.4 v ""'S‘I‘~ ‘ .—.W‘ :xf“w ,3; 7’" me ~‘ rt‘ :32}? v . m » ”fifiigfi‘iér‘; ,‘m .‘ , WP. a .éxcfi‘i‘“: "' 53" HM- ‘\ n .1. .X‘ whim ,-.‘v'.' A ‘21??? ”SW; .x . “1:57;: » f. ‘- 'QO'D "may.” Himzéxazarars u/fiz‘imruéy ”’5" I {73:36 ' 1‘Ifiér'y’5‘ ‘32. ' A? am‘xst‘fbfikn {—333.- . “fir-z was 4 an: . . fli‘é tfiw :1:- g’ art». ”95%; ..‘;-:_.' L7. ‘24"r‘fw ' 3’ 4' ~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII IL 01783 9725 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled INFLUENCES ON PARENTAL CHOICE OF CHILDREN'S EARLY EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES presented by Kit Payne has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Pk; n degreein .Eami4_y_&_Child Ecology m flw aim/MM Major professor Date V" '7/" 9? MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY Mlchlgan State University PLACE ll RETURN BOXtomovothbcMckoutflommr-cotd. TOAVOID FlNESuttmonorbdmdutoduo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE JIrIIIaIc‘z I MSU I. An Mltmdlvo WOMEN Oppommlly um INFLUENCES ON PARENTAL CHOICE OF CHILDREN'S EARLY EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES BY Kit Payne A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family and Child Ecology 1994 ABSTRACT INFLUENCES ON PARENTAL CHOICE OF CHILDREN'S EARLY EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES by Kit Payne This study examined the extent to which early childhood education program factors related to convenience, image and philosophy influenced parental choice of a particular early childhood education program for their child. A secondary goal was to examine the extent to which family demographics or parental regime influenced choice of an early childhood program that espoused a particular philosophy. Participants included four female early childhood education program directors, representing three models of program philosophy, and 81 parents with children in their programs. All were volunteers from a midwestern city and a nearby suburb. Program philosophy was measured by the Programming Preference Check List, a structured choice instrument describing program goals and practices. Parental choice regarding convenience, image, philosophy, and family demographics were measured using the Parent Questionnaire, a criterion referenced instrument designed by the investigator. Parental regime was measured by the Parental Regime Assessment Scale, a grouped statement instrument that required parents to rank statements characteristic of several dimensions of parenting. Discriminant analysis was used to examine clusters of factors that were most predictive of group membership for a particular program. Multivariate Utility Technology (MAUT) was used for initial interpretation of data collected on the Parental Regime Assessment Scale. Percentages of responses across regimes and dimensions of parenting were calculated to examine group trends. Complex interactions were found between convenience, image, and philosophy considerations and family demographics which correlated with early childhood education program decisions. Single versus partnership parenting, philosophy of program, and level of income were especially predictive of parental program choice. No relationship was found between parental regime and program selection, nor between parental regime identification and perceived goodness of fit with a particular program model. Copyright by KIT PAYNE 1994 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I appreciate the persistent guidance and encouragement given to me by members of my committee, Dr. Alice Whiren, Dr. David Imig, and Dr. William Donohue. My research chairperson, Dr. Marjorie Kostelnik, deserves special thanks for the many hours she gave in reviewing, editing, and discussing the ideas I was trying to express, and for many years of mentorship. I have learned a great deal from her, and expect to continue applying much of it daily in my professional life. I appreciate the knowledge and expertise that Judy Pfaff shared with statistical applications. Dr. Imig's help in leading me to new theoretical ponderings about the nature of families is also appreciated. I would also like to thank the directors and parents who participated in this study. Their help was obviously critical to the completion of this study. I thank my husband, Lee, for absolutely refusing to allow me to quit until I was done with this degree. At times, I thought it was "grounds," but now I love him for his obstinacy and his confidence in me, among other things. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables List of Figures CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Need Theory Human Ecology and the Ecological Approach Purpose Conceptual and Operational Definitions Overview CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Convenience, Image, and Philosophy Continuity and Discontinuity between Home and Early Educational Setting Family Demographic Variables Family Typologies and the Relationship of Family Types to Decision- -Making . . . . Integrating the Literature Summary CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY Introduction vi 10 12 15 16 16 18 26 38 42 50 52 54' 54 Overall Design of the Study Research Hypotheses Variables Measures Data Analysis Methodological Limitations Summary CHAPTER IV: RESULTS Introduction Hypotheses Descriptive Statistics Summary CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION, PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH . . . . . . Discussion Personal Observations Suggestions for Future Research Summary APPENDICES Appendix A: Communications with Program Directors Appendix B: Communications with Parents Appendix C: Permission Slips Appendix D: Director/Program Instruments Appendix E: Parent Questionnaire Appendix F: Parental Regime Assessment Scale (PRAS) vii 54 55 55 67 73 77 8O 82 82 83 83 108 111 111 117 121 123 124 126 127 129 140 146 Appendix G: UCRIHS Approval . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Theoretical Influences on Early Childhood Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 2.2. Characteristics of Family Paradigms/Parental Regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3.1. Parent/Family Characteristics Table 4.1. Influence on Program Choice of Convenience, Image, and Philosophy Table 4.2. Parent/Family Characteristics Table 4.3. Reported Satisfaction with Program Choice Table 4.4. Means and Standard Deviations, Discriminant Analysis Factors Table 4.5. Pooled Within Group Correlation Matrix Table 4.6. Univariate F-ratio Statistics from the Discriminant Analysis for Eight Factors Table 4.7. Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients Table 4.8. PRAS Scores, Behavioral-Environmental Model Table 4.9. PRAS Scores, Maturational-Nativist Model Table 4.10. PRAS Scores, Comprehensive—Interactional Model . Table 4.11. Total Group PRAS Scores ix 24 49 64 85 89 89 91 91 93 95 102 103 104 107 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Ne_e degree, reported by 6.2%, to less than two years of college, reported by 12.3%, to a two-year college degree, 4.9%, more than two years of college, 11.1%, a four-year degree, 24.7%, some college beyond a four-year degree, 16.0%, to a graduate degree, reported by 24.7% of respondents. Eighty percent of the parents were White Americans, 18.5% were Black Americans, and one person was an Hispanic American. Number of children living in the home were reported as one by 30.8% of the parents, two by 44.4%, 3 by 18.5%, and four or more by 6.2%. Respondents reported having lived in their communities for periods ranging from less than a year, 3.7%, to between one and three years, 11.1%, between three and ten years, 39.5%, to ten years or more, 45.7%. 60 Behavioral-Environmental Model Parents. Eighteen parents with children attending the Behavioral-Environmental model program were included in the study. Seventeen subjects were females; one was a male. Eight respondents reported that they were single parents, ten reported that they were raising their children with a spouse or partner. Eight were married; four were single; four were divorced. One reported being separated from a marital partner, and one additional respondent reported living with a partner (unmarried). Seven respondents from this program reported a family income in excess of $60,000 per year. Three reported family income as less than $10,000 per year. Five respondents reported family incomes in the $25,000 to $40,000 range, and two in the $40,000 to $60,000 range. Nine Behavioral-Environmental Model families reported dual incomes; two reported that no one was employed; seven respondents reported that theirs was the sole family income. The education levels of the Behavioral-Environmental Model parents varied from a high school education (two respondents) to graduate degrees (two respondents). An additional six respondents had four or more years of college education, while eight respondents reported some college education, but less than a four-year degree. Seven of the families represented in this sample had one child, six had two children, and five had three children. Fifteen of these respondents reported a Black American cultural-racial identity; the other three reported themselves to be White 61 American. Nine families had lived in the community for ten years or more; eight had lived there for between three and ten years. One respondent from this sample had lived in the community for less than one year. Maturational—Nativist Model Parents. Thirty-one questionnaires were returned by parents representing the Maturational-Nativist model. Thirty subjects were females; one was a male. All respondents were married; all but one reported that a spouse or partner was helping them to raise their child or children. Fifteen of these families reported an annual income in excess of $60,000; nine reported family income between $40,000 and $60,000; three reported income ranging from $25,000 to $40,000, and one reported a yearly family income between $10,000 and $15,000. Seventeen respondents indicated that only their spouse or partner was employed outside the home. Twelve reported that both they and their spouse were employed, and one reported being the only employed person in the family. Six people reported holding graduate degrees, while 15 others held at least a four-year degree. Five had two or more years of college education. Two respondents reported having completed high school only. Three had attended college for less than two years. Family size was reported as one child only by three respondents. Sixteen reported two children at home; eight reported three children, and four had four or more children at home. All respondents identified themselves as White Americans. Years lived in the community ranged from one to 62 three (five respondents) to ten or more (13 respondents). Thirteen respondents had lived in the community between three and ten years. Comprehensive—Interactional Model Parents. Thirty-two questionnaires were returned by parents representing the Comprehensive—Interactional program model. All but one were females. Twenty-eight respondents in this sample reported that they were married and raising their children with a spouse. Three were divorced and raising their children alone, and one was single. One respondent reported sharing custody of a child. Twenty-one families reported an annual income of more than $60,000. Four reported annual family income in the $40,000 to $60,000 range. Three reported annual income levels between $15,000 and $40,000. One respondent reported annual income at between $10,000 and $15,000, and one at under $10,000 per year. Twenty-five of the Comprehensive-Interactional respondents reported that both they and their spouse were employed outside the home; four reported that only they were employed; three that only their spouse was. Twelve members of this group held graduate degrees. Twelve more had four or more years of college education. Three others reported two or more years of college. Four had attended college for less than two years. One respondent had completed high school only. Family size was reported as one child only by 15 respondents. Fourteen families had two children, and two families had three children. One respondent indicated that 63 children from the family lived in more than one home. Thirty—one respondents selected White American to describe their cultural-racial identification; one selected the rHispanic American descriptor. Fifteen respondents reported having lived in the community for more than ten years; 11 for between three and ten years. Four reported that they had lived in the community for between one and three years, and two had lived there for less than a year. The reader is referred to Table 3.1 for a summary of the preceding information. Recruitment of Subjects The following section describes means by which early childhood programs representative of the three models, Behavioral—Environmental, Maturational-Nativist, and Comprehensive-Interactional, were selected, as well as ways in which parents who had chosen these programs for their children were recruited. ProgramsZDirectors. The directors of 45 early childhood education programs were contacted by mail and invited to participate in the study. These directors were randomly selected from a four-county list of licensed centers provided by the Office for Young Children, located in Lansing, Michigan. The Office for Young Children is responsible for keeping a list of all licensed early childhood centers in Ingham, Clinton, Eaton, and Shiawassee counties. Each director received a letter explaining the 64 Table 3.1. Parent/Family Characteristics Behavioral Maturational Comprehensive Total ll Sample 18 31 32 N=81 Size Marital Single 8 0 1 9 Status Married 4 31 28 63 Divorced 4 0 3 7 Separated 1 0 0 1 Cohabiting 1 0 0 1 Annual < $10,000 3 0 1 4 Income 10-15,000 0 1 1 2 15-25,000 0 0 3 3 25-40,000 5 3 1 9 40—60,000 2 9 4 15 > 60,000 7 15 21 43 Employed Self/part. 9 12 25 46 Self only 7 1 4 12 Part. only 0 17 3 20 No one 2 0 0 2 “ College High Sc. 2 2 1 5 I Educ. < 2 yrs. 2 4 4 10 2 years 1 2 1 4 > 2 yrs. 5 2 2 9 4 years 2 12 6 20 4 yrs. + 4 3 6 13 Grad.deg. 2 6 12 20 Culture/R. Wht.Am. 3 31 31 65 ace Blk.Am. 15 0 0 15 Hsp.Am. 0 0 1 1 Children 1 7 3 15 25 in Home 2 6 16 14 36 3 5 8 2 15 4/+ 0 6 0 5 Years in < 1 1 0 2 3 Community 1-3 0 S 4 9 3-10 8 13 11 32 10+ 9 13 15 37 n Note: Calculated totals for categories in some rows which do not sum N=81 are accounted for by respondents who declined to provide requested information. 65 study, an information sheet, and the Programming Preferences Check List (PPC). A stamped envelope addressed to the investigator was also included. Thirteen sets of forms were returned initially. Follow-up phone calls and a second mailing yielded another two forms, making the total number of forms returned 15. All of the Programming Preferences Check Lists were analyzed to determine which programs most closely related to each of the three models identified through the PPC. Three programs, one corresponding to each of the three program models, were chosen initially. The strength of association for each model varied: 18.7% for the Behavioral—Environmental model; 64.5% for the Maturational—Nativist model, and 81.2% for the Comprehensive-Interactional model. Because the Behavioral- Environmental model program yielded the least strong association, additional efforts were made to secure a stronger example of that model. These efforts were unsuccessful. Parents. All four directors gave the investigator permission to distribute Parent Survey packets to all families of enrolled children. Materials were sent home with the children at the end of a day’s session. At the outset of data collection, the investigator determined that it would be desirable to have 30 families represent each model in order to carry out statistical analyses at an optimal level of effectiveness. In all, 330 surveys were 66 distributed. Eighty-one were returned, yielding a 24.5% return rate. The program designated as the Behavioral-Environmental model had a total enrollment of 50 children in the target age range; in all, over 100 packets were distributed in initial and follow—up attempts to elicit participation from any of the 85 families with children enrolled, regardless of age. A total of 18 survey sets were returned (21.2% return rate). Efforts to find a second program were not successful, meaning this return rate could not be improved. Seventy—two survey sets were distributed at the first of two Maturational-Nativist model programs. Seventeen sets (23.6%) were returned. In an effort to increase the return rate to 30 for this model, another center director with the same strength of identification (64.5%) with the Maturational-Nativist model was contacted. She distributed packets to the 80 families enrolled in that program. A total return of 14 was obtained by the cutoff date (17.5% return rate), bringing the sample size to 31 for the Maturational-Nativist model. Eighty-five surveys were distributed at the Comprehensive-Interactional model program. Thirty—two sets were returned, resulting in a 37.6% return rate. Parents indicated agreement to participate in the research by returning the Parental Regime Assessment Scale, the Parent Questionnaire, and a signed Research Agreement form. Stamped, addressed envelopes were included so 67 questionnaires could be returned to the researcher. Two weeks following the initial distribution of forms, follow—up flyers were distributed to all parents. These flyers requested that parents complete and return the instruments, and informed them that additional copies had been made available at the center. No names appeared on the questionnaires at any time to ensure confidentiality. Each subject had an identification number assigned to him or her for purposes of the data analysis. Measures Programming Preference Check List The Programming Preference Check List (PCC) (EPIE Institute, 1972) measures early childhood professionals’ beliefs related to early childhood program philosophy. The instrument is divided into five sections. Each section focuses on one of the following philosophical questions: 1. Under what conditions can development be facilitated in desired directions? 2. What is the proper relationship between formal schooling and the child’s life in the informal, naturalistic world? 3. What are appropriate adult roles? 4. What should be the main emphasis in schooling and child rearing? 