Defining Family-centered Early Education: Beliefs of Public School, Child Care, and Head Start Teachers

added by over 1,000 teachers to a survey of teachers' practices. Results of the survey of 3,700 teachers in about 600 schools in Maryland are described in Becker and Epstein (in this issue). The teachers' comments reflect the variation in years of experience and in the number and types of contacts individual teachers have had with parents. Each theme can be viewed from two perspectives-there are potential advantages, but there are also potential problems, with any parent-involvement technique. Teachers' comments reveal their contrasting opinions on the benefits expected from parent assistance at home and on the organizational structures used to conduct parent-involvement activities. Some teachers are very positive about parent involvement; others have been discouraged by their attempts to communicate and work with parents.

Previous articleNext article No AccessViewpointFamily-School Interactions: The Cultural Image of Mothers and TeachersSara Lawrence LightfootSara Lawrence Lightfoot Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Signs Volume 3, Number 2Winter, 1977 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/493472 Views: 15Total views on this site Citations: 18Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1977 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Laura Hannon, Grainne M O’Donnell Teachers, parents, and family-school partnerships: emotions, experiences, and advocacy, Journal of Education for Teaching 48, no.22 (Nov 2021): 241–255.https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2021.1989981Audrey Addi-Raccah, Yael Grinshtain Teachers’ professionalism and relations with parents: teachers’ and parents’ views, Research Papers in Education 26 (Jun 2021): 1–23.https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2021.1931949Rachel Lehner-Mear Good mother, bad mother?: Maternal identities and cyber-agency in the primary school homework debate, Gender and Education 33, no.33 (May 2020): 285–305.https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2020.1763920Lisa S. Goldstein Preservice teachers, caring communities, and parent partnerships: Challenges and possibilities for early childhood teacher education, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24, no.11 (Apr 2008): 61–71.https://doi.org/10.1080/1090102030240109Amy Stambach Consumerism and Gender in an Era of School Choice: A look at US Charter Schools, Gender and Education 13, no.22 (Jul 2010): 199–216.https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250120051204L.S. Goldstein MOTHERLY LOVE, TEACHERLY LOVE, AND PARENT‐TEACHER PARTNERSHIPS: IMPLICATIONS FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 20, no.33 (Aug 2006): 353–365.https://doi.org/10.1080/0163638990200313Hillel Goelman, Huan Guo What we know and what we don’t know about burnout among early childhood care providers, Child & Youth Care Forum 27, no.33 (Jun 1998): 175–199.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02589564Lisa S. Goldstein Caught in the Middle: Tension and Contradiction in Enacting the Primary Grade Curriculum, Curriculum Inquiry 28, no.33 (Jan 2015): 311–337.https://doi.org/10.1111/0362-6784.00093Sari Knopp Biklen Feminism, methodology and point of view in the study of women who teach, Melbourne Studies in Education 34, no.11 (Jan 1993): 10–21.https://doi.org/10.1080/17508489309556255Christine B. Burton Defining Family-centered Early Education: Beliefs of Public School, Child Care, and Head Start Teachers, Early Education & Development 3, no.11 (Jan 1992): 45–59.https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed0301_3Rosabeth Moss Kanter Work and Family in the United States: A Critical Review and Agenda for Research and Policy, Family Business Review 2, no.11 (Jul 2016): 77–114.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.1989.00077.xPhilip M. Ferguson, Dianne L. Ferguson, David Jones Generations of Hope: Parental Perspectives on the Transitions of Their Children with Severe Retardation from School to Adult Life, Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 13, no.33 (Nov 2016): 177–187.https://doi.org/10.1177/154079698801300308Michael Lewis, Candice Feiring, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn Young children's social networks as a function of age and dysfunction, Infant Mental Health Journal 9, no.22 (Jan 1988): 142–157.https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0355(198822)9:2<142::AID-IMHJ2280090203>3.0.CO;2-9Susan Kontos, Wilma Wells Attitudes of caregivers and the day care experiences of families, Early Childhood Research Quarterly 1, no.11 (Mar 1986): 47–67.https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2006(86)90006-2Miriam E. David Motherhood and social policy-a matter of education?, Critical Social Policy 4, no.1212 (Jun 2016): 28–43.https://doi.org/10.1177/026101838400401202Susan Kontos, Helen Raikes, Alice Woods Early childhood staff attitudes toward their parent clientele, Child Care Quarterly 12, no.11 (Mar 1983): 45–58.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01258079Roberta I. Rubin, Patricia P. Olmsted, Mary J. Wetherby Tracing developmental trends in Ira Gordon's programs for children and families, Children and Youth Services Review 2, no.44 (Jan 1980): 403–424.https://doi.org/10.1016/0190-7409(80)90034-1 Rosabeth Moss Kanter Families, Family Processes, and Economic Life: Toward Systematic Analysis of Social Historical Research, American Journal of Sociology 84 (Sep 2015): S316–S339.https://doi.org/10.1086/649244

