LIBRARY
Michigan State
UnIversIty

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to removc this checkout from your record
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

MW L
_—l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU In An Affitmatlve Action/Equal OpponunIIy Institution
c‘IciMpma-m
_ _ _

 

EXAMINING THE MESOSYSTEM OF THE YOUNG CHILD: AN ANALYSIS OF
THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS AND CHILD
CARE PROVIDERS

BY

Sue Ann Russell Grossman

A DISSERTATION
, Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family and Child Ecology
1992

ABSTRACT
EXAMINING THE MESOSYSTEM OF THE YOUNG CHILD: AN ANALYSIS OF

THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS AND CHILD
CARE PROVIDERS

BY

Sue Ann Russell Grossman

This empirical investigation examined the communication
between kindergarten teachers and child care providers. It
sought data to answer these questions: What are the
characteristics of the communication that occurs between
kindergarten teachers and child care providers? What are the
attitudes teachers and providers have about one another and
about the communication between them? Do teachers and
providers assume that their future contacts with one another
will be favorable or unfavorable? No previous research could
be found on the topic of teacher-provider communication.

Eighty kindergarten teachers and 46 child care
providers employed by the same school districts in the state
of Michigan were surveyed by mail. The average teacher in
this study was more highly educated, more experienced, and
older than the average provider.

Analysis of results included tabulations, t tests,
which were performed on group means to check for significant
differences between teachers and providers, and Spearman's
rho, used to compare frequencies of responses of the two
groups.

Nearly one-half of responding teachers and over one-

third of responding providers reported never communicating

Sue Ann Russell Grossman

with each other at all. Teachers were more satisfied than
providers with both the amount and quality of communication
between them, and believed less strongly in its importance.
Evidence showed that teachers believe providers respect
teachers, but providers do not believe teachers respect
providers. The two groups differed in their perceptions
regarding future contacts between them, with teachers
showing more optimism than providers. Communication between
teachers and providers was direct, either face to face or by
telephone, and instigated by the need to give or to get
information, rather than to discuss a problem. The
hypothesis that teachers have less respect for providers
than providers have for teachers was supported when
variables related to satisfaction with communication were
considered individually, but was not supported when a single

score of satisfaction was computed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful for the support, assistance and
encouragement of many people. Dr. Marjorie J. Kostelnik
encouraged me to work thoroughly and carefully, teaching me
the importance of creating a product with integrity. She
smoothed the way and helped me avoid many mistakes and
difficulties. Dr. Alice Whiren, Dr. Jeanne Brown, and Dr.
Steve Yelon were all generous with helpful advise and
expertise.

I would like to express my special thanks and
appreciation to my family. My parents, Norman and Jean
Russell taught me to value education, love learning and to
believe in myself. My children, Kurt and Elizabeth, never
made me think they felt neglected, even when I was away from
home so much. My husband, Bob, was the greatest help of all,
from the beginning, when he encouraged me to begin my
graduate program, to the very end. He never doubted that I
could do it, was always ready and willing to share his own
expertise in research and testing, and he kept me going

whenever I became discouraged. Thank you all.

iv

ABSTRACT . .

LIST OF TABLES . .

LIST OF FIGURES . .

CHAPTER

I.

II.

INTRODUCTION .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Problem and Rationale

The Child in Context
Research to Date
Purpose of the Study

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction .

Family Ecosystems Theory . . . . .

Bronfenbrenner's Model

Communication

The Home-School Relationship . . .

Qualities and Attributes of the

Home-School Relationship . . . . .

Variables Affecting the Home-School

Relationship .

Types of Home-School Communication

Important Attributes of Home—School

Communication . . . . . .

V

ii

xi

12

17

18

23
24

24

Communication Strategies . . . . . . . .
The Reality of the Home-School
Relationship . . . . . . . . . . .
The Home-Child Care Center
Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Parent-Caregiver Relationship . . .
Sources of Problems Between Parents
and Caregivers . . . . . . . . . .
The Child Care Center-School Relationship .
Benefits of Interaction . . . . . . .
Benefits to the Child . . . . . . .
Benefits to the Family and Parents
Benefits to Teachers and Care
Providers . . . . . . . . . .
Benefits to Programs . . . . .
Tensions Between Child Care Centers
and Schools . . . . . . .
History . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . .
Negative Attitudes . . . . . . . .
Lack of Communication . . . . . .
Successful Interactions . . . . .
III. METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Child Care Providers . . . . . . .
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

25

26

27
29

31
32
32
33
35

35
36

37
37
38
39
4O
41
44
44
44
45
47

48

Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Development . . . . . . . . .
Validity and Reliability . . .
Field Testing . . . . . . . .
Scoring . . . . . . . . . . .
Data Collection Procedures . . . . .
Distribution of the instrument
Locating Providers . . . . .
Locating Teachers . . . . .
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . .
IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Question 1 . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 5 . . . . . . . . .
Research Question 2 . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 6 . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 7 . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 8 . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 9 . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 10 . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 11 . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 12 . . . . . . .

vii

48
50
50
50
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
59
60
60
60
60
62
63
65
67
70
70
70
72
73
75
79

8O

Research Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V. DISCUSSION .....................
Research Question 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Characteristics of the Communication that Occurs
Between Teachers and
Child Care Providers . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Attitudes About the Communication Between
Teachers and Providers . . . . . . . . . .
Attitudes About the Importance of Communication
Between Teachers and Providers . . . . . .
Preferences of Whom to Contact with Concerns
About a Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Attitudes Toward One Another . . . . . . . . . .
How Subjects Think Members of the Other Group
View Them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Do Teachers and Providers assume that
their future contacts will be favorable or
unfavorable? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Expectations of Future Contacts Between
Teachers and Providers . . . . . . . . .

viii

81
81
83
83
84
84
85
88
89

89

92

92

95

96
97

99

102

102

102

Demographic Characteristics . .
VI. SUMMARY, OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . .
Observations . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . .
Implications for Practice . . .
Directions for Further Research
APPENDICES
A. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Letter to Field Test Volunteers . . .
. Letters of Introduction . . . . . . .

. Teacher Questionnaire . . . . . . . .

B
C
D
E. Provider Questionnaire . . . . . . .
F. Follow—up Letters . . . . . . . . . .
G. Operational Definitions . . . . . . .
H. Scoring of the Instruments . . . . .
I. Satisfaction With the Quality

of Communication . . . . . . . .

REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0

ix

103
106
106
107
110
111
115

119 _
122
124
127
141
156
159
162

167'
169

10.
11.
12.

LIST OF TABLES

Demographic Data . . . . . . .
Formality of Communication . .
Directness of Communication .
Orientation of Communication .
Topics of Communication . . . .
How Communication Should Change
Preferences of Whom to Contact
Attitudes Toward Each Other . .
Perceptions of the Other Groups

Toward Themselves . . . .
EXpectations of Future Contacts
Demographic Characteristics . .

Summary of Hypotheses . . . . .

46
63
64
67
68
72
78
79

81
83
85

86

1.
2.
3.

LIST OF FIGURES

Bronfenbrenner's Model of the Human Ecosystem .

Frequency of Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Topics of Communication . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

Chapter I
INTRODUCTION

Problem and Rationale

No child exists in isolation. A young child experiences
many different people and environments. Rather than forming
a whole for the child, these people and environments may
constitute a fragmented series of experiences due to a lack
of continuity and communication among them. Often the child
is the only common link among the entire array. Few studies
have examined the links or relationships that exist between
these people and environments, though many researchers and
writers have examined the child in a single setting, such as
the family, the child care center, or the school. The
purpose of this study was to explore communication links
between two settings in which many five year old children
find themselves - the primary school and a child care
program.

Both the school and the child care setting have rules,
expectations, objects, and actors, which in many cases may
be specific to that setting alone. School lunches, for
example, may include foods or combinations of foods that a
child does not see at home, or at the child care center
(Waxler, Thompson & Poblete, 1990). A family may expect a

1

2
male child to physically defend himself when aggressively
confronted by another child, while the school and child care
center may have strict rules that prohibit physical
retaliation. In each setting the child must learn, remember
and obey the rules at the appropriate time, meet the
expectations of the setting, and carry information back and
forth (Carlson, Whiren & Howe, 1980; Elkind & Lyke, 1975;
Silvern 1988). She or he may be the only link between home
and school, home and child care center, or child care center
and school. By virtue of the child's youth and inexperience
she or he does not and cannot communicate well, thus these
links may be weak (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Landecker, 1951;

Levin & Klein, 1988; Silvern, 1988).

The Child in Context

All of the people and environments that influence child
development form a context that Bronfenbrenner (1977; 1979;
1989) calls a human ecosystem. This ecosystem is composed of
four subsystems: the microsystem; the mesosystem; the
exosystem; and the macrosystem. These subsystems will be
discussed in greater detail in the next chapter. In spite of
the fact that many children during the kindergarten year
move daily from one setting to another, boundaries of each
microsystem may not be fully permeable, making communication
between them difficult. Families, schools and child care

centers all have ways to regulate the behaviors of their

3
members and the approach and access of outsiders (Broderick
& Smith, 1979; Kantor & Lehr, 1975; Landecker, 1951; Power &
Bartholomew, 1985). The set of microsystems in which young
children find themselves has the potential to become a
coherent and smoothly functioning mesosystem. When
boundaries are permeable the adults in each setting
communicate with each other to form what Bronfenbrenner
(1979) calls intermediate links, transmitting intersetting
information and sharing intersetting knowledge. He further
proposes that "second order" or "third party effects",
defined as "the indirect influence of third parties on the
interaction between members of a dyad" (1979, p 68) have an
important effect on each member of a microsystem. The
quality of a relationship between a child’s mother and
father, for instance, has an impact on the child (Minuchin,
1987). In addition, one may logically extend this to expect
the relationship between the parent and teacher to have an
effect on the child, as well as the interactions between the
teacher and child care provider. Further, Bronfenbrenner
states that perhaps the most destructive influence third
parties may have on the developing person is by their
absence. The lack of any interaction at all - as, for
example, between a child's mother and father, parent and
teacher, or teacher and care provider - means no opportunity
for "advice, assistance, encouragement, or mere

companionship"( 1979, p 81).

4

Each element of the child's ecosystem influences and is
influenced by the other elements. The component parts are
not fixed and unchanging, but move through time and space in
a more or less organized manner (Kantor & Lehr, 1975; Smith
& London, 1981). A change in one subsystem may engender a
change - of greater or lesser magnitude - in other
subsystems. (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). If a kindergartner
begins to exhibit aggressive behavior at school, for
example, the teacher may report this to the parents.
Together they may arrive at a plan for helping the child
learn more socially acceptable behaviors. In turn, the
parents may request that the staff at the child care center
reinforce the acceptable behaviors and ignore or redirect
the child's aggressive acts. The child's acquisition of new
prosocial behaviors may also help him or her make new
friends in the neighborhood at home. Such cooperation and
coordination of efforts among adults in the life of a young
child is possible only if the boundaries of microsystems are
permeable, allowing open lines of communication.

Communication is a source of energy, information,
pleasure, nurturance, and understanding and facilitates an
individual's movements from one microsystem to another.
Communication informs and prepares the child for what is
expected; supports and sustains self-image; and creates an
environment in which the child may acquire feelings of
competence and self-worth that strengthen and enhance

interpersonal relationships (Tubbs & Moss, 1981), thereby

5
encouraging a child's optimal development (Bronfenbrenner,
1979; Herrera, 1988; Johnston, 1982; Kantor & Lehr, 1975;
Power & Bartholomew, 1987; Tubbs & Moss, 1981). The overall
problem of interest in this study was the communication and
the nature of the interaction between adults in two
particular microsystems that form a part of the young
child's mesosystem, the kindergarten teacher and the child

care provider.
Research to Date

Many researchers have studied the child in one or
another microsystem. (Belsky & Steinberg, 1979; Brazelton,
1969; Dreikurs & Soltz, 1964; Hendrick, 1984; Kostelnik,
Stein, Whiren & Soderman, 1988; Minuchin, 1987; Spodek,
1986; White, 1975). Less is known, however, about the young
child in the mesosystem, that is, the interactions between

settings in which the child is an active participant.
Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was two-fold: to examine and
document what kinds of communication exist between two
elements of the child's mesosystem, the child care center
and the school; and to describe various attributes of that
communication. Those attributes included teachers’ and child

care providers' satisfaction with communication links as

6
they currently exist between the school and the child care
center; the strength of teachers' and child care providers'
belief in the importance of communication between the two
settings; teachers’ and providers' feelings about one
another and their estimations of how they in turn were
perceived; and teachers' and providers' perceptions about
past and future contacts with one another. All data were
used in a preliminary analysis of the quality of functioning
of a portion of the young child's mesosystem. Answers to
these questions were sought:

What are the characteristics of the communication that

occurs between kindergarten teachers and child care

providers?

What are the attitudes teachers and providers have

about one another and about the communication between

them?

Do teachers and providers assume that their future

contacts with one another will be favorable or

unfavorable?

In addition, the data collected were examined as a
source of potential recommendations for ways in which
communication among two elements of the child’s mesosystem
might be facilitated.

In the next chapter the theoretical foundations of the
study will be established and literature related to the
relationships among several aspects of the young child's

mesosystem will be examined.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

The previous chapter presented the problem examined by
this study, the questions posed, and the rationale for
conducting the research. This chapter offers a review of the
current literature related to the communication and
relationship between kindergarten teachers and child care
providers.

The review of literature is divided into five parts.
The first examines the application and usefulness of family
ecosystems theory to this study, specifically
Bronfenbrenner's model; the second, communication and its
relevance to this study; the third, the family—school
relationship; the fourth, the family-child care
relationship; and the fifth, the child care-school

relationship.
Family Ecosystems Theory

Families, like children, exist not in isolation, but in

a variety of physical and social environments. The physical

8
environments of some families may remain relatively
constant. Their geographic location and climate, their homes
and neighborhoods, the parents' work places and local
shopping centers, schools, and churches change slowly, if at
all. Other more transient families may see regular changes
in their physical environments. Social environments tend to
be more fluid for everyone. Neighbors move into and out of
the area; children grow and advance in school, make new
friends and learn from different teachers; parents may
change jobs or join different community groups. The family,
the schools and child care may be thought of as subsystems
of the larger system - the community as a whole.

The systems approach to the study of families and young
children has several advantages that make it useful for this
study. It allows the researcher to look at interfaces and
communication processes among subsystems and is inclusive of
"structure, sources, pathways, repository sites and
integrative functions" in addition to content (Auerswald,
1968, p. 204). It examines phenomena in context, rather than
in isolation, and allows the use of several theoretical
models while ensuring that those models, and any
recommendations growing out of them remain rooted in
reality.

Family life is dynamic and in a state of constant flux.
Social institutions created to serve families, such as
schools and child care, must change to meet their evolving

needs. To ensure that changes are based upon actual needs,

9
in addition to the perceptions and opinions of experts,

research must be reality based (Smith a London, 1981).

Bronfenbrenner's Mode;

Bronfenbrenner's (1977; 1979; 1986; 1989) theory of
human ecosystems focuses upon the individual and his or her
relationship to the environment. Its basic structure may be

diagrammed as a set of concentric or nested elements or

circles.

MACROSYSTEM

MICROSYSTEM I

  

EXOSYSTEM

MESOSYSTEM

 

A
v

——
HISTORY TIME

Figure 1-

Bronfenbrenner's Model of the Human Ecosystem

The innermost circle is called the microsystem, the
next larger the mesosystem, the third the exosystem, and the
outermost circle the macrosystem. The young child's
microsystem may be defined as the activities, persons and

relationships in any one setting. Individual microsystems of

10

relationships in any one setting. Individual microsystems of
the child, such as the neighborhood, the day care center or
the school have been the subjects of many authors' research
and writing (Belsky & Steinberg, 1979; Hobbs, 1966; 1978;
Johnston, 1982; Minuchin, 1987; Power & Bartholomew, 1985;
1987). The young child's mesosystem is the aggregation of
his or her microsystems and the relationships among them.
This study examined specifically the relationships between
the child's child care provider and kindergarten teacher.
No research could be located specific to the mesosystem of
the young child. In a personal conversation with the
researcher on November 27, 1990, Dr. Bronfenbrenner
confirmed that very little research has been done on the
young child's mesosystem. The child's exosystem is the set
of relationships among settings in which the child does not
personally participate, but in which events occur that
directly affect him or her. Those settings might include the
parents' social groups and their work places. The child's
exosystem was the subject of Powell’s (1979) article on
parents' social networks and neighborhoods and Cochran and
Brassard's (1979) research article on adults' personal
social networks and their effect on child development.
Literature on the child's macrosystem was not explored.

Bronfenbrenner (1979) hypothesizes that positive
relationships, called supportive links, between microsystems
can enhance the developmental potential of a setting in the

mesosystem of the individual. These links must "encourage

11
the growth of mutual trust, positive orientation, goal
consensus between settings and an evolving balance of power
responsive to action in behalf of the developing person"
(1979, p 214). Goodnow (1988) expresses some reservations,
however, claiming that less interaction between settings
allows for novelty and more freedom for the individual to
experiment with roles and behaviors. Smith and London (1981)
believe, however, that schools, child care centers and
families are not linked as strongly and supportively as they
might be. Dittman (1979) and others feel those links
represent and sustain continuity and wholeness of experience
for the child, who is often the only link there is between
settings (Elkind & Lyke, 1975; Gotts & Purnell, 1986;
Johnston, 1982; Kagan, 1989; Kontos, Raikes & Woods, 1983;
Minuchin, 1987; Mitchell, Seligson & Marx, 1989; Williams,
1989). Related to supportive links are second order effects,
or the effects on the individual of the relationships
between members of various microsystems in the mesosystem,
as for example between the child's parent and teacher, or
between the child care provider and teacher (Bronfenbrenner,
1979; Cochran & Brassard, 1979; Lightfoot, 1978; Powell,
1979).

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory of human development
is the basis upon which this study was designed. The
research examined and documented a portion of the child's
mesosystem and the links between two of its microsystems -

the child care center and the kindergarten. Since those

12
links are formed by communication between teachers and child
care providers, the nature and elements of communication and

its consequences will be reviewed in the following section.
Communication

There are many ways to define communication. It exists
in many forms and may be supportive and beneficial or
obstructive and harmful, depending upon its qualities and
the circumstances in which it occurs. As it relates to
families, schools, and child care communication is defined
or implied in the literature by words and phrases such as
transactions, influences, interchanges, contacts,
relationship, involvement, support, participation, social
exchange, communicative integration, information sharing,
and, more simply, talking with (Hobbs, 1978; Hough 8
Stevens, 1981; Johnston, 1982; Kontos & Wells, 1986;
Landecker, 1951; Mager, 1980; Minuchin, 1987; Morgan, 1989;
Power 8 Bartholomew, 1987).

Interpersonal communication is a complex process
(Bundy, 1991), rather than a product, of "creating a
meaning" (Tubbs 8 Moss, 1981, p.4) by "adjusting
understandings and attitudes" (Pierce, 1972, p.36) though
perfect sharing of meaning is only approximated, never
realized (Tubbs 8 Moss, 1981). It is verbal as well as
nonverbal, formal as well as informal, and direct as well as

indirect (Galinsky, 1988).

13

According to Pierce (1972) communication can take place
only between people who have a common aim, problem,
curiosity and interest, such as parents, teachers and child
care providers, whose common concern is the welfare of the
child. Communication may be affected by attitudes (Kontos,
Raikes 8 Woods, 1983), and can be observed, recorded,
segmented, and rated. Four elements comprise the
communication process: the communicator or source; the
message; the channel; and the receiver. Other important
features of communication include: relations among all
elements described above; the affective dimensions of the
person's message; sequential structures and boundaries;
extraneous material; and internal and external factors
operating for the parties involved (Gotts 8 Purnell, 1986).

Communication has a variety of consequences. Its
positive effects on people may include the prevention of
isolation (Landecker, 1951) and alienation, and a
contribution to the arrangement of "optimum conditions"
(Hobbs, 1966, p 1109). Pierce (1972) states that "our
existence depends on communication in more ways than one can
easily enumerate" (p. 31). Without it we would be ignorant
and lonely; "we would have neither the inspiration of
accumulated skill and knowledge nor the support of a
society" (p. 31).

Communication between parents and teachers or child
care providers may take many forms and serve many purposes.

It can "enhance the educational experience of the child"

14
(Hobbs, 1978, p.761), offer enriched opportunities, and
enhance the family's child rearing processes (Hough 8
Stevens, 1981). Powell, as reported in Kontos, Raikes and
Woods (1983) found that communication among adults
influences the quality of the child's socialization'
processes. It also may assure lasting achievement for
children (Rich, 1986). It empowers parents with knowledge
and accurate information and gives them control (Hough 8
Stevens, 1981; Johnston, 1982; Kagan, 1989; Stevenson 8
Baker, 1987).

Poor communication, or the absence of it altogether,
may have negative consequences. In looking at the effects of
social networks as support for parents, Hough and Stevens
(1981) found that network influences, as well as being
supportive, may also be restrictive, detrimental or
hindering. When parents are not included in early childhood
programs they may feel a sense of loss, isolation or even
guilt about not sharing their child’s experiences. Without
information parents may play a less effective role in the
lives of their children (Levin 8 Klein, 1988). O'Brien
(1990) cites the lack of communication among family members
as a major cause of family stress.

All early childhood programs, including child care,
preschool, Head Start and kindergarten, can become
inappropriate for children without interaction among the
adults responsible for them. Hymes (1980) warned of the

possibility of separation, coldness, suspicion,

15
misunderstanding, intolerance and lack of appreciation
without bridges between programs. He believes school
teachers and child care providers must communicate with each
other.

On the other hand, sometimes communication should be
restricted. Several authors caution that respect for privacy
must be maintained. Goodnow (1988) notes that we all have
strategies "to maintain the degrees and forms of autonomy,
privacy, control and constraint that each sees proper"
(p.65). Hough 8 Stevens (1981) warn early childhood teachers
to "avoid undue invasion of privacy and the likelihood of
doing harm" (p. 58). Joffe (1977) wrote extensively about
the intrusion of child care professionals into family life.
Communication must remain helpful and supportive and not
interfere with or impede family functioning.