5. What are the goals of early childhood schooling? a) general 68 b) intermediate c) specific Statements adapted from program models which best exemplify practical applications of three model early childhood programs (behavioral-environmental, maturational— nativist, comprehensive-interactional) are arranged in three columns (X, Y, and Z). Respondents are asked to read through all the statements first to get an overview of the trends in each column. Next, they are directed to go back and check the statements with which they agree. The PPC is scored by tallying the professional's choices and determining how many statements relate to each program model. It is common for people’s responses to represent a mix of model types (EPIE Report, #42). However, the greater number of responses assigned to any one model the stronger the association between that philosophy and the professional’s philosophy. These results are generally reported in percentages of total responses made. Thus, a respondent who had 80% of his or her responses fall into the X column would be more strongly associated with the behavioral—environmental model than would a person who assigned 20% of his or her responses to the X column. As of this time there are no reported reliability measures for this instrument. The PPC has been reviewed for content validity and matches current interpretations of the models described. The reader is referred to Appendix D for a copy of the PPC and the tally sheet used for scoring it. 69 Parent Questionnaire The Parent Questionnaire (PQ) was designed to collect data relevant to both family demographics and program features influencing the parent’s selection of a particular early childhood program for their child. It is a criterion- referenced instrument, assessed for content validity through a preliminary administration to the four program directors who participated in the study prior to administration to parents. Directors were asked to indicate whether they believed that the items reflected aspects of parental program choice. In addition, they were asked whether parents with whom they’ve had experience: 1) would find the items on the questionnaire understandable, and 2) would understand the directions for completing the questionnaire. Corrections were made in accordance with their feedback. In keeping with Bronfenbrenner’s Process-Person-Context Model, the Parent Questionnaire is designed to collect information to compare where and when parents learn about the programs they select (e.g., information obtained through conversations with teachers or director, recommendations from other parents, parent’s observations of the program, or program literature). This information was not statistically analyzed for the present study. Respondents use the Parent Questionnaire to report the reasons why they chose particular early childhood programs in which to enroll their children. Items are designed to measure factors relating to early childhood program 70 convenience, image, and philosophy. Convenience factors include program location, program hours, and program cost. Image factors include whether neighbors, friends, and relatives had previously selected the program for their own children, or had recommended the program to the respondent. Philosophy factors include items related to how much the program philosophy appealed to the parent or was similar to the parent’s educational philosophy. A Likert Scale is included on which respondents are asked to indicate how important the program’s philosophy was to their selection of the program. A second Likert Scale requires respondents to indicate how satisfied they were with their program choice. The Parent Questionnaire is also designed to collect demographic data such as employment outside the home, marital status, prior program enrollment, family size, family income, cultural-racial identity and country of origin, level of education, and time in community. These data can be treated as additional factors and covariates in statistical analysis. Additionally, the PQ is used to collect some qualitative data. Open-ended questions request parents to describe their perception of the program’s philosophy and to describe their own educational philosophy. Spaces labeled "other" after some categories of checked items allow for respondents to provide additional comments. The same parent who selected the early childhood program was asked to complete the Parent Questionnaire. 71 Initially, scoring the Parent Questionnaire is accomplished by determining frequencies of the quantitative data and preparing Cross Tabs to derive the percentage of respondents who select each item. Likert Scale responses are scored from 1 to 10, 1 being lowest and 10 being highest. Qualitative data is examined for further understanding. It was not analyzed statistically in this study. The reader is referred to Appendix E for a copy of the Parent Questionnaire. Parental Regime Assessment Scale he Parental Regime Assessment Scale (PRAS) (Imig & Phillips 1992) purports to measure family regime. The PRAS allows self-report of both perceived current parenting (C), and imaged, ideal parenting (I), for the purpose of typing families as representative of Closed, Open, Random, or Synchronous Regimes, or combinations thereof. Parents are directed to choose one of four statements as characteristic of both their current parenting practices and their ideal for parenting practices from ten groups of statements. Each of the four statements in a group, designated as A, B, C, or D, represents one of four Parental Regimes: 1) Closed, 2) Open, 3) Random, or 4) Synchronous. Additionally, responses are scored for relative importance placed on eight dimensions of parenting. These are designated as the Informational (Target) dimensions--Control, Affect, Meaning, and Content, and the Physical (Access) dimensions-—Time, 72 Space/Information, Energy, and Material. The first four groups of statements are designed to measure relative value within Regime for the Informational dimensions above. Group five statements are designed to prioritize these four dimensions. The next four groups of statements are designed to measure relative value within Regime of the Physical dimensions above. Group ten statements purport to prioritize dimensions five through eight. Respondents are directed to assign a value of 10 to one statement, and values of between 0 and 9 to each other statement, in each of the ten groups. Scoring is accomplished by transforming raw scores into four sets of quartile scores. The eight most important dimensions to a respondent receive a value of one; eight others are rated as two; eight receive a three rating; and the least important four dimensions are given the value four. Thus, 32 scores are derived and divided into quartiles by ranking of reported importance. One parent representing the family completed this instrument. This was the parent who took primary responsibility for selecting the early childhood education program for the family. The Parental Regime Assessment Scale offered several advantages for the current study. First, it allows comparisons of mixtures of regimes, as well as mixtures along the access and target dimensions, thus suiting it well to the complexity issues inherent in ecological research. Second, data computation programs have been identified and 73 tested for examination under both nomothetic and idiographic methodology, thus allowing for broader interpretations of results. Quantitatively operationalizing Family Paradigmatic Theory is possible utilizing the established methodology termed MAUT (Edwards & Newman, 1982) for computation and comparison of results. Third, the paradigmatic perspective assumes that people, and therefore families, probably are different in very basic ways. Identification with a particular regime allows examination of some of these basic differences. Moreover, analyses of regime orientation against standard demographic variables such as SES, family size, race, ethnicity, and so on (Imig & Phillips, 1990), offers an opportunity to deposit unique "degree of fit" understanding into the ecological theory bank. At this time there are no reported reliability measures for this instrument. The PRAS has been reviewed for content validity (Imig, 1994, unpublished data). The reader is referred to Appendix F for a copy of this instrument. Data Analysis This study was descriptive, comparative, and correlational in nature. Several analyses of the data were carried out. They are described below. Univariate Analysis Cross Tabulation Tables. Initially, cross tabulation tables were prepared to examine joint frequency 74 distributions in investigating sets of relationships. This method handles both nominal and ratio level factors and variables. This data was derived from the Parent Questionnaire. Multivariate Analysis Discriminate Analysis. Data collected from items on the Parent Questionnaire were analyzed using a process of Discriminant Analysis. Since there were multiple variables of interest in this descriptive study of both metric and nonmetric types, the most satisfactory discriminations could be determined in this way. Moreover, discriminant analysis is particularly well suited to examinations and comparisons of groups of known membership (Grosof & Sardy, 1985). This criterion was true of the parents who had selected specific early childhood education programs prior to participation in this study. According to the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975), weighting coefficients can be interpreted through this method much as in multiple regression of factor analysis. The mathematical objective of discriminant analysis is to weight and linearly combine the discriminating variables so that the groups are forced to be as statistically distinct as possible. Further, discriminant analysis as a classification technique can come after initial computation. If a set of variables is found to provide satisfactory discrimination for cases within 75 known group memberships, a set of classification functions can be derived to permit the classification of new cases with unknown membership. A stepwise procedure can then be applied to remove variables selectively, as they are found to reduce discrimination when combined with other selected variables. Thus, several combinations of factors and covariates can be described. Ultimately, single factors and clusters of factors (functions) can be classified by the percentage of variance they account for, in determining program selection. Standard canonical discriminant function coefficients were calculated within the discriminant analysis procedure. The results obtained through this statistic are numerical values that indicate weaker strength of influence with smaller numbers, and greater strength of influences as numbers grow larger. For the purpose of this study, factors analyzed were divided into quartiles for strength of degree of influence and reported as weak, moderate, strong, or very strong. Multivariate Utilitv Technology. The Multivariate Utility Technology (MAUT) program was used to score data collected via the Parental Regime Assessment Scale (PRAS). Imig and Phillips (1992) explain that the MAUT is a method of evaluation that had seldom (if ever) been used by family researchers, prior to their application of it. It has been used, however, by a variety of professionals in the fields of environmental design, criminal justice, and others. Data generated by respondents can be managed for both nomothetic 76 and idiographic purposes. Initially, The MAUT was used to manipulate the data to transform Raw Value Scores (RVSs) into Individual Coefficient Scores (ICSs). For each respondent, the individual RVSs for the four sets of attributes comprising the dimensional group are summed to derive a Total Raw Value Score (TRVS). Each individual RVS is divided by the TRVS for that dimensional group to calculate a coefficient (ICS). This procedure is repeated for all groups of attributes. The eight groups of coefficients are then interpreted to represent the comparative magnitudes of the perceptions held by a family member regarding the dimensional use of regimes. Nomothetic Analysis was accomplished by calculating mean or quartile scores and then categorizing individual scores as 1 or 0 depending on whether the individual score is above or below the mean or quartile score. Given that there are four regimes per single access or target dimension, the maximum number of possible regime patterns per single dimension is 16. The formula below demonstrates computation for the maximum number of patterns for a set of four variables when considering high or low groupings: Pattern numbers = (lel) + (18x2) = (1Cx4) + (1Dx8)= 16 (0-15) The preceding description/discussion is abstracted from Imig & Phillips, "The Measurement of Systemic Family Paradigms," a paper presented at National Council on Family Relations Annual Meeting in Seattle, Washington (1990). The following 77 discussion of Idiographic Methodology comes from the same source. Idiographic Analysis was accomplished by a data reduction technique that requires the multiplication of coefficients by coefficients. By multiplying the corresponding coefficients derived from group five with groups one through four, and group ten with groups six through nine, a multiple coefficient score is developed. The highest multiple coefficient scores represent perceptions of what the family is most like. Conversely, the lowest multiple coefficient scores represent perceptions of what the family is not like. Both high and low scores have theoretical and applied meaning for understanding the perceptions of parents, according to Imig and Phillips. Methodological Limitations The methodology employed in this study began with a random sampling technique to select centers representative of the three program models identified as Behavioral- Environmental, Maturational-Nativist, and Comprehensive— Interactional. This method did not reveal a program that was strongly characterized as Behavioral-Environmental. Several professionals in the field of early childhood education were contacted in efforts to locate a program with a stronger identification with this model. Six additional program names were garnered in this attempt. None were willing to participate in the study. Eventually a decision 78 was made to select a program with the strongest but still a relatively weak identification with the Behavioral- Environmental model. Hence, the ability to derive generalizations about this philosophical approach from the present data are limited. Moreover, the low return rate generated from this center further limits interpretation of results. It could be that other programs representing this model would differ in significant ways from this one. A low return rate from the Maturational-Nativist model program that was initially selected led to a decision to include a second center representative of this model. Thus, results from two centers were combined in analyses of Maturational-Nativism. Differences beyond model identification (e.g., length of time director had held her position, or community where program was located) may have acted as confounding variables, limiting the generalizability of conclusions about characteristics of parental program selection and satisfaction. Demographic data collected from the programs studied revealed significant differences across the groups, especially in cultural-racial makeup and marital status. The Behavioral-Environmental program was over-represented, and the other two models were underrepresented, by Black Americans (as compared with the general population). It was difficult to determine whether the first program model had more appeal for this cultural-racial group, or whether other unexamined differences (e.g., director’s cultural-racial 79 group membership) led to the skewed nature of these samples. Further examination of the Behavioral-Environmental sample revealed that over half of the respondents (10 of 18, or 56%) reported that they were not married, while all respondents in the Maturational-Nativist groups reported that they were married, as did 28 of 32 (87.5%) respondents representing the Comprehensive-Interactional model. This limited examination of marital status as it affected satisfaction or selection criteria within, as well as across, program models. Only 3 of 81 respondents (one per model) identified themselves as males. This limited generalizations of all findings to females only. All parent participants, regardless of program or model, were volunteers. Since cooperation in this research effort was not mandatory, selection bias was a further threat to internal validity. A further limitation may have accrued from the use of the PRAS instrument, which seemed more appropriate for some subsamples of the research group than others. For example, difficulty in interpreting directions and/or the wording of some items was indicated by a few respondents in written comments. Results may have been biased in favor of subsamples whose educational or experiential backgrounds made the item statements or completion directions on the PRAS more understandable. This may, in turn, have effected response rates or altered the composition of the sample 80 groups who volunteered to complete, or declined to complete, this measure. Moreover, the Parent Regime Assessment Scale was difficult to analyze using standard statistical techniques. Limitations were encountered in attempting to fully describe group tendencies. Therefore, it was not possible to enter this data into the discriminate analysis, which made it difficult to include the effects of family regime identification in explaining choice of a particular early childhood education program. Group tendencies were instead reported in percentages. Continuing development of procedures to analyze data obtained with this instrument are underway and may remedy this problem for future studies. Summary This chapter has included a discussion of the methods that were used to address hypotheses about variables that influence parental selection of particular early childhood education programs for their children. Variables that were operationalized in the research design were specified. Descriptions of methods for examining interactions between the dependent variable, parental choice of early childhood education program, and independent variables particular to convenience, image and philosophy considerations, family demographic features, and parental regime were included. Also included were descriptions of sampling procedures and characteristics of the directors and parents who 81 participated in the investigation. Instruments used to collect the data were described. Data analysis techniques employed in the study were also discussed. Limitations that were encountered throughout the research (e.g., problems in recruiting subjects and skewed samples in regards to certain demographic variables) were addressed. Chapter IV reports a complete analysis of the data. CHAPTER IV RESULTS Introduction The main objective of this research was to determine the extent to which program factors related to convenience, image, and philosophy, influenced parental choice of a particular early childhood education program for their child. A second objective was to determine to what extent family demographics and identification with parental regime influenced parental choice of an early childhood educational program espousing a particular philosophy. Chapter IV presents the results of the data analyses. First, results pertaining to convenience, image, philosophy, and family demographics from the Parent Questionnaire (PQ) are presented in answer to hypotheses one. Secondly, results from the PQ and the Parental Regime Assessment Scale (PRAS) instruments are reported in answer to hypotheses two and three. Statistical significance was set at the .01 level where applicable. Standardized canonical discriminant function correlations are reported for factors entered into the discriminant analysis. Statistical results are presented and interpreted for each hypothesis in order of their presentation in Chapter III. 82 83 Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: In combination, convenience, image, philosophy and family demographics will be significant descriptors of parental choice of early childhood education program. Descriptive Statistics Program Convenience. Image, and Philosophy Convenience factors were defined as relating to program location, program hours, and program cost. Percentage scores for the whole sample (N = 81) are reported below. Sixty-two percent of the sample selected program location as a factor in their decision to seek entry to a particular program. Thirty-eight and three-tenths percent did not choose this factor as important to their enrollment decision at all. The convenience of program hours was selected as an important factor in the decision to enroll a child by slightly fewer than half of the total respondents (49.4%). Reasonable cost of the program was deemed important by 43.2% of the sample. Cost was rejected as a reason for enrollment by 56.8% of the total number of respondents. Program image as a factor in the decision to enroll a child in a particular early childhood education program was examined by asking respondents how influential the prior choices or recommendations of others were. 84 Parents were influenced by the fact that friends, neighbors or relatives had selected the same program, or by direct recommendations from others to select the program for their own child in 48.1% of the total cases. Parental perception of program philosophy as a factor in the decision to enroll a child in a particular program was examined. Philosophy scores were derived from a question on the PQ that asked parents to: Please indicate how important the philosophy, or kind of teaching, was to you, when you selected this program. This question was accompanied by a scale on which parents were required to mark between 1 (no importance) and 10 (most important thing). Sixty-seven of the 80 parents (83.8%) who responded to this question marked the importance of philosophy at the 8, 9, or 10 level, indicating that philosophy was a very important factor in their choice of an early childhood education program for their child. Summaries of scores representing the influence of convenience, image, and philosophy, separated by program model, are reported in Table 4.1. Table 4.1. 