Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology

Programs and Quality in Early Childhood Education

315

attempts to achieve similar gains with other populations of

children at risk: 

The social interaction challenges presented by young children

with special needs represent a complex, multivariate universe.

That multivariate universe demands complex, longitudinal, in-

tensive approaches—approaches holding greater promise for

children and families but also greater challenges to our ways of

designing, executing, and describing credible studies and longi-

tudinal data sets. These are challenges worthy of all eager pio-

neers with a visionary spirit. (Strain & Hoyson, 2000, p. 121)

A complementary theme that emerges from Hart’s (2000)

review of studies observing young children is the nature of the

language interactions between children and their parents. As

the field shifts from theory to data and back again, there is a

constant return to children’s ecologies as the source of new un-

derstanding about how they learn. In reflecting on how much

has been learned from observing the way children learn to ex-

press themselves in their conversations with their parents, Hart

commented on the need for more information on the nature and

extent of conversation between teachers and young children

and between children and their peers in group environments.

She discussed the challenges of group education in enhancing

the ability of young children to express themselves:

Some teachers, like some parents, need more information con-

cerning what children should be learning through play and how

to arrange environments, materials, and activities that prompt

and facilitate talking. Research is needed to add to interventions

the power of engagement (Risley, 1977) and to design low-

demand environments (Wasik, 1970) that encourage children to

talk when the only object is conversation. (p. 31)

New Theoretical Influences and Their Implications

The themes of social skills and communicative competence

are not new to the field, but many argue that they still remain

underemphasized in programming. Perhaps two of the most

central, truly revolutionary theoretical and empirical influ-

ences facing the field in the next millennium are those emerg-

ing from brain research and those supporting the use of

family-centered practices. New brain research is currently

the political driving force behind many fresh initiatives for

young children in North America (Greenspan, 1997; Shore

1997). It is of interest that despite its great press appeal, this

paradigm is not widely heralded in the summer 2000 issues

of TECSE as either the rationale for or the solution to the

most pressing problems facing young children today. In fact,

it is telling that Zigler and Styfco (2000) appear to be urging

some caution in this regard as they reflect on the wildly exag-

gerated hopes that fueled the original Head Start programs:

“Indeed, the current bandwagon that infant brains need con-

stant stimulation for superior neural wiring and growth is the

environmental mystique with a biological twist. . . . [T]he

moral is that there is no quick fix for poverty and no magical

treatment that will turn us all into Nobel laureates or Rhodes

scholars” (p. 68). 

Models stressing the importance of social processes as

conceptualized by Vygotsky (1978) and of social contexts

as conceptualized by Bronfenbrenner (1979) and his follow-

ers continue to hold sway. In his review and in anticipation of

the “third generation” of research in the field, Dunst (2000)

pointed to the intersection between children’s learning oppor-

tunities and parental supports as the pathway to instructional

practices that are most likely to be development enhancing

and reminded us that the influence of social support variables

on parents’ contingent responses to children continues to

draw empirical support. He calls for further research on nat-

ural learning opportunities provided by family and commu-

nity life, reminding us that interventionists often have to

more learn from families than they have to teach them.

Dunst’s (2000) social support paradigm links child devel-

opmental outcomes clearly to family-centered interventions.

He pointed out that evidence-based, family-centered help giv-

ing is becoming more highly specified and can be divided into

two central elements: relational and participatory. “Relational

practices are a necessary condition for effective practitioner/

family transactions. . . . [T]hey are not sufficient for either

strengthening family competence or promoting new capabili-

ties. The latter has been found to be the case only when the

family is an active participant in achieving desired outcomes”

(pp. 100–101). Dunst acknowledged that his own interest in

family-centered practices has become increasingly conceptual

and empirical rather than philosophical: “I believe that a philo-

sophically-based, family-centered approach is likely to run its

course as a fad and is open to all kinds of criticism, as has re-

cently occurred” (p. 97). He anticipated the continuance of

third-generation research that establishes and describes the ev-

idence that supports specific early family-centered intervention

practices shaped by an evidence-based social support para-

digm. As the field absorbs the impact of the hard data, practi-

tioners will be increasingly asked to demonstrate, rather than

discuss, the specific skills that emerge from this knowledge.

