.1 r 3.
31.13. ...
311(57‘2.

A}
...

...
. $2.

.1
is?

1.“! EV.
(:14 1.33.311!
It).

3.?

- < L :3
"unau-

\) ‘|-0nl ~ ixOl
... {£31};
IEI‘V!“
:33:
.3;
...}...
. . 3.
11%;;
. ~HU‘.‘.I
. .3 ..
IV?T...\1T.P
. . . ~ .
Jada...” 1:32.}.
3! ...)

. i. hflflu
’3 111).! III-l {I

..Ji‘f .99!-
l.

 

 

[3.350. $221.!

?"w&hl . {flux-“bl! .

krillh:\.umtlp!!:.”lx. nil!
“mad-uh I)... fir... o.

 

     

. . i . .. A, K p . ..V.:tll

   

  

. .‘4‘ I 1'

l I . . ‘ . . f u \ 4. .) . {iv . A'... .0‘ I'll. gi’l‘.‘i[""

”p _ . . ‘ ; . . , . . in... if?! $132.54», ac,

. ..P— . . \ ~u.’fo.fi11l|u .v‘.
. E i

 

SIS

1004/

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
CHILD CARE EXPLUSION RISK:

RELATIONSHIP OF CHILD CHARACTERISTICS
AND TYPE OF CARE SETTING,
TO BEHAVIOR IN CHILD CARE

presented by
Heather L. Lucas

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

M.A. degree in flhildjexelopment

Major professor

Date May 9, 2002

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-pi15

CHILD CARE EXPULSION RISK:
RELATIONSHIP OF CHILD CHARACTERISTICS
AND TYPE OF CARE SETTING, TO BEHAVIOR IN CHILD CARE

By

Heather L. Lucas

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Family and Child Ecology

2002

ABSTRACT
CHILD CARE EXPULSION RISK:
RELATIONSHIP OF CHILD CHARACTERISTICS
AND TYPE OF CARE SETTING, TO BEHAVIOR IN CHILD CARE
By

Heather L. Lucas

According to the United States Department of Labor (2000), the last thirty years
have seen the number of families using child care multiply dramatically, from only one in
five preschool age children in care settings in 1970, to one in two in care today. As the
number of children in child care has grown, so has a problem presenting a uniquely
troubling situation for many families dependent on child care, that of the child who is
forced to leave child care settings due to behavioral problems. This study examines the
characteristics of children, birth to age twelve, facing expulsion from child care programs
in one Midwestern community. The study draws a profile of the children facing
expulsion, and determines if those children follow a pattern that can be identified based

on the type of behavior, the gender, the age, and the type of care setting the child is in.

CmWflt
HEATHERILLUCAS

2002

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to acknowledge first, my colleague and dear friend, Linda Herbert,
Executive Director of the Livingston County Child Care (4C) Council. Her tireless
dedication to her advocacy work for children, and her incredible devotion to her friends
have made this project happen. I thank her deeply, for it would not be me writing these
words without her.

My thanks to the Livingston County Child Care (4C) Council, for their generosity
in allowing the use of their data. I would also like to acknowledge the Success for Kids
in Child Care program and all of the dedicated professionals committed to its continued
growth and work for children.

I also wish to thank Dr. Robert Boger, Chairperson of my committee, for his most
valuable assistance every step of the way. He listened and he guided at the most critical
times. To Dr. Robert Griffore, my thanks as well for serving on my committee, and for
excellent guidance in the overwhelming world of statistical analysis. To Dr. Marguerite
Barratt, my thanks for serving on my committee, offering loads of feedback, and
especially for recognizing the critical value of this project. Without her insight and
prompting, this thesis would not have happened.

Finally, to the special people around me that witnessed the whole experience of it,
my husband, Luke (for everything), my mom and sister, Dawn, (for listening), and my
dear, dear friend Pam (for constant support and just taking care of business). I cannot

fathom having done this without all of your steady support.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................... 2
Importance of the Problem ............................................................................. 2
Conceptual or Theoretical Model .................................................................. 3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 10
Research Objectives ....................................................................................... 10
Research Questions ........................................................................................ 11
Conceptual and Operational Definitions ........................................................ 11
Research Assumptions ................................................................................... 13
General Research Hypotheses ........................................................................ 13
Research Design ............................................................................................. 14
Instrumentation .............................................................................................. 14
Sampling Procedure ....................................................................................... 15
Data Collection Procedure ............................................................................. 16
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ........................................................................................... 18
Data Overview: Descriptives ......................................................................... 18
Data Analysis ................................................................................................. 24
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ..................................................................................... 60
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 62
Summary of Findings ..................................................................................... 62
Implications .................................................................................................... 62
Limitations and Suggestions .......................................................................... 65
APPENDIX A: Expulsion Projects ............................................................................ 66
APPENDIX B: Success for Kids in Child Care ......................................................... 67
APPENDIX C: Child Care Data Collection Form ..................................................... 69
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 70

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 — Gender*Biting ......................................................................................... 24
Table 1.2 - Gender*Crying/Screaming ..................................................................... 25
Table 1.3 — Gender*Aggressive behaviors ................................................................ 26
Table 1.4 — Gender*Tantrums ................................................................................... 26
Table 1.5 - Gender*Property destruction .................................................................. 27
Table 1.6 - Gender*Does not respond to limits ........................................................ 27
Table 1.7 — Gender* Sexual acting out ....................................................................... 28
Table 1.8 — Gender*Toileting problems .................................................................... 28
Table 1.9 — Gender* Spitting ...................................................................................... 29
Table 1.10 — Gender* Swearing .................................................................................. 30
Table 1.11 — Gender*Unsafe behaviors/runaway ...................................................... 31
Table 1.12 — Gender*Disruptive ................................................................................ 32
Table 1.13 - Gender*Poor social skills ..................................................................... 32
Table 1.14 — Gender“ Self-abusing behavior ............................................................. 33
Table 1.15 — Gender*Bizarre behavior ...................................................................... 33
Table 2.1 — Age*Biting .............................................................................................. 34
Table 2.2 - Age*Crying/Screaming .......................................................................... 35
Table 2.3 — Age*Aggressive behaviors ..................................................................... 36
Table 2.4 — Age*Tantrums ........................................................................................ 37
Table 2.5 — Age*Property destruction ....................................................................... 38
Table 2.6 — Age*Does not respond to limits .............................................................. 39
Table 2.7 -— Age*Sexual acting out ............................................................................ 40
Table 2.8 — Age*Toileting problems ......................................................................... 41
Table 2.9 — Age*Spitting ........................................................................................... 42
Table 2.10 — Age*Swearing ....................................................................................... 43
Table 2.11 — Age*Unsafe behaviors/runaway ........................................................... 44
Table 2.12 — Age*Disruptive ..................................................................................... 45
Table 2.13 — Age*Poor social skills .......................................................................... 46
Table 2.14 — Age*Self-abusing behavior ................................................................... 47
Table 2.15 — Age*Bizarre behavior ........................................................................... 48
Table 3.1 — Type of Care*Biting ............................................................................... 49
Table 3.2 — Type of Care*Crying/Screaming ............................................................ 50
Table 3.3 - Type of Care*Aggressive behaviors ....................................................... 51
Table 3.4 — Type of Care*Tantrums .......................................................................... 52
Table 3.5 - Type of Care*Property destruction ......................................................... 52
Table 3.6 — Type of Care*Does not respond to limits ............................................... 53
Table 3.7 — Type of Care*Sexual acting out .............................................................. 54
Table 3.8 — Type of Care*Toi1eting problems ........................................................... 54
Table 3.9 — Type of Care*Spitting ............................................................................. 55

vi

Table 3.10 — Type of Care*Swearing ........................................................................ 56

Table 3.11 — Type of Care*Unsafe behaviors/runaway ............................................. 57
Table 3.12 — Type of Care*Disruptive ...................................................................... 57
Table 3.13 —- Type of Care*Poor social skills ............................................................ 58
Table 3.14 — Type of Care*Se1f-abusing behavior .................................................... 5 8
Table 3.15 — Type of Care*Bizarre behavior ............................................................. 59

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 — Research Illustration ................................................................................. 2

Figure 2 — Gender Distribution .................................................................................. 19
Figure 3 — Age Distribution ....................................................................................... 20
Figure 4 — Age/Gender Distribution .......................................................................... 21
Figure 5 -— Type of Care Distribution ......................................................................... 21
Figure 6 — Behavior Distribution ............................................................................... 22
Figure 7 - Age/Social Skills Behavior Distribution .................................................. 23

viii

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

According to the United States Department of Labor (2000), the last thirty years
have seen the number of families using child care multiply dramatically, from only one in
five preschool age children in care settings in 1970, to one in two in care today. In 1994,
70 percent of mothers in the United States were in the workforce (Baker, 1994). Today,
following the welfare reform begun in 1996, thirteen million preschool age children are
currently in child care (United States Department of Labor, 2000). As the number of
children experiencing day care situations has grown, so have the problems unique to the
day care experience.

Day care “exerts a complex influence on young children” (DiLalla, 1998, p.223).
Studies and research abound surrounding the effects (positive and negative) of care, the
characteristics of quality care, cross-cultural care characteristics, and more (Baker, 1994;
Gardels, 1998; Gibbs, 2001; Jones, 1999; Lowry, 2001; Weikart, 1996a, Weikart, 1996b).
Yet, a growing problem exists that, as yet, has not been addressed in such studies; that of
the child who is forced to leave child care settings due to behavioral problems. Much has
been researched and written regarding children’s behavior problems (Kupersmidt,
Bryant, & Willoughby, 2000; Loeber, 1997; McNeilly-Choque, Hart, & Robinson, 1996;
National Network for Child Care, 1991). However, such problems in the context of child
care have only recently become the focus of research. As such it is difficult to determine
how large the problem of child care expulsion actually is. There is no profile of the
children facing expulsion, in terms of gender, age or even the prevalence of specific
behaviors in these children. It is not known exactly how much effect the child care

setting has on expulsion rates, in terms of overall frequency of expulsion, as related to

behavioral considerations. Social supports for children facing expulsion and their parents
and providers of care are just beginning to take shape.
Statement of the Problem

This study examines the characteristics of children, birth to age twelve, facing
expulsion from child care programs in Livingston County, Michigan as cited by the
providers of the care and the parents of the children. More specifically, this research
examines the behaviors of children facing expulsion to determine if the behaviors follow
patterns and fit categories that can be identified based on the type of behavior, the gender

of the child, age of the child, and the type of care setting the child is in.