Communication may be inhibited by various barriers such
as negative attitudes including antagonism, prejudice,
mistrust and distrust. Inaccuracy, distortion of messages
and misinformation also may prohibit effective
communication. The result may be the isolation of
individuals and lines drawn around subdivisions of a group
so inter-group communication is thwarted and prejudice
within subdivisions flourishes where other connecting
relationships are weak. For example, Head Start teachers may
be isolated from other early childhood teachers and
caregivers, or family day care providers may have no contact

with preschool and kindergarten teachers in the community

16
(Gotts 8 Purnell, 1985; Landecker, 1951; Levin 8 Klein,
1988; Tubbs 8 Moss, 1981).

In the school or child care setting staff members may
alienate parents with "inadequate, lopsided" and overly
formal communication to the home (Johnston, 1982, p.56),
impersonal messages from authority figures, and use of
educational jargon (Rust, 1989; Williams, 1989). Early
childhood program personnel may not be motivated to make the
effort to communicate with parents because of poor past
success. Parents, for their part, may also have had poor
past experiences and in addition be suffering from role
overload (Kontos 8 Wells, 1986). Both parents and staff
members may carry misperceptions of the other that lead to
distrust (Lightfoot, 1978). Galinsky (1988) points to lack
of clarity of communication in early childhood programs as a
critical contributor to occupational stress among teacher-
caregivers. Honig (1979) cites impatience with the pace of
change as a barrier to communication between parents and
caregivers.

It is clear from the literature that communication is a
vital human need. It follows that parents, who have great
personal investment in their children, would feel a need to
communicate with other adults who share in the upbringing of
their children. Early childhood professionals who teach and
care for children on a regular basis, whether in schools or
child care settings, share childrearing responsibility with

parents. Communication between teachers and care providers

17
also would seem to be important to create and sustain an
optimal environment for children.

This study looked at that communication - the mode of
linkage for two elements of the young child's mesosystem -
documented its existence or absence, as well as its
attributes, and explored its effects on kindergarten
teachers and child care providers. As elements of the
child's mesosystem, their relationships with each other form
mesosystem links for the child. The quality of these links
helps determine the quality of the child's environment. In
the following section the literature related to the links
between two of the young child’s microsystems, the family

and the school, will be reviewed.

The Home-School Relationship

In the early years of public schools in the United
States parents and teachers were united. It was parents who
established the public schools early in the nineteenth
century, who ran the schools, and who hired the teachers
(Greenberg, 1989), Later, as communities grew, schools also
grew and it became necessary to create large educational
districts and systems with multilevel grades for children
and numerous teachers, administrators and support staff. As
our society became industrialized families and work grew
separate and schools followed the industry model (Hobbs,

1978). Parents were slowly excluded from the daily

18
experiences of their children in school (Joffe, 1977; Smith
8 London, 1981). Poor and minority or ethnic children were
often treated disrespectfully, widening the gap between
parents and teachers (Greenberg, 1989). Teacher training
began to improve and the professional status of educators
rose as they distanced themselves from the mother-substitute
role teachers traditionally played (Dittman, 1979). This
was, perhaps, a reflection of our culture's attitude toward
women (Greenberg, 1989). Gotts and Purnell (1985) remind us
that educators must "recognize that citizens...own the
schools" (p 172) and should be involved in policy making as
well as other meaningful activities. Hobbs (1978) believes
there may be recent evidence of a coming together of

families and work and families and school.

Qualities and Attributes of the Home-School Relationship

The home—school relationship may be considered a
continuum. At one end the major responsibility or
contribution rests largely on the family and at the other on
the school. Similarly, home—school communication programs
may focus primarily on the family's support of the school
and the child's learning, on the school's support of the
family, or strike a balance somewhere in between the two
extremes (Gotts 8 Purnell, 1985; Griffore 8 Bubolz, 1985).

Home-school communication is a continuous developmental

19
process, not a finite product to be striven for and
ultimately achieved (Johnston, 1982; Swick, 1979).

Authors concur that parents' involvement in and support
of the child’s learning is of critical importance to the
child's school success (Galen, 1991; Hall 8 Henderson, 1991;
Johnston, 1982; Kagan, 1989; Wilson, 1991). Methods to
involve parents, such as training them as tutors, home-based
reinforcement, using parents as regular school volunteers,
and frequent parent-teacher contact have been evaluated
(Gotts 8 Purnell, 1985; Rich, 1986; Smith 8 London, 1981;
Stevenson 8 Baker, 1987). Chavkin (1989) and Gotts and
Purnell (1985) reported an increase in attendance rates, in
parent initiated contacts, and in parent-community support
of the schools. Stevenson and Baker (1987) reported
improvements in the child’s school performance and student
attitudes, and Greenberg (1989) noted that the child's self-
esteem seems to improve greatly with more parent
involvement. Early childhood programs work best when mothers
are actively involved (Hobbs, 1978) and schools' efforts may
even improve the relationship at home between parents and
children (Levin 8 Klein, 1988; Schmitt, 1986).

Some authors caution that too much may be expected of
home-school communication. Heath and McLaughlin (1987)
believe that other community institutions in addition to
schools must be a part of family life, and Griffore and
Bubolz (1986) point out that families and schools are each

limited in their roles. They interact complementarily and

20
must each be aware of and respect what the other has to
offer. The reality may be that much is done to perpetuate
school programs and little effort is made by schools even
simply to get information from parents about their needs
(Dittman, 1979; Rich, 1986).

Home-school communication often means a uni-directional
process, ie, the family's support of school programs.
However, educators may be increasingly aware of the need for
schools to support families, or a bi-directional process,
and of the notion that understanding the family leads to
understanding the child. Schools can promote their own
effectiveness by actively supporting the family (Fuller,
1989; Greenberg, 1989; Kontos, Raikes 8 Woods, 1983;
Mitchell, Seligson 8 Marx, 1989: Rich, 1986). Elements of
that support may include showing respect to parents,
disseminating childrearing information and advice, giving
emotional support, role modeling, and providing information
about and referral to community agencies (Greenberg, 1989;
Kontos, Raikes 8 Woods, 1983). Continuity between home and
school is important because it leads to congruence of
experience for the child (Dittman, 1979). It can be promoted
by educators who are committed to learning from parents
(Silvern 1988). Improved home-school relations may have the
unanticipated effect of strengthening interactions within
the family (Rich, 1986).

A competitive relationship between parents and teachers

may exist and be due to teachers’ wish to protect themselves

21
from a perceived threat from a community that holds them
responsible for students' failures, or simply from
encroachment into their territory. They are overloaded with
responsibilities, may feel the need to seek status in a
society that devalues those playing a nurturing role, and
are often untrained to work with parents (Chavkin, 1989;
Greenberg, 1989; Power 8 Bartholomew, 1987; Smith 8 London,
1981). Parents, for their part, may feel protective of their
family's privacy from prying teachers, or defensive of their
own perceived incompetence, especially if they too feel
blamed for students' inadequacies. They may also be bogged
down with responsibilities (Heath 8 McLaughlin, 1987; Power
8 Bartholomew, 1987).

Existing family support programs may suffer from a lack
of a clearly defined place within the school system
structure, or from tentative funding. Funding diverted from
other programs may cause resentment among school personnel
(Kagan, 1989), and competition for resources can inhibit
cooperation, coordination and collaboration among adults
whose goals are meant to be supportive of children and
families (Hostetler, 1991).

Problems also may result from the use of a deficit
model, or presuming family dysfunction or inadequacy, rather
than strength and competence.Minority parents may feel
isolated due to language barriers and even English speaking
parents may resent the lack of a common vocabulary with

school personnel. Larger societal problems such as racism,

22
sexism and classism may interfere with positive home-school
relations and tip the balance of power in favor of the
school (Bronfenbrenner, 1985; Chavkin, 1989; Greenberg,
1989; Lightfoot, 1978; Power 8 Bartholomew, 1987; Rich,
1986).

It is generally agreed that collaboration and
partnership are the best approaches to home-school
relations, although there is no prescription for how to
establish them or for what they should entail (Blank, 1985;
Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bundy, 1991; Gotts 8 Purnell, 1986;
Griffore 8 Bubolz, 1986; Lightfoot, 1978; Mager, 1980;
Mitchell 8 Modigliani, 1989; Morgan, 1989; Silvern, 1988).
There should be complementarity between parents and teachers
and a willingness to cooperate in the best interests of the
child, since the child must remain the focus. When teachers,
parents and communities become more involved, teaching,
parenting and child development improve. New energy and
strength and a sense of satisfaction can result for both
parents and teachers, information sharing is facilitated,
strengths and weaknesses can be assessed, and mutual
decisions implemented. Long term gains in student learning
may depend on collaboration between parents and schools
(Dittman, 1979; Greenberg, 1989; Johnston, 1982; Mitchell 8

Modigliani, 1989; Power 8 Bartholomew, 1985).

23

Variables Affecting the Home-School Relationship

A number of variables affect the home—school
relationship. Skills, self-esteem, teamwork, families'
cultural patterns, teachers' respect for the family's
culture, teachers' time and resources, school policies,
teachers' professional assignments and their years of
experience, size of class enrollments, teachers’ previous
experiences with parents, and teachers’ own conceptions of
self, role and the school environment all are cited as
important influences on this relationship (Chavkin, 1989;
Gotts 8 Purnell, 1986; Johnston, 1982; Power, 1985; Power 8
Bartholomew, 1987). Chavkin (1989) cites the importance of
training teachers to work with parents, but Galinsky,(1989)
found no effect of training on teacher-parent relationships.

The behaviors of the child at school and the quality of
the teacher-child relationship may affect home-school
interaction (Power, 1985). Mager (1980) found that frequency
of contact with parents, teachers’ sense of responsibility
for parent contact, and teachers' sense of parental support
were positively related to the amount of contact teachers
initiate with parents. In addition, the school principal's
support may also be necessary for optimal teacher-parent
interaction. Developmental issues at home and at school,
such as the child's maturation, or the pattern of the school
year, or a crisis at home will impact on this relationship,

according to Power 8 Bartholomew (1987). Parents must

24
believe their participation is important and meaningful and
feel a sense of shared responsibility in developing
programs. They may need assistance in translating their care
and concern about their child's education into action (Gotts

8 Purnell, 1986; Rich, 1986).

Types of Home-School Communication

Communication between home and school may be instigated
by any of the parties involved — parents, teachers, or other
school personnel - but most is initiated by the school with
parents acting as passive receivers. Contact may be direct
and personal or mediated by a third party. The audience may
be an individual child's parents or parents school-wide

(Gotts 8 Purnell, 1986; Mager, 1980; Rich, 1986).
Important Attributes of Home—School Communication

According to several authors, communication from
school to the family should have certain qualities: it must
be sensitive, concerned, professional, respectful, factual,
warm, trustworthy, informative, precise, accurate, focused,
considerate of many family variables and of parents’
opinions, varied in mode, and its purposes must be clearly
explained. Educators must keep in mind that parents are
individuals and that teamwork is the best approach. Good

listening skills are important, as is the modeling of

25
desired behaviors. Efforts to communicate with parents
should be assessed, therefore measurable outcomes must be
emphasized (Gotts 8 Purnell, 1986; Greenberg, 1989; Herrera
8 Wooden 1988; Hough 8 Stevens, 1981; Johnston, 1982; Kontos
8 Wells, 1986; Mitchell, Seligson 8 Marx, 1989; Morgan,

1989; Williams, 1989).

Communication Strategies

Home-school communication may involve many strategies,
both one-way or uni-directional (from school to home) and
two-way or bi-directional. Uni-directional strategies
include notes, newsletters, announcements, notices,
enrichment materials, daily checklists, report cards,
homework to be acknowledged, handbooks and tutorial guides,
and mass media. Bi-directional strategies include
establishment of a good teacher-child relationship, use of
school admission forms for parents to complete giving data
on the family, parent discussion groups, informal contacts,
bulletin boards, parent visits, parent-teacher conferences,
parent volunteers, parent education workshops and classes,
parent advisory councils, phone calls, messages through the
child, parent surveys, parent resource rooms, parent
counseling, home visits, school open houses and other social
events, and parent-teacher organizations such as PTA
(Berger, 1987; Bundy, 1991; Galen, 1991; Gotts 8 Purnell,

1986; Honig, 1979; Johnston, 1982; Levin 8 Klein, 1988;

26
Mitchell 8 Modigliani, 1989; Mitchell, Seligson 8 Marx,
1989; Rich, 1986). Gotts and Purnell (1986) reported that
the most effective methods found were personal contacts and

the use of home learning materials.

The Reality of the Home-School Relationship

Research has documented some of the realities of the
home-school relationship. Gotts and Purnell (1986) reported
that Epstein (1983) found that many parents receive little
communication from school and Spriggs (1980) found that
parents and teachers do not appear to be communicating well.
At the same time, parents care a great deal about their
child’s school success and want to know how to help (Gotts 8
Purnell, 1986). Burns (1982) found schools making little
effort to communicate with parents (in Gotts 8 Purnell,
1986). Rich (1986) reported that Williams (1981) found that
teachers have certain beliefs and ideas about the way in
which parents should and should not be involved in schools.
They do not want parent participation in curriculum
development, instruction or governance of the school, but do
support parental involvement in homework and tutoring
children.

The research and writing examined here have illuminated
numerous characteristics of home-school interaction. The
assumption of the researcher was that, in the absence of

evidence related specifically to communication between

27
teachers and child care providers, these characteristics
might point to or resemble attributes of the teacher-
provider relationship. In the following section literature
related to links between the family and the child care

setting will be reviewed.
The Home-Child Care Center Relationship

Research results and opinions on communication between
parents and school teachers reported in previous sections of
this review of literature may also apply to communication
between parents and child care providers. Child care
providers and teachers play similar childrearing roles in
the lives of young children and their families. Their
relationship with the child represents an extension of the
parent-child relationship (Gotts 8 Purnell, 1986).

The line dividing child care and elementary school
blurs for several reasons. Preschool and child care programs
may operate in public school buildings, either privately in
rented space or under the auspices of the school district
(Caldwell, 1981; Mitchell 8 Modigliani, 1989; Mitchell,
Seligson 8 Marx, 1989). Child care providers may be trained
as teachers of young children from birth through age six or
eight, regardless of any grade level designation, and may be
called teachers, caregivers, teacherecaregivers or care
providers (Bredecamp, 1985). Perhaps most importantly,

childhood is a time of continuous growth and development

28
without artificial lines of demarcation such as being five
years old by December first, as many kindergartens require,
or achievement of a certain score on a learning readiness
test before being allowed to enter school. Some early
childhood programs are labeled preschool or nursery school,
implying an educational component, while others are called
child care or day care, implying care, but not necessarily
education. In fact, any program for young children may,
should and usually does include both (Caldwell, 1986; Kagan,
1988; Trachtman, 1991). However, some writers and
researchers have looked specifically at the relationship and
communication between child care providers and parents,
rather than teachers and parents.

Child care can be a form of family support and has
become a fact of life for many American families. Fifty-five
percent of mothers of young children are now in the work
force and projected estimates put the figure at 90% by the
year 2000 (Berger, 1987; Caldwell, 1989; Edelman, 1989;
Grubb 8 Lazerson, 1982; Kontos 8 Wells, 1986; Rowley, 1991;
Trachtman, 1991).

Child care began in the nineteenth century as day
nurseries offering substitute child care for poor mothers
working outside the home. The presumption was that parents
who found it necessary to leave their children in the care
of others were inadequate. It was believed that child care
protected children of the poor from neglect and abuse. It

was largely custodial in nature rather than educational, and

29
became stigmatized as a social welfare program for unwanted
children, or for children of poor and neglectful parents, an
image problem it contends with even today (Atkinson, 1987;
Caldwell, 1984; 1989; Grubb 8 Lazerson, 1982; Joffe, 1977;
Lightfoot, 1978).

Many claims, positive and negative, are made about the
value of child care. It gives mothers freedom from
childrearing, improves the skills of parents, and helps
children by giving them opportunities for socialization and
cognitive growth. However, it is seen by some as a threat to
family life because it appears to encourage mothers to leave
their children to work outside the home. Most studies of the
effects of child care on children show that they are not
harmed by the experience, providing the care is of high
quality (Belsky 8 Steinberg, 1979; Berger, 1987; Grubb 8

Lazerson, 1982; Lightfoot, 1978).

The Parent-CaregivepgRelationship

The parent-caregiver relationship and the communication
between them appear to be very important (Powell, 1979).
They are likely to affect and be affected by each group's
attitudes toward each other. Galinsky (1989; 1990, July)
looked at early childhood education program personnel, whom
she called teacher-caregivers, and parents. She found that
85-95% of parents are satisfied with their child care

arrangements. Also, most teacher-caregivers and parents

30

"respected each other's relationship with the children and
acknowledged that each other's role was important“ (1990,
July, p 380). She noted, however, that it appeared the most
advantaged mothers enjoyed the most positive relationships
with teacher-caregivers. Also, both mothers and teacher—
caregivers seemed somewhat ambivalent about mothers working
outside the home. This attitude may have an impact upon each
group's feelings about the other. Kontos, Raikes and Woods
(1983) found that many caregivers have negative attitudes
toward the parents of the children in their centers, but
those working with the poor, and with minorities and single
parents had the most negative. Staff members' feelings
appeared to be negatively affected by incongruence of staff
member's income to parents' income, staff members'
childlessness, and the young age of staff members. Staff
members' feelings appeared to be positively affected by
college education and more than five years of experience.
Galinsky (1990, July) found that a high commitment to their
profession was positively related to caregivers' feelings
toward parents, but that there was no apparent effect of
training to work with parents, of caregivers' own use of
child care for their children, or of the judged high quality
of the child care center.

Caregivers pressured and encouraged to work with and
include parents may be confused at times about just what
their job is - caring for children or working with parents.

Families, for their part, need early childhood program

31
personnel to recognize that the child lives in a family and
is not an isolated individual, that the program will have an
impact of some kind on the whole family, and that family
members may need support services in addition to the early
childhood program (Joffe, 1977; Mitchell, Seligson 8 Marx,
1989).

Sources ofiProblems Between Parents and Caregivers

Galinsky (1988) cited several factors that cause job
stress for parents and that may affect how those parents
interact and communicate with caregivers. The number of
hours worked, lack of job autonomy, job demands, and the
parents' relationship with his or her supervisor are
possible contributors to tension between parents and
caregivers. Caregivers also experience job stress created
by, among other factors, work schedules, interpersonal
relationships on the job, physical demands and resources,
low income relative to the parents', and role status as a
child care provider. She also cited Powell's finding that
most parents do not feel it necessary to communicate with
staff about family issues, yet staff do feel it is
important. She also referred to Zigler and Turner's finding
that a low level of communication between parents and child
care staff appears to be the norm.

The home-child care center relationship is less well

documented than the home-school relationship, perhaps

32
because it is of more recent origin for most families. Some
of the data available show an uneasy or ambivalent
relationship that might benefit from more communication
between parents and caregivers. Therefore, by looking at the
teacher-caregiver relationship and its attributes this study
may serve to encourage and enable communication between
them, as well as between the two subject groups, caregivers
and kindergarten teachers. In the final section of this
chapter literature related to the links between the school

and the child care setting will be reviewed.
The Child Care Center-School Relationship
Benefits of Interaction

Throughout the literature authors cite the necessity
and desirability of interaction between child care and
schools (Caldwell, 1981; 1986; 1989; Carlson, Whiren 8 Howe,
1980; Dittman, 1979; Galinsky, 1990, September; Kagan, 1988;
Lazarus 8 Ellwood, 1991; Mitchell, Seligson 8 Marx, 1989;
Trachtman, 1991; Williams, 1989). In 1980, Hymes wrote
"within our profession the old void between kindergarten and
first grade persists, as does the ages-old void between
nursery school and kindergarten" (p 72). Nall (1982) agreed:
"the most significant issue...is the absence of
communication between early childhood educators and

kindergarten teachers...and between kindergarten and primary

33
teachers" (p 107). Reasons for interaction fall into four
categories; it would benefit the child, the family and

parents, teachers and care providers, and programs.

Benefits to the Chil_

Congruence among the various settings and among past,
present and future experiences helps make ordered sense of
the world for the child. Fragmentation interferes with the
"orderly expansion of a child's mind" (Dittman, 1979, p 6).
Children are "continuations of themselves" (Cohen, 1971, p
286) and their development proceeds as a whole, not in
separate pieces or distinct categories. All children need
developmental guidance and some, labeled at risk for school
failure, may need special attention and assistance.
Coordinated programs for young children can best serve those
targeted for special care (Caldwell, 1986; Hollister, 1986).

As children move from one setting to another the
transition can be smooth and learning can be reinforced if
adults from each setting communicate with each other
(Bronfenbrenner 1979; Hough 8 Stevens, 1981; Strother,
1987). School learning and social development can be
enhanced and complemented if parents and child care
providers know what has occurred at school (Howes, Oleneck
8 Der-Kiureghian, 1987).

Dittman (1979) describes two dimensions of continuity.

Vertically over time, events and experiences in a child's

34
life are related by factors of individual temperament,
growth rate, personal abilities and culture. Horizontally,
simultaneous elements in a child's life, such as home,
school and child care ideally are connected for the child in
a "coherent and related whole" (p. 5). Some children spend
many more hours each day in school and child care than at
home. This makes the home and family less effective agents
than in the past for providing stability and continuity for
them.

Communication between preschool programs and
kindergarten, as the child leaves one and moves sequentially
into the other, allows the child enhanced access to new
experiences, greater self-confidence and trust between
children and teachers, and improved social relationships.
Noncommunication may cause children to bear the burden of
tensions between care providers and teachers (Easing the
Transition... [no date]; Elkind 8 Lyke, 1975). In general,
communication based upon positive relationships among all
adults in a child's life - early childhood teacher-
caregivers and parents - can help children develop into
social, well disciplined, "sturdy, sound and mentally
healthy" beings (Hymes, 1980, p. 74), and help children
continue to benefit from early educational experiences after

they enter elementary school (Boorstein, 1990).

