Fulfilling Multiple Missions Concurrently: An Ethnographic Study of a Campus Children’s Center’s Trials and Triumphs in Serving Six Populations By Corinna Dy-Liacco Calica B.A. (University of California Berkeley) 1990 M.A. (Pacific Oaks College) 2004 DISSERTATION Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership in the OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS Approved: ___________________________________ Perry Marker, PhD., Chair ___________________________________ Cassandra Hart, PhD _____________________________________ Paula Lane, PhD. Committee in Charge 2017
i
Corinna Dy-Liacco Calica 2017 Educational Leadership
Abstract This study is a comprehensive ethnographic investigation into how a campus children’s center and laboratory school site can simultaneously serve six major population groups (i.e., parents, college students, teachers, faculty, administrators, and researchers) while maintaining program operations. The study carefully examines the converging and competing interactions between the center’s multiple operating functions, its effect on population groups, and its effect on needs. Findings point to inherent roles, values, and service priorities of each population group, and how these roles, values, and priorities translate into center operations and school culture. Approaches to service translate into emerging themes for all population groups to focus on in order to achieve a more cohesive and collaborative servitude within groups in a single center site.
ii
Acknowledgments This dissertation is lovingly dedicated to my wonderful and extraordinary family. My honorable husband, Dr. Reuel Calica, who after 25 years of marriage, continues to unconditionally accept and support my driven personality, my passion for discovery, and my pursuit of lifetime learning. Without his fervent prayers for my professional and academic success, along with his patient disposition and calm demeanor, I would not have pursued, endured, persevered, and finished my long-term journey towards a doctoral degree in educational leadership. I also want to acknowledge my hardworking and content daughters, Claire, Aubrie and Lauren Calica, who without question or complaint, accepted much of their mother’s educational journey as family time simply to be spent reading and completing homework together, staying home on weekends, study breaks with home movies, and spending time at eclectic coffee shops together. I want to acknowledge the support of my patient and affirming parents, Mariano and Gertrudes Dy-Liacco, who agreed to move in and stay with my family at a crucial time when I was transitioning into a new position while finishing doctoral coursework. Because of my parents’ support, I felt at ease leaving to study or to attend dissertation sessions with our girls in their care. With much appreciation, I thank Dr. Perry Marker, who gladly accepted to be my Dissertation Chair. Dr. Marker proved to be a saving grace to my doctoral degree journey after my research was turned down by six other graduate professors. Even as he learned that I prefer to be a quiet and independent researcher, I appreciate that Dr. Marker always made me feel that he is on my side, and he sincerely desires for me to succeed. Furthermore, I also thank the support of my approving committee members, Dr. Cassandra Hart and Dr. Paula Lane, who welcomed my research with enthusiasm, although they knew I still needed to refine my work.
iii
Last but not in any way the least, I dedicate this research to none other than my God Almighty, my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Since 2009, my entire academic journey, from discovering the doctoral program, applying and getting accepted, adapting to work-life-school balance, commuting, and getting used to commuting and staying at hotels, completing my qualifying exam, taking a recess from graduate school, re-entering the program again, finding a welcoming Dissertation Chair, honing into a focused question, completing the detailed IRB process to undertaking the long-term research process, analyzing my transcripts, writing multiple drafts, burning the night oil, refining my drafts, and finishing my dissertation in its entirety, is blessed and carried by no other formidable and steadfast companion and friend who would encourage me to fulfill such a daunting task. With His loving guidance, I learned to persist and develop the grit I needed to persevere through years when I felt times of despair. With His comforting direction, I was able to grow confident and learn that I can finish the daunting academic race set before me, while I juggled my other important life roles as a faithful wife, supportive mother of growing tweens and teens, patient daughter of live-in aging parents, subservient minister’s wife, and a visionary director of a newly-opened campus child development center. Without my faithful God, dependable family, and supportive professors, this dissertation would be an impossible project. I am truly indebted to all the precious lives my educational path and dissertation research has touched and impacted. My academic journey truly tested the limits of my human capabilities and positively transformed my concepts of a fulfilled life. I am now grateful to have been a partaker in this life-changing roadmap of perennial learning.
iv
Table of Contents Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 9 Background ........................................................................................................................... 9 Problem Statement .............................................................................................................. 14 Significance of the Project .................................................................................................. 16 Support for the Study .......................................................................................................... 18 Limitations........................................................................................................................... 25 Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature ................................................................................. 28 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 28 Descriptive Framework that Organizes the Study ............................................................... 29 Historical Background of Campus Children’s Centers ....................................................... 32 The Tripartite Mission ......................................................................................................... 36 The dilemma of providing conventional training and state subsidized enrollment. .. 40 Challenges to academic identity and survival in higher education. ........................... 43 Varieties and Functions of Campus Children’s Centers ..................................................... 48 Center as a laboratory training program. ................................................................... 49 Center as a child care service. .................................................................................... 52 Center as a research facility. ...................................................................................... 53 Center as a professional development school. ........................................................... 56 Fulfilling the Tripartite Mission of Campus Children’s Centers ........................................ 58 Teaching children versus teaching adults .................................................................. 60 Training students versus parent educational resource ............................................... 62 Faculty work versus teaching staff responsibilitiesf .................................................. 64
v
Data collection site versus research training site ....................................................... 65 College general funding versus parent fee funding ................................................... 67 Responsibility to Provide the Highest Quality Programs .................................................... 70 Defining program quality components ...................................................................... 73 Different perspectives on program quality ................................................................ 76 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 77 Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 79 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 79 Sample Size and Materials .................................................................................................. 81 Procedures ........................................................................................................................... 81 The Setting: Host Institution ............................................................................................... 82 Research Participants .......................................................................................................... 87 Data Sources ........................................................................................................................ 87 Research Design .................................................................................................................. 88 Research Procedure ............................................................................................................. 91 Data Analysis Procedures .................................................................................................... 92 Limitations of the Study ...................................................................................................... 97 Chapter Four: Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 101 Data Sources ...................................................................................................................... 103 Roles and Characteristics of Participants .......................................................................... 103 The Interview Process ....................................................................................................... 110 Overview of Emerging Themes ........................................................................................ 114 Theme I: Solid and strong relationships are a must for a quality program .............. 114
vi
Theme II: All groups must learn to adjust ............................................................... 116 Theme III: Training and intentional practice of emerging teachers is crucial ........ 117 Theme IV: Broad community buy-in is key for institutional support ..................... 119 Theme V: Family enrollment is key to center operations ........................................ 121 Overview of Emerging Themes…………………………………………………………..128 Theme I…………………………………………………………………………….130 Theme II……………………….……………………………………….………..…134 Theme III……………………….………………………………………………….142 Theme IV………………………….……………………………………………….149 Theme V…………….……….……………………………………………………..156 How the Study Informs Our Professional Work with Multiple Populations .................... 159 Lab/practicum students ............................................................................................ 160 Children ................................................................................................................... 162 Administrators ......................................................................................................... 164 Teachers, assistants, and director ............................................................................. 165 Researchers .............................................................................................................. 168 Faculty ..................................................................................................................... 169 Parents ...................................................................................................................... 171 Chapter Five: Summary of Major Findings ................................................................................ 175 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 175 Discussion of Themes ....................................................................................................... 176 Theme I: Solid and strong relationships are a must for a quality program .............. 178 Theme II: All groups must learn to adjust ............................................................... 179
vii
Theme IV: Broad community buy-in is key for all groups ..................................... 180 Theme V: Family enrollment is key to center operations ........................................ 182 Implications for Further Study .......................................................................................... 185 References ................................................................................................................................... 189 Appendix A: Community College Permission to Conduct Research ......................................... 199 Appendix B: Recruitment Flyer .................................................................................................. 200 Appendix C: Permission to Take Part in a Human Research Study ........................................... 201 Appendix D: Interview Questions .............................................................................................. 206 Appendix E: Descriptions of Each Participant from Six Population Groups ............................. 209
viii
Chapter One Introduction Background As a newly hired program director for a brand new state-of-the-art community college child development program, I was given the privilege, latitude, and autonomy to establish and oversee the very first campus children’s center of a local community college. At its onset, the first campus children’s center was to reflect and implement the research-based educational philosophies and cutting-edge theories the current college’s Early Childhood Development department represented. Within its daily operations, I was to serve as the center’s key administrator. My state-of-the art children’s center was built to serve and collaborate with various learner populations, such as young children, community college students, child development majors, campus faculty, college administrators, and community constituents. My initial tasks were immense and plentiful: I was required to begin licensing the center with the state within a matter of months, to establish the standard operating procedures for the center, and to learn about, and adopt, center quality operations of similar community college campus centers nearby. With prior knowledge and lengthy experience in community college children’s programs, I thought I knew much about the intricate workings of how campus centers are run. Eight months into my center’s licensure and opening, I found myself in a standing-roomonly crowded conference chamber. In a controversial district board meeting, my center’s ongoing operation was at stake. The future of the program I was hired to oversee was to be determined at this crucial board meeting. Due to fiscal budget strains, our new college president made a hasty proposal to the board of trustees to shut down my campus center after only 8 months of operation. He held that a campus children’s center is primarily a public service to the
9
campus community. It serves chiefly to fill childcare needs of college students and necessitates the operation of an independent business. He contended that the college could not afford a campus children’s center at this time. In an effort to move the children’s center into a student service department, the president further actively sought out independent childcare contractors to outsource the use of our brandnew campus center; in a manner, similar to how campus cafeteria and college bookstores are managed. If outsourcing of the center did not take place immediately, the president proposed the existing child classrooms should be converted into regular adult classrooms for current adult student courses. In proposing the outsourcing of the center's operations, he placed minimal emphasis on the center’s teacher training and laboratory use under college’s academic division and Early Childhood Development department. Our faculty and center staff actively sought the help of all the local, county, and state early education agencies who had partnered with them in the past years. During the public forum session, each of the key early education agencies and stakeholders gave moving statements on the importance and need of an early education laboratory program for the TriValley community. After a lengthy open forum from the community, in a unanimous surprising district board vote, the board of trustees decided to keep my new campus children’s center open for campus operation. The board further decided to have the center remain governed by the college’s academic division and that the center be given enough lead-time to become fiscally sustainable. Consequently, the trustees directed my academic division to create a fiscally viable business plan for the center’s current and future growth and expansion. Within the next few months, the board of trustees also voted not to renew the college president’s hiring contract.
10
Soon after the decision to keep my center open, I was further directed to coordinate and establish a sustainable center business plan in collaboration with business faculty, early childhood faculty, center families, and community stakeholders. This business plan was to serve as a blueprint of fiscal accountability as the children’s center grew in enrollment and expanded in the upcoming 3 school years. After 4 months of collaborative meetings, a viable and comprehensive center business plan was completed, presented, and duly approved by the board of trustees. The district administration further commissioned my center teaching staff and early childhood faculty to embark on a semester-long time study; a project by which the center personnel were to document and determine the amount of time and resources the children’s center was being used as a laboratory training and research facility for college students in order to quantify its use for college’s Career Technical Education (CTE) funding to fiscally supplement student instruction at the center. The children’s center was to continually be utilized as a demonstration laboratory program to provide excellent education, training, skills, and support college students in obtaining lifelong child development careers in personally rewarding occupations. As an added benefit, student, staff, faculty, and community families could enroll their children in a quality early education program while they minded to their professional and educational pursuits. Faced with the recent tumultuous and demanding predicament at my workplace, along with my existing apprehensions regarding whether the administration would continue to support my center, I was driven to investigate the inner mechanisms of managing an up-and-coming children’s center and maintaining program quality under the academic administration. I decided to conduct in-depth research on a subject familiar to me. As my center fulfilled its functions
11
semester after semester, I realized that embarking on such vital research would benefit current child development research for professionals and education novices, who, like me, would ever imagine establishing and managing an academically self-sustaining and high quality children’s center in a college campus serving key campus populations. In spite of the district board’s decision to keep my campus center open, I embarked on this project to educate my own higher education community of the lifelong and substantial outcomes of their administrative decision to keep the children’s center running. My theoretical knowledge and practical work experience was duly tested by administrative forces beyond my control, inasmuch as I was driven to painstakingly examine how my own children’s center continues to operate with quality while serving multiple groups. Overwhelming components at work fiercely discouraged me, as well as motivated me, to begin doing research on how a single campus children’s center can fulfill serving multiple populations and still produce program efficiency. My professional goals for such a meaningful and professional research study were three-fold. For the child development field, my intent was to carefully clarify the unique challenges and outcomes of the multiple missions’ campus centers undertake under peaceful as well as precarious times. For the benefit of my own campus department and college administration, I would uncover and highlight the enduring college benefits of retaining and managing a quality onsite campus center to extend service to multiple campus populations. For my own profession, I would reveal to outsiders who wish to operate start-up children’s centers that the course involves the careful study, deep understanding, and intentional management of the vital roles and functions of campus children’s centers in a community college setting.
12
Such a recent demanding workplace crisis thrust a brand-new program director and strained graduate student, like me, to explore the very framework by which my own center exists and operates today. Moreover, I realized that the benefits of my study could better another campus children’s center in lasting ways as well. My research would enable community colleges to understand requisite administrative procedures and quality prioritizations for establishing, managing, and functioning their own children’s center at a similar specific time. It is vital to examine how a children’s center, serving as a demonstration school, a child study program, and a community service program, can justify its existence and significance for a college campus. It is crucial for our brand-new campus children’s center to discover the capacity to which a center serves the needs of children, families, college students, researchers and campus faculty with frequently converging values and/or competing priorities. In determining my center’s program efficiency in serving various interest groups, I have narrowed down my research’s variable to positive engagement: whether interactions between populations are deemed respectful, responsive, and reciprocal, within the operations of my center. Interest groups and stakeholders may direct and drive the daily maintenance of my center, yet it is the children’s experiences that bring meaningful life to the school. In a day and age when there exist uncertainties in the economic, political, academic, and social landscape of higher education, within the life of the campus center, the health, safety, wellbeing, and optimal learning of the child must be consistently given high quality attention and utmost care. After all, the children, being the primary consumers of the campus center’s multiple functions, undoubtedly have the highest stakes invested within the college system. If the child development laboratory school falls short of efficiently providing for its prime consumer, the children, then operations of its multiple functions to different service groups are ineffectual and
13
irrelevant. As the program director of a struggling start-up center, I strive hard to ensure that the triumphs and trials experienced by the campus center never alter what we professionals know is best for children’s learning in our care. After all is said and done, the child’s learning and development must be promoted and preserved notwithstanding. Problem Statement In light of my center’s quandary concerning the existence and function of my campus child development center, it seemed imperative to examine the rationale underlying running a campus center that serves various campus populations. Specifically, it was vital to examine how a children’s center, serving simultaneously as a demonstration school, a child study program, and a community service program, can adequately and exceptionally produce an efficient program. This research used a case study approach to explore a campus children’s center’s trials and triumphs in delivering program efficiency and quality while attending to the needs of the following populations: enrolled children, their families, college students, faculty, administrators, and researchers and professionals themselves. Among similar community college campus children’s centers, there exist disparities in the manner to which child development centers are administered and managed on a college campus. The need to manage diverse functions and operations of campus children’s centers is particularly due to the specific colleges’ jurisdiction, administration, funding sources, as well as political and social climate. The researcher believes a campus children’s center’s college climate, administration, and the population largely determine the center’s purpose, function, and quality conditions. The main inquiry was the impact on program efficiency when a children’s center attempts to serve multiple groups within its site. An interview-based design merits this specific
14
research due to the complexity of functions conducted and diversity of populations served within one multi-faceted site. A child development center within a community college itself is built to be service-oriented and function-intensive by nature, serving its immediate community and the campus community at large. The researcher also believes an overlap of needs are serviced as program efficiency within groups are examined. In researching the main inquiry, the goal was to disseminate comprehensive and useful information about how a children’s center’s functions with efficiency while serving major competing populations. The main research question explored and addressed by this particular study is “how does a single campus children’s center fulfill its mission and functions by serving six major populations?” The following supplemental questions were addressed as the data of each population were gathered and analyzed: How do population groups perceive the main purposes of the school? How, if any, is the center’s operations affected by serving multiple populations? These main and supplemental questions provided the impetus for recruitment, investigative queries, interview approach, and data collection in the research study. Early education researchers contend that authentic interpretations of all existing definitions of quality lie in a high-quality early care and education setting that supports a child’s optimal learning and development (Marshall, 2004). Furthermore, quality ratings can be characterized into two main frameworks: structural and process indicators (Marshall, 2004). In defining the vital program quality criteria, only the process quality indicators will be discussed in order to investigate existence program quality conditions while performing its designated purposes for a college.
15
Significance of the Project The research will benefit early childhood professionals by unearthing how program functions can be produced from a start-up children’s center with limited resources and lack of fiscal support. The study’s findings should be useful in their analysis of whether program efficiency features can be realistically implemented, prioritized, and promoted while serving six significant client populations. Findings will also enable the early childhood field to understand the effects of providing college students, enrolled children, families, administrators, and researchers’ needs simultaneously and appropriately. Findings will illuminate the degree (or lack thereof) of collaboration and cooperative work with key constituents (i.e., campus entities, department faculty, parent committee, public agencies, and community members) in efficiently operating and supporting start-up centers to serve multiple populations in the same campus. For early childhood academic departments, these research findings will serve to satisfy, deter, or authenticate the type of management and administrative practices that lead to the type of program function and productivity being implemented in campus centers. For college administration, new findings will illuminate and define priorities and purposes an affordable and well-run children’s center can implement. Administrative steps taken by the specified campus children’s center can serve as a surviving example or illustration of center experience from whence learning can be gained. Results in assisting populations may reveal practices that are highly beneficial, as well as, disadvantageous, under limited support. New learning from this study will also enlighten the child development field to explore avenues beyond the children’s center’s designated functions to the college campus. Campus children’s centers used as laboratory schools can further their functionality to their campus and revolutionize their use to the college by being a messenger of change to mainstream educational
16
and social policy. Not only can laboratory schools be used for student-specific research projects, but they can also be used to discover, anticipate, and determine research projects beneficial to a larger academic, research, and community population. The investigation sought to discover the extent of administrative oversight bearing on program operations. The researcher explored the degree to which program performance is prioritized and implemented based on the center documentations and fact-finding interviews. The benefits of exploring the effects of a community college district’s decision to keep its children’s center operating is valuable to current early childhood practitioners and to higher education institutions alike, especially when its decision affects center functions and program adaptability. The important data gathered from interviews, documentations, and additional feedback were thought to produce a comprehensive view of the center’s short and long-term current operations, and assist with the future direction of its training program to students, research opportunities to professionals, and service delivery to families. The lessons gained from this case study investigation should also prove to be advantageous and beneficial in the long run. To higher education institutions, there are vital elements useful to those institutions planning to operate similar children’s centers within their own campus jurisdiction. This ethnographic research helps to illustrate, define, and uncover to the field of child development the crucial, distinguishing and prevailing features, as well as detrimental elements, of a children’s center that attempts to provide training, research, and service to multiple populations. For higher education institutions, this investigative research can efficiently assist another similar community college in deciding whether campus children’s center’s purposes are achievable for a particular institution, its demographic population needs, its organization timeline, and its district’s educational master plan.