Child in Child Care:
Individual and Experiential Dynamics of Child in
Care as Impacting Expulsion of Child

 

 

Child Characteristics

        
 

 

 

 

 

(age, gender)
Expulsion Risk
Child in Child Care
Type of Care Setting

(family, in-home, /

group, center)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 — Research Illustration

Importance of the Problem
The number of children in child care in the United States has multiplied
dramatically in the past thirty years. As the number of children in care has grown, so
have the problems facing providers caring for children. In many situations, providers
lack the resources and/or training to effectively work with children requiring special help

for behavioral, physical, or emotional development concerns. Providers may also lack

the resources to assist families facing other types of special concerns, such as death,
divorce, or remarriage. Children and families of children who are expelled from child
care must begin again to find and adapt to new child care arrangements. Parents of these
children may face difficulties in the workplace, and may lose their jobs due to child care
problems. The children themselves may experience an increase in the behavioral or
emotional problems, as they must adapt to a new environment, new children and new
caregivers. Further research investigating reasons children face expulsion from child care
is necessary to offer support to the children, families and providers in these situations.
Conceptual or Theoretical Model

Human ecology theory presents a framework for understanding the interaction of
an individual and his/her environment, or ecosystem. Interaction between the individual
and the various systems in his/her ecosystem is continuous. Change occurs reciprocally
as the individual develops, affecting his/her ecosystem, and as systems develop affecting
the individual. In this study, ecological theory is applied as the child, the family, the
child care provider and the child care setting are examined. The family system
determines if and where a child will attend child care, and impacts the experience the
child has while enrolled in child care. Additionally, the child care provider and setting
impacts the child and family system and the development of both. The interaction of
family and child care setting continues to impact the child and the child’s future success
as he/she grows and moves through child care from infant care to school-age care. By
viewing the child in child care through the ecological lens, it is possible to consider

specific influences on the level of success in child care the child achieves.

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review

Expulsion

Expulsion has been a disciplinary alternative in school settings for years, however
the term is gaining more and more attention of late, in the world of early childhood and
child care. As previously stated, the number of children in child care today is
dramatically higher than thirty years ago, with nearly 50% of preschool age children in
child care (United States Department of Labor, 2000). As such, it is a relative
assumption that the number of children experiencing problems in care would also be
greater. The increase in the prevalence of children facing expulsion and/or being
expelled from child care has researchers, alongside parents, child care providers, and
other professionals serving children (child care experts, social workers, psychologists,
pediatricians, etc.), fervently searching for strategies to help these children.
Prevention Models

Models for early intervention strategies or support services for families and child
care providers serving children identified as at risk for expulsion have popped up across
the country. Examples include the Daycare Consultants program in San Francisco, the
Healthy Child Care Pennsylvania Early Childhood Education Linkage System, the
ShowMe Rainbows Consultant Program in Missouri, and in Michigan, six child care
expulsion prevention projects began across the state in 1998 with the intent to identify
children most often facing expulsion, and to develop a support system to prevent those
children from being expelled (see Appendix A).

One such project in Livingston County, Michigan began in 1998 as the Preventing

Child Care Expulsion Group and eventually came to be known as the Success for Kids in

Child Care Program, advertised as a “community effort in Livingston County to help
children succeed in child care” (see Appendix B). The program was grant firnded,
monies administered through the Livingston County Community Mental Health Services.
In a joint effort with the regional child care resource and referral agency, the Livingston
County Community Coordinated Child Care (4C) Council, the program began tracking
child care expulsions in March of 1999 (Livingston County Community Coordinated
Child Care (4C) Council, 1999).

A November, 2001 child care census report summarizing the responses of 231
child care businesses (representing 99% of the total child care businesses in Livingston
County) compiled and issued by the Livingston County Community Coordinated Child
Care (4C) Council, asked child care providers in Livingston County, “Have the behaviors
of children gotten better or worse over the last five years?” (p. 13). An overwhelming
75% of respondents said behaviors have gotten worse (Livingston County Community
Coordinated Child Care (4C) Council, 2001). Additionally, when the census asked how
many of the child care providers of Livingston County had ever expelled a child from
their care, 55% responded they had (Livingston County Community Coordinated Child
Care (4C) Council, 2001). Finally, when the same census asked providers if they were
aware of the expulsion prevention program, Success for Kids in Child Care, less than
half, 40%, knew of the program (Livingston County Community Coordinated Child Care
(4C) Council, 2001).

The Nature of the Problem
Children with behavior problems in early childhood continue to be at risk for

behavior problems later in childhood and into adolescence (Patterson, Capaldi, & Bank,

1991). “Aggression, for example, is linked with problematic peer relations from early
childhood through adolescence” (Phillipsen, Bridges, & McLemore, 1999, p. 68).
Additionally, recent research has brought to the forefront the critical nature of the early
childhood years in that “half of a child’s critical brain development is completed by the
time he begins kindergarten” (Lindsey, 1998-1999, p. 97). The importance of identifying
and assisting children facing expulsion becomes more apparent.

An intense review of the literature reveals that very little is available specifically
on expulsion from child care. Two studies completed in Southeastern Lower Michigan
offer some comparisons (Downriver Guidance Clinic Department of Early Childhood
Programs, 1999; Southwest Detroit Community Mental Health Services, Inc. and the
Southwest Family Support Team, 1999). However, questions related to gender or age
and specific behaviors of the children being expelled have not been addressed in a broad
sense.

One of the studies in Southeastern Lower Michigan identified an overall
expulsion/at risk for expulsion rate in their community of 6.9% of the preschool
population (Downriver Guidance Clinic Department of Early Childhood Programs,
1999). Both Michigan studies surveyed child care providers as the means for collecting
data.

In terms of gender and age, both Michigan studies were consistent with one
another in finding that boys were expelled or facing expulsion much more often than
girls. The Early Childhood Care and Education Expulsion Prevention Project (Downriver
Guidance Clinic Department of Early Childhood Programs, 1999) found that in a group

of 98 children reported as expelled or facing expulsion 81.6% of the children were boys.

In a similar study, the Preschool Expulsion Prevention Project (Southwest Detroit
Community Mental Health Services, Inc. and the Southwest Family Support Team, 1999)
reported that of 34 children expelled, 65% were boys, 35% girls, and for those children
facing expulsion, 76% were boys, while only 24% were girls. The same study examined
age and found that of the 34 children expelled, most (20) were two- to five-years old.
One child was reported as eighteen months, and 13 of the 34 were missing age data
(Southwest Detroit Community Mental Health Services, Inc. and the Southwest Family
Support Team, 1999).

Literature was also sought on another facet of expulsion, the type of care setting,
specifically, child care center settings and family daycare homes. Much is written about
care options for children, including those with special needs, as well as the importance of
high quality care for children overall, but nothing could be located that discussed children
facing expulsion, or attempted to discern if placement in a particular type of care
arrangement adds to expulsion risk. In order to attempt to address the nature of the
problem, it becomes necessary to dissect the entity, “expulsion”, and examine the parts,
specifically, expulsion as a result of behavior.

Behavior Problems in Children

Behaviorally, the Michigan studies were again similar and offer a place to begin
(Downriver Guidance Clinic Department of Early Childhood Programs, 1999; Southwest
Detroit Community Mental Health Services, Inc. and the Southwest Family Support
Team, 1999). Both utilized a similar classification system for reporting behaviors in the
surveys of providers. Behaviors most often reported were categorized as hitting,

disrupting, not listening, trouble focusing, trouble with routine, poor social skills and

tantrums (Downriver Guidance Clinic Department of Early Childhood Programs, 1999).
Other behaviors appeared, although less often, such as, biting, spitting, swearing, cries
excessively, sexually acts out, and bizarre behavior.

Developmentally, children progressing through the preschool years are gaining
verbal and social skills, and developing a greater understanding of interpersonal
interactions, such as initiating play with others, sharing, and solving disputes. Some
degree of aggression while children are mastering such social skills is considered normal,
or age-appropriate behavior. Children at the preschool age are also developing in their
ability to function in a group, waiting for turns, listening to teacher direction, and
developing emotional regulation. However, as stated, aggressive behaviors, regulatory
behaviors and emotional issues were most often reported as reasons children are facing
expulsion or are expelled from care.

Aggression in young children is more often reported for boys. This may be
inherent to some degree, but is also due in large part to culture; boys are often taught to
be tough (Wycoff, 2000). Boys are socialized differently than girls, status is found to be
more important to boys, and in general, boys are more likely than girls to display overt
aggression (Phillipsen, Bridges, & McLemore, 1999). Even in playing with their
children, parents respond differently to their sons, often engaging boys in more physical
kinds of play (Lindsey & Mize, 2000).

Some research has made an attempt to demonstrate a relationship between child
care and a higher incidence of aggression in children, although an equal amount of
research provides evidence that there is no relationship (DiLalla, 1998). In fact, in

Swedish studies cited by DiLalla (1998), it was reported that a relationship existed

between children in child care and increased prosocial as well as increased aggressive
behavior.

Trends in the literature also indicate the tendency to believe that the children of
today face a bigger challenge than children of a few decades ago, just growing up
(Driedger, 1996; Youngs, 1985). Authors Jackson and Owens (1999) reported that 35%
of children in the United States were stressed. A child under stress may be prone to
frequent crying, or may be depressed; behavior problems may result as a child tries to
cope (Jewett, 1997; Miller, 1982; Youngs, 1985). Jewett (1997) indicates that stress has
a stronger impact on boys. These behavioral responses to stress are consistent with some
of the behaviors placing children at risk for expulsion, such as, excessive crying, biting,
and tantrums.

Also of interest, a White House Conference on Mental Health Briefing Paper on
Children and Adolescents (2000) estimates 20% of children in the United States have a
diagnosable mental disorder; as many as two-thirds of these children are not being
treated. In an article in June 2000, reporter Tanner writes that many emotional and
behavioral disorders in children have more than doubled since 1979.

Current Study

With so many possible facets of child behavior to consider, this study closely
examines one data set to gain insight into some types of behaviors deemed expulsion
risks and their possible relationship to child characteristics and type of care settings. In
this way, further research into the reasons for specific child behaviors, and possible

solutions may be explored.