85 Influence on Program Choice of Convenience, Image, and Philosophy Behavioral Maturational Comprehensive TOtal fl Sample Size 18 31 32 81 " Convenience Location 11 (61%) 17 (55%) 22 (69%) 50 (62%) Hours 11 (61%) 10 (32%) 19 (59%) 40 (49%) Cost 7 (39%) 13 (42%) 15 (47%) 35 (43%) Image Others chose 10 (56%) 16 (52%) 13 (41%) 39 (48%) " Others recm. 8 (44%) 20 (65%) 12 (38%) 40 (49%) Philosophy (sc. 1-10) No response 0 0 1 (3%) 1 (1%) 2 0 O 1 (3%) 1 (1%) 5 o 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 2 (2%) 6 0 l (3%) 1 (3%) 2 (2%) 7 0 3 (10%) 5 (16%) 8 (10%) 8 3 (17%) 10 (32%) 8 (25%) 21 (26%) 9 l (6%) 9 (29%) 6 (19%) 16 (20%) 1o 14 (78%) 7 (23%) 9 (28%) 3o (37%) Convenience reported as important in decision to enroll. Image reported as important in decision to enroll. Philosophy reported in response to how important in decision to enroll on a scale of 1 to 10. For purposes of data analyses, scores 0-7 were clustered and given the value 0, 8s were valued 1, 9s = 2, 108 = 3. In closer examination of convenience factors, location was more influential than were hours or cost for parents in the Maturational-Nativist (M—N) program and the Comprehensive-Interactional (C-I) program. Location and hours the program was offered were equally important to (B-E) parents in the Behavioral-Environmental program. Cost was the least influential convenience factor for B-E and C-I parents. Hours were least influential for M-N parents. Image considerations held relatively more influence for Maturational—Nativist program parents than for the other two groups. 86 Philosophy held the most influence for parents in the Behavioral-Environmental group, and was the least influential to the Comprehensive-Interactional group. Demographics Demographic data was collected about the gender and cultural-racial identity of each parent, whether parents were raising their children alone, in a joint-custody arrangement, or with a partner, the income level of the family, the level of education of the respondent, and family size (number of children in the home). Three people in the sample were male (3.7%). Seventy-eight (96.3%) were female. No decisions or conclusions based on gender were possible, given this heavily skewed ratio. Marked differences in cultural/racial makeup for the particular programs representing models in this study were revealed. Almost all of the respondents in the Comprehensive-Interactional and Maturational—Nativist model programs (98.4%) identified themselves as White American, while 15 of 18 (83%) of the Behavioral-Environmental model respondents identified themselves as Black American. Any conclusions or decisions based on cultural identity must be suspected to be an artifact of program selection. Percentages of respondents who were raising their children with a partner versus alone differed over the three models of programs included in this study. Dual parenting was the most common type of parenting in each case: 28 of 32 87 parents (88%) in the Comprehensive-Interactional program; 30 parents (100% of those answering the question) in the Maturational-Nativist program; and 10 of 18 parents (56%) in the Behavioral-Environmental program. Overall, dual parenting was true of 85% of the respondents, leaving a sample size of 11 respondents who were raising children singly, and one in a joint custody arrangement. The three models differed in proportion of respondents at the various income levels; for example 68% of the Comprehensive-Interactional, 54% of the Maturational— Nativist, and 41% of the Behavioral-Environmental respondents reported making over $60,000 per year. The lowest-reported incomes were similarly skewed: 18% of the Behavioral-Environmental respondents reported making $10,000 per year or less, while only one of 31 respondents in the Comprehensive—Interactional program sample, and none in the Maturational—Nativist sample, reported a figure this low. The actual numbers were quite small in all cases, limiting generalizability about low-income families. Information about levels of education was collected for respondents. Every program was represented by the full range from a high school degree to a graduate degree as the top level attained. Respondents representing the Maturational—Nativist model had larger families than did those in the other two models. Twelve of 31, or 39% had three or more children at home. Twenty-eight percent of Behavioral-Environmental 88 respondents reported family size this large. Only three of 32 (9%) Comprehensive-Interactional respondents reported this family size. Summaries of demographic data, separated by program model, are reported in Table 4.2. Satisfaction with program choice was also examined. Parents were required to rate satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 10. Only two parents selected a score of 5, and no one selected a score below that value. One parent selected a score of 6. Six parents (7%) selected a 7. Scores of 8, 9 or 10 were selected by 88% of the parents. These three number valuations all fell above the label "Very Satisfied" on the scale. Table 4.3 reports the score dispersion in more detail. When considering only the highest scores (ten), parents representing the Behavioral-Environmental program were the most satisfied with their program choice. Parents with children in the Cognitive-Interactionist program were the least satisfied. However, when examining approximately the top quartile of scores (7, 8 and 9), high levels of satisfaction were revealed for all three programs: Behavioral-Environmental, 94%, Maturational-Nativist, 89%, and Cognitive-Interactional, 82%. Discriminant Analysis Procedure Examination of the joint effects of the influence of convenience, image, and philosophy and of selected demographic variables on the decision to seek enrollment for 89 Table 4.2 Parent/Family Characteristics Behavioral Maturational Comprehensive Total Sample 18 31 32 N=81 Size Marital Single 8 (44%) O 1 (3%) 9 (11%) Status Married 4 (22%) 31 (100%) 28 (88%) 63 (78%) Divorced 4 (22%) 0 3 (9%) 7 (9%) Separated 1 (6%) 0 0 1 (1%) Cohabiting 1 (6%) 0 0 1 (1%) Annual < $10,000 3 (17%) 0 1 (3%) 4 (5%) Income 10-15,000 0 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 2 (2%) 15-25,000 0 0 3 (9%) 3 (4%) 25-40,000 5 (28%) 3 (10%) 1 (3%) 9 (11%) 40-60,000 2 (11%) 9 (29%) 4 (13%) 15 (19%) > 60,000 7 (39%) 15 (48%) 21 (66%) 43 (53%) Employed self/part. 9 (50%) 12 (39%) 25 (78%) 46 (57%) self only 7 (39%) 1 (3%) 4 (13%) 12 (15%) part. only 0 17 (55%) 3 (9%) 20 (25%) no one 2 (11%) 0 0 2 (2%) College High Sc. 2 (11%) 2 (6%) 1 (3%) 5 (6%) Educ. < 2 years 2 (11%) 4 (13%) 4 (13%) 10 (12%) 2 years 1 (6%) 2 (6%) 1 (3%) 4 (5%) > 2 years 5 (28%) 2 (6%) 2 (6%) 9 (11%) 4 years 2 (11%) 12 (39%) 6 (19%) 20 (25%) 4 years + 4 (22%) 3 (10%) 6 (19%) 13 (16%) Grad.deg. 2 (11%) 6 (19%) 12 (38%) 20 (25%) Culture/ Wht. Am. 3 (17%) 31 (100%) 31 (97%) 65 (80%) Race Blk. Am. 15 (83%) 0 0 15 (19%) Hsp. Am. 0 0 1 (3%) 1 (3%) Children 1 7 (39%) 3 (10%) 15 (47%) 25 (31%) in Home 2 6 (33%) 16 (52%) 14 (44%) 36 (44%) 3 5 (28%) 8 (26%) 2 (6%) 15 (19%) 4/+ 0 4 (13%) 1 (3%) 5 (6%) Years in < 1 1 (6%) 0 2 (6%) 3 (4%) Community 1-3 0 5 (16%) 4 (13%) 9 (11%) 3-10 8 (44%) 13 (42%) 11 (34%) 32 (40%) 10 + 9 (50%) 13 (42%) 15 (47%) 37 (46%) Note: Calculated.totals for categories in some rows which do not sum N=81 are accounted for by respondents who declined to provide requested information. Table 4.3. Reported Satisfaction with Program Choice Eéhavioral Maturational Comprehensive Total N = 18 N = 30 N = 32 N = 80 Score: 5 1 (6%) 1 (3%) 0 2 (2%) 6 0 0 1 (3%) 1 (1%) 7 o 1 (3%) s (16%) 6 (7%) 8 7 (39%) 6 (19%) 8 (25%) 21 (26%) 9 2 (11%) 11 (35%) 13 (41%) 26 (32%) 10 8 (44%) 11 (35%) 5 (16%) 24 (30%) All percentage totals do not equal 100% due to rounding error. One Maturational respondent declined to complete this scale. 90 a child in a particular program was then undertaken. Demographic variables included family income, respondent’s level of education, whether the respondent was raising the child alone, in joint custody, or with a partner, and family size (number of children in the home). Scores for satisfaction with program choice were entered as well. In order to enhance comparability, raw scores for separate items used to measure convenience and image were combined to derive overall scores for each of these variables. All factors listed passed tolerance tests for inclusion in discriminant analysis at the .001 level. Other factors and variables reported above were found to lack explanatory power for group membership. Eight cases of the original sample size of 81 parents had at least one missing discriminating variable. The sample size for this procedure fell to 73. The Behavioral-Environmental (B-E) sample size was 17, Maturational-Nativist (M-N) sample size was 26, and Comprehensive-Interactional (C-I) sample size was 30 for the discriminant analysis. These figures represent 94% of the original sample for the B—E and C-I groups, and 84% for the M-N group. As a measure of dispersion of scores for each of the three samples and for the entire sample, mean and standard deviation for each of the variables entered into the discriminant analysis are reported in Table 4.4. 91 Table 4.4. Means and Standard Deviations, Discriminant Analysis Factors r onmen = 1 mg. 1. Maturat Var e Mean . = ence Img. = Image Phl. = Philosophy Inc. = Annual Family Income Edc. = Respondent’s Level of Education, post high-school Prt. = Single, Joint, Dual Parenting FSz. = Number of children in the home Sat. = Satisfaction with Program Choice on scale of 1 - 10 Next, a pooled within-groups correlation matrix was prepared to examine relationships between pairs of variables selected to enter in the discriminant analysis. Table 4.5 reports the results. Table 4.5. Pooled Within Group Correlation Matrix 3!- II significant at .01. 92 Three pairs of factors showed statistically insignificant correlational effects. These were convenience and philosophy (—.001), convenience and income (.009), and image and satisfaction (.009). A few other pairs were also relatively weakly correlated (for example, image and convenience, .022; family size and income, -.043; family size and satisfaction with program, .033; and family size and single versus dual status of parenting, .038). Although they were statistically significant, less relationship was found than with pairs of variables such as those discussed below. The highest correlation between covariates (.708) was revealed for joint interactions between family income and status of dual versus single parenting. As income fell, so did the probability of raising a child singly. A .316 correlation between level of education and parenting status was the next highest. Respondents who reported higher levels of education were more likely to be raising a child with a partner. Income showed a positive correlation with the influence of image on the enrollment decision at .289. Image was more influential for parents with higher levels of family income. Also note that philosophy was more highly correlated with satisfaction with program choice than were convenience or image. Univariate F-ratio and level of significance for each of the eight discriminating factors are reported in Table 4.6. 93 Table 4.6. Univariate F-ratio Statistics from the Discriminant Analysis for Eight Factors N = 73 ar e F-rat o nven ence . mage .04 P os y ncome ucat on ng e Partner a y ze at 8 act on = gn can a According to this procedure, raising a child as a single parent versus with a partner was the most influential factor in describing early childhood education program choice, followed by program philosophy. Family size was also a highly significant factor in describing group membership. Convenience had the lowest explanatory power for describing group (early childhood education program) membership. Satisfaction and level of education also had relatively low explanatory power for describing group membership (program selection). These values represent comparisons for each variable against Function group 1, explained below. Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients were computed to examine the relative influence of the variables and factors entered into the discriminant analysis. This procedure determined two clusters of factors (termed functions collectively), which together accounted for 100% of group membership. Function 1 had greater 94 discriminating power than did Function 2. Function 1 contained program philosophy, level of annual family income, and single versus dual parenting, which were found to explain 65.74% of the variance in describing group membership. The remaining five variables (convenience, image, family size, level of education, and satisfaction with program choice) were clustered to represent 34.26% of the variance in describing group membership. The figures generated by this statistic indicated lesser influence with smaller number and greater influence as numbers grew larger. Verbal Description of Strength: For the purposes of this study, the strength of the degree of standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients was categorized in Table 4.7 as weak, moderate, strong, or very strong. The eight scores were divided into quartiles (two assigned to each category). 95 Table 4.7. Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients N'== 73 Factor or Funct on 1 Descr pt on Descr pt on Variable of St of st e . 4 ery trong o . e t . ate ze . t ra e Income . St Ve St ence . . St t on . w Ima . Ve t s a on . . t Function 1 group = Single/partner parenting, philosophy and income, accounting together for 65.74% of variance in explaining group membership. Function 2 group = image, convenience, satisfaction with program choice, family size and level of education, accounting together for 34.26% of variance in explaining group membership. Function groups are sometimes named for distinction. In this case, however, the Function groups are not easily named beyond identification of the specific variables and factors that they each contain. For example, each group contains factors that describe family demographics; e.g., income in Function 1 and family size in Function 2. Similarly, each contains factors that describe early childhood program models; e.g., philosophy, in Function 1, and image in Function 2. For this reason, they are discussed below as Function 1 and Function 2, with reference to the variables each contains, rather than by single labels that distinguish the groups. As explained earlier, factors that were categorized as Function 1 had the greatest explanatory power for group (early childhood education program) membership. Together, 96 whether a parent had a partner for Childrearing, philosophy of program, and family income accounted for 65.74% of the variance in group membership. The discriminant scores reported above are computed by multiplying each discriminating variable by its corresponding coefficient and adding together those products. The scores are calculated in such a way that they each have a mean of one and a standard deviation of one. Any single score therefore represents the number of standard deviations that score is away from the mean for all cases on the given discriminant function. Function 1 scores are arranged in order of decreasing importance. According to Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, and Bent (1975), I The standardized discriminant function coefficients are of great analytic importance in and of themselves. When the sign is ignored, each coefficient represents the relative contribution of its associated variable to that function. The sign merely denotes whether the variable is making a positive or negative contribution (443). Function groups 1 and 2 can be seen as new variables, each of which is made up of a group of factors previously viewed as separate effects. In comparing this step to earlier steps in the discriminate analysis procedure, note that in the correlation matrix presented in Table 4.5, only the joint effects of any two variables at a time are illustrated. Table 4.6 examines the relative strength of any one variable, when examined against the first Function. The standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients shown in Table 4.7 reveal synergistic effects 97 of variables considered in combination. Hence, the combination of the variables, single-dual parenting, philosophy and income can be viewed somewhat like a single variable made up of more than one differentiating factor. The eight variables entered into this procedure can be compared against this new cluster, termed the function group. Additionally, each separate variable within the function group can again be viewed independently. The results generated by the standardized canonical discriminant function procedure revealed that whether parenting singly or with a partner was most predictive of choice for a particular early childhood education program for the parents who participated in this study. Philosophy was the second most powerful predictor of program choice. The negative direction of the philosophy score indicated that philosophy was relatively more influential when fewer parents were involved in Childrearing (i.e., for parents who were raising their children alone). Conversely, those parents who shared Childrearing with a partner were less likely to choose a program because of its philosophy. Family size was also a strong predictor of group membership. As families grew larger, the importance of the Function 1 variables represented by parenting status (single/partner), philosophy, and income grew smaller. Income, apart from its role in the function group, had a strong negative influence on program choice, indicating that single parents with relatively low incomes believed that philosophy 98 considerations were relatively more important that did parents who were sharing Childrearing with a partner and had larger incomes. Convenience also became less influential with lower income or single parenting status, although it was only a moderate influence on program selection in any case. Function 2 influences were comprised of image, convenience, satisfaction with program, family size, and level of education. Together, they accounted for 34.26% of variance in describing group membership. This cluster of factors had less power collectively in explaining group membership than did the Function 1 factors. Function 1 was almost twice as powerful at 65.74%. Examining Function 2 coefficients reveals that the influence of image grew stronger as family income grew larger. Convenience was less important to families who were influenced by image. When image was very influential, philosophy was a moderate influence and convenience was the least influential of these three program variables. Note that both function groups describe group membership regardless of the particular program model. These groups of variables can be said to describe enrollment patterns for the entire sample. The first hypothesis, which posits that in combination, convenience, image, philosophy and family demographics will be significant descriptors of parental choice of early childhood education program, was supported. 