17
Support for the Study The literature regarding the functions of campus child centers is abundant. There are significant studies linked to specific research on laboratory school functions by individual and joint research studies (Barbour, Barbour, & Scully, 2006; Bowers, 2000; Branscomb & McBride, 2005; Elicker & Barbour, 2012; File, 2012; Keyes, 2000; Keyes & Boulton, 1995, 2007; Kyle, Campion, & Ogden, 1999; McBride, 2000, 2009; McBride & Baumgartner, 2003; McBride & Hicks, 1998; McMullen & Lash, 2012) and by the National Coalition for Campus Children’s Centers (NCCCC; 2012a, 2012b). Position papers by the California Community College Early Childhood Educators (CCCECE; 2009) and by the National Network of Child Care Resource and Referral Association (NACRRA; 2014) also contribute to the current research on child development centers’ purposes in higher education institutions. Early education experts (Elicker & Barbour, 2012) believe that laboratory schools situated in colleges and universities have a clear educational mission and aim to prepare early childhood teachers and to improve teaching in child development. Furthermore, they highlight the following strengths in lab schools (Elicker & Barbour, 2012): First, lab schools are equipped for observation; second, the facilities offer ideal spaces for focused research; and last, lab schools are largely based within academic departments, which naturally provide unique opportunities for faculty and early childhood professionals to collaborate, to study deeply and fully children’s early schooling experiences, as well as teaching and learning processes, and to extensively experiment with innovative approaches to teaching, learning, and working with families (Elicker & Barbour, 2012). Thus, campus-affiliated or higher education child development programs have begun to develop a three-part mission that continues to this day (Osborn, 1991): to serve as program sites
18
for professional development of the potential workforce in both child development and early childhood education, to serve as designated sites of research on diverse concepts for both child development and early childhood education, and to serve as carefully modeled programs for children and families, providing an example of leadership and advocacy for the early childhood field in state, local and national arenas (Barbour, 2003; Cutler et al., 2012; McBride, 2009; McBride et al., 2012). Higher education laboratory preschools are utilized in a scope of competencies (Clawson, 2003; McBride, 1996; Stremmel, Hill, & Fu, 2003). Generally, their primary purposes are to present an ideal teaching environment for post-secondary students in a teacher preparation program, provide students with application of hands-on experience working with children, and serve as an avenue for research which explores diverse educational, psychosocial, or child development matters (McBride, 1996). Early education experts believe such applied implementation of hands-on learning and project-based activities of potential teachers in a group care setting of real children is a standard for child development enthusiasts, who strictly believe that adult learners also learn by doing and experiencing, similar to how children learn. Hence, these multi-purpose programs have played a significant role in promoting a deeper clinical understanding early childhood education and child development (Barbour, 2003). Another vital function of lab preschools is to provide exemplary early childhood education programs for young children, but the particular emphasis in university settings is that lab schools also serve as field sites for students in programs of study dealing with children and families, such as child and family studies. In researching the effect of service to infants and families among competing priorities in university child care programs, early education experts, McMullen and Lash (2012) hold that an inference can be made that infant campus programs
19
provide the best early care and educational experience, research-based practices and environments, highly qualified professional early educators, and state-of-the-art learning materials, colleges and universities struggle to respond to the needs of multiple, and often competing stakeholders with budget constraints which are both within and beyond their control. Today’s lab preschools continue to fulfill combined functions and roles with the diverse population groups they serve. Furthermore, given these roles and functions, frequent evaluation of lab schools is especially suited as they aim to be of the highest quality and represent best practices in all aspects of effective teaching and learning. In redesigning a child development laboratory program to meet the changing needs of students, faculty, and parents, Knudsen Lindauer and Berghout Austin (1999, p. 64) noted that center administration’s definitions of the ‘why (to determine why changes need to be made and how changes will be implemented),’ the ‘who (to determine the major catalysts for change),’ and the ‘what’ and ‘how’ (to determine the actual change element and the means of the change process) need to be considered.“ In achieving such a framework, “extensive dialogue between main parties and extensive time and effort in restructuring laboratory elements need to ensue to produce a multi-faceted laboratory school (Knudsen Lindauer and Berghout Austin, p. 64).” More or less, extensive cooperation, collaboration and communication are dutifully required in order to create a fully functioning and thriving laboratory school that serves multiple populations. Child care quality early education researchers (Barbour et al., 2006; Blau, 2002; Campion, 1992; Cryer, 1999; Howes & Helburn, 1996; Katz, 1993; Marshall, 2004; Mocan, 1997; Vandell, 2004) have provided valuable research studies on quality programs. High quality early childhood programs reinforce and promote optimal learning and development for children. Unfortunately, by far, the quality of childcare services in the United States is found to be second
20
rate in comparison to the quality of care provided in other countries (Bergmann, 1996; Mocan, 1997; Whitebrook, Howes, & Phillips, 1990). Quality of care delivers a powerful impact on a child’s development and early education, outcomes for a family’s income, and bearing on a family’s self-reliance (Katz, 1993). It is of utmost significance to study early education quality due to three compelling reasons: (a) There are discrepancies in the current level of quality in early care and education, (b) there needs to be a high regard of the impact of welfare reform on the existing early care and education system, and (c) our community needs to expand its current definition of childcare quality to include all childcare settings, both formal and informal, licensed or unlicensed, etc. (Katz, 1993). Furthermore, before defining program quality in an assessment of an early childhood programs, there exist five perspectives on quality (Katz, 1993). Early experts have contended that the priorities and motivations of those who define quality will summarize the rationale of quality (Cryer, 1999). According to quality proponent Katz (1993), the “five perspectives of quality are the top-down perspective (i.e., directly observable features and constitute enforceable standards), the bottom-up perspective (i.e., quality of life experienced by each participating child on a daily basis), the outside-inside perspective (i.e., characteristics of parent-teacher relationships), the inside perspective (i.e., staff perceptions of quality colleague-staff & parent, and sponsoring agency relationships), and the outside perspective (i.e., perspectives of community and society-at-large that sponsor the program; (Katz, 1993, p. 7).” Different implications of program quality will emerge depending on the perspective taken on program quality. In spite of the differing implications of program quality and diverse responses indirectly attributed to the characteristics of a program, the early childhood field must continue to develop,
21
adopt, and apply an accepted set of academic and professional standards of practice for its own responsibility (Katz, 1993). Early education experts have further suggested there are four perspectives on the quality of child care (Katz, 1993): “(a) the perspective of researchers and professionals in the field, (b) the perspective of parents using child care, (c) the perspective of child care staff, and (d) the perspective of the children in child care (Ceglowski & Bacigalupa, 2002, p. 88).” Depending on which perspective is analyzed, the response to program quality slightly differs in priority. Also, although other perspectives deserve to be studied, in many research studies, the perspective of the researcher and professional is solely highlighted (Ceglowski & Bacigalupa, 2002, p. 88). In this research study, to the maximum extent possible, perspectives of program quality from diverse populations will be investigated, analyzed, and included in order to determine effect on center program efficiency. Other researchers (Marshall, 200) hold that childcare quality involves many dimensions, with both structural and process components. Basically, measures of childcare quality can be categorized as either structural or process indicators. Structural features of center quality inform process characteristics which create the ecological experiences children actually encounter in a group care setting (Cryer, 1999). Structural quality is such that it can be regulated and mandated to include child-teacher ratios, group size, and education and specialized training of teachers, providers, and/or directors. Structural elements of a childcare environment establish the framework and infrastructure for optimal process quality conditions to occur (Barbour, 2003). Process quality, on the other hand, refers to the involved nature of care that children experience in the early care setting, such as the warmth, nurture, sensitivity, and responsiveness of caregivers, the affective attitude of the setting, the tasks and projects available to children, the
22
developmental appropriateness of activities, and learning opportunities available to children (Marshall, 2003). Process quality also refers to the experiences children undergo in the childcare environment, such aspects as adult-child interactions, children’s engagement and involvement with learning materials, and ongoing parent-caregiver relationships, which are vital components that directly affect children’s behavior and learning experiences in the child’s early care and education context (Barbour, 2016). Moreover, process quality indicators consist of aspects in early childhood setting that children actually experience and undergo in group care (Cryer, 1999), such as the child’s interactions with peers, teachers, parents. A renowned early childhood expert, Lillian Katz, proposed the existence of yet another distinct feature of quality, namely global quality (Katz, 1993). Global quality entails holistic classroom practices and environment experiences that promote children’s growth and learning (Ceglowski & Bacigalupa, 2002; Katz, 1993). Global quality encourages children’s exploration into topics and themes attainable through the direct materials, activities, and equipment, and extends also to learning beyond the class’ current knowledge to include their sense of identity, security, diversity, orientation, resource, ethics, and interactions with fellow mankind (Cryer, 1999). Global process quality assessments are used to document the overall physical and learning quality of an early childhood program environment, as opposed to more specific and singular assessments of quality (Cryer, 1999). High-quality childcare was intellectually developed as involving supportive interactions with caregivers, positive interactions with peers, and responsive opportunities for responsive stimulating play, whereas poor quality care was developed as involving negative or punitive interactions with caregivers and peers, and haphazard roaming about within the setting (Vandell,
23
2004). The concept of process quality emerged to refer to the daily and routine experiences that children have with caregivers, peers, and materials (Vandell, 2004). Vandell (2004) found that “with respect to child care quality, both process quality (i.e., the experiences that children have with caregivers, peers, and materials) and structural features have been consistently found to predict children’s cognitive, language, and social development, even when extensive covariates are included in analyses, which alludes to some evidence that” the effects of childcare quality are larger in children who are at risk because of poverty, maternal depression, or poor parenting (Vandell, 2004, p. 407).” In other words, elements related with childcare quality are “small” or “moderate” (Cohen, 1988) by certain standards, but they may still be judged as meaningful or considerable when compared to the effects of poverty and parenting to a child’s life experience. Definitions of early childhood process quality include the foundational effects that are necessary for a child’s positive growth and optimal development, and are present in high quality early childhood programs (Cryer, 1999). Whatever the setting, whether it is a child care center, a family home daycare, or a campus children’s center, every child requires the same kind of basic elements for developmental success. Therefore, the following same program components of quality need to be addressed: safe care, with responsive adult supervision appropriate for children’s ages and abilities; safe and clean toys, equipment, and furnishings; and healthful care, where children have opportunities for activity, rest, learn self-help skills in cleanliness, and have their nutritional needs met (Cryer, 1999). Other elements include developmentally appropriate stimulation, in which a child can have choices for play and learning in a variety of areas (e.g., language, literacy, art expression, music, dramatic play, fine and gross motor skills, manipulatives, science, blocks, cooking experience), and positive interactions with adults, in
24
which children can trust, learn from, and enjoy the adults who care for and learn with them (Cryer, 1999). Positive and responsive adult interactions include creating an environment that fosters individual emotional expression, encourages a child to act securely and self-sufficiently, and encourages interactions and friendships with other children, with supportive teacher guidance supporting positive exchanges (Cryer, 1999). In this research study, the process quality of positive interactions is the main variable in exploring the program’s efficiency in serving six major populations in the campus children’s center (Elicker & Barbour, 2012). For process quality to be valid and reliable, there needs to be desired learning outcomes for children (Cryer, 1999). Positive desired results in children can be achieved over a period of time, with the consistent best practice of respectful, responsive, and reciprocal responses by early educators in their daily interactions with children. The two promising strengths of laboratory schools are their pivotal positioning as settings for the intensive and focused study of teaching and learning, and environments that are ideally suited for modification and mastery in the practice of early care and education (Elicker & Barbour, 2003). Given these unique features, in keeping with the strengths of lab schools, this proposed research will be undertaken at such an appropriate place of study, with a suitable means of investigation by an interview-based design. Moreover, the investigation allows prevailing effects of program quality while serving multiple competing populations to be closely examined, and the study provides implications to the larger field of early childhood development to help benefit the future progress of continual campus children’s value to its local community. Limitations This qualitative research has parameters, which limits its generalizability in the field study of campus children centers’ quality. Because the researcher plans on examining a specific
25
and particular campus center, specific criteria kept the research study restricted in scope. The ethnographic focus of the study forbids its generalizability to other similar campus centers as a whole. First of all, the sample size of the study was limited to the in-depth focus of operations of a single children’s center. A higher number of start-up campus children’s centers would yield a much broader and distinguishing perspective of diverse center quality that serves diverse populations. A larger sample size would yield more accurate findings on campus children’s centers. Multiple numbers of centers would also yield a more authentic and accurate picture of the research problem. Second, time frame of the study was limited. The gathering of documents, written documentation, and deliberate interviews were conducted in a sixteen-week semester and summer semester. Consequently, the researcher could only investigate a segment of program operations during the specific time period. This investigation therefore affords a glimpse, or snapshot, of a specific period in the center’s operational timetable, which may or may not reflect the accurate year-round scope and overall view of the program. Third, the data collection for the study was from a highly selected and predetermined group of people who had familiarity and knowledge of center operations, its history, and its establishment within a specific community college campus. The center yielded conference information from a selective number of center personnel, family participants, and college administration, all of whom were present from the onset of the operations at the center to the time of the study. Due to time and resource constraints, interviews and perspectives from other key sources, such as additional families, support staff, college students of other majors, and the
26
preschool children themselves were not included, which would have led to the gathering of more comprehensive research data. Finally, in examining program efficiency in early childhood centers, the definition of efficiency was limited to only process quality of positive interactions. The rationale was that program efficiency determined by appropriate interactions covers excellent quality elements directly experienced by the groups, and aspects of an early childhood setting directly experienced by children can have an influence on their wellbeing and developmental processes (PeisnerFeinberg & Burchinal, 1997; Whitebrook et al.,1990). Notably, outcome-determined quality (do early childhood programs work?) and standards-based quality (do they comply?) was not investigated (Phillips & Howes, 1987). However, structural and process quality features are conditions under which a center operates that can influence what children experience (Phillips & Howes, 1987), and the children’s experience with adults in the learning environment was deemed to be key to determining process quality.
27
Chapter Two Review of Related Literature Introduction The fascinating world of child development is hardly comprehensible and engaging to an individual impartial to child rearing or family studies. However, many an adult student can easily relate to the rigors of academic and higher education life. The novel idea of having an actual onsite school for children for the purposes of not only caring for children but also for training purposes, to increase knowledge and skill-building, has been spurred by early teacher education departments for preservice and practice teaching. In order to further understand the complex world of children’s centers serving multiple populations on a college or university campus, key areas of knowledge concerning their origin, mission, direction, maintenance, and challenges in host institutions need to be explored. This chapter will delve into the beginnings of laboratory schools on campus sites, their intended use for the higher education institution, and the trials and triumphs regarding their continual survival alongside higher education aims. Varieties of campus children’s centers will also be explored: centers used as lab training programs, centers used for research, centers used primarily for child care service, and centers that are transformed into professional development schools. Furthermore, current dilemmas in fulfilling children’s centers’ tripartite mission will be explored; these dilemmas include how a center is used for teaching children versus teaching adults, training students versus being used as a parent resource center, and how a center is used for faculty work versus its use as a primary training site for teaching staff. Other questions that warrant exploration include, how can a center be used as a data collection point versus a primary research innovation location, and what is entailed in a center being fully funded by the higher
28
education institution versus a being a center funded primarily through parent fee tuition? Moreover, because it is a natural extension of the host institution’s early education divisions, there is an academic obligation and responsibility for the children’s center to provide and manifest high quality early care and education. Early education experts have varying definitions of program quality characteristics in centers, as well as differing perspectives, and these will be explored. Lastly, with an emphasis on developing and reconfiguring purposes, the future vision and outlook for campus children’s centers is analyzed in order to keep up with the ever-changing landscape of research-based and cutting-edge child development study in the 21st century. Descriptive Framework that Organizes the Study The following chapters cover a wide range of topics relevant to the existence and operation of campus children’s centers from the beginning of the 19th century, when the notion of laboratory practice schools was first introduced, to the 21st century present day. This information is valuable and instrumental to the production of “a case study analysis but also assumes that data were collected by prior researchers concerning the subsequent topics in the first place” (Yin, 2009, p. 131). Having a distinct descriptive framework and initial review of literature helps organize the researcher’s question regarding topics of interest. In this case, the researcher found gaps in the literature. Namely, there is a dearth of literature that addresses the service of multiple populations, specifically, the trials and triumphs of serving six diverse population groups within one single department. However, the wide range of literature on campus children’s centers provides insights from which the researcher was able to draw on. The literature covers their historical background, difficulties fulfilling their tripartite mission, the dilemma of providing conventional training and subsidized enrollment for families, the challenges to academic identity and survival in higher education institutions, the varieties and
29
functions of campus children’s centers, the responsibility of providing the highest quality child care, and the future use and outlook of such centers in the 21st century. Such valuable topics spurred the researcher’s interest in conducting a case study to answer burning questions in researcher’s mind, prior to “designing the researcher’s data collection instruments” (Yin, 2009, p. 131). The topics at hand were primarily of great interest, and the researcher then explored methods to focus the service delivery of multiple populations for information gathering. Among the “three key theoretical frameworks that are used in educational research,” (Butin, 2010, p. 60), namely positivism, interpretivism, and critical theory, the researcher took on the theoretical perspective of an interprevist. In an “intrepretivism approach, reality is intersubjective; it is socially constructed and can be described and represented through diverse perspectives (Butin, 2010, p. 60).” “Truth is constructed where they key question is ‘What is the meaning?’ wherein the key goal is to search for patterns of meaning, and the key outcome is a story (Butin, 2010, p. 60).” In this case, the researcher sought information about the value of the center to different populations, and allowed the participants to share their stories. Per interpretivism, “the analysis is meaning-making, and the key criteria for participants and researchers is trustworthiness and authenticity (Butin, 2010, p. 60).” Measures were taken to allow for a confidential and transparent exchange of information. Per interpretivism, it is the researcher’s “responsibility to accurately and thoroughly document the perspectives being investigated (Butin, 2010, p. 60).” Thus, the researcher sought the viewpoints of key populations utilizing the campus children’s center, some populations more than others for clarification and follow-up. Additionally, given the number of participants’ perspectives, the researcher attempts to interpret reality based on the diverse perspectives of the participants.
30
Data gathered on participants’ perspectives in the current study were aimed to discover the extent to which a campus-affiliated child development program was able to fulfill the tripartite mission (Osborn, 1991): (a) to serve as program sites for professional development of personnel in both child development and early childhood education, (b) to serve as sites of research on various components for both child development and early childhood education, and (c) to serve as model programs for children and families, providing advocacy for the early childhood field in state, local and national arenas (Barbour, 2003; Cutler et al., 2012; McBride, 2009; McBride & Baumgartner, 2003; McBride et al., 2012). The “definition of these functions depends on the community, public education, and the college or university of which the university is a part (Ivins, 1942, p. 213).” The current study included the perceptions of six populations: parents, practicum or lab students, center teaching staff, faculty, administrators, and the researchers themselves. These participating groups can often complement each other and/or compete in their priorities and labors. The researcher had been well aware of the intricacies of such a multi-faceted study before launching this investigation. The study was originally approved for six populations, and it was conducted with the multifaceted approach in mind. Albeit including the six population user groups of the children’s center entailed gathering a substantial amount of data for the study, the researcher found compelling justification to pursue the goal of a comprehensive approach, rather than to focus on a few populations. In any given campus laboratory school in the United States, it is a known fact that such a campus children’s center would always serve multiple user groups who will access, interact, and work together in a cooperative, collaborative, or sometimes, contentious fashion. Unlike other college academic departments, the campus laboratory school by far serves the most diverse groups of participants within the confines of a higher education institution.
31
The researcher found it essentially difficult to scale down such an all-inclusive study. Therefore, the researcher decided on and developed data collection instruments wherein the convergence of population groups could be witnessed, observed, and documented. A large scale of data collection was planned and gathered to build an accurate picture of the service of the diverse populations at hand: a review of related archival documents, ongoing documentation, interviews with key participants of principle populations, follow-up interviews, and transcription of all records during the period of study. By gathering a massive scale of reports, documents, and transcripts, the researcher planned to draw a more accurate picture of the serviceability component of an actual campus children’s center. The early education profession or work force, the study of child lab schools, and the field of early childhood education as a whole, depend and benefit from the realistic findings of such a descriptive theoretical framework. Historical Background of Campus Children’s Centers Historically, campus centers have diverse beginnings. A campus center might start as an education department’s laboratory school, while another may begin as a community-based childcare program; yet another may originate as a student-parent cooperative. Some begin as student services and others initially serve only faculty and staff or the community. The recent trend, however, is to serve a mix of students, faculty/staff, and community: a collective mix of cost and quality profits (NCCCC, 2012b). With a collaborative mix of populations served, support of laboratory schools must also come from diverse sources. While it remains unclear concerning the date and location of the original laboratory school, it is evident that professional schools of educators recognized the value of providing facilities for guided, supervised student teaching, as well as the importance of utilizing and improving on approved educational models and methods (Lamb, 1962). Known as the “father of
32
laboratory schools” by child study proponents, John Dewey, established the pioneer program as a campus laboratory school in 1896 at the University of Chicago; then, in 1916, a parent cooperative center was established at the University of Chicago by faculty (Keyes & Boulton, 1995). In a manner, similar to other science disciplines, early education and early care, as a behavioral science discipline, requires a carefully modeled laboratory for students to practice teaching and learning skills, illustrate aptitude, and develop proficiency in demonstrating child development theory into daily practice (Lamb, 1962). “A distinctive feature of teacher education programs is the use of an actual school for children (Lamb, 1962, p. 107),” and early laboratory schools were called model schools, practice schools, demonstration schools, practice schools, and training schools; “later they were termed, laboratory schools, indicating the purposes for which the schools were established (Lamb, 1962, p. 107).” Most teacher education programs have always regarded laboratory experiences for students and demonstration teaching by professional teachers as effective elements of teaching and learning (Lamb, 1962). These student laboratory experiences were originally meant to “assign students for several hours per week to work with school personnel before they take their first professional education course” (Schwartz, Walter, & Aven, 1968, p. 116); doing so creates conditions under which students of education would be able to “acquire first hand experiences in school and relate their actual experiences in school to their professional courses” (Schwartz, Walter, & Aven, 1968, p. 116). Whether required for a community college associates’ program, a bachelor’s degree program, or a university’s graduate school program, a practicum supervised teaching experience is requisite training for developing research-based and uniform in-depth child development expertise.
33
At its onset in the 1920s, “European educators, for the most part, conceived the laboratory school as fulfilling its most important functions: it furnished places for prospective teachers to receive specific guidance and supervision from experienced teachers, and/or it provided ‘stages’ of currently approved methods and techniques of teaching could be illustrated (Lamb, 1962, p. 107).” Since its inception, little has changed in terms of the purposes and functions laboratory schools serve regarding the training component of teacher education programs. Today’s laboratory schools have additionally refined and enhanced their purposes and goals to serve the ever-growing and diverse needs in its host academic institutions. Universities have had child-care centers for decades, but those built 20 or 30 years ago had a focused purpose: They were designed originally as teaching laboratories for schools of education, and they offered child care to university employees and college students, as an extra feature, while other centers were established as parent cooperatives for undergraduates with young children (Wilson, 2005). Campus child care centers come in a variety of forms depending on their sponsorship, organization, operations, support systems, staff patterns, and educational and service elements (Keyes & Boulton, 1995). Programs can be instituted within schools or education departments; others are housed in home economics departments, while still others are situated within student or faculty services or within student family housing (Keyes & Boulton, 1995). Programs come in different schedule and license capacity configurations: full-day, partday, evening, or weekend schedules, or a mixture. Some serve infants, toddlers, preschoolers, school age children, or a mixture of these (Keyes & Boulton, 1995). The program may accept only children of students, or a combination of children of students, faculty, staff, and the local community, revealing higher education institutions can create their specific programs to meet particular community needs (Keyes & Boulton, 1995).
34
In the 1920s, campus-affiliated child development programs developed a three-part mission that continues today (Osborn, 1991): to serve as program sites for professional development of personnel in both child development and early childhood education, to serve as sites of research on various components for both child development and early childhood education, to serve as carefully modeled programs for children and families, and to provide leadership and advocacy for the early childhood field in state, local, and national arenas (Barbour, 2003; Cutler et al., 2012; McBride, 2009; McBride & Baumgartner, 2003; McBride et al., 2012). During the 1920s, centers provided an avenue for studying children, training preservice teachers, and educating parents, and because they were typically instituted by academic divisions, and were created to be part-day and full-day programs (Keyes & Boulton, 1995). During the 1930-1940s, laboratory nursery schools on campuses multiplied in number propelling universities and colleges to expand their educational facilities to provide training and skill building for the growing population of faculty and staff hired (Keyes & Boulton, 1995). In the 1930s, the concepts of Piaget, Bloom, Bruner, and Hunt were coming to light, and universities and colleges began groundbreaking programs primarily to assist low income children recovering from the Great Depression (Keyes & Boulton, 1995). From the 1960s to the 1970s, the increase in nontraditional students, enlightenment of women's issues, and growth of the campus revolutionary activities refocused the campus childcare mission; thus, a rise in the number of centers ensued (Keyes & Boulton, 1995). Centers began operating on a minimal budget, often with alternative and parent tuition funding rather than direct funding contribution from the college (Keyes & Boulton, 1995). Although the need for children’s centers was echoed by big and small campus communities far
35
and wide, lab school pioneers were essentially creating programs from scratch everywhere (Keyes & Boulton, 1995). Unlike other emerging disciplines, little coordination and collaboration were made between campuses concerning an educational master plan for campus children’s programs nationwide (Keyes & Boulton, 1995). In the 1980s, campus children’s centers identified specific campus needs related to their unique centers, and formed specified design changes per their specifications (Keyes & Boulton, 1995). Higher education laboratory preschools are utilized in pragmatic proportions (Clawson, 2003; McBride, 1996; Stremmel, Hill, & Fu, 2003). Generally, their purpose is to present an ideal teaching environment for students in a teacher preparation program, provide students with practical hands-on experience working with children, and serve as an outlet for research that examines early care and education issues (McBride, 1996). Practical implementation of handson learning and project-based activities of teacher candidates in a group care setting of real children is a model for child development proponents, who staunchly hold that adult learners also learn by doing, much like children learn. These lab school programs have played an essential role in promoting the understanding of early childhood education and child development as a social science discipline (Barbour, 2003). The Tripartite Mission In the 1940s, one of the first lab school proponents declared, “The laboratory school has three main functions; the education of children, the education of parents, and the education of teachers (in training and in service)” (Ivins, 1942, p. 213). Ivins believes “the definition of these functions depends on the community, public education, and the college or university, wherein to be definitive, it is necessary to have the answers to the following questions: “Is the school a community school? Is the relationship with the public schools reciprocal in nature? Is the
36
laboratory school an integral part of the college or university?” (Ivins, 1942, p. 213). At present, a campus children’s center is meant to fulfill a tripartite mission for the college: research (e.g., generating new knowledge about child development), education or training (e.g., preparing teachers, therapists, and other child and family clinicians), and service (e.g., disseminating evidence-based information about child development and childrearing to parents and general public) (Couchenour & Chrisman, 1989; Elicker & Barbour, 2012; McBride et al., 2012). In general, the training role serves to promote student teachers’ professional expertise. Preservice teachers are provided with opportunities to observe stages of development, demonstrations of model curricula, as well as to utilize cutting-edge early education material and equipment. Campus children centers also give them the opportunity to engage in research, such as developing and executing care studies and conducting interviews. The research role positions the center to serve as a site for data collection and for primary research projects, to serve as a demonstration site in which relevant research findings can be applied, and to produce knowledge of child development. Lastly, in the service role capacity, campus children’s centers provide child care or early childhood programs for young children, are used as a vehicle to educate families about child development, and are advocates for child and family issues. Finally, children’s centers serve as a liaison or referral source to other human service organizations and agencies. Fulfilling these distinct roles requires a careful collaboration and cooperation between the multiple user groups of its host institution. Lab schools fulfill these missions with different degrees of emphasis on research, training/education, and service (McBride et al., 2012). Similarly, laboratory schools facilitate research endeavors designed to provide education about how children grow, develop and learn (McBride et al., 2012). Laboratory schools also provide exemplary educational facilities for
37
young children while educating college students about child development, and they serve the early childhood professional community through preservice training, educational mentorships, agency memberships, and more (Wilcox-Herzog & McLaren, 2012). The functions surrounding educating students, modeling service, and conducting research is multidimensional, often overlapping, but also exist in their own pathways with specific needs and associates (File, 2012). In reality, researchers have consistently found that the labs are often successful in supporting the mission of educating and training, service, and research (File, 2012). Given their diverse roles and functions, ongoing assessment in higher education institution lab schools; these sites strive to be of the highest quality and represent best practices in all aspects of effective teaching and learning. Laboratory school proponents (Keyes, 1990,1991) have proposed that “by traditionally being leaders of change, academic institutions welcome early care and education as contributing to their missions, and discover ways of collaborating with businesses and neighborhoods, while providing support for families in their campuses and surrounding communities (Keyes, 1990, p. 25).” Furthermore, with intentional leadership, campus centers can support academic, research, and service missions, as well diversity aims, of its host institution (Keyes, 1990, 1991). In the past decades, centers that provide child care services to students and faculty have made a significant contribution to the wellbeing and security of the campus community, and they have provided laboratory experiences for students enrolled in teacher education studies (Burton & Boulton, 1991). However, in order to progress towards the future, campus child care programs must seek to embrace more fully all aspects of the traditional higher education mission, including the functions of research, teaching, and service to the broader academic community (Keyes & Cook, 1988). When a center is determined to serve its mission to families and its goals
38
to the host institution and community, the early childhood education field and discipline are strengthened. Furthermore, child development as a behavioral science is recognized as a viable and thriving social science discipline, much like psychology, sociology, and social science. Although the diversity between campus centers programs is varied, most of the programs share a commitment to support the three-part mission of laboratory schools: teaching, research, and outreach (Clawson, 2003). When the framework, functions, and features of a lab school are carefully combined, the elements of training, service, and research coincide, and all its populations benefit. The findings of an early study by West and Gadsden (1973) suggested that the integration of all the characteristics of a laboratory school and its faculty “produces a setting conducive to the acceptance and implementation of the new role of translation between theory and reality” (p. 413). How does a laboratory school accomplish the task of translation of theory into practice? West and Gadsden (1973) proposed such a task can be accomplished through several activities. First, by having lab school staff visit other campuses for data collection, identify current challenges and coordinate intellectual exchanges between lab school faculty and professors (West & Gadsden, 1973). It is also important to create collaborative meetings and projects between lab school faculty and other professors (West & Gadsden, 1973). It is also necessary to develop a faculty educational resource for potential partnerships and collaborations, as well as to determine the availability of faculty members to act primarily as best practices consultants (West & Gadsden, 1973). A lab school needs collaboration with specialized county coordinators, establish a year-round program, and create a forum between student body groups to share about vital results of research on the application of educational theory into the classroom
39
(West & Gadsden, 1973). Finally, it is important to collaborate with local public schools for experimentation and access retired faculty as experts (West & Gadsden, 1973). The dilemma of providing conventional training and state subsidized enrollment. In higher educational institutions in the United States, for the most part, having children on a college campus is commonplace, so long as the children’s presence are at appropriate places of inquiry, areas that are not high risk, and in locations where child development study takes place (Phillips, 2011). Unlike other countries, such as Australia, which require permission from guardians before bringing minors on a college campus (Phillips, 2011), the United States has a generally welcoming recognition and respect for children as individuals. Furthermore, in the study of early care and education, child development experts promote a profound respect for, and marked consciousness of, the value of the child as an individual, and the uniqueness of the developmental stage of childhood, albeit the concern for children is consigned to specific settings of society. Yet, the United States is less advanced in terms of its public policy affecting young children. Although recognition of childhood is significant in social science spheres, having campus children’s center on-site a college or university location has unfortunately brought little, if any, new contributions to the field of early childhood development (Hunter, 1970). Having an actual school for children on a college or university campus with the goals of teacher training, research, and service has become the primary rationale for sponsoring such a center in an arena of higher education. However, “in spite of leadership and progressive programs, laboratory schools have been singularly ineffective in influencing American education” accordingly (Hunter, 1970, p. 14) due to its uninventive education schools or departments, whose commonplace methods and findings shed little light on educational thought. Many education departments often relegate
40
their functions to the immediate, convenient, and comfortable methods of research without delving into innovative methods of inquiry. Additionally, recently, societal and economic changes have spurred refocusing of such instruction due to three major reasons (Bowers, 2000). First, “child development laboratory programs are increasingly costly to operate, particularly in the wake of private, for-profit child care available elsewhere in the community” (Bowers, 2000, p. 133). Child development laboratory programs are costly due to their small operation, “due in part to limited university housing, and an effort to keep such programs within university departments, e.g., staffed by departmental personnel” (Bowers, 2000, p. 133). Second, “early childhood education and child development are increasingly popular university majors, begging the question of whether large numbers of students can continue to be serviced by small laboratory programs” (Bowers, 2000, p. 133). Third, the onset of new digital technology “raises the question of whether hands-on methods are still the best and most cost-effective way to teach” (Bowers, 2000, p. 133). With new societal and economic changes, a shift in the priorities, progress, and production of child lab schools must meet the looming challenges ahead. When higher education budgets are tight, often smaller laboratory programs face cuts. Childcare has become “indispensable for two-thirds of two-working-parent families, and one-fifth of single-parent-working families” (Zaman, Amin, Momjian, & Lei, 2012, p. 140). Childcare advocates have declared that “childcare is a public right rather than an elite privilege, and that quality programs should therefore be available to parents at a reasonable cost” (Zaman et al., 2012, p. 139). Others have asserted that “childcare is a public good, and subsidies must then be defended as redistributing income” (Krashinsky, 1978, p. 363). Given the strategic location of centers in colleges and universities, the primary consumers of such centers can range
41
from “out-of-pocket” community families to faculty or staff families to financially strapped student parent populations. Hence, lab schools often become benefactors of major state subsidized contracts to enable college enrollment, encourage retention and persistence, and help serve the child care needs of low-income student parent population. However, with fiscal ties and accountability to the state government, campus children’s centers continue to be regarded as resource intensive programs with respect to their host institution. Providing reasonable costs for the public good is a daunting task, and one may argue that providing services for the universal good of all is a less than attainable goal. Because childcare is “highly labor and resource intensive, costs per child are determined largely by the average wage paid to the caregiver (Krashinsky, 1978, p. 363).” The differences in prices for various child care settings can be explained largely by differences in wage rates due in part to the unionization of the work force, in part to the cash nature of many babysitting arrangements, and partly due to the qualifications of workers in different parts of sectors (Krashinsky, 1978). Public involvement in childcare, however, “increases unionization, decreases tax evasion (in cash arrangements), increases political demands to upgrade political qualifications, and increases organization and supervision” (Krashinsky, 1978, p. 364). Hence, workers in this sector can be “more demanding and center operators less aggressive in cutting costs when they are being paid out of the public purse rather than being forced to compete for the limited dollars of working parents” (Krashinsky, 1978, p. 364). In an economic downturn, higher education institutions cautiously monitor resource intensive programs, and consequently, they hesitate to include costproducing programs in their current budget. Because child care is considered “a labor-intensive industry with little technological change, costs would tend to rise faster than other prices, and likely any program of public subsidy to childcare will have a tendency to drive up costs”
42
(Krashinsky, 1978, p. 364). There are valid justifications for public childcare subsidies; however, each societal sector needs to assess its need for public childcare subsidy, which is determined by its demographic supply and demand. Challenges to academic identity and survival in higher education. Lab school proponents (Schwartz, 1991) propose that establishing an identity within the college community requires a deep understanding of the key factors that constitute the campus children’s center, their internal relationship with the host institution, and acknowledgment of the other communities that play a role in the life of the children’s center (Schwartz, 1991). Sponsors, producers, and consumers are the communities that play an integral role in the center’s functioning and daily operations (Schwartz, 1991). Sponsors are the center’s benefactors and funders, producers are the teaching and support staff, while consumers are the center families, enrolled children, as well as college students undertaking teacher training or utilizing laboratory services. Moreover, the conditions for the sponsor-producer-consumer relationships with the center are identified as common geographic location, values and interests, history and task, wherein these elements make an important and bigger community impact on the daily operations of the center (Schwartz, 1991). Sponsors, producers, and consumers must navigate a web of coexistence to their maximum reward and benefit. To this day, campus centers have challenges with their identity and secure base, as they are typically isolated from the larger community (Keyes, 1990). Thus, the continual existence of campus children’s centers in terms of their funding, sponsorship, and staffing is an underlying dilemma in every higher education institution (Keyes, 1991). Obstacles with sponsors and consumers generally include the “threatening of closing centers, closing of one center, opening of another, dropped by one department and taken by another, center being overlooked altogether,
43
competition between programs on campus, rifts over funding, being ranked as a service, and inadequate facilities” (Keyes, 1991, p. 5). Much of the problems primarily stem from a low priority and low status placed by society for research on child development, child care, and early childhood education (McBride & Baumgartner, 2003). Some colleges struggle to offer childcare services on their campuses due to inadequate government and college funding, which make it challenging to pay salaries and operational costs, while other institutions struggle with university officials who do not consider childcare an important feature on their campuses (Greene, 1985). Furthermore, a great amount of resources (i.e., personnel, financial, and physical) are needed to sustain the training of students, research, observation, provide quality childcare, and conduct outreach efforts in the community (Branscomb & McBride, 2005). Hence, campus children’s centers are often deemed resource intensive by higher education communities. Campus children’s centers are regularly called on to justify their value to campus communities, particularly in times of fiscal downturn, and they may sometimes be influenced to compromise their values and philosophies and to make difficult choices rather than optimal ones that would serve their own and their populations’ welfare (Cutler et al., 2012). In light of decreasing academic resources and diminished state funding, campus-affiliated early childhood programs find it increasingly difficult to focus on and balance fulfilling their traditional threepart mission components (i.e., professional development, research, and service to children and families; Cassidy & Sanders, 2001; McBride, 2009). Lab school proponents note that in a climate of reduced contributions from their host affiliates, programs face real challenges to be models of high-quality, affordable, accessible early care and education in their communities (Keyes & Boulton, 1995; McMullen & Lash, 2012).