CHAPTER 3: Methodology
Research Objectives
The overall purpose of this research was to examine the characteristics of
children, birth to age twelve, facing expulsion from child care settings and the reasons
these children are facing expulsion. More specifically, this research examines the
behaviors of children in Livingston County (as reported by the parents and the providers
of the care) facing expulsion to determine if the behaviors follow patterns and fit
categories that can be identified based on the type of behavior, the gender of the child,
age of the child, and the type of care setting the child is in. To reach this goal, several
more specific objectives were developed to guide the research. Data generated by the
Preventing Child Care Expulsion Group, Success for Kids in Child Care and kept by the
Livingston County Child Care (4C) Council was studied as follows:
I To identify the characteristics, specifically gender, age, and type of care
setting, of the children in the sample reported as at risk for expulsion.
I To identify and categorize behaviors cited as reasons children are facing
expulsion.
' To determine whether there are different reported behaviors for boys and
girls facing expulsion.
. To determine whether there are different reported behaviors for each age
group of children facing expulsion.
I To determine if children from a specific type of care setting (family,

group, or center) more often face expulsion.

10

Research Questions
In order to accomplish these objectives, several specific research questions were
addressed:
1) Is child gender related to the fifteen behaviors cited as the reasons for child
expulsion risk?
2) Is child age related to the fifteen behaviors cited as the reasons for child
expulsion risk?
3) Is type of care setting related to the fifteen behaviors cited as the reasons for
child expulsion risk?
Conceptual and Operational Definitions
In this study child care expulsion risk is examined as a result of child behavior.
More specifically, child behavior is examined for possible associations to the child
characteristics, age, child gender, and the five types of child care settings the child
attends to determine what child characteristics may indicate a higher risk of expulsion.
Conceptually, behavior refers to the ways in which a child acts independently or
interfaces with other children or adults. Operationally, child behavior was recorded and
classified as reported by the parent and/or the child care provider as one or more of
fifteen different types of behavior: l=biting, 2=excessive crying/screaming, 3=physical
aggression (e. g. hitting, kicking, pushing), 4=tantrums, 5=property destruction (damage
to or destruction of the care setting or property of the provider), 6=does not respond to
limits (e.g. insubordinate), 8=sexual inappropriateness (e.g. overt sexual behaviors
toward self or others), 8=toileting problems, 9=spitting, 10=swearing, 11=unsafe

behaviors/runaway (e.g. attempts to leave child care setting, possession of weapons),

11

12=disruptive to group activities (e.g. not able to attend to large group activities),
l3=poor social skills (e. g. difficulty interacting productively with other children, does not
share, taunts others, does not interact with other children), 14=self-abusing behavior (e. g.
hurts or injures self), 15=bizarre behavior (unexplained or unusual behavior not fitting
into one of the previous fourteen categories).
In this study the child characteristics and child care setting characteristics are
defined as follows:
1) Age of child
Conceptual: chronological age in years and months.
Operational: children are grouped by age in one month increments.
2) Gender of child
Conceptual: male or female.
Operational: l=male 2=female
3) Type of Care Setting
Conceptual: setting in which the child is cared for by another/other adult(s) on
a regular basis.
Operational: child care setting as defined by the State of Michigan Bureau of
Regulatory Services classified as one of five types:
i. child care center (non-residential facility which receives one or more
children, infant to school-age, for care (State of Michigan, 2000))
ii. family/ group day care home (6 or fewer children in care in a family
home with one adult; or 6-12 children in care in a family home with

two adults)

12

iii. in-home care (child cared for in his/her own home by a live-in
provider)
iv. Head Start Program (federally funded early childhood development
program designed for low-income children)
v. unregulated (care that is not licensed or registered with the State of
Michigan Bureau of Regulatory Services)
Research Assumptions

This research assumes that the responses from the providers and parents of the
children are honest responses.

This research assumes that the interpretations of children’s behavior reported
accurately assess the actual behavior.

This research assumes that the age and gender data gathered from the providers
and parents are accurate responses.

This research assumes that the data source, the Preventing Child Care Expulsion
Group, Success for Kids in Child Care data kept by the Livingston County Child Care
(4C) Council is accurate.

General Research Hypotheses

Due to the exploratory nature of this research, three general null hypotheses are

being stated. It is implied that fifteen specific hypotheses are incorporated into each of

these three general hypotheses.

Ho]: Child gender will be independent from the fifteen behaviors cited as the

reasons for child expulsion risk.

13

Ha]: Child gender will not be independent from the fifteen behaviors cited as
the reasons for child expulsion risk.
H02: Child age will be independent from the fifteen behaviors cited as the
reasons for child expulsion risk.
Haz: Child age will not be independent from the fifteen behaviors cited as the
reasons for child expulsion risk.
H03: Type of care setting will be independent from the fifteen behaviors cited
as the reasons for child expulsion risk.
Ha3: Type of care setting will not be independent from the fifteen behaviors
cited as the reasons for child expulsion risk.
Decision Rule: The decision rule in this study will be that the chance probability of .05 or
less (P<.05) will be required to reject the null hypotheses.
Research Design
This exploratory and descriptive study was based upon longitudinal data collected
from a natural setting. The study is local, as the unit of analysis in this study is individual
children facing expulsion for behavioral reasons in Livingston County, Michigan child
care settings. A sample of 163 children from a secondary data source was analyzed.
Although quasi-experimental, the nature of the data make the study exploratory, and limit
conclusions that can be drawn from it.
Instrumentation
Child behavior as it results in risk of expulsion from child care, was analyzed by

examining the data, gathered by the Livingston County Child Care (4C) Council, for

14

relationships among the attributes of the unit of analysis: age, gender and type of care
setting.

The data set is comprised of 163 valid cases, each plotted by gender, age, type of
care and risk behaviors reported. The characteristic, GENDER, is a dichotomous,
categorical variable. AGE as a variable is categorical, plotted initially by years and
months, and then grouped into six age categories: zero to one-year, two-years, three-
years, four-years, five-years, and six- to twelve-years. Grouping the age ranges in this
way created categories that were conducive to the correlational statistics methods used to
analyze the data. The TYPE OF CARE variable is categorical, categorized into one of five
types of care. All of the BEHAVIORS, were plotted as fifteen separate variables, each
dichotomous and categorical.

In examining overall expulsion risk as a function of behavior, each of the child
characteristics and care setting types was tested using the chi-square analytical procedure
to determine if a relationship to any of the fifteen behaviors existed. Results were then
determined in summary as overall expulsion risk, as a function of behavior, as relates to
each of the child characteristics and care setting types.

Sampling Procedure

Data for this study were drawn from an external source. The data set was
developed and provided by the Livingston County Community Coordinated Child Care
(4C) Council in collaboration with the Preventing Child Care Expulsion Group, and the
program now known as Success For Kids Child Care (see Appendix B).

Children in the data set are residents of Livingston County, Michigan. In a

November 2001 census report by the Livingston County Community Coordinated (4C)

15

Council, the population of children in Livingston County under age fourteen was reported
to be 31,722. The number of child care slots in Livingston County licensed or registered
with the Michigan Department of Consumer and Industry Services, Bureau of Regulatory
Services, Child Day Care Licensing Division, was reported as 6,172 (Livingston County
Community Coordinated Child Care (4C) Council, 2001). This number represents a
combined total of all care available, as provided by child care centers, family daycare
homes and group daycare homes, 231 businesses in all.
Data Collection Procedure

Data for this study were gathered and compiled by the Livingston County
Community Coordinated (4C) Council. For each child in the data set, the child
information provided regarding type of care setting, child gender, child age, and
behaviors cited as reasons the child faced expulsion, was obtained through phone and/or
personal interviews of the child’s parent(s), the provider(s) of care for the child, or
another adult such as a mental health worker or non-parental relative of the child.
Specifically, 49 (30%) reports were made by parents, 101 (62%) reports were made by
child care providers, and 12 (7%) of the cases were reported by others

Data was gathered and categorized through the use of a data collection form for
parent(s) and provider(s) developed by the Success For Kids Child Care Expulsion
Project and collected by the Livingston 4C Council (see Appendix C). This intake form
requested the child’s disenrollment history, type of care setting, person reporting,
geographic information, child age, gender, parent income, other referrals (such as for

mental health or developmental screening) child has received, and then asked the person

16

reporting to indicate the behaviors the child was exhibiting that were placing him/her at

risk for expulsion, or had resulted in expulsion.

l7

CHAPTER 4: Results
Data Overview: Descriptives

Data collection for this study began on March 1, 1999 and continued until
September 19, 2001. In that eighteen month time, 163 children were reported and
entered into the data set. In the first twelve months, from March 1999 through February
2000, exactly 100 children were reported. The remaining 63 reports were received in the
last six months. This increase in the reporting incidence is likely due to the increased
awareness in the community of the Success for Kids in Child Care Program.

Based upon these numbers, it is possible to estimate the percentage of the children
in child care in Livingston County that are facing expulsion. As stated earlier, the total
number of licensed child care slots available in the county is 6,172. The 100 reports of
children facing expulsion received between March 1999 and February 2000, represent
1.6% of the total number of children that could have been in care in that time frame.
However, based upon the census data which reported that providers were only choosing
to use 4,453 slots of the total 6,172, these 100 cases represent 2.2% of the children that
probably were in care in that time frame. This is merely an estimate, as this data set is a
collection of reported cases, it is not a sample drawn from the general population. There
is no way to account for the numbers of children facing expulsion, or that were expelled
that were not reported. Therefore, it is estimated that a minimum of 2.2% of Livingston
County children in child care are at risk for expulsion from their care setting.

Upon examination, a number of intriguing trends were revealed in the data.

Several of these are worthy of attention, and at the very least call for presentation at this

18

point, as these trends help demonstrate a profile of just who is at risk for expulsion from
child care.

To begin, Figure 2 shows vividly the gender distribution of the data set. Most
notable is the prevailing number of boys. A remarkable 114 of the children in the data
set were boys. This figure is nearly two-and-one-half times the number of girls (two
cases were missing gender information). Since it is assumed that the population from
which the data set was developed is representative of typical population norms, it would
follow that the number of boys and girls in the set at risk for expulsion should be nearly

equal. It is not.