The etiology of child maltreatment is profoundly influenced by families’ well-being and by a complex network of social, community, and societal supports and policies. Racism embedded in these systems has led to large inequities in wealth and advantage, which in turn are widely believed to drive racial and ethnic disproportionalities in the child welfare system (ie, 1 group’s representation in child welfare being out of proportion with their representation in the general population). It has been recognized that a public health, multisectoral, and multifaceted approach is needed to substantially reduce child maltreatment in the United States.1 Yet, we too often look to the child welfare system to respond to these problems when it is neither positioned nor adequately funded to comprehensively address root causes of maltreatment and inequities.The policy focus for child maltreatment in the United States has historically been more reactive than proactive or prevention-based. In 1971, the Comprehensive Child Development Act was passed by Congress but vetoed by the President. This bipartisan legislation would have created a multibillion-dollar national child care system with the intent of supporting early child development and parental workforce participation. Three years later, in 1974, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was first passed, setting standards for receiving and responding to allegations of child abuse and neglect. CAPTA was and remains important and necessary policy. However, the early 1970s could be understood as a decision point when the collective emphasis for the approach to child maltreatment in the United States was set as investigative and surveillance-based, rather than prevention-focused.State and federal funding for child care and early education in the United States have failed to meet the societal need. In 2017, the United States ranked 35th among 37 countries tracked by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in government spending on early childhood education and care.2 Because of low levels of funding, only 15% of 12.8 million eligible children in 2018 received child care subsidies through the state-federal Child Care and Development Fund block grant, the largest federal program subsidizing child care for low-income families.3 Families living in poverty spend on average 30% of their income on child care, and inequities in the geographic availability of quality child care options correlate with socioeconomic status and race.4 Limited supply and access, lack of affordability, and low levels of governmental funding leave child care unattainable for far too many Americans.The Build Back Better (BBB) plan offers an opportunity to invest in the upstream primary prevention of child maltreatment. Many of the policies contained in the BBB framework have an evidence base to support their capacity to prevent child maltreatment, including child care subsidies,5 tax credits,5,6 housing assistance,5,7 and expansions in affordable health care.5,8 Even modest improvements in families’ economic well-being, whether it be through economic and concrete supports or reductions in out-of-pocket expenses, have been shown to decrease rates of child maltreatment and have the endorsement of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a prevention strategy for child maltreatment.9–11 There are numerous reasons why the aforementioned policies are good for the well-being of children and families, and evidence suggests that the prevention of child maltreatment should be among them. However, with the lapse of the Child Tax Credit and the fate of BBB being in doubt (as of Spring 2022), advocates must look for progress where it might be most attainable.The BBB plan proposes to make the largest investment in child care in US history, something that we as a nation failed to do in 1971. The BBB plan would invest $273 billion in child care for children up to 5 years of age and $109 billion to fund free universal preschool for children 3 and 4 years of age, both over the next 6 years.12 This would be a seismic change for the landscape of child care and early education in the United States, offering numerous benefits for families’ economic stability, parental workforce participation,13 children’s developmental and educational outcomes,14 and would constitute a promising step toward addressing inequities.4Universal child care and early education could also have considerable implications for the prevention of child maltreatment by decreasing families’ out-of-pocket expenses and increasing income through higher workforce participation, particularly among mothers.13 Better access to quality child care might also reduce family stress, supervisory neglect, and families’ need to use inappropriate alternative caregivers, who may perpetrate physical or sexual abuse. Greater spending on child care for lower-income families has been associated with lower rates of maltreatment, foster care placements, and maltreatment-related fatalities.5 And policies making child care subsidies more available to families already involved with the child welfare system have been associated with less need for foster care.15Using estimates from Puls et al for the associations between spending on public benefit programs, including child care, Medicaid, and cash, housing, and in-kind assistance,5 and data from the Children’s Bureau’s annual Maltreatment Reports,16 we estimate here that the investments in the BBB plan for child care alone might reduce investigations for suspected maltreatment by 6.4%, victimization by 6.0%, foster care by 3.1%, and maltreatment-related fatalities by 11.6%. Application of these estimates to 2014 to 2019, mirroring the 6-year funding period proposed in BBB, yields a striking number of potentially safer children: 1.3 million fewer children investigated, 244 000 fewer children substantiated as victims, 39 000 fewer children entering foster care, and 1198 fewer deaths. Given that 1 year’s incidence of investigated child maltreatment costs the United States economy an estimated $2 trillion,17 investments in child care and early education must be weighed against the maltreatment that they may prevent.We must broaden our discourse on economic and concrete supports for families, and child care subsidies and universal early education specifically. Universal child care and early education have the potential to provide economic support for families, increase parental workforce participation, create living-wage jobs, improve children’s development and kindergarten readiness, begin to address some dimensions of inequities, and lastly prevent child maltreatment. Substantively increasing funding for child care and early education would provide a down-payment on the long-term health and development of our next generation of Americans.Pediatricians are in a unique position to facilitate change in these areas and should: Recognize the growing body of evidence indicating that programs providing economic and concrete supports to families, including child care and early education, have the capacity to reduce child maltreatment, and treat them accordingly in both clinical and policy contexts.Become familiar with existing child care and early education resources in their area, paying particular attention to geographic inequities in access, availability, and quality (https://www.childcareaware.org/resources/map/).Ask families about their resource needs, including child care needs, perceived options, and arrangements, and connect them to resources. (Child Care Aware, local referral agencies dedicated to connecting families to quality, affordable child care [https://www.childcareaware.org/resources/ccrr-search/]).Advocate with policy-makers at the local and state levels on the importance of accessible, affordable, and quality child care and early education for child and family well-being, either directly or through their local AAP Chapter (https://www.aap.org/en/community/chapter-websites/).Familiarize themselves with how their state invests in the Child Care and Development Fund relative to their eligible population (Fig 1), how their state may limit access through restrictive policies,18 and advocate for further investments (https://ccdf.urban.org/search-database).Advocate with federal decision-makers for passage of BBB or its elements, particularly child care subsidies and universal early education (AAP Committee on Federal Government Affairs; https://www.aap.org/en/community/aap-committees/ committee-on-federal- government-affairs/).We thank both Gretchen Cusick, PhD, and Zach Laris, MPH, for their review of this article.