Current Issues in Personnel Preparation

McCollum (2000) stated that “between the late 1960s and the

present, personnel standards and preparation opportunities

have grown from no state certification in ECSE and no tar-

geted preparation programs to widespread certification

and many pre-service programs” (p. 80). By 1996 a set of

316

Early Childhood Education

published personnel standards were adopted by the Division

of Early Childhood (DEC) and the NAEYC, and most states

had some sort of certification for teachers of young children

with disabilities. Credentialing programs had been set in place

in many states, and ECSE programs at the university level be-

came widely available. It is noteworthy that these events ap-

pear to be related directly to the United States legislated

mandate described earlier, as there has not been a parallel

growth in personnel preparation in countries such as Canada,

where university-based ECSE courses are still something of a

rarity (Andersen, 1999). However, even in the United States,

personnel preparation has not kept pace with the expansion of

services. This situation has led contemporary commentators

to call for a renewed emphasis on this topic and for new train-

ing models that take account of important systemic changes.

McConnell (2000) highlighted two such changes that she be-

lieved should receive special attention: The first is how both

the content and the context of personnel preparation for those

working at the preschool and primary levels should be altered

given the inclusion of young children with disabilities in com-

munity settings. This new context calls for a revised under-

standing of the relationship of the early childhood educator to

the early childhood special educator. The second change re-

gards the delivery of services to infants and toddlers in the

United States: The fee-for-service structure is driving a frag-

mented approach that is not in the interests of children and

families. Regarding the latter, McConnell stated that few par-

ents or practitioners are fully aware of the danger that this

practice poses to the ability to provide integrated, family-cen-

tered interventions. In turn, this may lead to the loss of ECSE

generalists and to their replacement by a service coordinator

who lacks a solid foundation in child development. She called

upon the field to protect children by more clearly defining its

own identity and importance for their development.

Winton (2000) argued that the field has currently failed to

implement what research has demonstrated needs to be done

to improve the outcomes for all young children. She posits that

the development of learning communities of multiple partners

at multiple levels will help to create the shared vision and

commitment from the community that will help to bridge this

research-practice gap. She claims that this in itself is an em-

pirically supported approach to personnel preparation, in spite

of the very real barriers to its implementation. She suggested a

series of small stepping-stones and identified some successful

models as the pathway to this important destination.

The Impact of Legislation 

Bailey (2000) stated that the field of ECSE in the United

States would never have arisen in this fashion without the

commitment of the U.S. government. He anticipated that the

role of the federal government will now shift from its empha-

sis on legislated mandates to a more facilitative role, with

more decision-making power being left in the hands of the

states. He asserted that a strong federal presence will con-

tinue to be needed and anticipated the funding of large re-

search projects of nationally representative populations.

Most contributors to these special summer 2000 issues

of TECSE see legislated mandates as a positive measure but

not without problems. Bruder (2000), in arguing that the field

has not successfully fulfilled a commitment to the family-

centered practices it espouses, suggested that the program-

matic requirements under some sections of the legislation are

complex and require more skills and knowledge of the theory

than are currently held by state and local administrators.

(This problem is complicated by the use of finance models

made up of billable services created on a child-centered reha-

bilitation model rather than a family-centered approach.) She

also saw categorical and discipline-specific funding streams

as creating barriers to the implementation of truly family-

centered services. Odom (2000), too, saw similar bureau-

cratic barriers to the effective implementation of inclusive

practices, some of which arise from administrators’ miscon-

ception that inclusive programs cost more than traditional

special education programs. Other barriers include policies

over the manner in which funds are used: In some states

money can be spent on tuition to permit a child with disabili-

ties to spend some of his or her day in a community-based

program; in other states this is not permissible. The allocation

of special education teachers to nonspecialized settings is

prohibited in some programs because the specialized teachers

are paid out of special education funds. He regarded the flex-

ibility with which administrators handle budgets as a key fac-

tor in overcoming these bureaucratic obstacles.

Although her discussion of the impact of federal legislation

on personnel preparation is largely positive, McCollum

(2000) stated that “the different paths taken by those inter-

ested in birth to 2 and in ages 3 to 8 after the passage of PL 99-

457 was an unfortunate outcome of the new legislation”