 

Gender Distribution

 

 

 

 

Figure 2 - Gender Distribution

Another characteristic of the children in this data set that offers valuable insight
into the profile of the child at risk for expulsion, is age. The graph in figure 3 shows the
distribution of ages for all children in the sample. Children in the sample range in age
from three months to ten years, with a mean age of three years, six months. The age data

followed a slightly skewed distribution; elimination of the outliers would provide a

19

normal distribution. Specifically, forty-one of the children identified were in the three-
year old range, with nine of them three-years, six months. Thirty-one of the children
were four-years, and twenty-seven were five years of age, for a total of ninety-eight
children, or 61.6% of the 159 total cases with age data in the three to five year old range
(four cases were missing age information). The specific age (in months and years) with
the greatest number of children identified was five-years exactly, with twelve cases.
Based on this information, preschool age children appear to be most likely to exhibit

behaviors that place them at risk for expulsion.

 

Age Distribution

50

 

401

Std. Dev = 1.80
Mean = 3.61
N = 159.00

 

 

Number of Children

 

Age of Child in Years

 

 

 

Figure 3 - Age Distribution
When combined, gender and age distributes as shown in Figure 4, boys and girls

are found in the data at all ages, although girls present more often when younger.

20

 

Age Distribution by Gender

 

   

I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I

I
I

.. .---.--.--.._-_--- .---.----.-

      

.. --.-.--.---

 

I
I
I
I
I

 

 

 

Gender

.boy
[jam

a
O
O

L----—-

.-------._--_.__--_._- L-_..--.--.

L-------

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

A

Age in years
a
8
‘-

....

 

 

 

20 30

 

Count

 

 

Figure 4 -Age/Gender Distribution

The type of care setting for each of the children in the sample distributes as

outlined in figure 5.

 

Type of Care Setting

‘1‘ 39‘ Q‘. 39

. A», . _
.‘ .... 3'11"““et ..‘hvaIJQ 71

Family/Group ;Q "‘ n’r '4' “f" we. ‘1” 51

Type of Care

In-Home

 

 

 

Number of cases reported

 

Figure 5 - Type of Care Distribution

Unfortunately, a large number, thirty-nine, of the cases reported did not have care setting

data. However, the numbers of center care cases (71), and the number of family/group

21

daycare home cases (51), represent 43.5% and 31.3% respectively, of the cases in the
data set, or a total of 74.8% (122) of the entire set.

Finally, a discussion of the entire data set as it is distributed according to the
behaviors reported is called for. From the 163 children in the set, a total of 439
incidences of the fifteen types of behaviors were reported. Far outweighing all others,
were aggressive behaviors, including those reported simply as “aggressive” as well as a
number of other behaviors that could also be considered aggressive in nature, biting,
property destruction, and spitting. Behavior labeled “disruptive” and “poor social skills”

was also heavily reported, indicative of children not able to function in a group setting.

 

Distribution of Behaviors

Biting
CryIng/Screaming
Aggressive behaviors
Tantrums

Property destruction
No rspns. to limits
Sexual inapprp.
Toileting problems
Spitting

Swearing

Unsafe behaviors
Disruptive

Poor Social Skills
Self-abusive behav.
Bizzare behavior
Other concerns

 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Number of times behavior was reported

 

 

 

Figure 6 - Behavior Distribution

22

Difficulty functioning in a group setting can also relate to age, and as such, those
behaviors “disruptive” and “poor social skills” are plotted below, as distributed by age to

allow for further discussion when considering the implications of this study.

 

Social Skills Related Behaviors

As distributed by age

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘3 7.00

8

>~ 8.00

E -Disruptive

Q) 10.00

2’ Spoor Social Skills

 

OI
N
&
0')
on
A
O
—l
N
.3
&

16

Number of times behavior reported

 

 

 

Figure 7 - Age/Social Skills Behavior Distribution

23

The data analysis for this study utilized the chi-squared test. The data set was
analyzed to test each of the three general hypotheses. Specifically, the data was analyzed
to determine whether or not relationships existed between the fifteen behaviors cited as
the reasons for child expulsion risk and child gender, age, and type of care.

The results for each of the three hypotheses follow:

Ho]: Child gender will be independent from the fifteen behaviors cited as the reasons

Data Analysis

for child expulsion risk.

Table 1.1 - Gender * Biting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 12.84.

Decision: No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

24

Crosstab
Biting
yes no Total
Gender boy CEnt 30 34 114
Expected Count 31.2 82.8 114.0
girl Count 14 33 47
Expected Count 12.8 34.2 47.0
Total Count 44 1 17 161
Expected Count 44.0 117.0 161.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .2023 1 .653
N of Valid Cases 161

 

Table 1.2 - Gender ’ Crying/Screaming

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Cryipq/Screaming
_ .. yes no Total
Gender boy Count 18 96 114
Expected Count 23.4 90.6 114.0
girl Count 15 32 47
Expected Count 9.6 37.4 47.0
Total Count 33 128 161
Expected Count 33.0 128.0 161.0
Chi-Square Tests
1 Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson hi-Square I 5.3103 1 .021 |
LN of Valid Cases | 161 |

 

 

 

a. 0 cells (0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 9.63.

Symmetric Measures

Value
-.182
Cramer's V .182
N of Valid Cases 161

Nominal

 

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

13- Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null
hypothesis.

Decision : Result is significant. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability of <05 was
determined. The relationship determined between gender and crying/screaming behavior

is that girls were more likely to exhibit this behavior.

25

Table 1.3 - Gender ' Aggressive behaviors

Crosstab

Expected Count

 

 

 

 

Count
Expected Count
Count
Count
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. ]
Value df (2-sided)
earson hi- quare | 2.3408 1 .126 |
[N of Valid Cases | 161 |

 

 

 

a. 0 cells (0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 21.60.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >.05.

Table 1.4 - Gender ‘ Tantrums

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Tantrums
yes no Total
Gender boy Count 20 94 114
Expected Count 19.8 94.2 114.0
girl Count 8 39 47
Expected Count 8.2 38.8 47.0
Total Count 28 133 161
Expected Count 28.0 133.0 161.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2—sided)
Pearson Chi-Square | .006a 1 .937 J
| N of Valid Cases | 161 l

 

 

 

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The

minimum expected count is 8.17.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

26

Table 1.5 - Gender * Property destruction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Propery destruction
yes no Total
Eda boy Count 14 100 1 14
Expected Count 12.0 102.0 114.0
girl Count 3 44 47
Expected Count 5.0 42.0 47.0
Total Count 17 144 161
Expected Count 17.0 144.0 161.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
mduare 1 .2262' 1 .268
N of Valid Cases 161

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 4.96.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >.05.

Table 1.6 - Gender * Does not respond to limits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Doesn't respond to
limits
¥ E yes no Total
Gender boy Count 21 93 114
Expected Count 20.5 93.5 114.0
girl Count 8 39 47
Expected Count 8.5 38.5 47.0
Total Count 29 132 161
Expected Count 29.0 132.0 161.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .044a 1 .834
N of Valid Cases 161

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 8.47.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

27

Table 1.7 - Gender ‘ Sexual acting out

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Sexual Actiquut
yes no Total
Cender boy CHIN 9 105 114
Expected Count 8.5 105.5 114.0
girl Count 3 44 47
Expected Count 3.5 43.5 47.0
Total Count 12 149 161
Expected Count 12.0 149.0 161.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Wouare .1 10a 1 .740
N of Valid Cases 161

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 3.50.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >.05.

Table 1.8 - Gender *Tolletlng problems

Crosstab

Expected Count

 

 

 

 

Count
Expected Count
Count
Count
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .001a 1 .971
N of Valid Cases 161

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. 2 cells (500%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 2.04.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

28

Table 1.9 - Gender "’ Spitting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Spitting
yes no Total
'Cender boy Count 9 105 114
Expected Count 8.5 105.5 114.0
girl Count 3 44 47
Expected Count 3.5 43.5 47.0
Total Count 12 149 161
Expected Count 12.0 149.0 161.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Mguare .1103 1 .740
N of Valid Cases 161

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 3.50.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

29

Table 1.10 - Gender * Swearing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Swearing
__ yes no Total
Gender boy Count 16 98 114
Expected Count 12.0 102.0 114.0
girl Count 1 46 47
Expected Count 5.0 42.0 47.0
Total Count 17 144 161
Expected Count 17.0 144.0 161.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
| Pearson Chi-Square | 4.9968 1 .025]
| N of Valid Cases I 161 I

 

 

 

a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 4.96.

Symmetric Measures

Value
.176

Nominal Cramer's V .176
N of Valid Cases 161

 

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b- Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null
hypothesis.

Decision : Result is significant. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability of <05
determined. The relationship determined between gender and swearing is that boys were

more likely to exhibit this behavior.

30

Table 1.11 - Gender " Unsafe behaviors/runaway

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Unsafe behaviors/run
away
_ yes no Total
Gender boy Count 15 99 114
Expected Count 11.3 102.7 114.0
girl Count 1 46 47
Expected Count 4.7 42.3 47.0
Total Count 16 145 161
Expected Count 16.0 145.0 161.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.5243 1 .033
N of Valid Cases 161

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 4.67.

Symmetric Measures

Value
.168

Nominal Cramer's V .168
N of Valid Cases 161

 

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b- Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null
hypothesis.

Decision : Result is significant. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability of <05
determined. The relationship determined between gender and unsafe behavior/runaway

is that boys were more likely to exhibit this behavior.

31

Table 1.12 - Gender * Disruptive

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Disru tive
yes no Total
finder boy Count 34 30 114
Expected Count 31.9 82.1 114.0
girl Count 1 1 36 47
Expected Count 13.1 33.9 47.0
Total Count 45 1 16 161
Expected Count 45.0 116.0 161.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square I .681a 1 .409 I
I N of Valid Cases I 161 I

 

 

 

3- 0 cells (0%) have expected count less than 5. The

minimum expected count is 13.14.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >.05.

Table 1.13 - Gender * Poor social skills

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Poor Social Skills
yes no Total
Gender boy Count 39 75 114
Expected Count 37.5 76.5 114.0
girl Count 14 33 47
Expected Count 15.5 31.5 47.0
Total Count 53 108 161
Expected Count 53.0 108.0 161.0
Chi-Square Tests
I Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
earson Chi-Square [ .2953 1 .587 |
| N of Valid Cases I 161 |

 

 

 

a. 0 cells (0%) have expected count less than 5. The

minimum expected count is 15.47.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

32

Table 1.14 - Gender * Self-abusing behavior

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Self-Abusingfihavior
yes no Total
Gender boy Count 4 110 114
Expected Count 3.5 110.5 114.0
girl Count 1 46 47
Expected Count 1.5 45.5 47.0
Total Count 5 156 161
Expected Count 5.0 156.0 161.0
Chi-Square Tests
I Asymp. Sig.
Value df JZ-sidedL
Pearson Chi-Square I .2113 1 .646 I
[N of Valid Cases | 161 l

 

 

 

a. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected countless than 5. The

minimum expected count is 1.46.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >.05.

