition. He created a four-stage theory of cognitive development. Children at this age (3-6 years old) are in his second stage, the preoperational stage. They are very fascinated with discovering everything they can about the world. Piaget viewed young children as little scientists (Siegler & Alibali, 2005). This describes what Erikson terms initiative: the desire to find out everything they can about the world and how it works. Thus, as we discuss Erikson’s initiative versus guilt stage, it is important to understand its relationship to Piaget’s preoperational stage. At this stage, children are fascinated with the real world of insects, animals, plants, objects, and people. They want to know how everything works and why things happen the way they do.

Piaget argued that this active exploration of the world is how children construct knowledge. Specifically, according to Piaget, children create what he calls schemes. A scheme is an abstract cognitive structure through which the organism assimilates information (Brainerd, 1978). Essentially, a scheme is a unit of information that is used by the child to process and store information. For example, the scheme for a dog might initially be a small, black, four-legged animal with a tail that barks. As the child interacts with more dogs, this scheme becomes more sophisticated and accurate. Thus, young children need lots of opportunities to play with a rich variety of natural and man-made materials. As children explore the natural and social world, caregivers should help children make choices and select tasks. They should help children engage in moral and prosocial reasoning, talking about why certain behaviors are good and moral, and why some are not. While rules should be clear, children should feel that they have some input into developing the rules. These rules should be enforced consistently and fairly.

From an attachment perspective, adults should encourage the child’s exploration and investigation, both of social and physical environments. They should continue to be warm, responsive people who sensitively meet the child’s unique physical, social, emotional, cognitive, and moral needs (Honig & Lally, 1990; Lally, Mangione, & Honig, 1988). For example, when young children first visit a museum and discover they can hold a pet tarantula, some 4-year-olds will be very enthusiastic about this possibility, while others will be extremely hesitant. In the first instance, the teacher should support the child’s enthusiasm, while also reminding the child to be careful when holding the spider and telling him or her not to pick up spiders at home. For the second child, the teacher could model holding the tarantula to demonstrate to the child that the spider is safe to hold.

2.3 Attachment and Cultural Diversity

Attachment is formed, supported, and reinforced by certain behaviors of the adult caregiver, which are influenced greatly by the child. However, parents from different cultural backgrounds raise children differently. In the United States and throughout the world, a variety of different child-rearing practices and adult-child behaviors are used. These different approaches are deeply embedded within the culture of the parents and other caregivers who interact with the child. Spotlight: To Sleep Alone? illustrates one of these cultural differences. But what is culture, and how does it have an impact on the attachment of a child?

In the book Multicultural Principles (Administration for Children and Families, Head Start Office, 2010), a variety of definitions of culture are provided:

“a framework that guides and bounds life practices” (Hanson, 1992)

“the organized and common practices of particular communities” (Rogoff, 1990)

“the complex processes of human social interaction and symbolic communication” (Hernandez, 1989, p. 45)

“patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behaviors acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiment in artifacts” (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952, p. 357)

“the ways and manners people use to see, perceive, represent, interpret, and assign value and meaning to the reality they live or experience” (de Melendez & Ostertag, 1997)

You can see that there is no agreed-upon definition of culture. However, all of these definitions point to how groups of people affect the values, behaviors, interactions, and symbols of individuals within them. And one of the central ways cultures exhibit themselves in families is in the way children are raised.

Four critical characteristics of culture must be kept in mind. First, culture can be the product of a vast variety of groups, or societies, including but not limited to geographic regions, ethnic and racial groups, national peoples, tribes, and economic and religious groups. Second, cultures are dynamic—they are continually under a state of flux and change. A third element of culture, particularly in an ever-more diverse and global world, is that cultures continually come up against other cultures, and they are changed by this contact. This process, whereby people and cultures change and adapt as they are exposed to other peoples and cultures, resulting in the dynamic, ever-changing nature of societies, is called acculturation (Wardle & Cruz-Janzen, 2004). Finally, cultures often exist within larger, more global cultures. We talk of the United States society as comprising many cultures—being multicultural. However, if you talk to people who do not live in the United States but have met an American or someone who has come to the United States from another country, they are likely to tell you that there is such a concept as the U.S. culture (Wardle, 2011b).

When considering cultures and the cultural contexts in which children and families are embedded, Ngo (2008) reminds us that cultural characteristics are not absolute and do not occur as opposites. It is not minority versus majority, individual versus communal, and competitive versus collective characteristics and behaviors that are exhibited by people from specific cultures, but rather cultural nuances and complexities. On the issue of independence versus dependence, for example, the question should be how are both independence and interdependence understood and valued in relationship to children’s development in different cultures (Raeff, 2010)?

Cross-cultural research using the Strange Situation experiment shows that, across cultures and countries, the same numbers of infants are classified as displaying secure attachment (Sagi, van Ijzendoorn, & Koren-Karie, 1991). However, the proportion of infants in the various insecure attachment categories differs from culture to culture.

For example, in Japan infants became upset when mothers left the room and ambivalent on the return of their mothers. Their attachment relationship was characterized by researchers as insecure-resistant/ambivalent attached (Miyake, Chen & Campos, 1985; Takahashi, 1990). Infants in Japan rarely leave their mothers’ side, babysitters are uncommon, and when parents need care for their infants, grandparents are used (Saarni, Mumme, & Campos, 1998). In Germany, a culture very different from Japan, infants do not seem upset at all when their mothers leave and are not too eager to rejoin their mothers on their return. They seem to display an insecure-avoidant attachment (Grossmann, Grossmann, Huber, & Wartner, 1981). In Germany and other European countries, mothers often leave infants alone for short periods, and the infants’ behavior seems to reflect this.

Because parents in all countries and cultures believe they are good parents who are attached to their children, the understanding of what constitutes attachment differs from culture to culture. Mothers in Japan view their children as securely attached if they behave well, cooperate, and do not bring attention to themselves (Rothbaum, Pott, Azuma, Miyake, & Weitsz, 2000). However, mothers in the primarily white cultures of Europe and North America are more likely to associate secure attachment with autonomy and individuality.

Children in a variety of cultures develop secure attachments. Further, the development of secure attachment is not a function of culture, but is rather, as has been pointed out, the direct result of specific adult-child interactions. So long as the significant caregivers in the child’s life—either their biological parent(s) or other important adults—engage in the kinds of behaviors that we know foster the development of secure attachment, children will develop secure attachment (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2001). Further, in collective societies it may be easier to provide attachment behaviors for difficult children (those with medical or other challenges, and children with difficult temperaments), because a variety of adults are available to provide sensitive, supportive, warm, and responsive care.

From a diversity perspective, it is critically important to understand that it is not the family’s structure or the family’s culture that determines whether a child develops secure attachment, but the variety and consistency of ways significant adults in the child’s life interact with the child (Honig, 2002, 2005).

2.4 Nurturing Secure Attachment in Early Care and Education Programs

Our discussion of attachment has focused on the primary caregiver—often the mother—and the child because this is the strongest early influence and where attachment initially develops. But attachment can also be encouraged, supported, and fostered within the early care and education program. Both the family and the early care and education program belong within Bronfenbrenner’s microsystem—the first and most direct context (see Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory in Chapter 1) (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1995; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). This is because both the family and early care and education programs have a direct and powerful impact on the child’s development and learning. This impact includes powerful influences that help shape the development and reinforcement of secure attachment.

Types of Early Care and Education Programs

Before we reflect on their capacity for nurturing attachment, it is important to consider the many types of early care programs currently available. In the United States, a wide range of programs are designed to care for and educate children aged infant to 5 years old (Neugebauer, 2008). These programs include the following:

private, for-profit, community programs (a single program or several programs)

private, not-for-profit, community-based programs (a single program or several programs under the same ownership)

national for-profit child care chains

Head Start and Early Head Start

mother’s day out programs (mothers share caring for their children, a few days a week)

programs sponsored by religious organizations. Nearly one in four early childhood facilities in the United States are associated with a religious organization (Neugebauer, 2005). These include Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Mormon, Muslim, Buddhist, and Seventh-day Adventist programs.

programs—both private and not-for-profit—targeted to single populations (e.g., gifted students, homeless families, and children with specific developmental delays)

public school preschool programs. According to Kagan, Carroll, Comer, and Scott-Little, almost all states now fund some kind of preschool program. Sometimes these are within public school buildings; others are run in a variety of community early childhood settings.

programs for infants and toddlers of teen parents attending public high schools

campus child care programs. These are programs associated with, and partially subsidized by, a college or university. Most research on infant care and early education is conducted in these campus programs.

employee child care. These are on-site programs for companies and government agencies. They might be run by a child care chain (i.e., Bright Horizons) or are a private, stand-alone program.

drop-in child care. These programs, both for profit and not-for-profit, are housed in shopping centers, hospitals, government agencies, and other places where parents need short, one-time care for their children.

family/home-based child care

A variety of state and local agencies provides governance for these programs. Enforcement for early care and education programs differs from state to state and county or city. The rules and regulations cover everything from adult-child ratios, space requirements, and food health rules, to qualifications of directors, group leaders, teachers, and caregivers. Many of these programs must meet regulations for several different agencies. For example, Head Start must comply with local child care regulations and stringent national Head Start performance standards. Public school programs must follow both the local child care rules and regulations and the state’s school standards. In some states, religious programs are exempt from some of the state and local licensing standards (Neugebauer, 2005). Further, rules and regulations for home-based/family child care tend to differ from those for center-based programs.

Additionally, many states now have an evaluation process for determining the quality of programs. These standards are usually based on the Clifford/Harms rating scales (Harms & Clifford, 1998), and they rate the early childhood programs using a fairly simple scale (on a scale from 0 to 5 stars). Additionally, there are a number of national accrediting systems used by many programs to demonstrate their quality to the community. These will be discussed in more depth in Chapter 10.

Curricula

As one would expect, the wide range of early care and education programs that operate throughout the United States implement a vast array of curricular approaches. Most public school early childhood programs use some form of extension of the public school curriculum, along with adhering to a state-developed standards framework, which generally focuses on kindergarten readiness (Kagan et al., 2006). Head Start must follow the shifting mandates of a federally funded program sensitive to the political whims of the time. Religious programs generally have approaches developed by a national office, although they are often tailored to local needs. The religious approaches usually include in their content specific religious beliefs, values, rituals, and other religious content.

Single, community-based programs—both for profit and not-for-profit—use a range of curricular approaches, from the adoption of national curricula such as Creative Curriculum, High/Scope, and Core Knowledge Curriculum, to individual approaches described as play based and developmentally appropriate. Then there are programs associated with well-known accepted approaches: Montessori, Waldorf, British Infant/Primary, and Reggio Emilia.

The Montessori approach focuses on a carefully planned and aesthetic environment, child-sized equipment, self-correcting materials, multi-age grouping of children, and large blocks of time for individualized, uninterrupted activities. Curricular content includes practical life (use of child-size brooms, mops, jugs, glassware, and other everyday items), exploring the world through the arts and movement, learning through multisensory experiences, and using carefully designed, concrete materials. Literacy is encouraged by first developing a rich oral language as a foundation, and the arts are used to focus on self-expression and teaching social studies (Kahn, 1995).

The Waldorf curriculum is broken into three developmental stages: (1) early childhood (infant to the end of kindergarten), which is the time to develop the body and senses; (2) middle childhood (first grade to puberty), where the focus is on learning through feelings and imagination; and (3) from puberty on, when children engage in the specialized studies of specific curricular content and academic skills. In the first period, children are exposed to learning about the environment through their senses and developing their imagination. Exploration and creative play are encouraged, and role playing of parents’ activities, painting and drawing, and developing language through nursery rhymes, fairy tales, puppet shows, and songs are emphasized.

The day, week, and year are organized around natural patterns, such as the children coming in the morning, lunch time, play, and small groups; the seasons of the year create patterns for the schedule. These rhythms are designed to connect each child to the external world (Trostli, 1998).

The curriculum of British Infant/Primary school programs is based on the constructivist philosophies of Dewey and Piaget. Projects of interest to each child form the foundation to the curriculum and are pursued in mixed-age groups. The process of accomplishing the projects is the mechanism used to teach various academic and social skills. As can be seen, the curricular content is presented in a whole-to-part approach, as opposed to the traditional curricula that tends to focus on parts to whole (i.e., teaching isolated skills and separate academic content). Teachers provide direct instruction to individuals and small groups of children in the skills and concepts needed to complete the projects.

The Reggio Emilia philosophy is a child-centered approach that focuses on the creative use of a carefully developed environment. This environment includes a studio where students—under the expert direction of a staff person with specialized skills—create artistic and scientific creations and projects, entryways and hallways that encourage social inclusion and interactions, a kitchen, meeting/eating spaces, and a deliberate flow of air and people between the inside and outside environments (Gandini, 1993). Classrooms include the traditional learning centers, such as a construction area, art area, dress-up, games, math manipulates, science table, and so on. The curriculum itself is delivered through projects, with the focus on

use of the studio and staff person who helps with the projects

self-directed groups of students developing projects

documentation

In the Reggio Emilia curriculum, there are different kinds of projects: intended projects, environmental projects, daily life projects, and self-managed projects. Documentation is used for children to reflect on their learning and development, for students to connect and reflect on other children’s work, for teachers and parents to enjoy and reflect on their student’s work, to document student’s growth and development, and to share with the larger community. The Reggio Emilia approach is considered unique for its focus on documentation (Gandini, 1993).

Some early care and education programs use several curricula to address the different needs of their students. For example, the Renaissance Children’s Center in Lakewood, Colorado, which serves children of homeless families, uses High/Scope for its cognitive curriculum, ECE Cares for social and emotional development, and Relationship Roots to help children learn boundaries and conflict resolution skills. However, many home-based/family and small community-based programs have no formal curriculum. They seem to use an organic approach, following the beliefs of the director and individual teachers and responding to the pressure of their parents.

Program Components That Support Secure Attachment

High quality of caregiver interactions with infants and young children is needed. Caregivers must respond to infants and young children in consistent, sensitive, responsive ways. They must provide a goodness-of-fit between the child’s temperament and their response. They must engage with the infant in the “dance of life,” what we call synchrony. This is a rapid, responsive, coordinated interchange of behaviors and responses between an infant and a caregiver. And they must change their interaction patterns and responses as children progress through each of the first three of Erikson’s psychosocial stages (Erikson, 1963).

Young children need a continuity of care to develop secure attachment. Keeping children with the same caregiver seems to develop in them a sense of trust that their caregiver knows and respects their own unique needs, wants, and joys (Raikes, 1993). In this way, the caregiver can learn a child’s unique temperament, feeding style, daily schedule, likes and dislikes, fears, and overall daily rhythms.

Thus, it is critical for a program to have a primary caregiver for infants and young children (Lally et al., 1995). The primary caregiver in the early childhood program is a person with whom infants spend most of their time, rather than having infants cared for by a variety of caregivers. It is advisable that this primary caregiver follow the infant until 36 months of age (Essa, Favre, Thweatt, & Waugh, 1999). Many quality programs move caregivers up as the children grow older. This continuity not only reinforces the important relationships between the caregiver and child, but also enables the caregiver to guide the toddler through the challenging struggles of the first two of Erikson’s stages (Erikson, 1963).

Caregivers who provide consistent, responsive, sensitive care to infants and young children provide an added bonus to the child who has a secure attachment at home. For the child without secure attachment at home, a warm, nurturing relationship with a caregiver is critical. To foster secure attachment, programs should include the additional components listed next (Honig, 2002).

Create a safe emotional climate. For a young child to develop into an active, curious, self-motivated learner who cooperates with caregivers and persists at difficult and challenging tasks, an emotionally safe climate is required (Erikson, 1963). To do so in a child-care setting, every aspect of the programming, particularly routines around diapering, feeding, and soothing for naptime, are critical opportunities to foster secure attachment.

Create a responsive environment. The physical environment must be soft and responsive. Soft pillows, mattresses with washable covers, and areas carpeted with rugs of different textures are all required. These add a sense of coziness and warmth to the environment. A rocking chair (away from the other children) is a great item to help soothe infants. Comfortable beanbags add to warmth and softness. Fresh flowers and green plants, colorful banners, and a cozy reading area give children the message that they can relax and enjoy a book or play with a toy. A private, fabric-lined cubby for each child provides a needed private space.

The outside playground should also have a warm, shaded area, where caregivers can sit on comfortable benches, carefully watching infants and toddlers enjoy the outdoors, crawl on gently sloped grass mounds, and play in the sand and water.

Develop love for the child. The development of secure attachment requires a special bond between the caregiver and child. Caregivers need to enjoy being with the child and develop a deep sense of love for the child. As we have discussed throughout this chapter, this can be difficult to achieve with a child who has a difficult temperament or fragile medical issues.

Treat babies and young children with respect. Caregivers need to respond to children in their care as special and well-loved people, use their names frequently, speak in a calm voice, and respond respectfully to difficult and confusing behaviors. Also, caregivers need to let the child know when they need to leave, and then when they return. While infants do not understand these words, body language and the tone of voice communicates respect for the child.

Support the efforts of infants and young children. Young children need sensitive, unobtrusive help and support for their sincere efforts. Instead of pointing out their mistakes, the adult should provide encouraging words and an occasional physical assist. It is a matter of following the child’s initiative and interests, and helping them when needed.

Respond to the child’s sensitive body language. Bodily cues from an infant or small child can help caregivers know their needs and their temperament. The caregiver should become extremely familiar with these nonverbal cues and respond sensitively to the child’s needs. This is particularly true for the difficult and slow-to-warm child, whose cues may initially cause the adult to be defensive and cold. Children who appear tense, stressed, distant, aggressive, or hyper-vigilant may need special care and attention. (See Think About It: How Do You Know the Child Trusts You? for more information.)

The Role of Professional Caregivers

Because caregivers can affect the development of attachment in the children they work with, it is critical that they consistently demonstrate the behaviors that enhance secure attachment. One of the main reasons caregivers must attend college classes and training sessions to gain certificates and degrees is so they can obtain important knowledge of child development and skills for working with young children. However, these classes do not address issues of stress and mental and physical illness. It is well documented that in the United States, people who care for and teach young children are poorly compensated (Neugebauer, 2004). Many do not have adequate health insurance and health care. And, because of the low pay and benefits they receive, many child-care providers and teachers live in poverty, putting them at higher risk for stress than if they received better compensation (Neugebauer, 2004). As a result, the continuity of care that is critically needed to develop and foster secure attachment may be jeopardized.

Collaboration Between the Program and the Family

The positive connections and collaborations between families and their early care and education programs fall under the mesosystem category of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. This context includes various ways dimensions of the microsystems work together to affect the development and education of the child, in this case ways the family and program work together for the benefit of the child (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1995; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998).

When we discussed fostering attachment in the early care and education program, consistency and continuity were viewed as critical elements. For the same reason, consistency and continuity between the family and program are also critical for developing and fostering secure attachment in children. To create and maintain this consistency and continuity, two-way communication is essential. As was mentioned in Chapter 1, two-way communication between the home and program begins with respect and willingness to work together for the good of the child. A program can enhance two-way communication through the following strategies.

Use initial registration forms. On these forms, information can be collected about the child (temperament, likes and dislikes, food preferences) and concerns parents have regarding the care of their child. The form should convey to parents an interest in their views, concerns, and aspirations for their child.

Focus on the initial contact between the program and parent. As we are well aware, first impressions are critical. At the initial interview between the parent and program representative, information about the child, the child’s behavior and temperament, and the parents’ wishes for the child need to be discussed. The program representative must also clearly communicate to the parent the program’s philosophy and rules, regulations, and expectations, both for the child and for the parent.

Provide parent bulletin boards. Each classroom should have a parent bulletin board close to the classroom door. On this board, pertinent information should be posted. The tone of the board should be user-friendly, and it should convey the program’s sincere interest in parents’ concerns and points of view.

Establish and maintain an open climate of the center and classroom. Many centers tell parents they are welcome to visit at any time. But are they? When parents visit, are they welcomed with a smile and a kind word, or a shrug and the impression that they are being intrusive? What about fathers, grandfathers, boyfriends, and others who are part of the child’s extended family and wish to be involved with the child’s care? Are they welcome also?

Set up a parent library. For infant programs, the parent library should focus on infant development, breastfeeding, attachment, parenting skills, and awareness of cultural diversity.

Provide information on community agencies. One of the responsibilities of a family-centered care and education program is to connect parents with agencies that support them. This can be achieved in a variety of ways, from presenting posters and informational material in the center or home, to inviting representatives of various agencies to give presentations at parent meetings (and even providing seminars and programs for parenting and staff training). Programs with a website should provide links to community agencies and services.

Support mothers who are breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is one of the most obvious behaviors a mother can engage in to enhance secure attachment. Thus, the program should encourage and support mothers who breastfeed. Does the program provide a private room where mothers can breastfeed? Does it provide a place where pumped breast milk can be stored (and not with hazardous materials)? Does it encourage mothers to provide pumped breast milk to be given to their infants? Is there a feeling that mothers who breastfeed or provide pumped breast milk are welcome, or is this seen as an intrusion or an inconvenience?

Provide parent training. Parent training is an excellent way for programs to communicate to parents a variety of ways to support and to increase secure attachment. How does the program decide on topics to be covered in these trainings? Do parents have input in the decisions?

Clearly and accurately communicate to parents the program’s philosophy. Early care and education programs should develop a clear philosophy. Once this philosophy is in place, it needs to be communicated clearly and consistently to all parents and other caregivers. By doing so, confusion and disagreements will be minimized, and two-way communication enhanced. The program’s philosophy should be revised on a regular basis (annually), with input provided from all stakeholders, including parents and other caregivers.

Provide direct, continuous communication about the child and the needs of the child to parents and other caregivers. Because the child is at the center of attachment, parent-program communication must focus on the child. Program staff should provide formal and informal opportunities to communicate with parents. Staff members need to make sure that the communication is two-way: from the parent to the caregivers and from the caregivers to the parents. (See Think About It: Guidelines for Two-Way Communication for more on this topic.) Further, the caregiver must make sure not to focus the discussion just on challenges and concerns, but also to let parents know how much they enjoy caring for their infant or young child. This is also true for a difficult child or a child with a developmental delay.

Provide communication in different languages. One of the central challenges for effective communication in many programs is parents who do not speak English (Administration for Children and Families, Head Start Office, 2010). Efforts must be made to find someone—in the community, center, local college, or elsewhere—who can help translate both written and verbal communication. Obviously, the language to be translated depends on the community and the school. Programs should also consider setting up classes to help parents learn English, either at the center or somewhere in the community. Many non-English speaking parents want to learn English, partly so they can communicate with the program’s staff, and also so that they can help their children as they move into a regular school and need support with their schoolwork.

Carefully examine parent/teacher conferences. Parent/teacher conferences are the traditional place for parent-program communication to occur. However, these cannot be stand-alone events; they need to be part of a comprehensive communication approach. As with all communication between parents and staff, it needs to be two-way and include positive aspects of the child and the child’s behavior. Conferences that focus on negative behaviors and other challenges are unproductive, for many reasons.

Communicate to parents about special needs of infants and young children. In the next chapter, we will discuss in detail issues families and programs must address around developmental delays. Here, it is important to listen to parents’ concerns, to connect parents with community resources, and to make sure that parents talk to whoever is responsible in the program for working with children who have developmental delays.

Speak with parents about diversity concerns. As early childhood programs become increasingly diverse, parents and other family members need to be involved in addressing relevant issues. For example, do parents have any concerns related to how they want their child’s racial and ethnic identity to be supported in the program? Do they speak a language other than English at home, and do they want their child using this language or English in the program? Are there food issues that the program should be aware of? It is important not to make assumptions about the family, but to provide a context in which the family can speak openly about sensitive topics if they wish to do so.

2.5 Use of Community Resources to Support Attachment

There are many agencies, organizations, websites, and other resources that parents can use to help them support the development of secure attachment in their children and to provide information and resources for programs to continue to support this effort. A list of specific resources, agencies, and websites is included at the end of this chapter.

Resources for Families

There are many community programs that serve infants. Some communities provide Early Head Start, a parent’s workplace may provide infant care, and some religious programs also provide infant care. Some of the traditional options, such as Waldorf, Montessori, and British Infant/Primary programs, also offer infant care. Many parents prefer family-based care for their infants, especially if they can find a provider who speaks their language (if it is not English) and if they have odd or difficult work hours. Local federal child-care offices and state agencies may have programs that provide financial assistance to qualifying parents who are seeking child care.

Most communities provide programs for families that need food. Women, Infants and Children (WIC) is a federal program targeted to women with infants. Food banks and community food programs abound, and many urban areas are also developing urban vegetable gardens. Some families buy shares in local farms and gardens, and farmers markets exist in many communities during the summer through the fall.

Mothers who need assistance breastfeeding can find a variety of programs. Many hospitals and health centers provide assistance. La Leche League has a website and local support groups, and there are support groups on the Internet and in many local communities.

Parenting classes are offered at many venues. Hospitals, community colleges, and even some high schools offer parenting classes, as do adoption and foster agencies (i.e., local county government departments). There are, of course, a plethora of parenting books and online sites available. Parents who want a spiritually focused approach should check with their church or house of worship. Many early childhood programs provide parenting classes or can refer parents to community programs.

Early Care and Education Staff Development and Training

Local community colleges and four-year institutions provide a variety of programs for teachers and caregivers. A number of state and local agencies offer training required by the state’s licensing departments, such as Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR). Many early childhood programs are loosely connected to larger organizations: religious groups and the associations of early childhood programs associated with these groups (e.g., Catholic, Lutheran, or Jewish), associations of family providers, and state and local Head Start and Early Head Start associations. Most of these organizations provide conferences on a regular basis that staff can access. Then there are the state affiliations of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) that have annual conferences. Many communities also have experts in a variety of areas, from discipline and behavior issues, to diversity and management training.

Finally, programs can use hospitals, community agencies, and government programs that specialize in specific child development and parenting issues, including specific developmental delays (e.g., sensory integration and autism spectrum disorder), nutrition, classroom management, and parenting skills and parent involvement.

Wardle, F.  (2013).  

Collaboration with families and communities

 [Electronic version]. Retrieved from

https://content.ashford.edu/

1.1Why a Family-Centered Approach

Traditionally, schools throughout the world have been institutions in which teachers, social workers, and educational specialists are considered the sole source of knowledge, information, and expertise, and parents are expected to support and implement the advice of these experts. Until recently, in contrast with schools, early childhood care and education programs followed a parent-oriented approach in which parents assumed a more active role. Families got together to care for each other’s children; sometimes the older women in a community cared for the young children, and mothers rotated care in mother’s-day-out programs. One example of high-quality family-oriented child care in the United States can be found in the Kaiser Shipyards during WWII, where mothers worked in factories building ships. These programs provided family medical care and even meals for mothers to take home after their shift in the factory (Hurwitz, 1998). However, over the years, many early childhood programs became more like schools, expecting parents to listen passively to their advice and to help implement their programs (Keyser, 2006).

The development of a family-centered early care and education approach can be traced to the federal early childhood program Head Start. Formed in 1965 as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty, Head Start was developed as a comprehensive program for low-income families with preschool-age children, with a focus on parent involvement and community collaboration (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2012). The architects of Head Start recognized the need to work in an equal partnership with families of low-income children (Greenberg, 1969). To this end, the program was designed with very specific roles and responsibilities for parents. Program Performance Standards outline overall standards to be met in each component area. These are critical quality indicators used to ensure the program meets the unique needs of the communities and families the program serves. Component areas that must meet these performance standards include specific requirements for parent activities, such as opportunities for parents to follow a career path to become teachers in the local program. Additionally, all local Head Start programs have a governing body, known as a policy council, which must include parents. This body has direct responsibilities in a variety of areas, including approval of hiring and firing of all staff, budget and program component approval, and overall program evaluation (HHS, 2012).

The design of local Head Start programs led more and more early childhood programs to consider a shared approach to power and control. Other early childhood models (such as Waldorf, Montessori, Reggio Emilia, and local community-based programs) practice different degrees of the family-centered approach, depending on their unique philosophy, history, and ownership. With a family-centered approach, children, families, and professionals gain:

Enriched communication

Shared power and decision making

Supportive relationships

A network of mutual support

Consistent behavioral expectations for the child

Cultural continuity between the home and the program

The increased diversity of families served by early childhood programs also requires an approach that is collaborative and open. Families from around the world, and from diverse cultural, linguistic, racial, and ethnic groups within the United States, attend many of these programs. They bring different views regarding discipline, child-rearing approaches, food, gender identity, play, educational expectations, and so on. A family-centered approach enables programs to learn from parents about the various ways they raise their children, and it helps the program share different ideas with families. Furthermore, through collaboration, continuity of care can be provided between the program and the family. Children are more secure, have more positive identities, and are less confused when there is consistency between what is expected and taught at home, and what is expected and taught in the early care and education program (Gonzalez-Mena, 2008). As we will discuss throughout the book, providing continuity of care between the home and the program is particularly challenging when cultural differences are the greatest (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2010). (For more on this, see Spotlight:

Family-Early Childhood Program-Community Partnerships

.)

SPOTLIGHT:

Family-Early Childhood Program-Community Partnerships

Joyce Epstein, professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University and director of the Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships, has developed a framework of six types of involvement to guide the development of parent partnerships in family-centered early childhood programs (2009). This framework is further discussed in Chapter 6. The six types of involvement are:

Parenting. Offer families assistance with parenting and child-rearing skills, in understanding child development, and in setting home conditions that support children as students. Early childhood directors and managers should also assist teachers and caregivers in understanding families.

Communicating. Keep families up-to-date on early childhood programs and individual students’ progress through effective program-to-home and home-to-school communications.

Volunteering. Support children and early childhood programs, improve outreach, training, and schedules to involve families as volunteers and improve family attendance at events at the program and in other accessible community locations.

Learning and Development at Home. Offer suggestions and techniques to involve families in parenting and learning activities with their children at home and in the community.

Decision Making. Include families as participants in program decisions, governance, parent advisory groups, and advocacy through policy councils, governing boards, committees, and other parent organizations.

Collaborating with the Community. Coordinate resources and services for families, children, and the early childhood program with businesses, agencies, and other groups. Also provide services to the community. For example, children might entertain senior citizens, plant flowers to beautify a park, or donate vegetables from their garden to a homeless shelter.

In achieving child development and learning outcomes, children do better whenever teachers, families, and the community all work together.

1.2 Contexts and Stages

Many theories have been advanced over the years to explain children’s learning, development, emotional growth, and social interactions. Two theories are used throughout this book to help us understand the importance of examining the critical relationships between the child, family, community, and early care and education program. Theoretical frameworks help us “see the big picture” and provide us with a conceptual framework that guides our understanding of growth and development. Rather than simply describing individual behaviors and milestones—such as a child learning to talk, or a child’s fear of monsters—theories place growth, development, and learning within a much larger perspective. Theoretical frameworks then help us study this plan or framework while keeping our focus on the big picture: the relationship of the family, community, and early childhood program to the growth, development, and learning of the child.

Both the Bronfenbrenner ecological systems theory and Erikson’s psychosocial theory are comprehensive and widely applied (McAdams & Pals, 2006). Bronfenbrenner (1979) describes the various overlapping and interacting environments that affect a child’s growth and development, including the family, community, and early childhood program. It also describes the relationship between these contexts and how they need to align to meet the needs of the child most effectively.

Erikson’s (1963, 1980) psychosocial theory is a stage theory, beginning at birth. It describes each stage and the major psychosocial tasks to be achieved at each stage. The theory is used as one of the frameworks of this book because it focuses on the child’s interactions with significant adults and the surrounding culture and describes the processes needed for young children to develop a social and psychological foundation for a secure sense of self. This in turn provides the child with the foundation to learn, grow, and succeed in school.

A variety of other well-known developmental, behavioral, and learning theories are embedded at various points in this book. These include the first two stages of Piaget’s developmental theory, Vygotsky’s theory describing the influence of language and social interaction on learning, and the application of Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning on discipline methods and behavior. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Gardner’s eight intelligences, and various other theoretical perspectives on culture and learning are studied as well. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory and Erikson’s psychosocial theory provide the overall framework for the text. Let’s look at each of these theoretical frameworks in greater detail.

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory

Urie Bronfenbrenner was one of the architects of Head Start, and he deeply understood the power of various contextual influences on the development and education of young children. An immigrant to the United States from Russia, Bronfenbrenner developed a theoretical system in which the child is placed in the center, surrounded by concentric rings. He called this an ecological systems theory or bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1995; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998).

As humans develop, they must continually adapt to change on both a personal and a social level. Human ecology involves the biological, social, psychological, and cultural contexts in which a developing child interacts and grows over time. Children are socialized and supported by their families, schools, and communities. These agents nurture children’s development as they progress toward adulthood. However, the relationship between the child and these contexts is reciprocal and dynamic—the child affects the contexts as much as they affect the child, and these reciprocal, dynamic relationships become more complex over time (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). The concentric rings in the model display the critical ecological contexts in which the child grows, develops, and learns. These contexts, from the family and early childhood program, to the media and the nation in which the child lives, have a profound impact on the child’s development.

The level of impact that each of these contexts has on the child depends on what Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994) call proximal processes. Proximal processes are the interactions between the child and the environment, by which the child’s potential (determined through genetics) is actualized through various effective psychological functions. The bioecological model suggests that if these proximal processes are weak, the child’s potential will remain relatively unrealized, while they will become more actualized when these proximal processes increase. According to Bronfenbrenner and Ceci, factors that determine the effectiveness of the proximal process are, “the proximal processes, their stability over time, the environmental contexts in which they take place, the characteristics of the person’s involvement, and the nature of the developmental outcomes under consideration” (1994, p. 569). Central to this concept is the view that a child’s potential is a result of the child’s genetic inheritance interacting with environmental experiences to determine developmental outcomes, because genetics do not automatically produce finished traits. And central to this interaction is the influence of the child on the environment and on the nature of the experience and the strength of the proximal process. We call this two-way interaction a bidirectional interaction.

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1995; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) theory breaks these contextual influences into four overall structures, or systems, all of which are surrounded by an overriding fifth structure or concept, the chronosystem: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem (see Figure 1.1).

A brief description is provided for each of these structures. Throughout the rest of the text, this model is used to help us analyze and understand the critical interrelationships between the child, family, community, and early childhood program, and how each of these factors not only affect each other, but also must ultimately work together to maximize the full potential of the child (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998).

Microsystem

The activities and relationships a child has with significant others in small settings, such as the family, early childhood program, peer group, and the child’s immediate community, make up what is called the microsystem. The microsystem includes all of the critical components analyzed in this text—the child, family, community, and early childhood program. These components have a direct impact on the child, as the child does on them. For example, all of the elements of a family, including parents, other siblings, and extended family members, affect the child. If a child has a father who takes his child to a local train museum, visits miniature train displays, and as he gets older takes him on a ride on an historic steam train, chances are that the child will learn to love trains and certainly will know more about trains than most other young children will. (See Personal Stories: Developing Self-Esteem for another example.)

Mesosystem

The linkages and interrelationships between two or more of the microsystems, such as the family and early childhood program, early childhood program and community, or the family and the child’s peers, are called the mesosystem. The stronger, more supportive, and more frequent these linkages, the greater their positive impact on the growth and development of the child. Good early childhood-family relationships are an example of this concept, as are good relationships between the child’s immediate family and extended family. For example, if an immigrant child from Somalia attends a child care center where some of the teachers are also Somali, a close relationship between his culture, religion, and language can provide the child with a sense of comfort and security.

In fact, the mesosystem’s structure of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is at the heart of a family-centered early childhood program. It recognizes that, while the family is central to the development and learning of the child, and a quality early childhood program is essential for preparing the child for a successful school experience, the linkages between the family and early childhood program enhance and affect both of these important outcomes.

Exosystem

Contexts that a child does not have direct, physical contact with, but that nonetheless have a profound impact on the child, are known as the exosystem. Exosystems include the parents’ work environments; city and community governing boards; local school district boards of education; disability councils; community health care centers; Women, Infants and Children (WIC) offices; Indian centers; and federal/state governing boards of various agencies, such as child care licensing offices and early childhood certification programs. The impact of the exosystem on the child is dependent upon the way the exosystem directly influences each of the microsystems (i.e., early childhood programs, family, and community). For example, if the community in which a family lives (exosystem) decides to sponsor a local Head Start program (microsystem), this will have a positive result on the family’s 4-year-old child, along with the whole family. A city- or school-sponsored preschool for low-income children would have a similar effect, as would quality employee child care where one of the parents works and affordable health insurance for the family.

A powerful component of the exosystem is the media. The media (and particularly television) surrounds most young children. Not only do young children see sex and violence beyond their developmental age, but they are also exposed to commercials to buy unhealthy food and items they do not need. The media is a very strong influence on young children, affecting their cognitive, linguistic, and social development (Elkind, 2007; Wright et al., 2001). While parents can control what their children watch on TV, many do not; further, many young children have TVs in their own rooms. The actual content of TV programs, including children’s programs, is out of the parents’ control. On average, young American children spend 3 to 5 hours a day watching TV, often with little parental monitoring. And young children from low socioeconomic backgrounds spend even more time watching TV than do children from better-educated and higher-income families (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2005; Roberts & Froeh, 2004).

Macrosystem

A society and the subcultures within that society—the values, belief systems, lifestyles, and patterns of social interaction and family styles—are called the macrosystem. Examples in the United States include the overall U.S. culture and U.S. national identity, racial and ethnic group, religious affiliation, geographic location—rural, urban, or suburban—and low, middle-, or upper-income socioeconomic status. These are the overall contexts that affect a person’s worldview and perspective. For example, a child who grows up in São Paulo, Brazil, a huge city in a country that is deeply embedded geographically, economically, religiously, and culturally within South America, has a very different experience than a young child raised in New York City does. The influences of these factors are transmitted unconsciously, and they affect personal space, time, interpersonal relationships, how we raise children, and our expectations of our children (Hall, 1976, 1983). All aspects of a child’s life and social experiences are affected one way or another by the macrosystem.

Many of these macrosystems’ cultural patterns affect communication. Differences in communication can result in conflict between people from different cultural, national, religious, racial, and ethnic backgrounds. This, in turn, can become a deterrent to collaboration between parents, teachers, and program administrators, particularly in a program run primarily by a white, middle-class staff that serves parents who are low income and/or non-white (Neugebauer, 2008). Finally, because the early childhood field is an overwhelmingly female culture (97% of teachers and caregivers are women), fathers and men in extended families often struggle to work collaboratively with their children’s early childhood programs (Wardle, 2007).

Chronosystem

A change in the individual child due to the passage of time (i.e., development) and changes in all of the other structures also due to the passage of time is called the chronosystem. An example of the chronosystem is the tremendous influence of brain development on the language acquisition and emotional regulation of the individual child (Schiller, 2010). Many developmental changes have a profound impact on a child’s growth and learning, such as toilet training, learning to speak, and being able to walk. For example, once a child has learned to talk, the child’s interest in labeling objects, reading simple words, and asking many questions greatly expands. Reciprocally, all of these developmental changes affect the various contexts in which children live and develop. For example, safety concerns become much more critical once a child has learned to walk because the child can now find the electrical outlets, walk to the entrance of the steps, and discover the sharp knives in the dishwasher. An example of change due to the passage of time is the fact that while parents’ primary concern about their child’s welfare a century ago might have been death due to a childhood illness, modern-day concerns about the child’s safety are more likely to relate to accidents, such as drowning or car accidents.

Significant historical events are another example of the chronosystem, and they can have both positive and negative influences on the lives of young children. The creation of Head Start in 1965 had a positive impact on thousands of low-income children throughout the United States. Many believe the federal law No Child Left Behind, directly affecting K-12 education, had a negative impact on young children as inappropriate academic outcomes were pushed down into the early childhood curriculum (Kagan, Carroll, Comer, & Scott-Little, 2006).

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory will be used to frame many of our discussions as we examine and analyze the interrelatedness of the critical contexts that affect the care and development of children, infants to age 5 years old.

Erikson’s Psychosocial Theory

The second framework is a lifespan theory of eight stages that was developed by Erik Erikson (1963, 1980), a psychologist who grew up in Europe and then worked in the United States after World War II. The first three stages cover the ages of infancy to 6 years old. Erikson’s stages describe the tasks children—and later adults—should achieve at a certain age and the behaviors and emotions they will experience if these tasks are not achieved: He called this a psychosocial theory. According to Erikson, a child will achieve each of the required milestones if the child lives and grows in a supportive, responsive, caring environment. Throughout this text, we will discuss how to maximize the opportunities for children to progress through each of Erikson’s stages successfully. One way to address both the social and physical environment needed to achieve each stage is to focus on the collaboration and partnership between the family and early care and education program—to create and foster a consistent, supportive environment.

Erikson grew up between the two great wars in northern Europe. He became a disciple of Freud and later was analyzed by Freud’s daughter, Anna Freud. In 1933, Erikson came to the United States and taught at several prominent universities. He developed an eight-stage lifespan theory of psychosocial development: trust versus mistrust (age birth to 1 year old), autonomy versus shame and doubt (2 to 3 years old), initiative versus guilt (3 to 5 or 6 years old), industry versus inferiority (6 to 10 years old), identity versus role confusion (10 to 20 years old), intimacy versus isolation (early adulthood), generativity versus stagnation (middle adulthood), and integrity versus despair (late adulthood) (Erikson, 1963, 1980).

For each stage, he described what he called a developmental crisis. For example, the first stage is trust versus mistrust. Trust is what the infant should develop; mistrust is the result of not achieving the goal (Erikson, 1963, 1980). The third stage, initiative versus guilt, is characterized by the child undertaking and planning challenging activities and being very much on the move (Erikson, 1963). However, children at this age must also learn to control their impulses and consider the wishes and feelings of others. For each stage, the secret is to balance support of the child’s natural intuition with the need for the child to learn how to behave in a responsible manner. According to Erikson, over-regulation and too much adult control at this stage would result in guilt. Erikson believed that resolution of these stages would eventually lead to a healthy adult; lack of resolution would cause problems later in life. While he presented each stage as dramatic polar opposites, he believed that resolution of each stage fell somewhere in between these opposites.

In Erikson’s theory (1963), resolution of each stage is dependent upon the interactions between the individual (in our case, the child) and the social environment of the family, community, culture, and early childhood program. But this resolution is not as simple as it originally appears, because there is often tension between what a child needs and wants, and the social responses to those needs and wants. For example, the crisis to be met at the age 1- to 3-year-old stage is autonomy, or a sense of independent self, yet we are all aware that it is impossible (and unethical) to give a 2-year-old full autonomy.

While Erikson’s theory describes the progress of children through each of these psychosocial stages as they are affected by their social environment, later research has added another interesting element to our understanding of this progress. In 1977, Thomas and Chess conducted an experiment that showed that many very young children already exhibit one of three distinct personality types. The study also showed that a young child’s personality has a profound impact on the child’s social environment. This two-way interaction, from adult to child, and child to adult, is the same bidirectional force we discussed earlier in describing Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. For example, a child who is in Erikson’s second stage (autonomy versus shame/doubt) is continually trying to achieve his independence, which often causes safety issues and can frustrate a parent or caregiver. In turn, the parent or caregiver may overly restrict or punish the child.

Trust Versus Mistrust (Birth to 1 Year Old)

Infants need to know their basic needs will be met. When hungry, they need to know they will be fed. When they need intellectual stimulation, they need to know it will be provided, and when they need to be nurtured and soothed, they need to know this too will be provided. The notion of picking up a crying baby comes from this concept. A child cries to communicate a need, whether it is hunger, boredom, or wanting attention, and thus from an Erikson point of view, the parent or caregiver should try to meet the infant’s need. Erikson believed that when a child’s basic needs are met, the child will develop an overall trust in the world around him or her. Trust is the generalized feeling the infant develops about the world being a secure place (Erikson, 1963). In this huge world filled with billions of people, each infant is important, significant, and unique (Erikson, 1963, 1980). Conversely, a child whose basic needs are not met responsively and appropriately learns mistrust—the world really does not care, and to other people the child is unimportant and insignificant.