99 Hypothesis 2: There is no relationship between parental regime and early childhood education program selection by parents. Information about parental regime identification was collected via the Parental Regime Assessment Scale (PRAS). This instrument collected data about both the respondent’s perception of current parenting beliefs and practices and about their ideal beliefs and practices. A decision was made to report the parents’ ideal scores. This was because the investigator assumed that parents were more influenced in their decision to enroll a child in a particular program by what program personnel said in written handbooks and in face-to-face discussions than by what personnel actually did in contacts with children. Directors and teachers seemed likely to report their ideals, rather than their current practices, when explaining early childhood education program philosophy to potential clients. The investigator assumed that parent’s own ideals may be more significant to their program selection than were their actual practices. Attendance in an early childhood program is not mandated by law-as are other levels of education. Parental expectation for some enhancement of the child’s alternative ways of spending time was assumed. Enhanced experiences seemed more related to parental ideals than to parental practices. The Multivariate Utility Technology (MAUT) program was used to score data collected on the PRAS. Initially, raw value scores (RVSs) that parents assigned to each of four 100 items grouped into ten statement categories were transformed into individual coefficient scores (ICSs). A total raw value score (TRVS) was then derived by summing the RVSs for the sets of attributes comprising each dimensional group for each respondent. Next, each individual RVS was divided by the TRVS for each dimensional group to calculate a coefficient. This procedure was repeated for all groups of attributes. The groups of coefficients were then interpreted to represent the comparative magnitude of the perceptions held by each parent regarding the dimensional use of regimes. Then, individual scores were categorized as 1 or 0 by comparing them against calculated mean quartile scores. Given that there are four regimes per single access or target dimension (four of each), the maximum number of possible regime patterns per single dimension was 16. In order to compare family regime identification across the three groups of parents representing the early childhood education program models, Behavioral-Environmental, Maturational-Nativist, and Comprehensive-Interactional, dimensions rated as 1 (most like the parent) using the methods described above were counted in each of the four parenting regimes: Open, Random, Closed, and Synchronous. Percentage of responses that fell in the top quartile (most like the parent) were then computed for each group. The eight dimensions measured in each of four parental regimes generate 32 different possible scores of 1. However, since 101 each individual’s scores were divided into quartiles, eight scores of 1 per parent resulted. Tables 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 show totals for PRAS selections scored as values of 1: very important to the respondent for the four regimes across the eight dimensions for parents in the three program models, Behavioral- Environmental, Maturational-Nativist, and Comprehensive- Interactional, respectively. Definitions of dimensions are offered below for ease in interpreting this data (see Constantine, 1986, for more comprehensive definitions): Cntr = Control: how parents get children to achieve and accomplish. Aff = Affect: the manner in which care and support are expressed. Spc = Space: what children are taught about ideas and information. Cnt = Content: teaching objective understanding of events. Mtrl = Material: how to relate to possessions and belongings. Mean = Meaning: the identity of family as taught to children. Time = Time: what children are taught about the use of time. \ Engy = Energy: the pace of interactions with children. In the Behavioral—Environmental model group, the dimensions of Affect and Space/Information measured as the most important to parents. Meaning had the third highest value, followed by Energy. Affect is a measure of support, love, and care. Space is described in the regime literature (see Chapter II) as relating to ways in which and reasons for which information is shared within a family, as well as to uses and boundaries of physical space. Consideration and 102 Table 4.8. PRAS Scores, Behavioral-Environmental Model N = 1 8 DIMENSION cntr Aff Spc Cnt Mtrl Mean Time Engy Reg. Totals REGIME Open 4 16 13 6 3 6 3 3 = 54 (37.5%) Random 1 13 15 1 0 S 2 S = 42 (29.2%) Closed 3 2 o o s 11 s 9 = 35 (24.3%) Synch o o 2 1 o 3 2 5 = 13 (9.0:) Dimens. 8 31 3O 8 8 25 12 22 rTotals II:5 5.6% 21.5% 20.8% 5.6% 5.6% 17.4: 8.3% 15.3: “ NOTE: Scores of 1 (most like the parent), reported on above table, occured 8 times per respondent. 8 other responses each received a value of 2, 3, and 4 (least like the parent). Percentages reported were calculated from a total possible 32 respondents x 8 dimensions, or 256 possible points per dimension. Column figures represent the percentage of the total Is that could have been selected for each dimension of parenting, and was a measure of the importance of a dimension, without regard for regime. Regime totals give relative weighting to the kind of regime most like the respondents in a particular model of programing. Regime percentages were figured as the percentage that the regime total was of 256 possible points. l()3 Table 4.9. PRAS Scores, Maturational—Natavist Model N'== 31 ’“fl DIMENSION Cntr Aff Spc Cnt Mtrl Mean Time Engy Reg. Totals REGIME Open 8 28 23 S 0 7 13 15 = 99 (39.9%) Random 5 27 25 4 0 4 7 12 a 84 (33.9%) Closed 1 l 1 1 2 17 5 16 = 44 (17.7%) Synch 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 16 = 21 (8.5%) Dimens. 14 56 51 13 2 28 25 59 Totals % 5.6% 22.6% 20.6% 5.2% 0.8% 11.3% 10.1% 23.8% ]| Note: Scores of 1 (most like the parent), reported on above table, occured 8 times per respondent. 8 other responses each received a value of 2, 3, and 4 (least like the parent). Percentages reported were calculated from a total possible 31 respondents x 8 dimensions, or 248 possible points per dimension. Column figures represent the percentage of the total Is that could have been selected for each dimension of parenting, and was a measure of the importance of a dimension, without regard for regime. Regime totals give relative weighting to the kind of regime most like the respondents in a particular model of programing. Regime percentages were figured as the percentage that the regime total was of 248 possible points. 1(34 Table 4.10. PRAS Scores, Comprehensive-Interactional Model N = 32 DIMENSION " Cntr Af f Spc Cnt Mtrl Mean Time Engy Reg . Totals REGIME Open 12 31 27 13 2 8 l3 9 = 115 (44.9%) Random 3 31 27 8 1 9 3 14 = 96 (37.5%) Closed 0 0 1 0 1 11 6 12 = 31 (12.1%) Synch 1 0 0 1 0 2 2 8 = 14 (5.5%) Dimens. 16 62 55 22 4 3O 24 43 r'rotals .. _ |% 6.3% 24.2% 21.5% 8.6% 1.6% 11.7% 9.4% 16.8% | NOTE: Scores of 1 (most like the parent), reported on above table, occured 8 times per respondent. each received a value of 2, parent). possible 18 respondents x 8 dimensions, or 144 possible points per dimension. percentage of the total Is that could have been selected for each dimension of parenting, and was a measure of the importance of a dimension, without regard for regime. 3, and 4 (least like the Percentages reported were calculated from a total 8 other responses Column figures represent the Regime totals give relative weighting to the kind of regime most like the respondents in a particular model of Regime percentages were figured as the percentage that the regime total was of 144 possible points. programing. 105 discussion of ideas are aspects of space/information. Energy is a measure of the direction and use of collective efforts and differs over regimes on the basis of steady/paced versus dynamic/enthusiastic versus relaxed versus adaptable/flexible for Closed, Random, Synchronous, and Open Regimes, in that order. The Random and Open Regimes were most like this group of parents as a whole (66.7%, combined). Parents who enrolled their children in the Maturational—Nativist model programs in this study placed the highest values on the dimensions of Energy, Affect, and Space/Information. The Open and Random Regimes were most like this group of respondents (73.8%, combined regime scores). Parents who selected the Maturational-Nativist program model for their children showed less consistency in scores for both Regime identification and dimension values than did parents from the other two models. Parents who chose to enroll their children in the Comprehensive-Interactional model program valued the dimensions of Affect and Space the most highly. The dimension of Energy was third most important. The respondents representing the Comprehensive-Interactional model were most like the Regimes labeled Open and Random (82.4%, combined) and least like the Synchronous and the Closed Regimes (17.6%, combined). There was a relative balance over regimes for the dimension energy, however. 106 Scores were calculated for the entire sample in the same way as for the individual program model groups in order to examine parental regime and dimension trends. These results are reported in Table 4.11. The parents who participated in this study valued the dimensions of Affect and Space/Information most highly, followed by Meaning and Energy. Dimension valuing by group (program model) differed only slightly from whole group results. The order of value for the dimensions of Meaning and Energy were ranked third and fourth most important by the Behavioral-Environmental group. Meaning and Energy were valued equally by the group as a whole. They were reversed in rank (Energy third and Meaning fourth) for the Maturational—Nativist group and the Comprehensive- Interactional group. Parents were most like the Open Regime, and then the Random Regime. They were least like the Closed and the Synchronous Regimes. This relative ranking was true for each program sample, as well as for the sample as a whole. These parents, as a whole, shared Open and Random Regime characteristics, regardless of other differences in groups; e.g., program selection, cultural/racial characteristics, levels of income, levels of education, and so on. The null hypothesis was supported for relationship between parental regime and early childhood education program models. 1137 Table 4.11. Total Group PRAS Scores N==81 DIMENSION Cntr Af f Spc Cnt Mtrl Mean Time Engy Reg . Totals REGIME en 24 75 63 24 s 21 29 27 = 268 (41.4%) Random 9 71 67 13 1 18 12 31 = 110 (34.3%) " Closed 4 3 2 1 8 39 16 37 = 222 (17.0%) “ Synch 1 0 4 s 0 5 4 29 = 48 (7.4%) “ Dimens. 38 149 136 43 14 83 61 124 l _ Totals II‘ 7.6% 20.1% 19.4% 6.3% 4.9% 16.0% 9.7% 16 0% I NOTE: Scores of 1 (most like the parent), reported on above table, occured 8 times per respondent. 8 other responses each received a value of 2, parent). possible 81 respondents x 8 dimensions, or 648 possible points per dimension. percentage of the total 1s that could have been selected for each dimension of parenting, and was a measure of the importance of a dimension, without regard for regime. 3, and 4 (least like the Column figures represent the Percentages reported were calculated from a total Regime totals give relative weighting to the kind of regime most like the respondents in a particular model of Regime percentages were figured as the percentage that the regime total was of 648 possible points. programing. 108 Hypothesis 3: There is no relationship between parental regime identification and perceived goodness of fit for particular program models. Parents were quite satisfied with their program choices overall. Satisfaction is a measure of goodness of fit. Examining the highest possible rating, a score of 10, there was variation across models. Comprehensive-Interactional Model respondents selected a 10 only 16% of the time; Maturational-Nativist respondents selected a 10 in 37% of the cases; and Behavioral-Environmental respondents selected a rating of 10 in 44% of the cases. Discriminating to the highest rating of satisfaction, parents in the Comprehensive—Interactional Model were less than half as satisfied as those in the other two models. However, clustering scores of 8, 9, and 10 to examine satisfaction revealed a high level of satisfaction (88.8%) for most respondents, regardless of the program in which they had enrolled a child. Since parents did not differ in significant ways across models in Parental Regime identification, any relationship to goodness of fit was a moot point. The null hypothesis was supported for this variable in the absence of clear evidence within this study that such a relationship existed. Summary A complex array of variables were found to interact in describing parental choice of early childhood education 109 program. Within the sample of parents who participated in this study, whether or not the partner has a partner in Childrearing, program philosophy, and family income were particularly strong descriptors of program selection. As the status of single versus dual parenting and the level of family income varied, so did the importance placed on program philosophy. A discriminant analysis procedure revealed that convenience, image, philosophy, and family demographics, examined in concert, explained more about program selection decisions than examining any one of them separately would. Some differences in demographic profile were significant. However, the complexity of interactions between these variables and the small and skewed samples for some variables made these difficult to assess or to generalize independently beyond the present samples. Examined in interaction with other variables of interest, however, family demographics, particularly single versus dual parenting, income level, and family size added to the descriptive power of this integrated framework. Parental Regime identification and dimensional priorities within the regimes were quite similar across the groups of parents. Differences among families in this study that were revealed by this measure were quite small. No clear relationships between regime identification and program choice by parents with children in the separate models of programming were found. 110 Satisfaction with program choice was generally high, and did not differ significantly across program models or within the entire sample. A summary of the hypotheses tested in this study and the outcome of the analytical decisions is presented below. Summary of Hypotheses Tested and Decision Rule for Research Questions Hypotheses Decisions In combination, convenience, image Supported philosophy and family demographics will be significant descriptors of parental choice of early childhood program There is no relationship between Supported parental regime and early child- hood education program selection by parents. There is no relationship between Supported parental regime identification and perceived goodness of fit for particular early childhood education program models. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION, PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Discussion Theorists and researchers, including Bronfenbrenner, Evans, and Lazar, have questioned whether any one model of early childhood education is "best" in all settings and for all families. They assert that it is likely that different curriculum models suit different families in different contexts. In this study, several variables representing convenience, image, philosophy, and family demographics were seen to interact in complex ways to describe the decision that parents reached about program enrollment for their children. The results represented a significant departure from conventional thinking about the importance of convenience issues to potential consumers of early childhood program services. Assumptions that parents are reluctant to pay higher costs to ensure perceived quality of experience for their children must be re-examined in light of these findings. Single parents, even those with relatively low incomes, reported the most interest in program philosophy. 