Table 1.15 - Gender * Bizarre behavior

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Bizzare Behavior
yes no Total
IGender boy Count 8 106 114
Expected Count 9.9 104.1 114.0
girl Count 6 41 47
Expected Count 4.1 42.9 47.0
Total Count 14 147 161
Expected Count 14.0 147.0 161.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. I
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi- quare I 1.3858 1 .239 I
m of Valid Cases I 161 I

 

 

 

a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The

minimum expected count is 4.09.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

33

110;: Child age will be independent from the fifteen behaviors cited as the reasons for

child expulsion risk.

Table 2.1 - Age * Biting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Biting
yes no Total
Age 1 .00 Count 1 1 12 23
‘0 Expected Count 6.4 16.6 23.0
Tes' 2.00 Count 11 7 18
Expected Count 5.0 13.0 18.0
3.00 Count 13 28 41
Expected Count 11.3 29.7 41.0
4.00 Count 5 26 31
Expected Count 8.6 22.4 31.0
5.00 Count 3 24 27
Expected Count 7.5 19.5 27.0
6.00 Count 1 18 19
Expected Count 5.3 13.7 19.0
Total Count 44 1 15 159
Expected Count 44.0 115.0 159.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi- quare 25.5883 5 .000
I N of Valid Cases 159

 

 

 

 

 

a. 1 cells (8.3%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 4.98.

Directional Measures

 

 

 

 

 

 

I r Value
Nominal by Interval Eta Age to Test Dependent .368
Biting Dependent .401

 

 

 

Decision : Result is significant. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability of <05
determined. A strong relationship found between age and biting. Children zero to two
years of age were most likely to exhibit this behavior. A relationship is found at three-

years-of age as well.

34

Table 2.2 - Age * Crying/Screaming

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Crying/Screaming
yes no Total
Age 1.00 Count 9 14 23
to Expected Count 4.8 18.2 23.0
T951 2.00 Count 4 14 18
Expected Count 3.7 14.3 18.0
3.00 Count 4 37 41
Expected Count 8.5 32.5 41.0
4.00 Count 7 24 31
Expected Count 6.4 24.6 31.0
5.00 Count 6 21 27
Expected Count 5.6 21.4 27.0
6.00 Count 3 16 19
Expected Count 3.9 15.1 19.0
Total Count 33 126 159
Expected Count 33.0 126.0 159.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
unare 8.1443 5 .148 |
N of Valid Cases 159 J

 

 

 

 

 

a. 3 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 3.74.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

35

Table 2.3 - Age * Aggressive behaviors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Aggressive behaviors
_ JCS no Total
Age 1 .00 Count 1 22 23
to Expected Count 12.4 10.6 23.0
T99" 2.00 Count 7 11 18
Expected Count 9.7 8.3 18.0
3.00 Count 27 14 41
Expected Count 22.2 18.8 41.0
4.00 Count 19 12 31
Expected Count 16.8 14.2 31.0
5.00 Count 20 7 27
Expected Count 14.6 12.4 27.0
6.00 Count 12 7 19
Expected Count 10.3 8.7 19.0
Total Count 86 73 159
Expected Count 86.0 73.0 159.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 32.4953 5 .000
N of Valid Cases 159
3- 0 cells (0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 8.26.
Directional Measures
Value
Nominal by Interval Eta Age to Test Dependent .357
Aggressive behaviors
Dependent '452

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decision : Result is significant. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability of <05
determined. A strong relationship found between age and aggressive behaviors.

Children three-, four-, and five-years-old were most likely to exhibit aggressive

behaviors, with the highest occurrence at five-years.

36

 

Table 2.4 - Age * Tantrums

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Tantrums
yes no Total
Age 1.00 Count 3 20 23
10 Expected Count 4.1 18.9 23.0
T99“ 2.00 Count 4 14 18
Expected Count 3.2 14.8 18.0
3.00 Count 11 30 41
Expected Count 7.2 33.8 41.0
4.00 Count 6 25 31
Expected Count 5.5 25.5 31.0
5.00 Count 3 24 27
Expected Count 4.8 22.2 27.0
6.00 Count 1 18 19
Expected Count 3.3 15.7 19.0
Total Count 28 131 159
Expected Count 28.0 131.0 159.0
ChiSquare Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
unare 5.8448‘ 5 .322
N of Valid Cases 159

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. 4 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 3.17.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

37

Table 2.5 - Age * Property destruction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Property destruction
yes no Total
Age 1.00 Count 0 23 23
to Expected Count 2.5 20.5 23.0
795' 2.00 Count 1 17 18
Expected Count 1.9 16.1 18.0
3.00 Count 6 35 41
Expected Count 4.4 36.6 41.0
4.00 Count 5 26 31
Expected Count 3.3 27.7 31.0
5.00 Count 4 23 27
Expected Count 2.9 24.1 27.0
6.00 Count 1 18 19
Expected Count 2.0 17.0 19.0
Total Count 17 142 159
Expected Count 17.0 142.0 159.0
Chi-Square Tests
J Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square I 5.9458 5 .312 I
IN of Valid Cases I 159 I

 

 

 

a. 6 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 1.92.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

38

Table 2.6 - Age " Does not respond to limits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Doesn‘t respond to
limits
yes no Total
Age 1.00 Count 1 22 23
10 Expected Count 4.2 18.8 23.0
795‘ 2.00 Count 1 17 18
Expected Count 3.3 14.7 18.0
3.00 Count 11 30 41
Expected Count 7.5 33.5 41.0
4.00 Count 8 23 31
Expected Count 5.7 25.3 31.0
5.00 Count 7 20 27
Expected Count 4.9 22.1 27.0
6.00 Count 1 18 19
Expected Count 3.5 15.5 19.0
Total Count 29 1 30 1 59
Expected Count 29.0 130.0 159.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 11.3523 5 .045
N of Valid Cases 159

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. 4 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 3.28.

Directional Measures

 

 

 

 

 

Value
Nominal by Interval Eta Age to Test Dependent .082
Doesn't respond to 267
limits Dependent '

 

 

 

 

Decision : Result is significant. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability of <05
determined. A relationship found between age and does not respond to limits. Children
ages three-, four-, and five-years were most likely to be reported in the category, does not

respond to limits.

39

Table 2.7 - Age * Sexual acting out

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Sexual Acting Out
k yes no Total
Age 1.00 Count 0 23 23
to Expected Count 1.7 21.3 23.0
795‘ 2.00 Count 0 18 18
Expected Count 1.4 16.6 18.0
3.00 Count 3 38 41
Expected Count 3.1 37.9 41.0
4.00 Count 2 29 31
Expected Count 2.3 28.7 31.0
5.00 Count 3 24 27
Expected Count 2.0 25.0 27.0
6.00 Count 4 15 19
Expected Count 1.4 17.6 19.0
Total Count 12 147 159
Expected Count 12.0 147.0 159.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square I 8.8623 5 .1151
I N of Valid Cases I 159 I

 

 

 

a. 6 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 1.36.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

40

Table 2.8 - Age ’ Toileting problems

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
toiletirLIL roblems
_ yes no Total
Age 1 .00 Count 0 23 23
10 Expected Count 1.0 22.0 23.0
795‘ 2.00 Count 2 16 18
Expected Count .8 17.2 18.0
3.00 Count 3 38 41
Expected Count 1.8 39.2 41.0
4.00 Count 0 31 31
Expected Count 1.4 29.6 31.0
5.00 Count 1 26 27
Expected Count 1.2 25.8 27.0
6.00 Count 1 18 19
Expected Count .8 18.2 19.0
Total Count 7 152 159
Expected Count 7.0 152.0 159.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square I 5.3043 5 .380]
[N of Valid Cases | 159 j

 

 

 

a. 6 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is .79.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

41

Table 2.9 - Age * Spitting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Spitting
yes no Total
Age 1.00 Count 0 23 23
to Expected Count 1.7 21.3 23.0
795‘ 2.00 Count 0 18 18
Expected Count 1.4 16.6 18.0
3.00 Count 4 37 41
Expected Count 3.1 37.9 41.0
4.00 Count 5 26 31
Expected Count 2.3 28.7 31.0
5.00 Count 3 24 27
Expected Count 2.0 25.0 27.0
6.00 Count 0 19 19
Expected Count 1.4 17.6 19.0
Total Count 12 147 159
Expected Count 12.0 147.0 159.0
Chi-Square Tests
] Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square I 8.9488 5 .111 I
| N of Valid Cases | 159 I

 

 

 

a. 6 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 1.36.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

42

Table 2.10 - Age * Swearing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Swearing
yes no Total
Age 1.00 Count 0 23 23
10 Expected Count 2.5 20.5 23.0
Test 2.00 Count 0 13 18
Expected Count 1.9 16.1 18.0
3.00 Count 6 35 41
Expected Count 4.4 36.6 41.0
4.00 Count 4 27 31
Expected Count 3.3 27.7 31.0
5.00 Count 4 23 27
Expected Count 2.9 24.1 27.0
6.00 Count 3 16 19
Expected Count 2.0 17.0 19.0
Total Count 17 142 159
Expected Count 17.0 142.0 159.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square I 6.7323 5 .241 I
m of Valid Cases 1 159 I

 

 

 

a. 6 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 1.92.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

43

Table 2.11 - Age * Unsafe behaviors/runaway

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Unsafe behaviors/run
away
yes no Total
Age 1.00 Count 0 23 23
to Expected Count 2.3 20.7 23.0
795‘ 2.00 Count 1 17 18
Expected Count 1.8 16.2 18.0
3.00 Count 6 35 41
Expected Count 4.1 36.9 41.0
4.00 Count 6 25 31
Expected Count 3.1 27.9 31.0
5.00 Count 2 25 27
Expected Count 2.7 24.3 27.0
6.00 Count 1 18 19
Expected Count 1.9 17.1 19.0
Total Count 16 143 159
Expected Count 16.0 143.0 159.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square I 7.5768 5 .1811
| N of Valid Cases ] 159 I

 

 

 

a. 6 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 1.81.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

44

Table 2.12 - Age * Disruptive

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Disruptive

_ yes no Total
Age 1.00 Count 0 23 23
10 Expected Count 6.2 16.8 23.0
Te“ 2.00 Count 4 14 18
Expected Count 4.9 13.1 18.0
3.00 Count 15 26 41
Expected Count 11.1 29.9 41.0
4.00 Count 9 22 31
Expected Count 8.4 22.6 31.0
5.00 Count 9 18 27
Expected Count 7.3 19.7 27.0
6.00 Count 6 13 19
Expected Count 5.1 13.9 19.0
Total Count 43 1 16 159
Expected Count 43.0 1 16.0 159.0

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
earson Chi-Square I 11.431a 5 .043 I
| N of Valid Cases | 159

 

 

 

a. 1 cells (8.3%) have expected count less than 5. The

minimum expected count is 4.87.