35

Benefits to the Family and Parents

Child care is often necessary for families from all
income levels and social and cultural groups, not only the
poor. Coordination among programs for young children can
help meet the needs of all parents for high quality
supervision of their children. It can also enhance the
executive and coordinating role parents play in the lives of
their children. Benefits to parents also include; greater
confidence in their child's ability to achieve and in
parents' own ability to communicate with teachers and
caregivers, and to influence the educational system; a
feeling of pride and commitment to participation in their
child's education; and more respect for and understanding of
early childhood programs and teacher-providers (Easing the
Transition... [no date]; Dittman, 1979; Hough 8 Stevens,

1981).

Benefits to Teachers and Care Providers

Teachers, caregivers and parents who communicate with
each other may expect to dispel myths and learn the truth
about each other, as well as avoid "misconceptions,
apprehensions and misunderstandings" (Nall, 1982, p. 108).
They may enjoy new energy and strength from their
friendships and come to appreciate each other (Elkind 8

Lyke, 1975; Hymes, 1980). Teachers and caregivers may

36
enhance their knowledge of children and their own ability to
meet individual needs; increase parental, community and
network support and resources; increase community awareness
of preschool and kindergarten programs; and enjoy a sense of
”pride in their own efforts to reach out to young children
and their families" (Easing the Transition...[no date], p.

4).

Benefits to Programs

Cooperation can support the development of public
policies and programs for children and families and child
care can move out of the domain of pathology where it began.
Our whole society may come to recognize that child care and
education are intimately linked and one is impossible
without the other. Perhaps it will become clear that there
are many more similarities than differences between them.
Programs can be assured of complementarity and the
enhancement of each when they are coordinated, rather than
the diminishment of each when they are separate. The
curriculum may be more coherent to the child when programs
borrow from each other (Caldwell, 1984; 1986; Elkind 8 Lyke,
1975; Futrell, 1987; Honig, 1986; Kagan, 1988; 1989;
Mitchell, Seligson 8 Marx, 1989; Programs..., 1988). Hymes
(1980) wrote: "Without open, easy communication between all
the early childhood efforts, each isolated program falls

easy victim to a teacher-managed, talky, passive curriculum

37
approach unsuited to the ages of children involved. Bridges
could mean mutual support and greater strength for
resistance, but the bridges have not yet been built" (p.

72).

Tensions Between Child Care Centers and Schools

Difficulties and tensions between child care and
schools have several sources. In this section some of them
will be examined, namely; history; curriculum; negative

attitudes; and lack of communication.

Histopy

As noted above, child care was created as a response to
the needs of poor mothers who worked outside the home.
Schools were created by parents who wanted literate,
educated children. Preschool education was and is available
to the children of middle class families as supplemental
enrichment to family life and it presumed the competence of
parents. Some educators disparage child care and caregivers
as ignorant mere caretakers of children. On the other hand,
in recent years some child care providers have expressed
disapproval of schools and teachers for using methods and
curricula inappropriate for young children and for excluding

the family (Boorstein, 1990; Caldwell, 1989; Schweinhart,

38
Koshel 8 Bridgman, 1987; Rowley, 1991; Strother, 1987;
Trachtman, 1991).

Pervasive attitudes about the proper role of women in
society affect the relationship between child care and
schools. As recently as 1990 Galinsky (1990, July) reported
ambivalent feelings from both parents and early childhood
teacher-caregivers about women's work outside the home. If
the public feels that women should be at home with young
children rather than in the work force, child care will be
viewed as encouragement for mothers to leave their families
and of potential harm to children. School, on the other
hand, is an acceptable place for children to be once they
have reached entrance age. These beliefs persist, even in
light of current demographic realities: over half of all
mothers in the United States with children under the age of
three are in the labor force, and the rate of single parent
families, in which the parent often must work, is growing.
Other persistent beliefs are that child care is a women's,
rather than a family issue, and that parents who use child
care are somehow deficient (Caldwell, 1981; 1989; Grubb 8

Lazerson, 1982; Joffe, 1977; Moynihan, 1989).
Curriculum
For the last several decades kindergarten teachers have

felt pressured into using increasingly academic curricula

and standards for five- and six-year-old children. This

39
approach requires children to be disciplined in the ways of
teacher-centered, tightly structured programs. Children from
child-centered, free-choice based preschools and child care
centers create problems for those teachers. In addition,
learning activities once thought to be the province of
kindergarten are now often available to children in
prekindergarten programs, so that by the time they reach
kindergarten they have already experienced them. Early
childhood experts who favor developmentally appropriate
programming for young children worry that increased
elementary school involvement in child care will push the
academic curriculum downward even more and create greater
stress for children (Elkind, 1986; Elkind 8 Lyke, 1975;
Fromberg, 1989; Honig, 1986; Nall, 1980; Strother, 1987;

Trachtman, 1991).

Negative Attitudes

Child care providers and elementary school teachers may
distrust each other. As noted above, status issues emerge as
teachers disregard child care providers (and, perhaps
parents) as uninformed, unskilled, custodians of children,
or simply babysitters. Children from child care programs may
be viewed as too noisy and undisciplined for school. Child
care providers look at the failure of education to cope with
its own problems, fear that closer cooperation would tend

to exclude parents, and the possibility of the

40
bureaucratization and uniformization of child care if the
schools become more involved (Caldwell, 1981; Grubb 8
Lazerson, 1982; Hobbs, 1978).

Conflicting opinions about the goals and purposes of
child care persist: what exactly is it and what should it
give children? Is it a service for parents or stimulation
for children? Deeper conflicts may also be found between
values and science, and between the individual and society.
Adding to the confusion, the very term "child care" has many
meanings, from preschool to custodial care (Caldwell, 1981,

Grubb 8 Lazerson, 1982; Strother, 1987; Williams, 1989).

Lack of Communication

Several references to the absence of communication
among early childhood programs and personnel were found in
the literature. Relationships noted include those between
early childhood educators and kindergarten teachers; among
all early childhood efforts including Head Start and other
programs for the disadvantaged; between privately and
publicly funded programs; and between families and teachers.
There is an absence of a vocabulary and a style of
communication that is "straightforward and powerful"
(Williams, 1989, p. 483). In many cases, no mechanism exists
for sharing records and information about children and

families, and state and local agencies serving them often

41
are not coordinated. Sometimes within the same program
adults do not communicate with each other. The only conduit
or liaison may be the child himself or herself. Without
communication, problems persist, at best, and have the
potential to grow to unmanageable proportions, at worst
(Dittman, 1979; Elkind 8 Lyke, 1975; Futrell, 1987; Hymes,
1989; Minuchin, 1987; Mitchell, Seligson and Marx, 1989;

Nall, 1982; Strother, 1987).

Successful Interactions

A few examples of or references to successful
relationships between schools and child care were found. In
the winter of 1985 a conference was held in Minnesota to
bring child care and public school officials together,
possibly for the first time, to discuss issues of concern to
both and possible collaborations (Lewis, 1987). Caldwell
(1981; 1986; 1989) has written extensively about the Kramer
School in Little Rock, Arkansas, where, in 1969, a child
care program was established in a public school. Kagan
(1989) notes recent collaborations between schools and
universities, businesses, and health agencies; between Head
Start, child care and schools; and between profit and
nonprofit programs. These collaborations may take the form
of community councils, advisory groups and resource and
referral centers. Some states actively encourage interagency

cooperation (Romer, Goodwin 8 Goodwin, 1991). Waxler,

42
Thompson and Poblete (1990) Describe two projects designed
to ease the transition of Head Start students into
kindergarten. In each case Head Start staff members and
school personnel cooperate by sharing records and
information, arranging visits to schools for children and
parents, and planning activities to help children and
families make the move into kindergarten. Espinosa (1990),
Lamson, Paul and Armstrong (1990), and Rowley (1991)
describe early childhood programs housed in schools that
include preschool through early elementary children. For the
most part these programs have been successful and parents,
staff and children are pleased with them.

Mitchell, Seligson and Marx (1989) cite specific
instances of communication and interaction between parents,
kindergarten teachers and child care providers of the same
children. Edward Zigler has proposed a plan to piggyback
child care upon the public schools nationwide. He feels that
since the public school system already exists it would make
economic and logical sense to incorporate child care in all
public school buildings along with parent and family
services, outreach, and referrals to community agencies
(Strother, 1987; Trotter, 1987). Hobbs (1978) agrees that
schools can take responsibility for coordination of services
to children.

With effort schools and child care programs can
overcome difficulties between them and establish

communication mechanisms, collaborations and partnerships

43
that will benefit families and children, as well as the
schools and child care programs themselves. The results of
this study may serve to assist in the development of those
mechanisms by documenting the status of current
communication among programs and their personnel and
illuminating some of the underlying thoughts and beliefs of
the individuals involved, namely kindergarten teachers and
child care providers. The following chapter describes the
methods used to answer the questions related to
communication between teachers and providers posed by this

study.

CHAPTER III

METHODS

The methods used to address the questions identified in
Chapter I of this document are described in this chapter.
The chapter is divided into the following sections:
subjects; research questions; hypotheses; design;

instrument; data collection procedures; and data analysis.

Subjects

The subjects for this study represented two groups: 87
public school kindergarten teachers, hereafter referred to
as teachers; and 40 child care providers employed by public
school districts, hereafter referred to as providers.

Information related to the subjects may be found in Table 1.

Teachers

All kindergarten teachers in this study had earned a
bachelor's degree, 37% (Nt = 32) had taken some graduate
courses, and 55% (Nt = 48) had earned graduate degrees. Six
percent (Nt = 5) had earned the Child Development Associate

credential, and 86%

44

45
(Nt = 75) had attended professional training workshops. The
majority was strongly committed to the profession and
planned to continue teaching for many more years. The
average teacher had taught for between eleven and twenty
years, had taught kindergarten for between six and ten
years, and was 36-45 years old. Sixty-six percent (Nt = 56)

had employed child care providers for their own children.

Child Care Providers

All child care providers in this study had a high
school diploma, 36% (Np = 17) had taken some college
courses, 15% (Np = 7) had earned a bachelor's degree, 11%
(Np = 4) had taken some graduate courses, and 13% (Np = 6)
had earned a graduate degree. Thirteen percent (Np = 6) had
earned the Child Development Associate (CDA) credential, and
70% (Np = 33) had attended professional training workshops.
All agreed that they were committed to their profession, but
they agreed somewhat less strongly that they would continue
their work for many more years. Seventy-seven percent (Np =
36) had held their present jobs for ten years or less. The
majority was 26-45 years old. Thirty-eight percent
(Np = 17) had employed child care providers for their own
children. The reader is referred to Table 10 for statistical

data related to the providers and teachers in this study.

46

 

 

Table 1
Demographic Data
Variable P
Families with whom respondents work N t N i
a. Single parent
0-258 of the group 55 63 23 58
26-50% of the group 21 24 20 50
b. Average annual income
Below $10,000 13 15 3 8
510,001-325,000 ' 31 37 23 $8
525,000-850,000 35 40 19 48
c. Percentage with annual income
higher than respondent’s
0-258 53 61 13 33
26-508 18 21 12 30
51-758 5 6 12 30
76-1008 1 1 9 23
Respondents' Backgrounds
a. Education
High school diploma 87 100 40 100
Some college courses 87 100 17 36
Bachelor's degree 87 100 7 15
Some graduate courses 32 37 4 11
Graduate degree 48 55 6 13
Child Development Associate 5 6 6 13
Professional training workshops 75 86 33 70
b. Average years of experience 11-20 10 or
fewer
c. Average age 36-45 26-45
d. Employed a child care provider
for their own children 56 66 17 38

 

47

Limitations

The population of child care providers from which the
sample for this study was drawn was limited to those who work
in programs housed in public school buildings and therefore
does not represent the total population of child care
providers. This group was chosen, however, because these
providers are the closest in proximity to kindergarten
teachers, in some cases in the same building, thereby having
the greatest opportunity for communication between them.
Whatever characteristics of this communication emerged were
likely to be better than those that might be found to exist
between kindergarten teachers and child care providers located
some distance apart, not under the same umbrella organization,
such as a public school district. In fact, the majority of
child care providers in Michigan are not in such close
proximity to teachers, therefore communication between them
would seem to be more difficult to arrange. The researcher
believed that by examining communication in this limited sample
the information collected might be used to determine the
quality of communication within school districts. Perhaps
communication between local teachers and child care providers
situated elsewhere in the community might also benefit, and
ways to improve communication might emerge.

An additional reason for limiting the sample in this way
was that it seemed highly likely that it would include pairs of

teachers and providers having a child (or children) in common.

48
These pairs would represent two microsystems - school and child
care - within the mesosystem of the young child and make it
possible to test part of Bronfenbrenner's theory of the human

ecosystem.
Research Questions

This study asked questions and tested hypotheses related
to the adults in two settings of the young child's mesosystem:
kindergarten teachers, whose students also attended child care
each day, and child care providers who cared for kindergarten
students. Questions and hypotheses were developed from
variables that emerged from the review of literature, from
concepts and principles of child development, and from
consultation with two child development professors at Michigan
State University.

1. What are the characteristics of the communication that
occurs between teachers and providers?

2. What are the attitudes teachers and providers have about one
another and about the communication between them?

3. Do teachers and providers assume that their future contacts

with one another will be favorable or unfavorable?
Hypotheses

1. Communication between teachers and providers is rare.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

49

Communication between teachers and providers is informally
scheduled.

Communication between teachers and providers is indirect,
either in writing or through a third party.

Communication between teachers and providers is
problem-oriented.

Communication between teachers and providers is child-
related.

Teachers and providers differ in their levels of
satisfaction with the amount of communication between
them.

Teachers and providers differ in their levels of
satisfaction with the quality of communication between
them.

Teachers and providers differ in their beliefs about the
importance of communication between them.

Teachers and providers differ in their preferences of whom
to contact with concerns about a child.

Teachers have less respect for providers than providers
have for teachers.

Teachers believe providers respect teachers.

Providers do not believe teachers respect providers.

Teachers and providers differ in their perceptions
regarding their future contacts with one another.

Teachers and providers differ in their educational
background.

Teachers and providers differ in their years of experience.

50
16. Teachers and providers differ in their average age.
17. Teachers and providers differ in the extent to which they

used child care for their own children.
Design

The questions posed by this study were answered by using a
non-experimental survey research design. Self-administered
survey instruments were mailed to respondents who completed and
returned them by mail to the researcher. Instruments were sent

and received during a two month period, from.April to June.

Instrument

Development

The review of literature cited in Chapter II of this study
suggested that several variables were important to the
communication among school personnel, child care providers and
families. These variables, as well as the researcher's
knowledge of child development, her experience in early
childhood education, research methods sources (Babbie, 1986;
Dillman, 1978), and a review of the literature were used to
develop items for the questionnaire sent to teachers and
providers.

The dependent variables in this study were kindergarten
teachers and child care providers. The independent variables

from which questionnaire items were developed included:

51

characteristics of communication between kindergarten teachers
and child care providers, including its frequency, timing or
scheduling, methods used, occasions prompting it, and topics
covered. Other variables included teachers' and providers'
level of satisfaction with communication between them, and, for
those dissatisfied, ways in which they would like it to change;
teachers' and providers' level of belief in the importance of
communication between them, and in its benefits to the child;
persons with whom teachers and providers would share concerns
about a child; teachers' and providers' feelings about recent
contacts with one another and expectations of future contacts
with one another; teachers' perceptions of providers' and of
providers' attitudes toward teachers; providers' perceptions of
teachers and of teachers attitudes toward providers;
demographic characteristics of teachers and providers,
including educational background, years of experience, age, and
the extent to which teachers and providers used child care for
their own children. Other variables, unrelated to the research
questions in this study, generated additional items which were
included in the instrument. Future research is necessary to
examine the data on the relationship between teachers and
families and child care providers and families.

Two questionnaires were developed, one for teachers and
one for providers. The majority of items on each were
identical, but the language was adapted to the two respondent

groups. The instruments were divided into 8 sections.

52

Part A: Communication Characteristics

This section consisted of items related to variables of
communication: frequency; scheduling; method; occasions;
topics; respondent's level of satisfaction with it; ways
dissatisfied respondents would like it to change; beliefs about
the importance of communication between teachers and providers;
and beliefs about its importance to the child. On the first
item respondents were asked to circle the number that
represented the frequency of communication with one another on
a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (often, several times a week). On
other items they were to circle the number that represented
their agreement level on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 4
(strongly disagree), or satisfaction level from 1 (very
satisfied) to 4 (very dissatisfied). Some items presented a
list of choices on which respondents were asked to circle all

that applied.

Part B: Classroom or ChilgyCare Center Situations

This section presented 10 hypothetical situations
involving children. Respondents were asked to circle the number
representing the person or persons they would contact should
they confront each situation. Response options included
parents; provider (for teachers) or teacher (for providers);

both; neither; or other.

53

Part C: Feelings About Child Care Providers (for teachers) or
Kindergarten Teachers (for providers)

In this section two sets of items probed for respondents
feelings about communication and interactions with providers,
for teachers, or with teachers, for providers. The first item
presented nine pairs of opposite words, such as
interest/disinterest, describing feelings about the reaction
the respondents might expect to have if they contacted someone
from the other group. Word pairs were connected by a horizontal
line and respondents were asked to put a mark on the line to
show wheretheir feelings were. The second item was similar.
Respondents were asked to think about their most recent contact
with a provider (for teachers) or with a teacher (for
providers). A second set of 10 pairs of opposite words was
presented. Respondents were again asked to put a mark on the

line to show where their feelings were.

Part Diggow Teachers Perceive ChilgCare.Ppoviders (for
teachers); How Child Care Providers Perceive Teachers (£9;
providers)

In this section 10 items probed for respondents'
perceptions of and level of respect for members of the other
group. They were asked to circle the number that represented
their level of agreement with each item, from 1 (strongly
agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). Respect was defined by the
reSpondents' agreement with 8 of the 10 items (2 items differed

on the questionnaires).

54

Part E: How Child Care Providers Perceive Teachers (for
teachers); How Teachers Perceive Child Care Providers (for
providers)

In this section 10 items probed for how respondents think
members of the other group perceive them, ie, how teachers
think providers view teachers (for teachers) or how providers
think teachers view providers (for providers). For each item,
they were asked to circle the number that represented their
agreement level from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly

disagree).

Part F: Working With Parents and Families

In this section 12 items asked for respondents' feelings
about working with parents and families. They were asked to
circle the number for each item that represented their
agreement level from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly

disagree).

Part G: The Families With Whom Yog.Work

In this section 4 items elicited information about the
families with whom respondents worked. They were asked to
circle the number by the response that most closely represented
those families. They were also asked to write in the percentage

of their class or group representing various ethnic groups.

55

Part H: Background Questions

In this section items elicited information about the
respondents themselves. Each was asked to indicate their
educational level and any additional training. Two items
related to their commitment to their profession asked them to
indicate their level of agreement from 1 (strongly agree) to 4
(strongly disagree). They were asked how long they had been a
teacher or a provider, their age, and whether they had ever
used a child care provider for their own children.

At the conclusion of the questionnaire respondents were
thanked for completing it and invited to write any comments

they wished.

Validity and Reliability

A panel of experts (two professors in Child Development at
Michigan State University) reviewed the instruments for content
validity. Changes and additions were made based on their
suggestions. The instruments were then submitted to analysts at
the Social Science Research Bureau at Michigan State University
for format analysis. Their suggestions resulted in further
revision of the instruments' layout. Reliability was
strengthened by the use of a forced choice format. This ensured
consistency so that responses from various individuals could be
compared. A coefficient alpha reliability test was performed on
the instrument resulting in a coefficient of .94 (Anastasi, p.

117).

56

Field Testing

As a field test, two kindergarten teachers from a school
district not included in the sample, and two independent family
day care providers who cared for kindergarten students the
half-day they were not in school, were asked to complete the
questionnaires. None of these respondents reported any
difficulty understanding or responding to any item on either
version of the instrument, as evidenced by their answers to a
brief questionnaire, which is found in Appendix B, that was

included with each instrument.

Scoring

Certain instrument items were identified as providing the
appropriate data to answer each research question and to test
each hypothesis. These items are listed as operational
definitions in Appendix G. Scoring was done by assigning points
corresponding to the numeral the respondent circled in answer
to each item. For example, if a "1" was circled to indicate
"strongly agree" one point was assigned to that response. All
respondent selections for each item were totalled and averaged
to find a mean score for the item. If respondents were asked to
Circle all responses that applied, 1 point was assigned to each
reaponse and they were tabulated.

For some items respondents were asked to put a mark on a

horizontal line between pairs of opposite words. When the

57
instruments were returned the researcher divided the lines into
7 equal segments and assigned a numeral from 1 to 7 to each
segment. A corresponding number of points was assigned to each
response.
Scoring procedures for items related to each research

question and each hypothesis may be found in Appendix H.

Data Collection Procedures

Distribution of the Instrument

A copy of the Michigan Education Directory. 1991, which
lists all educational institutions in the state, was obtained
by the researcher. The 57 intermediate school districts (ISDs)
were numbered 1 through 57. Numbers were selected randomly and
a total of 15 ISDs were contacted by telephone to identify the
individual public school districts served by that ISD. In some
cases a directory of the ISD was mailed to the researcher. In
other cases, when there were only a few districts served, they
were listed by the receptionist over the telephone. A total of
145 school districts were contacted by telephone. Of these, 29
indicated that they provided child care to children in the
school district. A telephone number for the child care center

was obtained.

58

Locating Providers

A telephone call was made to the child care center and a
staff member was asked if the center cared for kindergartners
the half-day they were not in school. If they did, the
researcher asked if staff members who participated in the care
of those kindergartners would be willing to complete an
anonymous questionnaire concerning communication between
themselves and the kindergarten teachers of those children. If
this was acceptable, survey instruments, copies of which are
found in Appendix E, were sent to them. Approximately two weeks
later follow-up letters, copies of which are found in Appendix
F, were sent to thank provider respondents and to remind them
to complete and return the questionnaire if they had not yet

done so.