A lasting emotional relationship that begins to develop in infancy and serves to tie the infant to one or more people in the child’s life is called attachment. Attachment, as later described by Bowlby (1969, 1973) and Ainsworth (1973), while not strictly a part of Erikson’s theory, develops during Erikson’s first stage and can be seen as a component of trust. A newborn infant begins to develop a “strong emotional bond with a caring adult who is part of the child’s everyday life—the child attachment figure. It is usually an affectionate or loving bond; the attachment of a child to his mother comes immediately to mind” (Honig, 2002, p. 2). It is a two-way process—adults attach to the infant, and the infant attaches to adults. Infants and children develop this attachment through a “dance” between them and their parents—a sensitive, responsive give-and-take of facial expressions, emotions, and physical touch.

Autonomy Versus Shame and Doubt (1 to 3 Years Old)

Erikson described autonomy versus shame and doubt as the second stage of development. Youngsters develop autonomy around the age of 2. In fact, children at this stage (sometimes referred to as “the terrible twos”) are well known for demonstrating, sometimes in no uncertain terms, that they now can do things independently of their mother or caregiver. They love to push the limits and find out what they can do independently. The predominant use of the words “no” and “mine” at this age is not really the child being oppositional, but is rather a positive affirmation of the child’s newfound independence.

But, as anyone who has raised a toddler or worked with this age group knows, it is unsafe to let a toddler have autonomy. They fall down a lot (due to a large head and poor brain development), wash their hands in water that is too hot, try to grab pots off the stove, and otherwise create havoc. What to do? If parents or providers do not allow for autonomy, children will develop a sense of shame and doubt—because their inner desire is to express this newfound autonomy, but their social world continues to deny this desire. The key to avoiding the development of shame and doubt is to provide continual supervision and diligent care of toddlers, while at the same time providing them choices, activities, and a deep sense of independence. Giving toddlers acceptable choices (the toys to play with or food to eat) and allowing as much independence as possible can achieve this. Caregivers and parents working with children at this age should not get upset with little things, such as when a child puts a sweater on backwards or puts his/her shoes on the wrong feet. Praise the child for this independent accomplishment while also gently guiding the child to correct mistakes and to learn socially appropriate behaviors and interactions. It takes work and patience on the part of the adult, but these will provide the child with the foundation to move on to the next stage (Erikson, 1963).

Initiative Versus Guilt (3 to 6 Years Old)

This stage is an extension of the autonomy stage, as the child becomes increasingly independent. Erikson called this stage initiative versus guilt. Children at this age initiate, or experiment with and try out, all sorts of new things, including new language—both vocabulary and grammar. Some even love to invent their own words. This is one of the reasons teaching a second language is best begun at this age.

Because children 3 to 6 years old lack experience and have not developed emotional regulation, their desire for initiative often leads to disaster. They love to jump into water puddles, pull the dog’s tail, and approach complete strangers. The social response they receive to this natural disposition will determine whether children maintain their sense of initiative or feel guilty. If a child repeatedly is made to feel bad about his or her mistakes, that child will develop a sense of guilt that becomes part of his or her approach to life. Six-year-olds raised in tolerant and accepting environments are more likely to complete this stage successfully than are children raised in stricter and less-accepting settings. But again, a balance between the child’s desire for initiative and the need for safety and order needs to be found.

1.3 Threads That Run Throughout the Book

Throughout this book, we discuss ways the early childhood program, community, and family can work collaboratively to enhance the probability that children will achieve the first three of Erikson’s eight stages. We discuss how successful families meet the needs of their children, and how quality early childhood programs can both support children’s development and help families understand their children’s unique psychosocial needs. Finally, we explore the community resources available to support children as they progress through each of these stages.

The 10 chapters in this book cover a range of topics related to family-centered early care and education. While Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory and the first three stages of Erikson’s psychosocial theory frame the discussions in this book, other essential concepts are embedded throughout the text. These concepts include collaboration, diversity, exceptional children, developmental issues, gender differences, and communication. Along with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory and Erikson’s psychosocial theory, these concepts provide the overall focus for this book.

Collaboration

In Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, the mesosystem consists of links between the various microsystems that directly affect the child. This could be the family and community, family and early care and education program, and so on. The impact of the mesosystem on the child depends on the number and quality of these connections; the more there are and the better their quality, the more positive an impact they will have on the child’s growth and development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1995). Thus, the more collaboration there is between the family and the early care and education program, the better it is for the child. Family-centered early care and education programs center on reciprocal collaboration between the program and family. We will discuss a variety of ways programs and families can work together, as well as directly address barriers to collaboration.

True collaboration requires respect on the part of both the program and the families it serves. It also requires the ability to resolve conflicts, along with a sincere desire to strive continually for ways to improve the development and learning of each child. Collaboration takes on added complexity when families have unique stressors, such as a child with a developmental delay, a parent who is in jail, or issues such as drugs and domestic violence.

Diversity

Throughout the book, we explore the rich diversity of the families that use early childhood programs. This diversity includes religious beliefs, national origin, families who speak a language other than English, race and ethnic diversity, family structures, and culture. Examining diversity fits conveniently within Bronfenbrenner’s theoretical perspective. Families, communities, peers, early care and education programs, school groups, and other components of a child’s microsystem reflect a vast diversity of race, ethnicity, culture, language, and religion. Neighborhoods often reflect a certain racial or ethnic group; many early childhood programs mirror the culture of their community or sponsoring agency, especially if they are a religious program or supported by a larger organization, such as a local Jewish community center. It is important to discuss the different ways the first three stages of Erikson’s psychosocial theory can be achieved and to examine the complexities of cultural patterns and behaviors involved in children’s experiences during each of these stages (Raeff, 2010). As a result of family diversity, early childhood programs are challenged to work effectively and supportively with all of their families, which requires training, carefully developed program policies, and the understanding and acceptance of differences. This is particularly challenging when the program staff are different from the families they serve (HHS, 2010). (See Spotlight:

Four Areas of Culture

for a more detailed discussion of this topic.)

We also explore how children’s complex racial, ethnic, cultural, and national identities can be nurtured and supported within the early care and education setting, as well as ways the individual family’s customs, traditions, and values can be acknowledged.

Exceptional Children

Exceptional children add an additional array of issues and challenges to a family and early care and education program. These children may have one or more developmental delays, or they may be gifted. Some exceptional children are both gifted and also have one or more disabilities, and these children are referred to as twice exceptional children (Allen & Cowdery, 2005). To meet the needs of their exceptional children adequately, the family must access a variety of community agencies and programs. These programs fit into Bronfenbrenner’s microsystem (community); the relationship of support and advice that each family must achieve falls within the discussion of links between various components of the microsystem. We explore a variety of ways programs can work collaboratively with families to meet the needs of these children, as well as ways various community agencies can support both families and programs in their efforts to serve exceptional children.

SPOTLIGHT:
Four Areas of Culture

According to Bradley & Kibera (2007), four areas should be examined to help staff address cultural differences in families and to work effectively with these families and their children.

Values and beliefs. How is family defined? What roles do adults and children play? How does the family make sense of a child’s behavioral difficulties? How does the family’s culture inform their view of appropriate and inappropriate ways of dealing with problem behaviors and guiding children? What is of most importance to the family?

Historical and social influences. What strengths and stressors does the family identify? What barriers do they experience?

Communication

. What is the family’s primary language? What support is required to enable communication? How are needs and wants expressed? How is unhappiness, dissatisfaction, or distress experienced and expressed?

Attitude toward seeking help. How does the family seek help and from whom? How do members view professionals, and how do professionals treat them?

Throughout the country, networks of parents and advocates support each other in meeting the specific needs of exceptional children. These groups provide advice, expertise, and support to parents, while also helping them access resources in the community. Often parents need help in finding early childhood programs that can serve their children in an inclusive setting. Transportation, medical, and other supports are also often needed.

Using Erikson’s stages also helps in understanding children with disabilities and in learning how families and programs can meet their unique needs. Although government programs have been established to identify children with various developmental delays and to provide intervention to address a child’s disability, it is critical that the child also be encouraged and supported to achieve each task described in Erikson’s first three stages, regardless of the child’s disability. For example, an infant in Erikson’s second stage of development, autonomy versus shame or doubt, still needs to achieve autonomy, even though the child has a disability that requires constant adult attention and careful surveillance.

Developmental Issues

During the first five years of life, a child experiences many major developmental milestones and begins a lifelong process in other critical areas. These milestones include becoming toilet trained, learning to walk, learning to speak, and for many children, entering some kind of children’s program. Many of these milestones are specific tasks that build toward the child achieving each of Erikson’s stages. For example, learning to walk enables the child to develop a level of autonomy from adults. During this stage, children also begin to develop emotional regulation and learn a variety of important social, physical, and cognitive skills (Gillespie & Seibel, 2006). A tremendous amount of brain development also occurs at this time; in fact, many believe the first five years are a critical time for brain development (Schiller, 2010). We will explore how programs support families as their children progress through these stages, community resources that are available to help parents in these critically important tasks, and how parents and programs know whether their children are developing on schedule, or whether intervention is needed.

Gender Differences

A growing body of research suggests some biological differences between the genders may influence behavior (Whiting & Edwards, 1988). Furthermore, these differences are evident at birth and show major behavioral indicators during the first five years of life. Added to these biological differences are the various ways cultures and communities reinforce certain gender differences, and the fact that early childhood programs in the United States are female cultures (Neugebauer, 2008). Thus, from a Bronfenbrenner perspective, it is important that we examine the various ways the microsystem relates to boys and girls, and how families, programs, communities, the media, and peers treat children differently based on their gender. It is also instructive to examine the various ways each of the other structures affect gender development. For example, the media (exosystem), the child’s culture (macrosystem), and historical time (chronosystem) all directly influence gender identity and gender expectations. From an Eriksonian perspective, we need to examine how parents, teachers, and caregivers respond to boys and girls, and whether boys and girls are given equal opportunity to achieve Erikson’s first three stages. And, because most teachers and caregivers in early care and education programs are women, it is important to see what impact, if any, this has on the development and learning of young boys and girls. Throughout the book, we will examine the development of gender identity in young children, explore issues of gender equity, and describe ways programs, families, and communities can support healthy gender development and equality. We will also explore ways men from the community can be involved in local programs to provide needed modeling and interaction for young boys and girls in our programs.

SPOTLIGHT:

Are Boys More Difficult than Girls?

When I first became a Head Start director, I was confronted with a peculiar situation: The teachers at my program were arguing over the children who were to be assigned to their classes and wanted as few boys as possible. While this was obviously a program issue that I, the director, needed to address, it also reflected a reality present in many programs: Boys, in general, are seen as more difficult than girls. Consider the following:

Boys are nearly three times as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder). Some studies have found that ADHD is up to 10 times more common in boys than girls, but this is most likely because boys are referred for assessment more often because of their disruptive behavior.

Four times as many boys as girls have autism.

Boys are much more likely to engage in rough-and-tumble play.

Girls generally start to talk before boys and then continue to surpass boys in verbal and linguistic ability.

Because boys’ overall brain growth and development is slower than that of girls, they have trouble with emotional regulation (self-control), which is controlled by the cerebral cortex.

As a Head Start director, I noticed that the teachers spent the majority of their time involved in literacy and tabletop activities, art, and dramatic play (all of which girls typically excel at). Teachers spent much less time in the block area. I almost never saw a teacher playing on the floor with children. I also saw very few science activities. On the playground, teachers sat and talked to children, but they rarely became actively involved in playing games, gardening, playing with children to see who could throw the ball the farthest, or engaging in other active, physical activities. And my newly purchased woodwork benches were used as teacher’s desks and aquarium stands!

Our classroom culture tends to be more conducive to the success of girls than that of boys. To make early childhood programs more effective for all children, we need to discover the ways boys and girls are different, understand that these differences are okay, and find ways to involve children in activities in which they can succeed. Here are some specific suggestions for involving young boys:

Capitalize on what boys are good at. Boys should be given regular opportunities for hands-on math and science—including mechanical—activities; they need a lot of physical games and outdoor gross-motor play, art, woodwork, and dance. They also need plenty of opportunities for constructive play.

Make sure the curriculum is designed to meet the needs of boys. Boys need plenty of activity, frequent changes in activities, movement, and hands-on learning opportunities. Activities in which boys typically struggle, such as literacy, rote memory, focused attention, and self-control, should be punctuated with active, whole-body activities.

Never punish boys by withholding what they are good at or what they need. I once observed a teacher punish a boy who was being disruptive in the classroom by preventing him from going outside to play with the other children. This child obviously needed outdoor play (and was probably very good at it).

Find ways to include men in the classroom. This can be achieved by hiring male teachers, encouraging fathers to volunteer, and inviting participation from men and boys in various service organizations. Men (and women) who are interested in participating should be encouraged to engage in activities boys enjoy, such as woodwork, outdoor play, messy science experiments, gardening, and building in the block area.

Make sure the classroom is boy-friendly. You can have a permanent woodwork area and add props to the dramatic play area such as hardhats, fire hoses, police and fire uniforms, tools, old (clean) car wheels, briefcases, workbenches, and carpentry belts.

Train staff on the unique needs of boys and how to facilitate activities that boys typically enjoy and are good at. When I complained to my staff that they were not using the workbenches I bought, they told me they did not know how to use them. Our next training day was spent making things on the workbenches.

Wardle, F. (2004). How Children Learn. Children and Families, pp. 60–61.

Communication

A central component of the mesosystem is communication—the forms and nature of communication between the various components of the microsystem. And this is particularly true of family-early care and education linkages. The key to family-centered program collaboration is communication. But effective communication is not easy. It requires two-way communication that enables families to learn from the knowledge and expertise of program staff, and for program staff to learn from their families (Keyser, 2006). This two-way communication can be developed by using traditional approaches—daily check-ins, child information forms, home visits, parent conferences, parent meetings, newsletters, phone calls, e-mails, bulletin boards, journals that go home with parents, and anecdotal notes about children’s behavior and progress. Some programs now use websites to inform their parents and the community about various aspects of the program.

Several challenges to two-way communication are addressed throughout the book. Shared power and decision making, language barriers, and cultural conflicts are among the barriers addressed. According to Hall (1976, 1983), people from different macrosystems (cultures, ethnicities) tend to communicate differently. Clearly, when there is a cultural mismatch between a family and teacher, director, or caregiver, confusion can occur (see Think About It: Two-Way Communication).

Research

Evidence-based approaches to caring for and educating young children have become central to the field of early care and education (Schiller, 2010). This means that research results—for example, the brain-based research already discussed—are becoming the prime source for defining best practices in working with children aged 0 to 5 years old. Throughout the book, research results will be presented and discussed, and their applicability to successful families and family-centered early childhood programs will be analyzed. We will also discuss the limitations of this perspective, particularly in instances where it fails to take into account cross-cultural differences, and where there is a lack of available research in some critically important areas.

1.4 Use of Community Resources

Because the microsystem includes the immediate settings that have the most significant impact on the child, and because the mesosystem involves the linkages between each of these entities, it follows that the more information each of these entities has about the others, the more and higher the quality of these connections. Specifically, the more information the family has about agencies in the community that support their efforts to raise their children, the better able the family is to provide for their children. Reciprocally, the more information the early childhood programs have about the communities in which the families live, the better they will be able to serve them.

It is also important for early care and education programs to know about each family’s macrosystem—their religion, culture, socioeconomic level, use of technology, and so on. In this way, the program can provide cultural continuity for each family.

For these reasons, the availability and use of a variety of community resources is discussed throughout the text. Some of these resources provide general information that applies to most families or early care and education programs, while others are specific and specialized, such as resources to support a family that has a child with Down syndrome.

Families exist within communities, as do early care and education programs. Communities have a vast array of resources to support both families and programs (Koralek, 2007). Some of these are geographical: parks, greenbelts, outdoor museums, and farms and trails that families and programs can access. Others are physical: libraries, recreational centers, Boys and Girls Clubs, concert halls, galleries, and children’s museums. And then there is the range of agencies, from health care centers, to WIC offices, disability councils, food banks, churches, recreation centers, employment and training centers, and cultural centers. Use of these community agencies depends on family and program needs. For example, a family with a child who has a developmental delay will work closely with the local disability council, Child Find, hospitals and health care centers, and local advocacy groups. A program needing in-service training for teachers and caregivers will use a community college or early childhood training agency. For instance, when a local early childhood program in Colorado needed to train program staff about the unique needs of Hmong families that had recently moved into the community, an expert from the state department of education who had experience with this population was consulted, and leaders of a Hmong church in the community provided expert advice (Wardle, 2003).

Program-Specific Resources

Historically, programs serving young children and their families have developed strong, effective relationships within their own specific communities. Faith-based programs are often strongly embedded within the services, outreach programs, and social networks of their religious organizations. Public school-based preschools use the supports and resources of the public schools in which they exist. Campus early childhood programs benefit from the support and expertise of early childhood professors, psychologists, special education teachers, and student interns. City-sponsored programs also receive citywide agency support and referrals.

Many programs use the human resources that parents provide the program. For example, the early childhood program at the Robert E. Loup Jewish Community Center in Denver, Colorado uses parents as classroom volunteers and as experts who present parent workshops on issues including medical advice, legal advice, and parenting skills. They also run a parent education committee that plans a variety of enrichment programs.

Systematic Use of Community Resources

Head Start has been at the forefront of going beyond these immediate program-specific approaches of community support to systematically determining the needs of families, conducting needs assessments of available community resources, and then developing official partnerships (with written contracts) between the program and these agencies (HSS, 2010). While many early childhood programs do not take such a formal approach to the use of the community, lessons can be learned from the almost 50 years of local Head Start programs working aggressively to use community resources to meet the diverse needs of their families and children. Some ideas that have grown out of this history include the following:

Conduct periodic assessments of family needs. As program enrollment changes, so too do family needs. For example, do parents need English as a second language classes? Do they need translation into their home language? What language is this? Do they need basic parenting skills or GED preparation classes? Do they need support groups for children who are gifted? The key is to remember that families have diverse needs, and that these needs continue to change as the demographics of enrollment and communities change.

Continually collect information. Collect information about the kinds of resources provided in your community. Where are the food banks? Who are the Child Find contacts? Where is the closest library, and does it offer a preschool story time? What about parks, greenbelts, or hiking trails? Does the local community college place early childhood students in programs? What about foster grandparent programs? Will the Indian center provide support for Native American families?

Use parents in your program to discover community resources. Some parents work for agencies that serve families (e.g., unemployment offices, school districts, health councils and clinics, and community colleges). Use these parents to help you know and understand community resources.

Become advocates for your families. This is one of the critical roles of a family-centered care and education program. This means programs must continually explore how available community resources can be made accessible to their families. Sometimes this involves changes in hours (e.g., for transition activities to the local kindergarten); other times it involves providing information in languages other than English or helping agencies become more user-friendly for the kinds of parents in a given program. Additionally, programs need to help parents be advocates for their family’s own needs when accessing community resources. This may involve working with parents who come from cultures where advocacy is discouraged, or parents who feel out of place in the culture of some of the agencies (HHS, 2010). It may involve communication (e.g., finding someone to translate for the parent), or simply providing information to parents about the resources that are available (Bradley & Kibera, 2007).

Help parents develop support groups. Parents have different needs depending on their children and the challenges their children bring to the early childhood experience. Parent support groups have proven to be an excellent way for parents to find out about and access resources targeted to their children’s specific needs, as well as to enable parents to provide emotional and social support in their efforts to meet these needs. Parents support groups have been used very effectively by parents of children with a variety of developmental delays (Kaczmarek, 2007). Usually, these groups focus on a specific developmental delay (e.g., autism spectrum disorder, speech impairments, or blindness). However, parent support groups are also effective for challenges with language (non-English speakers), adoptive and foster children, new immigrant families, and multiracial and multiethnic children (Wardle & Cruz-Janzen, 2004).

For parent support groups, the role of the program is to help parents who have similar challenges and concerns find each other and connect. The program can help them develop the group (e.g., physically meeting after the school day at the program, or creating a virtual group where they can do most of their work online) and provide them with information about available resources and how to access them.

Communicate. Communication is the key to programs being able to help families access and use community resources. Central to effective communication is letting parents know about the resources that are available in the community. One way to do this is to invite representatives of community agencies to visit the center when parents are present (perhaps for parent meetings or social events). Another is to place posters, fliers, and other information about agencies throughout the center (on parent bulletin boards, in general information areas, and in parent libraries). Finally, a program with a website should provide a section with links to community resources, using whatever structure makes most sense. All of this information must be updated frequently, either by a staff person responsible for community collaboration, or by a parent volunteer.

Throughout this book, we continue to address ways family-centered early childhood programs can use community resources to improve the quality of the program, to support families in their sincere attempts to support the development and learning of their children, and to provide ways to help families and programs collaborate.

4.1 Supporting the Child’s Development of Initiative

According to Erikson (1963), children progress from a sense of autonomy and independence to a stage characterized by initiative. The development of initiative typically occurs in children ages 3 to 6 years old. Children this age try to initiate all sorts of activities: new words, new combinations of words (grammar), new friendships, and new uses of art, play, and natural materials (water, sand, mud, stones, sticks, leaves, and so on) to create, to make things happen, and to see the relationship between what they do and the results of what they do. This is also called cause and effect. They also want to know why things are the way they are (“Grandpa, why don’t you wear shoes at home?” “Why is my friend Maia’s skin darker than mine?” “Why do flowers die?”). At this stage, children define themselves by what they can do (Harter, 2006a).

While the desire for initiative in a child is developmental, for a child to embrace initiative fully and be able to progress to the next stage, the environment in which the child lives and learns should actively support the child’s sincere efforts. This is accomplished largely by significant people in the child’s life engaging in important activities and behaviors and demonstrating certain behaviors. They must provide the following opportunities for the child:

Provide opportunities for discovery. Allow young children to discover the world and master basic information and knowledge about how the world works. This includes opportunities to play in water (they love to “help” with the dishes and cleaning the bathtub); help set the table; play in sand, dirt, and mud; garden; pick flowers and berries; stack stones and blocks; or blow dandelion and maple tree (helicopter) seeds.

Provide sensitive support. Provide sensitive support for the natural frustrations that occur at this age. Children often become extremely frustrated when they cannot accomplish what they set out to achieve (Wittmer & Petersen, 2010). This might be painting a picture, trying to make friends, putting a dress on a doll, dressing themselves, or setting the table. This frustration is caused by two realities: The child does not know the realistic expectations for a task or activity (exactly how high can one stack blocks; do dogs really not like their tails to be pulled?), and immature skill development—social, physical, emotional, linguistic, and cognitive. Also, children at this age often overestimate their own skills and abilities (Harter, 1999).

Encourage friendships. Provide opportunities for children to develop friends and play with peers. This can occur in many places: home, local playgrounds, early care and education centers. The best vehicle for developing friends at this age is play, which is discussed in more detail later in this chapter. It is critical, however, that children who attend early care and education programs have many opportunities—both indoors and outdoors—to engage in free play: play opportunities where children pick how they play, with whom they play, and what they play (Johnson, Christie, & Wardle, 2005). Children also need enough time to play, and they should not be denied opportunities to play due to misbehavior, schedules, or programmatic reasons.

Provide opportunities to plan and implement their plans. This includes inevitable changes and new planning. Planning gives children a great sense of power and control. While they need help in planning and implementing their plans, it is important for children to begin to learn to pursue ideas and activities from initiation to completion.

Provide opportunities to learn about their bodies and how to use their bodies in different ways. Children love to master physical challenges, which is why they learn to ride a tricycle and then a bicycle. Dance, free movement, swinging, climbing, and running all help children develop a sense of physical mastery.

Encourage all sorts of play. Because play is open-ended and low in stress, due to few externally imposed expectations, it is an ideal way for children to explore, investigate, master new language and physical skills, gain all sorts of information, and push their limits. (See the discussion on play later in this chapter.)

Provide children with a variety of ways to learn and maintain appropriate behaviors. Children at this age should be encouraged to help develop classroom rules and be reminded of the rules they have helped to make (e.g., “What do the rules say about running in the classroom?”). They also need to be reminded about consequences of their behaviors (“What do you think will happen when you pour water in the sand?” “What will happen when you mix the blue and yellow paint?”).

Limit exposure to media. Limit children’s exposure to TV and other electronic media. According to Piaget, preschool children learn by manipulating and playing with real objects, such as blocks, sticks, sand and water, crayons, toys, and other items (Piaget, 1962). Thus, to develop initiative, children need opportunities to investigate, manipulate, and experiment with real objects and with peers, rather than passively watching TV or using other electronic media. Lev Vygotsky, a theorist who lived in Russia during the beginning of the 20th century, developed a sociocultural theory of learning, which focuses on the influence of others (children and adults) and the importance of language on learning (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978). One of his ideas is that young children learn through meaningful dialogue with adults and more advanced children. While children do hear people talking on TV, they are not actively engaged in a meaningful dialogue, and research suggests TV watching does not increase children’s language skills or cognitive development (Anderson & Pempek, 2005; Krcmar, Grela, & Lin, 2007), except for education programs such as “Sesame Street.”

Children who have ample opportunities to explore, risk, master new skills, and push limits—at home, in the community, and in their early care and education programs—are more likely to develop a strong sense of initiative, what Bandura calls self-efficacy: “I can do it, I can make it, I can learn, and I can find out about it” (Kostelnik et al., 2009). However, children whose sincere efforts at initiative are thwarted by adult expectations and behaviors develop a sense of guilt. According to Erikson, “The danger of this stage is a sense of guilt over the goals contemplated and the acts initiated in one’s exuberant enjoyment of new locomotion and mental powers” (1963, p. 255).

Adults who make children feel they are clumsy and uncoordinated, tell them their play is silly and immature, accuse them of lying when they engage in fantasy and wild imagination, constantly correct their attempts to use new and complex language, and belittle their attempts to recall newly acquired facts and knowledge increase this sense of guilt (Kostelnik et al., 2009). If these kinds of interactions between the child and significant adults in the child’s life are frequent and pervasive, the child will become unsure of himself, his abilities, and his sense of self-worth and self-efficacy.

Characteristics of Children Who Have Developed Initiative

A child who is actively progressing toward achieving initiative experiences the pleasure of attacking and conquering new tasks. The child is more ready than before to learn quickly and enthusiastically, to work cooperatively with other children in constructing and planning, and to achieve specific behaviors (Erikson, 1963). At this stage, the child is open to learn from peers and teachers and to learn from the modeling of others (Bandura, 1965, 1977). Further, a child’s motivation to learn and succeed is being directed toward socially condoned roles of adult life, such as parenthood and specific professions. This is why children love to engage in dramatic play about parents, heroes in books and movies, and other adult role models (Erikson, 1963).

The typical behaviors of children at this age (3 to 6 years old) that characterize this healthy development of initiative include the following:

Love to create and invent

Want to take actions and assert themselves physically and socially

Challenge limitations and adult control

Like to pretend

Enjoy using new language and developing their own words

Take physical, social, and intellectual risks

Enjoy reaching out to interact with adults and other children

Love to play with peers

Focus on the process of a task, activity, or idea, rather than on the result or product

Exhibit tremendous pride in accomplishments and in attempts at new tasks and behaviors

Enjoy demonstrating newly learned words, concepts, and skills

Demand to make choices and do things their own way, even if they are incorrect

Find many ways for the world to notice and respond to them

Children at this age are in Piaget’s preoperational stage, as discussed in Chapter 3. This means that, while they can remember past experiences and demonstrate what they remembered through language, play, and artwork, these reflections are not necessarily accurate or logical (Ormrod, 2008). This characteristic can be seen in the child’s view of himself or herself at this age, which is called self-concept. Children who engage in initiative—who risk, attempt to play with other children, explore, try out new things, and work hard at all these efforts—view themselves as successful. They are not concerned with the end product, acquiring specific skills, or meeting the expectations set by adults; rather, their self-concept is based on making an effort and enjoying the process, without causing too much harm (through either accidents or upsetting important adults in their lives). For example, a child who is exploring all the things that can be done with felt markers on a large pad of paper will be focused on how to attach the paper to the easel, how to take the tops off the pens, and then how to draw with them. Once she has achieved these tasks, she will set her sights on determining the shapes, colors, images, and lines created with colored pens. These attempts may develop into a picture of some kind, but this is not the focus of the child’s endeavor.

Further, many preschool-age children have a very positive self-concept, believing they can be successful even when they have just failed at something (Stipek & Green, 2001; Stipek, Recchia, & McClintic, 1992). Most children at this age are extremely optimistic regarding their abilities and potential successes (Harter, 1999). However, to be fully prepared to progress through the stage of initiative versus guilt, a child needs to have secure attachment and have developed a sense of autonomy (Ainsworth, 1979; Erikson, 1963). Further, children who have been abused or neglected have very negative self-concepts and thus will struggle to achieve initiative at this age (Levine & Munsch, 2011).

4.2 Initiative and Play

The preschool years are often called the play years. This is not an accident. Children 3 to 5 years old absolutely love to play. This is a result of their rapidly developing physical skills and abilities, emerging cognitive development, and increasing experience in the world. In fact, most child development specialists and early childhood teachers believe that play is the best vehicle for children at this age to explore and manifest their drive toward initiative. For example, a child engaged in fantasy play based on her recent visit to the emergency room of a hospital will use new words that she heard the nurses and doctor use, imitate the behaviors of the doctor and nurses (probably by dressing up to represent these roles), and explore medical procedures such as taking a patient’s temperature, weighing the patient, and giving the patient a shot. Another child playing in the sandbox outside will experiment to determine how big a pile of sand he can make, explore the result of mixing water with the sand, and then determine whether he can make a miniature fort using sticks, leaves, and stones that he places in the wet sand. It is almost as if initiative and play are a perfect fit (Berlyne, 1960; Bruner, 1972; Piaget, 1962; Sutton-Smith, 1998). Play has been studied extensively by many scholars and can be viewed from several different perspectives. In this section, we will cover the characteristics of play, Piaget’s cognitive play stages, and Parten’s social play stages. Mildred Parten observed children playing, beginning with onlooker play (watching other children playing), and culminating in cooperative play (Parten, 1932, 1933). Based on her observations, Parten developed the stages of development of social play, which we will also explore. Finally, we will see how these two scales can be combined to show a child’s cognitive and social play behaviors together at the same time.

While it is important to understand the value of play and how children use play to acquire a vast array of skills, concepts, attitudes, and abilities, it must be noted that in this age of accountability and assessments, more and more preschools are reducing the amount of play children experience. This is the direct result of the federal law No Child Left Behind and a national push toward the use of preschool academic standards (Gronlund, 2006). Preschool programs are being asked to make sure children achieve certain academic standards in preparation for school entry and success (Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2005). As a result, playtime in early care and education programs is often reduced (Kagan, Carrol, Comer, & Scott-Little, 2006).

Characteristics of Play

According to Johnson, Christie, and Wardle (2005), play can best be described by examining five characteristics. When young children play, they seem to exhibit all of these characteristics in some form: positive affect, nonliterality, intrinsic motivation, process orientation, and free choice.

Positive affect. Children engage in play because it is fun. Some parts of play might involve fear or anxiety, such as attempting to go down a slide for the first time, or climbing a tall tree, but the activity is engaged in and repeated because the overall experience is enjoyable. Positive affect describes the positive, affirming feeling children have when engaging in play.

Nonliterality. Probably the best characteristic of play for the preschool child is that it is not constrained by reality (use of materials, time, facts, or experiences), which is called nonliterality. A child can pretend that a small toy container is a cup of tea, a Lego is a piece of candy, and a doll is a real baby. A piece of material may be a doctor’s smock, and the child could be a father, mother, or football player. This characteristic of play enables children to explore all sorts of new ideas, experiences, languages, and emotions, without having to worry about accuracy.

Intrinsic motivation. Children play because it is satisfying. They stop playing when it no longer meets their needs. And when the play activity becomes boring, they invent ways to make it challenging and interesting again. It seems that children have an internal drive to play; they feel good inside when they play—what is termed intrinsic motivation. When children and adults do something because it is rewarded externally—adult praise, money, grades—we call this extrinsic motivation. Play is rewarding in and of itself.

Process orientation. Have you ever watched young children building a fort or similar structure? What do they do when it is finished? In a very short time, they will destroy it to build something else. This is because they enjoy the process of building the fort together; this characteristic of play is called process orientation. One of the great things about the process nature of play is that it can change along the way, based on new children joining the group, new ideas, and new discoveries.

Free choice. King (1979) conducted an experiment about work and play and discovered that when children freely choose the activity (called free choice), they view it as play, but when a teacher or other adult requires them to engage in the same activity, it is no longer considered play. Children, it seems, must select when they wish to play, with whom they wish to play, and how long they wish to play.

Central to all of these characteristics of play is the child. In fact, play is the prototype of child-centered learning. Because play is so responsive to the child’s interests, moods, experiences, and developmental levels, it is an ideal vehicle for the child during the stage of initiative versus guilt.

Piaget’s Cognitive Play Stages

In Chapter 2, we discussed the first two of Piaget’s stages of mental representation. Piaget was also interested in how children use these new mental abilities to influence what he called playing with things—object play. The cognitive play stages describe how children progress from the simplest form of play to what Piaget believes to be the most complex—games with rules (Piaget, 1962).

Functional play. The simplest use of objects in play occurs in functional play when objects are used for their own physical characteristics, such as stacking blocks, digging in the sand, and pouring water from one container to another. The 2-year-old who bangs on pots and pans in the kitchen with a spoon is engaged in functional play. When children use their own bodies in direct physical activities—swinging, sliding, climbing, and rolling—they are also engaged in functional play (Johnson, Christie, & Wardle, 2005).

Constructive play. When children use play materials to construct something, such as using blocks to build a house and sticks to build a fort in the mud, they are enjoying constructive play. Woodwork and most art activities are classic forms of constructive play. Building forts on the playground and complex structures in the block area are other examples. What is particularly intriguing about constructive play is that it combines basic knowledge of materials with very creative thinking—it is deep problem solving (Bruner, 1990). Furthermore, research suggests that, unsurprisingly, constructive play is the favorite kind of play for preschool-age children (Ihn, 1998).

Symbolic/dramatic/fantasy play. When children use materials in a symbolic manner (e.g., a block becomes a phone and a hat changes a boy into a woman), we have symbolic/dramatic/fantasy play. This form of play is the most open-ended kind of play, because children can divorce themselves from the concrete reality of materials and construct their own meaning, using objects as a way to do this. It is also the beginning of abstract thought, which is central to higher learning (Bruner, 1972).

Games with rules. Have you ever watched a group of 7- to 8-year-olds playing baseball when the hitter has just struck out? What does the hitter usually plead to the rest of the players? “Give me one more chance!” This is because most children at this age have not learned that when you give everyone more chances, the game is ruined. Thus, the ability to suppress one’s own ego needs for the rules of the game is what Piaget (1962) calls games with rules. There are very few 3- to 6-year-olds who can play complex games with rules.

While Piaget’s cognitive play theory is a stage theory—children progress from functional play to games with rules—this does not mean that once a child has reached games with rules that they cannot still choose to play at other levels. But, as with other developmental approaches, if a child is developmentally unable to play at one level, for example, symbolic play, the child needs to be encouraged to play at the level at which the child is most comfortable, before progressing to the next level.

Social Play Stages

Like Piaget’s cognitive play stages, Parten’s social play stages are also progressive. Thus, if a child is not capable of playing at one level of the scale (for example, cooperative play), the child needs to play at the level at which the child is most comfortable playing. A child cannot be taught to play at a certain level unless the child is developmentally ready to do so.

Solitary play. When children play alone, with no regard for adults or peers next to them, they are engaged in solitary play. A child might be focused on building with Legos or in setting up a tea service in the dollhouse. As the term states, the play is solitary.

Parallel play. Have you ever wondered why at certain times nobody is using the playground swings, and then all of a sudden they are all being used? Children enjoy playing side by side with other children, while still focusing on themselves and their own play activity. This is parallel play. When children dig in the sand together, without communicating to each other, they are engaged in parallel play.

Associative play. Children enjoy playing with other children, but they often do not really know how to do so. You might see children in the sandbox sharing each other’s digging toys or using each other’s pails. A child might imitate something the other child is doing. But sooner or later, these children will get into arguments, because they are still focusing on their own play and not on playing with others. This kind of social play is known as associative play.

Cooperative play. Children will engage in play activities with other children where everyone fully cooperates and negotiates the play’s roles and scripts. In the familiar doctor dramatic play activity, everyone wants to be the doctor and no one wants to be the baby, nurse, or mother. However, children in this activity know that if they all insist on being the doctor, the play episode will collapse. So they negotiate, deciding who will be the doctor first, second, and so on, and who will take on the roles of the other characters. This is called cooperative play. One reason children need a prolonged time to play is that these negotiations take time (Christie & Wardle, 1992).

Children with disabilities and other special needs may have difficulty progressing through each of these stages. However, teachers can use a variety of modifications and approaches to help these children participate in play, benefit from the value of play, and develop through the cognitive and social stages at their own pace (Sandall, 2004).

The Play Matrix

As is readily apparent when considering Piaget’s four cognitive play stages and Parten’s four social play stages, it is possible for a child to play at different levels of each scale model. For example, a person can play certain card games, such as solitaire (games with rules) alone (solitary play), thus combining the highest of Piaget’s stage with the lowest of Parten’s stage. Many 3- to 6-year-olds love to engage in complex dramatic play (Piaget’s third level) by themselves (Parten’s first level). By placing these two play stage models on a two-dimensional matrix, it is possible to observe a child’s play within both of these models at the same time

Fantasy Play and Initiative

Children in Erikson’s initiative versus guilt stage are particularly fascinated with fantasy play. This is because it allows them to explore newly discovered concepts, skills, and emotions. A child who has just experienced an angry teacher can role-play being the teacher. A child fascinated by dragonflies flying through the warm summer air can pretend to be a dragonfly and discover that he cannot fly. A child can explore a variety of roles, situations, and feelings simultaneously. He or she can pretend to be a baby, mother, teacher, or the family dog. A preschool child can also explore being a favorite character from a fairly tale, movie, book, or TV show.

Another reason imaginative play is so popular at this age is that between the ages of 3 and 5, most children make a huge shift in the way they view the world. Initially, young children believe everything they imagine in their mind is, in fact, true. They believe that once they think of something, it exists in reality. This is why young children are scared of monsters (they believe they are real), and why clowns and people wearing masks often frighten them—even when familiar people are wearing them. The belief that everything one thinks of is true is called a false belief (Moses & Flavell, 1990). Sometime between ages 3 and 5, children in most cultures can understand that they can think about things that are not real—that they simply imagine. They can separate fantasy from reality. This shift in thinking is known as theory of mind (Flavell, 2000; Lillard, 1998). Children love to explore the wide world of fantasy and discover how wonderful it is to try out new characters, ideas, and activities. They love the sense of power of being anything they can imagine. It is easy to see how the desire for initiative finds fertile soil in fantasy play.

4.3 Initiative and Aggression

At this age, children discover that not all of their dreams and fantasies can be realized and that their energy and exuberance is not always appreciated by others, especially adults. They then struggle with ways to resolve this conflict between their desire for initiative and society’s expectations, rules, and constraints (Erikson, 1963; Kostelnik et al., 2009). Sometimes they resort to frustration and aggression. They turn to aggression rather than other more socially appropriate responses for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, they look to see how important people in their lives solve their own problems and learn from others that aggression is an appropriate response to frustration. They learn from others that using aggression is acceptable, so they do it also. These children may be from families in which aggression is used to solve problems, or they may have had other experiences in which aggression was an acceptable approach to fear and frustration (Patterson, 2005). Children from homes where strict punishment is used often learn to use aggression as a solution to their problems.

Another explanation for the use of aggressive behavior to solve problems is what is termed social cognitive theory. This theory explains that children learn behaviors from observing real models (parents, peers, and coaches) and symbolic models (TV program heroes and video game heroes). Developed by Albert Bandura (1965, 1977), the social cognitive theory is based on an experiment in which young children observed a TV program in which aggression was used by adults to attack Bobo dolls. These children were then given their own Bobo dolls to play with. Compared to a control group of children who had not seen the TV program, the children who had observed the Bobo dolls being hit exhibited more aggressive behavior toward the dolls. Thus, children learn aggression by observing the aggressive behaviors of others. Children imitate the behavior of important people in their lives, such as teachers, parents, siblings, and people in the community. These are called real models. They also imitate characters in books, TV programs, movies, and so on, which are called symbolic models. In both cases, a variety of behaviors are imitated, both good and bad.

Further, stress contributes to aggression. Stress in infancy and early childhood can lead to aggression, due to the poor brain development that stress causes (Shore, 1997). Additionally, young children who constantly experience stress at home or in the early care and education program will exhibit more aggressive responses to frustration. These children often are unable to respond appropriately and calmly to typical childhood frustrations, because of their immediate environment and because constant stress negatively impacts brain functioning, especially of the prefrontal cortex, which is the part of the brain that controls emotional regulation (Caine & Caine, 2006).

And children of authoritarian parents struggle more with aggression. Baumrind (1971, 1989) developed a theory of parenting styles that details permissive, authoritative, and authoritarian parenting. In permissive parenting, the parent is warm and loving but provides no expectations, discipline, or consequences to behavior. Authoritative parents have high expectations and consistent rules and enforcement, but they are also flexible and will negotiate with their children. Authoritarian parents have high expectations (often too high), inflexible rules, and often harsh discipline. The authoritarian style is one of absolute authority with no flexibility, understanding of the child’s needs, or negotiation (Baumrind, 1967). The authoritarian parenting style is not responsive to the various behaviors the preschool child engages in during this stage. As a result, the child becomes frustrated and aggressive.

However, while aggression is a result of one or more of these factors, it is very important to remember that children at this age are naturally frustrated as they seek to fulfill their need for initiative. They resort to aggression when they have not been shown appropriate or socially acceptable ways to respond, or because the adults in their lives do not understand their need for initiative.

Adults Helping Children with Aggression

There are many things adults can do to help children cope with aggression. These ideas can be used by parents, other caregivers in the home, and teachers and caregivers in the early care and education program. Some of them are general ideas for all children, but there are some specific suggestions for aggressive 3- to 5-year-olds:

Provide opportunities for appropriate physical activities. This is one of the reasons to emphasize outdoor play in the early care and education program and in the community at this age. Physical activity includes gardening, building, riding tricycles, swinging, hiking, and climbing.

Provide activities in which children can express frustrations. This can be done through drawing, painting, dance, and music. Woodwork is also a great outlet for children at this age.

Provide opportunities for soothing activities. Examples include playing in water, finger painting, and working in clay.

Focus on specific behaviors. When a child needs to be criticized or punished, make sure to focus on a specific behavior. Children at this age tend to take an all-or-nothing approach to self-concept and self-esteem. They see themselves as all good or all bad. They are not cognitively and emotionally able to separate out acceptable and problematic behaviors (Harter, 1999).

Support the expression of feelings. As children’s language becomes more sophisticated, help them use it to express their frustrations and anger. They need help to express their feelings to other children who may cause them anger and to adults who do not appear to understand their frustrations.

Support and assist children who tend to be excluded or victimized by others. Help them protect themselves from others. For example, boys who are expected by parents and child care teachers and providers to “defend themselves and act like men” should be supported in the development and expression of less aggressive behavior. Any child who is bullied by peers should receive support and protection, and should not be left to fend for him or herself. Some children with special needs may need support if ostracized by their peers. Help children to accept who they are and to embrace their uniqueness. We will discuss this issue in more detail in the next chapter, especially in relationship to diversity of race, ethnicity, and language and to the presence of special needs.

Support the development of problem-solving skills. As children develop emotional regulation and cognitive abilities, help them develop problem-solving skills. However, because of immature brain development and lack of experience, children this age have limited ability to solve their own problems (Piaget, 1962).

Provide opportunities for social dramatic play. This includes dramatic and fantasy play with peers and the need for many dramatic play props to encourage this kind of play. Children this age are exposed to many experiences that they simply do not understand fully. Dramatic play enables children to explore their feelings around terrifying experiences. A child who is scared of a doctor gains confidence by playing at being a doctor; a child who has experienced a scary event can come to terms with it through repeatedly acting out the event with her peers.

Minimize exposure to TV and other technology (see Think About It: Just Say No to TV). Early care and education programs need to communicate to parents and other caregivers at home the importance of understanding the child’s need for initiative at this age and effective ways to discipline their 3- to 5-year-old. In Chapter 3, we discussed some approaches that work with the autonomous child, and these suggestions also work with 3- to 5-year-olds. Further, in Chapter 7, we will discuss a variety of approaches to disciplining young children. An absolute, authoritarian, nonflexible approach to discipline is not effective with an aggressive 3- to 5-year-old.