Directional Measures

 

 

 

Nominal by Interval Eta

I Value

Age to Test Dependent I .182 I

 

 

 

 

Disruptive Dependent ]

.268 |

 

Decision : Result is significant. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability of <05

determined. A relationship found between age and disruptive behavior. Three-year-olds

were most likely to exhibit this behavior.

45

 

Table 2.13 - Age * Poor social skills

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Poor Social Skills
_ yes no Total
Age 1.00 Count 3 20 23
10 Expected Count 7.4 15.6 23.0
“5‘ 2.00 Count 2 16 18
Expected Count 5.8 12.2 18.0
3.00 Count 14 27 41
Expected Count 13.2 27.8 41.0
4.00 Count 15 16 31
Expected Count 9.9 21.1 31 .O
5.00 Count 11 16 27
Expected Count 8.7 18.3 27.0
6.00 Count 6 13 19
Expected Count 6.1 12.9 19.0
Total Count 51 108 159
Expected Count 51.0 108.0 159.0
Chi-Square Tests
I Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square I 12.2543 5 .031 I
| N of Valid Cases | 159 I

 

 

 

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 5.77.

Directional Measures

 

 

 

 

 

Value
Nominal by Interval Eta Age to Test Dependent .191
Poor Social Skills
Dependent '278

 

 

 

 

 

Decision : Result is significant. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability of <05
determined. A relationship found between age and poor social skills. Four-years-old

were most likely to exhibit this behavior.

46

Table 2.14 - Age * Self-abusing behavior

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Self-Abusing Behavior
yes no Total
Age 1.00 Count 2 21 23
10 Expected Count .7 22.3 23.0
795‘ 2.00 Count 0 18 18
Expected Count .6 17.4 18.0
3.00 Count 1 4O 41
Expected Count 1.3 39.7 41.0
4.00 Count 1 30 31
Expected Count 1.0 30.0 31.0
5.00 Count 1 26 27
Expected Count .8 26.2 27.0
6.00 Count 0 19 19
Expected Count .6 18.4 19.0
Total Count 5 154 159
Expected Count 5.0 154.0 159.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square I 3.624“I 5 .605 I
[N of Valid Cases I 159 J

 

 

 

a. 6 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is .57.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

47

Table 2.15 - Age * Bizarre behavior

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Bizzare Behavior
- yes no Total
Age 1.00 Count 0 23 23
to Expected Count 2.0 21.0 23.0
795‘ 2.00 Count 1 17 18
Expected Count 1.6 16.4 18.0
3.00 Count 3 38 41
Expected Count 3.6 37.4 41.0
4.00 Count 3 28 31
Expected Count 2.7 28.3 31.0
5.00 Count 5 22 27
Expected Count 2.4 24.6 27.0
6.00 Count 2 17 19
Expected Count 1.7 17.3 19.0
Total Count 14 145 159
Expected Count 14.0 145.0 159.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.843a 5 .322
N of Valid Cases 159

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. 6 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 1.58.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

48

H03: Type of care setting will be independent from the fifteen behaviors cited as the
reasons for child expulsion risk.

Table 3.1 - Type of Care * Biting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Bitin
_ yes no Total
Type of Center Count 25 46 71
Care Expected Count 20.4 50.6 71.0
Family/Group Care Count 10 41 51
Expected Count 14.6 36.4 51.0
Total Count 35 87 122
Expected Count 35.0 87.0 122.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.532al 1 .060
N of Valid Cases 122

 

 

 

 

 

 

3- 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 14.63.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

49

Table 3.2 - Type of Care “' Crying/Screaming

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
CryirflScreaming
yes no Total
ernter Count 1 1 60 71
Care Expected Count 14.0 57.0 71.0
Family/Group Care Count 13 38 51
Expected Count 10.0 41.0 51.0
Total Count 24 98 1 22
Expected Count 24.0 98.0 122.0
Chi-Square Tests
L Asymp. Sig. ]
Value df (2-sided)
I Pearson Chi-SquareI1.877a 1 .171 I
LN of Valid Cases I

 

 

 

a. 0 cells (.0%) have 1expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 10.03.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

50

 

Table 3.3 - Type of Care * Aggressive behaviors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Aggressive behaviors
_ L yes no Total
Type of Center Count 43 28 71
Care Expected Count 37.8 33.2 71.0
Family/Group Care Count 22 29 51
Expected Count 27.2 23.8 51.0
Total Count 65 57 122
Expected Count 65.0 57.0 122.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.621a 1 .057
I N of Valid Cases 122

 

 

 

 

 

a. 0 cells (0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 23.83.

Symmetric Measures

Value
.172

Nominal Cramer's V .172
N of Valid Cases 122

 

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b- Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null
hypothesis.

Decision : Result is significant. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability of <.05
determined. A relationship found between type of care setting and aggressive behavior.
Children in center care were more often reported as acting aggressively. Children in

family/group settings show a relationship as well, they were reported as aggressive less

than expected.

51

Table 3.4 - Type of Care * Tantrums

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Tantrums
yes no Total
Wfinter Count 14 57 71
Care Expected Count 12.8 58.2 71.0
Family/Group Care Count 8 43 51
Expected Count 9.2 41.8 51.0
Total Count 22 100 122
Expected Count 22.0 100.0 122.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square I .3268 1 .568 I
[N of Valid Cases I 122 I

 

 

 

a. 0 cells (0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 9.20.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >.05.

Table 3.5 - Type of Care * Property destruction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Property destnlction
yes no Total
Type—oi'lCenter fiJunt 10 61 71
Care Expected Count 8.1 62.9 71.0
Family/Group Care Count 4 47 51
Expected Count 5.9 45.1 51.0
Total Count 14 108 122
Expected Count 14.0 108.0 122.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.138a 1 .286
N of Valid Cases 122

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. 0 cells (0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 5.85.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

52

Table 3.6 - Type of Care * Does not respond to limits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. 0 cells (0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 9.61.

Nominal

N of Valid Cases
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

Cramer's V

Symmetric Measures

Value

.196

.196

 

122

b- Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null
hypothesis.

Crosstab
Doesn't respond to
limits
yes no Total
Type of Center Count 18 53 71
Care Expected Count 13.4 57.6 71.0
Family/Group Care Count 5 46 51
Expected Count 9.6 41.4 51.0
Total Count 23 99 122
Expected Count 23.0 99.0 122.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Whi-Square 4.6903 1 .030
N of Valid Cases 122

Decision : Result is significant. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability of <05

determined. A relationship was found between type of care setting and does not respond
to limits behavior. Children in center care were more often reported as not responding to

limits. Children in family/group settings show a relationship as well, they were reported

as not responding to limits less often than expected.

53

 

Table 3.7 - Type of Care "' Sexual acting out

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Sexual Actin Out
_ yes no Total
Type of Center Count 5 66 71
Care Expected Count 5.8 65.2 71.0
Family/Group Care Count 5 46 51
Expected Count 4.2 46.8 51.0
Total Count 10 112 122
Expected Count 10.0 112.0 122.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square ] .3013 1 .583]
| N of Valid Cases | 122 l

 

 

 

a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 4.18.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >.05.

Table 3.8 - Type of Care * Toileting problems

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
toileting roblems
yes no Total
FEW—Enter Count 5 66 71
Care Expected Count 4.1 66.9 71.0
Family/Group Care Count 2 49 51
Expected Count 2.9 48.1 51.0
Total Count 7 1 15 122
Expected Count 7.0 115.0 122.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .5343 1 .465
N of Valid Cases 122

 

 

 

 

 

 

3- 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 2.93.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

54

Table 3.9 - Type of Care * Spitting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Spitting
yes no Total
WWter Count 9 62 71
Care Expected Count 5.8 65.2 71.0
Family/Group Care Count 1 50 51
Expected Count 4.2 46.8 51.0
Total Count 10 112 122
Expected Count 10.0 112.0 122.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.5293 1 .033
N of Valid Cases 122

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 4.18.

Symmetric Measures

Value
.193

Nominal Cramer's V .193
N of Valid Cases 122

 

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b- Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null
hypothesis.

Decision : Result is significant. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability of <.05
determined. A relationship was found between type of care setting and spitting. Children
in center care were more often reported spitting. Children in family/group settings show

a relationship as well, spitting was reported less than expected.

55

Table 3.10 - Type of Care * Swearing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Swearin
yes no Total
WEE—Tamer Count 1 1 60 71
Care Expected Count 7.0 64.0 71.0
Family/Group Care Count 1 50 51
Expected Count 5.0 46.0 51 .0
Total Count 12 1 10 122
Expected Count 12.0 110.0 122.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.1283 1 .013
N of Valid Cases 122

 

 

 

 

 

 

3- 0 cells (0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 5.02.

Symmetric Measures

Value
.224

Nominal Cramer's V .224
N of Valid Cases 122

 

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b- Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null
hypothesis.

Decision : Result is significant. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability of <05
determined. A relationship was found between type of care setting and swearing.
Children in center care were more often reported swearing. Children in family/ group

settings show a relationship as well, swearing was reported less than expected.

56

Table 3.11 - Type of Care * Unsafe behaviors/runaway

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Unsafe behaviors/run
away

_ yes no Total
Type of Center Count 11 60 71
Care Expected Count 8.1 62.9 71.0
Family/Group Care Count 3 48 51
Expected Count 5.9 45.1 51.0
Total Count 14 108 122
Expected Count 14.0 108.0 122.0

ChiSquare Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
| Pearson Chi-Square I 2.6993 1 .100 |

 

 

| N of Valid Cases [ 122

 

 

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 5.85.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >.05.