44
Many believe that although these programs should not be expected to make money, they must certainly be an integral part of the institution’s structure and be accountable to its institutional mission with a “top-down and bottom-up support from faculty, students, and especially administrators” (Keyes, 1990, p. 26). The type of funding or fiscal support, and the kind of administration a campus center receives, can serve as a stimulus to center daily programming operations. Amidst the distinct center functions, the majority of children’s centers fall under the auspices of one of two major administrative campus offices: academic services or student services. The program administration of the campus center has a significant impact on the focus, development, and delivery of curriculum, as well as professional development, to the classroom level. With the recent economic recession, enrollment in community colleges and universities have dramatically increased, and there is an impending need for more course offerings and student services to aid with educational attainment. During a gradual economic growth, campus children’s centers are in a pivotal position to serve the demand of student parent enrollment, with their supply of child enrollment slots. Centers are needed more than ever to meet the demands of a rising student population who seek educational attainment for better job opportunities. However, in spite of the current compulsion for campus center operations, lab school proponents have reported that child development laboratory schools face a number of challenges amidst the current economic and academic landscape: inherent diversity of lab settings, shrinking support base due to being resource intensive, and the need to identify a balance of service and academic activities within their programs (McBride et al., 2012). With the current nation and state’s subsidized child development programs experiencing continuous budget cuts and inevitable state funding loss yearly due to the ongoing economic
45
recession, many community colleges and universities that house campus children’s centers are faced with the insurmountable task of fulfilling teacher training and professional development, while providing quality early education services for young families. In January 17, 2014, President Obama signed the Omnibus Appropriations Bill into law, which invested an additional $1 billion into America’s early childhood education, asking Congress to make high-quality pre-K available to every 4-year old (Dreyfuss, 2014). Even with the current White House support for early education, there exist realistic and programmatic challenges in delivering preservice training and quality children’s program in an institution of higher education with limited resources. Faced with rising start-up costs, insurance problems, and dwindling resources, today's higher education administrators have instituted cut back measures that negatively affect many childcare/child development centers (Kyle, Campion, & Ogden, 1999). Early childhood education and childcare centers provide a safe and quality early education program for children of students, faculty, and even parents from the community. Early childhood advocates have maintained that programs fill a vital need by (a) allowing student parents who might otherwise unnecessarily suffer loss of educational opportunity to attend class, and (b) providing quality childcare, which is not presently adequate to meet the needs of mothers joining the workforce (Kyle, Campion, & Ogden, 1999). Colleges and universities, on the other hand, can readily provide the infrastructure, capability and foundation to provide such quality care and student teaching instruction. In order to advocate for early education and quality care in higher education institutions, experts have proposed strategies to strengthen the cause. According to lab school proponents, there are steps to be followed (McMillin, 1996): First, determine the level of need, and include
46
faculty, staff, students, and the local community in your determination. Second, bring together a group willing to lobby for change and investigate possibilities, specifically those who may gain benefit–families, development offices, administrators, and academic departments, such as education, psychology, sociology, disciplines whose curriculum is enhanced by a campus center (McMillin, 1996). Third, investigate the possibilities; while large universities are more likely to be able to afford to set up their own operations, smaller colleges can contract out child care services to a local provider (McMillin, 1996). Fourth, when exploring the possibility of contracting out services, consider both for-profit and not-for-profit agencies (e.g., Head Start, Early Head Start, and other early intervention providers; McMillin, 1996). Fifth, encourage key populations to continue as advocates even when their own needs have been met or their children age out (McMillin, 1996). Sixth, even if an institution cannot set up its own center, there are supportive ways to meet the childcare needs of its employees (e.g., pre-tax accounts for child care expenses, flexible benefits that include child care, and child care referral service; McMillin, 1996). There are many viable advocacy strategies to explore, and depending on the immediate community, certain approaches many be more doable than others. In prioritizing childcare resources for student services, a college president stated, “I realize those things lose money, but they are important to the very heart of what we are about” (Gumport, 2003, p. 52). In essence, while commitment to such resources does not add revenue, these campus childcare resources enable students to remain enrolled, and therefore, they improve student service and boost college enrollments (Gumport, 2003). Basically, the practical need for childcare transforms a morally compelling right into increased educational access and opportunity (Gumport, 2003), and this justification alone stands.
47
Varieties and Functions of Campus Children’s Centers Since the early 70s, the role and functions of campus children’s centers have evolved to include diverse populations, increasing demographics, a changing workforce, and an everincreasing inflation. Lab schools can span early childhood through secondary school, and they can now also be found in 2- and 4-year colleges, universities, and graduate schools of education. Among the varieties of campus childcare offered to student parents, three types of program functions exist: a childcare service only, laboratory school only, and those that are combined. A study was conducted in 1995 of 607 current and former members (1993 and 1994) of the NCCCC (2012a), and the survey was designed to determine the number of centers that described their function as childcare service only, laboratory school only, and those that are combined; another aim of the study was to determine the percent of centers in which formal research is conducted. The findings showed that on 2-year community college campuses, the focus of child care service only is 25%, while 11% of research is conducted in laboratory schools, and the majority (64%) combines the two functions (NCCCC, 2012a). The NCCCC (2012a) has proposed that the role and functions of campus childcare programs are shaped by the nature of societal and educational forces, as well as by college and university support. However, with college and university support, campus children’s centers can meet the challenges of providing quality childcare and early education due to their department expertise, administration, and governance (Keyes & Boulton, 1995). Moreover, campus child care programs serve as models for the community, as advocates for children, and as resources for other departments on campus; they exhibit models of theory and practice in both their training and service functions, where they can network, train upcoming child care providers, form
48
teamwork with families, and build alliances of support to children and families (Keyes & Boulton, 1995). Among higher education institutions, campus children’s centers can be overseen by college academic departments, such as early childhood development department, or by college student service divisions, such as campus bookstore and college cafeteria. In general, colleges whose centers fall under academic divisions have a working partnership with the college’s early childhood education departments and are hailed as practical representations of the department’s theoretical philosophies. On the other hand, colleges whose centers fall under student service divisions, are often operated by an independent childcare management housed on campus, are outsourced by using local child care contractors, or generally have limited, if any, working partnerships with the college’s early childhood department. Existing perspectives within the professional early childhood education community include a widespread perception that campus centers, with close collaboration and cooperation of faculty and administrators, develop a developmentally appropriate, theoretically sound, comprehensive, and constructivist curriculum that produces child-centered, hands-on learning. In addition, children’s background, ideas, and interests play an integral role in the development of such curriculum. Another perception is that campus centers that have little or limited collaboration and cooperation of faculty and administrators have difficulty in teaching and implementing best-practice curriculum. These latter centers tend to garner a more teacherdirected, skills-based, behavioral approach to classroom learning. Center as a laboratory training program. Campus children’s programs generally have an effective operational laboratory program, which educates teachers for the early care and education workforce. Therefore, teacher practicum components constitute a vital component of
49
the early childhood education (ECE) program. The campus center, “with its unique blend of foci on theory, research, and practice, as well as presence of master teachers, is designed specifically for the preparation of students” (Knudsen Lindauer & Berghout Austin, 1999, p. 59). It is imperative to the early childhood field that a preservice teacher have intentional opportunities to observe and experience a clear manifestation of the theory to practice component. A lab school offers students an opportunity to develop and master observations of children’s developmental ages and stages, and individual differences and interactions in children’s daily behavior in lab school settings (Landreth, 1964). Campus centers are suited to fulfill a vital role in articulating and manifesting a connection between theory, research, and practice (as well as service) in a group care setting for children. Over the years, campus centers have grown to be essential and vital educational donors of knowledge about theory and practice (Osborn, 1991). Knowledge generation is undoubtedly a key responsibility of many lab schools, specifically through a unique, vital, and required teaching and observation method in higher education settings (McBride et al., 2012). Similar to the lab component of biology, geology, or other science classes, students learn by participating, guided by skilled mentors and trainers (McBride et al., 2012). Hence, a child development laboratory school is similar to laboratories and practice sites for academic programs, such as biology, geology, and mathematics. Lab school proponents have determined in order to maintain an efficient student-teaching program, a clinical attitude of gathering and evaluating information is a must (Thomas, 1956). The campus laboratory school “must be involved with some kind of experimentation, but if the laboratory school is to provide opportunities for observation and participation by preservice teachers, the experimentation needs it carries on needs to be confined to those innovations which
50
can be tried out satisfactorily under these conditions (Thomas, 1956, p. 408).” Furthermore, the campus lab school must be intentional in the preparation and trainings of early childhood personnel, as settings for research in child development and education, and sites as a model of child development best practices at the local, state, and national arenas (McBride, 1996). Generally, campus centers and their corresponding academic departments are joint working partners in developing the experiences necessary for a comprehensive early childhood certificate or degree. Campus centers provide a diversity of educational opportunities for children and adults by designing programs that value high quality child care, as well as highly qualified teacher preparation and research (Townley & Zeece, 1991). It is a dual purpose of education enrichment for children and adults alike. In California, campus centers are responsible for supporting the mission of those departments throughout the state to provide career and technical education, as well as a lower division transfer path leading to baccalaureate degrees in the field. It is a given fact that the responsibility for the education and training of California’s early childhood workforce has resided with local community colleges. As a result, it is critical that these programs reflect a progressive pedagogy in order for student teachers are exposed to the best practices and cuttingedge research regarding sound early childhood education. The education they provide to college students is both preservice, as they begin their teaching careers, and in-service or professional development, for those already working in the field. Most of the students taking community college courses in early childhood education are already working in various capacities in the early childhood workforce at the time that they take teacher preparation courses, so pre-service and in-service intently merge (California Community College Early Childhood Educators, 2009). It is critical that these students return to their workplaces with a clear vision of what an ideal
51
program should look like and how it should function, since what they learn as a practicum student is then implemented in programs throughout the region (California Community College Early Childhood Educators, 2009). Additionally, when the California Department of Education issues new standards and guidelines, the faculty from local community colleges update courses and certificates to reflect these new ideas. However, it is frequently the lab schools that implement them first and help our communities understand what these cutting-edge practices look like in practice (California Community College Early Childhood Educators, 2009). Center as a child care service. The lab school’s services to the campus community are Indispensable and noteworthy (Miller, 1987). Without the cooperation of the larger community of parents using the lab school for services, a real school of children for training and research purposes would not be possible within the university and college campuses. The families with children enrolled in the center therefore constitute an important consumer and contributor to the lab school community. Families hold onto many valid reasons for enrolling their children in a university or community college lab, such as convenience of the location, affinity with the educational philosophy, and the notion that it provides the best early care education in their child’s best interest (File, 2012). Parents’ perspectives shed light on the usage, representation, and demographics of the lab school population. Researchers have determined three major factors influencing the choice of enrolling a child in a lab school by parents; namely, the educational expertise of the school, its small ratio and size, and highly qualified teachers (Erickson, Gray, Wesley, & Dunagan, 2012). To this present day, the major reasons for parent selection for lab school enrollment by and large mirror these elements. Among other pertinent reasons for selecting a laboratory school for their children are the following: “one’s ability to take college classes in high school labs, high quality
52
administrators, level of parent involvement, included as part of the university college of education, the presence of a gifted program, friends attend the lab school and like it, the ability to have siblings together, lab school tuition is more reasonable than private school, the presence of sports programs, a parent is faculty member at university, provision for a special education program, and the extended care works for the family” (Erickson et al., 2012, p. 6). Research has discovered further pertinent reasons parents find the campus laboratory school to be a viable place for their children. Parents view campus centers to be the best place for their children because there is a real mixture of children of different nationalities and ethnic and racial backgrounds (Keyes & Boulton, 1995). In addition, the staff at these onsite campus centers are viewed as being sensitive to the unique concerns and specific pressures of a student parent, such as convenience, reliability, safety and security, and the centers’ giving emphasis of priority to children of single parents, especially students who reside in campus family housing (Keyes & Boulton, 1995). Center as a research facility. Harold E. Jones Child Study Center is a multi-faceted child development laboratory school, which serves multiple population groups in a viable learning environment; it became a forefront for premier child development research, training, and service facility for the University of California at Berkeley in the 1960s. Catherine Landreth (1964), lab school pioneer and proponent of this first university children’s program, articulated the value that a child development laboratory school can bring to an institute of higher education: The scientific and human value of child laboratories on university campuses made them an academic teaching ability, a research facility, and a school for young children. That such a laboratory could be used for so many purposes results not infrequently in its being of little value for any purpose. . . . .The need for longitudinal experimental study of the effectiveness of educational programs and processes for young children suggests a use for a university child laboratory which could have both human and scientific value. (Landreth, 1964, p. 989).
53
With thriving opportunities for university lab-conducted research to make a contribution to the field, researchers have observed that the group care settings within preschool-age children spend their time are crucial environments for the children’s development, and there is research to gain about how these contexts can support young children (Rimm-Kaufman & Ponitz, 2009). University labs can provide learning sites in which in-depth study of a child’s learning in such an environment develops (Rimm-Kaufman & Ponitz, 2009). However, promoting this type of research can push changes in the research method, wherein a “comprehensive campus child care can dutifully provide a rich environment for a wide range of research opportunities by encouraging studies that seek answers to both basic and applied questions through the use of both qualitative and quantitative research in such areas as child development, parenting, teacher education techniques, child care management, and early childhood education. The use of lab school can definitely be extended much further than its present utility (Townley & Zeece, 1991, p. 20).” Lab schools can duly focus on the research purposes by the following advocacy activities (McBride, 1996). Lab schools “can make their programs and facilities attractive to researchers, both from within and outside the sponsoring unit, involve staff members in the research process, ensure that there is a standardized research process in lab programs for young children, and finally, lab school directors need to develop and implement outreach efforts to inform the campus community the types of research opportunities available at the lab programs (McBride, 1996, p. 20-21).” By emphasizing research aspect in their programs, creating an obvious connection between staff training and undergraduate education, staff intentionally share their expertise in sound child development pedagogy to practicum students, “campus lab schools can develop stronger justifications for their continued existence during times of economic challenges on campus (McBride, 1996, p. 21).” 54
In distinguishing research roles between community college and university campus lab schools, lab school proponents (Harms & Tracy, 2006) have argued that “despite the number of excellent early childhood demonstration programs in community colleges, the university campus lab schools still have four vital leadership roles: developing, demonstrating, and explaining the rationale of innovative practice; preparing leaders through graduate program work, as well as undergraduate education and work experience; conducting research in early childhood, child development, and related fields; and providing community service through teacher training and public advocacy (Harms & Tracy, 2006, p. 91).” Furthermore, university lab schools can make available educational opportunities by extending the professional knowledge of community college faculty who currently provide most early childhood teacher preparation (Harms & Tracy, 2006, p.). The university lab school is also “equipped to conduct field research in its own facility and in collaboration with preschools in a wider community; in these capacities, it is able to nurture leadership and inform and guide educational policy decisions at local, state, federal and international levels (Harms & Tracy, 2006, p. 92).” The child development laboratory school “must not only serve as a demonstration and training site and induct preservice teachers into the stability of teaching and learning practices already accepted by the profession, but it must also become a progressive center for inquiry and critical thinking, a necessary component of educational design that produces new theory (Hunter, 1970, p. 14).” By doing so, it must effectively translate theory into practice, propagate the knowledge and practice into current education issues, and early education leaders must emerge from such settings (Hunter, 1970). McBride illustrates the impending need for lab schools to produce early education leaders of tomorrow (McBride, 1996, p. 20): “Lab program directors should have expectations for staff members to be involved in a variety of leadership activities. These activities include conducting 55
workshops at conferences for early childhood educators, writing articles for newsletters and journals aimed at early childhood teachers, providing leadership for local early childhood programs and groups (e.g., boards of directors, officers), providing service for local early childhood programs (e.g., consulting, technical assistance), and providing professional service for the earl childhood field (e.g., validators for the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs of NAEYC, CDA advisors). It is through activities such as these that the collective expertise of CD lab staff members can be shared with the local, state, and national early childhood communities. These efforts will also allow CD lab pro- grams to be looked upon as experts in the field, and will extend their range of influence beyond the classroom walls. In order to encourage these kinds of activities CD lab directors must implement a variety of functions which can facilitate their development (e.g., release time and funds for travel, feedback mechanisms to help staff members develop skills, mentoring/support systems among staff members, appropriate rewards/recognition for professional leadership activities; McBride, 1996, p. 20).”
To further their roles, educational leaders must embrace an obligation to evolve in reflecting “research, experimentation, and inquiry into basic and applied knowledge in education (Hunter, 1970, p. 14).” A lab school with a renewed research agenda will have the following components: First, there exists “research, experimentation, and inquiry into the phenomena of education (Hunter, 1970, p. 14).” Second, the “dissemination of results of such activities to the academic community takes place (Hunter, 1970, p. 14).” Third, there is “an intentional development of leaders in clinical practice (Hunter, 1970, p. 14).” Last, the “practice of demonstration, observation, and projects related to first three functions occur cooperatively (Hunter, 1970, p. 14).” The lab schools function as a research program not only gives academic respect and educational credibility to its constituents, but also elevates it personnel to onsite campus experts in the area of early care and education, child rearing, child assessment techniques, and sound child development pedagogy. Center as a professional development school. Laboratory schools are also deemed as organic professional development schools by nature (Cassidy & Sanders, 2001; Smith, 1991).
56
Consequently, these schools serve “not only as settings for demonstrating best practice, but they also engage faculty, classroom teachers (caregivers), and college students in a partnership to affect public and private education policy for both children and teachers alike (Barbour & Bersani, 1991, p. 44; Clift & Say, 1988; Cook, 1984).” In fact, child development laboratory schools are today being referred to as professional development centers by current community college early childhood educators in order to raise their credibility, value, and societal image; thus, combat the low status stigma of the profession (California Community College Early Childhood Educators, 2009). As such, campus lab schools are widely known as effective spaces where experimentation produce rational and affectional transformation in children (Berlinger, 1985). The professional development school model “introduces a challenge to establish shared agendas, engage in collaborative research, involve the classroom teacher in developing the professional preparation curriculum, and create new roles for teachers (Barbour & Bersani, 1991, p. 44).” In this professional development school model, close collaboration and innovation from within the teaching staff, faculty, and college students need to regularly take place as an intentional daily practice, as well as a mission approach (Barbour & Bersani, 1991). A comprehensive professional development school model of early childhood education can be achieved; it can serve as a model of practice for before service and in-service of early childhood educators (Barbour & Bersani, 1991). For a professional development school to be birthed, there must be the following factors present: “A clear administrative commitment from an academic unit including financial support for professional development school projects and leadership for the effort at both center and college level, a framework for collaborative decision-making that contributes to shared ownership and common goals, a physical facility that provides access for students, researchers, and faculty to observe, instruct, and conduct on-site research, clear policies guiding professional preparation and research, and a plan for linking the child care center with the larger child care and family service community for the purpose of enhancing
57
diversity, securing resources, and disseminating information. (Barbour & Bersani, 1991, p. 46).”