Exposure to TV and Other Media Teaches Aggression

Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory shows just how powerful the modeling of behaviors can be. Remember, this approach to modeling behaviors works both for teaching positive as well as negative behaviors; further, it is far more effective when modeled by someone whom the child respects (for example, a friend, a parent, or a teacher) (Bandura, 1965, 1977). Bandura’s work shows that TV, book, and movie heroes are also powerful symbolic role models. Watching violence on TV promotes aggression in young children, and media violence promotes aggression and antisocial behaviors (Comstock & Scharrer, 2003). One study shows that viewing violent television at ages 2 to 5 is linked to greater aggression at ages 7 to 10 (Christakis & Zimmerman, 2007). Even educational programs seem to model some aggressive behaviors (Levine & Munsch, 2011). A child’s exposure to TV programs, films, and video games that include violence and aggression should be carefully censored (see Think About It: Just Say No to TV). When children and adults watch violent sports programs together, such as boxing and football, the adult needs to explain to the child the aggressive nature of some sports.

Portrayals of minority characters on television and movies tend to show them in a negative light (Ward, 2004). This negatively affects the self-concept of minority children, who are greater consumers of television than are nonminorities (Rivadeneyra, Ward, & Gordon, 2007). Further, because of the amount of violent and sexual content, much of what children learn from TV does not prepare them for academic success (Comstock & Scharrer, 2003; Schmidt & Anderson, 2004).

4.4 Brain-Based Learning and Initiative

EEG (an electroencephalogram), Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), Positive Emission Tomography (PET), and Computerized Axial Tomography (CAT) enable researchers to collect and present a vast amount of information about how the brain develops and functions (Shore, 1997; Willis, 2009). This information has revolutionized our understanding of the development and functioning of the brains of infants and young children. In turn, this knowledge has fundamentally changed the way we care for and teach young children.

Brain development is the result of a complex interaction between the genes we are born with and individual experiences. Early experiences—especially during the first 5 years—have a profound impact on the development of the brain and our cognitive capacities as adults. These early human interactions not only provide a positive context for learning, but also directly determine the way various parts of the brain are wired. These experiences need to stimulate all parts of the brain through the use of all the senses. A central role of this stimulation is to develop both sides of the brain through a variety of activities that involve rational and logical processes and emotional, creative, and feeling activities. These experiences should also use various senses simultaneously, such as when a child hears, touches, and sees a baby duckling. However, brain development is not linear: There are optimal times to learn certain skills and knowledge. Finally, we know that the brain of a 3-year-old is two-and-a-half times as active as an adult’s brain (Shore, 1997). Brain activity begins to decline during adolescence. Based on this new knowledge, some of the things we should be doing with infants and young children—in the home, in the community, and in early care and education programs—to simulate healthy brain development, include the following (Caine & Caine, 2006; Shore, 1997):

Develop warm, caring relationships with children, express joy and enthusiasm, and help children feel safe and secure.

Respond to children’s cues—provide a goodness-of-fit for the child’s temperament and a synchrony for their activities. Let the child lead in play and learning activities.

Recognize that each child is unique.

Surround children with language and provide them with all sorts of reading and writing materials, including crayons, paper, books, magazines, and toys.

Encourage lots of safe exploration and play. Encourage exploration both of objects and materials and of other children.

Limit television watching.

Encourage health and good nutrition; encourage mothers of infants to breast-feed.

Schiller (2010) adds that because music and language are closely related in brain development, music should be included in the daily schedule, teachers and children should sing together, and parents and teachers should use a large variety of language, preferably just above the level of language used by each child. A variety of different learning styles should be used when working with young children—visual, tactile, kinesthetic, and auditory (Gardner, 1983). Further, because we know that exercise and hands-on activities build brain connections that enhance memory and learning, hands-on activities should be encouraged at home and in the center, and daily exercise should be provided. We should also encourage face-to-face interactions with peers, and respond sincerely and with full concentration when interacting with children.

Because stress limits brain growth and development (Shore, 1997; Willis, 2009), classroom experiences and activities need to be meaningful to each student, enjoyable, challenging, novel, and interesting. Many of these classroom activities—inside and outside—should be directed by the child. Children at this age need choices that not only give them a sense of power, but also enable them to feel good about their need for control, their desire to explore their initiative to its fullest extent, and their need to learn about natural limitations and real cause and effect. Play should be at the center of what children do at this age, both to support the child’s development of initiative and to develop the child’s brain maximally (Schiller, 2010; Shore, 1997; Willis, 2007).

In addition to music, young children should have many opportunities for dance, free movement, and the visual arts. The arts enable children to express their feelings of joy, frustration, excitement, anger, and sadness. Engagement in the arts helps children at this age to come to terms with their emotional responses to the environment. This is critically important, as children learn to express their need for power and their disappointments in socially acceptable ways. Otherwise, guilt may develop (Erikson, 1963).

Brain-Based Learning and the Media

We know that exercise, mastery of motor skills, and healthy physical development are critical to the optimal brain development of young children (Schiller, 2010; Shore, 2007). There is a growing body of evidence that suggests watching more television causes greater problems with weight as children grow and develop (Epstein et al., 2009; Taveras et al., 2007). Given increased concerns about childhood obesity, this is clearly an issue. Further, with infants and toddlers there is no evidence that TV of any kind is helpful in developing cognitive and language abilities (Kirkorian, Wartella, & Anderson, 2008). The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends pediatricians discourage TV watching for children under age 2, while promoting talking, playing, singing, and reading together (2001). Research shows young children learn much more effectively from real-life interactions (Krcmar, Grela, & Lin, 2007). Even when young children played with the TV on in the background, their play was shorter and less focused than when the TV was turned off (Schmidt, Pempek, Kirkorian, Lund, & Anderson, 2008). Entertainment television appears to have a negative effect on children’s cognitive development and school achievement. In the early years, when children are learning to read and are gaining a vast amount of information about the real world, school achievement declines as the amount of TV viewing increases (Schmidt & Anderson, 2004), particularly entertainment (not educational) TV. Children who watch more television tend to have attention problems and are more impulsive, which contributes to poor school performance (Shin, 2004).

Regardless of the program (including educational programs like “Sesame Street”), a child who sits in front of a TV is not engaged in these critically important activities that we know stimulate and develop a young child’s brain.

4.5 Supporting Initiative in the Early Care and Education Environment

In Chapters 2 and 3, the concept of goodness-of-fit was discussed. Goodness-of-fit is a match between a child’s temperament and the social environment and is necessary for optimal development and learning (Chess & Thomas, 1999). In a similar vein, environments that match a child’s developmental stage are optimal for their growth and development (The Science of Early Childhood Development, 2007). Thus, at this critical stage of initiative versus guilt, children need physical and social environments that are responsive and support their desire for initiative. Further, these social and physical environments need to support what we now know about brain development in young children (Shore, 1997; Willis, 2009).

Curricular Approaches That Empower Children to Develop Initiative

Human interactions are at the heart of quality early care and education programs. The staff and volunteers in early care and education programs must genuinely support and encourage each child’s efforts at initiative. Guilt should be avoided, punishment minimized. As with the autonomous child, staff should avoid getting into power battles and should deeply understand the child’s need for control and power.

In Chapter 2, we discussed the variety of early care and education programs that exists in most communities (Neugebauer, 2008). Each of these has its own curriculum, which focuses on implementing the program’s unique philosophy, to support brain-based learning and the development of initiative in young children.

A whole child, integrated approach is best (The Science of Early Childhood Development, 2007). Another name for this type of curricular approach is developmentally appropriate practice (DAP). In this approach, all domains of the child are addressed equally—cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, affective, and physical—while content such as math, science, music, art, and physical education is taught in an integrated manner. An integrated approach to the curriculum is one in which skills and academic concepts, such as literacy, math, science, social skills, and art exploration, are not taught as separate subjects, but rather are taught together as children work on projects and other meaningful activities. For example, children might create a Mother’s Day card, which would involve measuring and cutting the paper, drawing an image on the card, and then writing a greeting. Or they might observe a bird’s nest on a nature walk, return to the classroom to hear a story about birds and their nest read by a teacher, and then try to make nests with sticks and other materials, using an old nest in the science area as a model.

In providing learning opportunities that support the child’s need for initiative, it is very important to make sure children at this age who are diagnosed with a developmental delay or special need have many opportunities to risk, try out new ideas, push limits, and experiment (Erikson, 1963). While it is important that the child’s disability is addressed directly in the program, it is also important that these efforts do not prevent the child from exploring the various ways he or she experiences initiative. This is particularly important for children with ADHD and emotional and behavioral struggles (Sandall, 2004).

Provide Indoor Environments That Support Initiative

Indoor environments that support initiative in children ages 3 to 5 years old need to address two central ideas: Empower children to develop initiative in socially appropriate ways, and focus on safety and active supervision (Martin, 2011). While the indoors should be a rich environment of books, art materials, blocks, plants, science equipment, musical instruments, and social dramatic play props, it must not be isolated from the outdoors—both the playground and community. The playground and community offer wonderful ways to support initiative.

Designing the physical environment in such a way that children can easily access and return toys and other materials, with minimal adult assistance, encourages the child’s development of initiative. Children develop both a sense of control and an ability to direct their own play and other activities, enabling them to select the materials and toys required to accomplish certain tasks and to achieve certain goals, all important activities in brain development and initiative.

While the indoor environment must support initiative and brain-based learning, actual early childhood environments depend on many factors, including the amount of time a child spends in the program, the sponsorship of the program (e.g., a college, public school, Head Start, or community-based center), and the program’s curriculum (e.g., Reggio Emilia, Montessori, or public school) (Greenman, 2005; Neugebauer, 2008).

Provide Outdoor Environments That Support Initiative

The outside environment is critical in supporting the preschool child’s need for initiative, because the outdoors allow children to explore, experiment, take risks, make mistakes, and try again. The space encourages large muscle activities and exploration; the outdoor environment tolerates loud cries and lots of noise. Children can be messy, they can create and draw and build, and they can observe all the fantastic variety and changes in nature (see Helping Children Develop:

The Value of Outdoor Play for 3- to 5-Year-Olds

).

Children should use the outdoors at home, in the community, and in the center. Here, we examine the outdoor playground at the early care and education program; the next section explores the rich array of community resources, both indoors and outdoors, that can be utilized by the program and home (Martin, 2011).

Overall Design of the Playground

Because children at this age are exploring their need for initiative, and because they are progressing through Piaget’s cognitive play stages and Parten’s social play stages, the overall design of the playground must enable children to engage in activities that enhance their development in each of these areas. Direct academic activities and organized physical exercise should not be the focus of playgrounds for 3- to 5-year-olds (Louv, 2006).

Surfaces. Good playgrounds for young children usually have at least four different surfaces: grass, concrete/asphalt, fall-zone surfaces, and sand (Wardle, 2011a).

Grass. Grass is a wonderful surface for the active preschool child. It provides support for games and physical activities, while not being too abrasive when the child falls. It also does not attract and store heat the way concrete and asphalt do. Grass should not be sacrificed for fall-zone areas and hardtop.

Concrete/asphalt. Hardtop areas are critical for tricycles and other wheeled vehicles, balls, unit blocks, art easels, and other activities and equipment that require a stable, flat surface. Pathways made of these surfaces are also an ideal way to connect different areas of the playground. However, falls on hardtop are painful and can be life-threatening, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) guidelines for playground safety do not allow climbing equipment, slides, and swings to be on hard surfaces. Additionally, in hot climates (and programs operating during the summer), both concrete and asphalt attract and store heat from the sun. Shade can mitigate the problem to some extent.

Fall-zone materials. CPSC guidelines require an absorbent material be used under equipment that is raised off the ground. Further, the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990) requires that a certain percentage of all equipment, including swings and slides, be handicap accessible. Wood chips, rubber tiles, and rubber pellets meet both the CPSC and ADA requirements for fall-zone materials (Strickland, 2004); sand does not. The CPSC publishes a free booklet of playground safety guidelines; the U.S. Architecture and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board publishes the ADA playground requirements.

Sand. Traditionally, sand was used as a fall-zone material, but it is less popular today because it does not meet ADA regulations. However, all playgrounds should provide a sand area where children can dig, construct, and play. Ideally, the sand area is combined with a water source (Louv, 2006).

Additionally, water is a must in an outdoor playground, especially during the summer months and in conjunction with the use of sand. These two play materials offer unlimited opportunities for the preschool child. Water, of course, must be handled carefully so that it does not cause health hazards (Martin, 2011).

All playgrounds must now meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which are primarily designed to make sure children in wheelchairs and those using other assistive devices can have access to swings, slides, and climbing equipment. The guidelines for playgrounds are covered in the federal document Guide to ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Play Areas (2001). Furthermore, the outdoor environment may need to be modified for children with other disabilities, and teachers need to make sure they can support the play of children with special needs on the playground (Sandall, 2004).

Nature. There is an increasing trend to include many natural elements in playgrounds (Keeler, 2011; Louv, 2006). These natural elements include flower and vegetable gardens, stones and rocks, streams, hills and valleys, soil and mud, and trees and bushes. The trend has developed from two concerns: (1) children in contemporary societies lack the kinds of exposure and interaction with nature that was once viewed as “a right of childhood” (Louv, 2006), and (2) brain research strongly supports the view that children benefit from direct exposure to nature (Schiller, 2010; Willis, 2007). While early care and education programs should provide many of these natural elements, communities offer a vast array of natural opportunities for children, which should be visited by the early care and education programs and used extensively by families.

HELPING CHILDREN DEVELOP:

The Value of Outdoor Play for 3- to 5-Year-Olds

There are many reasons why outdoor play is critically important for 3- to 5-year-olds:

Risk-taking, exploring, fine and gross motor development, and a vast amount of basic information about how the world works are best learned outside; children do not have to be quiet, and they can make a mess.

We are taking outdoor play away from our children with TV and computers, unsafe neighborhoods, a focus on academics in early childhood programs, and busy parents.

Children must push their physical limits to understand what they can do: “Can I slide in the sand, roll in the grass, and climb a tree?” “What can I do?”

Children learn a vast amount of foundational information about the world: “How does ice feel and sound?” “Why does my tricycle speed up when I go downhill?” “What does the playground look like after it rains?” “Why is the shade from the building cool?”

In today’s world of increasing numbers of obese children, it is critical that we provide our young children with physical activities and exercise. It is also critical that we make these activities enjoyable, so that children will continue them into old age.

We need to help children learn to care for the environment. The best place to start is in the child’s own backyard—the program’s playground. Children should be expected to help care for the playground by picking up trash, returning toys to bins and boxes, and parking their tricycles in a designated area at the end of the play period.

There are so many enjoyable things for adults to do outside, such as hiking, bird watching, climbing, gardening, playing various sports, and farming. If children learn to enjoy the outdoors in their childhood, it will stay with them for the rest of their lives.

All important learning does not occur indoors. Some of the most important research today is conducted outside: ecology, study of animal habitats and plants, anthropology, study of human behavior, and how children learn in nature.

Wardle, F. (2003). Designing and remodeling outdoor play environments. Early Childhood News, 15(2), 36–41.

Equipment. Equipment choices for playgrounds depend on the philosophy of the program, the program’s budget, and available space. As mentioned, there is a move toward natural materials and equipment. Different kinds of equipment encourage different kinds of play. Thus, equipment should be provided to stimulate each level of Piaget’s and Parten’s play stages. Because constructive play is the favorite outdoor play of preschool children (Ihn, 1998), constructive play materials should be plentiful: clean pieces of wood, large hollow blocks, sticks and branches, old milk crates, clean and non-steel-belted tires, wagons to move dirt, and short pieces of rope.

4.6 Use of the Community to Support Initiative

There are many community resources that families and early care and education programs can use to support children’s need for initiative (Wardle, 2007). According to Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1995), the community is part of the microsystem. Further, interactions and cooperation between various components of the microsystem belong in his mesosystem. Not only can community resources be used both by families and the early care and education program, but each can inform the other of existing resources and their value for young children. Use of these resources depends on knowing they exist and having access and transportation to them. Parents and caregivers need to explore all the rich possibilities in their communities, and discover the ways these resources can be used for the benefit of children ages 3 to 5. The early care and education program should develop strategies both to inform parents and other caregivers of the resources they can use with their children within their communities, and to allow the program to learn about different community resources from parents and other caregivers.

An adult or older child must always accompany children at this age. When early care and education programs go on field trips, parents and other caregivers from the home should be invited to help with this supervision. For families, supervising children as they explore these outdoor areas presents an opportunity for a parent, grandparent, or other adult in the home to spend time with one or more of their children. Not only will the adult delight in learning what the child likes to do and how he or she sees the world, but the adult can teach the child about nature and wild things. Some adults know all about wildflowers, while others are tree experts. Others know all about the birds and animals in the area. This is a wonderful time to teach this wisdom to a young child. Of course, this is also an important time for adults to teach children important health and safety information (Martin, 2011).

Museums

Most communities have a collection of museums, including nature and history museums, art museums, regional museums, state museums, and museums dedicated to a single concept, such as the Black Cowboy Museum, the National Railway Museum, and the Agricultural Hall of Fame. Many of these museums have a section dedicated to families, and some provide regular events to attract families. In some cities, these museums even offer free admission on certain days . Many museums work closely with early childhood programs and schools (some have websites and additional curricular materials that can be used when the children return to their programs and homes).

Many large cities also have children’s museums, which have exhibitions and activities that young children enjoy and provide activities for children as young as toddlers. These museums change their exhibits and activities on a regular basis and also provide a variety of special activities such as children’s authors reading their books, cultural activities, magic acts, and opportunities for children to engage in dramatic play and play with unique toys.

Outdoor museums are favorite places for families with young children. When children visit outdoor museums, they learn a great deal about growing and caring for plants and animals and how people used to live. Examples of outdoor museums include farms from the 1800s that feature old buildings (homes, stores, and one-room schoolhouses), a collection of farm animals, and periodic historical activities in which children can participate, such as making wallpaper using color dyes and vinegar and making apple butter. These outdoor farms provide many seasonal experiences for young children, from observing baby pigs and lambs in the spring, to harvesting corn, pumpkins, and potatoes in the fall.

Cars are kept off the premises of such museums, and there are always staff members—often dressed in period costumes—on hand, so they are very safe places for children to explore. Outdoor museums are great places to visit on a regular schedule throughout the year. On each successive visit, children can revisit familiar sights and activities, while also learning about new ones.

Learning About Nature

Nature is of immense interest to young children (Keeler, 2011; Louv, 2006). Many cities have a series of public trails and greenways that allow children without easy access to rural or undeveloped areas to experience nature. Greenways are natural areas set aside for birds, waterfowl, animals, and vegetation to grow more naturally than in traditional city parks. While these parks might have meadows and large grassy areas, they do not have formal ball fields and carefully manicured grass. They often contain wetlands for waterfowl and migrating birds. These areas provide natural habitats for a vast variety of wildlife.

Children aged 3 to 5 are very curious about everything! They love to take risks, and they need concrete materials to learn about the world, such as water, stones, trees, flowers, insects, and animals. Greenways and trails provide an ideal place for the preschool child to explore. Many city parks and recreation departments provide guided tours and educational field trips to their greenways and trails. Early care and education programs should become familiar with these opportunities, develop a relationship with their city agency, and utilize free programs with their children. Families can, of course, access these greenways and trails whenever they choose.

Hiking trails and greenways provide wonderful environments for children to engage in more complex and sophisticated forms of play (Louv, 2006). As discussed earlier in this chapter, there are different forms of both social and cognitive play. Play is not just about swinging on a swing and climbing on a ladder. Children also like to play with water, draw in the mud, build constructions with sticks and stones, play together in a little shelter they have just built, or pretend to be explorers. They are exploring the world and trying to figure out where they fit in it.

City Parks and Playgrounds

Cities and towns throughout the United States have a variety of parks that can be enjoyed by programs and families with young children. Most city parks contain traditional playgrounds with swings, slides, climbers, and sand. These playgrounds are designed to match the physical development of children at this age (Johnson, Christie, & Wardle, 2005). Because 3 to 5-year-olds are fascinated with physical play and are developing their gross and fine motor abilities, these playgrounds are great places for them to play. Preschool children tend to enjoy playing in the sand that surrounds most playgrounds and making friends with other children their own age while playing.

Programs without access to their own playgrounds, or to playgrounds that are age-appropriate, can opt instead to use city park playgrounds. However, most city playgrounds provide only equipment that matches the first level of cognitive play—functional play. Parents and caregivers should be aware that children soon become bored with basic functional play such as swinging, sliding, and climbing. Thus, families and programs should bring toys and other materials with them that encourage constructive and symbolic play, and natural materials, such as sticks, stones, pieces of wood, and leaves, that can be used by the children in their play on these playgrounds.

City parks also have other play opportunities. Most have some kind of water source—either streams that wander through the park, or a pond or lake. Children in the initiative versus guilt stage generally love playing in water. They throw stones, watch sticks float under a bridge, play in the mud, observe tadpoles and frogs, and watch the variety of wildlife that ponds and lakes attract. While supervision is always critical with young children, it is hypercritical when water is involved (Martin, 2011).

Libraries and Bookstores

Children at this age are fascinated by books, pictures, artwork, and stories. They love predictable stories with highly repetitive scripts, like The Three Billy Goats Gruff, the Three Little Pigs, and fairy tales. They like stories about things they can relate to in their own short lives. Finally, they want to exercise their newly developed, and still developing, complex language skills. Thus, the preschool age is an ideal time to expose children to books and reading and to instill in them the love of books and reading. Exposing children to books, stories, and print can be accomplished through frequent, positive experiences to libraries and bookstores, and through positive experiences with books and reading at home and in the early care and education program.

Staff members in local libraries are very good at working closely with early care and education programs. They often have programs designed specifically for young children and will arrange reading activities for groups of children from various programs. Programs should work closely with libraries to provide program classrooms with books that they can use to augment specific curricular themes and activities. Finally, many libraries put on special events for young children.

Families can access libraries in their neighborhoods. Visits to libraries with children aged 3 to 5 build a strong disposition in children toward reading and learning. The exposure to books can then be reinforced when children bring home books that their parents read to them and that they can begin to learn how to read themselves. Involving the entire family in these visits, and not simply leaving library visits up to the early care and education programs, is absolutely critical, because it shows children that education and the use of books are supported and modeled at home (Bandura, 1977, 1990).

Many bookstores cater to families with young children. These bookstores not only stock children’s classics and the newest children’s books, but they also have staff members who are extremely knowledgeable about the different kinds of children’s books that are available. A parent who is looking for books to match the specific interests of a child will find these books in children’s bookstores. When children visit bookstores, they learn that people view books as important aspects of their lives, so important in fact that they will go to a store, enjoy looking at books in the store, and then actually pay for the books.

Wardle, F.  (2013).  

Collaboration with families and communities

 [Electronic version]. Retrieved from

https://content.ashford.edu/

Use of the Community to Support Initiative

There are many community resources that families and early care and education programs can use to support children’s need for initiative (Wardle, 2007). According to Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1995), the community is part of the microsystem. Further, interactions and cooperation between various components of the microsystem belong in his mesosystem. Not only can community resources be used both by families and the early care and education program, but each can inform the other of existing resources and their value for young children. Use of these resources depends on knowing they exist and having access and transportation to them. Parents and caregivers need to explore all the rich possibilities in their communities, and discover the ways these resources can be used for the benefit of children ages 3 to 5. The early care and education program should develop strategies both to inform parents and other caregivers of the resources they can use with their children within their communities, and to allow the program to learn about different community resources from parents and other caregivers.

An adult or older child must always accompany children at this age. When early care and education programs go on field trips, parents and other caregivers from the home should be invited to help with this supervision. For families, supervising children as they explore these outdoor areas presents an opportunity for a parent, grandparent, or other adult in the home to spend time with one or more of their children. Not only will the adult delight in learning what the child likes to do and how he or she sees the world, but the adult can teach the child about nature and wild things. Some adults know all about wildflowers, while others are tree experts. Others know all about the birds and animals in the area. This is a wonderful time to teach this wisdom to a young child. Of course, this is also an important time for adults to teach children important health and safety information (Martin, 2011).

Museums

Most communities have a collection of museums, including nature and history museums, art museums, regional museums, state museums, and museums dedicated to a single concept, such as the Black Cowboy Museum, the National Railway Museum, and the Agricultural Hall of Fame. Many of these museums have a section dedicated to families, and some provide regular events to attract families. In some cities, these museums even offer free admission on certain days. Many museums work closely with early childhood programs and schools (some have websites and additional curricular materials that can be used when the children return to their programs and homes).

Many large cities also have children’s museums, which have exhibitions and activities that young children enjoy and provide activities for children as young as toddlers. These museums change their exhibits and activities on a regular basis and also provide a variety of special activities such as children’s authors reading their books, cultural activities, magic acts, and opportunities for children to engage in dramatic play and play with unique toys.

Outdoor museums are favorite places for families with young children. When children visit outdoor museums, they learn a great deal about growing and caring for plants and animals and how people used to live. Examples of outdoor museums include farms from the 1800s that feature old buildings (homes, stores, and one-room schoolhouses), a collection of farm animals, and periodic historical activities in which children can participate, such as making wallpaper using color dyes and vinegar and making apple butter. These outdoor farms provide many seasonal experiences for young children, from observing baby pigs and lambs in the spring, to harvesting corn, pumpkins, and potatoes in the fall.

Cars are kept off the premises of such museums, and there are always staff members—often dressed in period costumes—on hand, so they are very safe places for children to explore. Outdoor museums are great places to visit on a regular schedule throughout the year. On each successive visit, children can revisit familiar sights and activities, while also learning about new ones.

Learning About Nature

Nature is of immense interest to young children (Keeler, 2011; Louv, 2006). Many cities have a series of public trails and greenways that allow children without easy access to rural or undeveloped areas to experience nature. Greenways are natural areas set aside for birds, waterfowl, animals, and vegetation to grow more naturally than in traditional city parks. While these parks might have meadows and large grassy areas, they do not have formal ball fields and carefully manicured grass. They often contain wetlands for waterfowl and migrating birds. These areas provide natural habitats for a vast variety of wildlife.

Children aged 3 to 5 are very curious about everything! They love to take risks, and they need concrete materials to learn about the world, such as water, stones, trees, flowers, insects, and animals. Greenways and trails provide an ideal place for the preschool child to explore. Many city parks and recreation departments provide guided tours and educational field trips to their greenways and trails. Early care and education programs should become familiar with these opportunities, develop a relationship with their city agency, and utilize free programs with their children. Families can, of course, access these greenways and trails whenever they choose.

Hiking trails and greenways provide wonderful environments for children to engage in more complex and sophisticated forms of play (Louv, 2006). As discussed earlier in this chapter, there are different forms of both social and cognitive play. Play is not just about swinging on a swing and climbing on a ladder. Children also like to play with water, draw in the mud, build constructions with sticks and stones, play together in a little shelter they have just built, or pretend to be explorers. They are exploring the world and trying to figure out where they fit in it.

City Parks and Playgrounds

Cities and towns throughout the United States have a variety of parks that can be enjoyed by programs and families with young children. Most city parks contain traditional playgrounds with swings, slides, climbers, and sand. These playgrounds are designed to match the physical development of children at this age (Johnson, Christie, & Wardle, 2005). Because 3 to 5-year-olds are fascinated with physical play and are developing their gross and fine motor abilities, these playgrounds are great places for them to play. Preschool children tend to enjoy playing in the sand that surrounds most playgrounds and making friends with other children their own age while playing.

Programs without access to their own playgrounds, or to playgrounds that are age-appropriate, can opt instead to use city park playgrounds. However, most city playgrounds provide only equipment that matches the first level of cognitive play—functional play. Parents and caregivers should be aware that children soon become bored with basic functional play such as swinging, sliding, and climbing. Thus, families and programs should bring toys and other materials with them that encourage constructive and symbolic play, and natural materials, such as sticks, stones, pieces of wood, and leaves, that can be used by the children in their play on these playgrounds.

City parks also have other play opportunities. Most have some kind of water source—either streams that wander through the park, or a pond or lake. Children in the initiative versus guilt stage generally love playing in water. They throw stones, watch sticks float under a bridge, play in the mud, observe tadpoles and frogs, and watch the variety of wildlife that ponds and lakes attract. While supervision is always critical with young children, it is hypercritical when water is involved (Martin, 2011).

Libraries and Bookstores

Children at this age are fascinated by books, pictures, artwork, and stories. They love predictable stories with highly repetitive scripts, like The Three Billy Goats Gruff, the Three Little Pigs, and fairy tales. They like stories about things they can relate to in their own short lives. Finally, they want to exercise their newly developed, and still developing, complex language skills. Thus, the preschool age is an ideal time to expose children to books and reading and to instill in them the love of books and reading. Exposing children to books, stories, and print can be accomplished through frequent, positive experiences to libraries and bookstores, and through positive experiences with books and reading at home and in the early care and education program.

Staff members in local libraries are very good at working closely with early care and education programs. They often have programs designed specifically for young children and will arrange reading activities for groups of children from various programs. Programs should work closely with libraries to provide program classrooms with books that they can use to augment specific curricular themes and activities. Finally, many libraries put on special events for young children.

Families can access libraries in their neighborhoods. Visits to libraries with children aged 3 to 5 build a strong disposition in children toward reading and learning. The exposure to books can then be reinforced when children bring home books that their parents read to them and that they can begin to learn how to read themselves. Involving the entire family in these visits, and not simply leaving library visits up to the early care and education programs, is absolutely critical, because it shows children that education and the use of books are supported and modeled at home (Bandura, 1977, 1990).

Many bookstores cater to families with young children. These bookstores not only stock children’s classics and the newest children’s books, but they also have staff members who are extremely knowledgeable about the different kinds of children’s books that are available. A parent who is looking for books to match the specific interests of a child will find these books in children’s bookstores. When children visit bookstores, they learn that people view books as important aspects of their lives, so important in fact that they will go to a store, enjoy looking at books in the store, and then actually pay for the books.

 Resources for Families and Programs Working with Young Childrenand Their Families

Many agencies, professional and government organizations, educational institutions, and advocacy groups provide a vast array of advice, materials,  training, and other support, both for parents of young children and for teachers, caregivers, and directors working with young children and their families. Some of these organizations are international, others national, and many are local.  However, some of the nationalgroups also have local offices and agencies. The following are some of these  organizations.

National and International Resources

Many national and international resources provide  wonderful materials to assist teachers and caregivers working with young children. These organizations provide online materials, written  materials, and direct advice in areas in which they specialize (e.g., the U.S. Department of Education/Special Education can provide information  about the services families of children with disabilities can receive, including those whose children are in private and religious programs). Some of the national and international programs include the following:

· Head Start/Early Head Start. There are two organizations: the National Head Start Association, which is a  membership organization(www.nhsa.org), and the Head  Start Bureau, which is the federal administration (

www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/

).

· Zero to Three. This organization provides research,  training, and materials on infant, toddler, and family  issues (

www.zerotothree.org

).

· National Association for the Education of Young Children. NAEYC is the largest professional organization for caregivers, teachers, anddirectors who  work in programs that serve children from birth to 8 years old. NAEYC also has a parent initiative (

www.naeyc.org

).

· UNESCO. This is the branch of the UN dedicated to  serving young children and their families, worldwide (

www.unesco.org

).

· Early Childhood News. Free materials can be retrieved  from this website (

www.earlychildhoodnews.com

).

· High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. A variety of materials, training, and curricula is provided by High/Scope (

www.highscope.org

).

· The Council of Exceptional Children (CEC), Division of  Early Childhood (DEC). DEC is a national organization  dedicated to serving andsupporting young children with  disabilities, their families, and staff who work with them (

www.dec-sped.org

).

· U.S. Department of Education/Special Education. This  federal office provides assistance with legal matters  regarding serving young children with disabilities and disseminates materials,advice, and best practices (

http://idea.ed.gov/

).

· Child Care Exchange. Exchange publishes a magazine,  books, training materials, and trend reports covering all aspects of the earlychildhood field. It also sponsors the World Forum, an  international  conference, every year (

www.childcareexchange.com

).

· Collage. Collage is a free resource provided by Community Playthings, the makers of wooden toys and equipment for infants and youngchildren (

www.communityplaythings.com/resources/articles/index.html

).

Local Resources

Local resources, of course, depend on the location of a  program and family. However, most programs, particularly those in or surrounding majorcities, will have access to a variety of resources that programs and parents can use to support  the development and learning of young children:

· The local school district administration offices

· Regional federal offices (for local Head Start information  and subsidized child care, WIC  programs, federal  Indian Centers, and other federal programs for low-income families)

· City agencies (employment and training, parks and  recreation, city early childhood initiatives, museums)

· Mental health centers

· Drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers

· Local Head Start and Early Head Start programs

· Local disability councils for children with disabilities  under age 3

· Community college departments of early childhood  education

· The city’s children’s museum

· Local libraries (most have wonderful programs for young  children)

· Early childhood resource, referral, and training programs (these are located in different agencies such as  community colleges and county governments)

· Local children’s hospitals and health clinics

· Local WIC programs

· Food banks and food distribution centers closest to  programs and families

· Programs that specialize in serving children who have specific disabilities, such as autism or learning disabilities

· Local federal Indian health centers

· County social service programs (adoption, foster care, a  variety of programs for low-income families)

· Museums (especially cultural museums)

Wardle, F.  (2013).  

Collaboration with families and communities

 [Electronic version]. Retrieved from

https://content.ashford.edu/

5.1 The Melting Pot, Salad Bowl, and

Cultural Pluralism

The United States is a multicultural nation, much like Brazil and the countries of contemporary Europe. People came to the United States from all over the world and brought with them a rich diversity of languages, foods, customs, religions, and traditions. However, U.S. history also includes the persecution of Native Americans; discrimination against Mexican residents who lived legally in the Southwest before it became part of the country; slavery of Africans; discrimination against Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino immigrants; internment of Japanese people in camps during WWII; and persecution of the Irish. Both the rich cultural characteristics that immigrants brought to the United States and its history of racism and discrimination comprise the multicultural nature of this society.

The original European settlers to the United States wanted to make sure everyone who came to live there would become what they viewed as true Americans (Spickard, 1989). They viewed America as a radical experiment in democracy and religious freedom and did not want people bringing bad ideas, habits, and loyalties from their home countries. Thus, new immigrants were expected to become Americans—to reject their previous loyalties and melt into an overall American identity. Out of this belief developed the concept of the melting pot.

The United States became known as a melting pot. Immigrants came from Northern Europe, Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe; from China, Japan, and the Philippines; and from Ireland and the Scandinavian countries. After they arrived, they were expected to learn English, have their children attend public schools and learn about American history and values, and become loyal Americans. Many actually changed their names on entering America through Ellis Island. American thinkers and political leaders felt this shift to an American identity, and loyalty was critical for the very survival of the new country (Spickard, 1989). Americans observed other new countries and disapproved of what happened when immigrants maintained a loyalty and alliance to their old-world homelands (Ladle, 1999). The concept of all immigrants leaving behind their own culture to become Americans is assimilation. U.S. schools focused on teaching children of immigrants what it meant to be an American and how this new country superseded the countries and cultures from which they came (Wiles & Bondi, 1989).

These new Americans tended to gravitate to parts of the country and neighborhoods in large cities where people like them lived—Italians, Jews, Scandinavians, Germans, Chinese, Slavs, Irish—but they were still expected to become true Americans and to change their primary loyalty to their new country. However, this new America began to look very much like Northern Europe—white, male, and Protestant (Derman-Sparks & Edwards, 2010). Thus, what was thought to be a melting pot became instead a push to become Northern European—what we now call the dominant culture.

This also had a profound impact on minorities, including Mexicans and Native Americans. Many Native American children were taken away from their homes and tribes and placed in Christian mission boarding schools, and certain Native American customs—such as burial, worship, and dress—were outlawed as being uncivilized (un-American) (Wilson, 1992). Non-English languages were banned in public schools (Crawford, 2008; Crawford & Krashen, 2008). African slaves, of course, posed their own dilemma to a country that proudly professed equality and the right to individual happiness to people in the rest of the world.

The concept of the melting pot as a metaphor for the United States’ multicultural population and vision was perpetuated until the civil right movements of the 1960s.

Cultural Pluralism

Today, advocates of diversity and educational equality use the term salad bowl instead of melting pot. According to Nieto (2004), the salad bowl metaphor is “a model based on the premise that people of all backgrounds have a right to maintain their languages and cultures while combining with others to form a new society reflective of our differences” (p. 437). Another term that has the same meaning is cultural pluralism. The idea is that the United States is made up of distinct cultural groups that should be empowered to maintain their unique identity, customs, values, and languages. Individuals are expected to remain tied to their unique cultural groups (for identity, meaning, and belonging), while also identifying with U.S. society. They are then considered bicultural—functioning within two cultures simultaneously and effectively (U.S. HHS, 2010).

Thus, the trend today is for new immigrants to maintain their home language, culture, religion, and traditions; to celebrate their unique cultural identity; and to raise their children within this unique set of cultural attributes (Derman-Sparks & Edwards, 2010; U.S. HHS, 2010). However, certain legislation, such as that supporting more rigid educational and early childhood standards, is making this difficult to achieve, especially within the early care and education program (DuBois, 2007).

Cultural Pluralism and Early Care and Education Programs

The public school was an important place where immigrant children and their families could be socialized into the American way—the melting pot (Derman-Sparks & Edwards, 2010). New immigrant students and their families intermixed with a wide variety of other families, and American traditional values and expectations were stressed in these schools. New families and members of existing minority groups were forced to learn the dominant ways of doing things as quickly as possible, from learning English to learning about school rules, athletics, cheerleading, and assemblies (Bang, 2009; Ngo, 2008).

Early care and education programs, while much more diverse than public schools (Neugebauer, 2008), still functioned as a place where new immigrant families and those not belonging to the dominant society were socialized with ideas about how to raise and educate their children. Licensing requirements required children to be immunized, child abuse laws set discipline expectations, and USDA food programs assumed everyone had the same food preferences. State licensing regulations supported a dominant cultural view; state health policies similarly perpetuated a Western concept of health. Head Start’s federal performance standards perpetuated a single, universal view of development and education, and teachers believed in the view of care and education taught to them in their college education classes (Dyson, 2003; Howard, 2007). Immigrant families were expected to learn the rules, policies, and norms of local early care and education programs (Bang, 2009).

Now, with the shift from the melting pot to cultural pluralism, the role of the early care and education program is changing. The programs are still community agencies responsible for disseminating information about raising children, from referrals to Child Find (the agency attached to the local public schools to identify children who may need special education services), to immunization information and advice about reading to children and limiting young children’s exposure to inappropriate media. But the challenge now is that there is no one agreed-upon way to raise and educate children in the United States; there is no universal approach. Early care and education programs are now expected to respond sensitively and effectively to the cultural diversity of all of the families who use the program and to address a range of cultural ideals about families, children, discipline, food, health care, and religion (Bang, 2009; Derman-Sparks & Edwards, 2010; Lee, 2005; Ngo, 2008). This new role of the early care and education program can result in conflicts, disagreements, and even arguments with local government agencies, which are still required to enforce a dominant view of how to care for and educate young children.

5.2

Culture

Although culture can be defined in a variety of ways, there is no universally agreed-upon definition (see Chapter 2). In general, definitions point to the impact groups of people have on the values, behaviors, interactions, and symbols of individuals within those groups. One of the central ways cultures manifest in families is how children are raised (U.S. HHS, 2010). To understand culture and its impact on families and children, consider Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1995) ecological systems theory (see Chapter 1), and specifically the concept of macrosystem, which includes the cultural context, or broad cultural conditions, of a society. Cultural contexts can be the product of a vast variety of groups, including but not limited to geographic regions, ethnic and racial groups, national peoples, Native American nations, nation of origin, professional associations, and economic and religious groups (Derman-Sparks & Edwards, 2010; U.S. HHS, 2010). Each one of us operates within a variety of cultural contexts at the same time. For example, a person may be a woman, a U.S. citizen, Jewish, and a member of a specific profession

However, cultures are not static—they are dynamic (Bang, 2009; Bhabha, 1994; S. Hall, 1989). In part, this is caused by cultures continually encountering other cultures and changing as a result. This is particularly true of diverse cultures such as Brazil and the United States, where different cultural groups coexist and continually interact with each other (Alves-Silva, et al., 2000; HHS 2010). Many factors have led to the creation of cultural groups. One of these was the need for people to band together to fend off hostility from dominant and powerful groups. In the United States, such groups have included Native Americans, blacks, Hispanics, and women. While laws and progress have lessened discrimination, there is still prejudice in the United States, and some believe these groups still must band together for their survival and progress (Smedley, 2002; Tatum, 1997).

However, minority and majority groups differ from country to country. For example, while Latinos are considered a minority group in the United States, they are the ruling class in Guatemala and also part of the ruling class in Brazil and other countries in South America (Alves-Silva et al., 2000).

Some cultural contexts change over the lifespan. This includes age-based contexts, such as teenage culture and the specific cultures of young parents and of seniors. One’s cultural context can also change due to educational attainment, marriage, job advancement, and changing religion. Further, the influence of specific cultural contexts changes over historical time (Bronfenbrenner, 1967). For example, women in the United States today have more freedoms than they did 100 years ago. African-American cultural frameworks have radically changed since the 1960s (the civil rights movement), and everyone’s contexts have been affected by the advancement of technology during the last 20 years. The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that by 2040, whites in the United States will be a numerical minority, which will change cultural dynamics (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2011).

For the individual, contexts can change by traveling to different regions of the United States or the world. For example, when a biracial person who is considered black in the United States travels to Brazil, that person’s race changes to pardo (brown-mixed race) (Fish, 2002). When American minorities travel to Europe, Europeans tend to see them less as belonging to a minority group and more as an American. Some American multiracial children—those belonging to more than one racial category—who immigrate to Europe have discovered they are viewed differently by Europeans.

Cultural Contexts of Individuals

Each of us places differing weight on each of our cultural contexts due to a variety of factors, including upbringing, where we live, and our parents. For some, gender is the most important context; for others, it is family; and for still others, nationality, race, ethnicity, or disability is paramount. Some of this emphasis is determined by society in the 21st-century United States, but it also can be influenced by other cultural contexts and individual behaviors (West, 2001). Each cultural context affects all other cultural contexts. For example, religion influences the concept of gender roles, gender roles affect views of family, and professional education tends to change values. No cultural context operates in total isolation of all others. Further, any single cultural attribute—e.g., gender, religion, race, or nationality—has within it tremendous variability. Thus, while we are all products of a variety of cultural contexts, it is inappropriate to stereotype someone based on the cultural contexts to which they belong and adhere (Ngo, 2006, 2008).

All the different contexts we have experienced are integrated within our own unique identity (West, 2001). While some of these contexts are imposed from outside, each of us still continually negotiates our own unique view of how these contexts define who we are and how we view the world (Bowman, 1994; Root, 1996). Even the impact of contexts that are fairly stable—e.g., race and gender—change as society and individuals change. Other contexts, such as economic status, fluctuate radically due to a variety of factors (e.g., the economy, divorce, losing a job, marrying, and so on); still others can be manipulated by personal choice (e.g., changing one’s religion, marrying someone from another racial background, or moving to another country).

Values embedded within different cultural contexts often conflict with values in other cultural contexts. For example, some religious groups oppose gay marriage and believe in strict and sometimes unequal gender roles, and individuals in some racial and ethnic groups are prejudicial toward those in other groups. Colorism is also powerful for many members of minority groups. This is a hierarchy of color and facial features, with white skin and European features viewed as superior to dark skin and Indian or African features, a preference also prevalent in Latin American racial coding systems (Fish, 2002; Haizlip, 1994).

5.3 Various Cultural Contexts of Children

Families that attend early care and education programs throughout the United States come with a vast diversity of cultural contexts that interact differently, providing rich complexity within ECE programs. Here, a few of the main cultural contexts are described; however, it is critical to remember that no context operates by itself. Each family integrates a variety of contexts differently, and every person within a family, including the parents and children, are unique individuals (West, 2001).