Locatin Teachers

In the smaller school districts, questionnaires were sent
to all kindergarten teachers in the district. In larger
districts the child care provider identified by name teachers
whose pupils participated in child care or the buildings in
which.they were located. Questionnaires, copies of which are
fomnd in Appendix D, were sent to all such teachers.
Approximately two weeks later follow-up letters, copies of

which are found in Appendix F, were sent to thank responding

59
teachers and to remind them to complete and return the

questionnaire if they had not yet done so.

Data Analysis

Mean scores from the two groups - teachers and providers -
were compared and tested for significant differences using a t
test. The null hypothesis was tested in each case and
disconfirmed in all but four cases, H3, H4, H9 and H10. The
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test was used on some items because it
is a more conservative test of significant differences between
groups than the t test. It is nonparametric and requires no
assumptions about the characteristics of the sample
distribution. On some items another nonparametric measure,
Spearman's rank correlation was used to compare frequencies of
teachers' and providers' responses.

The next chapter presents the results of the above

analysis.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Introduction

This chapter presents the statistical analysis of the
data collected via the survey instrument described in chapter
III. Each research question is followed by related hypotheses

and data that correspond to those hypotheses.

Research Question 1

What are the characteristics of the communication that

occurs between teachers and providers?
H1: Communication between teachers and providers is rare.

Thirty-eight percent of teachers and 34% of providers
reported never communicating with one another, and 37% of
teachers and 34% of providers reported communicating rarely,
less than five times per year. The reader is referred to Figure
2 for data related to this hypothesis. In all, 75% of teachers
and 68% of providers communicate with one another fewer than
five times per year. Both groups reported mean frequency rates

near the "rarely" level, the providers' mean being slightly

60

89:00 so 55:59.”.

N 939m

9332a V\\\. 2286.- I

Sconces...
5:0 25:52”. 2.822800 22mm am>oz

 

 

 

 

 

Enema

61

62
higher (Xt = 1.9; Xp = 2.3). Ten percent of teachers and 13% of
providers communicate occasionally, about once a month, 2% of
teachers and 9% of providers communicate regularly, about once
a week, and 5% of teachers and 9% of providers communicate
often, several times per week.
Both groups reported mean frequency rates of communication

near the "rarely" level.
H1: Supported

H2: Communication between teachers and providers is

informally scheduled.

Teachers and providers who did communicate with one
another (Nt = 28 of 87; Np = 18 of 47) reported the lowest
frequency of contact as formally scheduled. Twenty-one percent
of teachers (Nt = 6) and 11% of providers (Np = 2) communicated
at formally scheduled times. The reader is referred to Table 2
for data corresponding to this hypothesis.

All responding teachers (100%; Nt = 28) reported
communicating after school and whenever they happen to see one
another, 72% (Nt = 20) before school and during the day, and 1%
(Nt = 1) on the weekend.

All responding providers (100%; Np e 18) reported
communicating with teachers during the day, 77% (Np = 14)
whenever they happen to meet, 72% (Np = 13) before school and

61% (Np = 11) after school.

63
A test of Spearman's rank correlation was performed on the
frequencies of teacher and provider reports of contact between
them at formally or informally scheduled times. The result was

a correlation of:
r 8.46
s

which is not significant, showing that the frequencies of
scheduling were dissimilar for the two groups.

A majority of incidents of communication for both groups
was informally scheduled.

H2: Supported

 

 

Table 2
Formality of Scheduling of Communication
T P
Nt - 28 Np a 18
Variable of 87 of 47
N % N %
Formally scheduled
At scheduled meeting times 6 21 2 11
Informally scheduled
a. Whenever they happen to meet 28 100 14 77
b. After school 28 100 11 61
c. During the day 20 71 18 100
d. Before school 20 71 13 72
e. In the evening 0 0 0 0
f. 0n the weekend ' 1 4 0 0-

 

H3: Communication between teachers and providers is
indirect, either in writing or through a third party.
All teachers (100%; Nt = 39 of 87) and all providers
(100%; Np = 25 of 47) who responded reported communicating
with providers in person. Sixty-two percent of teachers (Nt
= 24) and 56% of providers (Np = 14) reported communicating

by phone; the.majority of contacts between groups was

64
direct. Less communication occurred indirectly by
handwritten note (T = 15%, Nt = 6; P = 40%, Np = 10), by
printed message (T a 8%, Ht 8 3; P = 20%, Np = S), or
through the parent (T = 15%, Nt = 6; P a 4%, Np = 1). Refer
to Table 3 for data related to this hypothesis.

A test of Spearman’s rank correlation was performed on
the frequencies of teacher and provider reports of direct
and indirect modes of communication between them. The result
was a correlation of:

r = .54
s
- which is not significant, showing that the frequencies of
directness of mode of communication were dissimilar for the
two groups.

A majority of each group reported communicating

directly, in person and by phone.

H3: Not supported

 

 

Table 3
Directness of Mode of Communication
T P
Nt 8 39 Np I 25
Variable of 87 of 47

N % N %
Direct
a. In person 39 100 25 100
b. By phone 24 62 14 56
Indirect
a. By handwritten note 6 15 10 40
b. By printed message 3 8 5 20
c. Through the parent 6 15 1 '4
e. Through the child 6 15 1 4

 

65
H4: Communication between teachers and providers is

problem-oriented.

A majority of respondents in each group (T = 84%, Nt =
27; P = 54%, Np = 15) reported communicating when there was
a problem at school or at the child care center related to
the child's transportation, illness, or medication, for
example. The reader is referred to Table 4 for data
corresponding to this hypothesis. All teachers (100%, Nt =
32 of 87) and 82% of providers (Np = 23 of 47) reported
communicating when they needed to get information; and 78%
of teachers (Nt = 25) and 100% of providers (Np = 28)
reported communicating when they needed to give information.
Eighty-four percent of teachers (Nt = 27) and 68% of
providers (Np = 19) reported communicating when they met
casually, and 44% of teachers (Nt = 14) and 29% of providers
(Np = 8) reported communicating when something interesting
happened at school or at the child care center. Twenty-two
percent of teachers (Nt = 7) and 11% of providers (Np = 3)
communicated when each visited the other’s setting, 9% of
teachers (Nt = 3) and 29% of providers (Np = 8) reported
communicating by request from a parent, and 9% of teachers
(Nt = 3) and 4 % of providers (Np = 1) reported
communicating at parent-teacher conferences. No teachers or
providers reported communicating when introduced to each

other by a parent.

66

A test of Spearman's rank correlation was performed on
the frequencies of teacher and provider reports of reasons
for communicating with one another. The result was a
correlation of:

r = .875
s

which is significant, showing that the frequencies of
reasons for communicating were similar for the two groups.

A majority of each group communicated when there was a
problem, but a greater percentage of respondents
communicated when there was a need to give or to get
information about such topics as the child's transportation
arrangements or illness or medication.

H4: Not supported

67

 

 

Table 4
Orientation of Communication
T P
Nt ' 32 Np - 28
Variable of 87 of 47
N t N %
Problem-oriented
Problem at school/center 27 84 15 54
Non-problem-oriented
a. Something interesting 14 44 8 29
at school/center
b. A need to get information 32 100 23 82
c. A need to give information 25 78 28 100
d. Request from parent 3 9 8 29
e. Introduction by parent _ 0 0 0 0
f. Teacher visited center/ provider
visited school 7 22 3 11
g. Parent-teacher conference 3 9 1 4
h. Casual meetings 27 84 19 68

 

H5: Communication between teachers and providers is child-
related.
All responding teachers (100%, Ht 8 44 of 87) and all

responding providers (P - 100%, Np = 29 of 47) reported

discussing the child. Refer to Table 5 for data related to
this hypothesis. In addition, 27% of teachers (Nt = 12) and
48% of providers (Np = 14) discussed the child's family, 34%
of teachers (Nt a 15) and 28% of providers (Np = 8)
discussed school, 30% of teachers (Nt = 13) and 28% of
providers (Np - 8) discussed child care, and 18% of teachers
(Nt = 8) and 7% of providers (Np = 2) discussed other
topics. Refer to Figure 3 for data related to this

hypothesis.

68
A test of Spearman's rank correlation was performed on
the frequencies of teacher and provider reports of the
topics discussed when they communicate with one another. The

result was a correlation of:

which is not significant, showing that the frequencies of
topics of communication were dissimilar for the two groups.

All responding members of each group discussed the
child. .

H5: Supported

 

 

Table 5
Topics of Communication
' T P

Nt . 44 Np . 29
Variable of 87 of 47

N % N t
a. The child 44 100 29 100

b. Child care . 13 30 8 28

c. The child's family 12 27 14 48
d. School 15 34 8 28

e. Other 8 18 2 7

 

48

-

    

' VII/ll.

  

 

 

  
  

Sc ho I/o// Child's Fa/ m//Iiy Other

Topics

\
~

 

Ch ldC

 

 

iders

 

hers VIII. Prov

_ Figure 3
Topics of Communication

70

Research Question 2

What are the attitudes teachers and providers have

about one another and about the communication between them?

H6: Teachers and providers differ in their levels of
satisfaction with the amount of communication between

them.

The teachers' mean score was Xt = 2.17, and the
providers' mean score was Xp = 2.87 on a 4 point scale on
which 1 was "very satisfied" and 4 was "very dissatisfied".
A t test was performed to check for significant differences
between means. A K-S test confirmed this t score.

t = 3.8 S = 2.87 p = <.01 df = 124
D

The level of satisfaction with the amount of

communication differed significantly (p = <.01) between

groups; providers were less satisfied than teachers.

H6: Supported

H7: Teachers and providers differ in their levels of

satisfaction with the quality of communication between

them.

71
Mean scores for ten items, 12a-j, found in Appendix D
or B, were combined for teachers and for providers to give
a single score of satisfaction with the quality of
communication between them. The combined mean for teachers
was Xt = 1.9 and for providers was Xp a 2.95. A t test was
performed and resulted in a score of:

t = 2.93 s = .30 p = <.01 df

82
D
Teachers were significantly more satisfied than
providers with the communication between them. Mean scores
of individual instrument items for teachers and for
providers may be found in Appendix I.
Fewer than half of all responding teachers indicated

they were not completely satisfied with the communication

between themselves and providers (Nt 40 of 87). Of those
who were not satisfied, however, 100% reported that they
would like to communicate more often, 22% (Nt = 9) would
like to use different methods, 20% (Nt = 8) would like it to
occur at different times, and 20% (Nt = 8) would like it to
cover different topics. Table 6 provides data related to
this hypothesis.

Sixty-eight percent of all providers who responded (Np
= 32 of 47) would like to communicate with teachers more
often, 28% (Np = 9) would like to use different methods, 25%
(Np = 8) would like to discuss different topics, and 16% (Np

= 5) would like it to occur at different times.

72
The level of satisfaction with the quality of communication
differs significantly (p a <.01) between groups.

H7: Supported

Table 6
How Communication Should Change

 

T P
Nt - 40 Np s 32
Variable of 87 of 47
N % N %
a. At different times 8 20 5 16
b. More often 40 ‘100 32 100
c. Different methods 9 22 9 28
d. Different topics 8 20 8 25

 

H8: Teachers and providers differ in their beliefs about the

importance of communication between them.

Responses to two items were used to indicate
respondents' beliefs. On the first item, "communication
between a child's kindergarten teacher and child care
provider is important“, the teachers' mean score was Xt =
2.01 and the providers' mean score was Xp = 1.38. A t test
was conducted to check for differences between the groups. A
K-S test confirmed this t score. .

t = 4.7 S = 0.78 p = <.01 df = 124
D
This score indicates a significant (p 8 <.01)

difference between the two groups. Providers reported

73
communication between themselves and teachers as more
important than teachers did.

On the second item "a child benefits when his/her
kindergarten teacher and child care provider communicate
with each other", the teachers' mean score was Xt = 1.8 and
the providers' mean score was Xp = 1.32. A t test was
conducted to check for significant differences between the
groups. A K-S test confirmed this t score.

t = 4.0 S = 0.69 p = <.01 df = 122
D

This score indicates a significant (p = <.01)
difference between the groups. Providers believed more
strongly than did teachers that communication between
providers and teachers is beneficial to the child.

The groups differed significantly (p = <.01) in their

beliefs about the importance of communication between them.

H8: Supported

H9: Teachers and providers differ in their preferences of

whom to contact with concerns about a child.

For respondents who indicated a preference for
contacting only the parents, differences of up to 15
percentage points appeared between teachers and providers in
situations involving children and property rights (T = 58%,

Nt = 21; P = 57%, Np = 27), safety rules (T = 60%, Nt = 21;

74

P = 61%, Np = 28), problems at home (T = 50%, Nt = 19; P =
43%, Np = 19), recent mood changes (T = 58%, Nt = 21; P = 43
%, Np = 20), and mastery of a new skill (T = 83%, Nt = 30; P
= 69, Np = 31). Data related to this hypothesis may be found
in Table 7. Differences ranging from 20 to 45 percentage
points appeared in situations involving a child's possible
physical problems (T = 86%, Nt = 31; P = 41%, Np = 19), a
child under stress (T = 69%, Nt = 24; P = 36%, Np = 17), a
child's recent growth or development (T = 86 %, Nt = 31; P =

63%, Np = 29), a child getting along with others (T = 58%,

Nt 21; P = 38%, Np = 18), and a child's worries or fears

(N 72%, Nt = 26; p = 52%, Np = 24).
A test of Spearman's rank correlation was performed on
the frequencies of teachers and providers preferring to
contact only the parents with concerns about a child. The
result was a positive correlation of:

r = .52

s

which is not significant, showing that the frequencies of
preference for contacting only the parents were similar for
the two groups.

For respondents who indicated a preference for
contacting both parents and the teacher or provider,
differences of up to 19 percentage points appeared between
teachers and providers in situations involving children and
safety rules (T = 40%, Nt = 14; P = 37%, Np = 17), property

rights (T = 42%, Nt = 15; P = 38%, Np = 18), problems at

75
home (T = 39%, Nt = 15; P = 32%, Np = 14), mastery of new
skills (T = 17%, Nt = 6; P = 29%, Np = 13), getting along
with others (T = 42%, Nt = 15; P = 55%, Np = 26), mood
changes (T = 42%, Nt = 15; P = 57%, Np = 27), and recent
growth and development (T = 42%, Nt = 15; P = 57%, Np = 27).

Differences ranging from 26 to 45 percentage points
appeared in situations involving a child's possible physical
problems (T = 14%, Nt = 5; P = 59%, Np = 27), a child under
stress
(T = 31%, Mt = 11; P = 57%, Np = 27), and a child's worries
or fears (T = 28%, Nt = 10; P = 48%, Np = 32).

A test of Spearman's rank correlation was performed on
the frequencies of teachers and providers preferring to
contact both the parents and the teacher or provider with
concerns about a child. The result was a score of:

r = .32
s
which is not significant, showing that the frequencies of
preferring to contact both parents and teacher or provider

were similar for the two groups.
H9: Not supported

H10: Teachers have less respect for providers than providers

have for teachers.

76

To get a single score indicating each group’s level of
respect for the other group mean scores for the 8 items were
combined for teachers and for providers. Data relating to
this hypothesis is found in Table 8. The mean score for
teachers was Xt = 1.45; the mean score for providers was Xp
= 1.40. A t test was performed and resulted in a score of:

t = .691 S = .09 p = <.01 df = 120
D

There is no significant difference between the levels
of respect teachers and providers had for one another when
mean scores were combined and compared.

Because individual item differences were cancelled out
in this process, a second analysis of this data separated
the variables and compared each one. Results were as
follows. Teachers and providers agreed that one another are
important influences on a child's life, although the
teachers' mean score (Xt = 1.3) was slightly higher than
that of the providers' (Xp = 1.13). Both groups agreed that
members of the other group are interested in the whole
child, not just in academic performance (Xt = 1.63;

Xp = 1.72). They agreed that the others nurture young

children (Xt 1.79; Xp 1.70), and are respectful of

.families (Xt 1.63; Xp 1.70).
Teachers disagreed that providers are well trained

professionals while providers agreed that the teachers are

well trained (Xt = 2.26; Xp = 1.61). Teachers disagreed that

providers are knowledgeable about child growth and

77
development, while providers agreed that teachers are
knowledgeable (Xt = 2.23; Xp = 1.76). Teachers agreed that
providers communicate more frequently with parents than
providers agreed that teachers do (Xt = 1.84; Xp = 2.13).
Teachers agreed that providers are more open to input from
others than providers agreed teachers are (Xt = 1.86; Xp =
2.31), and teachers agreed less strongly that providers are
sensitive to the needs of families with young children than
providers agreed teachers are (Xt = 2.41; Xp = 2.0).

When scores of individual items were combined and
cumulative mean scores were compared, teachers and providers
respected one another equally. When scores of individual
items were compared, teachers had significantly (p < .01)
less respect for providers than providers had for teachers

on 4 of 8 variables.

H10: Not supported

78

Table 7 1
Preferences of Whom to Contact

I would contact:

 

N Only the Only the
T P Parents Both Provider/
of of Teacher
38 47 T P T P T P
If I have a child
who...
a. has undergone 36 47 N 21 20 15 27 0 0
a mood change % 58 43 42 57 0 0
b. ignores safety ' 35 47 N 21 28 14 17 0 1
rules ' % 60 61 40 37 0 2
c. ignores others' 36 47 N 21 27 15 18 0 0
property rights % 58 57 42 38 0 0
d. shows signs 35 47 N 24 17. 11 27 O 2
of stress % 69 36 31 57 0 4
a. has difficulty 36 47 N 21 18 15 26 0 2
getting along % 58 38 42 55 0 4
f. has shown growth 36 46 N 31 29 5 15 O 1
or development % 86 63 14 33 O 2
g. is proud of a 36 45 N 30 31 6 13 0 2
new skill % 83 69 17 29 0 4
h. expresses worry 36 46 N 26 24 10 22 0 0
or fear % 72 52 28 48 0 0
i. talks about 38 44 N 19 15 14 1 5 0
problems at home % 38 43 39 32 3 11
j. may have a 36 46 N 31 19 5 27 0 0
physical problem % 86 41 14 59 0 0

 

79

 

Table 8
Teacher and Provider Attitudes Toward One Another
T P

Nt I 81 Np I 46
(of 87) (of 47)
S

 

Xt Xp D t p df
Members of the other group...
a. are important influences
on a child's life 1.30 1.13 .54 -1.67 <.01 125 *ns

b. are interested in the
whole child, not just
academic performance 1.63 1.72 .71 0.63 <.01 126 ns

c. are well trained
professionals 2.26 1.61 .84 -4.50 <.01 125

d. are knowledgeable
about child growth
and development 2.23 1.76 .86 -3.07 <.01 125

e. nurture young
children 1.79 1.70 .69 -0.71 <.01 124 ns

f. are respectful of
parents and families 1.63 1.70 .59 0.59 <.01 125 ns

9. communicate frequently '
with parents 1.84 2.13 .73 2.20 <.01 122

h. are open to input and
suggestions from
parents and others 1,86 2.31 .78 3.17 <.01 124

Total I 14.54 14.06
Xt I 1.5 Xp I 1.4

* as I not significant

H11: Teachers believe providers respect teachers.

Teachers agreed that providers view teachers as

professional colleagues (Xt I 1.91), that providers are open

80
to communication with teachers (Xt = 1.91), that providers
believe a child's kindergarten teacher is an important
influence on a child's life (Xt = 1.53), and that a provider
would accept an invitation to visit the kindergarten class
of a child in their care (Xt = 1.92). Teachers disagreed
that providers believe information about a child should be
shared only with the child’s parents, not with the child's
kindergarten teacher (Xt = 2.69). Refer to Table 9 for data
relevant to this hypothesis. Teachers believe providers

respect teachers.

H11: Supported
H12: Providers believe teachers do not respect providers.
Providers do not believe that teachers View providers
as professional colleagues (Xp = 3.22), do not believe that
teachers are open to communication with providers (Xp =
2.71), do not believe that teachers appreciate the
importance of child care providers in the life of the family
(Xp = 2.89), and do not believe teachers would accept an
invitation to visit the child care center of a child in
their class (Xp = 2.59). Providers agree that teachers
believe information about a child should be shared only with
the child’s parents, not the child's care provider (Xp =
2.20). The reader is referred to Table 9 for data related to

this hypothesis.

81

Providers believe teachers do not respect providers.

H12:.Supported

 

Table 9
Perceptions of the Other Group's Attitudes Toward Themselves
T P
Nt . so Np - 46
Variable (of 87) (of 47)
S
xc xp 0 t p df

 

Members of the other group...

a. see teachers/providers as
professional colleagues 1.91 3.22 1.06 8.18 <.01 122

b. are open to communication

with teachers/providers

of children 1.91 2.71 0.99 4.69 <.01 121
c. appreciate the important

influence of teachers/

providers on the child 1.53 2.89 1.01 9.02 <.01 124
d. would accept an invitation

to visit the class/center

of a child in their

class/group 1.92 2.59 0.92 4.09 <.01 124
e. believe information about

a child should be shared
only with parents 2.69 2.20 0.92 -2.94 <.01 122

Research Question 3

Do teachers and providers assume that their future

contacts with one another will be favorable or unfavorable?

H13: Teachers and providers differ in their perceptions

regarding their future contacts with one another.

82

Teachers reported expecting providers to be more
interested in future communication than providers reported
expecting teachers to be (Xt = 2.13; Xp = 3.05). Refer to
Table 10 for data related to this hypothesis. Teachers also
reported expecting to feel more welcome (Xt = 2,17; Xp =
2.98), to be accepted in the classroom more often (Xt =
2.18; Xp = 3.18) and to get more attention from providers
(Xt = 2.20; Xp = 3.07) than providers expected to get from
teachers. Teachers reported anticipating more successful
outcomes of future contacts with providers (Xt = 2.49;
Xp = 3.68), more follow-up (Xt = 2.76; Xp = 3.68), and to
get more information (Xt = 2.38; Xp = 3.25) and more respect
from providers (Xt = 2.05; Xp = 3.54) than providers expect
from teachers. Teachers reported anticipating the
communication to be more professional than providers
reported expecting (Xt = 2.17; Xp = 3.07).