Key to establishing a pure professional development approach is having in place administrative commitment for support, collaborative constituent decision-making, carefully modeled observation sites, coherent research initiatives, and “a strategic master plan for disseminating findings into influencing public policy and best practice (Barbour & Bersani, 1991, p. 46).” As campuses fulfill their three-part mission of training, research, and service, child development centers need to look beyond the expectations of their current roles and functions. Educational reforms push the establishment of professional development schools to be under the auspices of colleges of education (Barbour & Bersani, 1991). In a professional development school, “faculty and teachers engage and build a collaborative team dedicated not only to professional preparation, but also to the generation of new knowledge about how children learn and develop and how to facilitate optimal educational experiences for both children and students alike (Barbour & Bersani, 1991. P. 48-49).” A true professional development school inherently has educational advancement in mind. Fulfilling the Tripartite Mission of Campus Children’s Centers Key early education and lab school experts (e.g., Barbour, 1990; Keyes, 1990; McBride 1995) possess extensive research concerning laboratory schools and have proposed the three-part mission that serves as a guideline for many programs that work as benchmarks to the services and activities they provide. This tripartite mission prompts child development lab programs to accomplish the following functions: First, to serve as a site for training of upcoming workforce in child development and early childhood education; second, to serve as a site for research on aspects related to child development and early childhood education; and third, to serve as a
58
model program for the local, state, and national early childhood communities (McBride & Baumgartner, 2003). With administrative oversight on the degree of emphasis and implementation of roles, host institutions have a key role in defining and determining the purpose and direction of their campus centers. The vital tripartite mission of training, research, and service is at the heart of child development laboratory schools in colleges and universities. In carrying out its mission, campus childcare centers may “differ in such aspects as sponsorship, organization, operations, support systems, staff patterns, educational service features, and users (Keyes, 1990, p. 26).” With varied adult learning needs, distinct academic missions, and differing institutional focus, each child development laboratory school is designed to meet the growing needs of its distinct campus population. However, the unique diversity of operations in today’s child development laboratory schools can also be a hindrance to standardization of management of across all sites. The significant individualization of each lab school site to serve its particular academic needs, specific demographics, and higher education aims is evidently responsive, respectful and reciprocal to its particular community and constituents, yet proves a challenge for lawmakers to regulate and require uniform standards of operation across the board.
Lab school proponents, on the other hand, have clearly understood the overall framework, and designated identifiable structures within which each lab school is administered. For many lab schools, there are given significant components to its multifaceted administration. Undoubtedly, children and their families are the primary consumers of the laboratory setting; but depending on the center’s configuration, both the college and academic divisions may also appear as consumers through its assistance (Schwartz, 1991). The enrollment of student parent’s children prompts college enrollment; thus, the enrollment of college faculty’s children engenders 59
enlistment plus higher education retention of staff (Schwartz, 1991). Consequently, the existence of the centers would be impossible without the consumers (Schwartz, 1991). In serving student families’ learning support needs, dual generations of learners, the children and their families, benefit from the campus children’s center multiple roles. Researchers have noted that when consumers (i.e., children and their families) have different agendas emanating from competing populations, this discontinuity forces the producers (i.e., teachers, support staff, and faculty) to make difficult choices, which unfortunately become a natural selection problem for lab schools (Schwartz, 1991). The primary interest that draws all populations together in a lab school is the children, although children are not considered “active power brokers in a multiple mission analysis” (Schwartz, 1991, p. 14). The parents and families collectively desire a safe, secure and trustworthy group care setting for their children while they pursue their family’s livelihood. At the onset, “common values and expectations for the nature of the children’s experiences are not necessarily a part of the initial multiple mission relationship,” although they have to be “negotiated in the process of establishing a center’s identity (Schwartz, 1991, p. 14).” The quality of the children’s experiences and families’ satisfaction play a major role in the center’s primary consumer community. With progressive developments in child development research, multiple user groups are interested and invested in the children’s readiness for elementary school entrance. School readiness in young children is unique and developmental to each child. In order to determine a child’s school readiness, centers may involve the local community and its constituents towards the goals of helping the child with teaching and learning success (Powell, 2010). As a local academic and research expert in child development, campus centers are called to advocate in the best interest of children, swap opposition for cooperation, and teach the local community about
60
the unique needs, stages, and optimal development of children (Powell, 2010). Consequently, involving parents, children, and community in collaborative planning for the good of children is vital, and empowers the community-at-large to develop like-minded camaraderie (Powell, 2010). In a significant address, George Ivins (1942), a laboratory proponent, advocated to prioritize learner-centered education and instructs lab schools to inform all adults with the study of children: “The laboratory school has the possibility of presenting a picture of human development and manages in one setting. The difference is in the appearance and the ability; a picture of teachers in action, and their relationships with children; a picture of children’s relationships and their contemporaries; a picture of materials and equipment; a picture of methods and the employment of materials. (p. 214).” Lab school proponents and early child study pioneers proposed “the first and most important function of such schools is the demonstration of superior classroom management and teaching,” wherein “college instructors with their classes and students in practice begin their work with limited participation and gradually develop skills until the students can begin to assume full responsibility in the program (Wagenhorst, 1946, p. 272).” It is in the successful training of preservice students, parents, faculty and teaching staff that desired academic results and professional outcomes can mirror the aims and mission of a higher education institution. Lab school proponent, Carol Keyes (1990), detailed how campus centers have been able to support institutions of higher education and their specific missions. Keyes believes “in institutions, departments, or university teaching, centers can be used for supervised observation, supervised student and curriculum participation, and teacher training;” they “can support coursework in special education, psychology, speech, audiology, counselor education, elementary education, home economics, nursing, nosiness, pediatrics, theology, and architecture, and can serve the community as demonstration centers for in-service training, problem
61
identification and intervention, preschool education, parent education, and parent counseling (Keyes, 1990, p. 28).” It is imperative that host institutions focus and give regard to the complex yet multi-service functions campus centers already naturally accomplish and conduct. Training students versus parent educational resource. Traditionally, a student teaching laboratory assigns preservice students to a prescribed number of lab hours with center staff at lab schools prior to beginning their first course with schools of education (Schwartz et al., 1968). Faculty hope to gain learning outcomes wherein preservice students relate their actual experience to the course content and pedagogy (Schwartz et al., 1968). These first-hand experiences for students prior to beginning professional courses is standard practice (Schwartz et al., 1968). Furthermore, students have the opportunity to learn alongside along with master teachers while gaining valuable work experience skills (Bowers, 2000; Honig, 1996; Muldoon, 1984). Generally, in establishing a campus center, managers, and contractors ensure that the lab school facility will not only be physically designed as a childcare center but will also meet teaching and research needs (Branscomb & McBride, 2005). By situating the lab school in an easily accessible and convenient campus location to be fully utilized by college classes, students, and researchers, the center can be conveniently used by many students and educators (Branscomb & McBride, 2005). Also, for the lab school to be competitive with the local community market value, there needs to be a reliable and valid distinction between full-cost tuition service for families and funding specifically designed for the teaching and research functions of the program (Branscomb & McBride, 2005). Without early care and education support, many potential student parents are unable to enroll in, persist, and graduate from college. In response to an overwhelming need for student
62
parent early care, there needs to be a solid obligation to provide for such services with an intentional commitment to gain enrollment, persist in exemplary service, and develop outreach and access for at-risk and underrepresented student parents (Gumport, 2003). Due to demand, over the past few years, child development research has multiplied its efforts to advocate for children, parents and their diverse needs. The current demands of user groups, however, deter “lab school facilities for adult use and education, such as using the center as a place for community meetings, a place for recreation,” and a place for parents’ personal enrichment or professional development (Ivins, 1942, p. 216). Additionally, current compelling needs have delineated the use “parent participation in curriculum building, of parents participating as instructors, of the use of the parent’s factories, offices, stores, and places of industry as centers of learning (Ivins, 1942, p. 216-217).” Notwithstanding, the cooperation and collaboration with families are key to bring meaning and cohesive relationships to the entire academic community. With the assistance of lab school personnel, it is vital that “parents must define the role of the school for themselves, and the laboratory has an obligation to develop approaches for an improved relationship between participating parents and school (Ivins, 1942, p. 217).” The child development laboratory school must become a community of children, families, researchers, faculty, and teaching staff with the cooperative goal of fulfilling an optimal learning environment where a child can thrive holistically. Developing a relationship with the child in the context of the family unit is critical. A lab school’s family-centeredness is considered a highly recommended or “best” practice for a child’s own optimal health, safety, security, growth and development (McMullen & Lash, 2012). Family-centered values defines family members as their child’s own experts in the child’s needs and outcomes for early care and education in partnership with their child’s primary caregiver or teacher (Gonzalez-Mena, 2008; Keyser,
63
2000). Whenever permissible, a center which reasonably adapts, adjusts, and accommodates a family’s needs to the life of the lab school can be a valuable learning experience for the campus community. Faculty work versus teaching staff responsibilities. Campus lab schools encounter the frequent dilemma of role and mission turmoil associated between those who support research of early education of children and those who must primary run the lab schools (McBride, 1996). The difficulties of lengthy work days, minimal salaries, and low work status are indicative of the early childhood professional workforce far and wide (National Association for the Education of the Young Child, 1984b; NCCCC, 2012a; U. S. General Accounting Office/Human Resources Division, 1990; Whitebrook, 1984). Moreover, in a teacher lab site or research institution, the vital responsibility of educating children may be disregarded or devalued by an academic institution; thus, programming is then relegated to a low priority status (Townley & Zeece, 1991). It becomes a challenge to equate job load at the lab school to traditional classroom teaching; thus, the significance of the tripartite mission is a challenging task to clarify to those who misunderstand the multifaceted responsibilities of campus centers (Cook, 1984). At certain institutes of higher education, there exists a delineation of lab school instruction from faculty to teaching staff but has yet to show impact on teacher morale; consequently, teacher education programs need stable and consistent early childhood programs to train preservice students, and lab school personnel must be given the work hours, necessary skills, and job status to commit to the students (Townley & Zeece, 1991). Moreover, lab schools need a clear definition of positions, responsibilities, and tasks to affect the overall smooth administration and implementation of lab school functions (Townley & Zeece, 1991).
64
In a comprehensive campus child care system, the structures of teacher qualifications, work skills, job status in all lab school job capacities are seen as required and indispensable (Townley & Zeece, 1991). Preservice students will become aware of the importance of all the work levels involved in a lab school, a unique site where faculty and staff conduct their daily work to intentionally the needs and patterns of children, their families, students, and program as a whole (Townley & Zeece, 1991). Lab school planning and assessment are conducted with cooperation and collaboration of all producers; thus, when salary differences are comparable and competitive, these elements help manifest sound pedagogy, careful research, and service provision, and also exemplary administration and team-building staff practices (Townley & Zeece, 1991). Data collection site versus research training site. Traditionally, child development lab schools have implemented research-based approaches to the tripartite mission making them sites for knowledge gathering and experimentation. In the past few years, new developments in theory, research, and practice challenge lab schools to reconsider, reconceptualize, and restructure the ways they support the mission and visions of their universities, and consequently, they incorporate new developments in the fields of child development and early childhood education (McBride et al., 2012). Mirroring real school models, full-day programs can enhance opportunities for research, teaching, and out-reach, particularly when critical issues that arise in the transition to full-day childcare are foreseen, prepared for, and managed (McBride & Baumgartner, 2003). While traditional data collection projects, such as observation and teaching activities from early childhood-related fields occur in lab schools, there needs to be collaboration with academic departments where a variety of fields like Kinesiology, Business Marketing, English as
65
a Second Language, and Nursing can flourish (Branscomb & McBride, 2005). These collaborations with other disciplines build immovable educational support for theory-to-practice models within the campus, as well as highlight solid partnerships with key disciplines that regard the existence and value of an onsite campus lab school (Branscomb & McBride, 2005). Furthermore, by establishing mutual working agreements with a variety of campus departments, lab schools have a solid justification to review to their higher education institutions the vital major contribution they add to the campus community, specifically when the time comes for budget cut considerations (Branscomb & McBride, 2005). Departmental partnerships are crucial to the short- and long-term operations and the continual survival of a child development laboratory school. Additionally, further research in applied developmental psychology or child development qualitative studies need to be targeted for settings requiring specific numbers of children, and other unique settings where populations of children are needed. A lab school is a prime setting to proximally observe educating and learning over a period of time. Furthermore, lab schools are usually equipped and intentionally fitted for research, such as rooms for observation and recording purposes (Clawson, 2003). The unique advantages of recording features earmark a lab school for specific types of research (File, 2012). Research possibilities can be extended and enhanced with built-in facilities within the laboratory center. Albeit unofficially accepted, in order to establish the campus lab school as a viable site for teaching and research, higher education institutions need to formally establish the lab school as a legitimate and usable site for research studies (Branscomb & McBride, 2005). Unfortunately, the study of children has faced a unique dilemma where researchers may locate
66
other sites to conduct research, and/or researchers find the lab school children depict a standing uniform group too similar for their specific studies (McBride & Lee, 1995). Lab schools regularly juggle to balance the priorities of student teachers, families, and researchers (McBride & Lee, 1995). Although researcher may be oblivious to their influence on the programs, the lab school teachers themselves have legitimate issues on the impact of research on their job responsibilities and how their classrooms operate (Clawson, 2003; Horm-Wingerd & Cohen, 1991). If families are believed as implicitly agreeing to all research by the mere fact of enrolling their child in lab schools, pressure builds and families may be resistant to enlist in research studies in lab schools (Clawson, 2003). The appeal of research to both staff and families is difficult to jointly achieve (File, 2012). However, when lab school staff, faculty, and administrators participate in research on high quality care, attend seminars and classes, collaborate projects with other educators, and pursue active personal enrichment and professional development, high quality early care and education increases (Kellogg, 1999). College general funding versus parent fee funding. While campus child development centers fill a unique niche in the purposes of higher education institutions, their ongoing operations on campus can face many challenges. Society places a low priority on education and training of childcare providers, as well as a low status on research-based findings on child development and early childhood education studies (McBride, 1996). The tendency of colleges to allocate funding to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) programs over early childhood studies, a very low priority is placed on child development studies when funding is tight and limited (McBride & Baumgartner, 2003). As a consequence, today’s lab schools have been realistically faced with funding cuts and/or closure of sites (Brown & Freeman, 2003). Experts have attested to the shrinking resource base available to most state colleges and
67
universities, and child development laboratory schools are resource intensive (e.g., personnel, financial, and facility wise); therefore, justifying the allocation of scarce resources to these schools becomes increasingly difficult during in lean times (McBride, 1996). Experts have further declared that another challenge to the decreased support for such programs has been the obscure roles and ambiguous missions associated with operational efforts (McBride, 1996). Several societal changes have also necessitated a reexamination of the utility of method of instruction (Bowers, 2000). In fulfilling the three-part mission, firstly, child development laboratory programs are increasingly costly to operate, or resource intensive, particularly in the wake of private, for-profit child care available elsewhere in the community (Bowers, 2000). Child development laboratory programs are costly because they are small in size, due in part to limited university housing, and due to the effort to keep such programs within university departments (staffed by departmental personnel; Bowers, 2000). Secondly, early childhood education and child development are increasingly popular university majors, which raises the question of whether large numbers of students can continue to be serviced by small laboratory programs (Bowers, 2000). Thirdly, the advent of new technology raises another question: whether hands-on methods are still the best and most cost-effective way to teach (Bowers, 2000). In order to operate on a cost-effective basis and acquire consistent sources of funding, lab schools have found it necessary by expanding to include full-day programs for children. Although it marks a positive change for lab school expansion, childcare alone does not fulfill the laboratory school multiple missions and functions (McBride & Baumgartner, 2003). As making increased childcare available to families, researchers unfortunately have found that lab schools with expanded full-day programs for children presents the unique challenge of the confusion of roles while the service role is increased, while emphasis on the academic roles of research and
68
training greatly decreased and took an unfortunate diminishing role (McBride & Baumgartner, 2003). Indeed, these changes in the lab school infrastructure and daily programming cause an overlap of the tripartite mission into a complicated blend of responsibilities for teaching staff, wherein the distinctions of roles and costs associated with the roles are more challenging to distinguish from each other (i.e. teacher training and research assistance require office hours to complete, plus support staff are hired to cover as substitutes while the teachers are away from their classrooms; McBride & Baumgartner, 2003). Rightfully so, funding to support these teaching, research, and academic projects, which do not directly involve the care of the children, must not come from the tuition fees paid by families (McBride & Baumgartner, 2003). Because of the ethical principle that ongoing teaching, research, and education of lab students in programs, even with practicum instructor on site, must never be sourced from parent tuition, today’s lab schools increasingly distinguish cost structures which carefully separate academic expenses, as well as costs directly related to the early care and education of children at every feature of management (McBride & Baumgartner, 2003). Lab school programs with a service-based emphasis must fight to secure higher education administrative support and fiscal resources, which fall solely on family full-cost tuition to reiterate its philosophy to represent the “real” world comprehensive programs (Keyes, 1990). However, such specific funding source limits a lab school’s efficiency to offer marketable salaries, recruit and secure highly qualified staff, expand services to income-eligible families and children with special needs, and to successfully manage a fiscally solvent early education business model (Townley & Zeece, 1991). A careful and intentional approach towards targeted costs related to training and research needs necessitates being distinguished clearly from ongoing
69
service roles to families. Consequently, higher education institutions need to fully fund and support training and research models within the operations of the child development lab schools. Responsibility to Provide the Highest Quality Programs High quality early education programs tie the college and community more closely together (Kyle et al., 1999). Comprehensive campus early education programs and their respective lab schools are collaborative rather than individualistic in scope: they promote connections among all campus child development systems, and they capitalize on early education system networking with related agencies, the college district, and the local community (Townley & Zeece, 1991). In the best interest of the child development field as a discipline, academic departments, the campus lab school, and local agencies for families must be integrated together with overlapping missions. Many campus lab schools operate according to the internal laboratory model, in which the center functions completely within the administrative and operational life of the campus, providing teacher training and academic support, as well as opportunity for service to the community-at-large (Dimidjian, 1984). Being a leader in higher education research, local community college and university early childhood education academic departments are typically the driving decision-makers and proponents of the research-based philosophy and best teaching practices implemented in their campuses’ child development centers. Campus children’s centers typically follow and represent the departments’ lead to implement research-based child development theory, practice, and research within their laboratory training of child development students. The center’s association to the administration serves to influence teacher training and early education outcomes, which are generated by the campus center.
70
The very purpose and primary function of campus centers determine the consequential learning outcomes they deliver to their populations. While providing for high quality early care and education is always the primary aim behind solid decision making, all early educators need to support these decisions within the system of encouraging teaching, research, and outreach within lab schools (Branscomb & McBride, 2005). With respect to comprehensive and holistic child research, lab schools must permit a few researchers at a time in order to fully involve children and build rapport for studies (Branscomb & McBride, 2005). Moreover, careful consideration of student placements in classrooms should regard crucial variables, such as prior experience working with children and the children’s respective ages (Branscomb & McBride, 2005). Having integrated lab school policies in place has enabled lab schools to ensure high quality provision to families while supporting academic responsibilities of higher education institutions (Branscomb & McBride, 2005). A vital function of child development lab programs is to provide exemplary early childhood education programs for young children, while simultaneously serving as workforce skill sites for students in programs studying children and families. “Whether it is a profession, skilled trade or the development of physical skills, theory without application would be an anomaly” (Wagenhorst, 1946, p. 46). The NCCCC (2012a) has found that higher education institutions are realizing that value high quality early care and education is key to the mission of their institutions, which promote enrollment, retention, graduation, and success of student parents, and optimal to the growth, development, and outlook of children. Furthermore, the value high quality early care and education accomplish the shared provision of early education and higher education; and, consequently, formidably recruit and keep highly quailed faculty and staff (NCCCC, 2012a).
71
The California Department of Education, Child Development Division (2016), informs families to look for five vital characteristics in high quality early care and education. Quality child care is defined as follows: settings that are safe and provide small group sizes and adult-to-child ratios encouraging the best opportunities for development, caregivers or teachers who have experience and are trained in early childhood development, settings that offer opportunities for meaningful parent involvement, learning materials and teaching styles that are ageappropriate and respectful of children’s cultural and ethnic heritage, and learning opportunities that promote a child’s success in school. (California Department of Education, 2016, para. 3). A fundamental and central goal in high quality early childhood education is to highly regard and promote appropriate and meaningful child-centered curriculum, wherein, hands-on, interactive, and cooperative learning takes place, coupled with an integrated learning goals which cover all of a child’s developmental domains, and meaningful experiences and responsive relationships are offered to children freely (Lake & Jones, 2008). The child-centered curriculum is never a downplayed version of first grade or kindergarten curricula, but strategically covers a cognitive-developmental approach, a base work of Jean Piaget (Barnett, Frede, Mobasher, & Mohr, 1988), wherein “teacher and child both plan and initiate activities, and there is an emphasis on the child’s creation of her or his own knowledge” (Barnett et al., 1988, p. 47). Research has found that when a child’s prior knowledge, home culture, and budding interests are incorporated into a child’s learning environment by a responsive teacher, a child’s learning blossoms and extends further into the next level. Early education experts have discovered that key to learning success is a child’s enrollment in a high-quality preschool, and there is solid research support showing that all children benefit from an early care and education program (Melhuish, 2011). A high quality preschool program is one that is developmentally appropriate, has a curriculum that allows
72
children to take charge of their own learning, has teachers that are well trained and work under knowledgeable supervision, has parents that are meaningfully involved, and the program is well administered and evaluated (Lewis, 1993). However, with the economic climate of reduced funding and faltering donations from the host institution, community members, and stakeholders, campus lab schools administered by early education programs or schools of education undoubtedly struggle in their efforts to be model sites of high quality, affordability, and accessibility to the local communities they serve (Keyes & Boulton, 1995). Such unrelenting state contract requirements and regulations with a dwindling fiscal support base in a struggling economy continue to plague today’s lab programs. Current cutting-edge research provides clear evidence that the quality of early care and education matters to children’s development (Marshall, 2004). Children who attend higherquality childcare programs have increased language and cognitive skills as well as social competence than children who attend lower-quality childcare programs (Marshall, 2004). Further research has also proposed that high-quality early care and education has positive effects on intellectual, language, and cognitive development, and possess exemplary relationship competencies, whereas children receiving poor-quality care fall deficiently behind (Lamb, 1962). Defining program quality components. An earlier study by Campion (1992) detailed the components of a quality community college childcare program. He purported that “a community college can offer a total package of quality early childhood programs that serve as a model for the community” (Campion, 1992, p. 103). Furthermore, Campion stated As a front runner in early childhood education, the college should offer: an on-site laboratory preschool program, educational programs in Early Childhood Education, a degree and certificate program, continuing education programs and conferences, programs for school age children, and programs for special needs children (p. 103).
73
High quality childcare can be manifested in structural, process, and global components of a campus program. Child development researchers have concurred that most measures of childcare quality can serve as either structural or process indicators. An additional quality component features global quality. Global quality entails classroom practices and environments that promote children’s growth and learning (Ceglowski & Bacigalupa, 2002) (Katz, 1993). Structural quality, such as small group size (i.e., the number of children), low child-staff-ratio (i.e., the number of children per teacher or provider), and highly qualified provider training (i.e., the education and specialized training of teachers or directors; Marshall, 2004) is typically measured and regulated and determined by governing agencies. Structural components have positive benefits on early care and education quality and child development, of which the feature of low child-staff ratio correlates with educational attainment for later academic success of young children (Blau, 2002). Process quality refers to the nature of the care that children experience daily–the warmth, sensitivity, and responsiveness of the caregivers’ the emotional tone of the setting, the activities available to the children, the developmental appropriateness of activities, and the learning opportunities available to all children (Marshall, 2004). Early education researchers have proposed that high quality early care and education involves a supportive interplay of relationships between primary caregivers or teachers, positive interactions with peers, as well as opportunities for intellectually stimulating play, while poor quality early care and education involves negative or punitive interactions with caregivers and peers and aimless roaming about (Vandell, 2004). Process quality refer to the positive experiences that children have with caregivers, peers, and materials (Vandell, 2004). Unlike features of structural quality, which can
74
be regulated, process quality is normally not subject to government regulations, and it is quite difficult to measure its effectiveness (Marshall, 2004). In determining quality, early care and education experts define program quality as practices that foster language, cognitive experiences, physical activities, social competence, a balance for independence and cooperation, and emotional health (Cryer, 1999). Program quality is defined by a child-centered teaching and learning philosophy, emphasizing children’s play and interactions with peers and offers a rich varied environment as the goal of achieving developmental gains, and further requires a safe and secure environment that promotes optimal child health and development (Cryer, 1999). Program quality is also determined by the adult’s role to facilitate guided play, provide protection and positive response, introduce safe and healthful opportunities for learning in an encouraging and meaningful way (e.g., positive, respectful, responsive, and reciprocal); rather than provide negative, punitive, or detached interactions (Cryer, 1999). Consequently, young children develop meaningful attachments to proximal caregivers with positive interaction than to caregivers whose interactions are ineffectual and from a distance (King & MacKinnon, 1988). Being a responsive, reciprocal, and respectful caregiver and teacher enhances the quality of a child’s positive learning experience. With the impending pressure brought about by the mandates of No Child Left Behind Act on K-12 school districts, which is trickles down to the early education level, campus child development centers are finding their sound early care and education pedagogy, philosophy, and theory in practice mantra affected and influenced by strict early learning government-issued standards. Children’s optimal way of learning is distorted by an endless battle that pits sound child-initiated learning against teacher-directed instruction, overshadowing the best interest of the child (Epstein, 2001). The emphasis on standards and accountability with the corresponding
75
pressure on early educators to introduce basic academic skills adversely influences current educational curriculum by narrowing academic skills to mandates a child needs to accomplish, and by prematurely educating an unprepared young child formal approaches to instruction (Stipek, 2006). Different perspectives on program quality. Lab school experts introduce four perspectives on the quality of care: (a) the perspective of researchers and professionals in the field, (b) the perspective of parents using child care, (c) the perspective of child care staff, and (d) the perspective of the children in child care (Katz, 1993). Within these four perspectives, there are diverse values and priorities experienced and expected by each population (Ceglowski & Bacigalupa, 2002). Staff perceptions of quality consist of administrative, professional, and parental relationships; child perceptions of quality draw from a child’s perspective and involve a sense of a child’s comfort, interpretation of acceptance, and involvement in learning experiences; while parent’s perceptions of quality are determined by program adaptability and teacher reciprocity to family needs (Ceglowski & Bacigalupa, 2002). Studies of early care and education typically collect information in the following ways: “direct observation of child care quality, indirect measures of child care quality, assessment measures of individual children, caregiver or parent ratings of individual children, and records of child care and parent information (Ceglowski & Bacigalupa, 2002, p. 88).” This specific ethnographic research study attempts to capture diverse perspectives regarding program operations of a campus children’s center and laboratory school from six population groups: parents, practicum or lab students, teaching staff, faculty, administrators, and the researchers themselves. The implicit backdrop for such perspectives was the positive experiences, adult and
76
child responsive-reciprocal-respectful engagement, amidst the daily operations of the bustling, vibrant, and frenetic campus lab school community. Conclusion The rich history and unique origin of laboratory schools on campus sites, their intended use for the higher education institution, and the trials and triumphs for continual survival alongside higher education aims, mirror the perseverant history of other long-running academic and laboratory programs in academia. However, the vast differences between child development laboratory schools and their contemporaries center on the multiple and diverse populations they serve across disciplines, backgrounds, and demography. Other academic departments in higher education have little claim on the diverse and vast populations their divisions can serve. The multifaceted child development lab school has subtly become higher education’s melting pot and has the potential to represent a model for how communities can work cooperatively and collaborative together. Over the past few decades, researchers (Katz, 1993; Keyes, 1990; McBride, 1995) have conducted numerous valuable and relevant studies on form and functions of laboratory schools on college campuses. In the field of early childhood development, linking theory to practice has always been an important tenet for professional and meaningful practice. As these researchers (Katz, 1993; Keyes, 1990; McBride, 1995) have acknowledged the significance of laboratory schools’ role in being generators of localized knowledge, they have also proposed that laboratory schools can be utilized and extended much more than their current functions. Going beyond collaboration of faculty and teaching staff, McBride (1995) explores teacher research and faculty teaching that utilize the lab school as an effective avenue for educational reform and public policy. McBride (1995) suggests intentionally using lab schools as a theory creator and method
77
generator to inform the field of its research results and findings as a necessary function to the changing operational and academic climate. Other academic departments can learn from child development lab schools’ multifaceted approach of operations; they are used as lab training programs, centers for research, centers for early care and education service, and centers developed into professional development schools. All of these functions create a natural connection for the campus-to-community partnerships and collaborations. However, in order to meet academic advancements into the technological future, child development lab schools need to develop and reconfigure their current purposes, develop innovative approaches, and create progressive functions to keep up with the ever-changing landscape of research-based and cutting-edge child development study into the 21st century.