Immigrant Status

Immigrants bring to early care and education programs a rich diversity of cultural contexts. First, they have not lived within the overall U.S. cultural framework for their entire lives and thus may have different views and behaviors regarding democracy, religion, education, and gender equality (Bang, 2009; Ngo, 2006). Immigrants may not subscribe to the official view of race and ethnicity codified by the U.S. Census categories (Bang, 2009; Ngo, 2006, 2008). For example, while Somalis living in the United States are African, they may or may not consider themselves African American (Fish, 2002). Mayan immigrants, categorized by the U.S. Census as Latinos, may consider themselves indigenous people of South Mexico and Central America (Wardle & Cruz-Janzen, 2004). In fact, when new immigrants settle in the United States, they tend to settle near others from their own national or religious groups, rather than in racial groups: Somalis with Somalis, West Africans with West Africans, Koreans with Koreans, and Brazilians with Brazilians (Bang, 2009; Ngo, 2006). Jewish immigrants from Eastern Russia and Eastern Europe are fully embraced within existing Jewish communities in cities throughout the country, and other groups settle within neighborhoods of similar national backgrounds.

Some of the cultural richness and possible challenges that some immigrant families bring to early care and education programs include the following:

Food preferences and rules about what their children can and cannot eat

Different religious traditions and practices

Differing views on gender roles, both for children and their parents

A variety of non-English languages

A range of expectations regarding appropriate behavioral and the academic skills to be taught (Ahmad & Szpara, 2003; Syed, 2007)

Differing views regarding the role of religion in education, which may conflict with traditional views of religious neutrality in schools

Conflicting views about teachers and toward female teachers (as opposed to male teachers) (Bang, 2009; Rodriguez, 2008)

Income Status

In the first two decades of the 21st century, the number of poor families has increased. Some of these are single, female-headed households; others are families in which both parents have lost their jobs. Poverty causes a variety of problems that can affect young children attending early care and education programs and their families. Poverty can have a dramatic impact on how families are able to provide necessities for their children, the choices they have for early care and education, and their ability to support their children’s programs (Engle & Black, 2008). Furthermore, many low-income families cannot access quality early care and education programs (Boyd-Zaharias & Pate-Bain, 2009; Howard, 2007; Rothstein, 2008) and many cannot easily participate in quality parent-involvement programs (Hill & Craft, 2003).

Many programs serve low-income families. The best known is Head Start and Early Head Start. Most states also have some form of low-income state-funded preschool program (Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2006); young children with disabilities can receive free and reduced-cost educational services. The federal government provides free and reduced child care. While Head Start and state-funded programs are mostly part time, subsidized child care is full day. Some programs provide wrap-around care and education, with a child attending Head Start and state-funded or disability programs for part of the day and then subsidized child care for the remainder of the day. Other services for low-income families include free and reduced fee lunches, commodity foods, food banks, child health insurance, and mental health services. Early care and educational programs usually can provide information regarding these agencies and programs.

Religion

is an important cultural context for many families (Lippy, 2004). Religion determines a person’s values, religious traditions, behaviors, and attitudes. Further, a person’s religion tends to determine the kinds of people one interacts with socially, through churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques, both for religious services and for important community and even political activities. Some people attend colleges and universities supported by their religious faith. Many parents have their children attend religious early care and education programs.

Historically, the United States has recognized a variety of mostly Christian religions, including Protestant, Quaker, Catholic, and Jehovah’s Witness, in addition to the Jewish religion and some Native American practices. Now, with more recent immigrants, this list includes Confucian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, Sikh, Taoist, and other religions. Further, as mentioned earlier, some new immigrants do not believe religion and the state (e.g., schools and early childhood programs) should be separate. This includes people from Brazil and other parts of South America, whose Catholic faith intertwines with the practices of their local and national governments and public schools (Ladle, 1999).

As noted by Neugebauer (2005), nearly 1.5 million children attend early care and education programs housed in religious facilities; almost one in four early childhood centers is operated in a religious facility, and the largest providers of child care services in the United States are the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention. While many of these programs accept children from other faiths, program practices reflect the religious values, traditions, and rituals of the particular faith (Neugebauer, 2005).

Depending on how devoted parents are, religion can have a very strong influence on how they raise their children, from educational goals and gender expectations, to moral values and beliefs. These parents’ values can have a dramatic influence on the early care and education program.

Race and Ethnicity

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is the federal agency that determines employment, school entry, and the U.S. Census’s racial and ethnic categories, specifies five racial categories and one ethnic category. The racial categories are American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, black or African American, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and white. A person can also select more than one race or “some other race.” The ethnic category is Hispanic or Latino (which can be any race) (U.S. Census, 2011). The U.S. Census categories are unique to the history, politics, and social dynamics of the United States. Every country collects demographic information on its citizens using its own unique system of categories (Fish, 2002).

Further, wide diversity exists within each of these very broad U.S. Census categories. Whites include Germans, English, Irish, Eastern Russians, French, Italians, European Jews, and so on. Hispanics include Cubans, Puerto Ricans, people from Argentina and Mexico, and Hispanics who have lived in the Southwest of the United States of America for generations. African Americans include people from the rural south, the Caribbean, and South America. Asians include people from China, Vietnam, Japan, Korea, Cambodia, and the Philippines, along with Asians from South America. Native Americans include all of the tribes/nations recognized by the federal government, along with native peoples from Canada, the Caribbean, Mexico, and Central and South America. Each of these groups has a very different history and culture (and often language). Some countries that exist within the same broad racial category have long histories of animosity (for example, Korea and Japan, or Japan and China) (Lee, 2005; Ngo, 2006).

Two trends are blurring views of race and ethnicity in the United States. The first has already been mentioned: increasing numbers of immigrants who view race from the perspective of their own nation and culture, and not that of the U.S. government or society. The second is an increasing number of interracial marriages, resulting in children who do not identify with a single racial or ethnic group. According to Hodgkinson (2000-2001), it is estimated that 40% of American citizens have some racial mixing in the last three generations. Of this group, young people are the fastest-growing segment.

Many argue that the broad terms so popular in U.S. parlance, such as black and Hispanic, are over-generalizations that obscure real diversity, variation, and deep cultural understanding (Fish, 2002; Ngo, 2006, 2008; West, 2001). Further, these terms do not recognize the number of immigrants and multiracial children who do not fit neatly into these broad groups (Baxley, 2008).

Language

According to the U.S. Department of Education, more than 400 languages are spoken in K-12 schools (U.S. Census, 2007). According to David et al. (2005), the average Head Start program has 10 different languages spoken by families served. Language diversity in early care and education programs can be very challenging, with the most difficult part being communication. Most curricular materials are not produced in all of the languages used by children attending a program, and communication and language issues greatly confound a program’s ability to accurately assess a child who may have a developmental delay and needs targeted services, because assessment instruments for young children are available in very few languages (NAEYC, 1996). Some suggestions to address language diversity in early care and education programs include the following:

Teach English language classes to parents who wish to learn. Make sure to teach functional language (for example, teach the language needed to function in the program and to communicate with teachers) (Bang, 2009).

Recruit people who can help translate in parents’ home languages. These may be people associated with local churches or businesses where the same language is spoken, members of language clubs, or international students attending local colleges.

Make your own curricular materials. With the availability of computers, digital cameras, and printers, it is now easy to make classroom materials (see Think About it: Materials and Activities Checklist).

Use parents to help teach caregivers and teachers some basic words and phrases in the child’s language.

View non-English language use in the program as an asset to the English-speaking students. Research is clear regarding the positive impact of second-language learning; it is also a wonderful multicultural tool (NAEYC, 1996).

Listen to parents’ wishes concerning whether they want their children to learn English. The kind of language learning provided in the program depends on the program and its curriculum.

Gender

A direct result of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an increased effort to provide equality for everyone in the United States. This effort included voting rights, antidiscrimination laws in housing and employment, racial and ethnic equality, integration of public schools, and gender equality. Through multicultural education, this effort spread to K-12 schools. In the 1980s and 1990s, with the publication of the Anti-Bias Curriculum (Derman-Sparks and the ABC Task Force, 1989), Roots and Wings (York, 1991), Teaching and Learning in a Diverse World (Ramsey, 1987), and Diversity in the Classroom (Kendall, 1996), the movement came to the early childhood community (Copple, 2001).

One of the areas that multicultural education is concerned with is gender equality (Boldt, 1996; Derman-Sparks & Edwards, 2010). Early childhood programs seek to make sure girls have the same opportunity to succeed that boys do and that no limitations are placed on girls’ potential and their view of success. Both boys and girls are expected to play in the block area and in the dramatic play areas, girls are expected to do well in math and science, and boys are encouraged in art and music (Sadker & Sadker, 1994).

However, some of the new immigrant families served in early care and education programs have a very different view of gender separation and equality. For example, some cultures and religions hold the belief that education for boys is more important than for girls. Because of religious and cultural views regarding gender, some families believe that the genders should be kept separate in early childhood programs and schools. Parents from other cultures support stereotypical gender differences, with males expected to be assertive, dominant, strong, and protective, and women expected to be docile, gentle, nurturing, and employed in the home (Ahmad & Szpara, 2003). These gender distinctions include different gender role behaviors by parents, with only mothers expected to work closely with the early care and education program (Bang, 2009).

Gender role expectations of children in ECE programs, and distinctly different gender behaviors of the parents of children they serve, can pose a challenge to programs that have worked hard to address gender equality and stereotypes in curriculum, learning materials, and teacher behaviors and that are committed to working closely with all adults involved in a family, including men.

Family

Structure

Throughout this book, we have discussed the vast variety of forms of contemporary families. These include interracial and interethnic families, extended families, blended families, foster and adoptive families that include transracially adopted children (adopted children who are of a different race or ethnicity from their adoptive parents), homeless families, families in which more than one language is spoken, grandparent families, and teen parents. Gay and lesbian families, in which children have two fathers or two mothers, are another example of the family diversity discussed throughout this book. These families may also be any of the above forms (e.g., dual language or interracial).

According to Clay (2004), gay and lesbian parents want the same for their children as all parents and want to make sure their children do not experience homophobia, either direct discrimination or exclusion. Further, lesbian and gay parents would like for their children to have teachers and caregivers with experience working with gay- and lesbian-headed households. These families also would like their children to feel they are a part of the school and not outsiders. It is instructive to note this desire is the same for any family in a minority position in the program, be it through race, language, adoption, or immigration.

Interracial families, in which parents each belong to different racial categories, challenge the single-race idea prevalent in American society (Root, 1996). As such, they provide a place where there is an emphasis on racial unity and harmony (Wardle & Cruz-Janzen, 2004). These families often have to educate others in the community, including the early care and education program, about their children’s mixed heritage and the way they are raising them to embrace it. Interracial and interethnic families must be very proactive in helping their children withstand indirect and direct harassment from single-race children and adults (Wardle & Cruz-Janzen, 2004). Transracial foster and adoptive families have similar issues. Additionally, these families must struggle with the child’s feelings about their biological parents and being adopted. In foster homes, there are often tensions between the foster family and biological family. Geographic dislocation is often an issue for children in foster homes that can affect the child’s relationship with the early care and education program.

Children being raised in blended homes face a special kind of challenge, as do the parents in these homes. Early care and education programs need to be especially sensitive to these families as they try to create a new culture from their two combined families. As families blend, there can be role confusion, loyalty conflicts, step-parent/step-child discipline problems, and conflict between step-parents and step-children (Sailor, 2004).

Single-parent families have their own set of challenges. While our society has broadened its definition of a family, single-parent families are still viewed by many as incomplete and flawed. Parents often feel isolated and need advice and assistance in raising their children (Sailor, 2004). They also often have extreme financial challenges, and relationships with the noncustodial parent can often be difficult.

Homeless families, grandparents raising grandchildren, and teen parent families all bring unique issues to raising children and require early care and education programs to be sensitive to family diversity and to find ways to serve children within these various family structures. The vast diversity of family structures poses challenges for early care and education programs. They can no longer assume a child comes from a two-parent, single-race family; the program’s communication, procedures, policies, and problem-solving approaches with families need to reflect this diversity.

5.4 Responding to a Child’s Diversity in the Early Childhood Program

Our early care and education programs are becoming more and more diverse. This requires program staff to be able to respond appropriately and supportively to many different situations, issues, and challenges. Because children exist within the various ecological contexts of family, community, religion, and culture, staff members need to understand these contexts to meet the developmental and learning needs of each child in their care. Here are some ideas for professionals who work with young children from diverse racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds.

Start with the Child

Teachers and caregivers should first get to know the individual child. They should avoid focusing on the racial, ethnic, or cultural groups they think the child belongs to. Further, a child should not automatically be assigned to a group because the child has characteristics or attributes that are assumed to be stereotypical of a group, be they racial, disability, gender, or income (West, 2001). We should carefully and authentically learn about individual children, their families, their communities, and their other important ecological contexts.

Early childhood professionals often focus on children primarily as individuals. We carefully observe children to determine their strengths and areas in which they need extra assistance.

Emergent curriculum approaches require that we carefully observe children in natural settings—play, peer interactions, private speech—to discover their interests, language skills, past experiences, and dispositions. Further, with the focus on early identification of children with developmental delays, early childhood staff members are encouraged to use a variety of developmental checklists and other screening tools with their children (Barerra, 1994). While it is important to use these skills to assist with the development and learning of individual children, teachers and caregivers should consult with the family regarding the child’s race, ethnicity, culture, and language.

Let the Child and the Child’s Family Inform You

Staff members also need to allow the child and the child’s family to inform them about the values, behaviors, and beliefs important to the family:

How does the child acknowledge and celebrate his/her skin color and nation of origin?

How do parents want their child’s first language to be acknowledged and supported?

How does the family support the child’s race and ethnicity outside the early care and education program?

How does the family want children to respond to older people outside their community and to people in authority at the program?

How important is religion in the lives of the family, and how important is religion in how and what the family wants the program to teach their child?

Further, the child and the child’s family can inform staff about their culture and community: religion, food, traditions, male and female roles, importance of grandparents, role of the child in the home, and so on. A variety of methods can be used to collect this information:

Questionnaires

Questions on application forms

Open discussions at parent- (and other adult) teacher conferences

Input from parents or other significant adults during parent-education activities

Casual, informal discussions between teachers and parents or other significant adults

Visits to the communities where families and children live, both through field trips and by teachers and caregivers frequenting local stores, restaurants, museums, cultural centers, and activities

View the Whole Child

All of the ecological contexts that make up a child’s identity—race, ethnicity, language, personality, income, gender, culture, disability, family structure—should be integrated throughout the curriculum. We should not use a tourist approach to multicultural education or a curriculum by celebration approach either (Wardle & Cruz-Janzen, 2004). When tourists visit other countries, they often sample the local foods, attend performances of authentic dances and songs, visit stores that sell crafts and artifacts made by the locals, and maybe explore native villages, reservations, or other tourist spots. Then the tourists come home. In a similar vein, a tourist approach to the curriculum views cultural diversity only in terms of food, costumes, songs, and dances, rather than also examining the rich, lived experiences of the diversity of the family and the country (Derman-Sparks & Edwards, 2010; U.S. HHS, 2010).

A curriculum by celebration approach uses monthly themes based on celebrations or festivals. December’s curriculum is all about Christmas, February centers on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and Black History Month, March focuses on St. Patrick’s Day, and May is dedicated to Cinco de Mayo activities. This approach teaches young children that the important cultural and religious differences are food, drink, and celebration; it also tends to reinforce the idea that everyone who belongs to a large cultural group is the same. Clearly, there is a place for celebrations in early childhood programs. However, additional care must be taken to make sure these celebrations do not contribute to the United States’ problem with childhood obesity (U.S. HHS, 2000) and that these celebrations are authentic culminations of meaningful, focused projects and community activities (Katz & Chard, 2000).

Avoid Imposing Your Views

A child should never be prejudged based on racial, ethnic, or cultural identity, including behaviors, academic expectations, and specific skills or dispositions. We all have preconceived ways in which we see the world, based on our own cultural and other experiences, and while these allow us to make sense of our world, they are not necessarily accurate from another person’s cultural perspective (Copple, 2001; West, 2001). Allow children—and their families—to define their race and ethnicity, language they prefer to use, important values, likes and dislikes, and behaviors. Avoid filling out the federal racial categories required for programs such as free lunches without first consulting with the family. This is especially important when considering children with complex and unique identities—multiracial and multiethnic children, transracially adopted children, and immigrant children who do not fit into the typical U.S. Census categories.

One of the best ways to encourage children to be everything they can be is through modeling. Modeling includes images in books, pictures, posters and curricular materials, videos and computer programs, visitors to the classroom, and visits to the community—workplaces, museums, stores, and so on (Davidman & Davidman, 1999).

Finally, all policies, procedures, curricular content, and curricular materials and activities used in the program should be evaluated carefully to determine if they are good for all children, and not just for specific groups of children. Criteria to consider include the use of all of Gardner’s eight intelligences, cooperative and individual activities and projects, and enactive, iconic, and abstract-symbolic learning. While we have traditionally viewed the ability to learn and solve problems using a single construct known as an intelligence quotient (IQ), Howard Gardner has proposed that people think and learn using preferred approaches, what he calls intelligences or learning styles (Gardner, 1983). He has proposed eight distinct learning styles:

Logical/Mathematical. This intelligence involves the ability to reason logically and think in a linear fashion, and it is most associated with math and science.

Verbal/Linguistic. This includes the mastery of the use of language—spoken and written. It enables children to be proficient at the many literacy requirements that dominate most public school education today.

Visual/Spatial. This is the ability to create, use, and remember iconic mental images to solve problems and to engage in projects: artistic, geometric, and architectural.

Musical. This is the ability to hold a pitch, recognize musical rhythms and melodies, compose, and harmonize.

Bodily Kinesthetic. This intelligence is exhibited by children who learn through movement: dance, athletics, hands-on learning, and tactile as opposed to visual or auditory stimulation.

Interpersonal. This intelligence is shown by children who are in tune with the emotions and feelings of others and who can work effectively in a variety of groups. They are often classroom leaders.

Intrapersonal. This is the ability to look inward for motivation and direction. These children are very attuned to their own feelings and wishes and tend to be introspective.

Naturalist. This intelligence is exhibited by those with a heighted sensitivity to the natural world—gardeners, observers of birds and animals, children who like to raise animals, and so on (Gardner, 1983).

Gardner (1983) states that all children have one or more preferred ways of learning and processing information. Information and activities should be provided so that children can learn by using their preferred intelligences, while also being helped to be able to use other learning styles to learn and solve problems.

5.5 Child-Rearing Practices: An Expression of Culture

A family’s culture has a marked impact on the way children are raised and socialized. One of these cultural factors is in the area of independence versus interdependence. According to Gonzalez-Mena (2008), most parents place an emphasis on independence or interdependence in raising their children, based on the cultures to which the parents belong. By viewing cultural child-raising differences within a contrasting dichotomy, such as independence versus interdependence, it is easier to study cultural differences.

Independence

According to E. T. Hall (1976), Western Europe, North America, and Australia are cultures that value independence and individual success. Thus, families in the United States who originated from these countries value individualism, independence, and success as the highest possible virtues. That the United States Declaration of Independence declares “all men are created equal” and have a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is one example of this idea. Parents in independent cultures believe in developing independence in young children. Parents expect children to feed themselves and dress themselves; they also expect children to sleep alone in a crib in a separate room from them. They focus on independence, raising children to do things for themselves, and teaching each child to learn to care for his or her own needs and wants (Rogoff, 2003). Further, parents and teachers with this cultural perspective emphasize individuality and the building of individual self-esteem by focusing on the individual child’s behaviors and accomplishments.

These parents and caregivers also expect children to learn to be toilet trained, but they understand that there are important maturational and individual factors involved in this difficult task and are therefore willing to wait until the child is able to control his bladder and bowels and is ready to go to the potty on his own. Finally, these parents and caregivers are very concerned that young children learn to cope with separation and consider learning healthy separation a good thing to achieve (Erikson, 1963).

According to Delpit (1995) and Raeff (2010), parents and caregivers with an independent orientation to child care and education belong to the dominant culture in the United States, have their roots in Northern Europe, and are powerful in the political, business, and professional world. And the child-care program matches this view, by focusing on the individual needs of each child, providing a private space for children, and protecting each child’s private property (Raeff, 2010; Raeff, Greenfield, & Quiroz, 2000). Further, this dominant culture is the architect of our educational institutions, including colleges where child-care providers and teachers are educated, and the guiding principle behind early care and education philosophies and policies. Thus, it is the source of our body of knowledge and best practices in working with young children (Boykin & Toms, 1985; Gilligan, Brown, & Rogers, 1999; Price-Williams, Gordon, & Ramirez, 1969).

Interdependence

On the other hand, in cultures that value interdependence, a person’s value is based on the individual’s positive contribution to the group and group consensus. Individual achievement and desires, especially when they conflict with the group needs and values, are devalued (Kaiser & Raminsky, 2003). According to Hall (1976), people with this orientation come from Asia, Africa, Southern Europe, and Latin America. They consider the individual an important member of a group—family, extended family, community, racial group, ethnic group, religious group, and so on. Parents from these cultures are focused on interdependent relationships such as co-sleeping with infants and giving their children time to be babies, and they do not focus on children becoming independent. They pamper their children and teach them how to care for the needs of others. They teach them that their needs are dependent on others and that they need to learn how to help and care for others (Stewart, 1972).

People who belong to interdependent cultures—historically underrepresented groups in the United States—are more concerned with the welfare of the group than with the individual. Individualism is valued only as it enhances and supports the group; children are taught to blend in, and they see their identity and worth as defined by the group. Mutual dependence and obedience are stressed (Harwood, Miller, & Irizarry, 1995; Lynch & Hanson, 2004). Parents of these children focus on keeping children within the family and group, rather than encouraging independence. Because groups collectively care for young children, teaching group belonging and interdependence is more important than teaching separation and independence.

From Cultural Dichotomies to Cultural Complexities

The aforementioned discussion presents a clear cultural contrast between independence and interdependence (individual and collectivistic orientations), represented in child-raising practices between the dominant, mainstream European culture and minority cultures within the United States: Native Americans, Asians, African Americans, Latinos, and people from the Middle East (Hofstede, 2001). Recently, however, several researchers have argued that labeling cultures as either individualistic (independent) or collectivist (interdependent) is not a valid way of looking at cultures and cultural practices of child rearing and child care. According to Raeff (2010), reasons for this view include the following:

Research shows that both independence and interdependence are valued in diverse cultures (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002).

All cultures are dynamic, heterogeneous, and complex. Cultures change historically; viewing cultures as either independent or interdependent reflects a static view of culture.

Independence and interdependence can be viewed as compatible and co-existing aspects of child rearing (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2008).

A view is emerging that independence and interdependence should not be viewed in opposition; diverse cultures value both. Further, it is not always appropriate to assign independence and dependence to people based on their cultural and geographic backgrounds. For example, the Amish and Hutterite religious groups in the United States and Canada comprise homogeneous peoples of direct European heritage, yet both groups shun individuality and independence, focusing rather on the communal and collective good and on interdependence. The collective Amish barn-raising activity is a well-known example of this orientation. An increasing number of middle-class American parents are also adopting the practice of co-sleeping, and more middle-class, white mothers breastfeed than do minority mothers in the United States (Sloan, Sneddon, Stewart, & Iwaniec, 2006). Breastfeeding is an interdependent relationship between the mother and child (like co-sleeping); use of milk banks is extending this idea to the community of breastfeeding mothers.

Sleeping Arrangements

One example of this dual independence-interdependence argument is the sleeping arrangements of parents and young children. Studies show Western children sleep independently, thus fostering the development of independence, a behavior considered important in Western societies (Keller, 2007; Rogoff, 2003). Alternatively, co-sleeping fosters close family relationships and is practiced around the world—especially in Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Rogoff, 2003). Nevertheless, at about 5 years old, Mayan children can choose where, for how long, and with whom they sleep (Gaskins, 1999), allowing individual choices. Research also shows that European-American parents support separate sleeping arrangements mainly to improve their own sleep (to be ready for the typical high-intensity, 8-hour Western work day) and improve their intimate relationships (Shweder, Jensen, & Goldstein, 1995). Structuring children’s sleeping practices to meet adult sleep needs means that children are often put to bed before the child is ready, thus forcing individual children to conform to parent authority and the needs of others. In both cases, there is a clear balance between independence and interdependence; thus, there are cultural differences in how behaviors are structured within the context of children’s sleeping practices (Raeff, 2010).

The increased use of co-sleeping by many American families, including recent immigrants, has caused many in the medical and child-care fields to become concerned about safety issues. While co-sleeping is the norm in many countries where Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is considerably lower than in the United States, it is associated with higher SIDS in U.S. families (Nelson, Schiefenhoevel, & Haimerl, 2000; Nakamura, Winds, & Danello, 1999). Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is the death of a young child during sleep (before age 2), due to unknown causes. SIDS is one of the leading causes of infant death during the first few months of life.

Contexts of Early Care and Education Programs

Many practices and expectations in American early care and education programs and schools reinforce independent, competitive cultural values (Derman-Sparks & Edwards, 2010; Dyson, 2003; Rogoff, 2003). Practices and activities in early care and education programs that support independence include developing activities to develop individual self-esteem, providing private cubbies for each child, teaching children to feed themselves, and licensing requirements that require children to sleep separately during nap time and a focus on individual child assessment. Other typical practices and activities in early care and education programs support interdependence, such as everyone having to nap at the same time, universal rules for all students, supporting the authority of the teacher, family-style meals that many programs promote, teaching sharing and social skills, and programs that use multiage groups (Katz, 1998).

Other ways early care and education programs support interdependence and cooperation include creating a classroom community, working closely with families and extended families, teaching children prosocial skills and group norms, and using curricula that focus on group projects in which children must work together collaboratively. Even our discussion of cooperative play (Parten, 1932, 1933) noted that cooperative play succeeds only when children suppress their individual desires for the needs of the group (Johnson, Christie, & Wardle, 2005).

Two cautions must be addressed in relationship to any discussion of independent and interdependent cultural contexts. The first is a reminder that all families and children served in ECE programs exist within several dynamic, interacting cultural contexts (Bhabha, 1994; S. Hall, 1989). One of these is the greater U.S. culture—even for families who have only recently come to the country. And, while the family may come from an interdependent culture, they are exposed to many aspects of the independent, overall American culture: laws that protect individual rights, TV commercials that focus on individual needs and desires, employment rules and regulations. In fact, this greater American culture causes considerable generational conflict in new immigrant families (Bang 2009; Ngo, 2006; Podeschi & Xiong, 1994). Secondly, while children develop within a variety of cultural contexts that have a profound influence on development and learning, their development is also driven by maturation (Erikson, 1963; Piaget, 1952). Maturation is the understanding that the development of children in all areas, from physical and emotional to linguistic and cognitive, is greatly affected by the child’s age. This means that developmental stages such as Piaget’s cognitive stages and Erikson’s psychosocial stages function for all children, regardless of the context in which they develop and learn (Siegler & Alibali, 2005).

Thus, while it is important that early care and education teachers and caregivers are aware of different cultural aspects of raising children, they must be sensitive to the complexities of cultural difference and adhere to the above cautions regarding communicating with parents about parents’ desires and wishes for their children.

5.6 Conflicts Between Parents’ Values and Program Practices

As has been discussed throughout this chapter, the United States is becoming more and more culturally diverse, and our early care and education programs reflect this increased diversity. Most people who work in early care and education programs—directors, teachers, and caregivers—are women (Neugebauer, 2008), and, because of the very poor benefits of the field, many are poor, minority women, especially African American and Latina (Neugebauer, 2004). However, our body of knowledge and best practices tend to be grounded in European theories and ideas about child development, learning, education, and how to raise children; professionals who work with young children and their families are also trained with this particular cultural perspective (Delpit, 1995; S. Hall, 1989).

But, regardless of the cultural orientation of the early care and education program and the increasing diversity of cultural backgrounds of families using these programs, conflicts will arise. Some families do not want their children to take naps during the day, as this makes it more difficult to put them to sleep at night. Other families do not want their children to watch TV and other media while in the program, due to the increasing evidence of the negative effect of technology on brain development in young children (American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Public Education, 2001). Conflicts can also often arise around children getting sand in their hair, paint on their clothes, mud on their shoes, and in clashes with other children. Most of these conflicts have to do with typical daily issues or lack of communication between parents and staff. But some are also a result of cultural expectations and behaviors.

Communication is the secret to developing and maintaining a healthy relationship between the family and early care and education program. There are more effective and less effective ways to communicate. One effective way is to use dialoguing and the RERUN process.

Dialoguing

When a conflict between a parent or other caregiver and someone at the early care and education center arises, it can be resolved in a variety of ways. According to Janet Gonzalez-Mena (2008), the best approach to addressing these conflicts is to move away from the traditional argument approach, in which someone wins and someone loses, to a dialoguing approach, in which both parties come away satisfied. The differences between an argument and dialogue are the following:

The objective of an argument is to win; the objective of a dialogue is to gather information.

The arguer tells; the dialoguer asks.

The arguer tries to persuade; the dialoguer seeks to learn.

The arguer sees two opposing views and considers the most valid or best one; the dialoguer is willing to consider and understand multiple viewpoints.

A person committed to dialoguing is interested in the other person’s reasons for his or her position and wishes to listen to and understand the reasons for the conflict. There can be—and often are—many reasons for a conflict, including a misunderstanding of what was read, seen, said, or overheard.

The RERUN Problem-Solving Process

One approach to solving problems through dialoguing is to use the RERUN Problem-Solving Process (Gonzalez-Mena, 2008). While the conflict might involve a parent or any other member of the family, including a grandparent raising a child, the term parent will be used to simplify the explanation of the process. This process involves five steps:

Reflect. In this step, caregivers and directors seek to understand the reasons for the parent’s emotional response and disagreement. Expressions such as “I see you are really upset” or “I can see why you look at it that way” show the person that you have heard his or her concern and understand where it is coming from. Reflect also means that the caregiver, teacher, or director needs to reflect on his or her own position and emotional response to the conflict. Why is he or she upset? Why is he or she unwilling to change the rule or agree with the parent?

Explain. In this step, the caregiver, teacher, or director needs to focus on listening to the parent to understand the parent’s point of view and the parent’s reaction to the situation or issue. Only when the parent’s view has been understood should the teacher or caregiver try to explain her side of the story.

Reason. Part of the discussion must include a specific reason for the teacher’s or director’s point of view—a rule, licensing regulation, best practice, or acknowledgement that that is the way it has always been done in the program. An attempt should be made to separate the rational reasons from emotional responses. And the teacher or director should try to determine why she has the emotional responses she does. It may have little to do with the issue or event and more to do with the parent, other problems in the program or with a fellow teacher, or a frustration in life outside of the program.

Understand. In this step, the goal is for both people involved to understand the other person’s point of view rationally and emotionally. This step does not require any action or communication; it requires clarity of purpose and reason. This necessitates an understanding of both the parent’s and the staff person’s point of view and emotional response. Self-reflecting is a critical part of this process—to understand the parent’s viewpoint and the staff person’s viewpoint.

Negotiate. In this final step, a solution to the conflict is sought. Both parties should look for a mutually satisfying solution. Do not take an either-or position: either my way or your way. An either-or approach prevents communication and a mutually acceptable solution. Instead, try to find a win-win solution that combines both views or a totally different solution that satisfies both of you. Often, a creative solution exists that neither one originally considered. According to Gonzalez-Mena (2009), the kind of solution sought “goes beyond compromise and includes both positions. It’s not a meeting in the middle, but finding a different space altogether” (p. 144).

Often, a solution is not found the first time this process is used. On these occasions, parties should return to the beginning of the process and redo the steps until a solution is found.

The RERUN process can be used to resolve any conflicts that arise between families and the early care and education program. These can include simple disagreements around common issues such as student conflicts, misunderstandings about what teachers did and said, or discipline. But it can also be used for conflicts that arise from cultural differences between the family and the early care and education program. This is particularly true when the program and family clearly come from different cultural contexts. The process can also be used to address conflicts within programs, such as between teachers or a teacher and director.

5.7 The Anti-Bias and Ecological Model

Early care and education programs—and people who work in these programs—need to be able to work effectively and constructively with people of ever-more diverse backgrounds. This ability is known as culturally responsive teaching. For culturally responsive teachers, any aspect of a child’s context is important to consider in planning instruction, working with the family, addressing discipline issues, and other program policies and instructions. However, people working with young children and their families must be careful to avoid the temptation of thinking in terms of broad, stereotypical diversity categories, and worse yet, responding to children and families based on these broad stereotypes (Wardle, 2011b).

To assist teachers in positively and accurately responding to diversity in early care and education programs, the anti-bias and ecological model was developed (Wardle, 1996). This model takes Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model as its starting point (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; 1995). As with Bronfenbrenner’s model, the child is placed in the center. However, unlike Bronfenbrenner’s concentric circles expanding out from the center, this model uses seven overlapping circles in a Venn diagram (see Figure 5.1). These circles represent seven factors: race/ethnicity, culture, gender, ability/disability, family, socioeconomic status, and community. Note that these circles overlap each other, encompassing the other six factors, and all influencing the child’s unique identity.

Before each of the seven factors is described in detail, a little more needs to be mentioned about the model:

While each circle is shown to be the same size, in reality they will be different sizes for each child. For example, for one child, art ability may be very important to his or her sense of identity, and thus the ability/disability circle will be large; for another child, the largest circle might be the cultural factor, due to his or her identity as belonging to a family that practices Islam in a predominantly Christian community.

Each child processes his or her reality differently. As West (2001) reminds us, humans construct their own reality, and as such create their own ideas about the world. Thus, each child will respond differently to each factor; even children in the same family will have different impressions of their complex cultural contexts.

Each of the factors has been discussed in detail in this chapter. Here, they are presented within a model to help teachers and other caregivers respond sensitively to each child in their care. Thus, each factor will be reviewed as a way to structure information from our previous discussion into a usable framework (see Figure 5.1).

Race/Ethnicity

While race and ethnicity are social and political constructs with no biological basis, they are still important ways children and their families are categorized in America. As such, programs need to be aware of the racial groups children and parents belong to and how parents instill in their children racial pride and identity (U.S. HHS, 2010). However, we must also be sensitive to diversity within diversity and, because many immigrant families come from countries where race and ethnicity are defined differently than in the United States, it is important to find out carefully how families identify themselves and how they wish us to fill out federal racial forms.

Culture

Providing a separate factor for culture in this model enables us to view the tremendous variability that exists within any large racial/ethnic group. Some of the characteristics that interact to create a family’s culture include the following:

Religion
Language

Traditions

Location, which includes the geographic region of the United States, part of the world, and area of a continent a person or family is from. For example, Guarani Indians from Paraguay have a very different culture from that of Chickasaw Indians from Oklahoma. African Americans from the Caribbean have a very different culture from that of fifth-generation African Americans from Louisiana.

Parents’ education and profession

How long the family has lived in the United States

Immigration status

Social and political activities and advocacy in which family members participate

Small-group affiliations

Additionally, it is critical to remember that cultures—and cultural groups—are constantly changing (Raeff, 2010).

Gender

In this model, gender is not so much about whether a child is a boy or a girl as it is about how families, communities, and early care and education programs respond to the child’s gender. There is an increase in the number of same-sex families—both two men and two women—who have children attending ECE programs (Clay, 2004). There is also an increase in the number of families from cultures that view genders very differently (Syed, 2007). Additionally, more than 97% of staff members in early care and education programs are women (Neugebauer, 2008). Do parents have different behavioral expectations for boys and girls, and do they discipline them differently? Do teachers and caregivers treat boys and girls differently when they are upset, hurt, or angry, and do they encourage outdoor activities and rough and tumble play for all the children? Further, do official communications from the center to the home recognize that in some families there are no mothers, and in others there are no fathers? Do curricula activities for Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, and other family activities take into consideration the current diversity of American families?

This category is also critical in combination with other factors, and because views of gender differences and practices used to raise children are so closely tied to religion, culture, and ethnicity, gender is often an area in which conflict between the home and the program can arise.

Ability/Disability

Ability/disability has not been covered in detail in this chapter and will be covered in Chapter 7. However, we know that everyone is good at something and struggles with other things. And, according to Erikson’s first three stages, trust versus mistrust, autonomy versus shame and doubt, and initiative versus guilt, children must be encouraged to develop trust, autonomy, and initiative. Children’s abilities and confidence in those abilities will help in this process; what they struggle with can hinder them. These characteristics include developmental delays and accepted abilities such as a talent in art or a diagnosis of being gifted. But they also include strengths and challenges that are not labeled but that affect a child’s home, community, and program life. Some children are easygoing and make friends effortlessly, while others struggle socially (Thomas & Chess, 1977). Some are very good at physical activities and master playground behaviors and skills, but they struggle academically. There are a few things to keep in mind regarding this factor:

All children have strengths and challenges.

All children need to feel successful in some things (Erikson, 1963).

Children should never be denied access to what they can do well as a punishment for what they struggle with, such as being denied outdoor play time as a punishment for not completing a math activity.

Both boys and girls should be encouraged to engage in all kinds of activities, including those that challenge gender stereotypes.

Community

Communities include segregated religious communities, small rural towns, Indian reservations, segregated and integrated neighborhoods, suburban communities, military bases, and distinct neighborhoods within larger cities. Some families stay in one place for several generations; others—such as military families—are very mobile. And some families, for example Maya immigrants in Houston, have essentially two communities—their home community in Guatemala or Southern Mexico, and their new community in the United States (West, 2001).

A community contains elements that directly influence families: mental health centers and hospitals; libraries, museums, and stores; churches, synagogues, and mosques; parks, schools, and early childhood programs; or youth recreation leagues. Some communities have more agencies that directly and indirectly affect children and families, while other communities have few. Communities in rural areas, inner cities, and Indian reservations have fewer services for children and families, and those they do have are often of poor quality and limited effectiveness (Boyd-Zaharias & Pate-Bain, 2009; Engle & Black, 2008).

Family

During a child’s first five years of life, the family is the first and most important influence (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1989; Shore, 1997). However, the term family comprises a vast diversity of structures, including teen parents, grandparents raising grandchildren, various kinds of extended families, blended families, foster and adoptive families, multiracial and multiethnic families, new immigrant families, families in which more than one language is spoken, and families in which more than one religion is practiced (Wardle & Cruz-Janzen, 2004). The family also includes the home in which the family lives—an apartment, single-family home, farm, trailer, military housing, condominium, welfare hotel, or even homeless shelter. Also included in this factor is the family’s use of the media—TVs, computers, video games, cell phones, and so on.

None of these different family structures and contexts is good or bad, healthy or unhealthy. Family stress, due to alcohol and drug abuse, unemployment, family conflicts, or economic hardships, can exist in any family. Finally, when we discuss families, we are also talking about parenting styles—authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive (introduced in Chapter 4).

Socioeconomic Status

A family’s socioeconomic status has a huge impact on young children (Engle & Black, 2008). We know that poverty produces stress that can have a devastating influence on a child’s development—including brain development and preparation for school success. Lack of health insurance, poor nutrition, crime, and inadequate opportunities for outdoor play and recreation are often associated with poverty (Boyd-Zaharias & Pate-Bain, 2009; Howard, 2007; Rothstein, 2008). While poor families can access subsidized nonprofit early care and education programs, such as Head Start and Early Head Start, because of anti-immigrant laws passed in some states and the reduction of many safety-net programs due to the bad economy, it is difficult for some families to get these services. In the past, middle-class and wealthy parents could choose to have one parent stay home, nannies, campus early childhood programs, child-care chains, employee-based programs, suburban school early childhood programs, and private/religious preschools (Neugebauer, 2008). With the worsening of the economy, and more single-parent homes, many middle-class families with children are also struggling.

Lack of adequate transportation, living in a low-income neighborhood or rural community, and poor recreational options can pose challenges for families with children. Schools in low-income areas tend to be of lesser quality, and parent involvement programs less effective (Hill & Taylor, 2004; Epstein & Dauber, 1991). Libraries, museums, and other resources are often located in middle-class communities, some distance from poor families (Boyd-Zaharias & Pate-Bain, 2009).

Wardle, F.  (2013).  

Collaboration with families and communities

 [Electronic version]. Retrieved from

https://content.ashford.edu/

6.1

Theoretical Models

and Research

The traditional parent involvement model for early care and education programs was a professionally driven parent-education model, with educators using parents to improve the child’s home environment and to implement what educators believed to be good educational and parenting practices. This model was based on the belief that educational and human service professionals knew what was best for the child and family, based on their education and expertise. The parent component of an early care and education program was designed to teach parents good education-related practices and to improve the home environment as a place to develop good behaviors and optimal learning. This practice of parent involvement was also the accepted approach used by professionals working with families of children with developmental delays (Gargiulo & Kilgo, 2005).

To inform our understanding of effective partnerships between programs and families, it is important to examine approaches that have been shown to work. To do so, current research findings on effective family-program partnerships must be explored. Unfortunately, however, research in effective ways to enhance family-program partnerships is quite limited, particularly in early childhood programs.

There are many reasons why there is so little research in this area. Because there is a variety of ways to involve parents in the care and education of their children in a program, there is no agreed-upon definition or measurement of effective parent involvement. For example, are we looking at parents volunteering in the program, supporting their children at home, or effective communication between the home and program (Hill & Taylor, 2004)? Further, we do not know how one kind of involvement may positively influence another and thus have a multiplying, additive effect on children’s development and learning. For example, how might parent involvement in the early childhood center increase the quality of parenting skills practiced in the home?

There is also a lack of agreement regarding who should be the subject of the research. Who should be questioned and given surveys when studying parent involvement: parents, teachers, or administrators? This dilemma is compounded by several factors, including research that indicates teachers tend to evaluate the involvement of African-American and low-income parents more negatively than that of European and higher-income parents (Epstein & Dauber, 1991). Finally, the research available has been conducted largely in elementary schools and not early childhood programs. As presented later in this chapter, this is also a dilemma when examining the various family-program partnership models. From a research perspective, the more different an early care or education program is from a traditional public elementary school, the less valid are these elementary school-based results for family-program collaboration in early care and education settings (Hill & Taylor, 2004).

Policies and Programs That Increase Partnerships Between Families and Early Care and Education Programs

The evidence we do have strongly supports the benefits of policies and programs that increase family-program partnerships. A large body of research has consistently shown that low-income families are less likely to be involved in their children’s early care and education programs than are middle-class families; further, early childhood and school programs in poor neighborhoods are less likely to promote parent involvement than are programs in middle-class neighborhoods (Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Hill & Craft, 2003; Hill & Taylor, 2004). Thus, the children who could most benefit from these partnerships are least likely to receive them. Family-program partnerships for low-income (and often minority) families in low-income communities require much more effort and deliberation than do programs in communities that are more affluent. For example, these programs must:

provide more information to parents about how they and other family members can promote appropriate behaviors and learning achievement in their children.

teach parents and other caregivers specific techniques to use in working effectively with teachers and other program staff, including special education specialists. In Chapter 5, the RERUN process and dialoguing were explained as ways program staff can work effectively with parents (Gonzalez-Mena, 2008); these processes can also be used in helping parents effectively work with staff in early care and education programs.

provide training for new immigrant parents in the policies, protocols, and hidden curriculum of the typical American early care and education program (Bang, 2009). Bang also suggests teaching functional English to parents who wish to learn.

support training for teachers and other staff in cultural, economic, and linguistic issues that often prevent low-income parents from becoming effectively involved in their children’s care and learning in the program (Hill & Taylor, 2004). This training should occur at the college level, when students are learning to become teachers and caregivers, and through in-service training in programs.

Some parents and other adults in the home have very negative feelings from their own school experiences, either in this country or in the country from which they emigrated. Early care and education programs can offset these feelings in a number of ways; volunteering is one such approach. The best kind of volunteering occurs when parents and other significant adults are asked to contribute a project, activity, or lesson to the students. Making a piñata, sharing a favorite childhood song, bringing a family’s favorite book to read, helping youngsters at the workbench, and conducting a cooking project in the classroom are all excellent volunteer activities.

Parents can also be asked to volunteer on the playground, again providing specific expertise rather than just supervising students. This might be showing children how to care for vegetables or harvest the latest crop of tomatoes; demonstrating how to trim, water, and care for the playground’s trees; or helping a child with a physical disability because the parent has experience working with special needs children. Finally, volunteers can help with larger school projects and field trips. One program successfully involved parents in providing woodwork instruction, building a playground for one of the centers, and making puppet stages for each classroom.