(p. 85). When states were permitted to use different agencies

and different personnel requirements for the two age groups, a

dual system of service and personnel preparation was enabled

that created identity problems in the field. The field of ECSE

was redefining its identity in relation to early childhood edu-

cation and special education, with services delivered in edu-

cational settings; but with the younger group of infants and

toddlers, professional identity was being reconceptualized

through comparisons to noneducation disciplines. Indeed, the

publications or organizations such as Zero to Three clearly

demonstrate the influence of fields such as social work. As

Programs and Quality in Early Childhood Education

317

well some infant-parent intervention programs have adopted

psychotherapeutic models from infant psychiatry. Corre-

sponding with this divergence from the main discipline of

ECSE, a number of systemic changes were occurring, compli-

cating the question of personnel roles even further. In the

same series, Smith (2000) discussed the need to shift efforts

from the federal to the local level so that widespread commu-

nity support, including fiscal support, will sustain and enhance

the achievements begun with federal initiatives and legisla-

tion. Smith (2000) argues that communities need to be willing

to invest tax dollars and to rethink social policy so that parents

can spend more time at home. She also calls for greater re-

spect for early childhood professionals and enhancement of

the work environment and salaries so that the field will attract

better qualified individuals.

Bailey (2000) noted that the role of the U.S. federal gov-

ernment was shifting from its emphasis on legislated man-

dates to a more facilitative role, with more decision-making

power being left in the hands of the states. He asserted that a

strong federal presence will continue to be needed and antic-

ipated the funding of large research projects of nationally

representative populations. Perhaps this is where the interna-

tional field of early childhood education will feel the impact

the most—as new research projects of sufficient scale and

quality emerge that further our understanding of the impact

of specific educational practices with targeted but representa-

tive groups of young children. 

If the next decade will bring new large-scale studies with

results that convince policy makers, there will continue to be

a major challenge in bringing that knowledge to the field.

Several authors of the special issue decried the research-

practice gap in ECSE. Bruder (2000), in particular, focused

on the failure of trainers and agencies to adopt truly family-

centered approaches, in spite of the substantial amount of

evidence of its desirability and effectiveness. She also called

for learning communities that can reform current efforts at

personnel preparation “in which the norm is the use of inef-

fective training models (episodic, short-term workshops)”

(p. 111). The learning communities that Bruder envisioned

are ongoing, make use of technology such as Web sites and

e-mail, and are founded on mentorship and distance educa-

tion models. What is at stake when personnel are inade-

quately prepared is poignantly demonstrated by her use of

three case studies of young children (one of whom is her own

nephew) served dismally by intervention staff. About him,

she stated, “I am as responsible as any for the shortcomings

in our field that are currently impacting his life” (p. 108).

Bruder’s (2000) injection of a personal confession into the

academic discourse is an appropriate note on which to end this

section. It is to the credit of leading early intervention theorists

that in being invited to reflect on the state of the art of early in-

tervention, they do not rest on their laurels. They stand united

in recognizing that in spite of the very significant achieve-

ments of this fledging field, a great deal of work remains to be

done to serve the growing numbers of young children in need

of specialized and compensatory early childhood education.

Child Care and Early Childhood Education

The Ecology of Child Care 

Beginning in the mid to late 1970s, a number of major

changes in North America and other parts of the developed

world began to have an impact on the provision of child care

services and the nature of research that was conducted on

child care. One major change was the sharp increase in the

number and percentage of mothers of young children who

worked in the paid labor force outside the home. For much of

the century until this point, day nurseries were largely pro-

vided to low-income families either as part of governmental

child welfare programs or by private philanthropists or reli-

gious organizations. Child care was now changing from its

previous status as a welfare service for poor parents (who, it

should be noted, were assumed to provide poor parenting to

their children) to its emerging status as a family-support pro-

gram for working parents in all income levels. Further, the

programs were seen less as providing custodial baby-sitting

and more as a setting in which young children’s early devel-

opment could be stimulated and facilitated through appropri-

ate kinds of learning activities and materials.

As pointed out in Belsky and Steinberg’s (1979) seminal

literature review, another major change was the growing in-

terest by researchers in what they referred to as modal child

care programs as opposed to model programs. The model

programs to which they referred tended to be situated in or af-

filiated with university settings. These programs tended to be

well funded and staffed by well-educated professionals and

to serve the children of university faculty, staff, and students.

Questions began to be raised around the generalizability of

findings drawn from these model programs to the more fre-

quently used—or modal—community-based programs that

tended to suffer from low and unstable funding and

lower levels of staff training and that were not restricted to

university-affiliated families.