Table 3.12 - Type of Care * Disruptive

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Disru tive
yes no Total
Wienter Count 26 45 71
Care Expected Count 22.1 48.9 71.0
Family/Group Care Count 12 39 51
Expected Count 15.9 35.1 51.0
Total Count 38 84 122
Expected Count 38.0 84.0 122.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square l 2,372a 1 .124 I
| N of Valid Cases I 122

 

 

 

a. 0 cells (0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 15.89.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

57

 

“var x-v-

Table 3.13 - Type of Care * Poor soclal skllls

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Poor Social Skills
_ yes no Total
Type oi Center Count 23 48 71
Care Expected Count 22.7 48.3 71.0
Family/Group Care Count 16 35 51
Expected Count 16.3 34.7 51.0
Total Count 39 83 122
Expected Count 39.0 83.0 122.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi- quare l .0143 1 .905 |
l N of Valid Cases J 122 I
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The

minimum expected count is 16.30.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi

-Square chance probability is >.05.

Table 3.14 - Type of Care * Self-abuslng behavior

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Self-Abusing Behavior
yes no Total
WWI-Center Count 1 70 71
Care Expected Count 1.7 69.3 71.0
Family/Group Care Count 2 49 51
Expected Count 1.3 49.7 51.0
Total Count 3 1 19 122
Expected Count 3.0 119.0 122.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
mouare .7828 1 .377
N of Valid Cases 122

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected countless than 5. The

minimum expected count is 1.25.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

58

Table 3.15 - Type of Care * Bizarre behavior

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstab
Bizzare Behavior

_ yes no Total
Type of Center Count 4 67 71
Care Expected Count 4.7 66.3 71.0
Family/Group Care Count 4 47 51
Expected Count 3.3 47.7 51.0
Total Count 8 1 14 122
Expected Count 8.0 114.0 122.0

Chi-Square Tests
J Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi- Square] .2363 1 .627 |

 

| N of Valid Cases

122

 

 

 

a. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 3.34.

Decision : No significant result. Pearson Chi-Square chance probability is >05.

59

 

CHAPTER 5: Discussion
The Hypotheses

The general null hypothesis, Hot, was rejected, as the results of the cross
tabulation of gender and each of the fifteen hypotheses determined that a significant
relationship did, in fact, exist between gender and three of the behaviors:
crying/screaming, swearing, and unsafe behaviors/running away. Girls were more often
at risk because of crying/screaming, whereas, boys were found to be the gender at risk for
swearing and unsafe behaviors/running away. Curiously, aggression did not present as
related to gender, although the actual number of boys reported as aggressive was higher
than expected counts would suggest, and girls were lower. This is due largely to the
overall high number of boys in the data set. Relative to total numbers, the results were
statistically insignificant, however, reports for boys and aggression totaled 66, where girls
totaled just 21.

The general null hypothesis, H02, was also rejected. Again, the cross tabulation
of age and the fifieen behaviors revealed a significant relationship between the child’s
age and biting, aggressive behavior, “does not respond to limits”, disruptive behavior,
and poor social skills. A closer look at the distribution of ages and these three behaviors
reveals that while biting was reported 79.5% of the time in children three and under, with
the highest incidence in the zero to two-year-olds, three-year—olds were the biters 13 of
the 44 times the behavior was reported. Of interest, in the remaining four behaviors
found to have a significant relationship to age, all were most strongly linked to children

three- to five-years. Seventy-five percent of total aggressive behaviors reported were for

60

the three- to five-year-old range. Again, three-year-olds top the charts with 27 of the 88
total reports of aggression.

Finally, the general null hypothesis, H03, was rejected as well. Only two of the
five types of care were used for cross-tabulation due to the number of valid cases. The
categories in-home, Head Start, and unregulated care did not have enough cases to
generate statistically sound results. When cross-tabulated, the remaining two types of
care were significantly related to three of the fifteen behaviors, with a fourth, aggression,
revealing a significance value of .057. This result is also worthy of mention, as
aggression also shows a relationship to age. Center-based care settings more often
reported children displaying the behaviors, aggression, does not respond to limits,
spitting, and swearing. Family/group care settings reported these behaviors less
frequently than expected. The behaviors spitting and swearing demonstrate significant
results, but the total number of these behaviors reported must be considered as a factor in
these results, as this number was quite low, spitting reported just twelve times (3% of all

behaviors), swearing seventeen (4% of all behaviors).

61

CHAPTER 6: Summary
Summary of Findings

The data revealed some very strong patterns, and some significant relationships to
behavior. Boys were more than twice as likely to be at risk for expulsion. Preschool age
children were at highest risk. Also notable was the overall number and distribution of the
reported behaviors (439 in all), with aggression leading all other reported behaviors at 88
of the 439, or 20% of the total behaviors reported. Close behind aggressive behaviors
were the strongly related, disruptive and poor social skills behaviors. Disruptive and

poor social skills behaviors together were reported 98 times. This figure represents i

 

another 22% of the total behaviors reported. Each of these behaviors, aggression,
disruptive, and poor social skills were most ofien reported in children three- to five—years-
old. This leads to the natural consideration of what could be considered to be, age-
appropriate behavior as three- to five-year—old children learn social skills.

A relationship was discovered between all three of the attributes analyzed, child
gender, age, and type of care setting, and child behavior. Gender was related to
crying/screaming, swearing and unsafe behavior/running away, age to biting,
crying/screaming and aggressive behavior, while center care was related to children
reported as not responding to limits, spitting, and swearing. As a result of these findings,
all three of the null hypotheses were rejected.

Implications

This study only begins to draw a picture of who the children are that are being

expelled and facing expulsion from child care everyday. As stated, one study in

Michigan estimated 6.9% of the population of children in child care have been or are at

62

risk for expulsion (Downriver Guidance Clinic Department of Early Childhood
Programs, 1999). As previously stated, the data for this study indicates an estimate of
2.2% of the children in child care in Livingston County are at risk for expulsion. Yet, a
census of child care providers in Livingston County revealed that expulsion of a child
from their care was something more than half of child care providers in that community
had done (Livingston County Community Coordinated Child Care (4C) Council, 2001).
This may seem like a small portion of the population. However, for those families for
whom expulsion is reality, for those children at risk for expulsion, and the child care
providers seeing no other alternative, this problem is enormous.

Questions abound about what becomes of children expelled from their child care
setting. Many children simply move from one program to another when expelled. What
effect do such transitions have on the children forced to adapt again and again to new
settings? Expelled children must adapt, many times over and over, to new settings, new
caregivers, and new peers. This only adds stress to an already over-stressed situation.
Often it would seem, the additional stress on the child would simply contribute to already
out-of-control behavior.

Additionally, expulsion affects many beyond those children at risk. Families of
expelled children must face the arduous task of finding new child care arrangements,
often forced to take time off work while searching, and until new care can begin, risking
financial security for the family. Children sharing a child care setting and the caregivers
in those settings with children behaviorally out-of-control are also forced to endure the
pain brought on by the dilemma of expulsion. The high number of aggressive behaviors

is one indicator of the effect on others in the setting with the at risk child. With

63

aggressive acts, there are usually victims of those acts; often other children sharing the
child care setting. Many times the caregivers are the victims as well.

What can be done about the expulsion problem? Is retention truly the best goal?
What about the question of best fit as related to type of care setting? Can effective social
supports that offer assistance to the families and children facing this problem be created?
The expulsion prevention projects described earlier barely begin to address the issue.

Expulsion prevention must also be looked upon from more than one vantage
point. It is critical that more attention be focused on other dimensions of the child care

settings, such as group size and ratio of caregivers to children, as well as, on those

 

providing the care. The behavior of children, particularly those behaviors placing :
children at risk for expulsion, may also be related to the adults in the environment.

Social skills related behavior displayed previously should be a particular focus. A
remarkable 73 of the 98 times that “poor social skills” or “disruptive” behaviors were
reported, the children at risk for expulsion due to these behaviors, were three- to five-
years of age. Clearly, this example calls for further study, for it is in those formative
preschool years that children are just beginning to master the many complex facets of
interpersonal relations, also known as social skills. There were an overwhelming number
of boys facing expulsion (twice as often as girls), and the highest behavioral risk factor,
was aggressive behaviors. What is called for is a greater understanding of age
appropriate and developmentally appropriate, perhaps gender appropriate, “misbehavior”
in young children. This is likely to require more training and education for those
providing care, an unfortunately daunting task, perhaps even unrealistic one for those in

the business of family child care.

64

Clearly, this study, and the profile it creates of the child at risk for expulsion, is
just the beginning in the quest to understand the expulsion phenomenon and in the pursuit
of possible supports for these children, their families and child care providers. Parents
and the providers of the care cannot address the issue alone. Community supports must
become involved, like the expulsion projects described in this study, mental health
agencies, intermediate school districts, child care associations, academic and research
institutions. Political views and societal views of the child care system in this country
need to shift to increase funding for training providers and supporting parents so that
equal access to quality child care options is possible. Clearly the answers lie not only in
who the children are, but what society will do to help.

Limitations and Suggestions

Unfortunately, the sample analyzed for this study was predetermined, in that
secondary data was utilized. The data set was limited in the depth of information
provided. Some characteristics of the children which could also heavily impact behavior,
such as the length of time in care (full-time versus part-time), group size in care, provider
education, or family structure, were not tracked. Also, the population from which the
sample was created was local, creating a sample that in both size and ecological
characteristics, limits the amount of generalizations possible. It is hoped that this study
will add to a framework from which fiiture research on larger populations can be

established.

65

 

APPENDIX A: Expulsion Projects

Daycare Consultants

Mental Health Consultation to Caregivers
A Service of the Infant-Parent Program
University of California San Francisco
San Francisco General Hospital
Contact:

Daycare Consultants

Building 9, Room 130

San Francisco General Hospital

2550 23rd Street

San Francisco, California 94110

(415) 206-5953

Healthy Child Care Pennsylvania Early Childhood Education Linkage System
(ECELS)
Pennsylvania Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics

www.paap.org/ecels/index.html
(610) 520-9125

ShowMe Rainbows Consultant Program
Center for Innovations in Special Education, Missouri
(573) 884-7275

Preventing Expulsion Project

Michigan Department of Community Health
Pilot Sites:

Chippewa County

Ingham County

Livingston County

Grand Traverse County

Wayne County

Wayne County - Downriver

66

 

Child Care

Success for Kids in

APPENDIX B

23-9% C73 :5

 

mxSQC m .SCQM
bmtcmutso Si mi?