111 112 These findings could be interpreted in a number of ways. It seems possible that single parents place a higher value on their children’s out-of—home experiences with adults who can complement family values and goals than do parents who share child-rearing with a partner. In absence of a partner to share in the transmission of values and knowledge within the home, people outside the home may be sought to share in this process. Some parents seem to interpret philosophy as a primary indicator of program quality. They seem willing to inconvenience themselves to some extent in order to enhance confidence that they have found a quality program for their child. Parents with children enrolled in the Behavioral- Environmental program were most frequently raising their children alone. This model is characterized by a relatively high value placed on the transmission of knowledge considered important to success in the societies of school and culture. Parents who lack a partner with whom to share socialization of the child may place higher value on placement in a early childhood education program that promises to share in this process. Parents with children in the Maturational-Nativist program all reported sharing Childrearing with a partner. All but one respondent were mothers. Few of them worked outside the home. This model prioritizes play and interactions with peers and adults, relatively free of pressure to achieve or to retain knowledge. The primary 113 role of the teacher is the provision of an enriched environment to explore. These parents may not perceive any need for help with Childrearing. The Comprehensive-Interactional model purports to seek a balance between direct instruction and child-initiated learning. Constructed knowledge on the child’s part outweighs transmitted knowledge that comes from the teacher. The teacher, however, is seen as important in eliciting and clarifying understanding. Hence, this model can be viewed as a middle-point on a continuum that has the other two models on its ends. The parents who responded to this study who had children enrolled in the Comprehensive-Interactional program were the most likely to be employed outside of the home. This was true of both married/sharing Childrearing and single/parenting alone respondents. Families in which parents are not as often available to the child may also seek out-of-home support for the socialization process, but in this case may interpret differently what that process should entail. The Comprehensive-Interactional parents in this study also had relatively high levels of education and may have perceived the goals of this program as more like their parenting goals. The majority of the parents in this study were satisfied with their choice of a particular early childhood program. Parents seemed knowledgeable about programming features that distinguished their choice from other alternatives. This seems to confirm that different families 114 are best served by different program models. Since satisfaction was measured after parents had had experience with the program, it may also be possible that parents come to support the goals of a program as they learn more about them. Alternatively, parents who lack options related to the resources of time and money may have greater motivation to adapt or transform their own beliefs and goals in order to perceive a comfortable fit with their program choice. Another interesting finding involved linkages between seemingly disparate theories that had not previously been examined for congruency. According to Diesing, the location variable constitutes a technical decision, relating to time- saving. The location of the early childhood education program held only moderate importance to parents in this study, as did economic decisions related to financial resource allocation. Aspects of social decision-making, which involve conflicts between values and goals that impact on a choice among alternatives, were influential ones for these parents. According to Diesing, these decisions differ from technical and economic ones in that the number of alternatives available are difficult to quantify and specify. Social decisions deal not with a resource scarcity, as with time or money for the first two types, but rather with conflicts over cultural or societal role expectations and symbolic meanings. One interpretation of the current research findings in light of decision-making 115 theory is that congruence of goals and values between the parents, others in the parent’s social network, and the educational program outweigh resource-allocation considerations. Concepts explored in Family Paradigmatic theory dovetailed with these findings, particularly in consideration of priorities examined for the dimensions of parenting. Features of parenting regime that differentiated families with young children from one another seemed fewer than those that revealed similarities. The dimensions of Affect and Space/Information were highly valued. Parents valued the effects that they have, and that the early childhood educational experience complements, on their child’s emotional well being. Further, examinations of data collected that was not included in the analyses of results confirmed that parents valued the provision of information, both for themselves and for their children. Some information that was gathered was not included in the data analysis but is included in the discussions below to shed more light on the complexity of factors that may influence early childhood education program decisions. Data collected via the Parent Questionnaire (PQ) revealed that when prospective enrollees were given opportunities to read printed materials that described program features and, to a lesser extent, to talk with program staff or to observe program sessions, they were more likely to select that program as a good fit for their family. Bronfenbrenner 116 points out that experiences that allow for the formation and maintenance of transcontextual dyads may enhance the perception of goodness of fit. Teachers or directors and parents constitute such dyads within the mesosystem comprised of the early childhood education program and the home. Evidence indicates that program outreach efforts to inform parents of philosophical beliefs seem worthwhile if attracting and satisfying clientele is a program goal. It may be that written as well as face-to-face communication with program personnel begins shaping the philosophy of education that parents hold so that the feature of congruence between family and program becomes a somewhat cyclical issue. Program hours relate to the paradigmatic dimension, Time. Program cost seems congruent with the Material dimension. These factors proved to be of little importance to the majority of parent respondents when measured on the Parenting Regime Assessment Scale or when measured on the Parent Questionnaire. Parents seemed willing to invest resources of time and material goods to ensure that programs were likely to provide what they perceived as quality experiences for their children. In summary, correlations between findings on the two different parent reporting instruments were revealed, although the Parent Questionnaire had the purpose of measuring program selection criteria while the Parent Regime Assessment Scale was employed as a measure of parenting style. 117 Personal Observations The most difficult part of this study was locating an early childhood education program to represent the Behavioral-Environmental model described in the literature. Ultimately, the Behavioral-Environmental model was represented by a program with a relatively weak identification with the philosophical goals and program strategies described in the Planned Variation experiment that produced the instrument employed to measure this stance. Many professionals in the field of early childhood education representing state licensing agencies, school districts, county early childhood offices, and universities were contacted in efforts to locate a program that identified more strongly with this model. Each of these professionals expressed doubt that a program with a strong Behavioral-Environmental identification could be located, particularly one that met other study criteria, such as availability of more than one program so as to allow parental choice of enrollment and age range of children served. Moreover, several of those contacted pointed out that contemporary educational reform movements would likely cause center directors to hesitate to select self— identifying statements representative of this currently often criticized model. Nevertheless, a list of programs with potential for Behavioral-Environmental identification was compiled. Several of them were church-affiliated. None 118 were willing to participate. A decision was made to include the program with the strongest, albeit a relatively weak, Behavioral-Environmental identification, as measured by initial random administrations of the Programming Preferences Check List (PPC). The PPC has been widely used for at least 15 years. Distinguishing features of the Maturational-Nativist and the Comprehensive-Interactional models seem to have stood the tests of time for discriminating between distinct early childhood education philosophies. A third model may have evolved over time that integrates features of the Behavioral-Environmental philosophy with characteristics previously unrecognized. Philosophy was a stronger influence on program choice for the parents who represented the Behavioral—Environmental model than for the other two models in this study. Examinations of statements written in response to an open- ended question requiring that parents describe the philosophy of the program they had chosen revealed consistencies for the group labeled Behavioral-Environmental that distinguished them from parents representing the other two models. Many of these statements also differentiated this program from the Behavioral-Environmental type that the PPC describes. A content examination of responses revealed some interesting similarities with descriptors selected by the program director on the PPC. For example, parents 119 representing the Behavioral-Environmental model used such words and phrases as "challenging"; "children will grow academically"; and "(staff) . . . work hard to promote higher education." These comments were in keeping with director-selected descriptors. An emphasis placed on instruction, hierarchical learning episodes, and adult presentation of prepared objectives and materials was revealed in statements chosen by the director, and written by the parents. Although this program had no affiliation with a church or formal religion as far as could be determined by data analysis or discussions with the program director, several parents cited the importance of religious attitudes or teachings on the part of program staff as influential in their decision to enroll a child. For example, one parent reported that "(the) . . . Program is truly a God fearing, spirit filled program. I am pleased when the teachers take time to talk/pray with my children and I don’t have to de— program them when I get home." Another parent described this program as "A Christian environment." A third parent described program philosophy in this way: "To provide a positive learning environment conducive to growth & development of preschool students w/a Christian emphasis." Yet another parent explained her program choice by saying: "God blessed me with this child care facility." Eighty-four percent of the parents believed that their own philosophy was "very similar to the school’s." 120 Although emphasis on academic rigor is an obvious component of the Behavioral-Environmental statements on the PPC, religious beliefs and teachings are not. It seems possible that the director who represented this model may have selected statements that described this philosophical difference, had they been among the options. Further research seems warranted into the evolving nature of a third program model, perhaps with an Academic—Religious philosophical stance. Image factors were important when parents had a relatively high income level. Marketing services to such families could be enhanced by opportunities for networking with families who already have children in the program. The groups of parents recruited to represent three models of early childhood education were significantly different from each other in cultural-racial makeup. Black Americans were overrepresented in the Behavioral— Environmental model group (15 of 18 respondents) and not represented at all in the other two models. It was difficult to determine whether the Behavioral-Environmental model had more appeal for Black Americans than did the other models, or whether some other confounding variables led to this skewed composition. Based on the skewed nature of the samples, findings could not be generalized to the perceptions of fathers versus mothers. Only 3 of 81 respondents were fathers. This may indicate that mothers are more likely to be 121 involved in decisions about their young children’s educational experiences than are fathers. Attendance in an early childhood education program that parents perceive as sharing goals like their own, both for parenting and for educating their child, seems important. The means by which these ends are best met were perceived in different ways; the fact that these are worthy ends was not. The complex ecology of interactions across the mesosystem of families and early childhood education programs was underscored through analyses of the many factors that interacted in influencing program choice. Suggestions for Future Research The results of this study illustrated the importance that early childhood education programs should place on formulating and articulating statements of philosophy. Optimal means of conveying programmatic ideas should be examined more closely. Studies should also be designed to investigate whether differences in early childhood program philosophy warrant more current classifications, particularly in the case of the Behavioral-Environmental model. Printed materials and, to a lesser extent, talks with program staff were reported to be effective methods for sharing goals of the program with the parent. This information was not included in the data analysis. However, as the nationwide movement toward schools of choice gains 122 momentum, these factors may be worthy of study at the early childhood level and at levels of education beyond early childhood as well. Although personal and family characteristics (gender, cultural/racial identification, family size, income level, level of education, regime and dimension priorities, and so on) were difficult to consider in isolation, in keeping with ecological theory further research into their independent effects is warranted. Efforts to ensure more balanced distribution of demographic variables across program models are urged if replications of the present research are attempted. The Parental Regime Assessment Scale (PRAS) provided a wealth of idiomatic data that was beyond the purview of this study to examine. Written comments made on this instrument by some of the 81 respondents who completed it indicated that further development in the form of statement rewording is warranted to enhance its usefulness for studying parents with young children. Further descriptive research should be carried out in other early childhood programs to more fully identify variables that relate to parental selection of programs across a range of parenting styles and regimes. This work was only the first step in identifying factors that may link family variables to program selection and to satisfaction with program fit. Further development of statistical methods for examining trends that characterize groups of PRAS respondents could enhance research efforts 123 that examine interactions between families and educational settings. Summary This study utilized Bronfenbrenner’s human ecological model in attempting to elucidate the nature of interactions between early childhood educational settings and families. Bronfenbrenner warns that many studies of these system- effects suffer from limitations related to methods that fail to take into account complex ecological differences in the two settings. Further, he points out that outcomes have been studied far more than have settings and events that differ and correspond within families and programs. This study broke new conceptual grounds in presenting a framework for studying the synergistic effects of a complex array of factors. This represented a new approach to attempts to examine some aspects of development-in-context, in keeping with the principles of the ecology of human development expressed in Bronfenbrenner’s theory. Mapping new directions for continued examination of this principle was its primary purpose. APPENDICES APPENDIX A COMMUNICATIONS WITH PROGRAM DIRECTORS APPENDIX A COMMUNICATIONS WITH PROGRAM DIRECTORS 26 July, 1993 Dear Program Director, I am planning a study that will examine some of the factors that parents consider when they are choosing a program in which to enroll their child/children. As a first step, I am conducting a pilot piece, with the goal of identifying basic differences in program philosophies. I would greatly appreciate if you, as a Director, would complete the enclosed PROGRAMMING PREFERENCE CHECKLIST and return it to me in the enclosed, stamped envelope. I know that it is difficult to find time for paperwork beyond the piles with which you are already burdened in your job! Thank you very much, in advance for helping me with this research. The checklist is kind of confusing (in my opinion), but is a widely used and already validated one, so I am using it anyway... Some notes about the procedure for completing it follow: 1. Work across the page in choosing one response that most reflects your beliefs about early childhood programs (and in some cases, later educational experiences). 2. Please select only one answer to check in each cross-page section. 3. Sometimes, there is no descriptor in one or two of the columns. Simply indicate if one of the ones that is there reflects your beliefs, or leave it blank if this is not the case. 4. Sometimes, the descriptions are the same in two or all three columns. As above, check one if you believe it to be true. 5. Please try to make a selection in each category. However, you are free to leave no selection chosen, if you can’t make sense of what is said, or don’t believe any of the selections to be true. 6. Please call me if you would like to discuss any of the procedure. Thanks again for helping me with this. Sincerely, Kit Payne 3470 Green Road St. Johns, MI 48879 Phone: 517 669-9197 YOU INDICATE YOUR VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY BY COMPLETING AND RETURNING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. ALL ANSWERS WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. 