Due to a variety of reasons (e.g., busy work schedules, young children who need to be cared for at home, etc.), some parents cannot volunteer in their child’s program. There are things they can do from home, such as helping to set up field trips by phone, making classroom materials, assisting with fundraisers, or developing the schedule for the next parents’ meeting.

Programs can also involve parents and other adults in the home with a variety of social and educational activities at the center. These might include celebrations, festivals, or support groups (e.g., for first-time parents, fathers, or parents of children with ADHD or autism). Educational programs can classes on parenting, appropriate discipline, language learning for parents who do not speak English, budgeting, or job searching.

Simply replicating programs that are effective with middle-class parents in middle-class communities is not sufficient. Research shows that early childhood programs must make a particularly concerted effort in working with families that differ in one or more ways from typical middle-class American families (Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Howard, 2007; Hill & Craft, 2003; Hill & Taylor, 2004).

Theoretical Models

To serve young children well, we need to find ways to work effectively with their families. This requires an ability to understand the ever-increasing diversity of families and to be able to conceptualize and understand positive, dynamic relationships between families and institutions (Christian, 2007). Previously in this book, we examined the first three stages of Erikson’s psychosocial theory, and discussed how the relationship between the family, early care and education program, and community fit within Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Further, in examining how children develop and learn, Piaget’s cognitive theory and Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory were explored, along with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. To help understand the best ways to work effectively with diverse families and to create constructive family-program partnerships that provide for the developmental and learning needs of each child, several theoretical models will be examined. These models reflect our current understanding of partnerships between the family and early care and education program, a recognition of the tremendous diversity of American families, and an understanding that both families and programs are composed of unique, dynamic systems (Epstein & Dauber, 1991).

Five of these models will be examined: the family systems theory; Project Head Start; the ecological systems approach; Frameworks for School, family and community partnerships; and the PTA’s

National Standards for Family-School Partnerships

. While some of these models were developed for elementary schools, they provide useful ideas for working with programs that serve children and families, age infant to 5 years old.

6.2 Family Systems Theory

While families come in all forms, all families also have certain characteristics in common (Christian, 2007). One way to examine these common characteristics is to use the family systems theory. This approach to understanding families is used extensively in family counseling and therapy and is based on the work of Ackerman (1959), Jackson (1965), Minuchin (1974), and Bowen (1978). Family systems theory examines how all family members influence each other in predictable and recurring ways (Van Velsor & Cox, 2000). Families are the primary socialization agent that teaches children how to function in the larger society; families prepare children for expectations of how the world works outside the family and how it will interact with them (Bang, 2009; Ngo, 2006). Family systems theory focuses on the family unit rather than on individual family members. It examines the various roles of individual family members, family dynamics and communication styles, and how the family responds to stress (Christian, 2007). This approach enables teachers and caregivers to examine the family as an organized unit and to explore reasons members behave as they do under specific conditions (Fingerman & Bermann, 2000).

Early childhood teachers, directors, and caregivers can use their understanding of family systems theory to serve families and their children more effectively. To this end, six characteristics of the theory are examined: boundaries, roles, rules, hierarchy, climate, and equilibrium. For each of these characteristics, family behaviors fall along a continuum, with most families somewhere in the middle (Christian, 2007).

Boundaries

The concept of boundaries in a family relates to the extent to which each individual family member operates independently, and how much they operate as a unit or group (Christian, 2007). Within this concept, the continuum runs from disengaged to enmeshed. People in disengaged families value individual autonomy, with each member acting independently. These families are also open to new people, information, and ideas. In enmeshed families, togetherness, belonging, and emotional connectedness—even conformity—are emphasized. Behaviors of individual family members in enmeshed families are viewed as a reflection of the family and not as a characteristic of the individual (Christian, 2007).

Families tend to fall on a continuum regarding these extremes. Neither is good or bad (as we discussed in the previous chapter). Further, a family may change boundaries based on a variety of circumstances—for example, during times of stress, families tend to become more enmeshed. Ideas to help early care and education teachers, caregivers, and directors work appropriately within each family member’s boundaries include the following:

Understand and recognize different parenting styles and family boundaries. More importantly, do not make judgments about parents’ care and involvement with their children based on their styles, or the fact that the family’s boundaries are different from yours.

Avoid stereotypes. Do not make any assumptions about children and parents; learn the specific backgrounds of each child and each family in the program.

Recognize that for some families, everything is a family affair. Thus, when you have a parent conference or a family activity in the program, you may end up with uncles, aunts, cousins, friends, and grandparents (Christian, 2007). You may also have a variety of people dropping off and picking up the child. (Obviously, you must make sure they are legally allowed to do so.)

Balance children’s activities and curricular experiences to incorporate both individual and group identity. Regardless of the family’s style, all children need to have the opportunity to explore their individual uniqueness and to function productively as part of a group.

Respect families’ need for control and involve the whole family when introducing new ideas and materials. Also, as discussed earlier, some family members may have had negative school experiences. Thus, they might transfer these feelings to the teacher or whomever they feel officially represents the school. When a conflict arises between the family and the program, family members may feel frustrated because they cannot seem to find someone to address the problem to their satisfaction. In some families, parents will share information (including what may appear to be confidential) with all family and extended family members.

Roles

In all families, members have specific roles (Fingerman & Bermann, 2000). Roles might be a peacemaker, clown, rescuer, or victim. Each role has certain expectations from others in the family—the responsible person solves conflicts; the victim gets blamed for everything (Christian, 2007). These roles can transfer to work, school, and social settings. A child who is the peacemaker at home brings these skills to the class; however, this may prevent other children from learning appropriate social skills and may limit the child’s risk-taking and other natural childhood behaviors. Obviously, whatever the role a child brings to the early care and education program, it is critically important to expose children to all the kinds of learning they need, including a range of social skills. Ideas for working with family roles include the following (Christian, 2007):

Give children ample opportunity to role play in structured and unstructured situations. Dramatic play enables children both to explore existing roles and to try out new ones.

Observe children carefully. Problems a child experiences in the program may well be the result of the role they perform at home. In this case, the child needs opportunities to be successful in a variety of new and different roles.

Help families recognize their children’s many varied strengths. Send notes home about what the child does well; begin conferences with the things the child excels at in the program and on the playground.

Rules

Rules are the scripts we use to live our lives—laws, standards, traditions, and history. These rules have a powerful impact on our experiences. For example, people who believe life is predictable will plan ahead, while those who believe most things are out of their control tend simply to respond to life as it happens (Fingerman & Bermann, 2000). Some rules are spoken; most are not. Most unspoken rules are embedded within a family’s cultural contexts. Sometimes these cultural rules conflict with the rules and expectations of the program. Rules can also produce conflicts within families—particularly blended families and families in which parents come from different cultural, racial, national, or religious backgrounds.

Sometimes families experiencing conflict need expert counseling. Early care and education programs can refer these parents, but they must not overstep their own skills and professional responsibilities. Specific ideas for working with families around the concept of rules include the following (Christian, 2007):

Distinguish between home rules and program rules. When children challenge you on a program rule, it may be because at home, the rule is different. Let children know that the rules at home and in the program may be different, but that this does not mean those used at home are wrong or bad. In many early childhood programs, teachers actively engage the classroom community in creating rules that everyone can support.

Watch for unspoken rules. These are particularly evident in relationship to gender, power, adults, and authority. While teachers and caregivers need to be aware of possible conflicts between home and program rules, program practices should not necessarily be changed.

Ask families for assistance and input when conflict arises. We have discussed this at length in the last chapter, including using the RERUN approach to solving conflicts. Carefully explain program rules and listen to parents’ concerns.

Hierarchy

Hierarchy is about decision-making and control. In some families, both parents share control, dividing it by their roles; in others, the authority is culturally specific, based on age, gender, or income. The authority may be easy to see, or it may be invisible. Extended families often have untraditional patterns of authority (Morton, 2000). Every time a family composition changes—for example, divorce or remarriage—there can be a shift in the hierarchy, which is confusing to children.

The issue of hierarchy can be addressed by the early care and education program in two ways: (1) collect information from parents and other caregivers at the beginning of the year, and (2) become a keen observer of both children and their families (Christian, 2007). Specific ideas include the following:

Engage in careful and keen observation. Who signs permission forms? Who returns phone calls? What role does the child assume in dramatic play? How do the children respond to male and female teachers (Bang, 2009; Luz, 2010)?

Note the signs when a family’s hierarchy is changing. A child who suddenly seems unsure of her role in the classroom may well be experiencing a shift in roles at home. Teachers and caregivers should be sensitive to the development of hierarchies emerging in the classroom and playground.

Be sensitive to children whose play always seems to involve being the boss or the victim. Change activities so children can try out new and different roles. Work closely with parents and mental health experts if these roles persist.

Climate

Climate describes the nature of the family’s emotional and physical environment. This is described in terms of how warm and supportive, or cold and disorganized, the climate may be. Climate is not determined by income, culture, or education. Is the home a place where the child feels safe, secure, and loved, or scared, angry, and unhappy? Ideas for working with families around the issue of climate include the following:

Provide opportunities to discuss parents’ beliefs about children. This allows staff to support families as they support their children; it also allows families to learn from each other.

Create a classroom climate that is safe, provides positive feedback and clear guidelines, and offers a variety of healthy sensory experiences. Children need to feel that the program is a warm, wonderful, fun place where they want to be.

Equilibrium

All families, even those with ongoing difficulties and stress, have a sort of balance, or equilibrium, that tells members what to expect in family dynamics. When there is change in equilibrium, either positive or negative, the balance is upset. This is why change is difficult to maintain (Christian, 2007). Ideas for working with families around equilibrium include the following:

Consider inviting a trained family professional to facilitate a discussion when an event causes a major impact on a member of a family in the program, such as loss of a job or beginning higher education. Provide a safe place for families to discuss the issue and vent their feelings about the change.

Provide as much consistency as possible when there are radical changes in the family (e.g., a divorce, new baby, or a new partner for a parent). When such changes occur, it is not a good time to make major changes in the program or classroom.

Encourage families to plan ways to increase stability and security for children. Bedtime routines and some regular quality parent-child one-on-one time are essential for every child, particularly in a time of confusion and change.

Each family is unique, as is every teacher and caregiver. Both parents and teachers respond to issues and problems differently. However, using the family systems theory not only enables staff to establish relationships with parents and understand family dynamics, but also provides perspectives and ideas when conflicts arise—either with the children in the program, or with their parents or other caregivers. Understanding family systems theory can provide insights into different ways to work effectively with diverse families and changing family dynamics.

6.3 Project Head Start

Project Head Start was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs. It is one of the few such programs that remain. Head Start developed out of a national advisory panel of experts convened by President John F. Kennedy. The underlying belief of the founders of Head Start was that a high-quality early childhood experience would prepare low-income children to enter school “ready to learn” and to be successful within their local public schools. The framers of Head Start believed that early childhood is a critical time for future school success (Greenberg, 1969). Because the program targeted low-income children, it was believed that it needed to be a comprehensive program including mental, physical, and dental health; parent involvement and training; and nutrition and safety (Greenberg, 1969). Project Head Start also benefited from a cadre of motivated civil rights workers and the willingness of communities across the nation to donate efforts, resources, and direct services (Greenberg, 1969).

The initial Head Start philosophy included a comprehensive approach, including working directly with parents and an emphasis on social competence. This is a view that focuses on a child’s social and emotional development and disposition to learning. While Head Start is a federal program with national standards, the architects of the program insisted that each program must reflect unique local needs. To address these local needs, each program must have a Head Start Policy Council, a local governing group made up of parents and community volunteers. Larger programs also have center and classroom committees. Community commitment is required for each program. Every program is run by a local grantee—school district, city, county government, single-purpose not-for-profit, or large-multipurpose agency. These agencies have to generate 20% of their budgets through local resources (in-kind and direct services).

The architects of Head Start not only believed that parents are the central socialization agent of their young children, but also that low-income parents should be empowered and shown how to provide the care and education their children need to become successful in school (Greenberg, 1969). One of the initial architects of Project Head Start was Urie Bronfenbrenner, the creator of the ecological systems theory discussed throughout this book (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Initially, Head Start was designed for children to participate during the year before kindergarten (usually 4 or 5 years old); later, Early Head Start was created, which serves pregnant mothers and young children until they are old enough to enter the regular program.

Head Start’s Approach to Parent Partnerships

Many ideas from Project Head Start’s approach to working with families have found their way into the early childhood literature and have been adopted by other early care and education programs through the country. In Head Start, parents must be directly involved in the governance of their local program. Opportunities for this include membership in classroom and center committees and the program’s policy council. The policy council’s authority includes development and approval of the annual budget and all program plans, as well as approval of the programs’ hiring and firing decisions. Parents of the program are also required to help conduct the official annual program evaluation and to have direct input into the official three-year review (U.S. Health and Human Services, 2006).

Further, volunteering throughout the program is encouraged and needed to balance the budget. Because 20% of the budget must come from the local community, much of this is generated through parents volunteering their time in the program. Depending on the program, this includes bus monitors, classroom volunteers, assisting on field trips, participation in various committees, and other program-related activities, such as building a playground.

Local Head Start programs work with parents to help them with their own education, job training, and job placement. To this end, parents are encouraged to volunteer and be trained within the local program, so that they can eventually become employed. Nationally, 27% of the current Head Start employees were originally Head Start parents (U.S. Health and Human Services, 2006). Some of the top managers in local programs began as Head Start parents.

Creating Community Partnerships

Head Start recognizes that local programs need to work effectively with a variety of community agencies to meet the diverse and complex needs of low-income families (U.S. Health and Human Services, 2006). Not only do local programs provide training, resources, and information to parents about community agencies, but they also are required to develop official partnerships with these agencies. Thus, the administration of the local program must have a written agreement with local school districts served by the program, mental health agencies, medical clinics and hospitals, dentist offices, food banks, employment and training programs, community colleges, drug rehabilitation centers, social services agencies, and so on. This way, the local Head Start program becomes a dynamic hub connecting low-income parents with a variety of community agencies. These agencies inform the local program of their services, provide assistance and information to parents, train staff regarding services, and work closely with the program to improve services and meet the needs of the Head Start parents (HHS, 2006).

Kindergarten Transition

Head Start was originally developed to prepare low-income children to succeed in the local public schools. According to the federal government, a disproportionate percentage of these children are minorities (HHS, 2006). Today, all local Head Start programs are also required to serve children with variety of developmental delays. A smooth, positive transition from the local Head Start program to the local public school kindergarten is critical. Local Head Starts and public schools develop transition plans where parents and other family members meet with teachers to pave the way for a successful transition. A smooth and successful transition is particularly critical for children who have developmental delays. Poor transitions result in anxiety, uncertainty, and a sense of vulnerability (Conn-Powers, Ross-Allen, & Holburn, 1990; DEC Taskforce on Recommended Practices, 1993).

While some Head Start programs are part of the local public school, and therefore transition activities are smooth and easy, many programs are not. Home-based programs function out of parents’ homes (with some organized activities); other programs are run by cities, county governments, community colleges, community agencies, and other community not-for-profit programs. Not-for-profit programs are service organizations that do not make a profit and do not pay taxes. Often, local programs serve more than one local school district.

Parental Input into Plans

In Head Start, parents are expected to have direct and indirect input into their child’s care and education. Direct input involves meeting with teachers at the beginning of the year to plan a child’s educational and behavioral goals. Parents and teachers develop individual plans to work with their children. While these plans focus on classroom activities, they may also include assessments for possible special needs services and ways to address other possible learning and behavioral challenges. Parents, teachers, and community workers also address dental, physical, and mental health needs that the child might have. Indirect input includes parents’ approval of all of the program plans that affect their children. Teachers in local Head Start programs are required to visit each child’s home several times each year. This enables parents to discuss the needs of their children away from the program, where they may feel more at ease. Other members of the extended family might also have some input at these meetings. At this time, teachers and social workers explore additional family needs that the program can help address, or recommend local community agencies to help the family.

The approaches that Head Start families use are codified in specific Head Start Performance Standards. These are federal standards that require all local programs to be directly involved with their families; further, program implementation of these performance standards are reviewed every three years by a federal program evaluation team (U.S. Health and Human Services, 2006). There are many other services that local programs provide for the whole family:

Parenting classes. Examples of parenting classes include teaching effective discipline procedures, information on local kindergarten-entry requirements, advice for new immigrant families on how American schools operate, and information regarding laws on suspected child abuse and neglect.

Referrals for job training/employment. Many Head Start parents are underemployed or unemployed. Local Head Start programs have official agreements with local training and placement services, so they can provide parents with important information. Representatives from community colleges and state, county, and city training and employment programs can visit the local Head Start and make parents aware of their services.

Classes on family budgeting. Budgeting is difficult for many families, including low-income families. Experts in budgeting (from either the local program or a local community agency) provide ideas to help Head Start families with this important practice. These experts also provide ideas to families about ways to save money, such as using food banks and WIC programs, buying in bulk, and buying from community gardens.

Classes and referrals for drug and alcohol abuse. Local Head Start programs have direct connections with local mental health centers, substance abuse clinics, and other community programs dedicated to addressing drug and alcohol issues. Because Head Start is for low-income families, the programs they work with are sensitive to cost and other barriers that can affect low-income families.

Classes to learn English. Many Head Start families are new immigrants who speak a variety of languages other than English. Parents are very interested in learning English so that they can function effectively within American society and support their children as they progress through school. Local programs work closely with community colleges, language associations, and community groups to find people able and willing to teach English to non-English speaking parents.

Training and referrals for domestic violence and other family issues. Similar to the discussion under alcohol and drug abuse, local Head Start programs have contact with agencies and programs that address domestic violence and other family issues. They can refer parents to these agencies or bring someone to the center from the program to provide classes.

Classes/activities on Head Start-kindergarten transition. Kindergarten transition is something all Head Start parents are interested in learning about, and local Head Start programs have developed effective programs to address this issue. Many Head Start programs serve more than one school district, so programs must be developed for each district being served. Good program practices include parents visiting the local kindergarten, talking to the child’s prospective teacher, and listening to information from the district’s kindergarten coordinator.

Advice/support for families with children with specific developmental delays. Classes to help parents work effectively with children with autism, learning disabilities, ADHD, and other disabilities might be provided for parents of children who have disabilities. Additionally, classes could be provided on the transition of children with disabilities into the local public schools. This is a very different challenge for these families than it is for families of children without disabilities. Specialists from the local public schools who work with children with disabilities usually provide these classes.

Training in nutrition and low-cost food preparation. Childhood obesity is a national epidemic; childhood obesity is particularly high in low-income families and immigrant families. Thus, it is important that local programs provide parents with information and advice regarding the negative effects of childhood obesity and ways to buy and prepare healthy foods for their family.

Classes on discipline. Effective ways to discipline children is a very popular topic for Head Start parent classes.

Weight loss classes, advice, and referrals. This class might address obesity issues for children or dieting for parents. Obesity is an issue for many adults in the United States, especially low-income adults, for a variety of reasons. These classes can cover diet, exercise, and lifestyle information.

6.4 Ecological Systems Theory Approach

Focusing on the mesosystem, the second basic structure of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, enables us to examine family-program relationships. The mesosystem consists of linkages between two or more of the child’s microsystems, such as the child’s family and early care and education program, or the family and various community agencies (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). According to Bronfenbrenner (1979), the nature of the influence of the mesosystem on the child depends on the number and quality of these relationships. Thus, if there are few linkages between the home and the early care and education program, in terms of values, experiences, objectives, and behavioral style, then there will be little positive effect on the child’s development and learning. The more numerous the qualitative links between the child’s microsystems, the more positive an influence they have on the child’s socialization.

If a mother or other caregiver has a positive relationship with the child’s teacher, is welcome and feels important when she enters her child’s early care program, believes the program’s social worker truly cares about the welfare of her child and family, and knows that when the special education teacher phones about her child, she is genuinely concerned, then the child’s development and learning will be positively affected. On the other hand, if the mother simply drops off and picks up her child at the program, with no other interactions or involvement, then there is little positive impact (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

There are many ways to examine the qualitative and quantitative links between the family and the early care and education program. Two of these are ways the program supports basic family functions, and the various components of quality early care and education programs.

Basic Family Functions

What are the basic family functions all families perform, and how can early care and education programs enhance these functions? As we have discussed throughout this book, there are a vast variety of family structures—for example, two parents, single parents, step-parents, teen parents, grandparents (see Spotlight:

Including Grandparents

), and foster and adoptive parents. None of these structures is necessarily good or bad, healthy or unhealthy. However, all healthy families perform basic family functions—how the family cares for its members. These basic family functions for young children include the following:

Providing material necessities. This includes shelter, food, and clothing.

Providing adequate medical and dental care. This includes making sure children receive immunizations according to the prescribed schedule.

Supporting learning. Learning is a central task for children; families need to support the ever-more complex and challenging learning that all children must achieve.

Providing opportunities for success. As children venture into the vast social and practical world, they often become frustrated and disappointed; they may also lose confidence and self-esteem (Harter, 2006b). A central function of the family is to provide children with opportunities for success and feelings of importance and value.

Supporting peer relationships. People are social beings, and children have to learn appropriate and proactive social skills. The main way they do this is by developing important and healthy peer relationships (Harter, 2006b). Parents and other caregivers need to help and support their children in this important task.

Harmony and stability. To develop into secure emotional adults, children need a home base of harmony, warmth, acceptance, and support.

Socialization. In all societies, the family is the central agent that makes sure children learn society’s values, beliefs, knowledge, and skills. Further, the family is the central socializing agent for children to know their own culture’s values, beliefs, expectations, and traditions (Harter, 2006b).

The early care and education program is more effective when it can help families in as many of these functional areas as possible, and when the relationships between the family and the program are positive. Thus, a program might provide job referrals to parents and other family members, assist them in finding affordable medical care and dental care, refer parents to community food banks and food programs, and teach parenting skills. Or an employee-based program might develop ways that parents can come to the program during the lunch hour to eat together and allow children to visit their parents on the job. While the learning-related functions are the most obvious examples of this approach, programs can positively influence many of these areas.

SPOTLIGHT:

Including Grandparents

More than 2.5 million grandparents are raising their grandchildren in the United States. Other grandparents assist their own children in raising their grandchildren in some direct way. Reasons grandparents become the primary caregivers in the lives of their grandchildren can include drug and alcohol abuse by parents, divorce, mental and physical illness, child abuse/neglect, jail, and death. Some of these arrangements are temporary, while parents complete their education or a military assignment, recover from an illness, or serve a short jail time.

The challenges are unique and often overwhelming. Children may have major health or mental health conditions, while some grandparents are in declining health, lack resources, or are unaware of available resources in the community. However, some are also still young with their own children at home; others are still caring for their own aging parents. Many must continue to hold jobs to provide for their grandchildren.

Sometimes raising grandchildren isolates grandparents from their peers in the community. Further, the very situations that caused the grandparents to have to take on the primary role of parenting may have created severe physical or psychological problems for the children (e.g., abuse, drugs, or crime).

Early care and education programs are in a good position to help grandparents who are parenting for the second time. While the suggestions here focus on working with grandparents, many are also effective in working with other adults who help raise young children in the home. Here are some suggestions for early care and education programs:

Listen empathetically to grandparents. Introduce them to others in similar situations; suggest community meetings about common concerns.

Encourage grandparents to avail themselves of community resources. Introduce them to food banks and immunization clinics (for example, for annual flu shots).

Because issues around custody and guardianship can be common, provide information about where to obtain quality, low-cost legal advice.

Gather information about community organizations and resources for children with special needs.

Early care and education programs should provide special workshops for grandparents. Further, they can respond to grandparents in their program with the following approaches:

Using the word family instead of parents in communications

Providing printed materials to families that use large, black type and clear, white backgrounds

Asking grandparents how they would like you to answer sensitive questions from other children, such as, “Where is Kyle’s mother?”

Looking for ways to include grandparents in the classroom and program. Grandparents may initially feel out of place among young, energetic parents.

Being sensitive to comfort needs. Provide adult chairs for classroom visits and meetings. Provide volunteer opportunities for adults who might have arthritis and other physical limitations.

Including grandparent props in dramatic play, images in books, curricular materials, puzzles, or miniature people. Provide a variety of assistive devices in the dramatic play area, such as walkers and canes.

Reading and discussing books that deal with all kinds of grandparent families, including grandparents as the primary caregivers in the home, along with grandparents with different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Create a book library for families that covers a diversity of topics, including grandparents.

(Birckmayer, Cohen, Jensen, & Variano, 2005)

However, no program can provide families with all of their functional needs; rather, the program needs to become a hub for information, referrals, advice, support, communication, and understanding.

Quality Early Care and Education

In Chapter 10, we will address in detail characteristics of quality early care and education programs, discuss research on quality programs, and examine several methods used to evaluate and accredit programs. Here, we will describe several characteristics of early care and education programs that increase the likelihood of quality interconnections between the program and the home. According to the Early Care Research Network, factors that contribute to quality early care and education programs for young children are the following:

Adequate attention to each individual child. A small adult-child ratio, along with continuity of care, is critical. Continuity of care involves the caregiver moving with young children as they progress from one group to another, for example, from infancy through age 3.

Encouragement of language and sensory motor development. Infants and young children need ample language stimulation within natural social contexts and many opportunities to manipulate concrete materials and to play with toys.

Attention to health and safety. Cleanliness routines (hand washing), accident prevention (for example, child-proofing the house or center), and safe areas to explore and play are essential.

Professional caregivers. Caregivers and teachers have experience and degrees/certificates in early childhood education, turnover is low, and morale is high—necessitating adequate salaries, benefits, and ongoing training.

Warm and responsive caregivers. Providers engage the children in active play, problem solving, and social and emotional development (NICHD Early Care Research Network, 2005).

Additional characteristics, based on our understanding of the mesosystem, include responsive, respectful, and collaborative relationships with parents and other caregivers; culturally responsive care and education; and frequent communication between the program and the family.

On the opposite end, these are some of the characteristics that lead to less than optimal care and education of young children (Fragin, 2000; NICHD, 2005; Whitebook, Howes, & Phillips, 1989):

Inadequate credentials and training of teachers and caregivers

High staff turnover, from 25% to 50% turnover per year.

Poor pay and benefits. As a field, early care and education teachers and caregivers in the United States are poorly paid, with few if any benefits. Quality care and continuity of care are significantly related to worker compensation (Neugebauer, 2004; NICHD, 2005; Whitebook, Howes, & Phillips, 1989).

Programs that do not provide adequate pay and benefits for teachers and caregivers are less likely to attract and keep teachers and caregivers with proper training and experience, and are less able to provide the quality relationships between staff and families needed to create and maintain effective program-family partnerships.

On the opposite end, these are some of the characteristics that lead to less than optimal care and education of young children (Fragin, 2000; NICHD, 2005; Whitebook, Howes, & Phillips, 1989):

6.5 Frameworks for School, Family, and Community Partnerships

Several researchers and experts have looked at the way families and early care and education programs should work together and developed frameworks to help assist local programs in this critically important endeavor. With this in mind, we will examine the frameworks of Douglass Powell and Joyce Epstein. Powell (1998) proposed some specific ideas to guide early care and education programs in working with families. These suggestions are for all programs, whether public school based, religious, Head Start-Early Head Start, campus child care, private community, or family/home care.

Early care and education programs must serve whole families, and not just children. Policies, procedures, and practices must consider how they affect the family and how they include the entire family. Parents and staff should have confidence in and respect for each other. Parents, grandparents, or other adults need to know that teachers and caregivers are skilled, knowledgeable, and caring, and thus they need opportunities to get to know the staff. Teachers and caregivers need training to be able to include the families’ cultural perspectives and to appreciate and include the families’ strengths. When communicating with the family, programs need to create individualized approaches. Further, there should be opportunities for parents and staff to develop shared goals for each child, based on parents’ ideas and wishes and teachers’ knowledge of child development and the program’s curriculum. To facilitate communication and collaboration, teachers and caregivers need to be available when parents and other family members are most visible in the program.

Programs need to view parents—and other important adults in the home—as individuals. Family involvement increases when parents are seen as whole people with unique needs and interests that are both similar to that of other parents and also unique (see Spotlight: Including Grandparents). Thus, programs must make sure to view parents of similar ethnic, racial, religious, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds as having unique interests, needs, and concerns for their children. Critical to involving family members in the program is finding ways to help parents see the importance of their involvement to their child’s security, happiness, and academic success. While early childhood educators and researchers are well aware of the critical importance of family involvement in the development and learning of their children, many parents are not. Some are even told that they are the problem and not the solution (Gargiulo & Kilgo, 2005). All parents need reassurance, encouragement, and support in their efforts to work with their children’s early care and education programs.

Education preparation programs (in colleges) should emphasize teaching students about collaborating with parents, using current research on effective approaches and field-tested models as the basis for their training. These programs need to provide a focus on ways to develop the skills teachers and caregivers need to work collaboratively with parents and other caregivers, and to appreciate diverse family backgrounds, especially for families that differ racially, economically, linguistically, and culturally from the teacher (Powell, 1998).

To be able to develop effective partnerships with families, early childhood educators and caregivers need to explore each family’s cultural background. This requires understanding each family member’s roles, traditions, and practices and realizing that different levels of family participation in the early childhood program may be due to cultural backgrounds rather than the parent’s desire or effort (Arndt & McGuire-Schwartz, 2008). Also, in some cultures, parents believe teachers should be respected and revered, and thus the idea of an equal partnership is particularly difficult for them to comprehend (Bang, 2009; Luz, 2010; Ngo, 2006).

Some new immigrant parents need specific help in working with early care and education programs. They need to learn about the culture of American institutions and programs, which are often very different from those they are familiar with and those they attended as children. This includes everything from specific program policies, to knowing whom to contact at the program for different kinds of information (Bang, 2009). Many of these new immigrant parents also need and want to learn English. However, typical academic English classes taught at community colleges or community centers can be ineffective; what these parents want and need is functional instruction that teaches typical words and phrases used by teachers, caregivers, and directors in their children’s early childhood program (Bang, 2009).

Joyce Epstein’s Framework

Epstein (2001) focused on issues of effective program-home partnerships for many years. She is the director of the Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships, and the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS), at Johns Hopkins University. In 2001, Epstein wrote a handbook called School, Family, and Community Partnerships. In this book, she lists six types of program-home partnerships. Like Bronfenbrenner, she believes there are overlapping spheres of influence on the lives of children, and that the program, family, and community are all interconnected. When partners recognize their shared interests in and responsibilities for children, they work together to create better programs and opportunities for students (Couchenour & Chrisman, 2004). In describing her framework for school, family, and community partnership, Epstein uses specific terms for each partner (see Think About It: Vocabulary for Program-Family Partnerships).

According to Epstein, these partnerships should work together to help prepare children for successful school readiness in math, literacy, social competence, and other important areas (Epstein, 2007). Epstein’s framework to guide the development of programs that support families and students was designed for K-12 school programs; however, the framework can be adapted for early care and education programs that serve children, from infants to age 5 years old (Epstein, 2007). The six kinds of program involvement that she recommends are as follows:

Parenting. Offer families assistance with parenting skills, in understanding child development and approaches to discipline, and in ways the family can support the child’s overall growth and development. Further, early care and education directors should provide opportunities to help teachers and caregivers understand the diverse nature of the families they serve. Family involvement must be inclusive of a large variety of different kinds of parents and caregivers.

Communicating. Keep families up to date on program-related issues and students’ progress and other issues (for example, discipline, the need to assess a child for possible special needs services, and so on), through effective program-to-home and home-to-program communications. There are a variety of ways to do this, but a critical issue is to make sure that information is provided in the family’s home language.

Volunteering. To support children in early care and education, and to improve family attendance at the program and program-related activities, programs need to improve outreach and staff training and adapt their schedules to involve families as volunteers. Programs must be creative in finding ways to involve members of families with a variety of schedules and a history of resistance.

Learning at home. Programs should offer suggestions and techniques to involve families in a vast array of different learning activities at home, from structuring quality play opportunities and visiting community educational resources, to reading to children and helping them learn basic math concepts with manipulatives and household items.

Decision making. Include families as participants in program decisions, governance, and advocacy, through parent organizations, policy councils, classroom and center committees, parent advisory boards, and curriculum-related activities. Opportunities for governance depend on the kind of early care and education programs a family uses.

Collaborating with the community. Coordinate community resources for families, children, and the program with businesses, local agencies, and other groups. Also, the early care and education program should provide direct services to the community, such as entertaining seniors at a senior center, planting flowers to beautify an area of the neighborhood, and growing vegetables and giving them to the homeless.

6.6 National Parent Teacher Association’s National Standards

In 1997, the National PTA used Epstein’s six components of parent involvement to create the National Standards for Parent/Family Involvement Programs. In 2007, the National PTA changed the name to National Standards for Family-School Partnerships and adjusted some of the six items. The changes shift the focus from what schools should do to involve parents, to what parents, schools, and communities can do together to support student success (PTA, 2011). Because the National PTA is an organization for public K-12 schools, these standards are written for school-age children and their families. The National Standards for Family-School Partnerships are listed in Spotlight: National Standards for Family-School Partnerships. However, these standards can be adapted for early care and education programs working with infants and preschool children (PTA, 2011). These standards are (1) welcoming all families into the school community, (2) communicating effectively, (3) supporting student success, (4) speaking up for every child, (5) sharing power, and (6) collaborating with community (

www.pta.org

, 2011).

SPOTLIGHT:
National Standards for Family-School Partnerships

1. Welcoming All Families into the Early Care and Education Program’s Community

Families are active participants in the life of the early care and education community, and feel welcomed, valued, and connected to each other, to program staff, and to what children are learning and doing in the program and in class. There are two goals under this standard:

Create a welcoming climate in the early care and education program. When families walk into the program, even if it is home-based child care, they should feel that it is a place where they belong. Are there opportunities for families to develop personal relationships with the director, teachers, and other staff? Is the atmosphere family-friendly for everyone, including people of different ethnic and racial backgrounds, parents who do not speak English, grandparents and fathers? Are there many ways to volunteer in the program?

Building a respectful, inclusive early care and education community. All the program policies and rules should reflect, respect, and value the diversity of the families in the community the program serves. Do caregivers and teachers value the contributions of all families, and work together to address barriers to involvement? Are adaptations made for parents who have little money and who work during the school day?

2. Communicating Effectively

Families and early care and education staff engage in regular, meaningful communications about the care and education of each student. For this standard, there is only one goal: sharing information between early care and education programs and the family. All families should feel they are informed on important issues and events, and that it is easy to communicate with the director, teachers, and other staff. One approach to achieve this is the following (Harvard Research Project, 2006/2007):

Accommodate parents’ English skills as needed

Communicate with all families, including those who do not attend meetings and conferences and those who do not respond to requests

Encourage parents’ input and ideas

Offer opportunities to volunteer in the program and on field trips

Assign home-learning opportunities that require parent-student interactions

Make sure all parent committees reflect the program’s diversity

3. Supporting the Development and Learning of Children

Families and early care and education teachers and caregivers continuously collaborate to support children’s healthy development and learning, both at home and in the early care or education program, and have regular opportunities to strengthen their knowledge, skills, and abilities to do so effectively. For this standard, the two goals are the following:

Sharing information about children’s development and learning. Families need to be kept fully informed about how well their children are doing in the program.

Supporting development and learning by engaging families. Families should have opportunities to learn how to be active participants in their children’s healthy development and learning at home and in the program. Are families invited to come and observe in the program? What do teachers, caregivers, and directors do to help parents learn ways to support and encourage development and learning at home? What about connecting families with all sorts of development and learning opportunities outside the early care and education program?

4. Speaking Up for Every Child

Families are empowered to be advocates for their own and other children, to make sure that all children are treated fairly, and to have access to activities, interactions, relationships, and challenges that will support their optimal growth, development, and learning. For this standard there are two goals:

Parents and other family members need to understand how the early care and education program works. Clearly, this differs depending on whether the program is a religious program, a public-school preschool program, Head Start, or Early Head Start. Parents need to know the policies, chain of authority, and state and federal rules that apply to them and their child. Do they know their rights? Do they know whom to contact to resolve issues and answer questions? Are they aware of special programs, such as special education or parenting classes? If they have a child with developmental delays, do they know their rights?

Early care and education program staff need to know how to support and empower families to maximize their children’s growth and learning in the program. Are parents offered training and resources on how to monitor and support their children’s progress? Do they know the choices available for their child, including special education, gifted programs, and other early care and education programs (e.g., state-funded preschools and programs for children with developmental delays)? This is particularly important for families with children under age 5, because the early childhood field is extremely diverse, quite complex, and different from state to state and community to community (Neugebauer, 2008). Finally, does the early childhood program support parent groups and community agencies that assist all families?

5. Sharing Power

Families and early care and education program teachers and caregivers are equal partners in decisions that affect children and families, and together they inform, influence, and create policies, practices, and activities. There are two goals for this standard:

Strengthen the family’s voice in shared decision making. Families must be involved in the early care and education program’s decisions and community decisions that affect their child. Do they sit at the table and have a vote? What structures exist to discuss issues of importance to parents, such as who is eligible for specific programs, how children are placed in different classrooms, and how teacher selection is made? Are parents with concerns shunned and ostracized by the program? Finally, are parents nurtured to become leaders in the program and in the community?

Building families’ social and political connections. Programs should provide opportunities for parents to connect with each other around issues of concern, as well as connect with local policy-makers—politicians, community leaders, early childhood advocates, support groups, public officials, and church and business leaders.

6. Collaborating with Community

There is one goal for this standard, and it is that parents and program leaders need to work closely together with neighborhood associations, government agencies, businesses, and colleges to strengthen the early care and education program that the child attends and to make resources available to parents, teachers, and staff to build a family-friendly community. What program-community linkages have been created? How are they maintained? Have community partnerships been organized to support the early care and education program? What are the plans to make the program a hub of community life, especially for all the families it serves? How do these community partnerships support children’s development and learning?

The National PTA has developed a series of steps to implement these standards and a framework to evaluate the success of this process. These documents can be found on the National PTA website (www.pta.org).

6.7 The Challenge of Partnerships with Families

Creating effective partnerships between programs and families is particularly challenging with families that differ from traditional, middle-class American families (Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Howard, 2007). The diversity of families requires programs to explore a variety of ways to engage these families (Hill & Taylor, 2004). This diversity includes gay and lesbian parents, low-income families, families whose parents do not speak English as their first language, multiracial families and transracially adoptive families (families who adopt children of a different race or ethnicity from the parents), single-parent families, and blended families (Arndt & McGuire-Swartz, 2004). Of course, these diversities can interact with each other to create all sorts of combinations (e.g., a teen parent who does not speak English, or a gay parent with a transracially adopted child). One form of diversity that has not been addressed stems from the generational culture of parents, which illustrates Bronfenbrenner’s last domain: the chronosystem. These generational differences influence the way parents and other significant caregivers think about gender roles, lifestyles, culture, and future outlook (Rutherford, 2005). As with all ways of categorizing people, these are broad generalizations with obvious variability.

According to Rutherford (2005), the younger end of the Baby Boomers (now in their 40s) might be first-time parents or grandparents. They tend to be workaholics who value success and are career oriented. They often over-commit and need to be reminded to keep their focus on outcomes. The Gen Xers, born between 1965 and 1982, value relationships over organizations; personal touch and immediate feedback are critical, and they seek a balance between their personal and professional lives. Millennials, who were born in the mid-1980s, appreciate time spent with family and personal involvement and tend to have a generally positive outlook. Their preferred mode of communication is email and other forms of technology (Howe & Strauss, 2000).

All families, regardless of their diversity, are embedded within cultures. Thus, teachers and caregivers must understand how culture influences families. It is also important for these teachers and providers to develop their cross-cultural communication skills.

Cross-Cultural Communication Skills

During the early years, children are developing a strong sense of their identity, including their cultural identity (Lally, 1995). Child-rearing practices, beliefs, goals, and values are tied to culture. When children are raised at home, cared for by relatives, or a part of a program that reflects the same cultural values as that of the family, the child’s cultural identity develops in a normal, healthy manner. However, when children are cared for by people from different cultural backgrounds, conflict, confusion, and cultural discontinuity can arise (Lally, 1995).

Each of us exists within a variety of cultural contexts (HHS, 2010). We view the world from the perspective of these contexts (Bowman, 1994). The challenge is to understand that when we interact with someone from a different cultural context, we may feel uncomfortable; we may judge them from our own cultural perspective; and we may not understand why they behave the way they do (Hall, 1983). Thus, it is critical that teachers, caregivers, and directors are sensitive to the different cultural perspectives of the families they work with, and to conflicts and misunderstandings that might arise due to cultural differences. However, it is crucial that we do not try to learn about cultures as static behaviors and attributes practiced by everyone who belongs within a traditional racial, ethnic, language, or national group.

Six Areas of Nonverbal Communication

The following are six areas of nonverbal communication that can result in miscommunication and misunderstanding. These cultural differences can be seen in both adults and children.

Personal space. We all grow up with a comfort zone regarding physical proximity while communicating with others—what is commonly called personal space. Once someone comes too close to us, we may feel uncomfortable. Most mainstream Americans prefer a space of about one arm’s length. People from some countries and cultures are more comfortable being much closer to a person while they are communicating.

Smiling. Smiles are used differently in different cultures. For example, Americans tend to see smiling as a way to communicate friendship, comfort, and acceptance; they smile all the time. Russians and other Europeans view smiling as a much more authentic behavior, something to be performed when they are truly happy; anything else is fake (Gonzalez-Mena, 2008). However, many Vietnamese smile as a way to communicate to teachers and others in authority that they are good, obedient students who accept the teacher’s authority unequivocally (Binh, 1975).

Eye contact. In some cultures, it is important to look people in the eye directly when talking to them. People from cultures where this is the norm become upset when the other person looks away, thinking they are dishonest. However, in some Asian cultures, looking into someone’s eyes is considered a lack of respect (Root, Ho, & Sue, 1986). Similarly, some Native Americans view staring and prolonged eye contact to be extremely disrespectful (Matheson, 1986). People in other cultures believe that eye contact is critical when an adult disciplines a child.

Touch. Anyone who has travelled to Central or South America knows that people from these cultures greet each other with a hug and kiss on the cheek. In other cultures, touch is a way of establishing and maintaining power—those in power can touch others, but not vice versa. What is appropriate in one culture can be viewed as harmful or even sexual in another one.

Silence. In some cultures, people are uncomfortable with silence. Teachers even have the term wait time, which is a deliberate pause after a question has been asked, to allow students relaxed time to process the question and formulate an answer. Other cultures, however, do not need extra time after a person has spoken, because they naturally leave time as an indication of having listened to the speaker. In some cultures, people are apt not to answer questions about themselves, as this is viewed as bragging (Alderete-Baker, 1998).

Concepts of time. People in highly industrialized societies have learned to follow the clock and plan ahead using precise time calculations. Many view carefully following time as essential to the smooth operation of the workplace, and as respect for the time of others (Lefley & Pedersen, 1986). Others, of course, not only are always late, but seem to see doing anything strictly on time as unimportant: What is done is what is important, not when it is done.

Related to time is how people communicate facts and information. In some cultures, a person is expected to engage in “happy talk” before getting to the point; in others, it is critical to get to the point immediately. And in some cultures, it is impolite to say exactly what you mean; the other person needs to figure it out (Hall, 1983).

Family Strengths and Challenges

All families have unique strengths and challenges. To engage families in program participation, program staff members need to find ways to work with families around these strengths and challenges. For example, one study found that lesbian and gay parents, like all other parents, want their children to be nurtured and stimulated to learn, while also wanting environments that support diversity (Clay, 2007). These parents appreciate teachers who have experience working with gay and lesbian families. Similarly, we know that multiracial families and transracially adoptive families, while wanting the same general care and support for their children as other families, also expect program policies, teachers, and activities to be sensitive to important multiracial issues, including images in curricular materials and the filling out of federal racial forms (Wardle & Cruz-Janzen, 2004).

When examining ways to become culturally competent and work effectively with families of diverse backgrounds, teachers and caregivers need to examine their own backgrounds, cultures, education, attitudes, and experiences. How comfortable are they working with diverse families and children with special needs? What biases do they have that interfere with working effectively with all families and children (Arndt & McGuire-Schwartz, 2008)? Once they have explored their own racial and cultural identities and worldview, teachers and caregivers need to explore each family’s cultural backgrounds. Some teachers find this easy to do; for others, they enjoy working with children but may lack confidence working effectively with adults.