Stage 1: Survival During Stage 1, which may last throughout the first full year of teaching, the teacher's main concern is whether she can survive. This preoccupation with survival may be expressed in questions the teacher asks: "Can I get through the day in one piece? Without losing a child? Can I make it until the end of the week? Until the next vacation? Can I really do this kind of work day after day? Will I be accepted by my colleagues?" Such questions are well expressed in Ryan's enlightening collection of accounts of first-year teaching experiences (3).

1. Timothy R. Shope, MD, MPH* 1. *Department of Pediatrics, Division of General Academic Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. * Abbreviations: AAP: : American Academy of Pediatrics CFOC3: : Caring for Our Children , 3rd ed ECE: : early care and education RSV: : respiratory syncytial virus Out-of-home care and education are the norms for most young children and lead to increased exposure to infectious diseases. Pediatricians need to be aware of strategies to reduce the risk of infection and guidelines for determining exclusion and return to care for mildly ill children who participate in group care arrangements. After completing this article, readers should be able to: 1. Recognize the risks of infectious diseases in children who participate in early care and education programs. 2. Understand methods for reducing infectious diseases in early care and education settings. 3. Identify which infectious diseases require exclusion from early care and education programs. Two-thirds of children younger than 6 years participate in nonparental out-of-home early education and child care. Demographic trends during the past several decades reflect an increased desire and need to work for men and women who are parents. During the first 2 years of participation, children enrolled in early care and education (ECE) programs experience a higher incidence of respiratory and diarrheal infections, otitis media, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria compared with their peers primarily cared for at home. The types of infection generally reflect common respiratory and gastrointestinal viruses in circulation in the community. However, there are some infectious diseases that can cause outbreaks or clusters of infections in ECE settings. When ill children are excluded from an ECE facility, parents may miss work, lose income, and seek health care services in an effort to return their children to child care. Pediatricians need to be aware of the infectious disease risks of child care attendance and various strategies for reducing them. In addition, pediatricians need to be knowledgeable about rational exclusion and return …

