Multiple Perspectives on the Quality of Early Childhood Programs
The quality of early childhood programs can be assessed in many
ways. Most of the literature on the subject examines quality by identifying
selected characteristics of the setting, equipment, and program as seen by
adults. Such an approach can be called ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY FROM A TOP-DOWN
PERSPECTIVE. Another way to assess the quality of a program is to take what
we might call A BOTTOM-UP PERSPECTIVE by attempting to determine how the program
is experienced by the children. A third strategy, which we could call AN OUTSIDE-INSIDE
PERSPECTIVE, is to assess how the program is experienced by the families it
serves. A fourth perspective is one from the inside, which considers how the
program is experienced by the staff responsible for it.
TOP-DOWN PERSPECTIVE ON QUALITY
The top-down perspective on quality typically takes into account
such program and setting characteristics as the ratio of adults to children;
the qualifications and stability of the staff; characteristics of adult-child
relationships; the quality and quantity of equipment and materials; the quality
and quantity of space per child; the number of toilets, fire safety provisions,
and so forth; health and hygiene procedures and standards; aspects of working
conditions for the staff, etc. There is substantial evidence to suggest that
these program and setting characteristics do predict some effects of an early
childhood program (Howes, et al., 1992).
BOTTOM-UP PERSPECTIVE ON QUALITY
It is reasonable to assume that the important ultimate effects
of a program depend primarily on how it is viewed from below. If it is true
that the child's experience of a program is the true determinant of the program's
effects, assessment of program quality requires answers to the central question:
What does it feel like to be a child in this environment? This approach makes
inferences about how each child would answer these questions:
- Do I usually feel welcome rather than captured?
- Do I feel that I belong or am I just one of the crowd?
- Do I usually feel accepted, understood, and protected, rather
than scolded or neglected, by the adults?
- Am I usually accepted rather than isolated or rejected by
the majority of my peers?
- Am I usually addressed seriously and respectfully, rather
than as someone who is "precious" or "cute"?
- Do I find most of the activities engaging, absorbing, and
challenging rather than just entertaining or exciting?
- Do I find most of the experiences meaningful, rather than
frivolous or boring?
- Do I find most of the experiences satisfying rather than frustrating
or confusing?
- Am I usually glad to be here, rather than eager to leave?
Each question implies a criterion of quality, stated in terms
of a continuum of desirability. When most answers are at the positive end of
the continuum, we can assume that the program's quality is worthy of the children.
The criteria of quality implied in the questions are based on an interpretation
of what is known about significant influences on children's long-term growth,
development, and learning.
The older the children served by a program, the longer the time
period required for reliable assessment of the quality of daily life as seen
from the bottom-up. In other words, a good quality program is one in which,
from the bottom-up perspective, experiences are intellectually and socially
engaging and satisfying on most days. Such a program is not dependent on drumming
up occasional exciting special events. Isolated events experienced in early
childhood programs are unlikely to affect long-term development. However, experiences
that may be benign or inconsequential if they are rare, but may be either harmful
or beneficial if they are frequent or repeated, must be addressed in assessments
of program quality (Katz, 1991).
Needless to say, there are many explanations for any answer to
the questions listed above, and a program should not automatically be faulted
for negative answers. (This is true for each set of questions contained in
this digest.) Some of the causes of children's subjective experiences cannot
be attributed solely to caregivers and teachers. This assumption concerning
the limits of staff accountability implies that all staff are qualified and
trained to employ the accepted practices, accumulated knowledge, and wisdom
of the profession. This assumption further implies that the profession has
indeed adopted a set of standards of practice. The field of early childhood
education has already taken important steps in the direction of establishing
consensus on standards of practice through the publication of professional
associations' position papers on major issues. The most comprehensive such
paper is that of the National Association for the Education of Young Children's
(NAEYC) DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICE IN EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS SERVING
CHILDREN FROM BIRTH THROUGH AGE 8 (Bredekamp, 1987). NAEYC has also issued
position statements on testing and curriculum content and assessment. NAEYC's
National Academy of Early Childhood Programs and its new National Institute
for Early Childhood Professional Development is working on establishing consensus
on professional standards of practice.