Getting Parents Involved

Programs can engage in a variety of activities to develop positive relationships with families at the beginning of the year, or when they first enroll their children, and continue throughout the year (Hamre & Pianta, 2005). Some activities that can be completed before the school year starts include the following (Kersey & Masterson, 2009):

Send a personalized card to every child, saying, “See you at school. You will make lots of friends and have fun” (p. 44).

Have an open house for children and families. Let the families explore the room, playground, and rest of the center. Help connect families who have common backgrounds, interests, and issues. Make sure the open house is at a time when all families can attend.

Soon after the beginning of the school year, hold a Welcome Families meeting at a convenient time for all parents. Use this meeting to solicit ideas from parents about activities and goals for their children. Provide questionnaires (in all appropriate languages) to learn about children’s interests, strengths, pets, and hobbies. Also, solicit volunteers by letting parents know all the possible ways they can volunteer. In the meeting, provide time for parents to connect and get to know each other. Let parents know about you—your personality, what you like to do, and so on.

Many children enter a program while the school year is in progress. With these families, make sure they fill out the same questionnaire (in their language), help them make connections with other parents, and give them a relaxed tour of the facility.

Once parents have become involved with the programs, they need to be continually engaged and included throughout the year. Additional activities that can be used to achieve this include the following (Kersey & Masterson, 2009):

Send home Great Moments certificates. Attach a photo of the child to the certificate, along with highlighting something the child has done or made—helped another child, used a new word, completed a task, etc. Make sure all children receive a certificate (send out about 3 to 5 a day).

Provide parents a time they can call you to talk about their child, when it is convenient for them. If a translator is needed, include him or her in the planning.

Send email communications, reporting positive experiences of each child.

Record the positive things a child does on a 3×5 card in a notebook, or in a personal journal for each child. These can then be shared with a parent at parent-teacher conferences, during informal interactions between teachers and parents, or at the end of the school year.

Send home weekend project packs with activities parents can do with their children. Keep them simple, and make sure both the instructions and the activity are provided in the language spoken by the adults in the home.

Create a class newsletter or webpage on the program’s website to engage students in communicating with their families. Include students’ writing, art, photos, and other material.

Specific Challenges in Working with Diverse Families

Because most best practices come out of our dominant cultural beliefs, and because many early care and education teachers also come from the dominant culture, special attention must be devoted to families and children who are different. However, regardless of diversity, studies indicate that all families have common goals for their children (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). All families want their children to do well academically and they want their children to have a successful school experience. Finally, one of the goals of many parents is for the children to learn appropriate social skills and to avoid risky behaviors as they grow up and develop (Henderson & Mapp, 2002).

Research has continually documented that impoverished and minority families are less likely to be involved in their child’s early care and education programs than are white and wealthier families. Further, early childhood programs in impoverished communities are less likely to provide active parent collaboration than are programs in middle-class and wealthy communities (Boyd-Zaharias & Pate-Bain, 2009; Hill & Taylor, 2004). It is important to note that this lack of involvement is usually not due to the motivation and concern of these parents, but to a variety of factors that cause barriers to partnerships. Because parents in low-income and minority communities are often affected both by the memory of their own negative school experiences and by negative feelings regarding their own abilities as parents and providers, effective partnerships in high-risk programs need to be radically different from those that work in more advantaged programs and communities (Hill & Taylor, 2004). Negative experiences affect parents when their children begin to attend a program, while memories of positive school experiences are likely to enhance involvement. Further, poverty has a direct, negative effect on the involvement of families in the care and education of their children (Howard, 2007; Hill & Taylor, 2004).

Teachers and caregivers often believe that parents who volunteer in their child’s early care and education program value education more than parents who do not. Further, teachers and caregivers tend to think more highly of the involvement of parents whose children are doing well (academically and behaviorally) in the program (Hill & Craft, 2003). We also know that early care and education program polices directly influence parents’ involvement (Epstein & Dauber, 1991) and that parents will respond positively to a variety of ways to support their children in early care and education programs (La Paro, Kraft-Sayre, & Pianta, 2003).

Three Specific Activities to Use with Low-income Families

Like all families, low-income families have incredible variety: new immigrant families; newly divorced; single mothers; struggling two-parent families; minority families; and teen parents trying to finish their high school education. Three specific kinds of activities that have been effective with low-income families include building respectful relationships, engaging families in supporting learning at home, and creating cultural memoirs (Allen, 2008).

Building Respectful Relationships

Programs need to learn about and incorporate family funds of knowledge—what families know and pass on to their children. This approach challenges the deficit model of low-income families. Through home visits and using families as a resource for projects, activities, and curricular ideas, teachers build on family funds of knowledge, which develops trust and a healthy partnership between the program and the family. Teachers also learn about all the knowledge and skills students bring to the program and meet together on a regular basis to determine ways these family funds of knowledge can be incorporated into the curriculum and other meaningful learning experiences for children (Allen, 2008).

To build positive relationships, teachers and caregivers need to learn specific information about each of their families. This is best achieved through home visits and open communication. Further, teachers and other caregivers cannot assume they know a family simply because they come from the same racial or ethnic group, or because they have somehow learned some information about a certain racial and cultural group. The dynamic cultural contexts to which our families belong are much more complex than simply belonging to large racial, ethnic, religious, or linguistic groups.

Engaging Families in Supporting Learning at Home

Another approach that works is program-home reading journals. To connect with the family, teachers design journals that children take home with them. These journals are exchanged throughout the year, two or three times a week. The spiral-bound notebooks are sent home with carefully chosen children’s books from the library. Parents read the books to their children (and some children may read these books to their parents), talk to their children about the books’ content, and then write together in the journal. Teachers then respond to each parent’s journal entries. This approach establishes a deep relationship between parents and teachers, which supports emergent readers and writers in the home, without parents or other family members even coming to the program (Allen, 2008).

Creating Cultural Memoirs

We have discussed throughout this book the issue of cultural richness and differences. One idea to help families embrace their identity is to create cultural memoirs. These are records that answer the question “Who am I as a cultural being, and what are the influences in my life that have made me who I am?” Parents, other important family members, and teachers can engage in this activity. Memoirs are created through the following activities:

Reading and discussing examples of cultural memoirs. These are stories that are built around deeply contextualized information of time and place. Television biopics, radio broadcasts of historical and cultural biographies, and magazine bios are short and accessible examples. There are also longer books, films, and TV programs that focus on the lives of people embedded within place and time.

Gathering photographs and other cultural artifacts. These can answer the question “What are my cultural influences in terms of race, class, gender, ethnicity, geography, nationality, language, and religion?” Look at old photos, digital files, newspaper clippings, family and personal diaries, or photo albums.

Sharing cultural memoirs. Develop a form to present your multicultural self and to enable parents to do the same: a photo essay, picture book, scrapbook, poem, or slideshow presentation. In some programs, parents are invited to share their memoirs with other parents and with staff. This activity not only legitimizes the rich cultural contexts of each parent and family, but it also enables staff to learn about a variety of cultural contexts and to respect and trust families and children who are different from them. It also provides a wonderful way for teachers and other caregivers to explore and share their own rich cultural backgrounds.

6.8 Working with Fathers

Historically, early care and education programs have viewed parent communication and involvement as mother communication and involvement; fathers were often ignored. Even when fathers attempted to become involved—or were forced to because they became single parents—they experienced considerable frustrations. Some fathers still report that staff members use them simply as a link to their wives or girlfriends and show a decided preference for communicating with the child’s mother (Cunningham & Dorsey, 2004; Fagan, 1996). A father can be a biological father, foster/adoptive father, a father in a blended family, grandfather in a family where grandparents are raising the children, or any significant male in an extended family.

Like mothers, fathers can be engaged, loving and exhibit effective parenting skills, while others have poor parenting skills and may be too authoritarian (Baumrind, 1971; Wright, 1998). There are a variety of barriers that make it difficult for fathers to become involved in the care and education of their children. One particular challenge is that many early childhood/special education specialists are simply more comfortable communicating with mothers. While many women now work full time, the image of the mother as the child’s caregiver and the primary contact with the early care and education program still persists (Coltrane, 2004; Cunningham & Dorsey, 2004).

Today, there is increased awareness of the importance of father involvement in the lives of children. Married fathers spend more time with their children than they did in the past (Coltrane, 2004), more fathers are becoming primary caregivers while their wives work outside the home, and even with regular jobs outside the home, many fathers are likely to care for their children when their wives work (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Fathers who have good parenting skills and are actively involved with their children help reduce gender stereotypes and foster greater cognitive skills, self-control, and empathy in both preschoolers and adolescents (Coltrane, 2004). School-age children whose fathers participate in program activities are more likely to receive high grades and participate in extracurricular activities (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). Further, children whose fathers are directly involved in their early care and education programs are less likely to be expelled or suspended, or to engage in violent and antisocial behaviors, and are more likely to do better in academic activities (Horn, 1998). When fathers become involved in their children’s early childhood programs, they are also likely to become involved in their school programs.

8.1

Problem Solving

with Adults

Standard 1 of NAEYC’s Early Childhood Program Standards and Accreditation Criteria (2005a) states, “The program promotes positive relationships among all children and adults to encourage each child’s sense of individual worth and belonging as part of a community and to foster each child’s ability to contribute as a responsible community member” (p. 9). The rationale for the standard is that positive relationships and a positive, nurturing, sensitive climate are essential for the development of emotional regulation, constructive interactions, and overall learning in children (NAEYC, 2005a). Children develop a positive sense of self, and they are encouraged to respect and cooperate with others.

However, problems, conflicts, disagreements, and distrust can—and often do—develop. These can occur between the family and the program, between staff within the programs—staff to staff, directors and staff, staff and consultants—and between children in the program. When this occurs, caregivers need to engage in problem solving. While no family or early care and education program is ever totally without conflicts and issues to solve, the goal is, firstly, to create an environment where constructive problem solving can take place and, secondly, to be able to constructively solve problems.

Feelings

Conflicts, confusion, and disagreements can cause intense feelings among those involved. To address conflicts and disagreements, we must try to determine where these feelings come from. In the heat of the moment, this will probably not be possible, but once we have had time to reflect, we need to look at the feelings that disagreements and problems produce.

We all have feelings, and it is very important to accept and appreciate these feelings. We need to reflect on our feelings and on why certain things make us feel a certain way. Feelings are complex, subjective experiences that involve physical and mental aspects of self—they can be felt, expressed, acted on, and thought about (Greenspan & Greenspan, 1985). All feelings have value and are useful—even ones we view as negative. Feelings are how we react to experiences, and they help us organize and make sense of our world. The great works of art, music, drama, and dance are based on feelings—some pleasant, and some dark and tragic.

We learn about feelings from our childhood experiences. When children are young, adults label the child’s emotions: “That bang scared you!” “The dog’s bark upset you!” Part of this socialization process is to help children know how to respond to the environment—for safety, to develop appropriate reactions to the environment, and to teach children culturally appropriate responses to their feelings. Other feelings, such as those of love, trust, fear, excitement, and surprise, are natural responses to the environment that help us feel good about ourselves and the social environment (Rogers, 1980).

Another way we learn about feelings is through social referencing (see Chapter 3). When a child is in a new situation, such as meeting a person for the first time or being exposed to a new animal or bird, that child will look to a caretaker to know how he or she is supposed to respond. If the adult smiles, shakes the stranger’s hand, and says, “This is a good friend of mine,” the child knows he or she can be friendly and relaxed. If the adult says, “Be careful, that dog might bite if you get too close,” and gently pulls the child away from the dog, the child knows to be cautious and aware around big dogs. The child may also learn to become scared of large dogs.

As we have said, social referencing begins in infancy to help the infant understand and respond appropriately to the world. And part of the socialization process is for the child to learn what we call cultural scripts—dictating to children how they are supposed to feel and to convey those feelings in specific situations. These cultural scripts also tell others whether a person is responding in a culturally appropriate fashion, and to which cultural groups an individual belongs.

In this manner, children are taught how to feel in certain situations. As adults, we tend to respond to the physical and social environment in the way we have been taught by parents and other significant adults when we were young, and according to the various scripts of our culture (Hall & Hall, 1976).

Cultural Aspects to Feelings

As the term implies, cultural scripts differ from culture to culture, and adults from different cultures have been raised with the scripts of their cultures. Some cultures affirm expressing one’s feelings—albeit in a socially appropriate manner—and then trying to solve whatever conflict caused those feelings; in other cultures, group coherence and loyalty are more important than expressing individual feelings (Gonzalez-Mena, 2009). In these cultures, while group displays of feelings (anger, frustration, and celebration) are encouraged, individual expressions are not. And in some cultures, public exhibition of feelings is taboo, but sharing feelings with family and friends is appropriate (Raeff, 2010). In still other cultures, a history of racism and persecution often elicits defensiveness, over-protection, and aggressive problem solving, especially when it involves children (Poussaint, 2007). In early care and education programs, men and other non-traditional caregivers may react in a similar fashion (see

Making Caregivers Feel Welcome

).

8.2 Parenting

Style

s

Many conflicts between families and early care and education programs begin with disagreements about discipline (Gonzalez-Mena, 2009; Kostelnik et al., 2009). The different ways parents discipline their children come from how they were raised, the age and generation of the parents, national and regional origin, culture, religion, and so on. These concepts combine to create what we call parenting styles. In the 1960s, Diana Baumrind, a professor at the University of California in Berkeley, studied 100 preschool children of white, middle-class, two-parent families in California. From her research, Baumrind indentified three different parenting styles: authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative (1967, 1971). Later researchers added a fourth style, uninvolved/neglectful parents (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Then Baumrind and other researchers determined the consequences of each parenting style on children’s behaviors, attitudes, and dispositions (Baumrind, 1991; Baldry & Farrington, 2000; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994). The focus on the research was on the mothers’ parenting styles (Winsler, Madigan, & Aquilino, 2005).

Below is a detailed description of each of the four parenting styles. The four parenting styles and their consequences on children’s behavior are summarized in Table 8.1.

SPOTLIGHT:

Making Caregivers Feel Welcome

Many types of caregivers are involved in helping to raise young children today, such as male partners, “adopted” relatives, aunts and uncles or other extended family, foster parents, and stepparents. Here are some ways to include and make these non-traditional caregivers feel welcome in the early care and education program:

Include all caregivers in all aspects of the program, such as notes sent home, invitations to volunteer, or opportunities to work on committees.

Do not create separate rules and policies for men and women or “mothers” and “fathers” who volunteer in the classroom, on the playground, or on field trips.

Train staff on effective ways to communicate with all caregivers.

Make the early care and education program inviting. If possible, have male and female bathrooms, as well as pictures on the walls, magazines in the waiting area, and books on the shelves that are of general interest.

Provide activities for all that include the whole family and present opportunities for them to talk and interact with other caregivers. Solicit ideas regarding the kinds of activities they enjoy and would participate in.

Provide positive, affirmative training that highlights the critical significance of all types of caregivers in the lives of young children, and offer a variety of ways in which they can interact with their children—both boys and girls—in the program. Also, teach appropriate problem-solving techniques they can use with their children’s teacher and other program staff.

If you have non-traditional caregivers in your program, have them lead and organize activities, such as building or repairing the playground, volunteering to show the teachers how to use the workbench, or building puppet stages for each classroom.

Wardle, F. (2007). Men in early childhood: Fathers and teachers. Early Childhood News, 16(4), 34–42.

Authoritarian Parenting Style

Authoritarian parents are parents who believe the parent’s word should not be questioned: It is the law. Their decisions regarding rules and expectations are not open to interpretation or negotiation by their children. Misconduct produces strict punishment, often physical. These parents hold very high standards—sometimes too high for the developmental age of the child—and expect their children to meet these high standards. They do not expect their children to give opinions or express their feelings, and the discussion of emotions by authoritarian parents is rare. Also, they do not adjust expectations to each child’s unique needs, but rather treat each child exactly the same.

Children raised by authoritarian parents are not encouraged to think for themselves or to make their own decisions. Authoritarian parenting has been associated with a child becoming a bully (Baldry & Farrington, 2000). These parents often rely on physical punishment, and thus model aggressive behaviors to solve problems. These children have lower self-esteem and lower psychological maturity, low levels of moral reasoning, and poor academic achievement (Boyes & Allen, 1993; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, & Roberts, 1987). They tend to be conscientious, obedient, and quiet, but they are not in touch with their emotions and often are not happy. In adolescence, they often rebel, leave home early, and may engage in criminal activities (Farrington & Hawkins, 1991).

Table 8.1: Parenting styles and their effect on children’s behaviors and attitudes
Parenting Style	Children’s Behaviors and Attitudes
Authoritarian  Parenting Style	Children are obedient, conscientious, and quiet, but not happy. They  internalize feelings andoften rebel, leaving home early.
Permissive  Parenting Style	Children are unhappy, lack self-control, and are disliked by peers. They tend to  live at home intoearly adulthood.
Uninvolved/Neglectful Parenting  Style	Children are angry and defiant, and score poorly in tests of social, psychological,  and academicoutcomes. They may engage in criminal behavior and drugs in  adolescence.
Authoritative Parenting Style	These children are well adjusted, successful, happy, and liked both by peers  and teachers. Theyare independent, responsible, and take appropriate risks.

Permissive Parenting Style

Permissive parents tend to be very warm and accepting of their children, but they have few expectations and make few demands on them. Discipline is lax, and when expectations are set and punishments determined, children can often talk their way out of them. There is little consistency in applying discipline. Children are encouraged to express their own ideas and opinions, and family decisions are often made in a democratic manner. Though they listen to their children and want to do what they think is best for them, permissive parents rarely monitor their children’s activities. They believe children should be free to make their own decisions, and that adults should not impose their views on them. Permissive parents tend to be more friends to their children than parents.

According to Lamborn, Dornbusch, and Sternberg (1996), children of permissive parents generally have low academic achievement, poor psychosocial development, and high rates of deviant behavior. They tend to be self-centered, and their moral reasoning is immature (Boyes & Allen, 1993). These children also tend to be unhappy and lacking in self-control, especially the give and take required in peer relationships. Because they also have poorly developed emotional regulation, and are accustomed to always getting their own way, children raised by permissive parents have few friends, which is often the main reason they are unhappy (Boyes & Allen, 1993).

Table 8.2: Reflecting on your parenting and teaching style

What was the parenting style of your parents? Did both parents usethe same parenting style?

If you are a parent, what is your parenting style? Is your style thesame as your spouse’s/partner’s?

What is the parenting style you use as a teacher/caregiver?

Is there a conflict? If so, how do you address this conflict?

Authoritative Parenting Style

Authoritative parents combine high levels of control with warmth and encouragement (Baumrind, 1971). They make high demands on their children, but these are appropriate for the child’s age. Authoritative parents also provide reasons for their rules and expectations, and they listen to their child’s point of view, sometimes even adjusting the rules (Heath, 2005). They show respect to each child’s unique characteristics. Authoritative parents are very consistent, and they demand maturity of their children, but they consider themselves more guides than authorities or friends. They are also warm and compassionate, but still believe they are the parents, with specific parental responsibilities that must be exercised.

Children of authoritative parents are generally self-reliant, explorative, and content (Baumrind, 1971). Subsequent research indicates that these children develop better than do children from other parenting styles, results that extend through adolescence. They are more socially skilled, have greater psychological maturity, and experience fewer emotional and behavioral problems (Aunola, Stattin, & Nurmi, 2000; Gray & Steinberg, 1999). Also, these children tend to have higher self-esteem and are usually liked by both peers and adults (Abraham & Christopherson, 1989).

Uninvolved/Neglectful Parenting Style

Uninvolved/neglectful parents lack warmth and provide little, if any, control of their children (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). They do not make rules or have demands for good behavior; they are not emotionally connected to their children. They are disinterested, and may even reject their children. Many parents in this category are consumed with their own problems and challenges.

According to the research, children of uninvolved and neglectful parents have the worst outcomes of any of the four parenting styles, (Miller, Cowan, Cowan, Hetherington, & Clingempeel, 1993). They are angry and defiant and score poorly in psychosocial development, school achievement, psychological stress, and problem solving. In adolescence, they often engage in drug use and criminal activity and tend to have few close friends.

Cultural Variations in Parenting Styles

As these descriptions make clear, Diana Baumrind and later researchers believe that the authoritative parenting style is the best approach for raising children. However, there are significant cultural and national differences that should be considered. Chinese-American, Caribbean-American, and African-American parents tend to use an authoritarian parenting style (Hill & Bush, 2001; Wright, 1998). These parents tend to use punishments—including physical punishment—more than do other parents. On the other hand, Japanese mothers may use reasoning, empathy, and expressions of disappointment to control their children’s behavior. They would be considered permissive parents, according to the four parenting styles. However, their children typically grow up emotionally healthy, and not immature or unhappy, as research would suggest (Rothbaum, Pott, Azuma, Miyake, & Weisz, 2000). And many parents who grew up during the 1960s in America are considered by their children to be permissive parents.

Use of physical punishment to discipline children is against the law in Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Israel, Italy, Norway, and Sweden. Yet in the United States, the Supreme Court has said that teachers and parents can use “reasonable force” to punish children (Bugental & Grusec, 2006), and many parents do, especially those from certain cultural backgrounds (Gonzalez-Mena, 2009; Hill & Bush, 2001; Wright, 1998). Furthermore, some researchers suggest that a person’s parenting style is not the central issue; of more importance is the parent’s warmth, support, concern, affection, and a strong parent-child relationship (McLoyd, Kaplan, Hardaway, & Wood, 2007; Rothbaum et al., 2000).

However, we also know that other contextual factors beyond the family have a profound impact on parenting (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Research indicates that poverty, single-parent families, and authoritarian discipline styles are all factors that increase the risk of child abuse in young children (Bugental & Happeney, 2004).

Parenting styles have a strong influence on problem solving. First, as we have suggested, certain parenting styles encourage and empower children to think for themselves, make their own decisions, and live with the consequences of their decisions. These parents want their children to take risks, and they understand that a result of taking risks can be mistakes. Parents who use other parenting styles often do not encourage their children to think for themselves and make their own decisions, and some may even punish their children when they make mistakes.

An early childhood program that serves children from families who use these opposing parenting styles will struggle to help children make decisions and problem solve in the classroom and on the playground. Additionally, parents with one kind of parenting style who have their children in an early care or education program that practices a different style will eventually have conflict with that program. For example, in NAEYC’s accreditation standards, teachers and caregivers cannot use punitive punishment, threats, or derogatory statements (NAEYC, 2005a). Along the same lines, a permissive parent may object to a highly structured program with high academic expectations. Also, as we have pointed out throughout the book, teachers are products of their own childhood experiences and cultures. A teacher raised with an authoritarian parenting style may clash with parents raising their children with another parenting style.

Temperament and Parenting Styles

Children are born with different temperaments, and these temperaments have a direct impact on the adults who care for the children. In the 1960s, Thomas and Chess (1986) conducted what came to be called the New York Longitudinal Study. According to the study, infants as young as 4 months old exhibited a variety of temperamental traits that can be categorized into four groups. The easy child displays regular biological functions (e.g., going to sleep and eating regularly), adapts well to new situations, and exhibits a mild to moderate intensity when reacting to change. Easy children are generally in a positive mood, and adults enjoy being around them. The difficult child displays irregular biological functioning (e.g., is very difficult to get to sleep at night and eats at different times of the day), and exhibits negative and often intense responses to new situations and to any kind of change. In general, a child with this temperament is often in a negative mood, and adults try to avoid contact with such a child. Finally, the slow-to-warm child is somewhat irregular in biological functions, exhibits a negative response to new stimuli, and adapts slowly to change. The child’s mood is initially negative, but improves to a more positive one if given enough time to do so. In common language, we tend to call a child with this temperament “shy.” The fourth group encompasses children whose temperament does not fit into any one of the other groups.

We know that a child’s temperament affects the way a parent or caregiver responds to the child. Difficult children require lots of patience, persistence, and care from very warm, secure adults who are not under stress and who have time and energy to give to the child. Parents who lack these critical attributes are more likely to engage in authoritarian parenting styles with difficult children. We call this response reciprocal determinism (see also reciprocal interaction, Chapter 3). In other words, a child’s temperament can have a profound impact on the parenting style used by a parent. For example, a child who is slow to warm clearly needs adult responses and behaviors that are very different from those of children who are impulsive, energetic, and usually happy. And, as we have discussed in several chapters, children who have a developmental disability, are gifted and talented, or are twice exceptional will also require different parenting styles.

8.3 Working with Families to Problem Solve

Through interactions with adults, young children learn who they are, about the world around them, and how much their behaviors and feelings can be influenced by adults. The two institutions that have the most direct impact on the young child’s development and learning are the family and the early care or education program. These institutions are led by significant adults in children’s lives who have roles that require them to adjust their emotions and behaviors to meet the needs of each child, and to develop long-term, responsive, trusting relationships with them (Baker & Manfredi/Petitt, 2004; NAEYC, 2005a). These adults support children’s learning, model appropriate behaviors, and socialize them into the mores and norms of society. We have already explored the critical importance of positive and productive family-early care and education program relationships. One reason for this focus is that, according to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, the more quality relationships that exist between significant components within the microsystem—in this case, the family and the early care and education program—the more the child benefits (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). The relationship between the child’s parent (or other caregiver) and the program’s staff—particularly the teacher or caregiver—is the main place where this connection occurs.

Positive Relationships Between Families and the Program

Standard 7 of the NAEYC’s Early Childhood Program Standards & Accreditation Criteria (2005) states “The program establishes and maintains collaborative relationships with each child’s family to foster children’s development in all settings. These relationships are sensitive to family composition, language, and culture” (p. 11). The rationale for this standard includes the fact that young children’s development and learning are directly connected to their families. Thus, to support young children’s optimal development and learning, programs need to understand the significant role of the family, create relationships with families based on trust and respect, support the involvement of families in the education and development of their children, and find ways to include parents in the program (2005).

A solid, respectful, reciprocal, trusting relationship between the parent and teacher or main caregiver produces a variety of positive results for children, parents, caregivers, and teachers (Baker & Manfredi/Petitt, 2004; NAEYC, 2005a) in the following ways:

Teachers and caregivers are more likely to enjoy the child’s progress, remember to share details with parents about their children, and remain connected to the family even after the child has moved on. This relationship enables the teacher or caregiver to develop a solid attachment to the child. When there is not a close, respectful relationship, caregivers often feel uncomfortable and uneasy about becoming too close to the child.

Strong relationships between families and caregivers increase communication between the family and the program. This is critical in providing seamless care, which enables conflicts and disagreements to be solved in a win-win manner. Young children often get very confused when the program and home have conflicting rules and expectations. As a result, the child expresses mixed emotions of anger, aggression, sadness, and withdrawal. Thus, parents and caregivers must address conflicts and confusion.

Quality parent-teacher relationships have a direct impact on the stability of care-giving arrangements. For many teachers and caregivers, a positive, reciprocal, trusting relationship with parents is one of the reasons they teach—it is a hidden benefit. When teachers are appreciated by parents, they feel a positive sense of self-worth. Given the high turnover rate among early care and education staff, this is a very positive outcome.

Parents feel more settled and relaxed. Most parents are very concerned with the care and welfare of their children—they want to leave their children with people they can trust. When there is a trusting relationship, inevitable confusion and conflict are more easily and quickly resolved. Natural, informal, warm interactions help with these relationships. Parents need to feel welcome in the center; they need to be warmly greeted and feel the center is a warm and caring place—for them and their children.

Solving problems, conflicts, and differences becomes an ongoing part of the parent-teacher relationship. When the adults learn to trust and to tolerate each other, the result is reciprocal: Teachers see parents as important resources, and families feel more friendly and respectful toward teachers and caregivers because they themselves are respected.

Causes of Conflict

In Chapter 5, we discussed a variety of things that cause conflicts between families and early care and education programs, and suggested a variety of techniques to solve these conflicts, including dialoguing and the use of the RERUN process (Gonzalez-Mena, 2009). Keyser (2006) calls conflicts between families and programs mutual conflicts, because they take full communication, participation, and negotiation on the part of parents (or other family members) and teachers or caregivers (and maybe even a program director) to solve. According to Keyser, examples of such conflicts are the following:

A parent wants a child to stay inside all day, while the program has a philosophy that children should be outside for a significant part of each day.

The program expects families to bring extra clothes to keep in the children’s cubbies, and some families continually forget.

Certain parents are continually late picking up their children from the program.

A parent dislikes the way a child is disciplined by his teacher.

The program has a policy to exclude sick children so that they will not infect the healthy children, but parents need child care for when their children are sick.

Some parents request that their boys should not be permitted to play in the dress up area and should not be allowed to wear women’s hats, shoes, and clothes to dress up.

Some parents complain that their children continually come home with paint on their clothes and sand in their hair, and ask that their children not be allowed to paint or play in the sandbox.

The program has a fundraiser selling cakes and cookies, and several parents object, because this violates their families’ nutritional practices.

A father of a child of black and white ethnicity is upset because the teacher in his child’s classroom has told the child she is black, and must identify as black, while the family is raising the child with a multiracial identity.

Generally, causes for these conflicts fall under one of four areas: (1) conflicting family and program needs, (2) differing views of teaching and child development, (3) poor communication, and (4) cultural differences.

Keyser (2006) suggests an approach to these conflicts, presented here from either the teacher’s or director’s viewpoint: (1) listen and ask open-ended questions; (2) restate and reframe the parent’s ideas; (3) find common ground; (4) state your position, ideas, and feelings; (5) give information as appropriate; (6) give the parent an opportunity to respond; (7) outline the conflict as comprising equally valid viewpoints; (8) invite, discuss, and choose possible solutions; and (9) thank the parent and set up a time to check back in.

Quality Indicators

According to Baker and Manfredi/Petitt, (2004), early care and education programs can help develop and maintain positive relationships and proactive problem-solving practices with families by asking the following questions:

Do families see the importance of their relationship with the child’s caregiver or teacher?

Do families appreciate the child’s caregiver or teacher, and do they know how to express this appreciation: thank yous, offers to help, notes, or flowers?

Is anyone talking to families about the importance of creating a close connection with their child’s caregiver that is strong enough to sustain them through conflict?

Are parents encouraged to work to overcome differences with their child’s teacher or caregiver, especially when the child and teacher have bonded?

Is family participation a shared value and goal among center staff, and what is being done to increase family-center partnerships?

Are families and staff members sharing life and joy with one another?

Is relationship and community building a center-wide goal?

8.4 Effective Relationships Between Program Staff

The climate of an early care and education program not only establishes the atmosphere for how staff members work together, but also dramatically affects staff-parent relationships and the quality of care and education the children receive (Baker & Manfredi/Petitt, 2004; NAEYC, 2005a). However, a caring community does not just happen—it has to be created and nurtured. A caring community is a place where caring adults—parents, teachers, caregivers, and directors—interact as partners and friends. It is based less on rules and regulations, roles and job descriptions, organizational plans, and a hierarchy of authority, and more on developing and maintaining positive relationships between staff, the director, and parents, or relationship-based organizations. Healthy relationships between administrators, teachers and caregivers, and consultants used by programs are important in establishing a caring, inclusive community in which children can develop and learning is maximized (NAEYC, 2005a, 2005b). When staff members in early care and education programs enjoy respectful relationships with each other, they are more likely to be responsive and emotionally engaged with the children in their care and with the children’s families.

Staff members who share the joys and challenges of the children openly with colleagues become more aware of the individual needs of the children and are more apt to remain calm and positive under the typical stress of caring for children. Teachers, caregivers, and administrators who work well together share the workload and make sure the needs of each child are met. In this positive climate, children feel secure, safe, and like they belong. The classroom should be a place where children feel free to play, explore, and learn (Baker & Manfredi/Petitt, 2004; NAEYC, 2005a, 2005b).

Children learn from role models: caring, cooperative, respectful relationships between staff members model teamwork, problem solving, respect, and collegiality. When children see adults who are warm, predictable, flexible, and responsive to the unique needs of parents and colleagues, they can be warm and responsive to each other. When adults’ relationships are positive, they set a moral tone that teaches children about responsibility, integrity, and respect. Children learn what they live; they follow the lead of important adults in their world (NAEYC, 2005a, 2005b).

Teachers and caregivers also benefit when they have positive and collegial relationships with peers. They look forward to coming to work; they openly work together to meet the challenging needs of the child and resolve important issues with parents (Blair & Carter, 2012). Teachers and caregivers learn to trust each other and to know how the other functions. They work together as a team. However, teamwork is a delicate balance that cannot be forced. Contrived congeniality will backfire. A sense of community can be nurtured by focusing on the emotional and social needs of people who work together. Directors must structure opportunities for teachers and caregivers to work together on projects, share resources, and solve problems (Blair & Carter, 2012; Bloom, 1997).

CASE STUDY:

Problem Solving

A 4-year-old boy who has been in the program since he was 1 year old has been diagnosed with ADHD and a learning disability. Child Find has recommended to the parent and program that he be placed in a public school preschool that serves children with developmental delays in an inclusive setting. The director is convinced that this is the best solution to meet all the needs of the child; the boy’s mother wants him to stay in the center.

Listen and ask open-ended questions. The parent expresses that her son likes his teacher and that he is good friends with many of the other children in his class, who he often sees at activities outside of the program (such as birthday parties). She does not want him to be removed, and feels the program can meet his needs. She is very upset about the possibility of having him taken out of the program.

Restate and reframe the parent’s ideas. The parent wants the child to stay in the program because he knows the teacher and has many friends. She also believes his needs can be met in the program.

Find common ground. Both the director and the parent want to do what is best to meet the child’s overall needs: social, emotional, behavioral, and academic.

State your position, ideas, and feelings. The director states that she believes the child’s needs can be better met in a public school classroom that is designed to address the needs of a child with developmental delays. Further, she believes that his behavior and academic struggles will take too much of the teacher’s time and attention, and will disrupt the learning opportunities of the other children. She also feels the teacher is not trained to work with a child with developmental delays.

Give information as appropriate. The director tells the mother that people who work for Child Find are experts, and they believe the new program will be best for him. Once the child is in the program, transition to the public school kindergarten program will be smooth, which is very important for a child with developmental delays. Also, the public school has access to needed community resources.

Give the parent an opportunity to respond. The mother states that she is aware of these advantages, but she still wants her son to attend this program. Further, she is not sure that the local kindergarten is the best place for her child, so she will be doing her own research on different kindergarten options.

Outline the conflict as comprising equally valid viewpoints. The viewpoint of the director is that the child should move to the local public preschool, because this will best meet his unique needs. The parent’s viewpoint is that the child should stay in the existing program, because he knows the teacher and has many friends. She also believes his other needs can be met at the current school.

Invite, discuss, and choose possible solutions. The parent knows a professor at the local college who can come to the program and provide in-service training to the staff on ways to work with children with developmental delays. She also has a friend who can provide training on the unique needs of boys. The director agrees that she will talk to the local school contact to find out what services the school can provide the boy within the program; she is also going to call the state department of special education to determine what responsibility the school district has.

Thank the parent and set up a time to check back in. The parent will call the director to set up the two trainings; the director will meet again with the parent in 4 weeks to assess how well things are going.

Wardle, F. (2004). Why art activities are an essential part of the curriculum. Children and Families, 15(1), p. 24. National Head Start Association.

The Director Sets the Tone for Problem Solving

The director sets the climate for problem solving within a program. Director-staff interactions create a prototype for all other relationships and set the foundation for quality care and education (Baker & Manfredi/Petitt, 2004). A caring, relationship-based community is created and nurtured by the director. Directors who value community know the way they lead on a daily basis is as important as what they achieve. A director who values relationships, openness, and a willingness to listen and has empathy, compassion, honesty, and strong professional ethics provides leadership that encourages collaboration and problem solving among staff (Blair & Carter, 2012). The director models respect and concern for his or her staff and continually values an open atmosphere. The director encourages everyone to work together to explore solutions to challenges in the program and develops trusting, reciprocal relationships with staff. This approach allows for mutual support and problem solving—everyone is in it together, as part of a constructive team (Blair & Carter, 2012; Bloom, 1997). Of course, feelings do come out, and problems do arise. But, when everyone at the program is dedicated to cooperation and community building, problems are more manageable and easier to address.

The effective director finds a way to balance a need to support the staff with an ability to listen compassionately to parents’ concerns. Relationship-based directors have learned to listen to parents and to take them seriously, without discounting staff. Staff members trust that when addressing parent concerns, the director will come to them for additional information and carefully consider their perspective. Also, an effective leader understands that a relationship-based community is not about playing personal favorites or meeting his or her own personal needs, but rather about creating open, honest relationships and open channels of communication (Blair & Carter, 2012). In this way, the director knows staff will help out if needed, and staff members know they can go to the director if they feel overwhelmed, frustrated, or confused.

Effective directors use the following techniques:

Act as mentors for staff, provide resources, demonstrate best practices, and provide new perspectives to challenges and concerns.

Allow their office to become a refuge for stressed-out teachers and caregivers. It is also open for staff members to receive reassurance or to sound off over their frustrations.

Maintain consistency and fairness, and do not play favorites. While all staff members have unique personalities that must be treated individually, they also expect—and need—to be treated fairly.

Provide help, support, and nurturing when a staff member feels overwhelmed. Staff should not feel embarrassed to ask directors for help and support; directors and supervisors should be proactive in providing the assistance staff members need.

Provide ongoing appreciation and pass on compliments from parents and other staff. Effective leaders do not take credit away from staff; they give credit to the team or individual staff members. Leaders continually find ways to give credit and praise to their staff.

Provide opportunities for staff to work together as a team, offering choices in areas such as professional development, leadership opportunities, and meaningful projects (Blair & Carter, 2012).

Always support the staff and advocate for staff needs (e.g., training, classroom materials, better pay, and benefits) when working with boards, community agencies, professional associations, and political groups.

Positive relationships between staff and administration begin when a staff person is hired. The orientation to the program and its philosophy, discussions of program policies and procedures, and expressions of respect and warmth are all critical. Once a new staff person is hired, ongoing communication between the person and the supervisor is paramount. However, this communication cannot simply be about things the person is doing wrong or areas where he or she needs help; it must also include compliments as well as typical social expressions of acknowledgement and appreciation.

Maybe the most important role for the director/administrator when it comes to director-staff relationships is to represent the needs of the staff fairly in working with parents, outside organizations, and funding sources (Blair & Carter, 2012). It does not mean that the director should automatically support the view of the staff, but it does mean that staff members know their needs and wants are positively represented when critical decisions are being made (NAEYC, 2005a, 2005b).

Making Decisions within the Program

Many decisions must be made each day within an early care and education program. Some are routine, non-emotional, and simply pragmatic; others are fraught with feelings, emotions, and threats to an individual’s sense of personal value and importance. The following are a few ideas to enhance healthy problem solving within an early care and education program (Baker & Manfredi/Petitt, 2004; NAEYC, 2005a):

Center policies. All programs have policies—rules the program lives by. Many of these have to do with following licensing requirements, meeting regulations of the sponsoring agency (e.g., Head Start, the local school district, a child-care chain), and rules of discipline and supervision. But some have to do with the rights, authority, and feelings of importance of teachers, caregivers, and other staff members (Blair & Carter, 2012). Two significant areas are (1) whether teachers have the opportunity for direct input into the program’s policies and procedures on a regular basis, and (2) whether existing policies encourage teachers’ input. For example, when changes are made to the curriculum, daily schedule, discipline policy, or parent involvement programs, is there a sincere effort to solicit teacher input? Also, do policies encourage staff to resolve issues between themselves before going to the director for help?

Individual initiative. What steps can individual staff members take to increase positive and supportive relationships between each other, and to increase a sense of teamwork and collegiality? Does the program have opportunities for staff to enjoy each other’s company and work on program-related projects together? Does the center have formal ways to acknowledge individual staff members who do things to create healthy relationships within the program?

Indicators of quality. National standards of quality include adult relationships as indicators of quality in early care and education programs (Baker & Manfredi/Petitt, 2004; NAEYC, 2005a) (see Chapter 10 for specific program quality indicators). Some of these indicators include the nature of parent-staff relationships, discussed earlier in this chapter. Questions to be addressed include (1) whether there are built-in opportunities for staff to talk to each other and to consult with the director, (2) whether the program has access to outside experts to support the efforts of staff with children who have unique needs (non-English speakers, special needs, gifted and talented), (3) whether staff members have direct input into the kinds of training provided and staff meeting content, and (4) whether the program has professional relationships with community agencies (e.g., local schools, Child Find, community health centers) that acknowledge the program staff members as equal experts in their field.

In Bronfenbrenner’s ecological view of child development and learning, staff members who work with children on a daily basis need to feel competent, empowered, and significant (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1994). Various quality standards also address this important need. Staff members should be provided with multiple opportunities to help improve the quality of the program, especially in the areas of meeting student needs and working with parents.

Staff members who are not listened to and are not consulted regarding changes in the program will be less inclined to make efforts to problem solve when difficult issues arise (Blair & Carter, 2012).

When a staff member has an idea for a major change, addition, or enhancement—a new curriculum for the 2-year-olds, a diversity training for staff, a new before-and-after school program for some of the children—he or she should be empowered to take the lead in exploring the idea’s feasibility and practicality. The suggestion should not be simply transferred to someone with more authority.

One of the most effective ways to empower staff is to change a strict, hierarchical power relationship into a circle of shared power (see Think About It: How to Empower Staff). Many directors begin this process by including staff in changes and decisions. The director may use small groups of staff during naptime or after school to explore classroom changes or address successful problem-solving strategies. Others invite staff to come together and talk about relationships and power, while still other directors find that a collective process of creating a shared mission statement allows all to express their dreams, values, and goals for the program (Blair & Carter, 2012).

Improving Program Quality

Accreditation processes, rating scales, and reviews are designed to increase the overall quality of early care and education programs. These evaluations can be conducted by an outside consultant or agency, internally within the center, or, as Head Start requires, using both procedures (U.S. HHS, 1999). The instruments used for quality reviews and accreditation include the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale (ECERS-R) (Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 2005), the Infant Toddler Environmental Rating Scale (ITERS-R) (Harms, Cryer, & Clifford, 2006), Head Start Performance Standards (U.S. HHS, 1999), and NAEYC and other formal program accreditation instruments (NAEYC, 2005a). All of these scales include components that address the program climate, staff-staff interactions, and program-family relationships.

When the evaluation is a true program-wide effort, everyone feels empowered to have a direct impact on improving program quality. Head Start programs engage in a self-evaluation every three years, ahead of a formal PRISM review; other programs participate in a self-study before the formal agency team conducts its formal review.

8.5 Children and Problem Solving

So far in this chapter, we have examined important aspects of problem solving between adults: among parents and early care and education staff, and within the early care and education program. We emphasized how effective and healthy problem solving between programs and families, and within a program, can have a positive effect on the development and learning of young children in a truly ecological manner (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; NAEYC, 2005a, 2005b). But we pointed out that the ability to address conflicts and problem solve effectively begins in childhood. As suggested by Siegler and Alibali (2005), problem solving is a central part of all of our lives and provides many of the purposes for other cognitive activities, such as perception, attention, language, memory, and understanding. Problem-solving skills also help people adapt to challenging circumstances and learn to function effectively with others—both other children and adults. Because children lack experience and knowledge about how to respond to typical daily challenges, they probably engage in more problem solving than do adults (Siegler & Alibali, 2005).

We defined problem solving earlier as the ability to work out a solution to a problem or situation, either individually or with someone else. This means that the individual may have a problem to address (e.g., how to put on his shoes or find a book), or two or more people have a conflict that must be addressed. Children at this age are learning how to make decisions and problem solve, and how to use these skills effectively. To this end, a central goal of early childhood education is to teach young children how to resolve conflicts and solve problems (NAEYC, 2005a).

The role of the teacher, caregiver, and parent is to support this process. Problem solving with young children involves the same processes they use to solve individual problems and conflict with others. The more effective adults involved in the child’s life are at solving problems, the better able the child will be to learn problem solving.

According to Siegler and Alibali (2005), problem solving can be reduced to three components: a goal (problem to be solved), an obstacle to achieving that goal, and a strategy or strategies to circumvent the obstacle to achieve the goal. However, young children use a kind of trial-and-error tinkering approach to achieve their goals—combining reasoning, understanding, strategies, content knowledge, other people, experiences, and any other available resources to solve their problem.