124 125 24 August, 1993 Dear (Director), Thanks very much for completing the Director survey form that I sent you. I really appreciate the time that it took. I am hoping that you will agree to help me out with this next step in my research. I’ve been trying to reach you by phone to ask, but assume that you’ve been on vacation. The next step requires that I request assistance from parents, in the form of surveys again. All they would be asked to do is voluntarily complete forms, and return them to me. I have enclosed copies of everything that parents would receive. If you agree to let me do this, I would like you to complete the PARENT REGIME ASSESSMENT SCALE (PRAS) in order to decide whether you think that the parents who have children in your program would find it understandable and "do-able". When you are completing the PRAS, please answer the questions from the perspective of the "parenting role" inherent in preschool programming, rather than from your own perspective as a parent of an individual child. This will give me a chance to compare your answers on the last checklist I had you complete with the kind of information that this instrument measures. The other Parent Questionnaire should be easier to complete (I think). It is not necessary that you actually complete it. Just look it over and let me know if you think parents would have any difficulty completing it. Feel free to write any notes or comments right on the surveys. If you agree to allow me to distribute these to parents, I will bring them to you, with stamped, addressed envelopes so that parents can return them to me. I am also willing to mail them directly to parents if you would like to provide me with a mailing list. You may, however, prefer that I distribute them through school mail, since this enhances confidentiality, and may result in a higher return rate, which would really help me. Since I need at least 30 returned sets, from parents with 2 to 6 year olds, I’m concerned about rate of return. Call me if you have any questions or concerns, and again thanks for your help, if you decide to continue with this. (This is the last thing I would need you to do!). Kit Payne 3470 Green Road, St. Johns, Michigan 48879 517 669—9197 APPENDIX B COMMUNICATIONS WITH PARENTS APPENDIX B COMMUNICATIONS WITH PARENTS INFORMATION SHEET My name is Kit Payne. I am a student at Michigan State University, with an interest in families, and in ways that early childhood programs can best serve families. I am currently studying some of the factors that parents like about the programs that their children attend. Here are some questions that you may have about participating in this study. I hope that the answers are helpful, and would be glad to talk with you more about them, if you wish. You can call me at (517) 669—9197. Feel free to call collect if this is a long distance call from your home. My address is at the bottom of this page if you would like to write to me. What is this study about? I am interested in some of the factors that influence parents as they select early childhood programs in which to enroll their children. One of the questions that I would like to answer is whether most parents like the same kind of program, or whether certain programs are seen as better ones by some parents, while other programs are preferred by other parents. It seems likely that there is no one best kind of program for every parent. I would like you to help me decide if this is true. How long will it take me to fill out these forms? The two questionnaires, combined, should take about 20 or 30 minutes to complete. Some people will want to spend a longer time thinking about their answers than others. It is not important that you spend a long time on your answers. Often, your first thoughts are the most accurate ones. These are the only forms that you will be asked to complete. Who will be looking at my questionnaires? I am the only person who will read these forms. No one but me will know who filled out each form; I will have your name only so that I know to whom things should be mailed. Otherwise, your form will be identified only by a number. Will I be able to read about the results? If you would like to read a summary of this study when it is finished, I would be glad to send one to you. You will find a place to check whether you want the results mailed to you later on one of the questionnaires. What if I decide that I don’t want to finish this, after all? It is entirely up to you whether you want to participate or not. No one but me will know whether you send these forms back. You can decide to stop or withdraw at any time, with no penalty of any kind to you or your child. Kit Payne 3470 Green Road St. Johns, Michigan 48879 Phone: 517 669-9197 126 APPENDIX C PERMISSION SLIPS APPENDIX C PERMISSION SLIPS RESEARCH CONDITIONS AND AGREEMENT I have read the letter of explanation and had questions about this research answered. I understand that the researcher may ask to meet with me later, and that I may decline if I wish. I agree to complete the attached surveys, and understand that the results will be used in the study. I further agree that program records for which parents seeking future enrollment have given information in the past may be used. I agree to these conditions, as long as all the information will be kept confidential and I will remain anonymous (not be mentioned by name in any of the reporting of the study). I have been assured that I can discontinue my involvement with the study at any time without any consequences to myself or my position. I agree that all information gathered in the study can be reported both verbally and in writing as long as all the above conditions are met. Director’s Signature Witness’s Signature Date: 127 128 RESEARCH CONDITIONS AND AGREEMENT I have read the INFORMATION SHEET and had questions (if any) about this research answered. I agree to complete the attached Questionnaires and understand that the results will be used in the study, and that other program records for which I provided information in the past may also be used, if necessary. I agree to these conditions, as long as all the information will be kept confidential and I and all members of my family will remain anonymous (not be mentioned by name in any of the reporting of the study). I have been assured that I can discontinue my involvement with the study at any time without any consequences to myself or my child. I agree that all information gathered in the study can be reported both verbally and in writing as long as all the above conditions are met. Parent’s Signature Witness’s Signature Date: You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning these Questionnaires. Please include this page, as well. APPENDIX D DIRECTOR/PROGRAM INSTRUMENTS APPENDIX D DIRECTOR/PROGRAM INSTRUMENTS Director Information Sheet Please complete and return this page, along with the attached checklist. This information will remain confidential, and will be used only for research purposes. Neither your name nor your center’s name will be printed in the study. Date: Your Name: Center’s Name: 1. I have been the Director at this center for approximately: less than 1 year one to two years two to three years three to five years more than five, but fewer than ten years ten years or more 2. My training or educational background for this job has included: experiences with children’s programs high school courses courses at a two year college two year degree or CDA some courses at a four year college a four year degree a Master’s degree some course work beyond a Master’s degree a Ph.D or Specialist’s degree My center provides care and/or educational programming for children between the ages of and 4. Our total enrollment of children numbers about: 5. There are approximately children enrolled who are between the ages of 2 and 6. 6. I would like to read a discussion of the results when the study is finished: yes no 129 130 .>HmsooGMuHDEHo oomouo Houo>oo no oofiuw>auoo mascuooa Cw ommmco >oE couoasno nmnonuao .uxoc onu ou mcfi>oe cu oufimflsvououo ma ommum nooo mo cofiuoameoo Houooooosm .mofiuflafinmmoo uoouo poems: can Xoameoo >Hmcfimoouocfi mo >noumuown mcwcpmoa o>fiumHaeno an o>oe Ou couoawnu .mmcfinu mcw3oa> no >83 ucouuso m.oawno onu mo mahou as no .oeu0w unmsonu m.oasno onu aw poucomoum me as no mcoa mo. . .ucosmoHo>oo mo omouo >co um pawno >co ou EMOH umocon >Haonuooaaoucfi oeoo as >Ho>wu -oowuo unmsou on coo uoohndm >c< .uoSuoco oco scum coAumHomw as oocaouu >Hanummooono on uoccoo >onu uonu copoaano as ucoocomoououcfl one oouoaouuoucs on own >onu use .cowumHOmfi ca oomosomfip one poflosum on coo ucoE -moHo>op no occamcosfio Hmsow>fiocn .ocofiumo Hmsofl>apcfi mo mcfimfiouoxo on» one o>auoauflcw Honoa>wpcfi mcouum >Haosvo >n ooflcmmeoooo on bone use .omououm HmucoemoHo>oo onu ooconco coo wonuoco >3 cofiuoasefium one oucooaam o>fiuod .Honoa>flocs o>fluom so no puma onu no pauoa Howoom pom Hoofim>sm onu mo ocoeogonm nus: =oocofluomxo Houocom o>wmmo8= nmsounu oouwsvom ma omooasocx owufioomm Ham MOM manna on» EACH moans mousuosuum o>Huwcmoo on» no ucosmoHo>oo N .moood ucououuflo uo oooumoum >oe conoawno soaps nmnounu use .uoouo uoasmou ow Honuo sumo ooooosm non» oomouo ca Edncfiucoo Houcoe -doHo>oo o a: o>OE ou couoafizu .nooo ou oHuHooQo one use» ooofl>oum on coo noosoauomxo one .muonuo onu sou“ uuomo Ham poncde on coo nooo use .oaano on» as Hocuoco oco Scum oanouomoocfi oum ucoemoHo>oo we mcofimcoeflo .COAuco>houcfi wagon mo EDEwcflE m Sues passe on» >n moflufi>suoo mo mooflono odoocoucomm co oocoaaom .munmsfi uwwfioomm oooooc oow>oum ou moousomon poo maopoe mo >uwaflpoaflm>o on» moan .>Hounu86oua mcflcwouu oou0m ou oumEouuo uo\oco mxooHn descauoso Eouu oouw oco ma ucoemoHo>oo MOM mowuuoo noon one N senoquoeuwo veuaeeo a“ oeueuaaaoeu en oceanoHebeo ado enoauaonoo use: henna BMHAMUHMU MUZMMMNNNQ UZHSUOMQ D .>Honoocmuassfim momouo Hmuo>oo um oofluw>wuoo mascuooa ca omomco >85 couoaano nmsonuam .uXoc osu Ou moa>oe ou ouflmangououd ma ommuo nooo no newuoameoo Hzmmmooonm .mowuaasnomou Hoouo nonmfln onm Roameoo >Hmcwmcouosfi mo >nououoH£ mascuooa o>flumasESU as o>oe ou couoaanu .ooufisgou one Dona AXoHQEoo ou onan EONuo msuouuom omcoamou onu a: pagan Ou oEau onu ooxou you nonpumCH was no mcoH mo mcsnu>co >Haoofluooum unmsou on coo passe 4 .oHoH>onon Hocaeuou mo mahou cw uo oo>aoocou ouo oco >Houoummom nuw3 uamoo on goo usoE -Qoao>oo mo mcoflocoEwo Hospfi>wocH .ocowuosuflm Axoameoo ouoeo Honuo ou >Haauoooooso Hocuooa onu >n oowammm on can ncofiumnuflm soon as posses» >Huomoum mumoocoo one maaflxm .omouo oouweflaoo as ocommoa no mcassouu mo moocosoom pousuosuum >HH9mouoo nmsounu me man» nmaameooom 0» >83 oco .ucoscoua>co on» no mcuouuom ucoEoUHOHCHoH on» ouoannacos 0» ms m>o3 monsoon ca u0fi>mnon one ucoEQoHo>oo mnemono mo >o3 can: x D .H l3l .nOnunHOmon nonaunoo one xnoz anonm uno xnoa nonoanno mnnmaon no omnnoo onu nn .meone noonnno unsooeoe onu me mnnuOOM oEem no >HHenunn> .Eenmonm HenOAuonnuonw one no unem Henmounn me nuns uHeoo mdnnonOnueHon HenomnomnounH .oanennmoo on monun>nuoe mo ooneonnm one on unoEHnemEooue omenmnea nmnonuae mnOHdeonoo we nOAuennaenno> ooouonm oHnono munoonue >n nOnueunoEnnono one nOnueHnmnnez .>un>nuoe oouewunnn unoonum one nonoeou noon n0u oanenne>e maefinouee enooEnanz .muoonond oononnnnnn ouoadsoo on oEnu one monunnnunomno Henoonm mnnow>onm .mumonounn m.nonoanno unnoooe ounn mnwxeu now >unannnxoau no Heoo ooom e nun3 use .>eo noeo nan oHnoonoo >Hnoono one oonneam .>unannnmnomoon Henon>nonn one n0nuoenounn noon none nuns xno: moonm one Hedon>nonn nuom .oeone unounoo nonuo nn omenmnea one monueeonuee mnnnueou .mnnuwns one mnnoeon Ou noeonmme ooononnoQXo-omenmneH= .meone nooflnnm Heno>oe emonoe mnnuuno euoononn >nnnvnn Henon>nonn .>no>ooono ooonno .omenmnea mnnonaonn .>unanne HenOHueunooonmon nn unoEQoHo>oo HoHHenem >3 oonnemeoooe mnnnOHuonnm .HenOnuenono Henn0m on HenOnuenono ouononoo on HenOHuenoQo -onm on nouoe->nomnom eonu ennnnunoo HeunoenoHo>oo on o>oe on nonoanno N .unoeonm o>e3He xnoz anonm .nOnuenomooo .uoeunoo Henoonomnounn. nOu monunnnunoamo .Qnonm on» nn ononuo no oneunos one eunmnn onu nuns onownounn uon oo >onu we mnoa me >e3ooH one Eoooonm Henon>nonH .unoEQOHo>oo no omeum unonnno e.oanno nan une>oHon oonoonmnoo maennouee oon>ond ouanon .unoemoHo>oo nnonu nonnnon ou ooooon eunonoonmnn On onneOQXo mnfinnem nan oneoE me on: on nonoanno nOw oaneane>e oer onennouee no >uonne> oons .>eo >no>o ooOnnoQ oEnu oEem ue ocean mnnxeu monun>nuoe mo mom>u onunoomm nun: .nonun>nuoe o.>eo noeo nOu neam oonnuonnuo >Hnmnm .>un>nuoe->un>nueono no omonum .>enm oonm oomn>nomnm .>HmnooneanEno momeum Heno>om ue eonun>nuoe mnnnneoa n soonooeao nn meoanonm n0n>enom .nOnuonnumnn new nonoanno one nonoeou noo3uon nOnuenodooo one .nOHuennnemno one onnamnoono economeao n0w ooon mo menou no >Huooe nun: uHeoo unoe -QoHo>oo mo unanonosno Henoenomnounn .enommoH on anu3oHaom nn on: on eunoonum nan onennonen oaneanmnnee once one muoonmxnoz .maennouee oHneHsmnneE no monnuonm nononnu nOnuenumnOEoo no >eHmmno >n oonnemeoooe nonoeou >3 nOnueunomonn Henno> no moonum .moOnnom unoenoonuon one nodueonuon .umon nun: oouennouae .ouo .enennouee ooEEenmonm no xno: .mnOAueunomonm nooooa nun: on ooannw oEnu m.nonoanno .eonun>nuoe >Hneo mo oanoonom oonnuonnno >Hnmnm .3on> man» no oomen oonuoenn Hen0nueonoo uo oameexo ooom e .mnnoeu («Hoe .mnnnonenn .xoenooou onenooEEn .omooonm no oonenu mnnnnEner .ounos nononn HHeEmo nOnuunnumnn ooEEenmonm 132 .mnOnuenunm onumwaennuen nn eonun>nuoe oouenunnn-unoonum one .maennouee one nuanoe >ne ounmnn oonnuonnum Bonn nun0n one xoen unoEo>on Hennnunoo e on none ononu AnOHuennnEoo noo unosmoHo>oo mo nOnmnoEno >ne nn eo>nuoonno onwnoomo o>onnoe OH .oononnomxo Henonom noon: one masons oonnuunnne noosuon ooneaen e on ononu non: unoemoHo>oo new onOnunonoo enEnudo .oononu Hedon>nonn n0u soaae nonns Amnoom .ouanoev enonuo Bonn ounmnn “ooon oneo on onommon nan .o>nuenunnn n30 nnonu no uoH e moHo>oo Hans nonoannu .onOHuenuno son Ou noumnenu no onOnueunEnH no mnnnneoa uneuneounoo oHnnooom onu mnemooasonxoe unonuns onoo >Haenon on use .oannomom on meone onunoodm nn mnnnwenu Heenom .onoom one nuanoe Eonm oomnoaneno no>o one ooneonnm .unoEomennoono nuns ooamnoo .o>nuenunnn n30 nnonu no moononnoQXo ooon» onoamxo On >e3ooa one ooononnomxo no omnen oeonn e nun3 nonoanno mnnon>onm eonm monsoon unoEmoHo>oo noononn one umoaanu one N D .mHo>oH moonnoeon one umonounn Ou oonuuee unmnn nun: .enOnuenune onuonaennuen nn oonono EDEner nonoanno mnnsoHHe >3 oouoeonm noon on unoEdoHo>oo no nOnonoEno >ne nn mo>nnoonno Onwnoodm no unoEo>onno< .Ho>oH axon now >oeon anon: >eue >onu ononz. . .Ho>oH >unnnuee\ome oeem ue enoom uo anonm e nw .mnnnoonoo Heunoemoao>oo nononnu .oooeam noon men oanno e non: mnOnunonoo EnEnuoo .Ho>oa unonnno nnono Ou oonouee >Hanuoneo one nonns one unoEQoHo>oo nnonu nonnnon Han: sons: eoononnoQXo onu Ou onanQXo ooon .no>o30n .oo >one .ooanoonoo oEnu ooueanmon >Haeonuonom n30 nnonu no mnnuenomo one >onu ounnm .QoHo>oo Ou oonmnm on .uon oHnono one .uonneo nonoannu .mnOnuenunm son on nommnenu no unanueunsna no mnnnneoa uneuneoonoo oannmmom onu mnemooazonxoe unonuns onoo >aaenon on use .oannmoom on eeone Ununoomo nn mnnnnenu HeEnom .mnoom one nuanoe Eonu oomnoaaeno no>o one .ooneonnm .unoEomennoono nuns ooamnoo .o>nuenunnn n30 nnonu no moononnoQXo ooonu ononxo Ou >e3ooH one moononnomxo mo omnen oeonn e nun: nonoanno mnnon>ond Eonu monsoon unoemoHo>oo umononn one umoannw one > sonnet onuenaennuen .HennOunn on» nn eunH e.oaano on» one mnaaoonoe D D .mnOAuenune Rouna >eo>no>oo Unuonaennuen nn no-3oHH0u no enEnnnE e nuns .mnOHuenune mnnnnenu\nommoa oonnuonnum >Hnmnn nn oo>onnue >Hanuomooono on neo unoemoao>oo no onenmnosno o3u no ono mnn>no> -nn mo>nuoonno HenOnueonoo onmnoonm .A.ouo .n0n>enon Henomnomnounn one HeHOOe .nOnunnmou .omenmnea ..m.oo unoemoao>oo mo eeone onunooao nn mnnnnenu o>nmnounn nmnonnu uno oonnneo on non owns .xeos no oooneuon one >onu onon3 meone nn >HneHnonuneQ .moHo>oo Ou oononm on oHnono one neo nonoanno .oaennoues oonnuonnuo one oouuoaom nmnn mnnnnanun one o>nuenunnn nanoe no no>nm .onommoa no moonongom oonneaaonm nmnonnu ooonenno >HHeonunoomm on neo unosnoHo>oo .unoenonn>no Henonom on» nn mounom mo oononaunn onu noon: m>e3 >neE nn QOHo>oo nonoanno nononuad x Henn0u neetuen nanenOMueHen nononn on» ea yen: .n 133 .Eenmonm ooonoanno >Hneo >ne no unem uneunonEn ne on monsoooona HenOnuonnuenn .wo mnnoneue -noonn one .nn unoEo>Ho>nn unonem .unoemoHo>oo n30 nnonu mnnuosonm no o>e3 aoao>oo on onoo neo nonoanno senns nmnonnu ooononnomxo omnenne on 30: 3onx pone nonoeoe .omnoaaeno son one unoEmoHo>oo no omeum unomonm o.nononnno noozuon nouee nOm soHHe Ou nmnono oHnHXoHu HaeunooononnoQXo nonn oon>onm .oxeeu une>oHon unonno .Hooos .omnoHHeno .oueH -nsnum .oonnm on >Hnnee oHon nonoeoh .ooon>onm oeae oomnomeon no moonouennmonmme no Roenooou uoonno oEom .A.ouo .ooonnoe o>nueunnonune nun: .mnoom nuns .eueo oHneHne>e umnneme ..o.nv msoanonm Ou ononunnoo one onosene n30 mnnxoono moonnonn nunnz .>nnnonn o.nonoHnno n0u unommnm Henoonomnounn oon>onm nuanod .unoemoHo>oo ouoeonm on .ouo .xoenooou oon>onm .mnOnumong omnen .mnOHumommnm oxen OmHe nuano< .eeone HeunoemoHo>oo onunoodo nn omonmono Eonu anon Hans uenu mnOAuoenounn ounn nonoanno pom Cu oonmnmoo one nonns no >neE .eonun>nuoe mnnmnoaaenu one mnnuoonounn >neE enneunoo nonnz nonoanno n0u unoenonn>no ne onenono oanon N .oEon ue oHneHne>e on uon >ee nonnz ooonnomon one mmnnuuoo oon>onm eEenmonm anonm non .nonoawnu nnonu no unoe -QoHo>oo on» nn oo>ao>nn one eunonem .Eonu o>OEon 0» no ono>e on nonuno nuzonm on oxooan oanneeom one meonue mo eunnom oHnnooom onnnmouon on son sonx none nonoeoh .unoemoHo>oo one nuzonm nOM =o00u= nomonm one mnnuuoo mnnnnunnn oon>onn Ou "nonoonem no nosnen onu no pen» on onomoHene oHon nonoeoe .oHwae onnuee once no onennmonmme once unonao on oonneam one moononnodxo HenOnunooe one oanno uenu nOu gunman: me oounooue one moonomeon oHnno umoz .mnon: one ooononoon nnoeo swan mannnou no donennso mnnuoonnou ounEnnnE nan .>un>nueono one nOnuenoHQXo m.nonoHnno no“ unommne Henomnomnounn oon>onm euanod .mnoomoa no nOnueunooonn oeom .moononnoQXo omonu nun3 uoenounn nonoannu oHnns ooneonnm one .unommne .Homnnoo nowuo one .moononnonxo mo >uonne> oon3 e on onnmomxo nun: nonoanno oon>onm manoe .Ho>oa HeunosmoHo>oo unooonn nnonu ue mmnonm nn nonoanno ocean on mnnnoonoe Hennmnno nouud > .enonEos wmeum oonnenu on uuoa neon mnnnnenu one >nemmooon uon on nononnno no mnnnnenu onunoomo nn unoeo>Ho>nn unonem .nOnueonnnEEoo nan on ounnemno on oane on none on one .nonuone ou omoon3onx oueonnnnsou Ou son sonx none nonoeos .onOHuoonno oonnooo nn n0n>enon ounOnnnon one uoonnoo .uuonno .oueo -nnnEEoo .HHou on >Hnnee oHon nonoeos .mnonz on on uenu uno ueHu oHou mnnon nenu nonnen oononmon noonnoo e cu ooonnm on >ee on .mnon: on oannu an on .unoEoonownnon o>nuemon nenu nonuen .o>nunmom no onoennem .enoROu me none monezon ouononoo one omnena Henno> nmnonnu nonoanno no unem no eomnomeon uoonnoo n0u unoEoonOMnnon oon>ona nuanoe .monun>nuoe nonuo no >eHm mo oonono nononnno soaae one .Eenmonm e no mo>nuuowno onunoomm on» monezou o>os on noono nn nonoanno Ou .eaennouee ooneeond nononnu no >Huoonno nonunov onommoa unomonm manod N meeHon uanoe eueannonnae one yen: D .n 134 .mnnaoonoo unonmnonnu ooneunOQEn mnnnnnu noo no one moononnomxo ouononoo .emee o>nunnmoo nnonu uunnumnooon On Eonu oaneno on noono nn ononuenuno unomonn nnonu nnnunz ooononnoQXo o.nonoanno no nuoeonn on» mnnoeononn no oneenmem .oanno >no>o n0u n0nuenune >no>o no onae> HeunoEQoHo>oo -doHo>oo onu mnnnnsnxee no mmonum .AmnOnonHonOU n30 noono Ou son encunon Ou onenuenomo pens nn ouneonnmv mnonuo nuns mononoae>nngo mnnuoeonenu no“ one oHno3 onu no men o>nunnmoo n30 mnn mnnuonnuonoo nOu monmouenue n0no>oo Ou oanno noeo mnnone no mnnaoonom nn oneenmem .Honunoo nnonu noon: anEnuo no omnen xoaneoo once one noon: >Hmnnmeononn mnwnn nononnno anon Ou on nOnueonoo mo omomnnm N .uoonounn nmnn no oonunomxo uo eone own nn noeo >Haenuommo .mmooona HenOnuonnumnn\HenOAueonoo onu nn ononoeou nunz ounemnununem .00 me .ounnoe nonuo one .munonem N .nuzonm n0u moonnooon ooooon mnnon>ono oann3 .nuzonm mo emooonm Hennuen on» nun: mnnnomnounn uon no on enmenneo mnnu .nozonu oxna uen3oeoo ooHOMnn onnnu =.oHnoonom no= oannoeon me 2035 me oanno noeo moox On one done no Ho>oa axon on» now mmonnoeon oononn on Bed .menon HeunoemoHo>oo no menou nn emonmonn mo xoenu mnnnoox .oanno no Ho>oa =oeonnoeon= on ooonuos one unoEooeHm ononm mnnnouee .unoEdnnUo one maen -noueE nomonm ou onnoomxo no enmenmsm .meonnoeon no eHo>oH nnonu Ou oounno Aeaennouee mnnonaonn. monun>nuoe mnnnneunoo oueEnHo mnnnnunnn e nun: nonoannu Henon>nonn mo mnnoHOHnn on» nOu mnnuuoo e oon>onm on on nOnueonoo no omomnnm W U D D onu Eonu oHnnmoon ee >onnnv me o>oz .mnenno> onev uoenumne on» on ouononoo Do .n0n>enon no onnouuem noonnoo one omooa3onx ooooon mo nOnunmnner onu oueunanoeu one monunnnueesn .o oeoono>o Ou noono nn oannmoom me flu >Hneo me nonoanno mnnnoeou no mmonum .QOHOUN .O.H mnnmnen no\one unoEo>onnoe nn 0 nn .nonmnn no .Ho>oa ooenm 0» ms nu nonoanno >neE me mnnmnnnn no mmonum .A.ouo .maennee nonoeou one .oxoonxnoz .mxoonuXou nn oounnnm oneo uno ooxnoz noon >oeonHe o>en uenu unanumonv on enozmne uo >Homnea n muonenoo nonnz .unounoo no :mnn flu -no>oo= on» no mnnaoonoe nn mnoenmem .anEnuo oonunoomo no Honu e -nou onu noon: n0n>enon m.nonoanno flu mnnnn on on nOnueonoo no omomnnm x mmnaneen oadno one mnnfloonoe nn eneennne nnefl en» en oHnone pen: .e .oonuoenm mnnneon oanno nnonu mnn>onnEn one unoEQoHo>oo oanno no mnnoneuonoonn nnonu mnnmeononn mo ooonnnm on» n0u onOnmmom mnnnnenu noonoo noune no\one soon -mmeao nn munennonunem me munonem > D .oomnen on >ee >oenouna mo Ho>oH HHOfiU umnu Om .MUGOCSUQ mm OUCOHMQ .mxmeu oouoonnounonoeou onunoomm u >no> no .unoEomeneE onnunon nun: flu mH000C3H0> HO mmflfim mm 0>M0m GUGQHMQ N 1135 .o>nuenunnn one .mmono>nuno>nn .mnnnOHuonnu Henuooaaounn ooonenno .numnonum omo mnnmeononn .omeEnuuHom o>nunmon e nun: nonneoa oouoonno -uaoo e oEooo3 oanno noeo anon OH .mnn>aom-5oa3onm n0w omnnoo n30 own mnnuuoe .