THE OUTSIDE-INSIDE PERSPECTIVE ON QUALITY
Ideally, the assessment of the quality of a program would take
into account characteristics of parent-teacher relationships, and particularly,
the answers of each parent and staff member to such questions as:
1. Are my relationships with parents or staff:
- primarily respectful, rather than patronizing or controlling?
- accepting, open, inclusive, and tolerant, rather than rejecting,
blaming, or prejudiced?
- marked by contacts that are ongoing and frequent, rather than
rare and distant?
2. Are my preferences for the goals and values for the children
treated with respect?
Parents are more likely to relate to their child's caregivers
and teachers in positive ways when they understand the complex nature of their
jobs, appreciate what they are trying to accomplish, and are aware of the conditions
under which they work.
THE INSIDE PERSPECTIVE ON QUALITY
The quality of an early childhood program as seen from the
inside includes three dimensions: colleague relationships, staff-parent relationships,
and relationships with the sponsoring agency.
COLLEAGUE RELATIONSHIPS. It is highly unlikely that an early
childhood program can be of high quality unless the staff relationships within
it are also of good quality. An assessment of this aspect of quality would
be based on how each member of the staff answered such questions as:
On the whole, are my relationships with colleagues:
- Supportive rather than contentious?
- Cooperative rather than competitive?
- Accepting rather than antagonistic or hostile?
- Trusting rather than suspicious?
- Respectful rather than controlling?
Good quality environments cannot be created for children unless
the environments are also good for the adults who work in them. Of course,
there may be some occasions when an environment has been "good" for the children
at the expense of the staff (e.g., birthday parties), and some times when the
reverse is the case; but on the average, a good quality program is one in which
children and adults find the quality of their lives together satisfying.
STAFF-PARENT RELATIONSHIPS. The criteria implied by the questions
for the outside-inside perspective can also be used to assess staff experience.
In a country like the U.S., with a highly mobile and diverse population, it
is unlikely that all the families served by a program are in total agreement
on its goals and methods: a situation that inevitably leads to some level of
parental dissatisfaction and parent-staff friction. The development of respectful
and supportive relations between staff and parents of diverse backgrounds requires
staff professionalism based on a combination of experience, training, education,
and personal values. Certainly parents are more likely to approach teachers
positively when teachers initiate respectful and accepting relationships.
STAFF-SPONSOR RELATIONSHIPS. One potential indirect influence
on the quality of a program is the nature of the relationships the staff members
have with those to whom they are responsible. It is reasonable to suggest that,
in principle, teachers and caregivers treat children very much the way they
themselves are treated by those they report to. (To be sure, some caregivers
and teachers rise above poor treatment and some fall below being well-treated.)
Assessment of quality from the inside perspective would come from the staff's
answers to the following questions:
1. Are working conditions adequate to encourage me to enhance
my knowledge, skills, and career commitment?
2. Am I usually treated with respect and understanding?
CONCLUSION
The approach to the assessment of quality proposed here raises
complex issues that suggest that the early childhood profession is obliged
to develop a set of standards of professional practice. Answers to the questions
posed for each perspective can also be used as a basis for decisions about
modifications to services offered to children and their families. Each of the
perspectives contributes in a different way to an overall assessment of program
quality. However, because not all responses can be attributed to characteristics
of a program, the early childhood profession must continue to work on developing
an accepted set of professional standards of practice to which practitioners
can fairly be held accountable. Any approach to the assessment of quality requires
not only a set of criteria to apply to each program, but some consensus on
the minimum standards for each criterion. A start has been made on the development
of consensus about appropriate practices. Further discussion of these matters
among practitioners, program sponsors and regulatory agencies, and the membership
associations is urgently needed.
Article References and More Information
|