Feelings

We must address the issue of feelings before turning to a child’s reasoning. As with adults, feelings and emotions play a significant role in the problem solving of young children. Problems cause feelings and emotions, and feelings and emotions are triggered by internal or external events that send signals to the brain (Kostelnik et al., 2009). As a result of these signals, children respond physically to their feelings: their heartbeats increase, their skin may sweat, and so on. These physical changes are often accompanied by smiling, frowning, and language (see the positive affect of play, in Johnson, Christie, & Wardle, 2005). At the same time, children begin to interpret the reasons for their emotions, which are based on natural responses to a stimulus (e.g., pain or fear), past experiences, goals, and current contexts (Lewis, 1999). In each case, the child decides how he or she feels.

At their foundational level, emotions help children survive; also, children will often change behaviors to adjust their feelings—to feel good or secure (Frijda, 2006). Thus, a child will avoid a problem that makes him or her feel like a failure or avoid a child in the playground who usually bullies others. As we know, many of the problem-solving challenges for young children are social. They squabble over toys, compete for adult attention, imitate the behavior of the popular child, and wonder why their mother has not picked them up from day care. All of these are problems that cause extreme feelings or emotional responses. One of the reasons young children’s emotional responses are extreme is that they have not yet developed emotional regulation.

Adults use social referencing to calm children’s fears, warn them against certain strangers, and encourage them to risk and experiment. As we explained earlier, social referencing occurs when young children look to a significant adult to learn the appropriate response to a new situation. They respond according to the adult’s response. Unfortunately, an adult’s subconscious fears and prejudices can also affect children’s behaviors through social referencing (Bandura, 1986).

From a problem-solving perspective, it is important to help children (1) understand the reasons for their emotional response (e.g., why they fear a conflict with a certain child) and (2) make the activity of problem solving a fulfilling, positive experience. Feelings also provide the energy and motivation to do something—to solve the problem. Because preoperational children are so curious about the world and how it works, but lack basic knowledge and experience, they are continually faced with problems that confuse, anger, frustrate, and challenge them. This can produce intense feelings (See Helping Children Develop: Dealing With Anger). Children need to learn how to solve the problem to reduce their intense feelings. This is where parents, teachers, and caregivers need to support the problem-solving process.

HELPING CHILDREN DEVELOP:

Dealing with Anger

Here are some ways to help children express their feelings without hurting others or themselves (Gonzalez-Mena, 2009):

Accept and label the feeling. “I see how upset you are.” “It really makes you mad when he takes your truck, doesn’t it?”

Redirect the energy and help the child to get it out. “Why don’t you go play outside and see if you are still mad?” “Maybe it will help if you paint a picture about how you feel?”

Calm the energy: Soothe the chaos. “I see how upset you are. Would you like to play with the play dough to calm down?” “Would you like me to read your favorite book to you?” For many children, playing with clay or water is a favorite way to deal with anger, frustration, and confusion.

Avoid rewarding children for anger. Be careful not to reward anger by overreacting (we discussed this problem in Chapter 7). Reinforcement increases a behavior—in this case, the anger.

Teach problem solving. Children need to learn to solve the problems that produce the anger, through give-and-take and negotiations—with other children and adults.

Young Children and Reasoning

To help children problem solve, parents, teachers, and caregivers need to understand how children behave and process information (Berk & Winsler, 1995). One of the best ways to teach young children is through scaffolding (Chapter 3). In scaffolding, a central concept is the zone of proximal development, which is a Vygotskian term for teaching the child within the dynamic region where learning and development takes place. It is a zone between what a child can do independently and what the child can do with expert assistance. This zone is determined by the child’s overall development and experience. Therefore, we should teach problem solving at each child’s developmental level. The processes adults use to problem solve are very different from those used by young children, because of adults’ emotional regulation, cognitive ability, experience, and reasoning skills (Kostelnik et al., 2009; Siegler & Alibali, 2005). Two theorists we have already discussed who can help in this process are Erikson (1963, 1981) and Piaget (1952, 1971).

The first three of Erikson’s psychosocial stages, trust versus mistrust, autonomy versus shame and doubt, and initiative versus guilt, must be considered when helping young children problem solve. For example, for young infants, the need for trust dominates their decisions. For 2-year-olds, a need for autonomy drives many of their emotions. In Piaget’s cognitive theory, the first stage, 0 to 2 years old, is known as the sensorimotor stage; the second stage, 2 to 7 years old, is the preoperational stage (see Chapter 3). In the sensorimotor stage, children cannot reason beyond simply finding the most direct way to meet basic needs for food, comfort, and sleep, using sensorimotor combinations to try to make sense of their small world (Piaget, 1952). However, the preoperational child can reason—and does a great deal!

However, preoperational reasoning is faulty. In fact, while preoperational children can tell you why they did something, or why they do not want to do something, the reasoning they use makes little sense from an adult’s perspective. For example, consider the following logic of a 4-year-old: “If it doesn’t break when I drop it, it’s a rock. . . . It didn’t break. It must be a rock” (Scholnick & Wing, 1995, p. 432).

The reasoning of a preoperational child makes little sense because preschool children lack experience about the world and how it works. Another reason preschool children do not think logically is due to what Piaget called egocentrism—seeing everything from the child’s perspective. Preoperational children believe the world is centered on them and their needs. Thus, when a problem arises, the logic is to see the solution from the child’s point of view (Piaget, 1952). Preoperational children also think by using general centrism, which is viewing all problems from a single perspective—although this single perspective can change. If you ask a 4-year-old to go to the kitchen and bring back the milk and the cookies, chances are she will return only with the cookies. However, mature problem solving requires a person to be able to entertain several possible solutions to the problem at the same time; young children cannot do this, which is why most adults think that they are very poor problem solvers.

Finally, preoperational children focus on the appearance of things—what they look like. If you give a 5-year-old the choice between a dime and a nickel, he probably will choose the nickel, because it is bigger and therefore appears to the child to be more. This is one of the reasons toys for young children are so bright, shiny, and attractive (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009).

Encouraging Problem Solving in Children

Parents, teachers, and caregivers should encourage problem solving in young children because, in so doing, children also develop many cognitive and social processes, such as attention, perception, language, memory, understanding, and learning to play prosocially with other children (Siegler & Alibali, 2005). Additionally, the art of problem solving provides an asset for children, both in future schoolwork and in life. Thus, parents, teachers, and other caregivers of young children should support, encourage, and reward problem solving in young children.

In our discussion of moral reasoning (Chapter 7), we explored how children develop from a sense of morality determined by external forces (to please the adult, to avoid punishment, to make friends) to an internalized sense of morality (Lickona, 1983; Kohlberg, 1987). By the same token, according to Kamii and DeClark (1985), children develop from believing that knowledge and truth are defined by what adults do and say, to “being governed by oneself and making decisions for oneself” (p. 45), or intellectual autonomy. Intellectual autonomy is the opposite of following someone else’s view and doing things simply because someone told you to.

When it comes to the reasoning of preschool children, intellectual autonomy is the child using his or her own logic when trying to solve a problem, as opposed to simply regurgitating the adult’s view or providing the answer the adult wants. According to Kamii and DeClark (1985), the goal of education should be autonomy—children’s own internalized approaches to collecting information and solving problems. However, because children’s logic at this age tends to be very faulty, significant adults need to scaffold their problem solving carefully and sensitively. Thus, to help children develop intellectual autonomy, teachers, caregivers, and parents should support children’s own logical thinking, as opposed to insisting they adopt adult logic and correct ideas. Ways to do this include the following:

Encourage children to ask questions and affirm their doing so without becoming frustrated or annoyed. When children do ask questions, rather than answering them, help children problem solve the answer, but do not fixate on whether the answer is correct or not; focus on the process.

Support the conflict and dissonance that occurs when children problem solve, or when they attempt to problem solve with other children or adults. Let children know that through conflict, persistence, and tenacity comes resolution.

Avoid using assessments that focus on children’s ability to memorize answers to evaluate children’s progress. Rather, use authentic forms of assessment that can evaluate their overall development and learning, including their ability to problem solve.

In group activities, such as circle time and reading a book to the class, teachers should focus on asking children problem-solving questions, rather than simply questions that require children to recall something from the book or from their personal experiences. When children come up with answers, ask them how they determined their answer (regardless of whether it is correct).

Deeply understand (1) that young children problem solve differently than do adults, and (2) that the answers they come up with will probably be incorrect from an adult perspective. Do not correct the child’s reasoning and logic (Kamii & DeClark, 1985).

Model your own problem solving in front of children. Talk out loud about the steps you are taking to solve the problem. Express your frustrations and confusions in trying to resolve problems, but then show how these can be resolved. Show children that the process can be enjoyable and fulfilling: the challenge of defining the problem, the enterprise of finding the resources needed, and the exhilaration of solving the problem. Congratulate children’s persistence in problem solving, even when the result is incorrect, at least from the adult’s perspective (Siegler & Alibali, 2005). When two children struggle to resolve a conflict, congratulate them both on the willingness to solve it and the solution they come up with.

Help children use resources to solve problems, from books and the Internet, to other children and adults, both in the program and in the community. Also, help children determine what they know and what they wish to find out about a problem or phenomenon (Rodrigues, 2010).

Understand that problems exist everywhere: “How can we make the yellow paint brighter?” “How can I clean the sink?” “Why won’t Johnny play with me?” “How can we all clean up the playground?” “How do I write my name?”

When teachers model problem solving to young children and support the child’s sincere and genuine efforts at problem solving, parents and other caregivers will see the inherent value in problem solving and in helping children in this critically important social, cognitive, and emotional task.

Use of the RERUN Process with Children

In Chapter 5, we discussed in detail the use of the RERUN process in solving problems between families and adults in the early care and education programs (Gonzalez-Mena, 2009). As you may recall, the process includes Reflect, Explain, Reason, Understand, and Negotiate. Here is an example of how the process could be used with a 4-year-old boy who keeps knocking down constructions other children make in the block area. Before starting the process, the teacher, caregiver or parent should be sure he or she is clear about the problem and knows exactly what outcome is desired.

Reflect. This is the feeling piece. Let the child know that you understand and accept that he is angry and upset. Say something like, “I understand you are upset. I realize you are doing this because something is bothering you. I see how unhappy you are that I have removed you from the block area.”

Explain. Help the child understand the situation. “I cannot let you destroy what the other children have made.”

Reason. Give the reason for your action. “I removed you because it’s not fair to the other children to have their constructions destroyed. They have a right to play and build with the blocks, without you destroying them.”

Understand. Tune into the feelings, both yours and the child’s. Be clear about your own feelings and those of the child. Nothing needs to be said to the child, but your own self-talk might be needed. Why are you upset? What is setting off the child? Is it just the other children in the block areas? Did the child come to school upset? Are some of the children upsetting him—maybe saying he cannot play with them, or telling him his constructions are not as nice as theirs?

Negotiate. Because the child can talk and reason, discuss the problem with him. Provide options that both you and the child can live with. Maybe he can play in the block area during the next rotation of center; maybe he believes that so long as he stays away from one particular child, things will not be a problem. Perhaps, after some discussion, he will choose another center to play in. Make sure you provide the flexibility for his choice to be an acceptable option, and do not insist that he work out his problem with the other children. For a young child who cannot speak and reason, provide two acceptable choices, and let the child choose which he prefers (Lickona, 1983). Focus on finding a win-win solution, not on punishing the child for his inappropriate behavior, regardless of how upset you are with the child.

During the entire RERUN process, try to keep words to a minimum. Young children get confused with too much information, especially when they are upset. The negotiation part is the only area where many words are needed, but here, too, options and choices need to be kept simple. Sometimes RERUN does not work immediately, so the teacher or parent needs to return to the beginning and repeat the process (Gonzalez-Mena, 2009).

Reference

Wardle, F.  (2013).  

Collaboration with families and communities

 [Electronic version]. Retrieved from

https://content.ashford.edu/

7.3 Approaches to the Guidance and Discipline of Young Children

It is important to remember that the goal of discipline and guidance is to help children internalize important rules and societal expectations. If the discipline or guidance approach a caregiver uses is consistent with Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development, success will be higher, and the caregiver will be less frustrated. Further, when all parties involved in disciplining a child are consistent, the results will be more effective. These various approaches are summarized in Table 7.1. An important category of learning is behaviorism, which is an observable change of behavior caused by the environment (Ormrod, 2008). Behaviorism can be roughly divided into two overall categories: rewards (known as positive and negative reinforcement) and punishments. (The exception to this rule is the social cognitive approach [modeling], which is both behavioral and cognitive.)

Rewards/Reinforcements

A reward, or positive reinforcement, is the consequence of a child’s behaviors that increases the probability of it recurring (Marzano, 2003). Rewards can be a smile or a positive personal message, such as “I love how you put the books back on the shelf.” Rewards can also be in the form of external privileges, such as the use of the computer after the child has finished an assignment. Rewards include things like money, toys, candy, dessert (after eating a main meal), tokens, and stickers.

Reinforcing agents, or reinforcers, can be primary reinforcers or secondary reinforcers. Primary reinforcers satisfy a built-in need or desire, such as food, water, air, or warmth, and are essential to our well-being. Other primary reinforcers, such as candy, are not essential, but physical affection, a smile, and cuddling would seem to be (Ormrod, 2008). There are individual differences regarding the effectiveness of these rewards. For example, for someone who does not like chocolate, chocolate is not a reinforcer. Secondary reinforcers are previously neutral stimuli that, through repeated association with another reinforcer, have become a reinforcer. A neutral stimulus is a stimulus that a person does not respond to in any noticeable way. For example, initially ringing a small bell in the classroom causes no response from the children; however, after the bell is continually followed by a snack, the bell will produce a marked response. Other examples of secondary reinforcers are praise, tokens, money, good grades, and a feeling of success.

Extrinsic Reinforcement

Positive reinforcers are rewards that increase a person’s behavior, such as a smile from the teacher after a child has helped another child solve a problem, or the feeling of satisfaction when one has completed a difficult task. They are arranged into two different categories: extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic reinforcements are rewards provided by the outside environment.

Material reinforcers. These are actual objects, such as food, toys, or candy. While this approach is extremely effective in changing behavior, it can be counterproductive, as it focuses the child’s learning on achieving the reward, rather than on the complexities and strategies required to learn.

Social reinforcers

. Social reinforcers are gestures or signs (a smile, praise, or attention) that one person gives to another. Teachers’ attention, approval, and praise are powerful and effective reinforcers (McKerchar & Thompson, 2004).

Activity reinforcers. This is the opportunity to engage in a favorite activity after completing a less favorable one. It is called the Premack principle. The more desirable activity is contingent on the completion of the less desirable one (Premack, 1959).

Positive feedback. Positive feedback works when it communicates to the child that he or she is doing well or making progress, and it is particularly effective when it gives students guidance about what they have learned and how to improve their behavior. Students think about this information in an effort to modify their behavior (Ormrod, 2008).

Token economies. A token economy is a program in which individuals who have behaved appropriately receive a token—an item that can later be traded for objects or privileges of the child’s choice. Most children under age 5 cannot benefit from a token economy due to their developmental stage and lack of experience.

Intrinsic Reinforcement

Intrinsic reinforcement

s are the internal good feelings that come from within the child. Feelings of success, pride, and relief at completing a task or assignment are all examples of intrinsic reinforcement. For many young children, the motivation for achieving a variety of new skills and tasks, from learning to walk and talk to toilet training and holding a spoon, come from a deep sense of accomplishment and personal

satisfaction.

Rather than generally praising children for what they have attempted or achieved, a parent or teacher can praise the effort: “I like how you kept trying until you were able to tie your shoe” and “I see how carefully you decided which tomatoes were ripe enough to pick, and which were the ones that needed to stay on the plant.”

Negative Reinforcement

Negative reinforcement

increases a response through the removal of a stimulus—usually an unpleasant one. Thus, negative reinforcement occurs when something negative is taken away to improve a behavior. Telling children they can leave the classroom to go to the playground once they have completed their math activity is negative reinforcement. Other examples include when a parent picks up a crying baby (negative stimuli) and the baby stops crying, as well as the annoying buzzer in your car that keeps going until you put on the seatbelt (you put on the seatbelt [the desired behavior] to get rid of the annoying noise [the negative stimuli]).

Punishment

Punishment is a behavioral approach that attempts to reduce a child’s inappropriate behavior (Ormrod, 2008). There are two kinds of punishment: (1) the presentation of a negative stimulus, for example, scolding a child who has misbehaved or assigning a failing grade after a child did not complete an academic task; and (2) removal of a stimulus, usually a pleasant one. This could be, for example, taking away an allowance or the loss of special privileges. Both kinds of punishment reduce the target behavior. Forms of punishment used in early care, education programs, and homes include natural consequences, logical consequences, unrelated consequences, response cost, verbal reprimands, and time out. Punishment does not directly help the child gain emotional regulation or internalize accepted behaviors, but it does help children (if used consistently) know which behaviors are acceptable and which are not acceptable (Bodrova & Leong, 2007).

Problems with the Use of Punishment to Modify Children’s Behavior

Though punishment is a very popular approach used by adults with young children (both parents and early care and education staff) and can be very effective (Hall et al., 1976), it tends to be overused and is fraught with problems. For example, a punished behavior is not eliminated. It often reappears when the person doing the punishing leaves, thus requiring constant adult supervision at home and in the program. Further, punishment does not address the cause of the behavior. Often, there are clear and salient reasons why a young child is behaving a specific way in a specific situation, and it is important that these causes be addressed.

In some situations, punishment can actually lead to an increase in the behavior that is being punished. This can occur in two ways. If punishment is the only attention the child gets from the adult, the child will continue to engage in the behavior for attention. Punishment can also increase the behavior in a setting where there is no one to control it; for example, punishing certain bad language in the classroom can increase the use of the same language on the playground. Further, young children are often unaware of the specific behavior being punished, and then they believe they are being punished for being “a bad child.” This develops low self-esteem, particularly in young children who take an all or nothing view of personal criticism (e.g., “I am all good” or “I am all bad”).

Punishment can also lead to children avoiding certain places and activities. For example, a child who always does poorly at an assignment, such as math, and is punished for it, may not only learn to avoid math, but may learn to dislike school because he or she learns to associate all of school with math (Smith & Smoll, 1997).

When punishment is used on children, they are not always being shown how to engage in the appropriate behavior. The punishment only tells them what not to do and what they are doing poorly; it does not teach anything about what they should be doing instead. Often, children do not know how to engage in the socially acceptable alternative to aggression (for example, how to resolve a conflict without being aggressive). A child who grabs a toy from another child may not understand that there is another way to get what he or she wants; a child who bites another child may not have the language to communicate his or her anger and frustration. Punishment can also lead to aggression and later to bullying (Landrum & Kauffman, 2006), because it models aggressive behavior and the use of power by adults to achieve their goals (see Helping Children Develop:

Do as I Do: The Power of Example

).

Finally, severe punishment can lead to emotional and physical harm. Punishment can potentially lead to child abuse; many adults with low self-esteem can trace this back to receiving constant and harsh negative putdowns and punishment as children (Smith & Fong, 2004), and parents who were abused as children are more likely to become abusers themselves (Milner et al., 2010).

Natural and

Logical Consequences

Natural and logical consequences are forms of punishment that make much more sense to children and teach them that certain behaviors have consequences, some of which are unpleasant.

Natural Consequences

Natural consequences

are the result of a child’s behavior without any direct involvement by an adult. They teach children the causes and effects of certain behaviors. For example, if a child fails to put on a jacket, the natural consequence is that he or she might get cold; a child who comes late to lunch may get cold food or fewer food choices. Natural consequences do not work when a child is too young to make the connection between cause and effect. They also do not work when the adults involved are overly protective and do not allow children to “suffer the consequences” of their actions or inactions.

Logical Consequences

Logical consequences

occur when a child must rectify a situation or repair damage caused by his or her behavior. When a child spills milk on the floor, the logical consequence is for the child to help clean up the milk; if a child draws on a table top, the logical consequence is for the child to scrub the table top clean. Logical consequences only work when the following occur:

Children are able to make the connection between their behavior, the consequences of that behavior, and what they are then asked to do. This connection develops during the preschool years, through experience and brain development.

The consequence is logical. Preventing a child from going outside to play because he misbehaved in the classroom is not a logical consequence.

The consequence occurs immediately after the infraction takes place.

A logical consequence might be to remove a child from an activity or group, which is called time away. For example, a child who continually knocks down other children’s constructions in the block area may be asked to leave for a while; but again, this consequence must be logical and timely. Because logical consequences require a child to “fix” the problem, they are rarely something the child would choose to do and thus are not often viewed by the child as a reward. However, the child learns that if he or she wants to participate in an activity, or do what the other children are doing, then he or she needs to engage in the appropriate behaviors. While time away is a form of time out (discussed later in the chapter), its focus is on making it clear to the child that removal from the activity is directly related to the child’s behavior.

Unrelated Consequences

Unrelated consequence

s are the punishment of a child’s inappropriate behavior with something that is totally unrelated to the behavior—as in the example of keeping a child from outdoor play after he or she has misbehaved inside the classroom. Because the consequence is not logically related to the behavior, this approach is usually ineffective (Ormrod, 2008). It can also misfire; for example, the child who is kept indoors because he or she misbehaved may need to go outside to burn off energy and take a rest from academic activities; preventing this will cause further classroom disruption.

Response Cost

Response cost involves taking away something the child previously earned. Thus, a child might have earned time at the computer by cleaning up the art area but now loses this privilege due to fighting with another child. The response cost approach is most effective when used with positive reinforcement for an appropriate behavior and when the child does not lose everything he or she has earned by only a small infraction (Phillips et al., 1971). When children lose everything they have earned, they will soon not bother to earn anything.

Verbal Reprimands

Verbal reprimands are more effective when they are immediate, brief, and accompanied by eye contact or a firm grip (Pfiffner & O’Leary, 1993). (See Chapter 6 for a discussion on this in relation to eye contact.) A verbal reprimand may also be more effective when spoken quietly and close to the child, thus not bringing attention to the child, which would cause guilt and shame. Verbal reprimands should also provide an encouraging statement indicating the caregiver knows the child can engage in the appropriate behavior (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).

Time Out

Time out is punishment because the child is removed from a pleasurable and enjoyable stimulus due to his or her inappropriate behavior (Skiba & Raison, 1990). Time out differs from time away in that time out is a general punishment for any kind of behavioral problems, while time away is removal of the child when the child’s behavior directly results in the disruption of an activity. Further, in time away, the focus is on the child understanding the relationship between his or her behavior and the resultant disruption, and not on putting the child in a stimulus-free environment (removal is the punishment). In time out, the child is usually removed to another room or a corner of the classroom that is screened off. The time out environment should not be reinforcing, such as the school corridor or principal’s office—or frightening, such as a dark closet (Walker & Shea, 1995). Time out is usually quite short—for example, one minute for each year of a child’s age. A key for using time out is that a child’s release from the environment is contingent on the child’s demonstrating the appropriate behavior. Time out has been shown to be effective in reducing a variety of disruptive and inappropriate behaviors (Pfiffner & Barkley, 1998; Rortvedt & Mittenberger, 1994) and does not interfere with the ongoing classroom activities and events. Time out also does not give undue attention (a reward) to the child.

Modeling

Modeling is both a behavioral and cognitive process of social learning by which a person observes the actions of others and then copies them. The academic term for modeling is social cognitive theory. Infants imitate facial expressions of others within a day or two after birth. By 6–9 months of age, they learn new ways to manipulate objects by watching a model demonstrate those behaviors, and by 18 months of age, they remember how to imitate an action they observed a month before (Collie & Hayne, 1999).

Albert Bandura is the theorist most associated with our understanding of modeling. According to Bandura, modeling can teach new behaviors, increase the frequency of previously forbidden behaviors, and increase the frequency of similar (but not exactly the same) behaviors (1977, 1986). From a discipline perspective, modeling can teach and increase desired behaviors, such as putting blocks back on a shelf like a teacher or classmate does. Negative behaviors can also increase through modeling (e.g., teasing Johnny because others are doing so) (see Helping Children Develop: Do as I Do: The Power of Example).

Modeling works by the learner (child) observing the behavior of the model (adult, peer). After the behavior of the model is reinforced, the learner repeats the behavior. The reinforcement of the model’s behavior is called vicarious reinforcement and is the behavioral part of the theory. The ability of the child to imitate the model’s behavior (even some time later) and the motivation to do so make up the cognitive part of modeling.

As mentioned, children can learn both appropriate and inappropriate behaviors through modeling. A great amount of research has been conducted on learning aggression from real models and from film, television, and video game models. These studies show the powerful effect of models on teaching children aggressive behaviors (Bandura, 1986). However, modeling (both real and symbolic) can also effectively teach prosocial behaviors—those aimed at helping others (Bandura & McDonald, 1963).

HELPING CHILDREN DEVELOP:

Do as I Do: The Power of Example

It works better than rewards and punishments to change a child’s behavior.

It works better than direct instruction to teach academic skills and concepts.

It explains why children imitate the behavior of people and characters their parents and teachers might find unacceptable.

It is one of the most effective ways for parents to help their children develop important literacy skills.

What is This Miraculous Thing?

Social cognitive theory. Commonly called modeling, social cognitive theory is a very powerful, yet often misunderstood, method for teaching young children.

Children will imitate the behavior of a role model, which can be a live person or a symbolic model such as a character from a TV program, movie, video game, or book. Unfortunately, the behaviors they copy may be appropriate or inappropriate—it works equally well for both! But social cognitive theory is more complex than simply copying a role model. The theory is powerful because it combines cognition (thinking), behaviorism (rewards and punishment), and motivation. For modeling to work, the following conditions must be met:

The model must be competent in the area or skill being modeled. While a professional athlete would be a good model for encouraging athletics in children, he or she may not be an effective model for teaching children to read.

The model must have respect and stature in the eyes of the learner.

The model must model behavior in which the child is already interested. For example, someone who can speak Portuguese is likely to be a role model for someone who is about to go to Brazil and wants to learn Portuguese. But this same person is not likely to be a role model for someone who has no interest in learning Portuguese.

The role model’s behavior must be reinforced in some way. Many children look up to professional athletes and rap stars, for example, because these stars’ actions are seen by the children to be rewarded with money and the things money can buy, such as fancy cars, big houses, and expensive jewelry and clothing.

Teachers, parents, and even children can become role models for teaching good or bad behavior. If Johnny, a popular boy in the classroom, picks on another child and other children laugh while the teacher ignores his behavior, other children are likely to engage in this kind of bullying behavior. If, on the other hand, when Johnny teases another child the teacher sternly cautions him and removes him from the action for a short while, chances are the other children in the classroom will not mimic Johnny’s behavior, because it is not being rewarded.

Uses of Social Cognitive Theory

When a teacher wants a young child to clean up after the child has played with blocks, the teacher can tell the child to replace the blocks on the shelves and threaten him or her with some sort of punishment if the task is not done, or the teacher can get down on the floor with the child and show him or her how to put the blocks on the shelf, making it a pleasant experience. Then, when the child has finished, the teacher can praise the child for helping. If a parent wants to help a child learn to read, the best thing the parent can do is model reading to the child. Modeling can be done by reading a newspaper or book, reading the directions aloud when a child wants to make something, and reading books to the child on a regular basis. This will help the child realize that reading is a pleasant and rewarding experience.

Finally, if parents and teachers want to know why a child is using bad language or engaging in poor behavior on the playground or in the classroom, they usually only have to look as far as the role models in the child’s life, which sometimes means reflecting on their own behavior and making positive changes.

Wardle, F. (2003). Do as I do: Power of example. Children and Families, 17(4), pp. 62–63. National Head Start Association.

Table 7.1: Approaches to guidance and discipline with young children

Type of discipline/ guidance	How it works	Advice/cautions
Reinforcers/ Rewards
Material  reinforcers	These can be primary (e.g., food) or secondary (e.g.,money). These are given to the child after the  child has exhibited the required  behaviors.	Be careful not to create situations where children believe  They must be rewarded for everything they do. Never reward  a whole group for the behaviors of a few.
Social reinforcers	Smiles, hugs, and kind words are social reinforcers, as is adult attention (which is why teachers must becareful when responding to negative behaviors).	This is often the best kind of reinforcement because itcreates  important trust and relationships.
Activity reinforcers/ Premack principle	Completing a less-than-desirable activity (e.g.,cleaning up the art area) is rewarded by a More favorable one (e.g., playing on the computer).	Caution must be observed to make sure this does not punisha  child incapable of completing the first task to the teacher’s satisfaction.
Positive feedback	This is verbal feedback that tells  the child he or she is doing well and making progress.  The more specificthe praise, the more effective it is in modifying behavior.	This is an extremely effective approach because it lets children know what they are doing correctly.
Negative reinforcement	This is increasing a behavior by  removing a negativestimulus. For example, children will complete  work more quickly so they can go to the playground sooner.	Rather than using negative reinforcement, teachers should determine whether the behavior children are trying to avoid could be made more meaningful and interesting.
Token economy	Children’s appropriate behavior is  rewarded immediately with tokens, which are exchanged for material reinforcers or privileges.	Tokens must be exchanged for things students really  want; a choice should also be provided. Many believe  tokens do not work with children under age 5.
Intrinsic reinforcement	Intrinsic reinforcement comes  from within the child: feelings of success or happiness,  or a sense of competence or pride.	The ultimate goal of discipline and guidance is that they are internalized. Some people believe using extrinsic reinforcers reduces the power of intrinsic reinforcement.
Punishments
Natural consequences	This is the natural result of what a child does or does not do. A child who forgets to put on a jacket will get cold on a winter day. A child who comes late to the meal may miss out on his or her  favorite food.	This works only when adults are willing to let go, and to let the child live with the consequences of his or her behaviors. A child needs to be able to make the connection between the behavior and the result.
Logical consequences	If a child spills milk, a logical  consequence is to have him or her clean up the mess; a  logical consequence for a child drawing on a table is to have him or her scrub the table clean.	The focus should be on fixing the problem and not on the punishment. The child must be able to see how he or she caused the problem and how the action helps to fix it.
Unrelated consequence	A child who does not complete a math assignment is prevented from playing on the  playground. There is no logical connection between  the behavior and the consequence.	This approach should be avoided as much as possible, because it does not teach anything and can backfire.
Response cost	A child’s inappropriate behavior  is punished by removing a privilege he or she  has earned. For example, a child may earn money for a task and then have it taken away for disobeying.	This approach is most effective when combined with positive reinforcement for appropriate behavior, and when the child does not lose everything he or she has earned.
Verbal reprimands	This is a verbal response by the  adult to the child’s in appropriate behavior.  The  response should not be sarcastic, in anger, or degrading. It should inform the child of how he or she can engage in the appropriate behavior.	Verbal reprimands are more effective when they are brief, immediate, and accompanied by eye contact or a firm grip. They should be softly spoken and include a statement acknowledging that the child is capable of exhibiting the appropriate behavior.
Time out	This is a punishment that  removes a child from a pleasurable, engaging, or enjoyable situation. The setting should not be reinforcing and the duration of the punishment should be quite  short.	Time out should be used sparingly and at the highest end of a behavioral continuum. If it ends up being used frequently, it is not working.
Modeling	Modeling is a very powerful way  to teach both appropriate and inappropriate  behaviors. It works by the child observing an adult or  child who has prestige and competence in a certain behavior or skill.	Adults and children whom other children see as behavioral and learning models must be extremely consistent in their behaviors. It is ineffective to say, “Do as I say, not as I do!”

Wardle, F.  (2013).  

Collaboration with families and communities

 [Electronic version]. Retrieved from

https://content.ashford.edu/

10.1Family Stress and Resiliency

All families must deal with a variety of stresses, including the stress created by raising young children. In examining family stress, it is important to remember that in today’s United States, there is no typical family; rather, there is a vast diversity of family structures in which children develop and learn. Thus, in examining family stress and resiliency, we can look at the family through two different lenses: family structure and family function. Family structure is the relationship of the adults in the family: two parents, single parents, stepparents, extended family, foster parents, and so on. Family functions exist in every family structure; in some, the family works together effectively to care for its members; in others, it does not. While it is important to examine the various family structures that early care and education staff must work with, the key to family health and resiliency is how well the family functions.

Family Structures

As we are all aware, the two-parent, father-and-mother family is no longer the norm in the United States (U.S. Census, 2007). The diversity of family structures in the United States includes a number of different arrangements.

Nuclear family. The nuclear family is made up of a husband and wife and their biological children under age 18. While nuclear families are the established norm, there is also an increasing number of unmarried couples with children living together.

Stepfamily. When children from a former relationship live with a new couple in the home, this is a stepfamily; when the stepparent family includes children born to two or more couples (i.e., the spouses of previous marriages and children of a new couple), this is then called a blended family.

Adoptive family. As many as one-third of couples who cannot have biological children adopt, forming an adoptive family. Most, however, adopt only one or two children, because adoption today is often difficult and expensive (U.S. Census, 2009). For a variety of reasons, most infants and young children are adopted from countries outside of the United States. Adoptive families also include transracially adoptive families, in which the children and parents are of a different race or ethnicity (Wardle & Cruz-Janzen, 2004).

Foster families. These are temporary situations in which children are cared for as they wait to be adopted or to be reunited with their biological or other parents. Foster families themselves come in a variety of structures, including two parents and single-parent families. In many of these families, there are also biological children of one or both parents.

Grandparents. Grandparents take on the primary function of raising their grandchildren due to many reasons, including parents who are dead, incarcerated, on drugs, or extremely sick (Birckmayer, Cohen, Jensen, & Variano, 2005). Sometimes grandparents are temporary foster parents while others have officially adopted their grandchildren. Sometimes a single grandparent becomes the sole caregiver of his or her grandchildren.

Two same-sex parents. Some of these couples have children by one of the parents (and a surrogate); others adopt. The legal status of same-sex families differs from state to state.

Single parents. Single-parent families include mothers who have never been married. Almost 40% of all U.S. births are to unmarried mothers (U.S. Census, 2007), but many of these mothers later marry the child’s father or another male. They also include single mothers who are divorced, separated, or widowed. Although almost 50% of all first marriages in the United States end in divorce, many of these marriages had no children, and some of these mothers remarry. Almost 20% of divorced, separated, or widowed fathers have physical custody of their children, whom they raise alone, without remarrying (U.S. Census, 2009).

Extended family. An extended family is formed when children live with a grandparent or other relative, and one or more biological parents. Certain new immigrant groups are more likely to live in extended families. Further, due to recent economic hardships in the United States, more families live together in extended family groupings. Finally, there is a growing trend of older people staying at home and receiving health care services there, rather than going to senior living arrangements (Cooke, Martin, Yearns, & Damhorst, 2007). Some of these grandparents live with one or more of their children.

Polygamous family. In some countries outside of the United States, men can legally have several wives, forming a polygamous family. Some of these families come to the United States as immigrants.

Each one of these structures comes with a vast amount of diversity. This diversity includes the number of children, ages of children, whether the children are single or multiple births, and biological, adopted, or foster children. It also includes interracial, interethnic, and interreligious families. Some families speak more than one language in the home; some may include a variety of professions and occupations. In some homes, there are children or adults with various disabilities and developmental delays. Also, families live in a variety of communities and living arrangements: rural, urban, low income, suburban, Indian reservations, trailer parks, apartment complexes, homeless shelters or hotels, religious communities, segregated or integrated communities, or military bases (Wardle, 1996).

Family Functions

Family function, unlike family structures, is a universal way of looking at all families and can be applied to any family, regardless of its structure. Family function refers to the way the family works to care for its members (Olson & Gorall, 2003). In general, this care is provided by the significant adults in the family.

The work of Maslow helps us understand the various family functions, beginning with meeting children’s basic needs. Abraham Maslow (1962) studied human needs and developed a theory of the hierarchy of needs. Maslow lived from 1908 to 1970 and, with Carl Rogers, created the humanistic field of psychology. Humanism is a psychological movement of the 1960s suggesting that all people, regardless of educational, cultural, racial, gender, and other differences, have universal human impulses, needs, and a human spirit. It is based on a belief that a universal perspective can exist to describe all humans, and it focuses on the potential for all humans to be good, fulfilled, and positive contributors to the human condition (Maslow, 1962/1999; Rogers, 1961/2004).

In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (1962), he indicated that basic human needs have to be fulfilled before other, more advanced needs could be met:

Physiological (basic) needs of food, water, warmth, and shelter

Safety

and security: protection from injury and death (physical and psychological)

Love and belonging: having friends, family, and community (often religious belonging)

Respect and esteem: being respected by others and by oneself

Self-actualization: becoming truly oneself; fulfilling one’s unique human potential, while also respecting and acknowledging others (Maslow, 1962/1999)

Maslow believed this hierarchy existed for all people, regardless of human diversity. He felt that these needs must be met from basic to advanced (thus the hierarchy); in fact, a person might jeopardize one level to meet the needs of a lower level. For example, a hungry man might jeopardize his own safety to meet his basic need for food or water.

While Maslow did not address the needs of children or discuss a developmental approach to meeting these needs, his theory makes sense for children and is the basis for several school-related policies, such as free breakfasts and safe schools so that children can feel secure and focus on learning. The USDA food program used by most early care and education programs is another example.

Family functions are divided into five categories: to provide basic necessities, encourage learning, develop self-esteem, nurture peer relationships, and maintain harmony and stability. However, they are not arranged in a hierarchy; young children need all of these functions to be provided, and the extent to which they are not provided will cause stress.

Provide basic necessities

. The first function that all families must provide is to meet their children’s basic needs (see Think About It:

Family Functions: Provide Basic Necessities

).

Encourage learning

. Even very young children need adults at home who encourage all sorts of learning. This includes reading to them on a regular basis; taking them to the library, local museums, parks, and other cultural events; and supporting emergent language development. It also includes teaching children important trades and skills from the family’s culture, such as carpentry, farming, canning, and sewing, and teaching the family’s and culture’s traditions and ceremonies. For children who attend an early care and education program, families should also work closely with the child’s program, making sure the child’s learning needs are met and supporting the program’s efforts on the child’s behalf.

THINK ABOUT IT:

Family Functions: Provide Basic Necessities

All families, regardless of their structure, must provide these basic functions for their young children:

Food

Shelter

Clothing

Medical care

Supervision

Transportation

Adequate sleep

Hygiene

Safety

Love and affection

Develop self-esteem

. As we have discussed throughout this book, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and social competence are critical characteristics of the resilient and successful child. And, as we have also discussed, adults in the home have a profound impact on all three of these critical dispositions.

Nurture peer relationships

. In the previous chapter, we discussed in detail the importance of social competence in children, both with adults and with peers. Adults in the home can help children develop social competence by engaging in a variety of behaviors:

Treating each child in the home as a unique individual, while respecting the rights and needs of each child

Modeling social competence with other adults in the home, neighborhood, and early care and education program

Giving young children in the home opportunities to interact with other young children: at the local playground, early care and education program, dance classes, and so on. This is particularly important when there is only one child in the family, or when the children in the family are many years apart in age

Empowering children to solve their own problems, while also intervening when the child begins to develop negative behavioral cycles (e.g., always dominating other children, or always behaving as a victim)

Ensure harmony and stability. Young children need security and predictability. They need to know that they will be fed, when they will be picked up from day care, who will pick them up at the end of the day, and who will provide discipline in the home. Elsewhere in this book, we have discussed the considerable negative impact of stress on the brain development of young children (Shore, 1997). Conflict, insecurity, and lack of harmony and predictability can have a negative effect on the young child’s emotional state, behaviors, cognitive achievement, and learning (Kostelnik et al., 2009).

Traits of Resilient Families

A resilient family is one that, regardless of structure, fulfills all of its functions in a healthy way, to meet each person’s basic needs. A resilient family is one that can address challenges, solve problems, and maintain a certain level of equilibrium. It is not without conflict or problems, but it is simply able to address them in a healthy way. Some resilient families find that the best approach to meeting everyone’s needs is simply to replicate what the parents learned from their own family and culture regarding being a family and raising children; others find that they must totally reinvent the very idea of the family and how to meet all the basic needs of their family. Most adults in a family balance these two approaches—accepting and using some of the approaches from their own family and culture, and reinventing and changing others to meet their own family’s unique needs and the ever-changing nature of culture and society (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

While families must provide for the basic physical, social, and emotional needs of their children, they also act as central agents in socializing their children to the ever-changing culture and greater society. Thus, adults in the home develop children who will grow into the next generation of adults. To this end, children in resilient homes are empowered to be themselves and to have a positive impact on society and the world (Gonzalez-Mena, 2009). These children develop their own unique identity, fulfilling their own unique potential.

The Circumplex Model of Family Adaptability and Cohesion

The circumplex model is a family systems approach to examining relationships within a family. It focuses on three important family dimensions: family cohesion, family flexibility, and family communication. The model has been validated on a diversity of families, including race and ethnicity, marital status (cohabiting and married), family structure (single parent, stepparents), sexual orientation, and family life cycle (newlyweds and retired couples) (Olson & Gorall, 2003).

Family Cohesion

According to Olson and Gorall (2003), family cohesion is the emotional bond that family members have with one another. Family cohesion flourishes in balance between separateness versus togetherness. There are five levels of family cohesion:

Disengaged/disconnected

Somewhat connected

Connected

Very connected

Enmeshed/overly connected

The three middle levels make for the optimal family functions (somewhat connected, connected, and very connected), while the two extremes (disengaged/disconnected and enmeshed/overly connected) are considered problematic for relationships over time. Another way of saying this is that with a balanced level of cohesion, families can moderate both separateness and togetherness, while those who fall at the extremes—unbalanced—are too separate or too enmeshed. Thus, when cohesion is too high (enmeshed), there is too much consensus and closeness; when disengaged with family members, there is little family commitment.

Family Flexibility

Family flexibility is the amount of change in family leadership, role relationships, and relationship rules. Family flexibility is concerned with how systems balance stability and change. There are five levels of flexibility:

Rigid/inflexible

Somewhat flexible

Flexible

Very flexible

Chaotic/overly flexible

As with family cohesion, the three levels in the center are more conducive to positive family functioning, with the extremes (rigid and chaotic) being the most problematic. Flexibility focuses on change in family leadership, roles, and rules. Families need both stability and change to be functional; the ability to change is one of the characteristics that distinguishes functional families from nonfunctional ones (Olson & Gorall, 2003).

Somewhat flexible relationships tend to have democratic leadership characteristics; flexible relationships have an egalitarian leadership with a democratic approach to decision making. Negotiations are open, shared, and fluid. Unbalanced families exhibit one of the extremes—too much stability (rigid) or too much change (choice). In rigid relationships, one individual is in charge and is very controlling. In a chaotic relationship, decisions are impulsive and not carefully thought out, and roles are unclear and shifting all the time. Thus, extremely high (chaotic) and extremely low (rigid) levels of flexibility tend to be problematic for individuals and families. Relationships with moderate flexibility (the middle three levels) balance change and stability in a positive, functional way.

Family

Communication

The third dimension of the model is family communication. Communication is considered a tool to assist families to alter their levels of cohesion and flexibility to meet family needs (Olson & Gorall, 2003). It involves listening skills, speaking skills, self-disclosure, continuity tracking, respect, and regard. Listening involves empathy and attentive listening; speaking includes speaking for oneself and not for others; self-disclosure concerns sharing feelings about oneself and one’s relationships; tracking involves staying focused on a topic; and respect/regard is attending to the affective (feelings) aspects of communication.

Combining Cohesion, Flexibility, and Communication

It is believed that combining these three dimensions produces specific positive results in families:

Balanced families generally function more adequately than unbalanced families do—both in cohesion and in flexibility. Being balanced means that family systems can operate at extremes for short periods of time, but not for long. Thus, balance enables individuals in a family to be both independent from and connected to the family (cohesion), and maintain some level of stability with openness to change when it is necessary (flexibility). The exception to this balanced view is when the family belongs to a group where norms dictate that all family members function in the same rigid manner. For example, the Hmong ethnic group and Amish and Mormon religious groups may exhibit unbalanced family systems but may be quite functional.

Positive communication skills enable couples and families to change the levels of cohesion and flexibility. This helps families facilitate a balance between these two dimensions; poor communication prevents movement from the unbalanced conditions to the balanced ones.

Couples and families will modify their levels of cohesion or flexibility to deal with stress and changes across the family life cycle. It is assumed that families change and that they will change levels of flexibility and cohesion. For example, in many families over time, wives seek more autonomy from husbands and want more power and equality in their relationships (flexibility).