The groups reported different expectations about future

contacts between them.

H13: Supported

83

Table 10
Expectations of Future Contacts

T
Dimension of

p
Nt . 77 Np . 42

 

Communication (of 87) (of 47)
S
Xt Xp D t p df
a. Interest/disinterest 2.13 3.05 1.56 3.17 <.01 117
b. Welcome/unwelcome 2.17 2.98 1.50 2.83 <.01 115
c. Acceptance/rejection 2.18 3.18 1.57 3.34 <.01 114
d. Attention/ignored 2.20 3.07 1.58 2.92 <.01 114
e. Successful/unsuccessful 2.49 3.50 1.65 3.24 <.01 112
f. Follow-up/no follow-up 2.70 3.68 1.68 2.90 <.01 113
g. Information/
no information ' 2.38 3.25 1.59 2.91 <.01 112
h. Respect/disrespect 2.05 3.54 1.61 5.23 <.01 116
i. Professional/
unprofessional 2.17 3.07 1.54 3.11 <.01 115

 

Demographic Characteristics

H14: Teachers and providers differ in their educational

background.

Teachers who participated in this study attained a
higher level of education than the child care providers. The
mean for teachers was Xt I 5.59 on a scale on which 5 was
"some graduate courses" and 6 was "graduate degree”. Table
11 provides data related to this hypothesis. Providers' mean
score was Xp I 3.60, on a scale on which 3 was "some college

courses” and 4 was "college degree, BA or B8”. A t test was

performed to test for differences between groups.

t = -12.8 S I 1.26

D

p = <.01

df = 126

84
Teachers in this study attained a significantly (p =

.01) higher level of education than providers.

H14: Supported

H15: Teachers and providers differ in their years of

experience

Teachers in this study had a mean score of Xt = 3.66.
See Table 10 for data related to this hypothesis. Providers
had a mean score of Xp = 1.60. A K-S test confirmed this t
score.
t = -8.66 S = 1.61 p = <.01 df = 125
D
The average teacher had significantly (p = <.01) more

years of experience than the average provider.

H15: Supported

H16: Teachers and providers differ in their average age

The mean for teachers in this study was Xt = 3.23. See
Table 10 for data related to this hypothesis. The mean for
providers was Xp = 2.29. A K-S test confirmed this t score.

t = 5.62 S = .17 p = <.01 df = 127

D

85
The average teacher was significantly (p I <.01) older
than the average provider.

H16: Supported

H17: Teachers and providers differ in the extent to which

they used child care for their own children.

Teachers in this study reported using child care for
their own children less than providers did. The mean for
teachers was Xt I 1.34. The mean for providers was Xp I
1.61. A K-S test confirmed this t score. See Table 10 for
data related to this hypothesis.

t I -3.191 S I .08 p I <.01 df I 127
D

Teachers and providers in this study differed

significantly (p I <.01) in the extent to which they used

child care for their own children.

H17: Supported

Table 11
Demographic Characteristics

T P
Variable Nt I 83 Np I 45
S
Xt Xp D t p df

 

a. Educational background 5.59 3.60 1.26 -12.8 <.01 126
b. Years of experience 3.66 1.60 1.61 -8.66 <.01 125
c. Age 3.23 2.29 .17 5.62 <.01 127
d. Use of child care 1.34 1.61 .08 -3.191 <.01 127

86

Table 12
Summary of Hypotheses

 

Hypothesis Supported/Not Supported

 

Characteristics of Communication

1.

2.

Communication between teachers and
providers is rare. Supported

Communication between teachers and
providers is informally scheduled. Supported

Communication between teachers and
providers is indirect, either in writing
or through a third party. Not supported

Communication between teachers and
providers is problem-oriented. Not supported

Communication between teachers and
providers is child-related. Supported

Attitudes About Communication With One Another

6.

10.

11.

12.

Teachers and providers differ in their
levels of satisfaction with the amount of
communication between them. Supported

Teachers and providers differ in their
levels of satisfaction with the quality of the
communication between them. - Supported

Teachers and providers differ in their
beliefs about the importance of
communication between them. Supported

Teachers and providers differ in their
preference of whom to contact with concerns
about a child. - Not supported

Teachers have less respect for providers
than providers have for teachers. Not Supported

Teachers believe providers respect
teachers. Supported

Providers do not believe teachers
respect providers. Supported

87

Table 12 (cont’d.)

Expectations of Future Contacts With One Anothgp

13. Teachers and providers differ in
their perceptions regarding future contacts
with one another. Supported

Demographic Characteristics

14. Teachers and providers differ in .
their educational background. Supported

15. Teachers and providers differ
in their years of experience. Supported

16. Teachers and providers differ
in their average age. Supported

17. Teachers and providers differ
in the extent to which they used child care
for their own children. Supported

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

This study examined and documented a portion of what
Bronfenbrenner (1989) calls the young child's mesosystem.
Adults in two settings, the kindergarten teacher and the
child care provider were surveyed in an attempt to discover
what communication existed between them, what their
attitudes were toward each other, and what their
expectations were of future contacts between them. Only
child care providers employed by public school districts
were included in the sample. Because of their proximity to
the teachers of children in their care there seemed to be
the greatest opportunity for teachers and providers to
communicate with each other. In addition, it was presumed by
the researcher that the communication that existed between
these teachers and providers would be superior to
communication between teachers and providers who are located
elsewhere in the community, unaffiliated with the same
umbrella organization, the school district. In order to test
a portion of Bronfenbrenner's theory of the human ecosystem
is was also necessary to locate pairs of teachers and

providers who had children in common. That allowed

88

89
examination of the relationship between two microsystems
that were elements of a young child's mesosystem.
Research Question 1
What are the characteristics of the communication that

occurs between providers and chiid care

The data from this study indicated that what
Bronfenbrenner (1979) calls the intermediate links between
two microsystems of the young child's mesosystem are not
strong and their boundaries are only somewhat permeable.
Intersetting information was infrequently transmitted,
casual and informal, though when it occurred it was most
often in person. It appeared that little effort was made by
teachers or providers to purposefully set aside time to sit
down together to talk and form a relationship that might
facilitate a child’s movements from one microsystem to the
other. A smoothly functioning mesosystem is unlikely to
exist for a child whose teacher and care provider seldom
communicate.

It was hypothesized that communication between teachers
and providers is rare, informal, indirect, problem-oriented,
and child-related. Thirty-eight percent of teachers and 34%
of providers reported never communicating with one another
at all, and 37% of teachers and 34% of providers reported
communicating rarely, less than five times per year. In all,
75% of teachers and 68% of providers communicated five times

per year or less. Providers reported a slightly higher mean

90
frequency of communication with teachers than teachers did
with providers. However, neither group came close to the
"occasionally, about once a month" level. Respondents were
invited to write any comments they might have on the
questionnaire booklet, and several mentioned the difficulty
of communicating when the location of the classroom or child
care center was in another building some distance away. By
the same token, several remarked that since the classroom
and child care center were just down the hall from each
other the adults spoke frequently in the hallway or coffee
lounge.

Formally scheduled communication was defined as
occurring "at scheduled meeting times”. The data confirmed
that very few teachers or providers scheduled appointments
to meet and talk with each other. The great majority of
contacts were informally scheduled, before or after school,
during the day, or whenever they happened to run into each
other.

Communication was hypothesized by the researcher to be
indirect, carried through the child or the parents. However,
teachers and providers both reported that half or more of
all communication was direct, either face to face or by
telephone. Providers did write notes to teachers more often
than teachers wrote to providers, but very few in either
group reported communicating through the child or through

the parents.

91

It is possible that each group actually did get
information about the other through a third party, but was
unaware of this. Children typically tell their teachers what
happens in child care and their care provider what happens
in school. Parents relate incidents at one place to adults
in the other. It may not be perceived as communication per
se, but in fact each group learns and forms opinions about
the other in this way.

Orientation of communication referred to the causes for
or instigation of contact between teachers and providers,
ie, the reason one had to communicate with the other. The
data supported the notion that problems related to the child
were the most common instigating factor. More than half of
each group reported a problem at school or the child care
center as a reason for contacting the other. A more common
reason, however, related to the need to get or give
information. All teachers who communicated, and a majority
of providers who communicated did so when they needed
information from the other about such things as
transportation arrangements for the child, or his or her
illness or medication. All providers and a majority of
teachers did so when they needed to give information.

The direction of this data is of interest. All teachers
appeared to expect providers to give them information. Fewer
expected to give it to the provider. On the other hand, all
providers appeared to expect to give information to

teachers, but fewer appeared to expect it in return. It

92
appeared that transmission of information was often one-way,
from provider to teacher and less often from teacher to
provider.

All teachers and all providers who communicated with
each other talked about the child they had in common. Less
than half of each group reported discussing other topics,
such as school or child care, the child's family or other
issues. Under "other" one might have expected to learn that
because they work for the same employer they discussed
topics of mutual interest, such as school board actions,
school district policies, or neighborhood or community
issues. This did not appear to be the case as only a small
percentage of each group reported discussing other topics.
Because of the focus and wording of the survey instrument,
however, respondents might easily have assumed that the only
topics of interest to the researcher were the child, his or

her family, and the school or child care center.

Research Question 2
What are the attitudes teachers and provideraihave about

one another and about communication between them?

Attitudes About the Communication

Between Teachers and Providers

It was hypothesized that teachers and providers have

different attitudes about the existing communication between

93
them. This was supported by the data that showed providers
to be less satisfied than teachers with the amount and
desirous of more regular contact with the teachers of
children in their care. Teachers appeared less interested in
this. Some providers wrote comments on the instrument
itself. Some of these comments involved the frustration they
have felt when attempting to talk more often with teachers.
They believed it was important to share information about
children and their families, but got little cooperation from
teachers. Some teachers, on the other hand, wrote additional
comments stating that not only did they not desire more
contact, they saw it as unnecessary. Several referred to
their already busy schedules and felt it was unfair and
unrealistic to expect them to contact child care providers
in addition to all their other duties. Some believed that
such communication would be unethical, and others said they
would talk to a provider about a child only with the
parents' specific permission.

Several responding teachers implied some concerns about
the legal consequences of discussing confidential
information about a child with someone other than his or her
legal guardian. This may point to a conflict in their
understanding of the ethics of confidentiality. Teachers
commonly talk to other teachers about children in their
classes, so it is difficult to think of a reason for

teachers not to talk to providers about them.

94

When subjects who indicated they were other than "very
satisfied" with the amount of communication were asked in
what ways they would like it to change, all subjects in both
groups who responded said they would like it to occur more
frequently. It appeared that teachers as a group were
moderately satisfied with the amount of contact, but some
would like it to increase. Providers were less satisfied
with the amount. Their score came closer to the "somewhat
dissatisfied" level.

In an attempt to assess the beliefs of each group about
the quality of communication between them subjects were
asked to recall a recent contact with a member of the other
group and to indicate their reactions to it along ten
dimensions regarding that contact. From their responses a
single attitude score was computed for each group. Of those
subjects who had communicated with the other group, teachers
were much more pleased with it than providers were. Perhaps
this can be attributed to the fact that providers appeared
to value contact with teachers more and were more open to it
when approached. Teachers as a group were not as interested
so may have acted less open when approached by providers. In
fact, the dimension along which there appeared the greatest
difference between groups was "interested/ disinterested".
Providers thought teachers were much less interested in
talking with them than teachers thought providers were. The
most similar scores were on the enthusiasm dimension, but

even here there was a notable difference between them, and

95

both groups saw the other as only moderately enthusiastic.
Teachers saw providers as interested, concerned and
pleasant, but less supportive or enthusiastic. For
providers, it may have been difficult to feel support or
enthusiasm about a relationship with someone who appeared
not to be as interested in it as they were.

Providers responded more negatively on all ten
dimensions of communication with teachers. They viewed
teachers as somewhat concerned and pleasant, but not as

enthusiastic, appreciative or supportive of the provider.

Attitudes About the Importance of Communication Between

Teachers and Providers

Teachers and providers differed significantly in their
beliefs about the importance of communication and its
benefit to the child. Providers believed more strongly than
teachers that contact is important and beneficial. If, as it
begins to appear, teachers’ opinions of providers are lower,
because they believe they are less trained or skilled and
have little to contribute to teachers' work with children,
it would follow that they would have little interest in
establishing a professional relationship with providers.
Society recognizes the required training and experiential
expertise of teachers. In Michigan, no equivalent training
is necessary to become a child care provider, only a minimum

level of competence as evidenced by licensure by the

96
Michigan Department of Social Services. Perhaps teachers
assumed that because providers are not required to be.
trained none of them are, and therefore they have no
expertise. Providers, on the other hand, may respect the
formal education and experience of teachers, accept their
knowledge and skill with regard to children, and look to
teachers as sources of information and assistance. These
attitudes will be addressed at greater length in subsequent

sections of this discussion.

Preferences of Wham to Contact With Concerns About a Child

It was hypothesized that teachers and providers would
differ in their preference of whom to contact with concerns
about a child. In nine of ten hypothetical situations
presented to respondents a majority of teachers would
discuss concerns about a child with the parents alone,
rather than including the provider. In six of the ten
situations a majority of providers would discuss concerns
with parents alone, rather than including the teacher.

In general, slightly more providers than teachers
appeared willing to discuss concerns about a child with the
parents and teacher, but notable differences appeared in
fewer than half of the situations presented. This
corresponds to the data indicating teachers believed less
strongly than providers that contact between them is

important, and that providers viewed teachers as not very

97
interested in hearing from them. Providers, for their part,
however, indicated they were more willing to contact
teachers with their concerns, even though they appeared not
to believe teachers were very enthusiastic about or
interested in communicating with them.

The greatest differences between groups with regard to
contacting only the parents appeared in situations in which
a physical problem is suspected, when the child shows signs
of stress, and when she or he has shown a lot of recent
growth or development. Far more teachers than providers
would discuss these with only the parents. In other
situations, the groups were somewhat similar in their

preference to discuss concerns with parents alone.
Attitudes Toward One Another

The hypothesis that teachers and providers differ in
their attitudes toward each other was not supported. When
mean scores for each variable were totalled and those scores
were compared, there were no differences between groups.
Because the researcher believed differences between groups
for each of the variables were of interest, however, they
were analyzed also, and are discussed here. Two of the most
notable differences appeared on the items "are well trained
professionals" and "are knowledgeable about child growth and
development". Providers agreed that teachers are well

trained and knowledgeable, but teachers disagreed that

98
providers are. There is some basis for these conclusions in
fact, since a college degree is a requirement for becoming a
teacher, but providers typically are not required to have
any training or knowledge of child growth and development at
all. In the population sampled for this study,‘however, 85%
of the providers actually do have some college courses, and
43% have earned a bachelor's or master's degree. When
responding to this survey, teachers were asked to think only
of providers employed by their school district, but some may
have considered child care providers in general instead.

Another item showing notable differences between groups
was "are open to input and suggestions from parents and
others". Teachers believed providers were somewhat open to
input from others, but providers believed much less strongly
that teachers were. (It was presumed by the researcher that
teachers and providers each included themselves in the
"others" category). This corresponds to data discussed
earlier showing that providers believed teachers were less
appreciative and less accepting of them.

Teachers tend to agree that providers communicate
frequently with parents, yet providers believed that
teachers do so less often. This might be explained by the
different logistics of getting children to school and to a
child care center. Many children are transported to and from
school by bus giving parents no opportunity to meet and talk
with the teacher each day. But most children who attend a

child care center must be either dropped off or picked up

99
there each day, usually by a parent. Thus the opportunity
for contact with the provider is greater than with the
teacher.

Respondents in each group agreed that the other group
is respectful of parents and families and nurturant of young
children. Differences between groups were small and not
statistically significant (p I <.01).

A moderate difference in mean scores appeared when subjects
were asked if members of the other group are important
influences on a child's life. Providers were more likely to
believe that teachers are; teachers were less likely to
believe that providers are. It is generally accepted in our
culture that school and education are valuable and
worthwhile for children. It is less well accepted that child
care is beneficial to children and some people believe it is
actually harmful to them. Teachers in this study were asked
if they believed child care providers adequately replace a
child’s parents in their absence. Their answers indicated
that they disagree that this is true. This belief may

account for these differences.
How Subjects Think Members of tha Othar Group Viaw Tham

Subjects were asked to indicate their perceptions of
how members of the other group viewed them. Teachers were
asked how they think providers feel about teachers;

providers how they think teachers feel about providers. A

100
very great difference appeared in the level of respect each
group believes they get from the other. Teachers agreed that
providers view them as professional colleagues, are open to
communication from them, appreciate their important
influence on the child, and would accept an invitation to
visit the kindergarten classroom.

Providers, for their part, disagreed that teachers view
them as professional colleagues, are open to communication
with them, are appreciative of their important influence on
the child, and thought teachers would less often accept an
invitation to visit the child care center. Several providers
even commented that after receiving repeated invitations the
teacher had never even responded, much less actually visited
the center.

A smaller difference appeared between groups on the
item "believe information about a child should be shared
only with parents, not with the child's teacher/provider".
Teachers disagreed more strongly than providers. Teachers
seemed to think providers would share information about a
child with them if asked. Providers viewed teachers as more
closed to this, but neither group believed the other to be
completely reluctant to discuss a child.

These data showed a distinct difference in perceptions
between groups. Teachers appeared to be comfortable with
their relationships with providers and confident that it is
benign, at least, if not openly cordial and collegial.

Providers were much less pleased with their relationships

101
with teachers. The infrequency of communication between
groups may be a major reason for this discrepancy of
perceptions. No evidence appeared of outright conflict or
hostility between groups (the instrument did not probe
specifically for this) but what emerged was little or no
relationship. One group - teachers - saw no need for one,
and the other - providers - desired more of a relationship
and experienced less appreciation and respect from teachers
in its absence.

Attitudes of teachers and providers toward each other
appeared to be disparate: providers seemed more open to
communication with teachers; teachers seemed less respectful
or appreciative of providers. It is evident from these data
that these two groups do not perceive themselves as
colleagues, but as distinctly different from one another. If
Bronfenbrenner (1979) is correct about the benefits of
positive relationships among adults in the developing
organism's mesosystem, opportunities are being lost for
creating and maintaining optimally nurturant circumstances

for young children.

102

Research Question 3

Do teachers and providers assume that their future contacts

 

will be favorable or unfavorable?

Expectations of Future Contacts '

Between Teachers and Providers

These data confirmed the picture that emerged from data
discussed previously. While all mean scores fell on the
negative end of the spectrum, on each dimension teachers
expected their future contacts with providers to be more
favorable than providers expected their future contacts with
teachers to be. The most notable difference appeared on the
respect/disrespect dimension. Teachers anticipated more
respect from providers than providers anticipated from
teachers.

Salient differences also appeared on the
interest/disinterest, acceptance/rejection, and
successful/unsuccessful dimensions. Teachers expected
providers would be interested and accepting, and that the
contact would be successful. Providers, on the other hand,
expected teachers would be less interested, less accepting
and that the contact would be less successful. Teachers also
anticipated that providers would be professional, but
providers less often expected teachers to be. This finding

is curious, since teaching is generally thought to be a

103
profession, while child care providing is not. Perhaps
providers believed that it is unprofessional for teachers to
treat them disrespectfully. There was no definition of
"professional" on the instrument, however, so exact
interpretation of this score is impossible without
additional data.

Smaller yet notable differences appeared on the
welcome/ unwelcome, attention/ignored, information/no
information, and follow-up/no follow-up dimensions. Teachers
more often expected to be welcome, to be given attention, to
receive information, and that providers would follow-up on
decisions or requests after the contact. Providers expected
to be less welcome, to get less attention, to receive less

information, and that there would be less follow-up later.
Demographic Characteristics

It was hypothesized that teachers and providers differ
in their educational background, years of experience, age,
and use of child care for their own children. As expected,
teachers in this study had attained a higher mean level of
education than providers, since teachers are required to
have a bachelor's degree and providers are not. It is of
interest, however, that the providers’ mean score indicated
that many of them in fact had earned a college degree and an
additional number of them had taken college level courses.

Several providers commented that they have moved from

104
classroom teaching to being child care providers, or were
seeking a teaching position and were working as a provider
in the interim.

Teachers in this study were on the average older and
had more years of experience than the providers. Most had
taught from 11 to 20 years, providers had been on the job an
average of ten years or less. In Michigan in the last decade
and a half the job market for all teachers has been very
tight, so they may have tended to stay in their classrooms
in order to assure their employment status. Resigning their
position would have made it difficult to be rehired. Child
care is a relatively new field, burgeoning in the last ten
years as more and more families have found it necessary for
both parents to be employed outside the home. In addition,
child care programs housed in public school districts are of
even more recent origin. It follows that most of these child
care providers have had a shorter tenure than teachers since
their jobs have not even existed for very long.

The groups differed in their use of child care for
their own children. Teachers were slightly more likely to
have used child care than providers. Providers are often
parents of small children. They want to be home with them,
but need to generate income, so they care for other children
in their homes. If they work in a child care center it is
sometimes possible for them to have their own children with
them there. Teachers who are parents, however, cannot have

their own children with them in the classroom, so must

105
employ a child care provider. The instrument item that
elicited information on this point did not ask if
respondents had children of their own. Therefore, a "no"
response might have meant they had no children to place in
child care, or they chose not to employ a child care
provider for their children. Because of this ambiguity, the
meaning of this data is unclear.

The next chapter will summarize the findings of this

study, offer observations and conclusions, present
implications of the findings for practice, and suggest

directions for further research on this topic.

CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, OBSERVATIONS, CONCLUSIONS

Summary

This study documented notable differences in attitudes
between kindergarten teachers and child care providers.
Teachers appeared satisfied with infrequent communication
with providers and expressed only moderate interest in
increasing or improving it. They seemed to believe providers
have little to offer them, and they expected no problems
with the relationship in the future. Many providers,
however, wrote comments regarding the their frustration with
the amount and quality of their communication with teachers,
and appeared to be pessimistic about future contacts with
them.