>Hmnoeonoune mnnuoe .ooonono mnnxes no oH3eaeo noonod >n0ueoonm-non .o>nuoouwo ne moEooo3 on uenu none moneEoo Henooo nuns oouenmounn on non» uaoo no omnoo mnonue e onnno noeo nn noHo>oo on A.meonmonm e.oanno noeo no unseen e we >Hononnnunoo o>Ho>o maeom HenOnueonomo .mnnnneoa nn nOnuoonnouuHoe one unoEo>Ho>nn nooo onnno noeo nn oueHnEnue on .oonun>nuoe noonom nn unoEo>onnoe ouoeonn On one .oanos neon onu nn unoEo>Ho>nn unoonuo nmnonnu mnnnneoa onEooeoe nOw onOnueonSOM onu >eH on .onnunno nno no oeoa3ona Heon one nun: mnndoo no e>e3 o>nueono one .mnnxnnnu .o>nuoe moHo>oo ob monunnnunommo Enn o>nm one nonneoa me «HomEnn mo omeEn o>nunmom e oann3 Ou mnnaoonom uo oneo> denunnn onu nn oanno noeo oH3eno 09 N .A.ouo .enOHuoonno zonnoe 0» >onnnno .omonnoon uo mnnaonneno onennmonmme .Honunoo -naoev onenmonm Economeao nn nOnu -ednonunem nOu ooonnoeon ouosonm OH .mo>na Homomooono Ou oeon onu no Eonu now one .omooazonx no onnoz on» on eonne nnonu nomo .nOnuoouue one nOAunoune nOm >uno>om no nononnno onn mo oooon onu uooE OH .ooenm nonnu >Haenoommo--mnnaoonom mo Ho>oH uxon onu on no o>oe Ou >oeon mnnsooo3 nn one mnnnneoa nn nonoanno mo moonmonn Henunongom .ononnnunoo ouoeonn 09 .Hoonoo no uno ooon onn mnnuuom nnonu uno>onm nonns mmeononen oeoono>o nonoanno anon OB .oooon Henoome on: uooE nonn3 meenmonm mnnmn>oo one mooon oanno noeo pen: mnnnneoa >3 nonoanno oomeune>oe sono no maeononen onu oeoono>o 0H .mnonm noeo nw nonoanno onu mo mooon on» On Eenmonn on» noHneu OH .onenunouOQ Hana nnonu mo unoEdoHo>oo on» on o>nononoo one uenu munoenonn>no Eoonmmeao oa3eun0ueoo nn nononnno ooeHm 08 V .Aeunosnmnome mnnoneumnoonn .enOnuoonno mnnsoHHOM .nOnueonunuenm uo >eHoo .mxmeu ue oonouenonom .nnnu nnn mnnune3 ..m.ov unoonum on» no onon Henoom on» on oxen uenu maanxo onsooeoe no noumnao e nn mnnnnenu oon>onm OH .mEoH3onm o>Hoo one n30 on: no nneoa Ou >unan3e oomeononn one .nneoa Ou n0nue>nuoe oomeononn .umoonoo-nnoo o>nunmom e onnnvoe oanno noeo anon On one n0nuonnumnn He3no> nmsonnu omoonsonx Ununoonm n0u noeou OH .mnnnneoa one unoEQoHo>oo nn unonuoo no meone oouooaoe nn nOnuosnumnn o>nmnounn one onunoonm oon>onn OH .oononneo nonuo nun: >Hanummooono ouodeoo on one noonoo nn emonmonm Ou Eon» soaae nnnz one» onnnxo onenoooo one unnao -oe nonoanno oomeune>oeono anon OH .oaoonoo ona3nm onu nn >Ho>nuoowuo ouomeoo 03 non» soHHe Han: nonnz oaanxe Henoom one UnEooeoe nonoanno mnno> noeou OH x aeneneo .e «unnaoonoe ooonoauno >Hnee no eaeom Heneneo e3» ene yen: 1136 .ononuo no moa3nonu on» n0w >nueQE>e noon On one .mnnuoe one >nmne mnnaoou noozuo3 oonononuno onu oneuonoonn ou .unn mo oeouonn xaeu on .xno3 onen ounn nOnomonmme nnnu on “oomanosn o>nueono nonnn mmonQXo Cu >unan3e nn mnnzonm .moaoone HHeEm one omneH mnnmn .maanxo Heono>nn nonumnonum oHnonm unoonum .onOHumonU Ou enozene mnnxoom one mnnnoonoz “onOnnno oEooo3 .mnnxeono one mnnnouena nuo3 nn onanxm omenmnea noon: one nomneno oanonm on .>Haenooo one >HHeonm>nn .>Hnenuooaaounnu-ooooono one o>nnuo Ou monnnnnunomno onnaeon oanonm on .nun03 one oonouonsoo mnn>en we oo>aom no 3on> e one >ununoon-maom moHo>oo oHnonm on .enonuo mo ounmnn on» one munmnn n30 on: onae> On one nonoanno nonuo nun3 >Ho>nuoouno o>na Ou .ouanoe Eonu nOnuoonno one anon umoooe on oH3e o3 one .oeon Eonu >e3e mnno3 uno3e omeo ue o3 .>Hunoonomoonn >eHd one xno: Ou nneoH oanonm unoonum .nonuo nun: emnnneoe omnenoxo one .oeoon one onOnuoonU oueHnEnow .eonnooo Hannanu one moonnxo on omenmnea nn moonunan3e nOnueunomonnon He3no> one .onHO3E>m .onnOuos nn aunmnonu nan HOOu e we omenmnea nn "oHano nonueonnneeoo one .mnnunns one mnnoeon .omenmneH nn unoenoHo>oo .munoonuo ouoeonm oHnonm nonoeoe N .ononno no moannonu on» new >nueme>o noon 0» one .mnnuoe one >nmne mnnaoou noosuo3 oononouuno onu oneuenoonn ou .unn no oeouonn xneu ou .xnoz one: ounn nOnmmonmme nnnu on «momHnnEn o>nueono nonnn emonnxo Ou >unnn3e nn mnn3onm .moaoone HHeEo one omnea mnnmn .maanxm Heone>nm nonumnonuo oHnone unoonum .mnOnuoonU on mnozene mnnxooo one mnnnoonos "oSOAnno oeooo3 .mnnxeone one mnnnoumnfl nuo3 no maanxe omenmnea noon: one nonneno oHnono om .>Haenooo one >HHeone>nn .>HHenuooHHounn--ooooono one o>nnuo ou eonunnnunonno onnaeon oHnono om .nunos one oonouoneoo mnn>en me eo>aoo no 3on> e one >ununoon-uaom moHo>oo oHnono om .mnonuo mo munmnn onu one eunmnn n30 on: onae> On one dononnoo nonoo eon: >no>noooeno «>nn Ou .muanoe Bonn nOnuoonno one anon unoooe ou oH3e o3 one .oeon Bonn >e3e mnno3 uno3e ooeo ue o3 .>Hunoonomoonn >e~n one xnoz on nneoa oanonm unoonum .A>nOEoE Henen> one >nounone one .nOnuennEnnomno .nonueunonno uuoauunmnno annexe mnnoeon onunoomm on: .mnnnoumna ooom nan maanxo one moonunuue nomonm .moononnoQXo o>nueono nononnu omenmnea mo nOnueoanne own .nOHmmonnxo Heno nn >unan3e unoonum moHo>oo oanono nonoeos M .onOnuonooo nonu-un one .eumoonoo HenOnueHon .oouneommo neaon on: on .omenmnea nn munoeoueum o>nuemon one o>nuneom oer o» .mnnonoa3 one .xoeuue ono3 no moonuoe .mnOnuenooome Ho3e>o\on30m nononnu mnnoeon nn oooo on» xoeno on nneoH oanone unoonum x oooneeanounn .n 137 .onmnm one mHo3E>m ">unan3e nOHueunooonQon nn .oEnu one ooeno no mnnnnuonnum on» nn .muoonpo mnoee ooononomuwo mnnnensoo >3 onennom Ou >unan3e aunmnonu no >unan3oe oomeononn “moononouwno one eonunneansne no >wnmmeao Ou >unan3e ne “3on> mo munnon .enonuo oom on >unnn3e one .enOAuno>noo omenmnea mo omooa3onx .>Homnoonn oueonnnesoo Ou omenmnen noono monezou eneoe uno onnmnu on one .uoouuo one ooneo no >unneanmon nonoonn on >unanne ne neuoon3o no En0unom o» enOHuoe no onnounomon e noHo>oo oHnonm unoonum .omnnaoom HenOonom one .eoaon denomnon .mnOnoonnw .muoon3o nn monunneannno one moononouuno no mnnonuon on» one mnnnnonm mo nOnueHnEnuo >3 oommooona mnnxnnnu mo own on: ooeononn amne3no>lnon one He3no>v nOnueonnnEEoo onHo3E>m o>nuoe one moononnoQXo >n0uennonunen Ou onnmonxo >3 oo>onnoe .unoenonn>no neesn one noononae one son: nunnennnsme canons» Annouuoa .ono3snnv oHo3E>o uoenum3e nuns >unanoew noHo>oo oHnonm onoonum .mnenoenn one .ouneno .mnnenm nononnu oueonnnseoo on nneoa .mnOnuenomo unosonnmeoe uno mnn>nneo nmnonnu eno3Enn no mnnoneuonoonn on: onouxo .onnnenOnueHon mo >oeon onu one muoon3o no muom mo mnnaonen onu nmnonnu no3Enn no unoonoo e noHo>oo .oEnu one ocean nn nOnueunonno new xnososenw onee3 e nenH3eumo .oHnos Heonm>nm on» nn mmnnnu no monnm one ounnose nn moononowuno oneumnoonn oHnonm unoonum N mu .eunem no emononeze .omeEn >oo3 “ocean nn nonueunonno moHo>oo one uoEnON onos one .ooononvom .euoon3o HHeoon “manage >n0EoE Henmn> “mono3 one .onnouuen .onoHoo nouee annanxe nOnumoonom Henen> moonnmnu onnuosoom mnn>moo .mnommnoe nun: mnnuuno ”enanxe noboelaenon> n.0uo .omon mnnnenn .mnnmmnxo .ooneHen aoaanxe nOnuennonooo nouoe “Amunoonoo HenOHueHon ..m.oo oEnou uoennm3e mo ooonone3e Henunoonoo noHo>oo .mnnxaeu one mnnnoumna "nOnueonnnE -Eoo He3no> noHo>oo onnonm unoonum .>Hunoononoonn mnnxno3 now one ouoononm n30 m.ono no mnnxeu nOm >unan3nonomoon nonmew “mnnnneon HeEnOM n0u nOnue>nu0E oon>onm amonun>nuoe mnnnoumna oon>onm “monun>nuoe o>nueono nOu soHHe .mnOAuoonno Heno mnnonHON nn mnnnnenu o>nm an0n>eno3 one xnos nn oun3en ooom Snow nonoanno anon acnao3s>m uon .Heon one uenu ooononnonXo mnnnonnno nuns nonoanno oon>onm oHnono nonoeoa .onne> o>nueaon nnonu one maan3 one mnnoo eSOnne> on» one men0u onnuosoom onwnmooon oanono om .onnmeoe On >unan3e one .>un~n3e mnnunnoo .AmHenoenn one monae> nonennv munoonoo no3snn noHo>oo oHnono om .eonueeonuee no >nean3eoo> on» no mnnnoumee one .monHe> no3Enn no mnnnmnmme .oaanxm Henunoonoo onnnooe oHnono unoonum N mu .muoamnoo one moamnnn mnne>nn ouoameoo 03 noon no oE>nn mono: 03» on anon o» a onos no>nm e nun3 ooE>nn oenu ono: e oonoonm Ou n0nnmem onoo nn os>nn .nonnuonm sonn mono: oounnnn nonnmnnumno nounenomnoo ma umeoH no one ono30> ozu oEen one onnnmooon .nou On an >Huoonnoo muooh3o unnoo on “anon unonuns o.nou >3 con 03 one m.ono >3 on On onoH uno unnoo oo nonnnne nono>ue undone oooeoom .n30n3 one .ounn3 .xoea3 moan mnoHoo Unoe3 oeen .mnOHuonooo nn =no= one ooon: on: on one .mnOnuonooo nonu\mn onEne encunon “A.ouo .noosuo3 .no>o .noonn .nn .nov ouoon3o no unoEomnenne mnn3nnomoo eunoEoueum nn >Huoonnoo mnOnunoomonn on: :1 o3 none on . uon mm on an: "mounmonmo neaom oaonen =1 mnnu uno3e oE Haoao ommnnu on 3e23= .oe none enOnueonU on omnomoon nn munoeoueue ooon: one o>nueEnnuue on: on >unan3e noHo>oo oHnone unoonum ununoono .6 .mEoH3onn onen3omae nn mnsonxnn nuns xno3 on one “meoa3onn >nOuo o>aoe 0» non anOnuoenu3nm one nOnunooe mo mnOnuenomo unmen nneoa oHnonm on .m>e3 unonouuno nn mno3enn moonQXo On one mnmne manna one onnm one onenosnn on: one .onenmnoonn .>ununoon on son .mnOnuoonno soHHOM On one eno3enn onwnoomo Eonu one 03 unnoo On 30: nneoH onnono unoonum N 138 Tally Sheet Summarizing Responses to Questions on Programming Preference Under what conditions can development be facilitated in desired directions? DDDDD>< DDDD*< l'h l l I I l l i O DDDDDDDDDDN DDDD DDDD j. What is the proper relationship between formal schooling and the child’s life in the informal, naturalistic world? a, CI CI CI ,3, III III I: ,3, CI CI (:1 What are appropriate adult roles? a. b. DDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDD (continued) 139 4. What should be the main emphases in schooling and child rearing? X Y Z a. III II] III 10. C] [3 C] C E El I: d, CI CI III 8, CI _ ID 5. What are the goals of early childhood schooling? a) General a, C] CI CI 10, E] III III C_ III [:1 CI d, CI III CI e, I: III III b) Intermediate 5,, II D II] b, _ CI CI C. E] C] III c) Specific a_ E] El III 10. CI CI CI Totals X Y Z APPENDIX E PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX E PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE ID # Instructions In order to gather information about how parents make the decision to enroll their children in preschool programs, I would like you to complete this survey. If you would like to ask me any questions about it, or to help you as you complete it, please feel free to call me at 669-9197. The following questions have no right or wrong answers. The answers that you provide will help to assess what factors parents consider to be important when they select a preschool program for their child. This information will not be seen as criticism of the program; rather, it will be used to make recommendations to other practitioners in the field about ways that they might design components of their programs. I greatly appreciate your willingness to provide candid answers and opinions about your decision to choose this program. If you find that some of the statements that you are asked to answer do not have a response that is right for you, please select the one that is closest to the way you feel. Feel free to write in additional information after making a selection, if you wish. Thank you. 140 141 Your ID#: Date: Your Child’s Birth Date: Thank you for taking time to complete this survey. The intent of this survey is to examine some of your reasons for selecting this particular program for your child. Please check each item that accurately reflects your opinions or beliefs. Add additional explanations as necessary. 1. I chose to enroll my child in this program for the following reasons: I couldn’t get him or her into my first-choice program. The location is convenient. The hours the program is offered suits my needs. The cost or fee schedule of the program seems reasonable. Neighbors, friends, relatives have children in the program. Others recommended it to me. I’ve had another child (other children) enrolled in the past. The philosophy and goals of the program appeal to me. The philosophy and goals of the program are similar to my own. Other: (please explain) 2. Please estimate the amount of time that you spent observing this program before seeking entry. Part of a session or less. All of one session. Parts or all of more than one session. No observation of program before seeking entry. 3. Please choose one or more of the following reasons for observing the program before seeking entry. Not applicable. There was an observation booth or room. I thought that it was a requirement of enrollment. Program personnel suggested that I do so. Program personnel arranged to meet me there to talk. I wanted to see what went on in the classrooms. I was able to see my child interacting with adults, other children, and/or toys and activities. Other: (please explain) PLEASE CONTINUE... 142 4. I talked with the program director to discuss my child and/or the program before seeking entry. yes no 5. I was given printed information that described the program’s operation and philosophy (goals for the children; position statements about how to best meet those goals, and so on). yes no 6. Please indicate how influential any printed material that you received was to your decision to seek entry into the program: very important interesting but not very influential made no difference ‘ didn’t receive and/or read any information 7. From what I have seen and heard, I believe that the educational philosophy of the program can best be described as follows: 8. I have gotten my ideas about the school’s educational philosophy from the following sources: (put a check by all that apply) Talks with the teacher Talks with other program staff Reading the handbook Reading an Orientation Packet Reading newsletters Observing the classroom(s). Friends or other parents Other: (please explain below) PLEASE CONTINUE... 143 9. I feel that my own educational philosophy is: very similar to the school’s somewhat similar to the school’s quite different from the school’s IF YOU CHOSE "SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT" OR "QUITE DIFFERENT" AS YOUR REPLY TO THE LAST QUESTION, PLEASE ANSWER THE NEXT QUESTION AS WELL. 10. From what I have seen and heard, I would state my own personal educational philosophy as follows: 11. Please indicate the overall level of satisfaction that you have for the program by marking somewhere along this line: 1 5 10 Dissatisfied Very Satisfied 12. Please indicate how important the philosophy, or kind of teaching emphasized, was to you, when you selected this program: 1 5 10 Not important Most important thing Please describe some characteristics of your family by answering the following questions. These answers will remain confidential, and will only be used for comparative purposes. Remember that you need not put your name or your child's name anywhere on this questionnaire. 13. I am the: mother father caregiver or guardian other than a parent to the child for whom entry is sought: male female PLEASE CONTINUE... 144 14. I am raising this child: as a single parent part of the time, in a shared—custody arrangement with a spouse or partner who lives in the same house I am not actually raising this child 15. My current marital status is best described as: single, never married married, living with spouse married, but separated unmarried, but living with partner divorced widowed [—1 6. Our family income is approximately: less than $10,000 per year $10,000 to $15,000 per year more than $15,000 but less than $25,000 per year $25,000 to $40,000 per year more than $40,000 but less than $60,000 per year $60,000 or more per year H 7. People from our home who are employed outside the home include myself and my spouse or partner myself only my spouse or partner only no one is employed at present H 8. My own level of education is best described as: less than a high school diploma completion of a high school diploma less than two years of college completion of a two year degree more than two years of college completion of a four year degree some college beyond a four year degree completion of a graduate degree H 9. My family size is best described as: one child at home, no other children two children at home, no other children three children at home, no other children four or more children at home, no other children children both in my home and in other homes PLEASE CONTINUE. . . 145 If you checked the last option above, please provide this information as well: 20 Please list the ages of your children: 21. My cultural identity is best described as: White American White non-American from (country) Black American Black non—American from (country) Asian American Asian non-American from (country) Hispanic American Hispanic non—American from (country) Other: 22. I have lived in this community for: less than a year one to three years more than three but less than ten years ten or more years THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS SURVEY! £31€ease check here if you would like to receive a copy of a final discussion of the study when it is over: APPENDIX F PARENTAL REGIME ASSESSMENT SCALE (PRAS) APPENDIX F PARENTAL REGIME ASSESSMENT SCALE (PRAS) Please complete the scale starting on the next page by first answering questions about how you CURRENTLY parent (C). Assign a value of 10 to the ONE choice (A, B, C, or D) which most accurately describes how you actually parent at the present time. From the three remaining choices, assign a value ranging from 0 to 9 to the second most descriptive choice. Repeat for the third and fourth choices. Continue until you have filled in all of the boxes in the (C) column. Life being what it is, we don’t always parent the way we would ideally like to. Please repeat the process as described above for the column marked (I) = IDEAL. Assign a value of 10 to the ONE choice in column (I) that represents how you would most ideally like to parent. From the three remaining choices, assign an IDEAL value from 0 to 9 to the second most ideally descriptive choice. Repeat for the third and fourth choices. EXAMPLE As a parent, how do you tend to communicate with your child? I communicate with my child in a . . . VALUE C I direct and factual manner tactful and less direct manner U Q w W I questioning and engaging manner " humorous and understanding manner Notice that in each column (C and I) there is only one 10. These values represent the behaviors must CURRENTLY (C) used and the behaviors which I would most IDEALLY like to use as a parent. In column C, the 8 represents the second set of behaviors most currently used as a parent regarding communications. The value of 6 represents the third and the value of 2, the fourth. Ideally, this parent would like to change from a questioning/engaging manner to a direct/factual manner. The C and D choices (both 75) are about equal. This parent doesn’t want to change the degree to which they use tactful/less direct communication with their child. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers. The choices simply describe groups of possible parenting behaviors. Don’t spend too ‘much time answering. Give the first answer that comes to mind. Please don’t skip any questions. It is important that you fill in every box. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION! 146 147 Group 1) HOw do you as a parent get your children to achieve and accomplish what is important? By using . VALUE A - Unstated agreements and just knowing what to do B - Authority, rules, and discipline C - Personal freedom, individual competence, and choice D - Cooperation, discussion, and mutual agreement Group 2) In what manner do you as a parent express your care and support for your children? I do this by being . . . VALUE A - Expressive, responsive, and given willingly B - Private, formal, and regulated C - Spontaneous, public, and enthusiastic D - Limited, reserved, and rarely expressed because we know we care deeply for each other Group 3) As a parent, what do you think is the essence or identity of your family that you teach to your children? As a family we are . . . VALUE - Impulsive, instinctive, and energetic Traditional, stable, and consistent - Precise, exact, controlled, and harmonious U Q m V l - Practical, tolerant, and relevant 148 Group 4) As a parent how do you think you teach your children to objectively understand, without bias, the events and situations they experience in life? VALUE A - By being flexible, questioning, and challenging B - By relying on individual strengths, unique explanations, and by being explorative C - By being methodical, conservative, and by using time-tested explanations D - By being knowing, certain, wise, and assured Group 5) As a parent raising children what emphasis do you place on the following areas? VALUE A - Our understanding of the objective world around us B - The identity of our family, who we are, and what we stand for C — The care and support that we give to each other D - That we accomplish, achieve, and do what we want Group 6) As parents we teach our children to use and view time in certain ways. What do you think you actually teach your children about time? That time is . . . VALUE - flexible, modifiable, and accommodating I II I consistent, predictable, and scheduled - individual, spontaneous, and personal U001» I - coordinated, unspoken, and understood 149 Group 7) As you interact with your children, what do you, as a parent, think you are teaching your children about ideas and intermation? That . . . VALUE C I A - No ideas are too silly or extreme, discussions have few limits, and individual ideas are expected B - Certain topics are rarely discussed, controversy is avoided, different ideas are not encouraged C - Different ideas are okay, friendly conflict is expected, but should be resolved through communication D - We are very rational and think alike without a great deal of discussion and communication Group 8) Considering energy levels, as a parent, how do you tend to interact with your children? I interact with.my children in a . . . VALUE C I paced, balanced, and consistent manner dynamic, enthusiastic, and fluctuating manner harmonious, peaceful, and tranquil manner U 0 w y l flexible, extended, and elastic manner Group 9) As a parent what do you think you teach your children about how to relate to material possessions and belongings? VALUE C Ifl A - Material things are functional and valued because the family works hard for them and deserves the benefits of life B - Material possessions are viewed as being both confining and limiting to achieving personal meaning C - Belongings are a means of convenience, and serve to assist in family interaction and in achieving personal goals D - Possessions are valued because of their aesthetic quality, and should be kept as perfect as possible 150 Group 10) As a parent what do you think you are actually teaching your children about what is most important in life? VALUE C I A Acquiring and using material possessions The use of family and personal energy B C - The importance of time and how it is used D i nformation — The consideration and discussion of ideas andl Parental Regime Assessment Scale 9 D.R. Imig, 1992 APPENDIX G UCRIHS APPROVAL omce or RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES University Committee on Res-am Involving flame Subjects (UCRIHS) Minimal Stats Universxty 2215 Won Building East Leisure. Michigan 48824-1046 517/355-2180 FAX“ 517/336-1171 USU IS It Wee-36m. W unstrrwan. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY June4,1993 TO: Kit Payne 3470 Green Rd St. Johns. MI 48879 RE: IRB 4‘: 93-224 TITLE: INFLUENCES ON PARENTAL CHOICE OF CHILDREN 'S EARLY EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES CATEGORY: l-C REVISION REQUESTED: N/A APPROVAL DATE: June 4, 1993 The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project is complete. I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project including any revision listed above. UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to continue a project beyond one year must seek updated certification. Request for renewed approval must be accompanied by all four of the following mandatory assurances. 1. ‘l'hchumansubjoctsprotocolisthosamoasinpreviousstudies. 2. Thorehavcbecnnoilloffectssuffersdbythesubjectsduetothoirparticipationinthosmdy. 3. There have been no complaints by the subjects or their representatives related to their participation in the study. 4. There has not been a change in the research environment nor new information which would mdicamgrcamrnskmhumnwbjxtsthanthatmmedwbcothepmmcolwasimually reviewed and approved. There is a maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for complete review. UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human stbjocts, prior to initiation of the change. Investigators must notify UCRIHS promptly of any problems (moxpected side effects. complaints, etc.) involving hum subjects during the course of the work. Ifwo can be of any future help. please do not hcm'tate to contact us at (517) 355-2180 or FAX (517) 336-1171. David E. wow, Ph.D. Ucruns Chair DEW:pjm cc: Dr. Marjorie Kostelnik 1 51 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Baldwin, W., & Nord, C. (1984). Delayed childbearing in the U.S.: Facts and fiction. Population Bulletin, 12, 3- 43. Banks, J. A. (1988). Multiethnic education: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Newton, MS: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Banks, J. A. (1989). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J. A. Banks and C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. Needham Heights, MS: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Baratz, S. S., & Baratz, J. C. (1970). Early childhood intervention: The social science base of institutional racism. Harvard Educational Review, 40, 29-50. Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1;, 43-88. Baumrind, D. (1968). Authoritarian vs. authoritative parental control. Adolescence, ;, 255-272. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psvcholoqv Monograph, 2(1, Pt. 2). Baumrind, D., & Black, A. E. (1967). Socialization practices associated with degrees of competence in preschool girls and boys. Child Development, pg, 291- 327. Berger, E. H. (1991). Parents as partners in education: The school and home working together. New York: Macmillan Publishing. Bing, E., & Coleman, L. (1980). Having a babv after 30. New York: Bantam Books. Bloom, B. L. (1985). Factor analysis of self-report measures of family functioning. Familv Process, pg, 225-240. 152 153 Bloom, B. S. (1986). The home environment and school learning. In study group of national assessment of student achievement, The nation’s report card. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Boyer, E. L. (1991). Ready to learn. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundations for the Advancement of Teaching. Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth throuqh age 8 (expanded ed.). Washington, DC : NAEYC . Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and desiqn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol. 6). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc. Bubolz, M., & Sontag, S. (1991). Human ecology theory. In Sourcebook on family theories and research methods, unpublished manuscript. Burleson, B. R. (1987). Cognitive complexity. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Caldwell, B. M., & Freyer, M. (1982). Day care and early education. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research in early childhood education. New York: The Free Press/Macmillan. Cataldo, C. Z. (1987). Parent Education for Early Childhood. New York: Teachers College Press. Children’s Defense Fund (1991). The state of America's children. Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund. Clark, R. M. (1983). Family life and school achievement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Coleman, J., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Egpality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Comer, J. P. (1988, November). Educating poor minority children. Scientific America, 42-48. Constantine, L. L. (1986). Familvpparadiqms: The practice of theorv in familv therapy. New York: Guilford. 154 Constantine, L. L. (1991). Fitting intervention to organizational paradigms. Organization Development Journal, 2, 41-50. Constantine, L. L. (1993). The structure of family paradigms: An analytical model of family variation. Journal of Marital and Family Therapv. 12(1), 39—70. Constantine, L. L., Guise, R., & Okun, B. (1988). Measuring synchrony: An extended measure of family organizational style. Somerville, MA: The Family Center. Davies, D. (1987). Parent involvement in the public schools. Education and Urban Society, ;2(2), 147-163. DeVries, R., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). Constructivist early education: Overview and comparison with other programs. Washington, DC: NAEYC. Diesing, P. (1962). Reason in society. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Edwards, W., & Newman, J. R. (1982). Multiattribute evaluation. Sage Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Evans, E. D. (1982). Curriculum models and early childhood education. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research in early childhood education. New York: The Free Press/Macmillan. Fillmore, L. W. (1988). Now or later? Issues related to the early education of minority group children. Paper reported to the Council of Chief State School Officers, Boston, reported in Powell, D.R. (1989), Families and early childhood programs. Washington, DC: NAEYC. Fisher, B. A. (1978). Perspectives on human communication. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. Fotheringham, W. C. (1966). Perspectives on persuasion. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Fuller, M. L. (1989). Delayed parenting: Implications for schools. Childhood Education, §§(2), 75-77. Galinsky, E. (1988). Parents and teacher—caregivers: Sources of tension, sources of support. Young Children, g;(3), 4-12. 155 Getzels, J. W. (1974). Socialization and education: A note on discontinuities. Teachers College Record, 1g, 218— 225. Gotts, E. E. (1989). Hope revisited: Preschool to graduation, reflections on parenting and school-family relations. Occasional Papers 28. Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory, reported in Berger, E. H. (1991). Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (1989). Race, class, gender, exceptionality and educational reform. In J. A. Banks and C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. Needham Heights, MS: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Grosof, M. S., & Sardy, H. (1985). A research primer for the social and behavioral sciences. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc. Gross, I. H, Crandall, E. W., & Knoll, M. M. (1980). Management for modern families. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Guralnik, D. B. (Ed.). (1974). Webster's new world dictionary of the American language, (2nd college ed.). Cleveland: William Collins World Publishing Co., Inc. Head Start Follow Through Project, Programming Preference Check List. (1977). Washington, DC: author. Head Start program performance standards. (1984). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Development, Administration for Children, Youth, and Families. Hess, R. D., Dickson, W. P., Price, G. G., and Leong, D. J. (1979). Some contrasts between mothers and preschool teachers in interaction with four-year-old children. American Educational Research Journal, 1g, 307-316. Hill-Scott, K. (1987). The effects of subsidized, private, and unregulated child care on family functioning. In D. L. Peters & S. Kontos (Eds.), Continuity and discontinuity of experience in child care. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Hoffman, M. L. (1970). Moral development. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology. New York: Wiley. 156 Imig, D. R. (1991). Family process theory: Extending the concept of dimensional mechanisms. Journal of Theory in Home Economics, 1(2), 19-31. Imig, D. R. (1993). Family stress: Paradigms and perceptions. Family Science Review, §(1&2), 45-55. Imig, D. R. (1992). Operationalizing paradigmatic family theory: The Family Regime Assessment Scale (PRAS). Family Science Review, 5(3&4), 217-234. Imig, D. R., & Phillips, R. G. (1990). Measurement of systemic family paradigms: Part II. Paper presented at National Council on Family Relations, Theory Construction and Research Methodology Preconference Workshop, Seattle, WA. Imig, D. R., & Phillips R. G. (1989). Operationalizing Kantor & Lehr, and Constantine’s family system paradigms. Paper presented at National Council on Family Relations, Theory Construction and Research Methodology Preconference Workshop, New Orleans, LA. Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heyns, B., & Michelson, S. (1972). Inegpality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books. Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the family: Toward a theopy of family process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Kostelnik, M. J., Soderman, A., & Whiren, A. P. (1993). Developmentally appropriate programs in early childhood education. New York: MacMillan. Laosa, L. (1982). School, occupation, culture, and family: The impact on the parent-child relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, lg, 791-827. Lazar, I. (1988, January). Measuring the effects of early childhood programs. Community Education Journal, LS_(2) I 8'11. Lightfoot, S. L. (1978). Worlds apart: Relationships between families and school. New York: Basic. Littlejohn, S. W. (1983). Theories of human communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. 157 Litwak, E., & Meyer, H. (1974). School, family and neighborhood: The theory and practice of school- community relations. New York: Columbia University Press. Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Heatherington (Ed.), Socialization personality, and social development: Handbook of child psychology. New York: Wiley. Michigan manual of child study. (1896). Department of Public Instruction. Lansing, MI: Robert Smith & Co., State Printers and Binders. National Association of State Boards of Education. (1988). Right from the start. Alexandria, VA: NASBE. National Black Child Development Institute. (1987). Safeguards: Guidelines for establishing programs for four-vear-olds in the public schools. Washington, DC: NBCDI. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. H. (1975). Statistical package for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. O’Keefe, B. J. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about communication. Communication Monographs, pp, 80-103. O’Keefe, B. J., & Delia, J. G. (1982). Impression formation and message production. In M. E. Roloff & C. P. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Pence, A. R., & Goelman, H. (1987). Silent partners: Parents in three types of daycare. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, p, 103-118. Phillips, D. A. (Ed.). (1987). Quality in child care: What does the research tell us? Research monograph of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: NAEYC. 158 Phillips, D. A., Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1987). Dimensions and effects of child care quality: The Bermuda study. In D.A. Phillips (Ed.), Quality in child care: What does the research tell us? Washington, DC: NAEYC. Powell, D. R. (1989). Families and early childhood programs. Research monograph of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: NAEYC. Powell, D. R., & Widdows, R. (1987). Social and economic factors associated with parent's decisions about after- school child care: An exploratory study in a medium- sized community. Child and Youth Care Quarterly, ;§, 268-278. Pulliam, J. D. (1991). History of education in America (5th ed.). New York: Merrill/Macmillan Publishing Company. Ramirez, M., & Castaneda, A. (1974). Cultural democracy, bicognitive deve10pment and education. New York: Academic. Rescorla, L. (1991). Parent and teacher attitudes about early academics. In L. Rescorla, M. Hyson, & Hirsh— Pasek (Eds.), Academic instruction in early childhood: Challenge or pressure? New directions for child development (Vol. 53, pp. 13-19). San Francisco: Jossey—Bass. Rogers, C. C., & O’Connell, M. (1984). Fertility of American women. Current Population Reports (Series p- 20, No. 387). Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census. Scanzoni, J., & Szinovacz, M. (1980). Family decision- making. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Smith, M. B. (1968). School and home: Focus on achievement. In A. H. Passor (Ed.), Developing programs for the educationally disadvantaged. New York: Teachers College Press. Soar R. S., & Soar, R. M. (1982). Measurement of classroom process. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research in early childhood education. New York: The Free Press/Macmillan. Spodek, B. (1982). Handbook of research in early childhood education. New York: The Free Press/Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. 159 Strickland, C. E. (1982). Paths not taken: Seminal models of early childhood education in Jacksonian America. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research in early childhood education. New York: The Free Press/Macmillan. Stipek, D., Millburn, S., Galluzzo, D., & Daniels. (1992). Parent’s beliefs about appropriate education for young children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13(3), 293—310. Stipek, D., Rosenblatt, L., & DiRocco, L. (1994). Making parents your allies. Young Children, 32(3), 4—9. Tharp, R. G. (1982). The effective instruction of comprehension: Results and descriptions of the Kamehameha Early Education Program. Reading Research Quarterly, 11, 503-527. Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching. learning and schooling in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tulkin, S. R., & Covitz, F. E. (1975). Mother-infant interaction and intellectual functioning at age six. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Denver. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol. 6). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc. Walberg, H. F. (1984). Families as partners in educational productivity. Phi Delta Kappa, §§(40), 397-400. Watson, T., Brown, M., & Swick, K. J. (1983). The relationship of parents’ support to children’s school achievement. Child Welfare, 1;(2), 175-180. Winetsky, C. S. (1978). Comparisons of the expectations of parents and teachers for the behavior of preschool children. Child Development, 32, 1146-1154. Zigler, E., & Valentine, J. (Eds.). (1977). Proiect Head Start. New York: Free Press.