78
Chapter Three Methodology Introduction Being proponents of cutting-edge research, higher education early childhood education academic divisions are typically the driving decision makers and main supporters of the theoretical educational philosophy and best teaching practices implemented within campus’ child development centers and laboratory schools. As a rule, campus children’s centers follow and represent early childhood education departments’ philosophical authority to implement researchbased child development theory and practice within their laboratory training and professional development of child development major students. They also conduct ongoing research. This ethnographic case study is such an extraordinary research study, as it carefully examines a community college children’s center’s delivery of functions while attending to the needs of its multiple service populations. Such inductive research, wherein an overarching theory is gained from conducting an applicable research design, attempts to explain the efficiency of service through converging and competing interactions between the center’s populations, its effect on each group, as well as on program efficiency. The research attempted to gain a multifaceted perspective of an operative dilemma in examining a center’s program efficiency as it implements, persists, and executes operations to serve often competing groups in a single site. The study focused on a highly selected and predetermined group of participants who regularly have knowledge of campus center operations and history. Such an exploratory approach unearths in-depth analytical descriptions of the campus children’s center’s current system and processes, to which shared and contrary beliefs and practices of the populations are examined. An ethnographic focus, with an interview-based
79
approach, informs data specific to a single center’s efficiency in meeting the needs of multiple population groups. The main research question explored and addressed by this particular study was “how does a single campus children’s center fulfill its mission and functions by serving six major populations?” The following supplemental questions were addressed as each population’s data were gathered, studied, and analyzed: “How do population groups perceive the main purposes of the school?” and, “How, if any, are the center’s operations affected by serving multiple populations?” These main and supplemental questions drove the recruitment, investigative queries, interview approach, and implementation of the card-sorting activity in the research study. Program efficiency in this ethnographic study pertained to the center’s ability to engage in positive interactions in spite of offering service to multiple populations. In determining efficiency in serving various interest groups, the variable in question is positive engagement: whether interactions between populations are deemed respectful, responsive, and reciprocal, within the operations of the center. This type of research design collected extensive narrative and illustrative data based on one main variable, positive interactions, over an extended period of time in a natural setting within a specific context. The background, development, current conditions, and environmental interaction of each of the population groups were duly observed and documented, recorded, and analyzed for patterns in relation to internal and external influences. Accordingly, this research study attempted to depict a comprehensive description of a campus children’s center dilemma in conducting multiple functions to diverse user groups. An interview-based approach merited this specific research due to the complexity of functions conducted and diversity of populations served. The goal was to disseminate
80
comprehensive and useful information about how a campus children’s center functions with quality while serving the needs of often competing populations. The researcher formulated learning goals for the study in order to focus all data sources, interviews, observations, and follow-up methods to answer the study’s main question. The researcher’s learning goals were multiple: to obtain knowledge of the participants’ role or ties to center, to increase awareness of how a participant perceived the purposes of the center, to understand of how the center fulfilled a need for each participant, to be cognizant of how a participant utilized the center, to determine which center functions the participant deemed important, to discover any impact the center has on each participant, to uncover any service areas or populations overlooked by the center, and to gain an understanding of the service efficacy of the center. Sample Size and Materials In order to carry out this ethnographic study to measure campus center program efficiency in serving multiple populations, specific parameters needed to be followed. The timeline was a single semester or 16 weeks of instruction. The setting consisted of a campus children’s center site. The interview pool consisted of at least two interviews from each of the six center populations: center parents, early childhood faculty, head teachers, student assistants, college administrators, and center researchers. The primary researcher also investigated supplemental center data sources in order to gather relevant data for a more comprehensive perspective. Procedures The researcher examined each center’s quality indicators from the onset of operations to present time through a variety of means. However, prior to conducting an introductory study of campus center, the researcher gathered preliminary center information through public documents
81
and center informational literature. An informational recruitment flyer for subjects, mainly lab or practicum students, and researchers, was posted at the front desk informational lobby. Subsequently, the researcher scheduled and conducted interviews with key population groups: center staff, center parents, college personnel (administrators and faculty), and researchers. As further interviews were deemed necessary to conduct, follow-up interviews were scheduled and accomplished. Simultaneously, the researcher gathered written documentation from archival documents. The researcher then carefully analyzed all data collected from documentations and interviews. The researcher investigated patterns and triangulated data between interview sources, written documentation, and center informational literature. The researcher then disseminated and explained data from collected interviews, after which findings from the data collected were summarized. The researcher analyzed patterns and trends, dissected key similarities, differences, patterns, and anomalies between data gathered against each other. Having reported the results, the researcher then proposed implications to the field of early childhood development. Furthermore, the researcher proposed recommendations for the future mission, vision, and/or direction of campus center operations based on the data. The Setting: Host Institution The community college is located southeast of a large metropolitan city, amid one of the state’s fastest growing regions for business, science, and technology. Gently rolling hills and picturesque vineyards provide the scenic background for the college’s 147-acre campus (“About Scenic Innovation College,” 2015). The college has since developed into a fully accredited comprehensive institution and received full accreditation in early 1990s from the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. College students who attend the college can
82
choose any of Occupational Associate Degrees, Transfer Associate Degrees, and Certificate Programs, and the College offers community education courses geared toward personal development and cultural enrichment (“About Scenic Innovation College,” 2015). The college currently enrolls almost 8,000 day and evening students; thus, the college offers curriculum for students seeking career preparation, transfer to a 4-year college or university, or personal enrichment (“About Scenic Innovation College,” 2015). The college provides university transfer classes, retraining classes for those in need of employment or career advancement, a first-time educational opportunity for many adults, and enrichment classes for those seeking a broader perspective. Career and technical training is also offered for those entering the technical and paraprofessional work force. The college has established a reputation in helping students transfer to the state university system and other four-year institutions ("About Scenic Innovation College," 2015). The college is a learning-centered institution focused on excellence and student success, and is fully committed to supporting all local residents in their quest for education and advancement ("About Scenic Innovation College," 2015). The college has an exceptional safety record, which has made it one of the safest colleges in the Bay Area; it has demonstrated a commitment to sustainability, including LEED facilities, recycling and paper reduction practices, and photovoltaic (solar) parking structures generating one megawatt of energy (“About Scenic Innovation College,” 2015). Scenic Innovation College has developed a 5-year educational master plan (2015-2020). The plan entails meeting student needs through long-range planning of instructional and student support programs, facilities, and technology ("About Scenic Innovation College," 2015). The plan covers four overarching goals, along with multiple strategies for achieving these goals. The
83
following goals and strategies are aimed to assist Scenic Innovation College in resource allocation decisions (“About Scenic Innovation College,” 2015). Excellence in student learning is ensured by providing quality teaching, learning support and student support services. Excellence in student learning is ensured by collaborating with community partners to provide educational opportunities that best serve the needs of the college’s students and community. Excellence in student learning is also ensured by strengthening fiscal stability, providing appropriate staffing levels, meeting evolving technology needs, and expanding or updating facilities. Excellence in student learning is ensured by organizational effectiveness: namely, by improving organizational processes and fostering professional development (“About Scenic Innovation College,” 2015). The Research Site: Child Development Center In fall of 2011, the center opened its doors and invited the community access into a special place, a village of three annex buildings uniquely designed inside and outside to complement and respect the natural topography of the land, while providing an enriched quality program for the children, their families, and LPC students majoring in Early Childhood Education (ECE; Calica, 2011, p. 11). The ability "to have an on-campus child study lab for college students, and to serve student, faculty, staff, and Tri-valley families is a big asset and convenience to the entire campus community. State funding for such buildings could have taken 20 years or more for the reality of a child development center to be built (Calica, 2011, p. 11).” However, in 2004, a measure was put on the ballot for the local voters to decide on the expansion of the community college campus. The community votes mattered tremendously to the growth of the campus programs and services (Calica, 2011, p. 11).
84
The center is the result of persistence and the fulfillment of a long-term dream of the faculty in the early childhood department (Calica, 2011, p. 11). The center anticipates that “all those who enter the children’s classrooms will be beneficiaries of the enriched education and care giving program in many different ways. Early childhood development major students have great role models to emulate and will set higher expectations for themselves as teachers: those students, staff, faculty and others who are parents of young children will be comfortable knowing their child is in a safe, nurturing, and age-appropriate learning environment, and in close proximity, and that they are welcome to visit (Calica, 2011, p. 11).” “The Center is a ‘village,’ a supportive community of learners, which will provide high quality, age appropriate programs, and for all who wish to participate there will be genuine support, inclusion, personal growth and a warm welcome (Calica, 2011, p. 11).” Description of the site. The “center offers families a secure, diverse, and inviting early care and education experience for their children. Through the collaboration between the center staff and the faculty at the college, children benefit from teachers who understand and use the most up-to-date methods to prepare children for current and future success. Valuing the crucial role of family, the center puts families at the heart of the program and strives to partner with families to support and nurture children’s individual needs, abilities, and culture. The center has small group sizes of children, low teacher-to-child ratios, as well as state-of-the-art classrooms, and outdoor learning environments. The teachers are among the most highly skilled and educated in the area and create rich, nurturing experiences for children. In addition to the enriching social and educational experiences provided to the children, the center also provides academic instruction to students enrolled in ECE courses. The center offers a model of best practice in early childhood education, and the children in the classrooms benefit by the
85
innovative projects and personal interaction that the college students provide in the application of their coursework (Noble et al., 2014, pp. 4-5).” The center’s mission is “to develop and enrich each child to his or her fullest potential through meaningful teacher- child relationships and engaging learning experiences (Noble et al., 2014, p. 5).” The vision of the center is “to nurture the development of inquisitive, creative, well-grounded children and to support families to be the best they can be for their children (Noble et al., 2014, p. 5).” The center values families as children’s first teachers and key partners in their children’s education. The center recognizes the crucial role that highly competent teaching professionals have in supporting positive outcomes from children, as well as the value of a rich, play-based environment that engages learners and supports optimal development of each child. The center also values a teaching process that inspires inquisitive thinking, problem-solving, and creativity and an approach that fosters the development of the whole child, including social, emotional, cognitive, physical, and creative development. The center “strives for diversity and inclusive practices, and sees small group size and low adult-tochild ratio as key to rich, nurturing relationships between teachers and children (Noble et al., 2014, p. 5).” The goals of the center include “striving toward sustainable levels of enrollment and staffing to maintain quality instruction and learning, demonstrating developmental gains for children in all domains, establishing family-school partnerships in the child’s education, providing opportunities for observation, and participatory laboratory experience to support the college students’ learning outcomes, and in developing the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of the future early childhood professional workforce (Noble et al., 2014, p. 5).” The center’s aim is “to create a model demonstration program that illustrates the teachings of the ECE department of the college (Calica, 2011, p. 6).” Accordingly, the center
86
“works closely with the department to determine and implement child development best practices and cutting-edge research in the early childhood field (Calica, 2011, p. 6).” The joint programs work hand-in-hand “to ensure respectful, responsive, and reciprocal service to children and their families as evidenced of a high-quality child development program (Calica, 2011, p. 6).” The center has four main purposes: first, “to serve as an observation and participation laboratory experience for students and as child development work experience support for center staff; second, to provide and encourage opportunities for family involvement and parent education to enrolled families of the program; third, to establish a model child development program for community members and professional researchers to use as an educational and collaborative resource; and last, to provide for the care and early education of young children while their families attend school, are employed by the college, or reside in the local community (Calica, 2011, p. 6).” Research Participants Besides the enrolled children, the study planned to explore the six campus population groups who utilize the center on a regular basis. The user population groups are as follows: parents, faculty (typically ECE faculty), early childhood teachers, college students (typically ECE majors), administrators, and research participants. Data Sources Prior to conducting interviews, preliminary materials were gathered from the host institution. The researcher collected supplemental data sources deemed necessary to provide a more comprehensive perspective of the center’s operations and to gain more information regarding the study’s context. The vital data sources included the following documents: initial and follow-up interviews, documentation and literature (e.g., hardcopies, web-based, literature,
87
center forms), and supplemental data sources (e.g., transcripts, anecdotes). The key methods used by this researcher for this inductive ethnographic study included, but were not limited to, introspective interviews, reflection responses results, and review of existing center literature during the research semester. As researcher was analyzing documents, interviews of each key center personnel and family participants were scheduled, prepared, and conducted. Research Design The research design is a case study. At the beginning of this process, the researcher purposefully aimed to develop a descriptive framework for organizing the case study, because a massive amount of data was collected without the researcher having settled on an initial set of research questions or propositions (Yin, 2009). As the researcher read, studied, and reviewed numerous peer-reviewed articles, as well as a handful of dissertations and significant research studies on the operations of a campus lab school, key research questions began to emerge one at a time. With the examination of numerous sources of evidence, gaps in the research were highlighted, and research questions were developed. This empirical descriptive research case study has a story to tell, which embraces the collected data, and yet it remains a narrative because it contains a beginning, end, and middle (Yin, 2009). In order to “treat the evidence fairly, produce compelling analytic conclusions, and rule out alternative interpretations, as well as use tools and make manipulations more effectively and efficiently,” the researcher used the research analytic strategy of “developing a case description” (Yin, 2009, p. 2652). As the researcher developed an interest in describing and telling a story about working with different populations in a single multifaceted center, a research description slowly emerged from the collected data. Each case description emerged from the verbal responses of each participant under overarching themes.
88
The researcher realized that developing a case description was imperative given such complexity regarding the topic; the researcher realized that the center could be described in terms of the multiplicity of center functions, populations, participant perspectives, and varieties of service delivery, and each one of these elements had to be examined in order for operations to be understood fully (Yin, 2009). As Yin (2009) noted, such a “descriptive insight” (p. 2690) later lead to “the enumeration, tabulation, and hence quantification of the various perspectives” (Yin, 2009, p. 2690). In essence, the perspectives from administrators versus faculty, parents versus staff, lab students versus researcher, and vice versa, can be explored exponentially. Furthermore, in the previous literature, multiple missions and functions of a center were also analyzed against each other: examples include teaching children versus teaching adults, training students versus parent education, faculty work versus teaching staff responsibilities, data collection site versus research training site, and college general funding versus parent fee funding. In a center’s overall management and operations, many populations and variables come into play in incalculable ways. Much of these variables merit a descriptive framework of explanation. The number of populations, functions, variables, and elements involved in running a child study laboratory school on a college campus can be configured and explained in infinite ways and diverse perspectives. In such a case study as this one, the “descriptive approach is used . . . to identify (a) an embedded unit of analysis and (b) an overall pattern of complexity that ultimately was used in a causal sense” to “explain” why operations occur (Yin, 2009, pp. 2686). This particular study attempted to explain how a single multifaceted site serves six major populations with four major functions. The researcher aimed to explain what, how, and why operations occur given the multiple functions, numerous populations, and complexity of purposes. The researcher found that an in-depth look into a single case study was a more
89
difficult and a more extensive endeavor than expected, due to multiple factors arising during the course of the study. Furthermore, according to lab school proponents, there are four perspectives on the quality of child care: (a) the perspective of researchers and professionals in the field, (b) the perspective of parents using child care, (c) the perspective of child care staff, and (d) the perspective of the children in child care (Katz, 1993). Within these four perspectives, there are different values and priorities experienced and expected by each population (Ceglowski & Bacigalupa, 2002). Among these priorities are studies that focus on parent’s perceptions of quality, which includes program flexibility and staff responsiveness to family needs, staff perceptions of quality, which may consist of administrative, collegial, parental, and sponsor relationships, and child perceptions of quality, which contain quality from a child’s perspective and may include information about children’s comfort, level of acceptance, and engagement in activities (Ceglowski & Bacigalupa, 2002). Additionally, albeit quite distinct, the center functions tend to overlap and serve one or more population at a given time, unnoticed or disregarded often by each of the user groups. Key early education and lab school experts (Barbour, 1990; Keyes, 1990; McBride, 1995) have proposed that the three-part mission serves as a guideline for many programs and that these work as benchmarks to the services and activities they provide. This tripartite mission prompts child development lab programs to accomplish the following functions: first, to serve as a site for training of personnel in child development and early childhood education; second, to serve as a site for research on aspects related to child development and early childhood education; and third, to serve in a model program and leadership role for the local, state, and national early childhood communities (McBride & Baumgartner, 2003). With administrative oversight on
90
degrees of emphasis and implementation of roles, host institutions play a key role in defining and determining the purpose, and direction of their campus centers. In carrying out their mission, campus childcare centers may differ in such aspects as sponsorship, organization, operations, support systems, staff patterns, educational service features, and users (Keyes, 1990), but also overlap in carrying out its missions. With varied adult learning needs, distinct academic missions, and differing institution focus, each child development laboratory school is established to meet the growing needs of its distinct campus population. However, the diversity in child development laboratory schools can hinder communication of real issues facing them today, so as a result, these laboratory schools are consumed by public comparisons and differences instead of focusing on the commonality of missions, visions, goals, and contributions to the field (McBride, 2003). Overlapping of functions to serve multiple populations take place quite often, specifically as observed by researcher during on-site observations of the children’s classrooms in action. In keeping with its responsive and reciprocal service to its unique and specific population user groups, child development laboratory schools are to fulfill its mission in a variety of means. Research Procedure The researcher determined that the timeline for the research study would be conducted during weeks of spring and summer instruction, after IRB approval. After IRB approval, the researcher collected and examined all known and existing informational documents of campus center through public documents and center informational literature documents on center program operations. A formal letter of permission to the college president to conduct research study at the center, one of the onsite college departments, was drafted and sent to the president’s attention. After the college president’s approval, recruitment flyers were posted at the center’s front desk lobby for volunteer participation of research participants. The researcher planned to
91
recruit at least three participants from each of the six populations under study (i.e., parents, faculty [typically ECE faculty], early childhood teachers, college students [typically ECE majors], administrators, and research participants) with at least 18 interviews in total. Interviews were arranged with potential participants who contacted the researcher from the flyer information. Interviews were scheduled with willing participants for at least a 1-hour per interview. The interviews were conducted as follows: three of center parents, three of college administrators, three of early childhood specialists/teachers, three of lab or practicum students, three of faculty of ECE, and three of center researchers. Before each scheduled interview session, an informed consent (from the IRB documents submission) for each interview participant was reviewed and signed by participant and researcher. The researcher scheduled follow-up interviews as needed, and analyzed data collected from interview results. Then the researcher engaged in analyzing across data for triangulation. Results of findings and implications to field early childhood development were written. The researcher provided recommendations for the future vision of campus center operations, and lastly, she prepared the study for submission of entire research to chair. Furthermore, after the dissertation publication, researcher will take the opportunity to share to campus administration and ECE Department the completed research study. Data Analysis Procedures This ethnographic case study design was used to examine program efficiency in serving multiple populations from a single site. In order to conduct a reliable and comprehensive analysis, the researcher utilized four social science research principles with careful attention. First, researcher ensured that analysis showed meticulous attention to all the evidence, wherein analytic strategies, including the development of rival hypotheses, exhaustively covered the key
92
research questions (Yin, 2009). The main question was as follows: How does a specific campus children’s center fulfill its mission and functions by serving six major populations? Supplemental questions were also asked: How, if any, are the center’s operations positively and negatively affected by serving multiple populations? How do serving six major populations in a children’s center affect program efficiency? How do serving six major populations affect the operations of center’s services? Although a rating scale was not formally used in this ethnographic research study, data measured from interview responses were able to cover the issues emerging from the key populations served. For the purposes of the research, a researcher attempts to disseminate information from all data and follow-up data collection in a direct format. Information gathered is distributed through a straightforward data analysis strategy. Bringing together the data collected from the entire participant pool, as well as additional data sources, to answer the research questions concerning the laboratory school/children’s center fulfillment of its multiple missions and functions, is the clearest method to prepare all data for open analysis. Information received from each data source was examined carefully for patterns of congruence and trends. Evaluative documents, specifically the preliminary interviews and follow-up interviews, were transcribed and visually drawn into color-coded charts and matrixes in order to examine them for similarities and differences pertaining to key question elements. As such, key elements emerged concerning the state of classroom operations from administrators, faculty, lab/practicum students, and researchers. For all information disseminated per population group, summaries of findings per research question and archival documents were examined. In order to have a visual grasp of the interview data, the researcher created a color-coded chart featuring each participant in his or her
93
group against the 14 questions outlined in the interviews. For this case study analysis, the researcher used a pattern-matching logic (Yin, 2009, p. 2772). Such logic (Trochim, 1989) compares an empirically based pattern with a predicted one. In the simplest case, where there are few different dependent (or independent) variables, pattern matching is possible because different patterns have been stipulated for these two variables: specifically, the need for training in emerging teaching staff, and the need for more administrative and campus-wide support for resources. The fewer the variables, of course, the more dramatic differences in patterns can be shown; this allow the researchers to make comparisons of their differences; there are some situations in which the simpler patterns are both relevant and compelling (Yin, 2009). When the patterns coincide, the results can help a case study to strengthen its internal validity, with a descriptive analysis. Coding of findings was subdivided by major themes per group and across groups. This study demonstrated a simple pattern, a pattern-matching logic having a minimal variety of either dependent or independent variables (Yin, 2009), which in this case is the efficiency of program operations. When patterns, trends, and intersection between population groups were detected, summaries were divided per trend. In this research study, the triangulation of data brought up four emerging themes reiterated through the data collected. In this case, these apparent themes became implications of the priorities covertly and/or overtly indicated by the multiple population groups through interview responses and follow-up interviews. Based on transcripts, members’ responses within each group were compared to their fellow members in their group. Any differences or contrasts in responses were highlighted in yellow ink per group. For the most part, each participant in each group gave similar and consistent replies with one another. Then, the researcher created a matrix featuring columns for
94
each population group’s general responses against other group’s responses. The researcher’s role regarding the general analytic strategy was to determine the best ways of contrasting any differences as sharply as possible and to develop a credible study in doing so (Yin, 2009). In this study, the largest discrepancy between user groups stemmed from the parent responses. By indicating a specific function as the primary purpose for the center, the parent group emerged and developed into the “outliers” for the entire study. The parent population group clearly offered a distinctly different response from that of the majority of the user groups (i.e., administrators, faculty, teaching staff, researchers, and lab/practicum students). Two emerging concepts kept being reiterated from the data through various data sources: First, the empirically based pattern revealed participants’ agreement that solid and strong relationships are a quality characteristic and are present or lacked among some teaching staff, families, and children. Second, teaching staff/program director/families predictably must have a willingness to adjust to changes in curriculum and learning environment. Specifically, these concepts were repeatedly brought up in feedback from staff, faculty, administrators, parents, lab/practicum students, and researchers. In various forms, different individuals expressed the importance of strong relationships and the need to adjust to changes. In this case study, a few common dependent (or independent) variables emerged from pattern matching between the researcher’s key data sources, specifically the need for training emerging teaching staff and the need for more administrative and campus-wide support for resources. For this comprehensive study, the researcher sought to utilize as much evidence as was available, and interpretations accounted for all of the evidence leaving no loose ends (Yin, 2009). Each data source not actively used, such as archival supplementary documents, meeting minutes, faculty and student journal feedback, and observation documentation, was eliminated from the
95
collection. The researcher examined the interview questions to directly answer the main question’s inquiry and the study’s probe. Much of the original archival documents were reviewed for usefulness and evidence for the study and disqualified per criteria. The original intent to utilize only useful archival documents remained. Second, when possible, the analysis addressed all major interpretations. If there were alternative explanation for one or more of the findings, they were examined and discussed (Yin, 2009). Interview responses proved to be very enlightening in this descriptive study. Compelling data from parent responses pointed to the need for the center to do a better job at informing families about the center’s various purposes on an ongoing basis. Third, the analysis addresses the most significant aspect of the study. Being a single case study, the analysis focused on the most important issues at hand (Yin, 2009). In this study, the single most important issue was the presence, or lack thereof, of efficient service even as the center fulfilled its multiple missions to diverse population groups. The researcher focused on the gaps in effective service that were expressed overtly by different participants of the center’s daily functions. Although the center was created for multiple missions, the best way to serve multiple populations is for the center to focus on implementation of the specific major overarching themes. Fourth, the researcher used her own prior, expert knowledge in the study, in order for researcher to demonstrate awareness of current thinking and discourse on topic (Yin, 2009). The researcher’s early education background and professional experience served as a backdrop and impetus for this specific dissertation. The researcher, possessing a particular academic and professional history and educational passion, attempted “to link theory and practice in order to make a difference as a scholar-practitioner” (Butin, 2010, p. 46). In describing the plight of a
96
single multifaceted center’s attempt to carry out four purposes to six major populations, the researcher had to gauge whether the research question was a realistic possibility. Going forward, the researcher desires to understand deeply and learn from the differences of perspectives and drives in each individual and within each group. In the matter of researcher bias, the researcher introduced and briefed each participant concerning her primary role as an objective graduate student seeking answers to a study. The researcher encouraged participants to be honest and transparent in responses, without any judgment or consequences. Preliminary interviews and follow-up interviews were conducted in a neutral location, such as a lobby, conference room or participant’s office or classroom space, away from the researcher’s office. Furthermore, the goals for the study were always explained and clarified to the participant to ensure their understanding of the purpose of the research. Limitations of the Study This study was designed to answer the main research question, “How does a specific campus children’s center fulfill its mission and functions with efficiency by serving six major populations?” There were also vital supplemental questions; firstly, how does this specific campus children’s center fulfill its mission with efficiency by serving six major populations? Secondly, how, if any, is the center’s program operations positively and negatively affected by serving multiple populations? And, lastly, how do serving six major populations in a children’s center affect the efficiency of center’s services? There were specific limitations related to the aim of fully creating a comprehensive study even with an ethnographic focus. By virtue of its qualitative approach, the study has parameters, which limit its replicability in the field study of campus children centers’ service efficiency.