Teachers, who were older, more highly educated and more
experienced than providers, seemed to view child care
providers as pleasant, nurturant substitute parents who are
less skilled and less trained than teachers. They appeared
to feel respected by providers and to expect deference,
appreciation and support from them.

Providers, who were generally younger, less experienced
and on average less well educated than teachers, seemed to

respect teachers and their perceived superior knowledge,

106

107
skill and expertise. They thought, however, that a closer
working relationship would benefit the children in their
care, make teachers more appreciative and respectful of
providers, and improve their own effectiveness. Their
attempts to improve communication have often resulted in
failure, frustration and discouragement.

Nearly one-half of responding teachers and over one-
third of responding child care providers reported never
communicating with each other at all. Bronfenbrenner (1979)
suggests that the absence of a relationship among important
adults in the young child’s mesosystem may have a
destructive influence on the developing individual, since
there is no opportunity for sharing ideas or suggestions,
for cooperative problem solving, or for friendship between
people who might discover they have a great deal in common.
The results of this study indicate that this effect may
indeed be occurring for some children who attend child care

and kindergarten simultaneously.

Observations

The instrument return rate was 11% higher for providers
than for teachers (Nt = 87 of 181 sent, 48%; Np I 47 of 80
sent, 59%). This may be explained partially by two factors.
First, most child care providers in this study were
contacted personally by telephone by the researcher in the

attempt to locate programs that fit the criteria for the

108

study. They were typically asked if they would be willing to
complete and return an anonymous questionnaire, and most
providers responded affirmatively, some even
enthusiastically. Teachers were not contacted personally,
but were located by asking the provider to identify them, or
by calling the school buildings in the identified school
district and asking how many kindergarten teachers were in
the building. It is possible that some teachers who did not
respond saw no value in exploring this topic, therefore did
not bother to complete and return the survey instrument.

Second, it appeared from the written comments some
providers included at the end of their questionnaires (Np I
14, 30%) that some of them have negative feelings about the
lack of communication between themselves and the
kindergarten teachers in their districts, and were moved by
those feelings to complete and return the questionnaire. A
smaller percentage of teachers (Nt I 19, 22%) wrote comments
and some of them claimed to have no interest in, or to be
actually opposed to having any communication with child care
providers. Some even felt it would be unethical to discuss a
child with a provider without the parents' permission. It is
interesting to note that, based on the personal experience
of the researcher as a public school kindergarten teacher,
it is not unusual for kindergarten teachers to talk to other
teachers in the hallway or coffee lounge about children and
families with whom they work. These data, however, indicated

that it appears to be a different matter when child care

109

providers, even those employed by the same school district,
are involved. A perception may exist of a real difference
between the roles of the teacher and of the child care
provider in the lives of children and their families.
Discussing school-related issues with another teacher is
acceptable. Discussing school- or child care-related issues
with a child care provider appears not to be, even though
those providers are also school district employees.

Bronfenbrenner (1979) advocates what he calls
"transforming experiments" (p. 40) which by the very fact of
their execution change the environment in which they are
conducted. That is, simply carrying out an experiment
creates change, the results of the experiment itself
notwithstanding. One comment received from a teacher seemed
to suggest that this research may in fact have served, at
least in one instance, as a transforming experiment. She
added this note at the end of the questionnaire: "After
completing this survey I am going to make sure I list as
many of my child care providers as I can - and remember to
get in touch with them several times a year, even if it is
just to touch base. Next fall I will address a special note
in September just for them. Many thanks." Simply
participating in this survey changed her thinking and, one
may presume, enhanced the mesosystems of her students
because of her efforts to improve communication between

herself and their child care providers.

110

Nearly half of the nineteen teachers who wrote comments
indicated they would be interested in having more contact
with providers, although several expressed reservations
about parental reaction or the ethical and/or legal
ramifications of discussing confidential information about
children to non-parents. Another group was not supportive of
the idea of communicating with providers. Some cited time
restraints, several mentioned the ethical/legal issues, and
some simply said they felt it was "inappropriate".

All providers who wrote comments supported the notion
of communicating with teachers. Some noted past attempts,
and subsequent failures, to contact them. One provider said
she had invited teachers to visit the center, but none had
even responded to the invitation, much less actually come.
Another wrote that she had expressed her strong feelings
about the importance of cooperation between child care
providers and teachers to the superintendent of schools. He
responded: "You'll always be the step children in the
district". Several others wrote that they would like more
information about what happens in school so they could

reinforce and extend it at the child care center.
Conclusions
1. The quality of communication between kindergarten

teachers and child care providers employed by public

schools is, in general, not robust, or is nonexistent;

111
therefore the quality of communication between teachers
and providers unaffiliated with a school district is
likely to be even weaker or more infrequent.

2. One reason for this may be that teachers and providers
see themselves as separate, distinct groups, rather
than as colleagues.

3. Another reason for this may be that teachers are more
satisfied than providers with the current level and
quality of communication between them, and see no need
for changes in their relationship.

4. Another reason for the absence or poor quality of
communication between teachers and providers may be
that teachers have less respect for providers as a
group than providers have for teachers.

5. Another reason for this may be that teachers do not
believe communication between themselves and child care
providers is important or beneficial to children or

families.

Implications For Practice

Improving, and in some situations introducing
communication between kindergarten teachers and child care
providers in a school district could have many advantageous
consequences. Enhancement of the child's learning and
socialization, empowerment of parents and improvement of

parenting processes, greater effectiveness of teachers and

112
educational programs, more efficient dissemination of
knowledge and information, improved attitudes and
relationships among school district employees, and corrected
perceptions of one another among adults in the young child's
mesosystem are examples of possible outcomes.

It was apparent from the respondents’ written comments
that some teachers who see no need for communication assume
the only topic they might discuss with a provider would be
confidential information about a child. (As noted above, the
structure of the survey instrument may have led them to this
assumption.) Communication about a variety of other
nonconfidential topics which would be mutually beneficial to
teachers and providers could and should be encouraged,
however. Both the content of the communication and the
process of interaction could benefit not only teachers and
providers, but the child, the family, the school district
and the larger community, since changes in one subsystem
reverberate throughout the entire ecosystem (Bronfenbrenner,
1979). Offhand derogatory comments by one adult who is
important to the child about another adult, also important
to the child, can have harmful effects on the child's
perception of those around him or her. Better communication
between those adults would reduce that possibility and
enhance the child's feelings of confidence in them, and
perhaps in himself or herself. Child care and teaching are
hard work. Teachers and providers could support and learn

from one another if given opportunities and encouragement to

113
communicate. Vehicles for interaction might include advisory
committees, inservice workshops and seminars, guest
speakers, social activities, and reciprocal visits to
classrooms and centers..

School boards in districts that include child care
programs could establish policies and guidelines for the
inclusion of child care in the mainstream of district
activities. If children are truly important in the school
system, child care should not be treated as unimportant or

peripheral to the daily business of the schools.

School district administrators, responsible for execution of
school board policies, should be instrumental in and
committed to facilitating communication among all staff
members. Actively assuring the inclusion of district child
care personnel in any activities that may be relevant or of
interest to them need not be a difficult or expensive task.
Inclusion of the child care center staff in the interoffice
mail system that serves the elementary schools is an easy
initial step. Parental permission for teachers and providers
to consult about their children can be sought to alleviate
fears and concerns about potential legal and/or ethical
problems. Whenever possible, the child care center should be
placed in a building with kindergarten and other lower
elementary classrooms. Moving from one setting to another

would be easy for the child, and frequent communication and

114
interaction among all early childhood staff members would be
more likely.

Gradually, as teachers and providers get to know one
another, barriers may disappear, misperceptions may be
corrected, and mutual trust may develop. Both groups may
realize that they are all primarily concerned with the
welfare of young children and their families. Goal consensus
can be pursued (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Providers will begin
to feel less isolated and ignored, and teachers may discover
providers have much more to offer than they thought. In
fact, teachers may find their jobs are made easier when
providers learn about the kindergarten curriculum and begin
to reinforce and extend it in the child care center.

The school district itself can benefit from better
relationships among staff members and it may gain a
reputation for being a good place to work. Parents may
appreciate coordination, cooperation, and friendly attitudes
among adults who work with their children each day.

Coordination among early childhood staff members and
others in the community can lead to stronger and more
effective advocacy for young children and their families.
Public policies and community programs can be developed and

improved, and families encouraged to make use of them.

115

Directions for Further Research

Several findings of this study suggest avenues of
further research into the communication and relationship
between kindergarten teachers and child care providers. A
basic premise of this study was that communication among
adults in the young child's mesosystem is beneficial to all
parties. Without further research, however, the opposite
cannot be said - that noncommunication is harmful - nor can
it be maintained that communication in all instances is
beneficial to teachers, providers, children and families.
There may be times, situations, and individuals for whom
noncommunication is preferable. Also, this study did not
address directly the effect of teacher-provider
communication on the child. Additional research might
examine whether there is any effect, and if so what the
characteristics of that effect are.

The various attributes of child care were not addressed
by this study. Additional research might look at different
types of care arrangements, such as center care, in-home
care, or family day care. The level of the quality of care
as defined by objective criteria, and its effect on the
communication between teachers and providers must be
examined. Some children have a series of care providers, or
even several throughout each week, which may influence

communication with the child's teacher also.

116

It was hypothesized that information is passed
indirectly between teachers and providers through a third
party, such as the child. The data did not confirm this, but
showed that contact between teachers and providers was most
often direct, either by telephone or face to face. It seems
likely, however, that they do in fact receive information
about one another through the child or the parents
indirectly, subtly, and nonverbally. They might be asked to
be more specific about what they know or think about one
another and exactly what led them to their conclusions, or
what the basis is for their knowledge or opinions.

It appears from the data that teachers expect to get
information from providers, but not necessarily to give it
to them, and that providers also expect to give information
to, but not necessarily to get it from teachers. The
unidirectionality of this aspect of their relationship may
indicate a perceived difference in social and/or
professional status by both teachers and providers. Further
research is needed to examine each group's perception of its
own status and that of the other group. It might also shed
more light upon why teachers appear to have less respect for
providers than providers have for teachers, and the bases
for other attitudes they hold toward one another.
Additionally, the type of information shared, or not shared,
should be documented and examined, as well as each group's
vocabulary and whether they agree on the meanings of various

terms and concepts. For example, a school "day" and a child

117
care "day" may have very different meanings, since a school
day for kindergartners is typically three hours long, but a
child care day may be as long as six hours.

Additional research is necessary to explore the role
played by various aspects of communication between teachers
and providers, such as its frequency, in forming their
perceptions of one another. New data on this topic might
lead to more open communication, enCOurage greater mutual
understanding, and foster a more smoothly functioning
mesosystem for the young child and his or her family.

Many respondents in this study indicated that when they
do communicate they discuss only the child they have in
common. Fewer reported discussing other topics, such as
child development issues, school district policies or
community affairs. The wording of the survey instrument used
to collect the data may have led respondents to believe the
researcher was primarily interested in the child-related
topics they discussed. A differently worded questionnaire
might show that in fact teachers and-providers do
communicate about other topics.

A discrepancy appeared in respondents' feelings of the
other group's professionalism. Teachers reported expecting
providers to be professional in their contacts with
teachers, but providers less often reported expecting
teachers to be professional. No definition of the word
"professional" was provided on the questionnaire, and its

exact meaning is open to discussion. To understand this

118
finding, further data is needed and "professional" must be
clearly defined.

It should be stressed that the conclusions from this
study are based on measures of group tendencies. Instruments
were received from some teachers and'some providers who'
reported having very good working relationships, who
communicate freely and often, and who respect one another.
Further research might also explore the circumstances that
create these positive feelings and their effects on
children, families, teachers and child care providers.

This study gives some evidence that these two groups -
teachers and providers - perceive themselves as distinct and
different from one another. Additional research is necessary
to explore this assumption and its impact on children and

families.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

DEFINITIONS

119

APPENDIX A
DEFINITIONS ‘

Microsystem - "A pattern of activities, roles and
interpersonal relations experienced by the developing
person in a given setting with particular physical and
material characteristics" (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p.22).

Mesosystem - "A set of interrelations between two or more
settings in which the developing person becomes an
active participant" (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p.25).

Exosystem - "One or more settings that do not involve the
developing person as an active participant, but in
which events occur that affect, or are affected by,
what happens in the setting containing the developing
person" (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p.25).

Macrosystem - "Consistencies in the form and content of
lower systems (micro-, meso- and exo-) that exist, or
could exist at the level of the subculture or culture
as a whole, along with any belief systems or ideology
underlying such consistencies" (Bronfenbrenner, 1979,
p.26).

Child Care ProviderZCaregiver - An adult employed to care

for children on a regular basis in the parents’ absence
for any portion of the twenty-four hour day. In this
study, a teacher in a child care center operating
within a public school district.

Child Care/Qay_§are Center - A setting in which one or more
children are cared for away from their homes. It may be
a private home, space set aside for child care in a
school, church, or other building, or a structure built
specifically for this purpose. In this study, all
centers will be operated under the auspices of a public
school district in Michigan and include a group of
young children.

School - Places for teaching and learning which are defined
as publicly funded and operated in the state of
Michigan employing state certified teachers.

Kindergarten - In the state of Michigan, the public school
grade for the youngest children, ages five and six
years old, usually operating half-day, five days per
week.

120

Kindergarten Teacher - A person certified by the state of
Michigan as a fully qualified teacher of five and six
year old children and employed by a public school
district.

121

Kindergarten Teacher - A person certified by the state of
Michigan as a fully qualified teacher of five and six
year old children and employed by a public school
district.

121

APPENDIX B

LETTER TO FIELD TEST VOLUNTEERS

122

March 27, 1991
Dear ,

Thank you for agreeing to pilot this questionnaire for me.I
appreciate your willingness to spend a few minutes helping
me with my research. I am working on a PhD in Family and
Child Ecology from Michigan State University. With your
assistance I hope to finish in the next six months or so,
and perhaps together we may add something to the field of
early childhood education and make the world a little better
place for children.

Here’s what I need from you:

1. Approximately how long did this questionnaire take you to
complete?

 

2. Were there any questions or sections that were:

a. difficult to understand?

 

b. confusing?

 

c. incomplete?

 

3. What was your overall impression?

 

 

4. Are there any other comments you would like to make about
it?

 

 

Again, thank you very much for your help. When you have
completed filling it out, please call me and I will stop by
and pick it up.

Sincerely,

Sue Grossman

2516 Ferdon Rd.
Kalamazoo, MI 49008
343-6091

123

APPENDIX C

LETTERS OF INTRODUCTION

124

[Date]
Dear Child Care Provider:

I am a graduate student at Michigan State University
pursuing a PhD in Family and Child Ecology. I am especially
interested in young children and early childhood education.
Currently I am studying the communication between child care
providers and kindergarten teachers.

Communication between schools and families has been widely
researched and written about and is commonly accepted as
important. However, little attention has been given to
communication between schools and child care providers.

The intermediate school district that serves the school
district in which your child care program is located was
chosen at random from those in the state of Michigan. Your
school district was identified within the ISD as having a
child care program operating within the schools. I am
interested in the communication between yourself and the
kindergarten teachers in the district in which you work, so
I am surveying child care providers of young children and
kindergarten teachers in your school district and in several
others in Michigan. The results of this research project
will shed some light on communication between teachers and
caregivers and may help schools and community agencies
improve services to children and families.

I would very much appreciate your cooperation and
assistance. The enclosed questionnaire will take
approximately 20 to 30 minutes to complete. Please complete
it and return it in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped
envelope by [date]. Your responses will be kept strictly
confidential and all information will be reported
collectively. No one individual's responses will be
reported. You indicate your voluntary agreement to
participate by completing and returning this questionnaire.
Upon request, a summary of the results of this research will
be sent to you.

If you have any questions or concerns about this, please
feel free to contact me.

Thank you very much.
Sincerely,

Sue Grossman

2516 Ferdon Rd.

Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008
(616) 343-6091

125

[Date]
Dear Kindergarten Teacher:

I am a graduate student at Michigan State University
pursuing a PhD in Family and Child Ecology. I am especially
interested in young children and early childhood education.
Currently I am studying the communication between
kindergarten teachers and child care providers and I am
surveying kindergarten teachers and child care providers in
your school district.

Communication between schools and families has been widely
researched and written about and is commonly accepted as
important. However, little attention has been given to
communication between schools and child care providers.

Your intermediate school district was chosen at random from
all ISDs in the state of Michigan and your school district
was identified as having a child care program operating
within the schools. I am interested in the communication
between yourself and the child care providers in the
program(s) in your district, so I am surveying teachers and
caregivers of young children in your district and in several
others in Michigan. The results of this research project
will shed some light on communication between teachers and
caregivers and may help schools and community agencies
improve services to children and families.

I would very much appreciate your cooperation and
assistance. The enclosed questionnaire will take
approximately 20 to 30 minutes to complete. Please complete
it and return it to me in the enclosed self-addressed,
stamped envelope by [date]. Your responses will be kept
strictly confidential and all information will be reported
collectively. No one individual's responses will be
reported. You indicate your voluntary agreement to
participate by completing and returning this questionnaire.
Upon request, a summary of the results of this research will
be sent to you.

If you have any questions or concerns about this, please
feel free to contact me.

Thank you very much.
Sincerely,

Sue Grossman

2516 Ferdon Road

Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008
(616) 343-6091

126

APPENDIX D

TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE

127

COMMUNICATION SURVEY
for

KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS

This questionnaire is about the communication between
yourself and the child day care providers or caregivers of
the children in your kindergarten classes who are cared for
before and/or after school in programs iN YOUR SCHOOL
DISTRICT.

PART A: COMMUNICATION CHARACTERISTICS

The questions in this section concern the characteristics of
communication between kindergarten teachers and child day
care providers, and your feelings about that communication.
To answer them think of a typical child in your class who
attends child care in a center in your school district. For
each question circle the number beside the response that is
most accurate.

1. How frequently do you and the child care providers of
children in your class communicate with each other?

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

(GO TO #6)
Rarely, less than 5 times per year . . 2
Occasionally, about once a month . . . 3 (GO TO #2)

Regularly, about once a week . . . . .4

Often, several times per week . . - . 5

If your answer is "never" please go to question # 6.

For all other answers go to question #2.

128

 

2. When do you and the child day care providers
communicate with each other? (CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF ALL
THAT APPLY)

Before school .
During the day .
After school . .
In the evening .

On the weekend . . .
At scheduled meeting times .
Whenever we happen to run int

(be e e e e e
as e e e e e
(be e e e e e
HI—‘I—‘I—‘HHH

O

Other (PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

 

3. How do you and the child day care providers
communicate with each other? (CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF
ALL THAT APPLY)

In person . . . . .
By phone . . . . .
By handwritten note
By printed message
Through the parent
Through the child .

O O O O O O
O O O O O O
. . . . . .
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
I-‘I-‘I—‘I-‘I-‘H

Other (PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

 

4. What occasions prompt this communication between you
and the child day care providers?
(CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF ALL THAT APPLY)

Something interesting at school . . . . . .
A problem at school . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A need to get information from care provider
A need to give information to care provider .
Request from the parent . . . . .
Introduction by the parent . . .
Care provider visited school. . . .
Parent- teacher conference . . . .
Casual meetings in the hall or outside of cho

O O O O O O O O O
HHHI—‘I—‘HI—‘I—‘H

8eeeeeeee

Other (PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

 

129

5. What do you communicate about?
(CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF ALL THAT APPLY)

The Child O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

(PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

 

Child care O O O O O O O O O O O O O

(PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

 

School. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

 

The child's family . . . . . . . . .

(PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

 

other O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

(PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

 

 

6. How satisfied are you with the amount of communication
you have with these caregivers? (CIRCLE THE NUMBER)

Very satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . 1

 

Somewhat satisfied . . . . . . . . . 2
Somewhat dissatisfied . . . . . . . .3

Very dissatisfied . . . . . . . . . .4

130

(GO TO #8)

(GO TO #7)

If you are vepy satisfied, please go to question #8.
For all other answers go to question #7.

7. If you are not very satisfied, how would you like
the communication to change?

(CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF ALL THAT APPLY)

a. I would like it to occur at different times.

(PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

b. I would like it to occur: more often . . . . .
less often . . . .

(PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

c. I would like to use different methods . . . .

(PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

d. I would like it to cover different topics. . .

(PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

Below are two statements. Please indicate your agreement or
disagreement with each one. (CIRCLE THE NUMBER)

 

STRONGLY STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
8. Communication between a child's
kindergarten teacher and child
care provider is important. . . . . . l 2 3 4
9. A child benefits when his/her
kindergarten teacher and child care
provider communicate with each other. . 1 2 3 4

131

PART B. CLASSROOM SITUATIONS

The following items are about situations in which you might want to
communicate your concerns about a child with someone else. Please
think about who you most typically would contact or have contacted in
the past. "Both" refers to parents and teacher.