Independence and Interdependence

Another family systems approach to resilient and functional families is to examine levels of independence and interdependence. Family members should be able to help and support each other without creating codependence. Some of the concepts of this approach are similar to the circumplex model. This idea was discussed earlier, when we explored using the family systems approach to describe family dynamics (Christian, 2007). Components of independence and interdependence are boundaries, self-esteem, communication, protection and connection, and rules.

Boundaries

Boundaries defines a level of togetherness and separateness. Some families value individual decision making, openness to new ideas, and supporting the unique, separate identity of each member, while other families value connections, conformity, togetherness, and unity. Families exist along a continuum of independence-dependence, with each one exhibiting a different set of boundaries (Christian, 2007). The question is how each of these serves the needs of individual family members, especially the children; most need to be somewhere in the middle (see also Chapter 6).

Self-Esteem

As we have continually stressed in this book, self-esteem is critical to all family members, both adults and children. Resilient and functional families build and maintain self-esteem in their members, rather than destroying it. Procedures used to discipline children need to help guide and control without destroying self-esteem, and there are many approaches to discipline that can empower and increase a child’s sense of self-worth. While there is a vast variety of cultural ways to raise and discipline young children, all of the approaches must focus on empowering a child’s self-esteem and development of self-efficacy, either individually or as a critically important part of a group.

Communication

As we discussed in the circumplex model, effective communication is an essential characteristic of resilient and healthy families. Conflicts are addressed in a way that considers the needs of everyone; further, all family members give and receive feedback in a productive manner. Deliberate problem-solving methods are used; also, these families can tolerate a level of ambiguity and confusion when a problem cannot immediately be solved. In some cultures, words are the primary manner to express these feelings and to communicate within the family, while in others cultures, non-verbal forms of communication are used (Hall, 1976). And then, of course, many families of young children use both.

Protection and Connection

Resilient and functional families provide their members with a warm, secure haven away from the big, often threatening world. Family members can retreat to their home to receive support, nurturing, and unconditional acceptance. At the same time, each family member has a series of connections to the outside world, such as the workplace, early care and education program, school, religious institution, or grocery store. One way to understand how well a family functions is to examine the various links and connections members have with the greater society.

The early care and education program provides a wonderful bridge between the family, the community, and the overall society. For new immigrant families, the early care and education program is often how they learn about expectations of the new society, especially as it relates to young children. Information about childhood immunization schedules, car seat laws, and community agencies that serve children and families with developmental delays can be obtained at the program. Additionally, for all families the program is where they learn about educational options, school rules, and the U.S. culture of care and education.

Rules

All families have rules that they follow. These are sets of standards, rules, or traditions that tell family members how to live in relation to each other (Christian, 2006). Rules come from the parents’ culture, how the parents were raised, and a consensus of the adults in the home as to how to raise and educate their children. They cover everything from how money is shared and household costs budgeted, to the allocation of duties, religious practices and expectations, traditional celebrations, and mealtime rituals. Some families may have rules that are not really enforced because they are not that important; others may have important practices that are so ingrained that no one has to talk about them. Different rules are reinforced by different people in the home: A young child may remind everyone that birthdays are traditionally celebrated with cake and ice cream; a grandmother may insist that her favorite greens are planted in the backyard garden every year.

10.2 Resilient Children and

Children Who Struggle

Very young children are extremely sensitive to the impact of the world around them—at home, in the community, in the early care and education program, and from the culture at large. Throughout this book, we have discussed a variety of factors that appear to improve a child’s ability to survive the various challenges of growing up. One such concept is known as resilient children, or resiliency in children.

Initially, research showed that certain children have some kind of built-in ability to withstand abuse and other negative childhood experiences (Masten, 2001). These studies suggested that resilient children have the psychological strength to recover from misfortune and to emerge intact from a history of severe distress (Gonzalez-Mena, 2009). Studies suggested that resilient children have certain common protective factors and personality traits (Luther, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Werner, 1995; Werner & Smith, 1992). It was believed these children had affirmative personalities and the ability to recruit positive responses from the environment that were denied them under normal circumstances.

However, more recent research suggests otherwise—resilience is a result of normal human adaptive processes, children’s responses to the support of positive environments, and significant relationships of families, and the overall ecological environment, including teachers and caregivers (Masten, 2001). Part of this new understanding is the concept we discussed earlier: a goodness-of-fit between human relationships and adaptive systems, and the needs of the child.

Most children who experience abuse do not perpetuate this behavior on their own children (Kaufman & Zigler, 1993), but some do. Many children of mothers who are clinically depressed are able to function adequately in their lives, and there are innumerable people who overcame poverty to be highly successful (Goldstein & Brooks, 2005). Children who withstand negative early experiences seem to be able to take advantage of the family and societal supports to increase their competence and efficacy (Werner, 2005). They have connections to competent and caring adults and are able to develop positive cognitive and self-regulation skills, high self-esteem and self-efficacy, and social competence (ability to use the environment effectively) (Masten, 2001). These are characteristics and dispositions we examined in detail in Chapter 9.

While a child’s individual personality and temperament seem to play a role in resiliency, it is also evident that people who work with very young children—parents, child care providers, teachers, youth leaders—play a critical role in helping young children withstand the stress of poverty, family strife, abuse, and neglect. We need to find ways to reduce the stress many young children experience, while also finding ways to help all children become as resilient as possible.

Developing Resilient Children

There are many ways adults involved in the lives of young children can develop resilience in all children under stress—both in families and in early care and education programs. Many of these ideas have been mentioned throughout this book, but they need to be repeated here as we look at ways to help families mitigate conditions that cause stress and children develop ways to withstand stress.

Support Children and Families

Early care and education programs have a vital role to play in supporting all families, regardless of the families’ struggles. By supporting the family, we support the child. This is where we must return to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (1979) and the idea that all services and agencies in the community that support families need to work in concert with each other to meet each family’s unique needs. The early care and education program—whether it is a family child care home, religious program, Head Start or Early Head Start, military program, or school-based preschool—must become a vital and dynamic center for all these services and networks. The early care and education program should try to find ways to help all of their families feel connected, empowered, and able to meet the unique needs of their children.

Teach Children Self-Efficacy

In Chapter 9, we discussed the tremendous power of self-efficacy, which is the beliefs and dispositions of a child to be able to learn and problem solve. Self-efficacy is the deep belief a child has in the child’s ability to affect the world and to learn to function proactively in the world. We need to help children learn how to make and maintain positive human connections with other children and adults. All the approaches we discussed in encouraging self-efficacy apply here: Help children enter and maintain play episodes, help children resolve problems with peers in a positive fashion, support contacts children have with their peers and significant adults, and help children find positive and special words and phrases to use with others. We know that self-efficacy begins in infancy—both at home and in the early care and education program. And as we continue to emphasize, central to developing a sense of self-efficacy in young children is the use of positive approaches to discipline and guidance (Kostelnik et al., 2009).

Teach Problem Solving

Children who know how to problem solve clearly feel a sense of empowerment and efficacy. One of the best ways to teach children how to solve a problem is for adults to model problem solving. Crockenberg (1992) found that when mothers used a discipline technique of telling their 2-year-olds what they wanted them to do while also explaining the reasons behind their requests, it was quite effective. Adults need to let children know their wishes are important but also satisfy the children’s need to know how and why the adults’ requests are important. Throughout this book, we have discussed ways to help young children problem solve, from selecting their own clothes to wear, to helping develop classroom rules and playground procedures. It is important to stress here that teaching young children problem solving is not about taking authority away from adults, either at home or in the early care and education center. It is about facilitating the development of a child’s problem-solving skills within existing conditions and situations.

Give Children Responsibilities

Children need opportunities to care for others who are more vulnerable than they are. This can be younger children in the center or classroom and younger children in the home. One of the reasons to have mixed-age classrooms, especially at a time of smaller families, is that this enables children to develop a sense of nurturing and responsibility toward younger members of the class (Katz, 1998). Children can also learn responsibility by caring for animals and plants, both within a program and at home. By having a variety of responsibilities on their shoulders, children develop a sense of importance and trust.

Provide Positive Role Models

Probably the most powerful way for young children to learn is through modeling by adults they trust and respect. These role models are in the home and early care and education center, and they exhibit the behaviors discussed in this section:

Show ways to access needed support and resources.

Demonstrate prosocial behaviors.

Demonstrate a variety of ways to make positive connections with other children and with important adults.

Take on important responsibilities freely and purposefully.

Use a variety of problem-solving approaches throughout the day.

Show positive dispositions about the world and the value of life and life’s experiences.

Show a disposition to find the positive and good in what they do, and in whom they work and play with.

Central to the role of the model is the environment in which the role model functions. A parent who is supported, empowered, and acknowledged will be a much better role model than one who is constantly under stress. Also, teachers and caregivers who are empowered by a positive climate in the early care and education program are much more able to be positive role models to the children and parents they serve.

Be Super-Sensitive to the Child Who Struggles

Children who struggle at home or in the early care and education program need warm, responsive, understanding, and very patient adults who can provide them with the important human attachments they desperately need. Unfortunately, children who struggle often make it extremely difficult for adults to like and care for them (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). These children might have a developmental delay that is difficult or frustrating for adults to deal with, the child may have learned adaptive behaviors that are extremely destructive, or the child may be very emotionally and behaviorally immature due to a life of constant stress and confusion. Teachers and caregivers need to make a deliberate, concerted effort not to label these children as troublemakers, problems, or children with specific disabilities; rather, they must understand that these children need special attention, patience, and love.

Children Who Struggle

Just as we need to provide opportunities for all children to develop resiliency, so too must we intervene when children receive abuse at home. In previous chapters, we have discussed a range of things early care and education staff can do to work with children who struggle behaviorally, emotionally, cognitively, or developmentally. These suggestions include providing an environment specifically tailored to address the child’s specific challenge, using therapists and other experts to assist staff, and referring children to Child Find for possible services for developmental delays. Other approaches involve working with families on parenting skills, helping families access community resources, and working closely with therapists in the home. However, sometimes even these approaches do not work, and children experience abuse.

When this occurs, staff members of early care and education programs have a responsibility to report suspected child abuse (see Spotlight:

Mandated Reporting of Suspicions of Abuse

). Abuse of children under 18 years of age is termed child maltreatment. It is the outcome of an unhealthy environment, usually in the home. There are four forms of child maltreatment: neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse (Thompson & Wyatt, 1999). Neglect includes instances in which caregivers (parents or others who care for the children) fail to provide food, clothing, shelter, health care, affection, or adult supervision. Physical abuse occurs when caregivers intentionally engage in physical harm to children; punishments that cause bruises or injuries are also considered physical abuse. Sexual abuse involves acts in which adults seek sexual gratification from children through acts such as genital contact and pornographic photography. Finally, emotional abuse occurs when children are constantly ignored, put down, rejected, or subjected to substance abuse (including alcohol and criminal activities) (Thompson & Wyatt, 1999).

SPOTLIGHT:

Some Signs of Maltreatment in Children, Age 2–10 Years Old

Repeated injuries, especially broken bones

Violent and sexual themes dominating fantasy play

Slow physical growth, especially accompanied by a lack of appetite

Ongoing physical complaints, such as genital pain and stomachaches

Slow overall physical and cognitive development

Hostility toward other children; bullying of smaller children

Hypervigilance—cringing, startling easily, impulsive behaviors

Frequent absences from the early care and education program or school; many changes of address and of caregivers

(Scannapieco & Connell-Carrick, 2005)

There are many reasons that adults abuse children, including their own. Adults who maltreat children often suffer from serious psychological problems, such as low self-esteem and aggressive and impulsive behaviors (Thompson & Wyatt, 1999). Some adults have serious substance abuse problems, and many have poor social behaviors and inadequate parenting skills. Poverty, domestic violence, and other environmental stressors are additional risk factors (Fergusson, Boden, & Horwood, 2008). Lastly, some of these parents have overly high expectations of their children, and they use harsh physical punishment when expectations are not met (English, 1998). These expectations may be the result of parenting style (Baumrind, 1967) or simply not understanding appropriate child development stages and behaviors. Children who are most likely to be abused are very young children (infants and toddlers), children with various developmental disabilities, and other challenging children (English, 1998; Thompson & Wyatt, 1999).

Some children are exposed to more than one form of abuse. Children can suffer long-term consequences from abuse, including brain retardation, stunted physical growth, poor emotional and social development, behavioral problems, and poor school achievement (Fergusson et al., 2008; Finkelhor & Hashima, 2001). When children are exposed to more forms of abuse, they often experience higher levels of stress and negative consequences (Fergusson et al., 2008).

Almost 20% of child abuse victims are placed into foster care (U.S. HHS, 2004). Children who are removed from their homes and placed in foster care do not always receive the services they need. Teachers and other caregivers in the early care and education programs should provide comfort, security, nurturance, patience, and love for these children. These children need lots of opportunities to play, engage in art and music activities, read books about children in foster care, and talk about their unique situation. A parent whose child has been taken will be extremely upset, and may blame the program for the child’s removal; new foster parents will experience adjustment stress and anxiety, and foster parents in general have unique challenges and experiences.

SPOTLIGHT:
Mandated Reporting of Suspicions of Abuse

Professionals who work with children and families are required by law to report their suspicion of abuse to authorities (U.S. HHS, 2008). These professionals include health care providers, teachers, child care providers, social workers, and police officers. Failure to report carries a legal penalty, but states provide immunity from civil liability (Crosson-Tower, 2003). The identity of the reporter is kept anonymous.

When a report is received by a child protection agency, it is forwarded for further investigation by the local agency (U.S. HHS, 2008). About 24% of these reports are substantiated, and as a result children can be removed from the home. However, a balance between child protection and family preservation is a central concern of child protection agencies (Roberts, 2002).

Early care and education teachers, administrators, and providers need to understand that the law requires reporting the suspicion of abuse; it is up to the local authority to substantiate it. Further, with the ever-more cultural diversity of families we serve, providers and teachers need to be careful not to simply report cultural differences in raising children, but rather suspicions of abuse and neglect as defined by the law (Gonzalez-Mena, 2008). Periodic training of staff by child protective services helps reduce potential problems. Parents must also be advised of the law requiring staff to report suspicion of abuse, and parents from cultures that approve of physical punishment must be told that their approach may conflict with the law.

10.3 Six Family Scenarios

In this section, we provide six different family scenarios. In each family, there is at least one child under the age of 5 years old. This child—and possibly other young children in the family— attends an early care and education program. These six scenarios provide a glimpse of the wonderful diversity of families served by early care and education programs and an example of the diversity of early care and education programs that serve these families (Neugebauer, 2008). All young families experience various forms of stress, and these six families are no exception. Each family profiled here is attempting to provide for the unique needs of their children as best they know how.

As we look at each family, it is important to remember that a family’s structure—one parent, two parents, extended family, teen parents, grandparents, and so on—does not directly indicate whether the family is successful or under stress. What does indicate a family’s resilience and level of stress is the way the family achieves its basic family functions—how the family is meeting the basic needs of their children as they develop and learn. We present these families not as a way to show a model or ideal family, or to provide problems that we will then solve, but rather to help the reader examine a variety of families and their relationships with the early care and education program. After each scenario, a brief discussion is provided regarding ways the early care and education program and family can work together to address some of the challenges.

Aasiya’s Family

Aasiya is the daughter of a new immigrant family from Somalia. She is 3 years old and attends a local community child care center. One of the reasons her parents selected the program is because several of the teachers are also Somali and thus understand the family’s language, religion, and customs. Aasiya’s mother works part time in the center, while also caring for the family’s baby. Her father drives a cab for a local company.

Aasiya’s family is Muslim, and they practice Islam. They follow the rules of their faith very strictly, including fasting, prayer, the clothes the women and girls wear, and their food choices. The child care program understands the requirements of their religion and customs and tries hard to accommodate the family and other Somali families. They also understand the different expectations for boys and girls in the Somali culture and the importance of very clear gender roles for the mother, father, grandmother, and female teachers.

However, there is conflict in the center between the Somali families and staff and the American families and staff. The American families want their children to focus on literacy skills and activities that will prepare them for successful entry into the local public school kindergarten program. The American staff members also believe that the Somali children should focus on getting ready for entry into the public schools, and because they are not American and do not know English very well, the staff members believe learning English is very important. These American teachers and caregivers are upset that the Somali staff talk to the children in the Somali language and that they miss days from the program for fasting and other religious activities.

What the Program and Family Can Do

Aasiya’s mother and grandmother decide to talk to the director of the program (a non-Muslim) about this conflict. They feel the American staff members are not sensitive to their cultural wishes and that some of the Somali staff members feel intimidated because they lack Western education. The director has decided to invite a leader from the local Somali community to provide training to the staff about the Somali culture and Islam religion and about the critical importance of both of these aspects of life for Somali families. He will also assure the American staff (and parents who choose to attend) that the Somali community is committed to becoming good Americans, but that they are also deeply committed to maintaining important aspects of their cultures, especially how they raise their children. Aasiya’s mother and grandmother, at the request of the director, will also talk about the child-rearing customs and values that they practice at home.

Additionally, a representative from the local public school district will meet with all the families in the program to discuss kindergarten entry requirements, school expectations, and programs within the public school designed to support new immigrant families, including those from Somalia. The head of the district’s multicultural programs will also attend and discuss the various efforts being made by the district to work closely with families and children who have recently come to the United States. At the end of the session, a program to allow potential kindergarten students and their families, including Aasiya’s mother, grandmother, aunt, and father, to visit the school will be described, and schedules will be set up for future visits.

The child care center has also scheduled regular parent picnics after school so parents can socialize together with other parents from the program, share cultural foods, and enjoy each other’s company, to reduce friction between the two groups.

Maia’s Family

Maia is 4 years old. She attends a French international school, where she is learning French. The school provides before-and-after care, so her parents can work full time.

Maia’s mother is African American, and her father is white. Her mother is a teacher at a local public school, while her father works for the city. Maia has a 1-year-old baby brother who is cared for by her grandparents and who attends a family child care home part time. Maia enjoys the school’s early childhood program, called école maternelle. She loves art and learning the French language. Her parents enjoy the school picnics and other social activities, because the school attracts French-speaking families from Hong Kong, Canada, Madagascar, and France who live and work in the city, as well as local American families who want their children to learn French. The school is staffed by teachers from France and the United States. Its curriculum meets the requirements of the French government and the local school district.

However, Maia’s family has had to address confusion on the part of the teachers, other children, and parents about Maia’s identity. Some children ask Maia, “What are you anyway? Your mother is black and your father is white?” The French teachers are not familiar with African-American history and culture, and when Maia told her American music teacher that she is biracial, the teacher replied, “No, you are black, because your mother is black.” Also, when the school required the family to fill out forms to collect data on their children for the local school district and the state, the principal expected Maia’s parents to select the black racial box for Maia’s identity. The parents choose two or more races and then filled in Black and White.

What the Program and Family Can Do

Maia’s mother provided training to all the staff about multiracial people in the United States and about how the multicultural movement has provided interracial families with the opportunity to raise their children as truly multiracial (Root, 1996). She provided the school library with a list of books about interracial families, and both of Maia’s parents met with the American teacher to inform her that they were raising Maia and her brother as biracial—both black and white. Maia’s parents have also worked with Maia to give her words and phrases that she can use with other children and adults who are confused by her appearance and the fact that she has a white father and black mother.

Maia and her parents know that Maia’s racial identity will be an issue throughout her school life, at least if they stay in the United States. But they feel it is their responsibility to educate teachers and others about the growing number of interracial families and multiracial children in early care and education programs and schools. They have also told the school that they wish for Maia’s official identity on school forms to be “two or more races.”

Ephram’s Family

Ephram lives with his two parents and grandmother, along with an older sister. He is 2 years old. The family recently emigrated from Eastern Russia. They live in the Jewish part of town, and Ephram attends the Jewish Community Center’s early childhood program. His sister, who is 8 years old, attends a local Jewish elementary school. Ephram’s family is struggling with being new in this country. They do not know the language, customs, foods, how to move around the city, and how to access local services. Ephram’s mother teaches in the early childhood program; his father is taking English lessons at the Jewish Community Center and working with a counselor at the center to find employment. Not only must Ephram’s parents care for their two young children, but they also must provide for the needs of their elderly mother, who is very lonely and who has some critical medical issues that need to be addressed.

Finances are a big worry for this family. The Jewish community in the city sponsored their immigration from Russia, but they are struggling to make ends meet. Both the school and early childhood center require tuition.

What the Program and Family Can Do

Luckily, the Jewish early childhood program is part of a larger, active Jewish Community Center. The center includes a variety of services for seniors, and a food bank and other programs for families in need. Through some of these programs, Ephram’s grandmother is beginning to make some friends and has become involved in traditional cultural activities and traditions familiar to her from her native Russia. The parents are also quickly learning about American customs and discovering how to access important resources for their mother and children, beyond the Jewish community. Ephram’s mother has also discovered that the parent board of the Jewish early childhood program is very helpful to the family. Some of its members are teachers, others work with social services in the city, and several members are psychologists whose practice includes working with seniors.

Jesus’ Family

Jesus is the 3-year-old son of single mother Amy. When Jesus was born, Amy was a teen mother finishing her high school diploma. Luckily, the high school Amy attended had a program for infants of teen parents run by the local community college. Now, Amy attends that same community college, and is studying to become a nurse.

Jesus spends half of the day at a Head Start program that he just started. The other half of the day he attends the campus early childhood program at the community college where Amy studies. Jesus’ father was deported back to Mexico, and Jesus’ grandparents on his father’s side still live in Mexico.

Since he was born, Jesus has struggled to meet developmental benchmarks. When he was in the Early Head Start program, the program had him tested, and he is now diagnosed with ADHD and possibly Asperger’s syndrome (a form of autism). Now, Child Find wants Amy to move him to the public school’s special education preschool program to receive services for his ADHD and Asperger’s. But Amy has had a positive experience working with Head Start; Jesus likes the program and his peers, and Amy enjoys the fact that she can visit her son between classes at the community college. Amy believes that Head Start can provide the direct services that Jesus needs, but Child Find believes the district can do a better job of providing these services in its preschool.

Amy also wants Jesus to develop knowledge and pride in his Hispanic heritage. Because he has no contact with his father and father’s family, Amy is trying to find other solutions to expose him to his culture and language.

What the Program and Family Can Do

The Head Start Jesus attends serves many Hispanic families, allowing Jesus the opportunity to learn about his culture from peers and other families. The program has also begun to institute a bilingual language program, so Jesus is learning Spanish. Amy has asked the campus early childhood program to provide more multicultural programs, materials, and activities, and teachers at the program are attending a multicultural class provided by the community college.

Addressing Jesus’ developmental delays is proving to be more difficult. The local district still wants him to move into the special education program. However, Amy is working closely with the disability manager of Jesus’ Head Start to provide the services he needs in the program; the manager and director of the campus child care program are also working together to determine ways the campus program can meet Jesus’ needs. The director of the program believes that it is important for her staff to learn how to work with children with developmental delays.

Ester’s Family

Ken and Ellen are grandparents raising two of their grandchildren, Michael and Ester. Michael is 8 years old and attends the neighborhood elementary school. Ester, his sister, is 2, and she attends the employee child care program where Ken works. Initially, the program would not accept Ester, because Ken is not her biological father. But after they worked with the HR department of the company, Ester was accepted.

Ken and Ellen are looking after their grandchildren because their son is in jail for selling drugs, and the children’s mother has been declared by the courts to be unfit to raise two young children, due to a severe drug problem. The court assigned Ken and Ellen to raise the two children. Ken works at a good company, and Ellen is a retired schoolteacher. Ken and Ellen had planned by this time in their lives to retire and to travel. Although they had planned to visit Europe and explore towns and villages from which their families originated, Ken now must continue to work for an income and to be able to have free child care for Ester. Ellen does not have the energy to care for Ester full time at home.

Neither Ken nor Ellen ever imagined this situation. They are not sure what the future holds, as both of them are getting older and both have challenging health issues. Their daughter-in-law, the children’s mother, is still in the picture, but she has not been able to overcome her drug addiction. Her visits are extremely disruptive for the children. The children have also struggled to understand this situation, and Michael especially has had trouble with Ken. Michael was very close to his father, and they would play sports together. Ken is not able to be as physically active. Ken and Ellen have worked with a counselor to try to address some of Michael’s issues, including his struggles at school. They think they might also include Ester when she is a little older.

Ken and Ellen also find it difficult to get involved in parent activities at the employee child care program and at their grandson’s school. All the other parents talk about their emerging careers and discuss the latest parenting and technology fads. They feel very out of place and think the caregivers and teachers in both settings are rather uncomfortable with them.

What the Program and Family Can Do

The center has decided to create a grandparent group (there are several grandparents actively involved with their children). While the other grandparents are not the sole providers for their children, they do have some of the same issues and interests as Ken and Ellen do. So far, this group has invited a person from the city to come to the center and talk about city services for grandparents; they are also developing a list of children’s books with positive scenarios of grandparents, which they will give to the teachers. Future activities may include a fundraiser to purchase books, a training session for staff about ways to include grandparents in the curriculum and activities, and visits to the local community college to talk to early childhood classes about ways to include grandparents in programs. Ken and Ellen have also begun the process of getting special education services for their grandson in the local public school.

Sarah’s Family

Sarah attends a program run by the Lutheran church her family attends on Sundays. Sarah, age 3, attends the program every morning. In the afternoon, she is cared for at home by her father, who also cares for her 1-year-old brother. He is a stay-at-home father. Sarah’s mother is a pediatrician at the local university training hospital. The Lutheran early childhood program describes Sarah’s family as high maintenance. Her mother is always telling the staff what to do, not only with Sarah but also with all of the children. She is particularly focused on healthy nutrition, hygiene, and health issues. Because she is also very involved with the church, she often complains about the early childhood program to the church hierarchy. Needless to say, this causes tension in the program, and the staff members need to be very careful not to take out their frustrations on Sarah and her father.

Sarah’s father also struggles with being a stay-at-home father. He loves his children and enjoys seeing them grow and develop, and he is taking a child development class in the evenings at the local community college to understand the development of young children. But he often sees his old buddies with high-status careers and feels very uncomfortable when they all get together to discuss their lives, interests, and challenges. He also believes the female director and her staff do not treat him seriously, always waiting for his wife to communicate issues of concern about Sarah.

What the Program and Family Can Do

There are two general issues that need to be addressed: (1) Sarah’s mother’s interference in program activities, and (2) her father’s feeling of inadequacy. The former issue needs to be addressed by the head of the early childhood program and the church meeting together with Sarah’s mother to establish boundaries between the program, church, and families. Possibly Sarah’s mother could become officially involved by joining the parent board that oversees the early childhood program, thus clarifying her role.

Sarah’s father might want to work with his community college early childhood department to develop a training program about fathers in early care and education programs. He could then present the training module to Sarah’s program. Additionally, he could work with one of Sarah’s teachers to find children’s books that provide positive stories about stay-at-home fathers caring for their children. Finally, he might explore a hobby or vocation that he can pursue with his male buddies when he is not caring for his children.

Common Issues for All Families

All six families discussed in these scenarios are earnestly trying to meet the basic needs of their children. Further, the programs are working with (or will work with) these families to provide for the needs of their children. To this end, the families provide varying degrees of the following attributes of resilient families:

Commitment

Attachment to each other

Individual independence and group independence

Ability to give and receive nurturing

Ability to get needs met

Coping skills

Methods to build self-esteem in their children

Effective communication

Ability to pass on culture, goals, and values (Gonzalez-Mena, 2009)

However, each family experiences many of the typical stressors of families with young children, including poverty, children with developmental delays, problems with substance abuse, grandparents raising children, lack of extended family support, communication difficulties, new immigrant status, and cultural conflicts between the family and program. In the next section, we describe some additional ways early care and education programs can address some of these issues.

10.4 How Early Care and Education Programs Address Family Stress

In Chapter 1, we discussed at length ways early care and education programs can help families meet some of the basic family functions we have discussed in this chapter. According to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, families and early care and education programs must work together to maximize the growth and learning of the child (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

In this section, we will look at specific ways the early care and education program can support families and thus reduce family stress. Specifically, early care and education programs need to find ways to help young families address the family functions described at the beginning of this chapter (see Helping Children Develop:

The Five Family Functions

). Programs can help families with all of the functional areas, from providing the necessities their children need (e.g., nutrition, parenting skills, and access to community resources) to encouraging learning (e.g., ideas for reading to children at home and using low-cost community resources such as libraries and free days at the museum). Food banks, community gardens, low-cost emergency care, health clinics, additional child care services, mental health counseling (for either the children or adults in the family), and services for children with possible developmental delays can all be found through contacts at the early care and education program.

HELPING CHILDREN DEVELOP:

The Five Family Functions

These are the functions all families provide for their children:

Provide basic necessities
Encourage learning
Develop self-esteem
Nurture peer relationships

Maintain harmony and stability

Targeted Programs

Certain early care and education programs are designed to address the specific needs of targeted children and families. These include programs such as Head Start, which serves low-income 3- to 5-year-olds and focuses on preparing children for school success; the Hope Center in Denver, Colorado, which caters to African-American gifted preschoolers; and the Renaissance Center in Lakewood, Colorado, which is designed for young children in homeless families (Wardle, 2009). There are also many home-based models, in which teachers and other providers work directly with children and parents in the home. The Portage model is one such approach (Shearer & Shearer, 2005); the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) is another. Both of these programs target parents with limited skills and confidence in their ability to prepare their children for successful school entry. Often these parents lack success in formal education, are poor, and may have limited English proficiency (HIPPY USA, 2012). Head Start also provides a home-based model.

Many states provide free preschool programs for low-income children, and some provide programs for children with specific developmental delays, such as learning disabilities, ADHD, blindness, and autism. However, the federal government does not allow for children with disabilities to be segregated, instead requiring them to be mainstreamed in programs with students without developmental delays (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Other early care and education programs teach English to non-English-speaking children or a foreign language to English-speaking children.

Direct Services

Many early care and education programs provide direct services to their families. The kinds of direct services that are provided depend on the early care and education program and the families they serve. Sometimes these are simply ongoing offerings, such as parenting classes, English-language classes, and how to contact agencies that help families access food banks and other community services. Other offerings are created, ad hoc, when enough families express an interest and require a service or activity. Classes on including men in the lives of children, cultural diversity, growing your own food, budgeting, developing low-cost nutritional meals, and job training are all examples of these kinds of direct services provided by early care and education programs.

Accessing Services within a Network

Many early care and education programs are part of a broader network of programs and agencies. An early care and education program within a large Jewish community center will be able to connect parents to services that meet specific family needs. Many Head Start programs are a part of much larger service networks. For example, in many cities, Catholic Charities runs Head Start programs as well as a vast array of other programs that struggling families can use. And early childhood programs run by local school districts will have direct access to services for children with developmental delays, parents who need to earn a GED, and adults who do not speak English.

Resource Referral

Staff in early care and education programs become experts regarding community agencies that serve families in a variety of capacities, from drug counseling, family therapy, job placement and training to medical referrals for children with severe medical issues, food banks, and relief for high heat bills. These early care and education staff members are wonderful resources for families to use to meet the unique needs of their children, parents, and extended family members.

Many community agencies that serve families with young children make it a point to disseminate information at local early care and education centers. The state’s department of health will provide information about immunization schedules, current health risks, and general health concerns. Mental health associations will let families know about their services; training and employment agencies provide information to parents and other family members, and drug counseling organizations provide information, contacts, and referrals. Early care and education programs that serve unique populations, such as new immigrant families, families who have recently adopted children from other countries, children with developmental delays, or homeless families, will be targeted by community agencies that serve these populations.

Transition to K-12 Schools

All children and families that use an early care and education program will later use a local school—a public school, religious program, or private school. Sometimes the transition is seamless: from Catholic preschool to the local Catholic elementary school, or from the district preschool program to the local K-12 school. But often the transition is difficult, especially for families under particular kinds of stress. Parents of a child diagnosed with ADHD and Asperger’s syndrome will need to work diligently to make sure their child can smoothly transition from the early childhood program to the local public school. Early care and education programs must work together to make these transitions as stress-free as possible. One way that early care and education programs reduce family stress is for all of the programs, including local schools and their Child Find agencies, to work together for the good of young children and their families.

Advocacy

Even if an early care and education program is not immediately able to meet the needs of a family, or to refer the family to other community agencies, they become advocates for families. In this capacity, staff know how to seek out information, are tenacious in advocating for families, and have their own professional networks that they can often use to find solutions to specific problems presented by families they serve. Sometimes, other families in the center know of needed services or are involved in providing such services and, at other times, college connections and state-funded training programs can be used to collect important information.

Additionally, early care and education programs and parents can work together to change legislation, advocate for needed family-friendly services, and educate groups that service young children and their families.

10.5 Quality Efforts Designed to Make Sure Programs Support Families

We have just discussed a variety of ways that early care and education programs support families and attempt to reduce some of the stress families experience in meeting the needs of their young children. There are also formal instruments that have been expressly designed to assist programs to improve the quality of their services for children and families. These instruments evaluate many quality indicators of a program, from health and safety requirements, curricula, and classroom materials, to specific services designed to maximize partnerships with the families they serve. As we have seen in our discussions of family functions, quality indicators such as treating parents as partners and communicating with parents clearly address issues important to families. Everything that the early care and education program does has a direct impact on the family’s sense of security, faith in the program, and belief that the program has the best intentions to meet the needs of their children in everything they do. These quality indicators assist programs in meeting this important goal (Sanders & Howes, 2013).

Several different instruments are used to evaluate the quality of early care and education programs. They include environment rating scales, program accreditation, and program-specific evaluations (e.g., the Head Start Program

Performance Standards

). Individual programs use these instruments to improve the overall quality of their programs (Sanders & Howes, 2013). All of these quality improvement instruments require program-wide activities in which everyone in the program must be involved

(NAEYC, 2012)

. And some assessments, such as the Head Start’s self-evaluation, also require direct parent involvement (U.S. HHS, 1999). Thus it is critical that all staff in any program, be it a Head Start program, public preschool program, private program, or not-for-profit center, understand the purpose of program assessments, become familiar with specific instruments, and appreciate the need to work closely with parents when the evaluation occurs. These quality improvement systems are now being used by states and funding sources to determine program quality, as a ladder toward improvement (Sanders & Howes, 2013); therefore all teachers and caregivers need to become familiar with various evaluation and assessment approaches.

Environment Rating Scales

Thelma Harms, Richard Clifford, and Debbie Cryer have developed and validated a series of environment rating scales, published through the Frank Graham Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The various rating scales are the Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS, rev. ed.; Harms & Clifford, 1989), Infant/Toddlers Environment Rating Scale (ITERS; Harms, Cryer, & Clifford, 1990), School-Age Care Environment Rating Scale (SACERS; Harms, Clifford, & White, 1996), and Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS, rev. ed.; Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 2005).

The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, published in 1980 and revised in 1998 (ECERS-Revised), is designed for children 2½ to 5 years old. The subscales for the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale are the following:

Space and Furnishings

Personal Care Routines

Language-Reasoning

Activities

Interaction

Program Structure

Parents and Staff

Each of these subscales is then broken down into additional items (see Table 10.1). For each of these items, a seven-point scale is created, which goes from inadequate (1), through minimal (3), to good (5), and then excellent (7). Thus, every item can be scored from 1 to 7 (a zero score is used when there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate that an item is addressed). Then the score for each of the subscales is totaled. For example, Space and Furnishings has a maximum of 56 points (Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 2005).

Scoring of the ECERS-R is conducted by observing a classroom or group of children at one time for a block of at least 3 hours, using scoring sheets provided by the instrument. Averages of item scores are determined by summing the score for each item of the subscale and then dividing by the number of item scores. The scoring sheet also allows the observer to record details about each item, such as the number of child-size chairs, and to provide a tally of diversity materials by race, gender, culture, age, and disability. The observer is encouraged to write notes on the score sheet. All the subscales are scored the exact same way.

Table 10.1: Overview of the subscales and items of the ECERS-R

Space and Furnishings 1. Indoor space 2. Furniture for routine care, play, and learning 3. Furnishings for relaxation and comfort 4. Room arrangement for play 5. Space for privacy 6. Child-related display 7. Space for gross motor play 8. Gross motor equipment Personal Care Routines 9. Greeting/departing 10. Meals/snacks 11. Nap/rest 12. Toileting/diapering 13. Health practices 14. Safety practices Language-Reasoning 15. Books and pictures 16. Encourage children to communicate 17. Using language to develop reasoning skills 18. Informal use of language Activities 19. Fine motor 20. Art 21. Music/movement 22. Blocks

23. Sand/water 24. Dramatic play 25. Nature/science 26. Math/number 27. Use of TV, video, or computers 28. Promoting acceptance of diversity Interaction 29. Supervision of gross motor activities 30. General supervision of children (other than gross motor) 31. Discipline 32. Staff-child interactions 33. Interactions among children Program Structure 34. Schedule 35. Free play 36. Group time 37. Provisions for children with disabilities Parents and Staff 38. Provisions for parents 39. Provisions for personal needs of staff 40. Provisions for professional needs of staff 41. Staff interaction and cooperation 42. Supervision and evaluation of staff 43. Opportunities for professional growth

Program Accreditation

Program accreditation is a voluntary process used by early care and education programs to improve quality. Pre-developed quality indicators, based on early care and education best practices, are used both to assist the individual program in implementing a variety of processes to improve and to provide parents, funders, and other community members a standardized indication of a program’s quality (Sanders & Howes, 2013). Because all staff members in any early care and education program have the most direct impact on the quality of the program, and because quality improvements last only if they are fully embraced by all staff, it is critical that anyone involved in working with young children understands the importance of accreditation procedures. Further, program accreditation is becoming a high stakes method that states and other funding sources use to improve program quality and fund program improvement (Sanders & Howes, 2013). Accreditation procedures include those developed for family child care homes, Montessori programs, and various religious programs. Here we will examine the accreditation process used by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). This will provide students with a prototype of quality assessment systems that they will likely encounter.

Each of the accreditation protocols focuses on indicators of quality, and these indicators isolate specific processes, such as child-adult interactions and staff-parent interactions, rather than addressing the kinds of outcomes and standards public schools measure through high stakes assessments. There is an obvious overlap between the environment rating scales discussed in the previous section and program accreditation, with the environment rating scales matching some accreditation components. But program accreditation is generally broader than the environment rating scales, including other indicators of quality, such as curriculum and child-adult ratios.

Standards of Accreditation

The NAEYC accreditation booklet (used by those conducting the accreditation of a program) states that “the criteria listed in this book represent the current consensus of the early childhood profession regarding the definition of a high quality program for young children” (NAEYC, 2005, p. ix). Many of the quality indicators are universally accepted health and safety rules, some of which are required by each state’s early childhood licensing body, including standards for supervision, storage of records, and sterilization of toys and other materials.

Other standards, such as child-staff ratios and standards of curriculum and teaching interactions, differ from program to program and are based on an organization’s specific philosophical orientation. The philosophical basis of the NAEYC accreditation standards are developmentally appropriate practice (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). Research suggests that the process of accreditation increases program quality; accredited programs provide high-quality care and education to young children and families; and teachers and caregivers in accredited programs are more knowledgeable about child development and best practices than are those in programs that are not accredited (Sanders & Howes, 2013).

As we briefly explore the various components of these accreditation processes, it is critical to remember that the heart of any quality early care and education program is the staff. Not only do the teachers and caregivers create and maintain the environment, implement the curriculum, plan learning experiences, individualize instruction, and manage the classroom, but they are also responsible for the critically important growth and development of children’s self-regulation and social and emotional development (McClelland, Acock, & Morrison, 2006; Hyson, 2008). Further, teachers and caregivers are responsible for creating a warm and rich partnership with families (NAEYC, 2005). However, as we have discussed throughout this book, early childhood teachers and caregivers are often poorly paid, with few benefits (Neugebauer, 2008).

NAEYC Accreditation Indicators

The accreditation indicators used for the NAEYC accreditation process were originally developed in 1985 and have undergone several revisions since (see Spotlight:

The Categories Addressed by NAEYC Accreditation

).

SPOTLIGHT:
The Categories Addressed by NAEYC Accreditation

Interactions among staff and children

Curriculum

Staff-parent interactions

Administration

Staffing

Physical environment

Health and safety

Nutrition and safety

Evaluation

(NAEYC, 2012)

Under each of these headings are indicators that determine how well a standard is met. For example, under the category interactions among staff and children, item A-1, is,

Staff interact frequently with children. Staff express respect for and affection toward children by smiling, touching, holding, and speaking to children at their eye level throughout the day, particularly at arrival and departure, and when diapering or feeding very young children. Staff actively seek meaningful conversations with children. (NAEYC, 2005, p. 15)

Three gradations, not met, partially met, and fully met, are used by the evaluator to assess each item.

Accreditation Procedure

The NAEYC accreditation process has three levels:

Self-study. An individual early care and education program uses the accreditation materials to evaluate its own program. The team works on making changes to items not met in the program. The results of this self-assessment are then sent to the Commission of Accreditation in Washington, D.C.

Validation. An evaluator or team of evaluators (depending on the size of the program) visits the program and conducts its own assessment, comparing their observations with the program’s own self-assessment.

Commission decision. The Commission of Accreditation, empowered by NAEYC, examines both documents and then makes a determination based on the findings (NAEYC, 2012). This decision is then communicated to the program.

Program-Specific Evaluations

Head Start and Early Head Start, the U.S. Department of Defense early care and education programs, and some national religious early childhood programs all have developed their own comprehensive national approaches to evaluate their programs. One advantage of this approach is that sponsoring organizations can tailor quality evaluations to match the program’s values and philosophy and highlight unique aspects of their early care and education approach. The federal Head Start and Early Head Start programs use a process called the

PRISM Evaluation System

, which is conducted on all local programs every three years.

Performance Standards

Head Start performance standards outline overall program standards to be met in each component area of the local program (U.S. HHS, 1999). These component areas include family partnerships, community partnerships, nutrition, health and safety, mental health, and education and early childhood development. The performance standards in each component area enable this vast, comprehensive federal early childhood program to provide flexibility to meet local needs, while also maintaining quality control. For example, under the education and child development component, programs are expected to use a well-developed curriculum that meets the unique needs of the children and families in the community served by the program. One program may have a significant number of Spanish-speaking families that requires a bilingual curriculum (and English classes for parents); another program may need to work closely with the immigrant Hmong community, exploring ways to include Hmong culture, traditions, art, and language into the curriculum. A third program might include a very strong nutrition component to attack a growing problem of diabetes and obesity in the community (Wardle, 2009).

PRISM Evaluation System

The Head Start evaluation has two parts: a self-evaluation conducted by parents and community members, and a federal onsite team that corroborates the self-assessment while providing a more authoritative review and documentation. Today, all local Head Start programs use what is called the PRISM process (Program Review Instrument for Systems Monitoring of Head Start and Early Head Start) (U.S. HHS, 2002). This includes a combination of methods to determine each program’s compliance with each of the performance standards. For example, under community partnerships, the number and nature of these partnerships must be shown and efforts made by the local program to increase these partnerships documented. Results of the PRISM are used to improve the local program and to satisfy accountability to the federal government.

Families and Program Quality

All the systems described—environment rating scales, program accreditation, and program-specific quality systems—have a specific family component. This component examines how well the early care and education program works directly in partnerships with families to meet the education and development needs of children, and to support parents and other family members in their sincere efforts to raise healthy, well-educated children. Evaluation programs require parents to be involved in the quality improvement process in a number of ways:

Communication. The program must continually inform parents of the ways the program is evaluated, what the evaluation means regarding program quality, and how parents can be involved in the process.

Direct involvement. Many program evaluation processes, such as the Head Start PRISM, directly use parents in the self-evaluation process. This is an invaluable activity, because it enables parents to have direct input into the quality of their children’s program and also increases their knowledge about how the program works.

Opportunity to effect change. A central purpose of all program evaluation is to improve program quality (Sanders & Howes, 2013). Further, all programs can benefit by improving their ability to work collaboratively and respectfully with the families of the children they serve. The program evaluation—whether a rating scale, accreditation process, or program-specific activity—is a great place for parents to have direct input into the quality of their children’s programs.

Wardle, F.  (2013).  

Collaboration with families and communities

 [Electronic version]. Retrieved from

https://content.ashford.edu/