97
Because the researcher examined a specific and familiar campus center, specific criteria kept the research study restricted in scope. First of all, the sample size of the study was limited to the in-depth research of one campus children’s center site’s experience. A higher number of start-up campus children’s centers would yield a much broader perspective of a center’s quality in serving student and family populations. In order to get more accurate findings on campus children’s centers, a larger sample size is warranted. Multiple numbers of centers sampled will yield a more authentic and accurate picture of the research problem. Second, the time frame was limited to a snapshot of one summer semester of instruction. The gathering of program documentation and deliberate interviews was conducted period of a semester or 16 weeks. Consequently, the researcher was only able to investigate a segment of program operations at a specific time period. This investigation covered only a glimpse of a specific period in the center’s operational timetable, which may or may not reflect the accurate year-round scope and view of the program. Third, data were collected from a highly selected and predetermined group of people who had intricate knowledge of center operations and affinity history within the foundations of a specific campus children’s center. The center yields conference information from a limited number of center personnel, family participants, and college administration, all of which have been present from the onset to current operations of the center. Due to time and resource constraints, interviews from other key sources, such as additional families, support staff, college students, and the preschool children themselves are not conducted in the gathering of a more comprehensive research data.
98
For the purposes of the safety, security, and wellbeing of children, the center’s main subject population group, the children, were not directly studied as a population group among the others examined. Being a center as well as a laboratory school for the college, parents have to provide a signed consent for their children to be observed or interviewed for college education training and research purposes. The only method in which data were indirectly gathered from children was through the researcher’s interviews of the six population groups and their perceptions of how children’s needs are met. Fourth, in examining program efficiency, the study was limited to process features. Structural features of the center were not taken into account. In addition, only the process feature of group interactions within the center was examined. This process feature was examined from interview perceptions of the subjects concerning interactions directly experienced by the center populations. Developmental appropriate learning, interactions, and facilitation are key to a highly efficient and superiorly trained program staff. Process features of the center aspects of an early childhood setting directly experienced by children can have an influence on their wellbeing and developmental processes (Peissner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997) (Whitebrook, Howes, & Phillips, 1990). However, outcome-determined quality (do early childhood programs work?) and standards-based quality (do they comply?) was not investigated. It should be noted that both structural and process features are conditions that can influence what children experience under which a center operates (Phillips & Howes, 1987), and further research is needed to examine structural features. Fifth, in examining administrative support of a campus center, major program effects were solely studied. Limited time and resource constraints did not allow the researcher to elaborate on minor center developments to produce a more extensive center program-wide
99
evaluation. Ideally, careful observations of major and minor center projects over time and how they serve student and family populations would yield a more complete picture of the inner workings of a center under academic divisions. Finally, the ethnographic focus of the study also forbids its being replicated as a whole. This research study was limited to documenting current center conditions in terms of contributions from past and recent department and college support. The study paints a snapshot of a specific period of time in the life of the campus children’s center: its program efficiency, the curriculum implemented to its classroom level, and the community resources and programs provided for teaching staff, college students, researchers, and families available at the time of research. Impending institutional support and upcoming future developments of the center were not elements included or considered in this research.
100
Chapter Four Data Analysis Introduction The aim of this inductive and qualitative study was to discover the extent of a children center’s program efficiency in simultaneously serving six major population groups (parents, college students, teachers, faculty, administrators, and researchers) while maintaining program operations. The main research question addressed by this study was “how does a single campus children’s center fulfill its mission and functions by serving six major populations?” The supplemental questions were addressed as each population’s data were gathered, studied, and analyzed: How do population groups perceive the main purposes of the school? How, if any, is the center’s operations affected by serving multiple populations? These questions drove the recruitment, investigative queries, interview approach, and implementation of the methods in the research study. The researcher also examined the degree to which program management is emphasized and implemented. Complex educational situations, such as child development center operations, “demand complex understanding” (Anderson, 2010, p. 1). Thus, qualitative methods, such as examining documentation and conducting interviews were in keeping with the purpose of this study: The scope of educational research can be extended by the use of qualitative methods, wherein such qualitative research can sometimes provide a better understanding of the nature of educational problems and thus add to insights into teaching and learning in a number of contexts;” in this case, the efficiency in serving multiple and often-competing populations (Anderson, 2010, p. 1). This chapter provides a coherent overview of the study’s descriptive framework, the participants, the purpose of their work, and how the research study determined follow-up interviews, which
101
informed the analysis of overarching themes. The description of the participants includes a synopsis of their specific roles in connection to the center, their professional and personal perspectives on the significance of their roles, and a brief overview of their priorities for the center. This information is important because it provides a context for the particular multiple missions of the single specific center. A review of the research questions and responses provides a lens into understanding the direction this study pursued. Participant feedback pointed to values and service priorities of each population group and how these values and priorities translate into center operations and needs. Major themes emerged from the analysis of interview responses that contained each participant’s voice and groups’ perspectives on the role and functions of the center. Such themes give an eye-opening framework into how each population’s needs can be possibly met. Based on their perspectives on center’s purposes, participants echoed the following significant themes: •
Solid and strong relationships are a must for a quality program;
•
Willingness to adjust for all populations at the center;
•
Training and intentional practice of emerging teachers is crucial;
•
Broad buy-in from the campus community is key for institutional support;
•
Family enrollment is crucial for center operations.
These themes are the central organizer for this chapter. All information flow from these significant themes. The researcher will enumerate the data sources, the interview process, and how the themes emerged. Follow up interviews were conducted to clarify data and perspective. The themes will then be reported in full with supporting data. These findings have research implications into how a population groups’ needs could be met, while focusing on the child’s needs (the subject and main participator) in the learning environment.
102
Data Sources The preliminary materials the researcher used to collect data were the following: a formal letter of permission to college administration to conduct research on campus (See Appendix I), a recruitment flyer posted at the Child Development Center primarily for lab/practicum students and researchers (See Appendix II), and an informed consent for scheduled interview participants (See Appendix III). Key data sources used for the study included initial and follow-up interviews, hard copy documentation (Center Family Handbook) and web-based literature (Scenic Innovation College web page about college demographics and population of students). The key methods used by the researcher for this inductive study included, but were not limited to, in-depth interviews and review of existing center literature during the research semester. As the researcher was analyzing documents, she was also scheduling, preparing, and conducting interviews of each key center personnel and family participant. Results of the analysis of responses to interviews and evaluation of documents were summarized and will be reported in this chapter. Roles and Characteristics of Participants The demographics of the participants at Scenic Innovation College represented the local population demographics of the service area communities of the cities of Devlin, Laurelwood, and Plesantville in the Tri-Valley region, which is situated near a major metropolitan city in Northern California. The population demographics of the 205,378 residents in all three Scenic Innovation cities in the Tri-Valley region by race are approximately 1% American Indian/Alaskan native, 3% Black/African American, 21% Asian, 15% Hispanic/Latino, 1% Native Hawaiian/Pacific islander, 57% White/Caucasian, 3% Mixed Race, and 1% other (Samra, 2015). From the 66,495 in total number of households within the Scenic Innovation College
103
cities, there exists a mean of 2.82 persons per household, with a mean household income of $121, 589. The number of employed residents is 95,833, and there is an annual unemployment rate of 4.3% (Samra, 2015). Scenic Innovation College cities have approximately 198,132 (13%) persons in poverty, with 322,777 (21.1%) persons below the 150% of poverty line, and a total number of 54,823 (16.3%) persons under 18 in poverty (Samra, 2015). The study explored the six campus population groups that utilize the center on a regular basis. A total of 18 persons participated, with three representing each of these groups, including teaching staff, practicum students, faculty, administrators, and researchers themselves. The researcher recruited at least three participants per population in order to account for attrition and/or modifications during the study’s timeline of one spring and one summer session. After obtaining a “Permission to Conduct Research (Appendix I)” approval from the President of Scenic Innovation College, the researcher began to recruit and target key participants for the study. The participants were selected through two methods: first, volunteer subjects were identified and invited through researcher solicitation, and/or suggestions by other administrators, ECD faculty, teaching staff, and other students or researchers; second, other subjects were selected by the researcher due to their recognized key participation in the life of the center, primarily as administrators, faculty, teaching staff, parents, and long-term researchers. Most of the participants, specifically administrators, faculty, teaching staff, parents, and long-term researchers, were encouraged to participate. Few practicum students volunteered for the study. Flyers were posted at the lab student sign-in computer to draw interest. Hence, practicum students were recruited via flyers and professional invitation. The 18 participants by population group are as follows: parents Natasha, Ana, and Gwen; faculty members, Brenda, Nicole, and Patricia; administrators Louise, Herb, and Francois; center teachers Desiree, Melissa, and Vashti,
104
practicum lab students Marie, Lindsay, and Romeo, and researchers Solveigh, Joanne, and Cassie. These participants self-reported their ethnicity and socioeconomic class, as well as shared their roles and priorities in regard to the center. A detailed description of each participant is presented in Table 1. The participants were given pseudonyms and self-identification/selfreporting designations in terms of race (Samra, 2015) and socioeconomic classifications (Payne, 2013). A summarized description for each participant is detailed in Table 1.
Table 1 Child Development Center Participants’ Race/Ethnicity Descriptors From Six Major Population Groups Participants’ Pseudonym Natasha Ana Gwen Brenda Nicole Patricia Louise Herb Francois Desiree Melissa Vashti Marie Lindsay Romeo Solveigh Joanne Cassie
Race/Ethnicity Parents Descriptors AS/MM
X (2)
AS/MP LT/WC
X (2) X (2)
Faculty
Admin.
Teaching Staff
Pract./Lab Students
Researchers
BL/MM X (1) WC/W X (1) WC/MM X (1) BL/MH X (1) WC/W X (1) AS/MM X (1) LT/MP X (1) WC/MM X (1) LT/MP X (1) BL/MP X (1) MR/MP X (1) LT/WC X (1) LT/MP X (1) LT/MM X (1) LT/WC X (1) Note. AI = American Indian/Alaskan native; BL = Black/African American; AS = Asian; LT = Hispanic/Latino; PI = Native Hawaiian/Pacific islander; WC = White/Caucasian; MR = Mixed Race; OT = Other; ( ) = Number of times interviewed; WC = Working Class or Poverty; MP = Middle Poor; MM = Middle; MH = Middle High; WL = Wealth; Pract. = Practicum
The six campus population groups, with 18 research participants in total, were selected through the frequency they utilized and interact with the center operations on a regular basis:
105
parents, teaching staff, practicum students, faculty, administrators, and researchers themselves. In their regular usage of the center, the researcher wanted to gain first-hand insight into their unique perspectives of the value of engaging in affairs with the center. Participants were invited to exclusively share the genuine context of their interactions with center operations. Based on each participant’s responses to interview questions, data were gathered and recorded on how each population group perceived the primary purposes and functions of the center towards its user groups. The center’s family handbook stipulates the center’s four purposes as follows: The center has four purposes: First, “serve as an observation and participation laboratory experience for students, and as child development work experience support for child development center staff; second, provide and encourage opportunities for family involvement and parent education to enrolled families of the program; third, establish a model child development program for community members and professional researchers to use as an educational and collaborative resource; and fourth, provide for the care and early education of young children while their families attend school, are employed by Scenic Innovation College, or reside in the Tri-Valley community. (Calica, 2011, p. 6).” The parent participants use the early education services within the operations of the child development center and they comprise the center’s family clientele, or primary “consumers.” The parents are regarded by the center as the experts of their own children’s early learning and development. Parents select the center as their child’s primary place for early learning and development as they work, attend school, and/or pursue other professional or personal interests. The parents are also regarded as educational partners with the teaching staff in helping the child thrive in their learning environment. The center holds the philosophy that, just like the child, parents are participants and partners in their child’s learning. At enrollment, teachers inquire from parents about their child’s personality, temperament, self-regulation patterns, allergies, fears, preferences, interests, home culture, and coping abilities with changes. Throughout the school year, teachers and parents collaborate to complete their child’s developmental 106
questionnaires, and they meet for parent-teacher conferences about the child’s learning and development. Parents are given emotional support, helpful resources, and parenting strategies to assist the child to reach the next level of development. Parents in general have expressed that as long as their children’s optimal educational and social outcomes are met by the center, the other functions can follow suit. Teachers rely heavily on the parents as active participants and engaged partners in the child’s learning success in school. In this study, the recruited faculty members were all from the college’s Early Childhood Development (ECD) department. These faculty members primarily teach at the college and are in close working collaboration with the child development center teaching staff and director. ECD faculty members have a collective academic burden for the center. Faculty members reiterate that the center is in existence because of the college’s push to have a laboratory component for their ECD associate degree and certificate prerequisite. They believe that the center is a site for laboratory use, instruction demonstration, and degree fulfillment. The resulting benefit of serving local families, with the development of center staff, is a consequence of the center’s main function. The ECD faculty members were selected chiefly because they are primarily housed in the same building complex as the center, and run into the center operations on a weekly basis. The administrators selected for this ethnographic study were comprised of management who happen to have had regular interactions and focused associations with the center’s functions. These administrators have worked with the center’s director on collaborative projects that benefit the college’s goals and mission statement. Similar to ECD faculty, administrators hold that the center is a site for laboratory use, instruction demonstration, and degree fulfillment for the college. Consequently, they believe the resulting benefit of serving local families helps the
107
entire campus-wide community. Administrators help to influence decisions to bring visibility and marketing to the center. In this study, the teaching staff members were all eligible for Site Supervisor Child Development Permits (or Program Director Permits). As such, they are in a position to support the program director, the classrooms, and the rest of the center when needed. The teaching staff are also referred to as the “producers” of the children’s program. The teaching staff are responsible to produce the ongoing content for the children in relation to the center’s operations. Working with children, families, lab students, faculty, and administrators, they ensure first and foremost that the children’s safety, security, learning, and developmental needs are met on a daily basis. Secondary to this responsibility, they are in a role of training, mentoring practicum/lab students, assisting research students with their coursework assignments, as well as modeling, collaborating, reporting, and representing the campus community. In this study, classroom teaching staff members expressed their appreciation for having a position in the stateof-the-art brand new center. They agreed that the center provides high quality care above other community preschools and continues to improve on high quality care. Administrator and faculty needs tend to be far from their minds. In this study, practicum students are those conducting their degree required lab hours (ECD 90 = 6 hours/week) or their work experience (ECD 95/96 =1-4 units) for 16 weeks in a semester. They work under the supervision of their lab/practicum instructor who assigns interactive activities with children, as well as semester projects to be completed in their training work experience with children. Practicum and/or lab students, who use the center for approximately 6 to 16 hours per week, are generally concerned with their own learning, such as their course requirements are fulfilled by using the lab school each time the projects are assigned
108
by ECD faculty. From their lens, lab/practicum students believe that service to ECD students completing certificate or degree requirements is the primary use for the center. Researchers recruited for the study were participants who spent at least one session of 2 hours at the center. Being a campus laboratory school, research for course requirements is an important component of the center’s operations. From weekly observation assignments to longterm projects, use of the center as a campus lab is highly encouraged and supported by the college. For the study, the researcher only picked participants who had long-term projects to complete with the center for their course requirements. Similar to practicum and/or lab students, center researchers are generally concerned with fulfilling their course requirements each time the projects are due. From their lens, research students believe that service for children and families comes second to the laboratory and research requirements of students for the center. ECD coursework in higher education institutions involve an inquiry-based approach to learning. Researchers are to “explore innovations, learn from other’s work, approach work with an inquiry stance – to question, try, watch, reflect, and try again” (Follari, 2007. P. 8). Accordingly, “everything we know about children has come from the willingness of researchers to observe children and analyze what they see” (Follari, 2007, p. 8). These procedures can greatly enhance a program's ability to attract a wide variety of research projects from various units on campus; outreach efforts need to be designed to inform the university community as to the types of research opportunities available at the child study programs (McBride, 1996). The diversity of participants, the variety of their roles, and their unique perspectives served as an impetus to selecting the method of interviewing. By asking the same questions, conducting reflection exercises, and/or asking follow-up interviews, the researcher strategized to
109
discover any similarities or differences in participant responses, as well as draw descriptions of participants’ ideas. The Interview Process Among all the data sources, the researcher found interviews to be a significant source of research study evidence (Yin, 2009). Hence, the researcher sought to delve into an interviewbased design for the study. This specific study was focused on human concerns and behavior wherein targeted and “well-informed interviewees can provide important insights into such affairs or events” (Yin, 2009, p. 2246). In order to get a broader perspective of population groups, the researcher recruited an increased number of targeted interview participants. The number of participants was due in part to participant cancellations and scheduling conflicts. The time period covered by all interviews took place in 6 months, soon after IRB approval, from March 2015 through September 2015. After the first round of interviews, the interviews were transcribed, examined multiple times to find trends and recurring themes to be explored further in possible follow-up interviews. All in all, 18 preliminary interviews and three follow-up interviews were conducted. In this interview-based design, the researcher utilized an in-depth interview, wherein key respondents were asked about the facts of the center’s operations, as well as their opinions about its operations. In certain instances, the interviewee was asked to “propose her or his own insights” into center matters, and researcher “used such propositions as the basis for further inquiry” (Yin, 2009, p. 2207). Participants were given a 5-minute reflection period at the end of each interview session in order to allow time to add or elaborate any information that the participants deemed vital to the research. For example, Dean Louise premised her interview this way:
110
I’ve been witness to the center’s building from the ground up, and the reason why the center is here to serve the college student community first is because the city of Trivalley approved bond to serve the early education training needs of college students and the future professional workforce. Looking towards his upcoming retirement, Director Herb stated he was “glad to have been part of raising money for the center:” It exists to educate and train child development students, with the benefit of young children gaining early learning skills as well. Because of this dual purpose, the college Foundation was able to attract and raise $500,000 to fulfill this purpose. In my 10 years of working for this college, I will leave with our highest fundraising effort and signature fund that will last for years. Through the researcher’s written request for participation, all subjects were identified, gathered, and scheduled for 30-60 minute interviews during the research study period. Interviews mainly took place at the participant’s office or classroom, the center’s conference room, or at a private table the center’s lobby. The researcher planned to conduct one interview per participant, with the accommodation of an additional interview if the researcher determined clarification or elaboration of perspectives was warranted. The researcher determined that divergent and unusual responses to interview questions would merit the need for further clarification. Each participant was briefed about his or her voluntary cooperation in the study; possible adverse risks of participation; consent via signing the “Permission to Take Part in a Human Research Study (Appendix II), and goals for the research study itself. Moreover, participants were each informed that the interviews would be recorded and that questions would be centered on the participants’ roles and perspectives through their involvement in the center. Each participant was asked a total of 14 questions (See Appendix III) and given at least three-5 minutes per question to respond. Furthermore, participants were given a 5-minute reflection time at the end of the interview to add or elaborate on any additional information
111
pertinent to the discussion. It was during the reflection time in which many participants openly shared their opinions about the center, its dilemmas, it successes, and their advice for the center for further development. After each session, the researcher listened to the audio-recording of the interview. Then, the researcher meticulously transcribed each session into written text. The researcher also noted participant comments and pauses, if any. The researcher also took careful notes on the reflection period, in which participants gave any fundamental or additional detail to their perspectives. Researcher Cassie gave an enlightening viewpoint during the reflection period: Because I observed the center’s operations on a long-term daily basis, I was able to understand better how schools serving many people are managed. A school is kind of a business, but it has the heart of an active community that can have different expectations. For such an organization, one must run it efficiently knowing that there are many stakeholders within the life of the school. All these stakeholders have goals and objectives to achieve. I’ve observed that it gets hectic at the center, especially when all the groups collide in the mornings usually --- students, children, parents, faculty, and people like me. However, the teachers seem to know which responsibility belongs to them, and are helpful to direct individuals to the right place for assistance. I’m impressed. It takes a solid understanding and a deep passion to run a school with so many different people coming with different demands. Hats off to the center’s administration. Whether participants verbally contributed much material or not, researcher did not disregard any information given at the reflection time. Each participant was given approximately 30-60 minutes for the 14 questions, and each one took advantage of most, if not all, of their allotted interview time. Lab student Lindsay took an opportunity to express her gratitude for an on-site campus center as follows: The center opened at the right time when I needed to do observations and activities for my coursework. If this Center is not on-campus, where will I go? I guess I can ask other preschools in town if I can visit and observe. But, the college got it right when they established a center on campus. I feel sorry for the other students before me who graduated, and had to complete their assignments at other schools in the community. I know the center is new (didn’t it just open four years ago?), and still has much to build on, but the fact that the faculty recommends the site for assignments, it must reflect the 112
best practice we learn at class. I did conduct an observation at another preschool in town, but it wasn’t the same. High quality was hit or miss. I believe all ECD students need to experience and get their courses completed at our very own center. Research indicates that “comprehensive campus childcare provides a diversity of education opportunities for children and adults,” where the values of “quality child care as well as quality teacher preparation and research” are integrated into the programming (Townley & Zeece, 1991, p. 24). Furthermore, faculty member Brenda explained the following about the center: The center was built with bond money from the city of Tri-valley. Let’s not forget: the community voted and wanted a child development center on this community college campus. Many groups utilize and benefit from the center’s services. But if it weren’t for the founding faculty, like Nicole, who instituted the interest for the Center (and other faculty who have since retired) in the public, how will families, students, researchers, and the entire college benefit from the Center? First and foremost, the center was built to accommodate the lab and work experience requirements of the ECD majors, but the families, faculty and staff happen to benefit from early care and education at a real school operating within the center. Faculty Nicole added the following during her reflection: Administrative support is key to allow the center’s lab school to serve its purposes as a campus lab program, in the same respects as a nursing lab, biology lab, English lab, auto and welding lab. Our role as faculty is to educate our community on the science of child development. Having a lab school under academic services for our ECD majors to gain training/practice teaching is the reason why the center stands today. Research also has shown the field that “comprehensive campus child care is integrative rather than bi-polar in nature” wherein existing linkages within a higher education institution need to maximize the network within child care systems, the entire educational institution, and the neighboring communities (Townley & Zeece, 1991, p. 24). Today’s laboratory programs recognize and follow a model of integration (Keyes, 1984) wherein teaching, research and service are seen as equal and necessary components of an effective campus child care system (Townley & Zeece, 1991).