98 3:3
E wauusm
:926 so: 8
Ecsou 953:3... E
tote BEzEEou <

3.56 HEN? E
mEv— 8F; mmvsytzzw

gut-rm: to: 5’44: ‘74 fibrin Gift-I

Livingston 4C
2710 E. Grand River, suite 6

MI 48843

HOWE“.

.5.me BEECECU
Lo ucwEtmmoD comfy:
of >2 ems—830.5
m. 6985 ES .2 956:3

dug—IQ. ...
...

 

   

5.53.: s. ......E:

cogmcficoou 638m
aim... ......E....

2., 5.2V. ...: $393k
tom xm<
.858 83 EB
EEO. UBmEEOOU

EEDEEOU
3:300 c8353-.

238% EC
:8
m: “zoom 90E

u Eng ucm 835m
m 2: Com H on so:

67

Child Care

Success for Kids

APPENDIX B

0.80 330 2.
0.3.0. .8. 000.00%

83.8 3.50.88. 00... 0, .... a...» .02
55:55 .08 2:. ....s o
00>

20.000058 0.5 m. o

0:050 0:. 0.0 0.00;

000:. 00.050 0. 8.0.000 0:. .0030
0:05. 00.00000 00 0? .. 0.2.0.... 0. 0.0.0
0:. :0 20200.5 0.0E .0530. .003
0.00.5.0. 0.00 0.7.0. 0:0 050.30 0.0:
B 0:00.... .20 3:00.023 50 >0 0000..
300000000. 0:... 00000.50 .0E._0.

0 .0: 0.. 00.200 0000.050000 50.02

«00.000. on 0.0.0 E. ....s o

.000 50.0.0050 50.. ..0 0.00 00. 0.. 0E:
...00... 50.50.? >00... 00.0.0.0 u.5.0>
5.3 0:0; 0:; 85.00.20 .0 00...... 0
:0... 0.000.000.000 0....0. 3000.00.00“. .00

..m...:B_0m:ou 05 0.0 055 8

00030000 00xm< 2.000080

0.0: :8 5:... 000.)
L00 >..:0EE.00 .050 500.0 :o_.0E.0.:.

005000. :0... con

-00 :0 00.0.00 0. 05.00.: 00.30:... 0
0:0 0.08.0005... 0.00.0... >0 00.300 0.00
0....0 0.... ... 0....o .0 .0 80020.8 0.0.0
8.2.2.. 0.00.8... 0:. 00:82. 20 5.2.

0.0.. .000 0.0 30: 050.0300 0:0
80.0.0 .0... .0000 500.05.... .20.: 020
0. 0.00.5.0 0:0 3:050 5.2. 0:002: <

.05
.0380 0:0 3:050 502000 00:02:00..
.Eou 020.000 05000.05 ..0. 50.000000...

0005000.. 050:: 0:0 0528.50.00...
5.2. 0.0.. :00 9.3 33.30.05 0.000000
.365. $.05... . 5.; 2.005058
«E00000 50> .0000 0.0.000 0. 8:000 <

"00.00.00. 50030.0 0.00 0.20
0:0 .3550 60.0.0.0 .0 0000: 000 .2000
0528.0 2.. 8 022.8 0.0.: .000 8;

00.23 00.03.0200 50

0300.598 0.00 0.0.0

5.0000000 02:. 00.0.0.0 0.0: B 030.0
-00 00.200 503.0500 .0 0000.9,

-00 2... 0.2200805 000:0..5 >000
.0 0.008328 < 0.00.030 a. :00
-00 5:00.00. :0 .258 5.00:5... S

E00523: ...05 5.3

0.00:8 00.0 300.00 >52 0:0...00E.
>..0> 0. 5050.0 0.00 50> 5.; >.:00o
00...... 05000020 20030.0 0.00 0.0.0
50> ..0 00> 0. E0500 .0 a. .030:
-00 90:5 50> 00:; 00 00> 00 5:3

005000. 2000.0 000.5

0.00.3.0 0.00 0.20. 0:0 35.00 :05...
:26 .. 0:39.005 3 0.0: 0.0 00:.
0>03 :. 022.00 5.0.0.0 .00E..0E0m

0:0

.00. ..0 000.00 30: 0 o. 2.000 0.0000
0.0.0 >..0>0 00: 50 000.300 0.00
0....0 :. 0E0 .0 .5050 0E8 0:000
00.0.0.0 0:00> >:0E 0500 000....

00.00 .
0...... E 0:.00 u. 0.20 5o>
2.0.. .0000 00:53 00> 0..<

68

APPENDIX C: Child Care Data Collection Form ‘

W
This data is being confidentiallytracked by the Livingston County Preventing Child Care Expulsion
group in conjunction with the 4—C. We are collecting information on children either living in or receiving

child care in Livingston County, aged 0—5, who are at risk of or have been recently disenrolled or expelled
from child care due to behavioral difficulties

fleas: circle one rmnse: ‘
W Disenrolled/ expelled 0R Threatened to be disenrolledlexpclled

30W 0 1 2 3 4 5+

finder of child; M F

Tm’e ofcare: Licensed ChildCare Center Licensed Child Care Home Other C.-Care
W Parent Provider Agency , Other

ease I i our res onse:
Zip code ofchild's home

Zip code of child care provider

119W School District

Age of child YEfifiS MONTHS
Date of most recent disenrollment or; referral
income of parents. if known

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If referred. where?

figsgn for gisenmllman/cznglsign or thggtened to he ggllegt Please check all that apply
Biting Spitting
_____Crying/Screarning Swearing
____Aggressi\- e behavior Unsafe behaviors(running away)
Tantrums Disruptive to group activities
Property destruction Poor social skills
Won't respond to limits, can’t accept no Self abusing behavior
Sexual acting out] inappropriate touching Bizarre behavior
Toileting problems Other concern, not listed

 

 

Please fax form(517)-548-0412 or call Linda Herbert or Peggy Hall from 4-C at 548-9112 or mail {0'
to Livingston .l-C 121 S. BarmrdSt Ste. I

Howe MI 48843
Information compiled will only be used by is project. To receive a summary of the infonmdoneollecteda request must be approved by the committee.
Questions. call. Kim Batscbe-McKenzieat (5 ”548.00“.

69

References

Baker, L. (1994). Day-care disgrace. The Progressive, 58, 26-27.
Downriver Guidance Clinic Department of Early Childhood Programs (1999). Early
childhood care and education expulsion prevention project. Unpublished

manuscript.

DiLalla, L. F. (1998). Daycare, child, and family influences on preschoolers’ social
behaviors in a peer play setting. Child Study Journal, 28 (3), 223-244.

Driedger, S. D. (1996). Growing pains. Maclcgln’s, 109, 38-39.
Gardels, N. (1998). The crime of quality time. New Perspectives Quarterly, 15 (3), 25-31.

Gibbs, N. (2001). What kids (really) need. Aggressiveness of children in daycare; study
by National Institutes of Health. Time 157 (17). 48-49.

 

Jackson, J. T. & Owens, J. L. (1999). A stress management classroom tool for teachers of
children with BD. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35 (2), 74-78.

Jewett, J. (1997). Childhood stress. Childhood Education. 73, 172-173.

Jones, R. (1999). Early childhood education just keeps mattering more. The Education
Digest, 64(8), 8-14.

Kupersmidt, J .B., Bryant, D. & Willoughby, M.T. (2000). Prevalence of aggressive
behaviors among preschoolers in Head Start and community child care programs.
Behavioral Disorders,26 (1), 42-52.

Lindsey, E. W. & Mize, J. (2000). Parent-child physical and pretense play: Links to
children’s social competence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46 (4), 565-591.

Lindsey, G. (1998-9). Brain research and implications for early childhood education.
Childhood Education, 75 (2), 97-100.

Livingston County Community Coordinated Child Care (4C) Council (2001). State of
child care in Livingston CounLy. Howell, MI: Author.

Livingston County Community Coordinated Child Care (4C) Council (1999). The Early
Childhood Connection. Howell, MI: Author.

Loeber, R. & Hay, D. (1997). Key issues in the development of aggression and violence
from childhood to early adulthood. AnnuL Review of Psychology, 48, 371-410.

70

Lowry, R. (2001). Nasty, brutish, and short. Children in daycare and aggression. National
Review 53 (10), 36-42.

 

McNeilly-Choque, M.K., Hart, C.H., & Robinson, CC. (1996). Overt and relational
aggression on the playground: correspondence among different informants.
Journ_al of Research in Childhood Education, 11, 47-67.

Miller, M. S. (1982). Childstress! : Understandig and answering stress Sigials of infants,
children. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.

National Network for Child Care (1991). Overview: Behavioral Problems. Preschooler
development. Amherst, MA.

Patterson, G. R., Capaldi, D., & Bank, L. (1991). An early starter model for predicting
delinquency. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds), The development and
treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 139-168). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Phillipsen, L.C., Bridges, S. K., & McLemore, T. G. (1999). Perceptions of social
behavior and peer acceptance in kindergarten. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 14 (1), 68-77.

Southwest Detroit Community Mental Health Services, Inc. and the Southwest Family
Support Team (1999). Preschool exmllsion mvention proiect. Unpublished
manuscript.

State of Michigan. (2000). LicensLng rules for child care centers. Lansing, MI: Author.

Tanner, L. (2000, June 5). Kids’ behavioral problems said soar. The Associated Press.

 

United States Department of Labor. (2000). Report on employment & the workforce.
Washington, DC: Author.

Weikart, D. (19963). High-quality preschool programs found to improve adult status.
Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research. 3(1), 117-120.

Weikart, D. (1996b). Impact of early education on school performance and productivity.
Ypsilanti: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.

White House Conference on Mental Health Briefing Paper on Children and Adolescents.
(2000). Washington, DC: Author.

Wycoff, C. L. (2000). Children who care. Childhood Education, 77 (1), 43-44.

Youngs, B. B. (1985). Stress in children: How to recognize, avoicL and overcome it.
New York: Arbor House.

71

   
              
 

llll111111111111111111

930 20 7

L111