(CIRCLE THE NUMBER)

arrorbrrm'o
h1mrirh<canro
or+01n
Hro:rdI-a>z
rIm:rrro

 

10. If I have a child in my class who . . .

a. has recently undergone a dramatic
mood change I would communicate
about this with the child's . . . . l 2 3 4 5

b. consistently ignores safety rules
and endangers him/herself or others
I would communicate about this
with the child’s . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 S

c. consistently ignores others'
property rights and takes things
that do not belong to him/her I
would communicate about this
with the child's . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

d. shows signs of suffering from a
great deal of stress I would
communicate about this with
the child’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

e. has difficulty getting along with
- other children I would communicate
about this with the child's. . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

Classroom Situations (continued)

mr+ocbrsmro
krmcir~<C)H'o
UrTOID
chzrdrwa>z
r1m::rro

 

132

If I have a child in my class who...

f. has shown a lot of growth or
development lately I would
communicate about this
with the child's . . . . . . . . . . l

g. is proud of having mastered a new
skill I would communicate about this
With the Child ’ s O O O O O O O O O O 1

h. expresses worry or fear about
something troubling him/her I
would communicate about this
with the child's . . . . . . . . . . 1

i. talks about problems at home with
family members I would communicate
about this with the child’s .. . . . 1

j. I suspect may have a physical problem,
such as a vision or hearing impairment,
I would communicate about this with
the child’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . l

133

PART C: FEELINGS ABOUT CHILD CARE PROVIDERS

These questions concern your feelings about communication and
interactions with child day care providers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11. In general, if you were to contact a child's day care provider
what do you assume the provider's reaction would be? Put a mark on
the line between each pair of words to show where your feelings
lie.

a. Interest Disinterest

b. Welcome Unwelcome

c. Acceptance Rejection

d. Attention Ignored

e. Successful Unsuccessful

f. Follow-up No follow-up

g. Information No information

h. Respect Disrespect

1. Professional ' 'Unprofessional

 

12. Think about your most recent contact with a child day care
provider. Put a mark on the line between each pair of words
to show where your feelings about that contact lie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Warm Cold

b. Appreciative Unappreciative
c. Sensitive Insensitive

d. Concerned Unconcerned

e. Friendly Hostile

f. Accepting Rejecting

g. Pleasant Unpleasant

h. Interested Uninterested
i. Enthusiastic Unenthusiastic
j. Supportive Nonsupportive

 

134

PART D: HOW TEACHERS PERCEIVE CHILD DAY CARE PROVIDERS

The questions in this section concern the way in which you perceive
child day care providers. CIRCLE THE NUMBER that most closely
represents how you feel in general about each statement.

 

STRONGLY STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
13. Child day care providers...
a. are important influences on
a child's life. 1 2 3 4
b. are interested in the whole
child, not just his/her
academic performance. 1 2 3 4
c. are well trained professionals. 1 2 3 4
d. are knowledgeable about
child growth and development. 1 2 3 4
e. nurture young children. 1 2 3 4
f. are respectful of children and
families. 1 2 3 4
g. are not interested in a child’s
cognitive development.. 1 2 3 4
h. communicate frequently
with parents. 1 2 3 4

i. are open to input and suggestions
from parents and others. 1 2 3 4

j. adequately replace a child's
parents in their absence. 1 2 3 4

135

PART E: HOW CHILD DAY CARE PROVIDERS PERCEIVE TEACHERS

In this section the questions concern how you think child day care
providers perceive teachers. CIRCLE THE NUMBER that most cloaely
represents how you feel in general about each statement.

 

STRONGLY STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
14. Child day care providers...
a. see kindergarten teachers as
professional colleagues. 1 2 . 3 4
b. are open to communication with
the teachers of children
they care for. 1 2 3 4
c. see kindergarten teachers as
interested only in the child's
academic performance. 1 2 3 4
d. feel intimidated by the
educational background of
kindergarten teachers. 1 2 3 4
e. feel resentful of the higher
social status of kindergarten
teachers. 1 2 3 4
f. are envious of the higher income
level of kindergarten teachers. 1 2 3 4

g. believe that kindergarten teachers
are not interested in anything
child care providers may have
to offer. 1 2 3 4

h. think a child's kindergarten
teacher is an important
influence on the child's life. 1 2 3 4

i. would accept an invitation to
visit the class of a child
in their care. 1 2 3 4

j. believe information about a child
should be shared only with the
parents, not with the child's
teacher. 1 2 3 4

136

PART F: WORKING WITH PARENTS AND FAMILIES

The questions in this section concern your feelings about working with
parents and families. CIRCLE THE NUMBER that most cloaely represents
how you feel in general about each statement.

 

STRONGLY STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
15. Most parents are supportive of me
and my work with their children. 1 2 3 4
16. Parent participation in my
kindergarten program is important. 1 2 3 4
17. Parents believe their participation
in our kindergarten program is
important. 1 2 3 4
18. I am interested in the ideas and
opinions of parents. 1 2 3 4

19. It is important for me to be aware of
each family's unique circumstances. 1 2 3 4

20. It is important for families to have
access to community support services, .
such as medical and social services. 1 2 3 4

21. It is important for me to remember
that each child is a member of a
family, not an isolated individual. 1 2 3 4

22. My relationship with parents is
affected by their work situations. 1 2 3 4

23. Coordination of community service
agencies, including child care,
schools and others, is important
to families. 1 2 3 4

24. Most parents believe communication
with staff members is important. 1 2 3 4

25. I am certain that parents receive

written and printed materials sent
home to them. 1 2 3 4

137

26. I have had sufficient training to
work with parents. 1 2 3 4

PART G: THE FAMILIES WITH WHOM YOU WORK

The questions in this section are about the children in your class(es)
and their families. CIRCLE THE NUMBER of the answer that most closely
represents those families.

27. Approximately how many children in your class(es) live in
single-parent homes?

0 - 25 % . . . . . . . . l
26% - 50% . . . . . . . . 2
51% - 75% . . . . . . . . 3
76% - 100% . . . . . . . . 4
28. What is the approximate annual income of the majority
of families with whom you work?
Below $10,000 . . . . . . . . 1
$10,001 - $25,000 . . . . . . . 2
$25,001 - $50,000 . . .-. . . . 3
Above $50,000 . . . . . . . . . 4

29. Approximately what percentage of families with whom you
work have an income higher than yours?

0 - 25% . . . . . . . . . . 1
26% - 50% . . . . . . . . . 2
51% - 75% . . . . . . . . . 3
76% - 100% . . . . . . . . 4

30. Approximately what percentage of the children in your
class(es) are: (WRITE IN THE NUMBER)

As ian O O O O O O O O O O O O %

Black/African American . . . %

138

White O O O O O O O O O O O O %
Native American . . . . . . . %

other O O O O O O O O O O O O %

PART H: BACKGROUND QUESTIONS

The next few questions concern your background and training.

31. What is the highest level of education you have completed?

(CIRCLE THE NUMBER)

High school with no diploma . . . 1
High school diploma . . . . . . . 2
Some college courses . . . . . . .3
College, BA or BS . . . . . . . . 4
Some graduate courses . . . . . . 5

Graduate degree . . . . . . . . . 6

Additional training
(CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF ALL THAT APPLY)
CDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Professional training workshops . 1

Other (please explain)

 

 

32. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with these
statements. (CIRCLE THE NUMBER)

 

STRONGLY STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
a. I am committed to my profession. I 2 3 4
b. I plan to continue my work for
many more years. 1 2 3 4

139

33. How many years have you been a teacher? (CIRCLE THE NUMBER)
0-5 . . . . . . . . . . 1
6-10 . . . . . . . . . 2
11-15 . . . . . . . . . 3
6-20 . . . . . . . . . 4
More than 20 . . . . . 5
34. How many years have you been a kindergarten teacher?
(CIRCLE THE NUMBER)
0-5 . . . . . . . . 1
6-10 . . . . . . . 2
11-15 . . . . . . . 3
16-20 . . . . . . . 4
More than 20 . . . 5
35. What is your age? (CIRCLE THE NUMBER)
12-25 . . . . . . . . . . 1
26-35 . . . . . . . . . . 2
36-45 . . . . . . . . . . 3
46-55 . . . . . . . . . . 4
56 or older . . . . . . . 5
36. Have you ever employed a child care provider for your own
child(ren) ? (CIRCLE THE NUMBER)
yes . . . . ... 1

no . . . . . . 2

This is the end of the questionnaire.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE!

If you have any comments you would like to add, please do so on the
back of this page.

140

APPENDIX E

PROVIDER QUESTIONNAIRE

141

COMMUNICATION SURVEY
for
CHILD DAY CARE PROVIDERS

This questionnaire is about the communication between yourself and the
kindergarten teachers of those children in your child care center who
attend kindergarten IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH YOUR CENTER IS
LOCATED.

PART A: COMMUNICATION CHARACTERISTICS

The questions in this section concern the characteristics of
communication between child day care providers and kindergarten
teachers, and your feelings about that communication. To answer them
think of a typical child in your group who goes to kindergarten part
of the day. For each question circle the number beside the response
that is most accurate.

1. How frequently do you and the kindergarten teachers of
children in your care communicate with each other?

Never O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1
(GO TO #6)
Rarely, less than 5 times per year . . 2

 

Occasionally, about once a month . . . 3 (GO TO #2)
Regularly, about once a week . . . . . 4

Often, several times per week . . . . 5

If your answer is "never" please go to question # 6
For all other answers go to question #2.

2. When do you and the kindergarten teachers communicate with
each other? (CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF ALL THAT APPLY)

Before school . . . .
During the day . . .
After school. . . . .

In the evening. . . .
On the weekend. . .
At scheduled meeting times. .

Whenever we happen to run into ea

O
O
I-‘I-‘I-‘I-‘r-‘I-‘H

f1 0 e e e e e

othe

ch

Other (PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

142

 

3. How do you and the teachers communicate with each other?
(CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF ALL THAT APPLY)
In person . . . . . . .
By phone . . . . .
By handwritten note
By printed message
Through the parent
Through the child .

O O O O O

O O O O O

O O O O O O
O O O O O O
. . . . .

O O O O O

O O O O O O
. . . o . .
O OVO O O O
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
. . . . . o
HHHO—‘l—‘H

Other (PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

 

4. What occasions prompt this communication between you and
the teacher? (CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF ALL THAT APPLY)

Something interesting at the child care center
A problem at the center . . . . . . . . . .
A need to get information from the teacher .
A need to give information to the teacher .
A request from the parent . . . . .
An introduction by the parent . . .
The teacher visited the center . . . .
Parent-teacher conference . . . . . . .
Casual meetings in the hall or outside of sch

O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O

oi

O

Other (PLEASE EXPLAIN)

HO—‘O—‘t—‘t—‘t—‘O—‘l—‘H

 

 

5. What do you communicate about?
(CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF ALL THAT APPLY)

The child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

(PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

 

Child care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

(PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

143

 

The child's family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

(PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

 

SChOOI O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1

(PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

 

other O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1

(PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

 

 

6. How satisfied are you with the amount of communication you
have with kindergarten teachers? (CIRCLE YOUR ANSWER)

Very satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

(GO TO #8)
Somewhat satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Somewhat dissatisfied . . . . . . . . . . 3 (GO TO #7)

Very dissatisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

If you are veryggatisfied, please go to question #8.

For all other answers go to question #7.

 

7. If you are not very satisfied, how would you like the
communication to change?

(CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF ALL THAT APPLY)
a. I would like it to occur at different times . . . . 1

(PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

b. I would like it to occur: more often . . . . . . 1

144

less often . . . . . . 2

(PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

c. I would to use different methods . . . . . . . . . 1

(PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

d. I would like it to cover different topics . . . . .

(PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

 

Below are two statements. Please indicate your agreement or
disagreement with each one. (CIRCLE THE NUMBER).

 

STRONGLY STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
8. Communication between a child's
care provider and kindergarten
teacher is important. . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4
9. A child benefits when his/her
kindergarten teacher and child care
provider communicate with each other. . 1 2 3 4

145

PART B: CHILD CARE CENTER SITUATIONS

The following items are about situations in which you might want to
communicate your concerns about a child with someone else. Please
think about who you most typically would contact or have contacted in
the past. "Both" refers to parents and teacher.

(CIRCLE THE NUMBER)

 

P T B N O
a e o e t
r a t i h
e c h t e
n h h r
t e e
s r r
10. If I have a child in my group who. . .
a. has recently undergone a dramatic
mood change I would communicate
about this with the child's . . . 1 2 3 4 5
b. consistently ignores safety rules
and endangers him/herself or others
I would communicate about this
with the child's . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4 5
c. consistently ignores others'
property rights and takes things
that do not belong to him/her
I would communicate about this
with the child's . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 S
d. shows signs of suffering from a
great deal of stress I would
communicate about this with
the child's . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5
e. has difficulty getting along with
other children I would communicate
about this with the child's . . . l 2 3 4 5

146

Child Care Center Situations (con't)

If I had a child in my group who...

f.

has shown a lot of growth or
development recently I would
communicate about this

with the child’s . . . . . . . . .

is proud of having mastered
a new skill I would communicate
about this with the child's . . .

expresses worry or fear about
something troubling him/her I
would communicate about this

with the child's . . . . . . . . .

talks about problems at home with
family members I would communicate
about this with the child’s . . .

I suspect may have a physical
problem, such as a vision or
hearing impairment, I would
communicate about this with

the child's . . . . . . . . . . .

147

 

P T B N O
a e o e t
r a t i h
e c h t e
n h h r
t e e
s r r
l 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4

PART C: FEELINGS ABOUT KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS

These questions concern your feelings about communication and
interactions with kindergarten teachers.

11. In general, if you were to contact a child's kindergarten

teacher what do you assume the teacher's reaction would be? Put
a mark on the line between each pair of words to show where
your feelings lie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Interest Disinterest

b. Welcome Unwelcome

c. Acceptance Rejection

d. Attention Ignored

e. Successful Unsuccessful
f. Follow-up No follow-up
9. Information No information
h. Respect Disrespect

i. Professional Unprofessional

 

12. Think about your most recent contact with a kindergarten
teacher. Put a mark on the line between each pair of words to
show where your feelings about that contact lie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Warm Cold

b. Appreciative Unappreciative
c. Sensitive Insensitive

d. Concerned Unconcerned

e. Friendly Hostile

f. Accepting Rejecting

9. Pleasant Unpleasant

h. Interested Uninterested

 

148

i. Enthusiastic Unenthusiastic

j. Supportive Nonsupportive

PART D: HOW CHILD CARE PROVIDERS PERCEIVE TEACHERS

The questions in this section concern the way in Which you perceive
kindergarten teachers. CIRCLE THE NUMBER that most closely represents
how you feel in general about each statement.

 

STRONGLY STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
13. Kindergarten teachers:

a. are important influences on

a child's life. 1 2 3 4
b. are interested in the whole

child, not just his/her

academic performance. 1 2 3 4
c. are well trained professionals. 1 2 3 4
d. are knowledgeable about

child growth and development. 1 2 3 4
e. nurture young children. 1 2 3 4
f. are respectful of parents

and families. 1 2 3 4
9. push children to read and

write at too young an age. 1 2 3 4
h. communicate frequently

with parents. 1 2 3 4
i. are open to input and

suggestions from parents

and others. 1 2 3 4
j. are sensitive to the needs of

families with young children. 1 2 3 4

149

PART E: HOW TEACHERS PERCEIVE CHILD CARE PROVIDERS

In this section the questions concern how you think kindergarten
teachers perceive child care providers. CIRCLE THE NUMBER that most
closely represents how you feel in general about each statement.

 

STRONGLY STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
14. Kindergarten teachers:
a. appreciate the importance of
child care providers in the
life of a family. 1 2 3 4
b. see child care providers as
professional colleagues. 1 2 3 4
c. are open to communication with
the child care providers of
children in their classes. 1 2 3 4
d. disapprove of mothers who work
outside the home who use
child care providers. 1 2 3 4

e. would be open to including child
care providers in family
invitations to school events. 1 2 3 4

f. see child care providers as
babysitters who offer only
custodial care. 1 2 3 4

g. understand the important role
a child care provider plays
in the life of a child. 1 2 3 4

h. would accept an invitation to
visit the child care center
of one of their students. 1 2 3 4

i. believe information about a

child should be shared only
with the parents, not with

150

the child's care provider. 1 2 3 4

j. feel they are in competition
with child care providers. 1 2 3 4

PART F: WORKING WITH PARENTS AND FAMILIES

The questions in this section concern your feelings about working with
parents and families. CIRCLE THE NUMBER that most closely represents
how you feel in general about each statement.

 

STRONGLY STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
15. Most parents are supportive of me
and my work with their children. 1 2 3 4
16. Parent participation in my child
care program is important. 1 2 3 4
17. Parents believe their participation
in our child care program is
important. 1 2 3 4
18. I am interested in the ideas and
opinions of parents. 1 2 3 4

19. It is important for me to be aware of
each family's unique circumstances. 1 2 3 4

20. It is important for families to have
access to community support services,
such as medical and social services. 1 2 3 4

21. It is important for me to remember
that each child is a member of a
family, not an isolated individual. 1 2 3 4

22. My relationship with parents is
affected by their work situations. 1 2 3 4

23. Coordination of community service
agencies, including child care,
schools and others is important
to families. 1 2 3 4

24. Most parents believe communication

151

with staff members is important. 1 2 3 4
25. I am certain that parents receive

written and printed materials sent

home to them. 1 2 3 4

26. I have had sufficient training
to work with parents. 1 2 3 . 4

PART G: THE FAMILIES WITH WHOM YOU WORK

The questions in this section are about the children in your group(s)
and their families. CIRCLE THE NUMBER of the answer that most closely
represents those families.

27. Approximately how many children in your group(s) live in
single-parent homes?

0 - 25% . . . . . . . . 1
26% - 50% . . . . . . . . 2
51% - 75% . . . . . . . . 3
76% - 100% . . . . . . . . 4

28. What is the approximate annual income of the majority of
families with whom you work?

Below $10,000 . . . . . . . 1
$10,001 - $25,000 . . . . . . 2
$25,001 - $50,000 . . . . . . 3
Above $50,000 . . . . . . . 4

29. Approximately what percentage of families with whom you work
have an annual income higher that yours?

0 ~ 25% . . . . . . . . . 1
26% - 50% . . . . . . . . 2
51% - 75% . . . . . . . . 3
76% - 100% . . . . . . . . 4

30. Approximately what percentage of the children in your
group(s) are: (WRITE IN THE NUMBER)

152

Agian O O O O O O O O O O O O %

Black/African American . . . %
White . . . . . . . . . . . . %
Native American . . . . . . . %
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . %

PART H: BACKGROUND QUESTIONS

The next few questions concern your background and training.

31. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
(CIRCLE THE NUMBER)

High school with no diploma . . . 1
High school diploma . . . . . . . 2
Some college courses. . . . . . . 3
College, BA or B8 . . . . . . . . 4
Some graduate courses . . . . . . 5

Graduate degree . . . . . . . . . 6

Additional Training
(CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF ALL THAT APPLY)
CDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Professional training workshops . 1

Other (PLEASE EXPLAIN)

 

 

153

32. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with these

statements.

a. I am committed to my profession.

b. I plan to continue my work for

many more years.

 

STRONGLY STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4

33. How many years have you been a child care provider?

(CIRCLE THE NUMBER)
o-s . . .
6-10 . .
11-15 . .
16-20 . .

More than

34. What is your age? (CIRCLE
18-25 . .
26-35 . .
36-45 . .
46-55 . .

20

THE

56 or older .

35. Have you ever employed a child care

child(ren)? (CIRCLE THE NUMBER)

yes . .

DO ..

154

. 1

provider for your own

36. What is your job title?

 

This is the end of the questionnaire.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE!

If you have any comments you would like to add, please do so on the
back of this page.

155

APPENDIX E

FOLLOW-UP LETTERS

156

[Date]
Dear Kindergarten Teacher:

Recently you were sent a questionnaire about communication between
kindergarten teachers and child day care providers. If you have
completed that questionnaire and returned it to me I want to thank you
for taking the time from your busy schedule to do so. I appreciate it
very much. If you have not yet completed it, it is not too late.
Please take a few minutes and do so soon. The more information that is
included in this study the more valuable the results can be to
schools, parents and child care providers.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts about this
topic by completing the questionnaire and returning it to me. Please
contact me if you have any questions or concerns about it.

Sincerely,

Sue Grossman

2516 Ferdon Road
Kalamazoo, MI 49008
(616) 343-6091

157

[Date]
Dear Child Care Provider:

Recently you were sent a questionnaire about communication between
kindergarten teachers and child day care providers. If you have
completed that questionnaire and returned it to me I want to thank you
for taking the time from your busy schedule to do so. I appreciate it
very much. If you have not yet completed it, it is not too late.
Please take a few minutes and do so soon. The more information that is
included in this study the more valuable the results can be to
schools, parents and child care providers.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts about this
topic by completing the questionnaire and returning it to me. Please
contact me if you have any questions or concerns about it.

Sincerely,

Sue Grossman

2516 Ferdon Road
Kalamazoo, MI 49008
(616) 343-6091

158

APPENDIX G

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS

159

Operational Definitions

Data analyzed to test each hypothesis and the statistics used are
listed below. T refers to teacher questionnaire, P refers to provider
questionnaire.

Reseggch Question # : What are the characteristics of the
communication that occurs between teachers and providers?

Questionnaire
Item # Statistic(s)
H1: Communication is rare 1 tabulation
H2: Communication is 2a - g tabulation &
informally scheduled Spearman's rank
correlation
H3: Communication is indirect 3a - f tabulation &
Spearman’s rank
correlation
H4: Communication is 4a - i tabulation &
problem-oriented Spearman’s rank
correlation
H5: Communication is child- 5a - e tabulation &
related Spearman's rank
correlation

Research Question #2: What are the attitudes teachers and providers
have about one another and about the communication between them?

Questionnaire
Item # Statistic(s)
H6: Satisfaction with the 6 t test &
amount of communication Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test
H7: Satisfaction with the 12 & t test &
quality of communication 7a-d tabulation

H8: Beliefs about the importance
of communication 8 t test &
Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test

9 t test &

Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test

160

H9: Preferences of whom to

contact with concerns 10a - j tabulation &
Spearman's rank
correlation
H10: Teachers have less 13a—f, h, i t tests

respect for providers

H11: Teachers believe 14 t tests
providers respect (T: a,b,h,i,j)
teachers

H12: Providers do not 14
believe teachers (P: b,c,g,h,i) t tests

respect providers

(For P14, items a - j, were renumbered to match similar T14 items.)

Research Question # : Do teachers and providers assume their future
contacts with one another will be favorable or unfavorable?