113
The researcher compared the lengthy transcribed responses of each participant, and each group, with each other. When necessary, participants’ responses were coded for similarities, as well as differences, to produce a more comprehensive data analysis. Specifically, recorded responses of parents, faculty, administrators, teachers, lab students, and researchers were gradually transcribed, and reflection opinions about center operations were highlighted manually using color highlighters. In order to get to the heart of the participant’s positions about the current center management of user needs from the interview questions, the following opinions were of interest: participant’s role to the center, perspectives about multiple needs met by the center, and the participant’s viewpoints about needs prioritization were noted. Each group’s priorities emerged from participant responses to the interviews. Key themes were developed and coincided with known best practices in the early childhood education field of knowledge and the tenets outlined by researchers (Keyes, 1990; McBride, 1995; Townley & Zeece, 1991). Depending on the individual group’s priorities and perspective, each theme was given a certain degree of emphasis. In terms of the multiple needs met by the center, most of the populations indicated awareness of how the multifaceted center works at the college. The researcher compared the responses of each participant, and each group, with each other. Participants’ responses were examined for similarities and differences to produce a comprehensive data analysis. Five emerging themes were developed from the written and verbal anecdotes, which represented the trends and themes between population groups. Emerging trends and themes between population groups. Through analyzing the responses of the six population groups, the five themes began to emerge. Solid and strong relationships are a must for quality program. The first study theme, “Solid and strong relationships are a must for quality program” began to emerge through the
114
responses of teachers, faculty, and researchers, and administrators, which emphasized in varying degrees the importance of consistent and responsive relationships within the classrooms. During the interview process, faculty member Nicole emphasized, “There are many ways to learn. However, authentic and lasting learning happens in the context of meaningful relationships always. You learn better from a caregiver who you trust or respect.” This was in keeping with the statement from Desiree, a teacher: I have numerous responsibilities and tasks, but the one job I enjoy the most is building relationships with the children and their families. Once you are in tune with the child and his home life and background, you are able to individualize your lesson plan according to the child’s needs and skills to master. Researcher Solveigh explained, “In my observations, I noticed the teacher who had a close connection, or bond with a child, was pretty effective in helping the child transition or cope if needed. The child and the teacher “got” each other.” This sentiment regarding the bond developed by teacher and student was echoed by lab student Marie: Since I am only assigned 6 hours per week in the preschool, and I do not stay all day or all week, I do not have a strong relationship with the children. It is hard for me to assist a child who needs redirection. It is quite the opposite case for the few teachers who are with the children all week. Their relationships are strong and trustful. Dean Louise added For a center to run smoothly, there needs to be good working relationships, not only with the children, but also among the adults housed in the center, such as faculty, parents, teachers, lab students, and researchers. Being a multi-use program, this is a sure-fire way all the programs will run like clockwork. Parent Ana made similar observation: My child has an attachment with his Head Teacher. His day is incomplete when she is out. When he sees her consistently, he stays at school longer. When she is out, he often asks to go back home. I wish he missed me the same way. His attachment to his teacher is important to me because I know he trust the teacher and his needs are being met at the center.
115
The administrators, faculty, lab/practicum students, teaching staff, and researchers gave closely similar and often congruent responses to the mission and priorities of the center. Within the three participants of each interest group, the researcher observed that there were hardly any, if any, variations in perspectives and priorities. If anything, each interest group stayed fairly close to their mission, tasks, and responsibilities, and the responses demonstrated understanding and awareness of their role and responsibilities in relation to the center. Their responses demonstrate awareness in purpose, which indicates cohesiveness and correlation in aims. All groups must learn to adjust. The second theme of the study was discovered when participants from different population groups emphasized, “All groups must learn to adjust.” There was a collective perception of need for flexibility to make the center work. The researcher sensed a cry for each group to adjust to changes, from the children to the administrators. Being flexible was a recurring theme within the diverse groups. Lab student Lindsay reported the following example: When you work as a teacher’s assistant, you are ready to do anything required of you. Sometimes you act like a nurse applying first aid, or a police officer helping children negotiate, or a sanitation technician washing and disinfecting toys and tables, or even a grounds worker inspecting the playground. You must be up to the task. Teacher Melissa also emphasized the need for flexibility: During a regular school day, I’m used to wearing many hats: parenting skills coach for families, caregiver for children needing support, teacher for children needing structure, campus employee to fellow departments we visit, reviewer for child assessments, supervisor for ECD student activities, advisor for ECD student teacher behavior, social worker for families in crisis. The list goes on and on. In our field, there is no room for egos. Faculty Patricia stated her life served as a model for the need to be flexible with interacting with teachers and children: The best way for me to teach my students is to show them my own life example: how I respectfully talk to parents, how I engage children, how I work with ECD 116
students through failed activities, how I listen to others’ opinions. I advise my students verbally on best practices. I critique their children’s projects through written feedback. However, I also show my practice through my example. Honestly, it’s exhausting but worth it when I see my students finally “get it.” Administrator Francois reported the added pressure when one is being observed by children: I’ve seen the amount of work investment the ECD faculty, teachers and ECD students put in this program. It requires constant awareness of mentoring and modeling of best practices. An added pressure is having the children observe you as you learn or teach. Dean Louise added the work required deep passion and commitment and was “continuous and transformative:” I applaud the ECD faculty and Center staff for their mindful and intentional work. Oftentimes, the work is not glamorous but continuous and transformative. You need a commitment and a deep passion for what you do with children every step of the way. The community college child study laboratory school serves as a model program for students studying ECD, and it must provide a prototype in the community, wherein “it promotes a positive impact for the early education field, but also provides quality care for young children” (Campion, 2014, p. 96). Researchers Joanne and Solveigh gave similar comments about flexibility in the field work. In this field of child development, one needs to be open to change, big and small, on a daily basis. In my observations, no day is the same when you work with children (and other groups). You almost need to be resilient from within to become a better early educator. (Joanne). Each day is different when you work with children. Add the professors, teachers, parents, and other college personnel in the mix. It can be a chaotic situation if you are not prepared internally, socially, and emotionally. (Solveigh) Training and intentional practice for emerging teachers is crucial. The third theme, “Training and intentional practice for emerging teachers is crucial,” gradually emerged largely through the valuable perspectives given by faculty, administrators, teachers, lab students, and a 117
few researchers. Faculty members, Brenda and Nicole, gave similar opinions on practice teaching for ECD students in the center: Our center has a sound and solid philosophy on developmental appropriateness in our curriculum, philosophy, and our best practice. The teachers, faculty, and for the most part, the administrators, model these best practices. Now we have to be intentional in allowing students to learn, make mistakes, and own their practice in the classrooms where they do their lab hours. (Brenda, faculty member) Unless an ECD student really owns and applies our child development theories and best practices in the classroom, it never sinks in. They will make mistakes. But, we want the ECD students to have a solid knowledge and applicable skills to use wisely out in the workforce. (Nicole, faculty member) In a child study lab, the researcher and/or pre-service teacher “works at internalizing fairly sophisticated teaching behaviors in a realistic, adequately structured, low risk learning environment, wherein the researcher observes not only his or her own progress, but also that of his or her peers” (Davis & Gregory, 1970, p. 203). Lab student Marie reported about the importance of learning by doing: I still have a lot to learn. It’s one thing to read theory in the textbook; it’s another thing to apply theory with roving toddlers (movers and shakers). I’m learning every day. I see myself stepping up to the task when the Head Teacher is out of the room. Lab student Lindsay talked about emulating and adopting attributes of effective teachers: After a while, as a lab student, you figure out who is the best teacher you’d like to emulate and become. All teachers have their different styles of doing things in the classroom. I learn to adopt the best traits of the teacher I respect most. Teacher Vashti stated the importance of training in the classroom: I am cognizant of my training of the ECD students. I talk to them about theory, cause and effect, problem solving, and extension to activities. I also help them reflect on why an activity or decision worked or didn’t work. I ask them questions and allow them to form their own conclusions, with some guidance. This is my role as their supervising Head Teacher. One day, these ECD students will be Head Teachers, and I hope they will do the same. Dean Louise made a similar assertion regarding the importance of training:
118
As the supervising Dean, I have to make sure that education code is in place during ECD course lab hours at the center, such as the head teacher possessing with a master teacher permit within the practicum class of ECD students, as the ECD faculty checks her ECD students’ activities in each classroom. Proper training of our emerging teachers in the ECD major is crucial in our college’s representation out in the professional workforce. Researcher Cassie asked the following questions as a way to emphasize the development of preservice teacher: Is there an in-service for staff? Is there an orientation for ECD practicum lab students? Is there a professional development plan for teachers and teacher assistants? All of these are beneficial for the growth and development of preservice teachers the Center is trying to cultivate as ECD majors. A vital role of the laboratory school is “to inspire and enlighten the college student preparing to teach, to minimize the transition from theory to practice, and to furnish educational leadership to the area which it serves” (Wagenhorst, 1946, p. 273). Broad buy-in is key for institutional support. The fourth theme, “Broad buy-in is key for institutional support,” emerged from discussions about the goals of the center. Administrators, faculty, teachers, lab students, and researchers all gave different suggestions for the center to widen its support base. At first glance, the center is a stunning complex of seven licensed modern classrooms (three toddler rooms and four preschool classrooms); yet at the time of the study, a mere three out of the seven classrooms were fully operational and fully functional. Lab students and researchers were conducting their practicum activities or observation projects in only three classrooms. A part-time teacher assistant and the program director cover staffing at the front desk lobby for part of the day or week. The three children’s classrooms are full, but there is obvious room to expand the programs to other classrooms. In an effort to avoid overcrowding of ECD students in the classrooms, a scheduled sign up log is for ECD students to make appointments for their projects. A demand for more ECD students to be trained with the
119
lack of classrooms for training is an ongoing dilemma each semester. In this context, researcher Cassie made the following comment: Observing the daily operations of the center, I see the need to expand your programs for ECD students, to create more children’s programs, to hire more head teachers, and to enlist more support staff. The center needs financial and administrative support from the college, or the community college district, to do so. Charging parent tuition alone will not expand the program. The center needs massive support from on campus and external sources to continue its mission. Director Herb made a similar comment about the need for external support: When the community members come to visit the Center, such as the Tri-valley Chamber of Commerce, locals see the need for this campus program to expand and train more upcoming ECD teachers, with the added benefit of early care and education for the little ones (the next generation). The Center needs more exposure out in the community. Faculty Nicole added the following regarding buy in: If and when the district recognizes the center’s lab as a legitimate child study center, like other labs on campus, the center will get more buy-in from the Board of Trustees and the district as a whole. The problem is–there are onsite faculty members who have opposed the idea from the start. Faculty Patricia asserted, “The center and its populations need to start telling its own stories of success, big and small victories. No one else on campus or the district office will tell the center’s stories. It’s basically up to us.” Teacher Melissa echoed this sentiment, “We, the center teachers and children, need to be more visible on campus. We need show the college we are here to stay.” Teacher Desiree remarked, “The center needs to form key allies on campus and at the district office. We also need to show the locals we are here to serve the public. The center needs broad mass appeal.” Lab student Romeo thought that the benefits he’s received should be enjoyed by others: “The center has helped me so much in my own academic pursuit and work experience. I’d like others, like me, to experience the benefits of being an ECD major, especially being male.” Research suggests that campus childcare programs “can serve as models for the community, as advocates for children, and as resources for other departments and programs on 120
campus, demonstrating the integration of theory and practice in both their training programs and service deliveries” (Keyes & Boulton, 1995, p. 18). These findings suggest that to continue to fulfill their function, these programs need the support of the institution and community. “With college and university support, campus children's centers can meet the challenges of providing quality child care and early education” (Keyes & Boulton, 1995, p. 4). Family enrollment is key to the center’s operations. Lastly, the fifth theme, “Family enrollment is key to the center’s operations,” surprisingly emerged as a consistent undercurrent message from the parent participant group. A similar theme specific to the parent group kept resurfacing. Interestingly enough, each of the parent participants consistently mentioned that the primary purpose for the existence of the center was to provide for the care and early education of young children while their families attend school, are employed by Scenic Innovation College, or reside in the Tri-Valley community. The perspective from the families was markedly different from the other groups in their unique perceptions of center priorities. The researcher found the parent group to be the “outliers” for the study. Slightly baffled by their unique responses in comparison to the other population groups, the researcher gave follow-up interviews to the parent population. For a few key participants, specifically the parent group, the researcher interviewed the three participants, with corresponding second follow-up interviews, “over an extended period of time, not just a single sitting” (Yin, 2009, p. 2207). Being outliers for the study, the parent group deemed the center’s primary and most important function was to provide childcare and early education to children and families. The parent group acknowledged the center’s multifaceted purpose to the college, yet reiterated that their personal and familial needs served as paramount to the center’s priorities. As the researcher read out loud the center’s four main functions to each parent participant, Ana, a
121
parent, giggled and replied, “Thanks for reading the functions out loud. It’s eye opening. Shows you how much I read the family handbook. I’m so relieved the program’s primary purpose is to serve families.” Parent Natasha made a similar statement: It is such a wonderful component to have a child development center in proximity to one’s home, school, or work. Few companies have actual centers at their own building. It helps a community to feel safe, secure, and helps boost morale for families to work hard. When you leave your child in the hands of a safe and high quality center, you can work better with peace of mind knowing your child’s needs are being met. You have our most precious commodity in your hands. No doubt this sentiment is widespread among parents. According to Keyes and Boulton (1995), “more than 80% of the survey’s student parents reported that child care availability was very important in their decision to attend college, and 46% asserted that campus child care was a first priority factor that facilitated college enrollment” (p. 2). In addition, a center serve the function of enabling student parents to attend school, which is an important function. A research study of student parents at community colleges revealed a viable and “strong relationship between the existence of child care centers on campus and academic success for student parents” (Keyes & Boulton, 1995, p. 3). However, the view of parents, which emphasized that the center’s primary mission was to serve families, stood out from the other user groups. This key finding spurred the researcher to do follow-up interviews with the participants of the parent group alone at a later time in the semester. The second round of interviews were scheduled and conducted approximately 6 to 8 weeks after the initial interviews. In this specific study, the researcher deemed that the parent group was the only population whose understanding of their role and the center’s responsibility to them needed clarification. The second round of interviews for the parent group was designed with an open-ended question and answer session. Follow-up interviews were shorter in length than preliminary interviews. The follow-up interviews were approximately 20 to 30 minutes long, and were each conducted in the center’s conference room. 122
The follow-up questions were more open-ended to gain deeper insight into the parents’ perceptions of the center’s priorities. Mainly, the researcher sought parents’ explanations of why they believed the early education and care of their children was the primary purpose of the center, and how they justified such a center priority. Derived from the center’s family handbook, the researcher read out loud the center’s four main functions to each parent participant. Each parent was then asked her opinion on the center’s multiple functions and how each participant had (or had not) observed them being carried out at the site. The parent participants were asked again about how they saw the multiple functions working in a single site. Parent Gwen responded, “I play two roles. I’m an ECD student, but I’m also a parent of a child in the center. I experience two kinds of services, I guess. My coursework is completed at the center, but I also bring my child here to learn.” Parent Natasha voiced the following observations: Being one of the first families of the center 5 years ago, I remember when there were hardly any families enrolled. There were few teachers and students observing as well. As the center grew and expanded to open other classrooms, the college hired additional teachers, and I noticed more ECD students came for training and observation. I saw more faculty and administrators come by as well. Without the enrolled families, there won’t be a lab school. But also without the new center facility, there will not be a training program. We all work hand-inhand. We co-exist to fulfill each other’s purposes. We adjust to serve each other’s needs. But, my child being taken cared of is the most important purpose for me. After the parents’ second round of follow-up interviews, the interviews were further transcribed and studied numerous times to find trends and recurring themes. Closely following this primary purpose, parents also mentioned other vital center roles in addition to serving their child’s early care and education needs, such as to provide and encourage opportunities for family involvement and parent education to enrolled families of the program. The follow-up interviews included another 5-minute reflection on any information based on their personal experience with 123
the center. Parent Ana stated, “Since the center is built to serve many groups anyway, it would be a special feature for families to add parenting workshops or parent participation in the classrooms. We need to learn and be trained about child development as well.” Parent Gwen reflected on the importance of learning more about her parenting role: As a student and as a mom, I still have a lot to learn. I learn how to care and teach other people’s children. But I need to learn what to do at home too. I make mistakes with my family. I think I’m not alone. Parents, like me, would also like to learn more about our children and how to take care of them as they grow older. We want to apply the learning at home. Investment of their child’s life in the hands of the center, beyond coursework, degree attainment, or college success, constitutes a significantly unique perspective for the parent group. The parent group has each invested the precious commodity of their child’s life. Understandably, the safety, security, teaching, learning, and development of their child are the most significant components of their family’s success. The parent group, whether a current ECD student like Gwen, or working moms like Ana and Natasha, perceived the center’s primary purpose as attending to the health, safety, and wellbeing of their child notwithstanding the center’s other functions. That is, all other center functions were secondary to their paramount concern. Responses by parents gathered from City University of New York campus centers were similar to those cited in this particular study (Keyes & Boulton, 1995, p. 21):
•
I feel more secure knowing my child is in school with me;
•
I feel that the center is well organized in meeting the children's developmental needs and that the teachers are qualified and care about the children;
•
This is the best center of all those I have visited. I trust the day care staff to take care of my child while I am at class or studying;
•
I am grateful for this center. It has allowed me to pursue my education with peace of 124
mind and the confidence that my son is getting the best care.
•
This is not just a babysitting service– it is an educational and cultural program. The center staff are competent and caring, and the facilities are good.
•
Without the center, I would have had to delay my goals. If there were no child care, I would stay at home and continue on welfare;
•
I would not attend college until I found suitable child care;
•
I would probably drop out of school until I found good day care for my child;
•
Not having this school for my child to attend would be my worst nightmare;
•
Without this program, I could not attend classes or work. I looked for a long time before I found a place that I would even consider for my child;
•
Without the center, I would not be able to attend school because we do not have the money to pay for a sitter;
•
The center fills a great need for students like me who would not be able to continue getting an education because of the need for child care. The program has motivated me to adhere to my studies because of all the support it has given me. (Keyes & Boulton, 1995, p. 21)
The parent group acknowledged the center’s multifaceted use, but it was chiefly concerned with how the center’s early care and education of their child supported their personal, familial, and occupational pursuits. Families reasonably justified their responses based on their investment of their child enrolled at the center. The responses from the parent group nevertheless raise important questions: Why did the parent group consistently insist that the main purpose of the center is to serve children and families, albeit situated at a community college
125
under the auspices of the college’s academic division? Parent Natasha suggested, “In order for the college to get more college students enrolled, the college really needs to market and promote the children’s programs of the center for student families.” While listening to the parent responses, the researcher evaluated their perspectives and inferred that there may exist a lack of communication or transference of key information from center administration to enrolled families. Did the center administration not clearly explain all the key functions of the center to families at enrollment intake interviews? Did the center and college administration unknowingly place a primary focus on children and families, with little regard of the ECD child study function to the college? Do the parents indirectly disregard the other vital functions of the center? Being barely 5 years old as a department on campus, since its opening in October 2011, the center is the first ever entity to intentionally bring the youngest population group on campus, 18 months old through 5-year olds. The college’s own campus safety department, as well as the president’s office, are well aware and mindful of the presence of minors on campus at the center. Special and unique security and safety protocols are installed and established for the center due to the regular presence of minors. Dean Louise reported the following regarding the parallel functions of the center: “The ECD program course offerings increased as the center increased its family enrollment. It worked side-by-side serving different populations but also benefitting all served.” As the center built its enrollment over the past 5 school years, the lab student participation, as well as student observation projects, increased accordingly. Understandably, administrators, faculty, lab students, researchers, and even teachers were well aware of the multiple functions of the center, as well as the overarching benefit of the educational mission and vision of the college to their own personal and professional goals.
126
“Campus child care programs are particularly well-suited to providing third-party leadership to the early childhood field, including both the sponsorship of research to address contemporary practice problems, and of professional networking activities to promote mutual support within the field” (Burton & Boulton, 1991, p. 33). Many campus child care programs recognize the importance of moving to a more active professional leadership role (Keyes, 1984; Powell, 1988). Consequently, the parent group’s perspectives on center functions gave the researcher further ideas to examine and study while the upcoming emerging themes of concern were expressed by the various population groups. The researcher returned back to the transcripts of interview responses to look for any oversight or errors in analysis. Transcriptions of responses were revisited and analyzed with and against each other. Consistently enough, the researcher found that the groups with a higher education mission, mandate, or graduation requirement (specifically the administrators, faculty members, teachers, lab students, and researchers) understood the multi-faceted focus of the center’s functions on the college campus. On the other hand, the group with an early education focus, specifically the parent group, believed that the early care and education of their child propelled other secondary functions to take place. In retrospect, the researcher discovered that although the center had been established to carry out multiple missions to diverse populations, a specific population’s focus determined their perceptions of the center’s priorities in terms of its goals. “The evolution in the role and functions of campus child care programs will be shaped by the nature of social and educational forces as well as by college and university support” (Keyes & Boulton, 1995, p. 3-4). Overview of Emerging Themes Originally, the researcher searched for key questions to answer a dilemma in this specific ethnographic research. The main research question explored and addressed by this particular
127
study is “how does a specific campus children’s center fulfill its mission and functions by serving six major populations?” The following supplemental questions are addressed as each population’s data were gathered, studied, and analyzed: How do population groups perceive the main purposes of the school? And, how, if any, is the center’s operations affected by serving multiple populations? These main and supplemental questions drove the recruitment, investigative queries, and interview approach. During the spring and summer research period of study, the researcher’s growing interest served as a backdrop for the data collection, interactive activities, and interview questions. The interview responses, as well as verbal exchanges between the participants and researcher, and follow-up interviews, revealed additional priorities, which then evolved into five main themes specific to the effective operations of the center. All the participants shared their knowledge and experiences based on their contribution, past participation, and/or continuing work with the center. Interpretations from focused data were used to draw implications and conclusions as related to the research questions and population priorities for this study. Key themes significantly developed from the numerous data sources studied. Themes satisfactorily coincided with known best practices in the early childhood education field of knowledge, and underscored the tenets of researchers (Keyes, 1990; McBride, 1995; Townley & Zeece, 1991). From the interview anecdotes, transcriptions, and documents, the five emerging themes developed. Depending on the focus of each population or interest group, each theme was given a certain degree of emphasis relating to the participant’s perception of roles, priorities and purposes of the center. All the participants shared their knowledge and experiences based on their roles, contribution, past participation, and/or continuing work with the center. Interpretations from
128
focused data were used to draw conclusions as related to the research questions for this study. As is the case, through further reading and study of peer-reviewed articles, the researcher discovered distinct similarities and parallels between the plights of public educational school systems with the missions of campus lab school operations. Hence, the specific challenges a center experiences are not new to other public institutions serving multiple populations. Parallel patterns materialized out of the data between school operations of other school districts and campus child development center operations. Five emerging themes from the study developed out of data gathered from the key participants primarily through the interview process. Not apparent at first, but after the researcher transcribed and compared the voices of each participant within each group, and each group’s voice amongst other groups, the themes slowly manifested. Being a qualitative study, the transparent voices of the participants were key in determining what mattered most to the diverse group of participants. Each participant’s background clearly reflected and directed their viewpoint about the workings of the center. Participants were described by their backgrounds and roles, their investment and use of the center, and their interactions with other groups in order to produce a comprehensive data analysis. Each group’s priorities indeed emerged from participant responses to the interviews. Within the analysis, the parent group responses revealed a slight deviance from the other groups. The parents emerged to be the outliers for the study. On the other hand, the parent group deemed the center’s primary function to be different from the rest of the populations. Unlike the rest of the populations, the parents maintained that service to children and families for early education and childcare service was the primary, main, and most important function of the center. The five emerging trends and themes between population groups are as follows.