The major purpose of this paper is to suggest ways that public policy can improve the quality of child care and early education for children from infancy to school age. Quality can be defined by such structural features as group composition, caregiver qualifications, and health and safety practices, and by such process indicators as sensitive, responsive, stimulating activities and interactions. Both predict children’s development. Among the structural indicators, specific training in early education is the most consistent predictor of children’s development, but small ratios and group sizes may also be important, especially for infants and toddlers. Early care and education policies in the U.S. have two means of affecting quality: providing funds and regulation or setting standards. When government agencies fund programs directly, they can hold the programs to structural and process quality standards. Regulations and standards can affect quality largely by dictating such structural features as teacher qualifications, child-to-adult ratios, and group sizes. Quality in all programs for young children can be enhanced by integrating child care and early education into a single system of early education and care.

Child care policies adopted in many countries in Western Europe in the late 1960s and early 1970s have generally evolved as part of broad based civic communities in which the federal, regional and local governments, voluntary organizations, and families work together to support children and families. In this paper I focus on child care and early education in Italy as a case study in this trend. I first examine how initial legislation calling for primarily custodial care of preschool children developed into a highly progressive early education system in which the goal is to provide a bridge for children's transition from the family to the elementary school and Italian community life more generally. I then go on to report on my ethnographic work in an Italian scuola materna to capture how early child care and education policies directly affect the lives of Italian children. The paper concludes with brief speculation regarding how U.S. policies regarding child care and early education would benefit from the adoption of some elements of the Italian model.

The aim of this study was to check the integration of ICT in comparison of public and private school teachers in early childhood education. This study directed conceptual framework from theories of Diffusion of Innovation (Rogers, 2003) and from TAM model (Technology of Acceptance) by (Davis, 2003). The nature of this research was descriptive in nature and quantitative method was selected for data collection. This study based on public and private school teachers of tehsil Rawalpindi, there were 4,160 public schools’ teachers and 837 private teachers in tehsil Rawalpindi in which 320 public and 368 in private are primary teachers. Data were collected from 80 public and 80 private primary level school teachers as a sample. Five point Likert scale questionnaire was developed for data collection. Data analyzed through SPSS 21st version. Therefore, result shows that there is significant difference found between public and private schools teacher’s perception regarding effectiveness of ICT, ICT facilities, skills of teachers for ICT and assimilation of ICT in teaching in early education. Government may participate to encouraged usage of ICT in government schools for teaching and learning process

Effect of universal child care subsidy on child-rearing costs by mothers’ working status in South Korea

Investigating Child Care Subsidy: What Are We Buying?