Questionnaire
Item # Statistic(s) H13:
Perceptions of 11a - i t tests
future contacts
Demographic Characteristics
Questionnaire
Item # Statistic(s)
H14: Educational background 31a . t test
H15: Years of experience 33 t test &
Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test
H16: Average age P34 & T35 t test &
Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test
H17: Use of child care P35 & T36 t test &

Kolmogorov—
Smirnov test

161

APPENDIX H

SCORING THE INSTRUMENTS

162

Scoring
H1: Communication is rare

To measure frequency of communication a 5 point scale was used on
which 1 was "never", 2 was "rarely, less than 5 times per year", 3 was
"occasionally, about once a month”, 4 was "regularly, about once a
week" and 5 was "often, several times per week". Points were assigned
to each response corresponding to the numeral by the subject's
selection. All responses for each item were totalled and averaged to
arrive at mean scores for teachers and for providers.

H2: Communication is informally scheduled

Formally scheduled communication was defined as occurring at scheduled
meeting times. All other item options were considered informal.
Subjects were asked to select all responses that applied. One point
was assigned to each selected response and all responses for the item
were tabulated for teachers and for providers.

H3: Communication is indirect

The responses "in person" and ”by phone" were used to define direct
communication. All other item options were considered indirect.
Subjects were asked to select all responses that applied. One point
was assigned to each selected response and all responses for the item
were tabulated for teachers and for providers.

H4: Communication is problem-oriented

The responses "a problem at school" or "a problem at the center" were
used to define problem orientation of communication. All other items
were considered non—problem-oriented. Subjects were asked to select
all responses that applied. One point was assigned to each selected
response and all responses for the item were tabulated for teachers
and for providers. '

H5: Communication is child-related

The response "the child" was used to indicate child-relatedness of
communication. All other responses were considered non-child-related.
Subjects were asked to select all responses that applied. One point

was assigned to each selected response and all responses for the item
were tabulated for teachers and for providers.

H6: Satisfaction with the amount of communication

163

A 4 point scale was used on which 1 was "very satisfied", 2 was
"somewhat satisfied", 3 was "somewhat dissatisfied", and 4 was "very
dissatisfied". Points were assigned to each response corresponding to
the numeral by the subject's selection. All responses for the item
were totalled and averaged to arrive at mean scores for teachers and
for providers.

H7: Satisfaction with the quality of communication

Subjects were asked to recall their most recent contact with a member
of the other group and mark where their feelings about that contact
were on lines between 10 pairs of opposite words. For scoring purposes
the lines were divided into 7 equal segments and numbered 1 - 7, with
1 being the positive end of the scale and 7 the negative end. A
corresponding number of points was assigned to each segment. Points
for each item were totalled and averaged to find a mean score for the
item. To get a comprehensive score representing satisfaction, mean
scores for the 10 individual items were totalled and averaged for
teachers and for providers. In addition, subjects who were not
completely satisfied were asked to indicate qualities of the
communication that they would like changed (timing, frequency, methods
or topics) by marking all options that applied and explaining each one
marked. One point was assigned to each response and all responses were
tabulated for teachers and for providers.

H8: Beliefs about the importance of communication between teachers and
providers

Responses to two items were used to determine beliefs about
communication. For each item a 4 point scale was used, on which 1 was
"strongly agree", and 4 was "strongly disagree". Points were assigned
to each response corresponding to the numeral by the subject's
selection. All responses for each item were totalled and averaged to
arrive at mean scores for teachers and for providers.

H9: Preferences of whom to contact with concerns about a child

Subjects were asked to indicate whom they would contact (parents,
teacher or provider, both, neither, other) in ten hypothetical
situations involving a child in their class or group. Responses were
tabulated and percentage rates for teachers and for providers were
calculated. ‘

H10: Teachers have less respect for providers than providers have for
teachers

164

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 4
point scale on which 1 was "strongly agree" and 4 was "strongly
disagree". Points were assigned to each response corresponding to the
numeral by the subject's selection. All responses for each item were
totalled and averaged to arrive at mean scores for teachers and for
providers.

H11: Teachers believe providers respect teachers

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 4
point scale on which 1 was "strongly agree" and 4 was "strongly
disagree". Points were assigned to each response corresponding to the
numeral by the subject's selection. All responses for each item were
totalled and averaged to arrive at mean scores for teachers and for
providers.

1H12: Providers do not believe teachers respect providers

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 4
point scale on which 1 was "strongly agree" and 4 was "strongly
disagree". Points were assigned to each response corresponding to the
numeral by the subject's selection. All respOnses for each item were
totalled and averaged to arrive at mean scores for teachers and for
providers.

H13: Perceptions of future contacts between them

Subjects were asked to predict the response of a member of the other
group if they were to contact one of them, and to mark where their
feelings were on lines between 9 pairs of opposite words. For scoring
purposes the lines were divided into 7 equal segments and numbered 1 -
7, with 1 being the positive end of the scale and 7 the negative end.
A corresponding number of points was assigned to each segment. Points
for each item were totalled and averaged to arrive at a mean score for
teachers and for providers. To get a comprehensive score representing
perception of future contacts mean scores for the 9 individual items
were totalled and averaged for teachers and for providers.

H14: Educational background

Subjects were asked to indicate their educational level on a scale on
which 1 was "high school with no diploma", 2 was " high school
diploma", 3 was "some college courses", 4 was "college, BA or BS", 5
was "some graduate courses", and 6 was "graduate degree". Points were
assigned to each response corresponding to the numeral by the
subject's selection. All responses for each item were totalled and
averaged to arrive at mean scores for teachers and for providers.

165

H15: Years of experience

Subjects were asked to indicate their years of experience on a scale
on which 1 was "0 - 5 years", 2 was "6 - 10 years", 3 was "11 - 15
years", 4 was "16 - 20 years", and S was "more than 20 years". Points
were assigned to each response corresponding to the numeral by the
subject's selection. All responses for the item were totalled and
averaged to arrive at mean scores for teachers and for providers.

H16: Average age

Subjects were asked to indicate their age on a scale on which 1 was
"18 - 25 years", 2 was "26 - 35", 3 was "36 - 45", 4 was "46 - 55",
and S was "56 or older". Points were assigned to each response
corresponding to the numeral by the subject's selection. All responses
for the item were totalled and averaged to arrive at mean scores for
teachers and for providers.

H17: Use of child care

Subjects were asked to indicate whether they had employed a child care
provider for their own children by marking l for "yes" or 2 for "no".

Points were assigned to each response corresponding to the numeral by

the subject's selection. All responses for the item were totalled and

averaged to arrive at mean scores for teachers and for providers.

166

APPENDIX I

SATISFACTION WITH THE QUALITY OF COMMUNICATION

167

H7: Satisfaction with Quality of Communication

Data for instrument items lZa-j

 

 

 

T P
Nt = 65 Np = 37
Communication of 87 of 47
S
Xt Xp - D
a. Warm/cold 1.86 2.84 1.49
b. Appreciative/
unappreciative 1.89 3.00 1.52
c. Sensitive/insensitive 1.91 2.97 1.50
d. Concerned/unconcerned 1.77 2.76 1.42
e. Friendly/hostile 1.80 2.89 1.42
f. Accepting/rejecting 1.80 2.92 1.44
g. Pleasant/unpleasant 1.78 2.76 1.36
h. Interested/
uninterested 1.77 2.95 1.39
i. Enthusiastic/
unenthusiastic 2.33 3.33 1.66
j. Supportive/
nonsupportive 2.10 3.08 1.54
Total = 19.01 29.50
Xt = Xp =

168

Dimension of

 

t p df
3.31 .01 102
3.71 .01 101
3.6 .01 100
3.55 .01 103
3.97 .01 102
3.97 .01 101
3.66 .01 102
4.47 .01 102
2.82 .01 82
3.22 .01 100

2.95

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Anastasi, A. (1982). ggycholpgical testing (5th ed.). New
York: Macmillan.

Atkinson, A. M. (1987, Spring). A Comparison of Mothers' and
Providers' Preferences and Evaluations of Day Care
Center Services. Child and Yogth Care Quarterly. 16(1),
35-470

Auerswald, E. H. (1968). Interdisciplinary Versus Ecological
Approach. Family Process 2, 202-215.

Babbie, E. (1986). The practice of social research (4th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Belsky, J. & Steinberg, L. D. (1979). What Does Research
Teach Us About Day Care: A Follow-up Report. Children
Today, 8(4), 21-26.

Berger, E. H. (1987). Parents as partners in education (2nd
ed.). Columbus, Oh: Merrill.

Blank, H. (1985, May). Early Childhood and the Public
Schools: An Essential Partnership. Young Children, 52-
55.

Boorstein, M. F. (1990, November-December). The Location of
Preschool Facilities: Some Spatial and Social
Interactions. Journal of Geography, 239-252.

Brazelton, T. B. (1969). Infants and mothers: Differences in
development. New York: Dell.

Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1986). Developmentally appropriate
practice in early childhood programs servinqichildrep
from birth thrggqh age 8. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Broderick, C. & Smith, J. (1979). The General Systems
Approach to the Family. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I.

Nye & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about
the family (pp. 112-129). New York: The Free Press.

169

170

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward An Experimental Ecology of
Human Development. Americanggsycholo ist, 3;, 513-531.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of:human4gevelopment.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1985, May). The Three Worlds of
Childhood. Principal, 7—11.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the Family as a
Context for Human Development: Research Perspectives.

Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723-742.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological Systems Theory.
Apnals of Child Develo ment, g, 187-249.

Bundy, B. F. (1991, January). Fostering Communication
Between Parents and Preschools. Young Children, 12-17.

Caldwell, B. M. (1981). Day Care and the Schools. Theory
Into Practice, 29(2), 121-129.

Caldwell, B.M. (1984, March). What Is Quality Child Care?
Young Children, 3-8.

Caldwell, B. M. (1986, February). Day Care and the Public
Schools - Natural Allies, Natural Enemies. Educational

Leadership, 34-39.

Caldwell, B. M. (1989). A Comprehensive Model for
Integrating Child Care and Early Childhood Education.
In: F.O. Rust & L.R. Williams (Eds.), The care and
education of young children: Expanding contextsI
sharpening focus (pp. 68-78). New York: Teachers
College Press.

 

Carlson, N. A., Whiren, A. & Howe, D. (1980, Nov.) After
Kindergarten Day Care: A Challenge to the Community.
Young Children, 13-20.

Chavkin, N. F. (1989, September). Debunking the Myth About
Minority Parents. Educational Horizons, 119-123.

Cochran, M. & Brassard, J. A. (1979). Child Development and
Personal Social Networks. Child Development, fig, 601-
616.

Cohen, D. H. (1971, May). Continuity from Prekindergarten to
Kindergarten. Youn Children, 26(5), 282-286.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total
design method. New York: John Wiley.

171

Dittman, L. L. (1979, Summer). Continuity in Early Childhood

Experience. Vieypoints in Teaching and Learning, §§(3),
1-9 0

Dreikurs, R. & Soltz, V. (1964). Children: The challepge.
New York: Hawthorn.

Easing the transition from preschool to kindergarten: A
guide for eerly childhood teachers and administretore.

(no date). US Department of Human Services, Office of
Human Development Services, Administration for
Children, Youth and Families, Head Start Bureau.

 

 

Edelman, M. W. (1989). Economic Issues Related to Child Care
and Early Childhood Education. In F. O. Rust & L. R.
Williams (Eds. ). The care and education ofeyog_g

children: Expanding contextsI sharpening focus (pp. 6-
15). New York: Teachers College Press.

Elkind, D. (1986, May). Formal Education and Early Childhood
Education: An Essential Difference. Phi Delta Ka an,
631-636.

Elkind, D. & Lyke, N. (1975, September). Early Education &
Kindergarten: Competition or Cooperation? Young
Children, ;g(6), 393-399.

Espinosa, L. (1990, October). One School, One Program.
Thrust for Educational Leadership, 28-30.

Fromberg, D. P. (1989). Kindergarten: Current Circumstances
Affecting Curriculum. In F. O. Rust & L. R. Williams

(Eds.). The care and education of young children:

Expanding contexts, sharpening focus (pp. 56-67). New
York: Teachers College Press.

Fuller, M. L. (1989, Winter). Delayed Parenting:
Implications for Schools. Chilghood EdUcation, 75-77.

Futrell, M. H. (1987, March). Public Schools and Four-Year-
Olds: A Teacher's View. American Psychologist, g;(3),
251-253.

Galen, H. (1991, January). Increasing Parental Involvement
in Elementary School: The Nitty-Gritty of One
Successful Program. Youn Children, 18-22.

Galinsky, E. (1988, March). Parents and Teacher-Caregivers:
Sources of Tension, Sources of Support. Youn Children,
4-12 0

Galinsky, E. (1989, November). A Parent/Teacher Study:
Interesting Results. Youn Children, 2-3.

172

Galinsky, E. (1990, July). Why Are Some Parent/Teacher
Partnerships Clouded With Difficulties? Young Children,
2-3 8 38-39.

Galinsky, E. (1990, September). I Have Seen the Beginnings
of a Transformation in Attitudes. Young Children, 2,
76-77 0

Goodnow, J. (1988). Children, Families and Communities: Ways
of Viewing Their Relationships to Each Other. In, N.
Bolger, A. Caspi, G. Downey & M. Moorehouse (Eds.).

Persons in context: Developmental processes (pp. 50-
76). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gotts, E. E. & Purnell, R. F. (1986). Communication: Key to
Home-School Relations. In R.J. Griffore & R.P. Boger
(Eds.). Child rearing in the home and school (pp. 157-
200). New York: Plenum.

Greenberg, P. (1989, May). Parents as Partners in Young
Children's Development and Education: A New American
Fad? Why Does It Matter? Youn Children, 61-75.

Griffore, R.J. & Bubolz, M. (1986). Limits and Possibilities
of Family and School as Educators. In R.J. Griffore &

R.P. Boger (Eds.). Child rearin in the home and school
(pp. 61-104). New York: Plenum.

Grubb, W. N. & Lazerson, M. (1982). Broken promises: How
Americans fail their children. New York: Basic Books.

Hall, S. H. & Henderson, A. (1991, April). Uniting Schools
and Families. Educational Di est, 47-50.

Hays, W.L. (1963). Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.

Heath, S. B. & McLaughlin, M. w. (1987, April). A Child
Resource Policy: Moving Beyond Dependence on School and
Family. Phi Delta Ka an, 576-579.

Hendrick, J. (1984). The wholeychilg: Eerly education for
the eighties. St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby.

Herrera, J. F. & Wooden, S. L. (1988, September). Some
Thoughts About Effective Parent-School Communication.

Young Children, 78-80.

Hobbs, N. (1966). Helping Disturbed Children: Psychological
and Ecological Strategies. American Ps cholo ist, 2;,
1105-1115.

173

Hobbs, N. (1978). Families, Schools and Communities: An
Ecosystem for Children. Teachers College Recopg,‘13,

Hollister, D. (1986, Winter). Invest Now... Or Pay Later.
Principal, 11-13.

Honig, A. S. (1979). Parent involvement in early childhood
education. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Honig, A. S. (1986, Summer). Emerging Issues in Early
Childhood Education, Part 2. Day Care and Early
Education, 22-27.

Hostetler, L. (1991, January). Collaborating in Behalf of
Young Children. Youn Children, 2-3.

Hough, R. A. & Stevens, Jr., J. H. (1981, March). Social
Networks as Supports for Parenting. Youn Children, 50-
60.

Howes, C., Olenick, M. & Der-Kiureghian, T. (1987). After-
School Child Care in an Elementary School: Social
Development and Continuity and Complementarity of

Programs. Elementagy School Journal, 22(1), 93-103.

Hymes, J. L. (1980, November-December). Building Bridges for
Children. Childhood Education, 72-75.

Joffe, C. (1977). Friendly intruders: Childcare

professionals and family life. Berkley, CA: University
of California Press.

Johnston, M. S. (1982). Strategies for A Successful Parental
Involvement Program. In How to involve parents in early
childhood education (pp. 47-64). Provo, U: Brigham
Young University Press.

Kagan, S. L. (1988, January). Current Reforms in Early
Childhood Education: Are We Addressing the Issues?

Young Children, 27-32.

Kagan, S. L. (1989, October). Early Care and Education:
Beyond the Schoolhouse Door. Phi Delta Ka an, 107-112.

Kantor, D. & Lehr, W. (1975). Insideythe family. New York:
Harper & Row.

 

Kontos, S. Raikes, H. & Woods, A. (1983). Early Childhood
Staff Attitudes Toward Their Parent Clientele. Child

Care Quarterly, 22(1), 45-58.

174

Kontos, S. & Wells, W. (1986). Attitudes of Caregivers and
the Day Care Experiences of Families. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 2, 47-67.

Kostelnik, M. J., Stein, L. C., Whiren, A. P. & Soderman, A.

K. (1988). Guiding children's social development.
Cincinnati, 0: South-Western.

Lamson, P., Paul, J. 8 Armstrong, B. (1990, October).
Schools and Child Care. Three: for Educational

Leadership, 35-39.

Landecker, W. S. (1951, January). Types of Integration &
Their Measurement. American Journal of Sociolo
§§(4), 332-340.

Lazarus, W. & Ellwood, D. A. (1991, January). Children in
Crisis. Thrust for Educational Leadershi , 16-21.

Levin, D. E. & Klein, A. (1988, Spring). What Did You Do In
School Today? Using the School Environment to Foster
Communication Between Children & Parents. Day Care &

Early Education, 6-10.

Lewis, A. C. (1985, March). Will Uncle Sam Help Mind the
Children? Phi Delta Kappan, gg, 459-460.

Lightfoot, S. L. (1978) Worlds apart. New York: Basic Books.

Mager, G. M. (1980). Conditions Which Influence a Teacher in
Initiating Contacts With Parents. The Journal of
Educational Research, 12(5), 276-282.

Michigan education directory, 1991. Lansing, MI: Education
Directory Company.

Minuchin, P. (1987). Schools, Families 8 the Development_ of

Young Children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
245- 254.

Mitchell, A. & Modigliani, K. (1989, September). Young
Children in Public Schools? The "Only Ifs"
Reconsidered. Youn Children, 56-61.

Mitchell, A., Seligson, M. & Marx, F. (1989). Early

childhood programs and the public schools. Dover, MA:
Auburn House.

Morgan, E. L. (1989, January). Talking With Parents When
Concerns Come Up. Youn Children, 52-56.

Moynihan, D. P. (1989). Welfare Reform: Serving America's
Children. In F. O. Rust & L. R. Williams (Eds.). The

care and education of young children: Expanding

175

contexts, sharpening focus (pp.1-5). New York: Teachers
College Press.

Nall, S. W. (1982, November-December). Bridging the Gap:
Preschool to Kindergarten. Childhood Education, 107-
110.

O'Brien, 8. J. (1990, Annual Theme). The Potluck, Play and
Palaver are Gone: Or What Happened to Our Greatest
Resource - Families. Childhood Education, §§(5), 331-
332.

Pierce, J. P. (1972). Communication. Scientific American, 2,
31-410

Powell, D. R. (1979). Family-Environment Relations & Early
Childrearing: The Role of Social Networks &

Neighborhoods. Journal of Research & Development in
Education, i2, 1-11.

Power, T. J. (1985). Perceptions of Competence: How Parents
and Teachers View Each Other. Psychology in the
Schools, 22, 68-79.

Power, T. J. & Bartholomew, K. L. (1985). Getting Uncaught
in the Middle: A Case Study in Family-School System
Consultation. School Ps cholo Review, i1, 222-229.

Power, T. J. & Bartholomew, K. L. (1987). Family-School
Relationship Patterns: An Ecological Assessment. School

Psychology Review, i§(4), 498-512.

Programs for Young Children: State Policy Options (1987).
New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Research in Education.

Rich, D. (1986). Focus for Education Reform: Building the
Home-School Synergism. In, R.J. Griffore & R.P. Boger
(Eds.). Child rearingAin the home and school (pp. 201-
222). New York: Plenum.

Romer, B., Goodwin, W. L. & Goodwin, L. D. (1990,
September). First Impressions: One State's Response to
Early Childhood Issues. Young Children, 60-63.

Rowley, S. R. (1991, May). Do Early Childhood Programs
Belong in Elementary Schools? Principal, 29-31.

Rust, F. O. (1989, Spring). Early Childhood in Public
Education: Managing Change in a Changing Field.

Teachers College Record, 22(3), 452-464.

176

Schmitt, D. (1986, November). Parents and Schools as
Partners in Preschool Education. Educational
Leadershi , 40-41.

Schweinhart, L. J., Koshel, J. J. & Bridgman, A. (1987,
March). Policy Options for Preschool Programs. Phi

Delta Kappan, 524-529.

Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics fot the
behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Silvern, S. B. (1988, November). Continuity/Discontinuity
Between Home and Early Childhood Education
Environments. Elementary School Journal, 22, 147-159.

Smith, E. 8 London, C. B. G. (1981). A Union of School,
Community and Family. Urban Education, ig, 247-260.

Spodek, B. (Ed) (1986). Today's kindergarten: Exploring the

knowledge base, expanding the curriculum. New York:
Teachers College.

Stevenson, D. L. 8 Baker, D. P. (1987). The Family-School
Relation and the Child's School.Performance. Child
Development, i2, 1348-1357.

Strother, D. B. (1987, December). Preschool Children in the
Public Schools: Good Investment? Or Bad? Phi Delta
Kappan, 304-308.

Swick, K. J. (1979). Toward a Meaningful Family-School
Relationship. Clearin House, §;, 97-100.

Trachtman, R. (1991, April). Early Childhood Education and
Child Care: Issues of At-Risk Children and Families.
Urban Education, 25-42.

Trotter, R. J. (1987, December). Project Day-Care.
geychology Today, 32, & 34-38.

Tubbs, S. L. & Moss, 8. (1981). Interpersonal communication.
New York: Random House.

Waxler, T., Thompson, N. & Poblete, P. (1990, May-June).
Easing the Transition from Preschool to Kindergarten.

Children Today, 28-30.

White, B. L. (1975). The first three years of life. New
York: Avon.

Williams, L. R. (1989, Spring). New Visions, New Voices:
Future Directions in the Care and Education of Young
Children. Teachere College Recorg,,gg,(3), 474-

177

485.Wilson, M. (1991, May). Forging Partnerships with
Preschool Parents. Principal, 25-26.