Another shift was that researchers were increasingly criti-

cal of earlier studies that had reported that enrollment in

child care programs could have a negative impact on mother-

infant attachment patterns. Based largely on Ainsworth’s

strange situation paradigm, these studies tended to focus on

one-time observations of mother-infant interaction patterns

318

Early Childhood Education

in laboratory settings and typically included very little con-

textual data on the participants in these studies. Cross-cultural

comparisons began to identify different patterns of mother-

child attachment even within Western, developed countries

(Lamb, 2001), calling into question the notion of a universal

construct of attachment. Researchers began to examine at-

tachment patterns within a broader range of child, maternal,

family, and child care variables. The largest study of this

kind was conducted by the National Institute of Child

Health and Development (NICHD), a multisite study of 576

infant-mother dyads. While different patterns of attachment

were found in this sample, none of the differences were attrib-

utable to the different kinds of child care arrangements in

which the children participated (NICHD, 1994, 1996, 1998).

In other words, there were no differences in the attachment

patterns of children who were cared for by a parent in their

own home or by a nonparent in a group care setting outside the

home.

This shift in the attachment-related research reflected a

significant shift in the nature of the research questions being

posed by child care researchers. Much of the previous re-

search on child care tended to focus on such main-effects

questions such as, “Is child care good or bad for children?”

This research tended to examine specific domains of child de-

velopment with the child’s enrollment in a child care program

as the only major independent variable. The emerging con-

sensus was that it was not simply a child’s attendance in child

care that impacted on that child’s development, but also the

quality of the child care program in which the child was en-

rolled. Questions regarding the definition, measurement, and

impact of quality child care have framed and guided much of

the recent and current research. These programs of research

have been guided very much by Bronfenbrenner’s (1979;

Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) work on the ecology of

childhood. Bronfenbrenner argued that a child’s development

is influenced by a number of concentric systems within which

the child lives and grows. The microsystem includes the im-

mediate setting in which the child is found and the nature of

the experiences and activities in those settings. The mesosys-

tem is the network and relationships among the various mi-

crosystems in which the child participates (i.e., home, child

care, swim lessons, etc.). The exosystem includes these two

primary systems, but its impact on the child is mediated

through other individuals and institutions. Exosystem vari-

ables include legislative and policy factors that determine li-

censing requirements, staff education requirements, funding

mechanisms, and so on. All of these systems are embedded

within what Bronfenbrenner called the macrosystem, which

is the virtual space in which societies and communities artic-

ulate their beliefs, attitudes, and values toward public policy

regarding children and families.

Structure and Process Variables in Child Care Quality

In short, then, instead of the main-effects question (“Is child

care good or bad?”), researchers began to explore the ways in

which different factors from different systemic levels inter-

acted and to determine how that interaction of factors con-

tributed to child care quality. A number of small-scale, local

studies conducted in different parts of North America in

the same time frame reported a consistent and complementary

set of findings regarding both the structural and the process

variables that impacted on child care quality. Structural vari-

ables are those standardized, quantifiable, and regulatable vari-

ables such as group size, the adult-child ratio, licensing auspice

(nonprofit or commercial), and levels of staff education.

These variables were found to be significant predictors of child

care quality in different sociocultural contexts using similar

instruments: Los Angeles (Howes, 1987); Victoria, British

Columbia (Goelman & Pence, 1987); Bermuda (Phillips, Mc-

Cartney, & Scarr, 1987); and Chicago (Clarke-Stewart, 1987).

These structural factors frame the child care experience for

the children and the staff and provide actors a basic foundation

on which process quality could then be constructed. The term

process refers to the kinds of caregiving, facilitating, educat-

ing, and playing that go on within the structural framework.

Measures of process quality extended far beyond the

strange situation laboratory procedures and examined the

nature of adult-child and child-child interactions in the child

care setting. Goelman and Pence (1987) observed the fre-

quency with which children engaged in activities that promote

positive developmental outcomes (i.e., emergent literacy,

dramatic play, fine motor play) and activities that do not (i.e.,

excessive television watching). Adult-child interactions

were observed by Howes (1987), Phillips et al. (1987),

Clarke-Stewart (1987), and others who focused on such adult

characteristics as sensitivity, receptivity, detachment, and puni-

tiveness (see Table 13.3).

Thus, in contrast to the earlier generations of child care re-

search, which treated child care as a uniform and universal

treatment variable, researchers became much more keenly

aware of the tremendous diversity that exists in the daily lives

of adults and children in child care settings and of how the

dynamics of those settings impact both the children and the

adults. Perhaps the most consistent conclusion drawn from

studies of quality in child is that the concept of quality is dy-

namic and does not rest on any one measure, scale, or quan-

tifiable variable.

Toward a Predictive Model of Child Care Quality

The drawback to these smaller scale local studies was that

while they represented careful analyses of child care in