Just beyond the front door of the Montessori School at Five Canyons, a square glass-walled foyer is brimming with verdant houseplants in clay pots. Garden sculptures and glazed ceramic art are interspersed throughout. Above it all floats the looped sound of softly chirping birds. This lush tableau provides a fitting transition between the world outside and the carefully controlled atmosphere within, where child care director Meher Van Groenou has made environmental health one of her top priorities. The school serves 120 toddlers, preschoolers, and kindergarteners in Castro Valley, California.1 Within its five classrooms, most toys and utensils are made of wood, glass, or stainless steel. Ample windows welcome natural light and permit cross-ventilation on warmer days. The carpets contain no glue, nor does the tongue-and-groove wood flooring. Van Groenou helped design the building 11 years ago, drawing from her experience seeking to provide a healthy home for her own children. Green construction was by then already being embraced in California’s residential and commercial sectors, and in many schools—but not child care centers. There were few child care–specific resources to support her, no local standards to lead her, and hardly any other centers to offer a model. Research has proven that infants and toddlers, who spend more time on the floor and experience the world with their hands and mouths, are not merely in closer contact with many indoor pollutants2 but also more sensitive to them.3 Yet environmental health standards in child care settings nationwide—which can include not just centers but also private homes, workplaces, universities, and places of worship—still lag behind those of schools, where children are older, larger, and somewhat less susceptible to environmental exposures. Unlike with more uniformly regulated schools, child care licensing, permitting, and oversight occur on a variety of levels, resulting in a fractured regulatory landscape. A host of other factors, many of them specific to child care, contribute to the challenge. For example, licensing guidelines and quality rating systems—which often emphasize infection control and cleanliness—can steer centers toward bleach or other potentially toxic sanitizers and disinfectants that are now recognized as asthma triggers,4 says Ellen Dektar of the Alameda County Childcare Planning Council; even the Five Canyons center disinfects with diluted bleach. For similar reasons, other facilities may choose pesticides over prevention-based approaches to pest management. Tight budgets and slim profit margins in the child care industry leave little room for pricier green products and hazard mitigation or removal. Meanwhile, licensed child care providers must meet growing requirements pertaining to disaster preparedness and care of children with special needs, says Hester Paul, national director of Eco-Healthy Child Care® (EHCC),5 a green child care endorsement and training program. Teaching child care staff—who may be poorly educated, nonfluent in English, and/or already challenged by the demands of their jobs—about environmental exposures “can be a formidable task,” says Vickie Leonard, a researcher at the University of California (UC), San Francisco, who is working to develop child care–specific resources on green cleaning, sanitizing, and disinfecting. The same can be true for credentialed child care directors, says Karen Teliha, community and environmental health coordinator for Indiana’s 5-Star Childcare program,6 the nation’s only comprehensive statewide environmental health certification program for such facilities. “For most child care providers, environmental health is a newer area,” Teliha says. “Educating them about pest control and proper pesticide usage, that’s not something that’s necessarily taught when you go to become a child care director.” In each case, the first step is to learn more about what, exactly, infants and toddlers are being exposed to. But the deeper one looks, the more complex it gets.

The Elementary School Journal Volume 83, Number 2 ? 1982 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 001 3-5984183/8302-0009$01o.00 Teachers approach their instructional tasks with a variety of perspectives and strategies that emphasize certain aspects of teaching and deemphasize others. For example, some teachers teach language skills using organized games, while other teachers teach the same skills by direct instruction. Teachers adopt different approaches to the same subject matter partly because their teaching situations differ. Their students may have different learning problems or their classrooms may have varied resources and facilities. Even in the

Factors affecting enrollment of children with disabilities in child care and early education programs: A mixed methods study of Arkansas center-based programs

Over the past 60 years, the federal government has provided funding for child care and early education programs in fits and starts. Funding has fluctuated in amount and purpose, with the result that today's child care financing system is a confused collection of funding streams with no uniform goals, standards, or administrative structure. This article traces the history of federal funding for child care and early education programs in the United States and examines how the values of American society have shaped the federal funding of child care and early education services.

The Elementary School Journal Volume 86, Number S O 1986 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0013-5984/86/8603-0002$01.00 Teachers have strong opinions about parent involvement. Some believe that they can be effective only if they obtain parental assistance on learning activities at home. Others believe that their professional status is in jeopardy if parents are involved in activities that are typically the teachers' responsibilities. The different philosophies and beliefs of teachers reflect the two main, opposing theories of school and family relations. One perspective emphasizes the inherent incompatibility, competition, and conflict between families and schools and supports the separation of the two institutions (Parsons, 1959; Waller, 1932; Weber, 1947). It assumes that school bureaucracies and family organizations are directed, respectively, by educators and parents, who can best fulfill their different goals, roles, and responsibilities independently. Thus, these distinct goals are achieved most efficiently and effectively when teachers maintain their professional, general standards and judgments about the children in their classrooms and when parents maintain their personal, particularistic standards and judgments about their children at home.