129
Theme I: Solid and strong relationships are a must for a quality program. Young children are wired and ready to learn during their formative years. From toddlerhood to preschool age, children participate in their own learning by means of exploration, discovery, and examination of materials, interaction with their learning environment, with supportive of responsive teachers nearby. Learning happens in the context of meaningful relationships between the child and teacher. “As a parent watching what the venter accomplishes,” Parent Natasha observed, “I see the importance of building solid attachments between children and teachers.” However, she added, “for teachers to be natural at these skills, they need ongoing training to continue their work. By the way, do administrators come visit and see these wonderful practices that take place here?” Parent Ana described the classroom as “a wonderful and nurturing place for my child to grow and develop with teachers while I’m at work. I wish all children had the same opportunities.” In the absence of the head teacher taking care of daily logistics, the role of student teachers becomes crucial to fostering ongoing meaningful relationships with children. When a child and a trusted adult have a strong ongoing relationship, the learning environment is generally positive, warm, engaging, and learning routines often run smoothly. Child development research has shown the need for meaningful authentic relationships among the residents of a center. Parent Gwen reiterated, “I now see the importance of consistency and continuity for children. The teachers are wonderful. My child is happy, safe, and loves it here. I can’t ask for anymore.” In the same way, based on interview responses, when parents, teachers, faculty, and administrators possess ongoing positive working relationships between themselves, an amount of
130
trust is engendered, and the children thrive. Parent Natasha also emphasized the importance of good working relationships among stakeholders: I know you take care of my daughter much better than I would if I stayed home. I am not meant to stay home. That’s why it’s important to have teachers, the director, parents, administrators, and student teachers develop good working relationships with each other. I do believe it take a village to raise a child, especially my child! Parents also desire to see more networking and involvement of shared expertise from ECD faculty. Director Francois (also a former parent) made the following suggestion Since ECD faculty have such a wealth of knowledge about child development, can they be on-hand to answer parenting questions? Can they give family-focused seminars? Can they be an educational resource for us parents as well? We, parents as well as administrators, would love to work with their child development expertise. A program, such as this one, can encourage such strong connections between groups. Teachers see the importance of their relationships with parents in the classrooms, as Teacher Vashti observed: Trusting relationships between the head teacher and student teachers with the families are the key component to the child’s success in the classroom. When a child is aware her parent has confidence in her teachers, the child is free to explore, grow, and develop to the next level. Teacher Melissa thought families could be more involved in the center: I know our center does not require parent participation hours, but is there a way we can give families incentives to participate, especially on staffing crisis days? It will benefit the families to see their child and the staff’s working relationship on a regular day of school. “As a head teacher,” Teacher Desiree made the following statement: On a daily basis, I am faced with interactions with parents, attachment relationships with children, and instructing and redirecting students. I believe these groups are the heart of the Center. Children, teachers, parents and ECD students matter most. These groups are the ones where I pour most of my time and effort. Although faculty, administrators and researchers have an important part to the Center, there are groups who use the Center on a more consistent and regular basis than others. And, we teachers are blessed to work here because of the college’s aim to open a lab for students. 131
Lab/practicum students stated they wanted to see more involvement of parents and administrators in their work. “When I spend 5 hours per day with the toddlers,” Lab student Marie, explained, “it is my break.” She elaborated as follows: What I mean is, working with young children is what I really want to do, but this job does not pay the bills. My other job does. But when I am here I get to do what I want to do, toddlers need me, and we have a strong bond throughout the year. I get to learn at the lab school from others; but at the same time, I get to see the children grow and develop over time. I form great relationships with the parents, other students, and the teachers as well. It’s a good place for me. It’s a place of learning for everyone even me. It’s my break. Really. Similarly, lab student Romeo pondered When I complete a child development project for my professor, how do the parents or the campus benefit? I understand that coursework centers on my learning, yet I believe the center is much more than an information-gathering site. In fact, it is research that could be used to make important decisions for the center. The relationships built here make this a community. Lab student Lindsay also wished out loud, “There must be stronger relationships and connections between student – teachers – parents – administrators. Solid relationships in the best interest of the child benefits the entire campus community, and can help eventually influence public policy.” Faculty members voiced the desire to see more visibility of the program director, teachers, and staff, who run a smooth program, outside of the department, and in the life of the campus. Faculty Patricia declared, “It is good for the campus to see our own department interacting and getting along out on the campus. They need to see how valuable our work means in early education. It starts with us early educators.” Faculty Nicole stated, “Good working relationships between all our groups must be our label we are known for on our campus.” Solid relationships require deep understanding, sensitivity, and intentional time and effort between populations. Administrator Louise admitted
132
Never have I seen such a bustling school like the center (I’m not around children a lot). Many people coming in and out, faculty advising students, students working with teachers, teachers helping out parents, students with requirements observing throughout the day, and children laughing and playing. It’s just meant to be a multi-service component of the campus. Director Herb reflected on his last project with the center by saying, “When I needed to put together the video marketing project for the college, the parents, teachers, and faculty came together to meet with the Foundation. I think there is something special happening here.” Consequently, when positive working relationships are intentionally fostered, it reflects on the center’s program perceived effectiveness. Researcher Cassie commented on the center’s atmospheric and emotional effect on her. She described the center lobby as a “cold unwelcoming place,” but added that “the classrooms were teeming with love and life.” Researchers, on the other hand, are able to witness strong relationships within the classrooms, and they attribute them to head teacher’s training, mentoring, or modeling to staff. Researcher Cassie suggested the idea of “hiring more teaching staff in the lobby area to welcome and connect all the different groups.” Researcher Joanne commented, “The world out there does not see the intricate relationships built in this center. There is a thriving community of relationships present here. Unless one is involved, one does not see how the community works with each other. The added benefit of collaborative relationships in the center is that upcoming coordination of center events, projects, and tasks are generally carried out with little difficulty. Quality early education and care is defined by implementing a child-centered approach to working with young children; of which the developmental goals of practicing play-based learning, interacting with peers, and working with open-ended materials which necessitates a safe and secure learning environment for optimal health and development (Cryer, 1999). The teacher or primary caregiver is responsible to facilitate guided play, provide security, respond respectfully, reciprocate with openness to share access to information and introduce appropriate 133
learning experiences; rather than being a teacher who is negative, harsh, restrictive, or uninterested in relationships with children (Cryer, 1999). Quality child care is defined as follows: Settings that are safe and provide small group sizes and adult-to-child ratios encouraging the best opportunities for development, caregivers or teachers who have experience and are trained in early childhood development, settings that offer opportunities for meaningful parent involvement, learning materials and teaching styles that are age appropriate and respectful of children’s cultural and ethnic heritage, and learning opportunities that promote a child’s success in school (California Department of Education, 2011; National Association for the Education of the Young Children, 2011, p. ). Researcher Joanne explained the following from her observations: You can determine which children are at home and comfortable in the program, and which teachers and student teachers are “in tune” with children. It is apparent not only in verbal exchanges and interactions, but in comfort level, body language, and visual satisfaction in the program of both teachers and children. Hence, children develop stronger attachments to caregivers whose interactions with children are typically positive and at close range rather than to caregivers whose interactions are typically interventions from long distance (King & MacKinnon, 1988). Responsive, reciprocal, and respectful caregivers and teachers enhance the quality of a child’s positive learning experience. Theme II: All groups must learn to adjust. A comprehensive campus child care system provides an integrative avenue through which to implement the strengths of its programs: Teaching of adults and children becomes more effective and realistic, as well as generalizable, by varying educational levels of teachers are viewed as necessary and valuable, by expanding research networks and opportunities facilitates more basic and applied, as well as more quantitative and qualitative inquiry, and by having flexibility of programming, clear delineation of jobs, and many combined resources allow the needs of the total community to be better met while enhancing academic and child care programming in far-reaching ways. (Townley & Zeece, 1991, p. 26).
134
The adjustment that population groups need to make was underscored by parent Natasha’s remark: It’s just like to viticulture lab here on campus. The viticulture lab works on the college winery grapes to produce fine wine. Here at the child development center, the children are our grapes. If the college does not enroll children, then there would be no lab to conduct teacher training. Without the children, there is no training. Therefore, I imagine other groups adjusting to the presence of children, and their personalities, in the mix. Parent Gwen agreed, “The families are important. If it weren’t for the families enrolling the children, there would be no subjects to study or train with. The children come first.” The implication was that others should adjust to these priorities. In the life of the center, daily operations can be unpredictable. Because young children often carry introductory communicable diseases and have yet to learn consistent hygiene and health practices, diverse populations who come in contact directly with the children often contract similar illnesses, specifically parents, teachers, faculty, lab practicum students, and researchers. Hence, major adjustments are often needed due to children, teachers, lab students, and faculty being out ill. Short staffing days are the biggest difficulties in a workday, and much flexibility is required of the remaining staff. Parent Gwen lamented, “Bringing my child to a group care setting unfortunately exposes him to other children’s illnesses. But all in all, it helps his immunity in the long run. I just wish I didn’t get infected sometimes.” Similarly, parent Natasha stated, “I notice the preschool head teacher is quite absent a lot. I know she has younger children as well to care for. Who usually steps in to take her place when she is out? Are they just as qualified?” Dean Louise made the following lament: When there is a staffing crisis in a given day, two of the head teachers collaborate ideas, coordinate schedules, and problem solve their daily routines together, while one Head teacher merely reports and expects problem solving from administrators. We need more initiative than that. The center director (administrator) needs to give clear direction and training for problem-solving skills. This skill needs to be instilled in head teachers. 135
Proponents call for today’s lab schools to evolve, change, and operate with a “lab school framework” in mind, wherein teachers engage in reflective thought, actively connect research and theory with practice, serve as role models to student interns and observers, and provide support for laboratory school activities (Branscomb & McBride, 2005). This framework contains expectations for teachers that go well beyond those typically encountered in typical childcare settings. Teachers are required to actively be aware of why they do what they do with children, how the classroom programming they create contributes to children's development, and how such programming fits within the philosophy of the program and the missions of the lab school (Branscomb & McBride, 2005). Head teachers can be inundated with major responsibilities and minor program logistics throughout the day, which take their focus off their relationship with the children often. Hence, children tend to spend most of their activities and routines with their trusted teacher assistants. Teacher assistants often enjoy the privilege of focusing directly on the children at all times. Lab student Lindsay stated, “I don’t mind being an assistant to the head teacher. The beauty of not being in charge of the program is that one gets to really observe, get to know, and spend time with the children.” Lab student Marie added the following: We have many roles with the children. Even with the head teacher’s direction, we can carry out many tasks, such as diapering, housekeeping, meal preparation, or comforting a child when they are sad. We have to be mindful at all times, and very flexible to change at any given minute. They key is not to show the children that you are changing gears. You need to stay calm. Even with flexibility, head teachers claim they have insufficient office time for lesson planning; individualization of care and planning is diminished with multiple functions; the presence of other staff members to assist are limited during student work; direct contact with head teacher is limited; and children’s experiences are delegated to student teacher work. Being
136
employed and/or enrolled in an operating lab training school, all teaching staff are expected to adjust to changes in order to ensure that children, parents, and faculty have a productive experience. Faculty members are concerned with the successful flow of the day for children and families, as well as service for their lab students and college researchers. Faculty Brenda reiterated the following along these lines: I understand the different, and sometimes, competing needs of all of us who use the center. It’s fine to have this diversity of purposes. In fact, it makes for a rich functional site for many groups. However, the Center would not be around if it was not for the ECD department’s push for a lab program for teacher training. The citizens of Tri-valley voted for a bond, which funded the center being built on campus. The city wanted a teacher-training site for our ECD students to receive their degrees. The side benefit is having an early care and education program for student families, faculty and staff families, as well as the community families. With the center’s frequent staffing challenges, faculty are concerned that there is always a credentialed teacher (with a Master Teacher permit) in place whenever their students are conducting work experience or projects in the children’s programs. The faculty concerns are as follows: students are able to conduct their work experience and lab/practicum hours successfully each week, a staff member with a Master Teacher permit holder (or higher) is present whenever students are conducting work in classrooms, children’s needs are sufficiently met in spite of presence of plentiful adults (students and staff) in programs, and college researchers are able to be served by center and able to conduct observations when requested. Consequently, faculty members have expressed support for the programs, especially on days when lab or practicum students are in place in the classrooms. Faculty members advise their lab or practicum students to give additional support to teachers and teacher assistants on staffing crisis days. On non-lab days, usually two faculty members are available to step in to help teachers with breaks on a staffing crisis day. Faculty Nicole reiterated the “need for 137
appropriate and quality staffing for child study purposes to fulfill Title V course requirements. And, of course, Title 22 for staff and child ratios.” Faculty members also perceive that limiting the number of lab/practicum students present in the children’s classroom at a given time enables a child-centered environment. Thus, the head teachers attend to the child’s daily routines, schedules, and daily interests as a priority that he or she models to students. The students then are able to ask questions and get clarification during specific times when teachers are not working directly with children. Faculty Brenda emphasized that “the relationship between faculty members and the center’s program director needs to be cooperative and collaborative. Proximal level of communication is key.” Moreover, Brenda, a member of the faculty, stated she would like to see more early education services extended to other income eligible families in the future: I wish the center had available subsidy equally for both low income students and faculty or staff at Scenic Innovation College, who couldn’t afford the tuition. Community colleges need to be welcoming and affordable to these key groups they serve. We need to adjust our priorities as a community. We are all struggling to work and pay for childcare at the same time. Faculty member Patricia added the following: A change needs to happen from legislation down to higher education then to school districts. Lawmakers need to adjust the lens [with which] they perceive early care and education. The first 5 years is crucial for optimal growth and development. Legislation focus needs to be in bolstering and empowering early education programs. Then and only then we will see the respect and legitimacy the science of child development deserves, and it will affect all of us who work in this field. Lab students believe their course project requirements are of utmost importance. Incompletion of course requirements are a major concern when the center attempts to serve multiple groups. These students perceive their responsibility to their faculty for course completion as a priority, and completion of their projects at this specific site is imperative. For
138
lab student, Romeo, successful coursework and breaking mainstream stereotypes of the child development field, which is that it is primarily for women, constitute major life adjustments: I got into the field of child development after my son was diagnosed to be within the Autism spectrum in preschool. As a parent, you want to learn, be trained, adjust and change. You want to apply the right strategies to help your child become successful in school. You make sacrifices for your child. All of a sudden, my restaurant job was not as important to me anymore. By being one of the only males in ECD classes, or even the field, I’m showing society that I can learn, adjust, change professions, and still be good at what I do. I feel like I’m slowly changing minds and perceptions of working in this field. Once I become a better teacher, parents will slowly develop trust in me to form relationships with them, and especially their child. I’m so grateful I can learn in a place that shapes the way we interact with children, for generations to come. Lab students’ needs are unmet when the following conditions take place: there is limited center service availability time, a limited number of children in attendance on day of project completion, and when other lab students select the same days for project completion. Lab/practicum students believe times for work experience and lab work must be available; flexibility for change in schedule must be offered frequently; and their own presence in classroom contributes to the richness of child’s experience. Lab student Romeo also added the following: Since the Center is a lab for the campus community, and it needs to be available to all students for observation, activities, and research. Administration needs to make sure there is ample staffing and infrastructure to accommodate this important purpose for students. Being mindful of her own learning, Lab student Lindsay proposed, “In order to learn in a lab school, one must be adaptable and flexible to change:” As students, we learn so much about what is appropriate for children’s learning and wellbeing. The Center has changed my own practice, and it continues to change other student’s methods. I wish there was a way we can bring these kinds of changes to a more influential level, like the state level. Why do we only change within our college, state officials need to learn these things too? I would like to see Center research brought to the state’s attention. We do not have that yet, I don’t think. 139
Researchers, on the other hand, have difficulty comprehending program challenges, such as staffing crisis days. Researchers understandably readily expect to be served with the check-in and briefing process, course requirement fulfillment, and observation assistance. Availability of plenty of observation time slots is an additional priority for researchers. Flexibility of their course requirement needs is low on their priority. Researcher Cassie stated that “observing the center operations as an outsider, I noticed the multiple obligations the center has for children, parents, teachers, and students.” Her additional comment highlights the flexibility required for such a model: There were times I also observed faculty bring their entire class to the center for observations or tours. The front desk teacher was bombarded with tasks of signing in students, checking ID, filling out forms, checking parents in. Although I know a school is also a business, this center fulfills more than a business profit model. As an educational institution, there are many groups using this specific center with different requirements of their own. How does the center manage all these needs? Meanwhile, Researcher Solveigh spoke to the benefits and drawbacks of a campus child study lab site. She stated, “I am privileged to have a site where I can conduct my projects, and it is available for most of the day. But, what if a researcher was only available in the evenings? How can they conduct research here?” Consequently, when researchers begin to observe the children’s interactions, they are notably flexible in their expectations that children will be and act themselves; albeit they are not as flexible with the needs of other groups. Administrators, on the other hand, managerially support the programs through approval of staff hiring decisions, of center expenses, as well as highlighting the center’s purposes and accomplishments to the entire campus community. Administrators hold that although they lack active and engaged interaction with specific populations, their other major responsibilities include the need to make influential decisions for staffing, hiring, retention, funding, and professional development of teachers. Director Herb stated his “responsibility [was] to weed out 140
employees or assistant teachers who are mediocre and need to be reassigned to other responsibilities.” Reflecting on her own administration, Dean Louise admitted, “Prior to being assigned the center, I had no knowledge or background about the science of child development,” adding, “I don’t even have children of my own to base any experience on.” However, she stated her understanding has grown with her work with the center: Yet, being involved in the center’s start-up hiring, being part of the business plan committee, and now being in charge of its oversight, I’ve taken a step back, asked many questions, and allowed myself to learn, grow, and experience how a lab school functions. Now I understand that the primary purpose of the center is to serve the coursework requirements for ECD students and other disciplines primarily, faculty and teachers guide them, and families benefit from the richness of the experience at the same time. Dean Louise added, “Besides carrying out major tasks on my end, the director needs to curb student teacher absenteeism from her front in order to boost staff morale and create continuity and consistency for the children’s programs.” Parent Natasha made the following observations of her child’s classroom regarding flexibility: One head teacher’s absenteeism and promptness is a major concern for one of the classrooms and needs to be addressed by offering flexibility in work schedules or reassignment. A center is like a ship, with the director at the helm. The quality will only go as far as the rowers take it. Teaching staff, administrators, faculty, lab/practicum students, and researchers’ flexibility to adjust and openness to develop is key to a quality integrative program. Struggling with her words, one of the parent participants, Gwen, reflected on the need to accept feedback and the need to change gracefully: A person has to be teachable–adjusting to change always. When faculty, or a director, or an administrator corrects you, you cannot get mad. Offended. You have to be humble to change your set ways to improve. For a child’s wellbeing, at the same time, there has to be a good relationship between all teachers, faculty, students, parents and admins because this is a place of learning. This is a lab school for this very purpose.
141
Director Francois stated, “As a former parent, I would’ve liked to see more faculty involvement in conducting parent trainings or giving occasional parent advice. For parents, they are ‘in-house’ experts to how we interact appropriately with our own children.” To many of the participants, flexibility to change and adapt to transformation of roles, responsibilities, and best teaching practices are key aspects of working in and with a comprehensive training lab program. Adjustment leads to more of the participants’ needs supported in the long run. Researcher Francois made the following recommendation: Since the ECD department produces the highest number of certificates granted per year, I would like to see the same effort from students pushed by faculty to attain their associates’ degree for transfer that would be the next step. All these students are gaining skills and knowledge in best practices, how about families too? Dean Louise asserted that despite the need to adjust to the many purposes of the center, the lab offered an ideal opportunity for ECD students: Establishing a child study lab on the college site pushes our ECD students to do preservice work with children, without being actually employed to teach. Preservice training is important for all vocational disciplines. The ideal place to master theory and apply best practices in teaching is the child study lab school. Students are safe to explore, discover, and experiment with young children under the guidance of their professor. “Comprehensive campus child care responds to the value of commitment of the higher education institution and its community constituents by providing amenable and adaptable services to a diverse clientele; thereby, meeting “the needs of the context of the total community” (Townley & Zeece, 1991, p. 20). Theme III: Training and intentional practice of emerging teachers is crucial. When the head teacher of each classroom is inundated with the immediate concerns of parents, lab/practicum students, faculty, administrators, or researchers visiting the children’s classroom, the assistant teachers are usually left to attend to the care and supervision of the children. Although the majority of assistant teachers have at least 12 Early Childhood Education units 142
(each classroom has teachers with Associates Degrees in ECD), assistant teachers are in need of initial and ongoing training in developmentally appropriate methods to use in a group care setting of children. Campus children’s centers are responsible for implementing three distinct and valuable roles to early education: training, research, and service (Couchenour & Chrisman, 1989; McBride et al., 2012). The training role includes demonstration of model curricula and cutting-edge early education materials and equipment to preservice teachers, to provide teachers with the opportunity to observe the stages of development, plan and implement care studies, or conduct interviews, and promote professional growth to student teachers. Faculty Patricia shared her perceptions about her role as follows: To work in a lab school as an instructor is one of the things I like to do. One’s teaching of theory is supported by cutting-edge equipment, a state-of-the-art facility, and a community of learners all at the center for the purpose of learning. You see students learn and grow over time (most do at least). Then, they move on to work at other sites. It’s a professional development site for all of us. Faculty member Nicole also reflected on her role: Our role as faculty in our very own center is to encourage students to observe their own personal “theory into practice.” When they own their own learning in support of faculty and teachers at the center, you will see best practices out in the field at different sites. We hope to graduate students with a true understanding of developmentally appropriate methods of teaching and learning. At least, that’s our hope. Teacher Vashti expressed the value of the teaching experience at the center: When teachers get additional courses and specialized training beyond the minimum requirements of their jobs, it speaks volumes to the field, to the parents, observers, and administration. It shows we are professionalizing our passion to work with children. I’ve never worked anywhere else but a lab school. I imagine and have heard that to get specialized training and mentoring for students, this is the best place to be. The research role positions the center to serve as a site for data collection and primary research projects, to serve as a demonstration site for practical applications of relevant research findings, and to generate knowledge about child development. The following statement from 143
one of the researchers, Solveigh, underscores the value of the center for students engaged in research: It’s so convenient for state university students, like me, who live close to the campus. Even if I no longer attend Scenic Innovation College, I am still allowed to do my practicum hours here at the center for my bachelor’s program. I get to observe and work with the staff, other lab students, and faculty side-by-side. My own university’s child development center closed a few years ago, so students with practicum hours to fulfill have to find alternative places. I’m so glad I can conduct my requirements here. This practicum is one the last courses I need for my degree. This sentiment has been underscored by researchers who have noted that comprehensive campus child care centers provide a rich and varied environment for research and training opportunities; such centers encourage basic and applied questions which are studied using quantitative and qualitative approaches for the benefit of child development, parent, teacher education, child care management, and early childhood education (Keyes & Boulton, 1995). Lastly, in the service role, centers provide child care or early childhood programs for young children and also strive to become an educational resource for families about child rearing and child development. Centers also develop into advocates for child and family issues and, lastly, serve as a liaison or referral source to other human service organizations and agencies. Dean Louise reflected on her own role as follows: My role is one of administrative oversight of center operations, help assist its smooth and successful management, make decisions to allow the center to accomplish its goals for the college, and ensure that students are accomplishing their course requirements for degree, certificate or transfer. She added with a smile, “But if I had my own child, he or she will be attending this center as well while I work.” Fulfilling these distinct roles requires a careful collaboration and cooperation between the multiple user groups of its host institution. In serving multiple populations, center teaching staff members realize the numerous responsibilities of serving multiple populations and believe it is part and parcel of their job 144
descriptions. However, they also see that fulfilling their responsibility to children, families, lab/practicum students, and researchers is negatively disrupted when there is insufficient release time and resources provided by administration in serving well their perceived direct populations. Disruptions in fulfilling their responsibilities are due to nonexistent or limited office hours, lack of release time to meet needs, lack of supplies and resources to meet needs, and lack of time for reflective practice. Teacher Vashti lamented, “When will administration give us enough permanent teachers? It is frustrating to carry out our work when a department feels they are low on the totem pole of college priorities for hiring.” A major part of the head teacher’s job description is to be able to train, mentor, and model for practicing student teachers the “best practices” of theory into practice care and learning approaches. The head teacher is also responsible for assisting the development of student teachers’ skills and knowledge in developmentally appropriate curriculum approaches in working with young children in group care. Teacher Desiree chuckled as she mentioned her recent experience of observers: I’ve worked at other early childhood sites run by the state [and] I see the difference now working at a campus center. Working here makes me feel innovative and experimental in nature. How many people come to my classroom simply to observe the kind of furniture I have? This will never happen in a regular preschool, and certainly not where I used to work. I’ve never had people come in just to look at my classroom furniture. It is different to work in a lab school. Teacher Melissa stated that she is “privileged to have had the opportunity to be able to train student teachers in the field: In my other job, it was a state-subsidized program with much state forms, and a lot of classroom management. I learned to multi-task conducting all those responsibilities. Here at our Center, I feel more fulfilled in that I can use my knowledge, skills, and expertise to train and teach brand new or emerging student teachers. The fun part is also watching them grow and develop over each semester. 145
Teaching staff members of young children seem to believe that their role in engaging children’s learning and supporting their growth and development, as well as modeling and mentoring college students, enables the department to be successful in its aims to build a stronger and prepared work force graduating from the college. Teacher Melissa reflected on her work with children: I feel privileged to be working here. You get the best of both worlds: working with children but also with faculty who teach and are current with child development research. The Center standards for teacher qualifications, classroom ratios, Center materials and equipment, and teaching philosophy is set at a high bar. Rightfully so, the Center is a lab school for the community to learn best practice. That’s why I have to keep up my permit, my credentials, my knowledge of current child development developments, and be able to share best practices with families, lab students, teachers, even faculty of other disciplines. We, teachers, have to be the on-site experts for the different groups. They are watching what we say and do. We have to be on our toes all the time. Checking our practice, modeling for others, mentoring students, helping children negotiate and interact with each other, while the entire world watches us. It’s high pressure to be watched, knowing that other people are learning from you, but I’m getting better. Teacher Vashti declared how much she enjoyed training college students: I love training students, I mean college students. I train students while I work with the children. I welcome their questions; I explain why I do what I do as they watch me; I don’t mind having numbers of students in my classroom with the children, as long as they are helping support the children too. We have to agree on that principle. I do not want ‘more children’ to care for. The students learn by doing, just like the children. The head teacher, program director, and early childhood education faculty can model and mentor best practices in the field to assistant teachers. However, when a laboratory school environment continues to serve multiple populations and remains a frenzied environment, the quality of care and supervision of young children must be regularly examined, evaluated, and educated. In a recent article on teacher training in Education Week, with the early education field continuing to grow nationally the author establishes that the driving force within exemplary children’s programs is teacher quality (Stevens, 2015). Teacher quality in the toddler and early preschool 146
programs as opposed to the preschool programs was distinctly different. As assistant teachers in the younger classes tended to be more engaged and responsive to the needs of children, assistant teachers in the preschool programs have had lackluster and distant exchanges with children. Lab or practicum students generally go with the flow of the day’s activities with little voice or opinion. Lab Student Romeo mentioned “the need for patience on his work with children, and to be reminded of best practices often, because we always fall back on our own home caregiving ways of doing things.” Since head teachers hold the main responsibility of interacting with the multiple populations in the program, teacher assistants usually take the head teacher’s place of fostering and maintaining the daily and meaningful relationships with children. Teacher Desiree lamented on the difficulty of fulfilling multiple responsibilities when she wants to focus on the children’s learning. She emphasized the need to train students to be competent in doing what she does: There are times my role is really to engage with the children and foster their learning. Yet, as a head teacher, I am pulled in different directions to solve classroom crisis, talk to an upset parent, or send a mildly sick child home. I feel that I need to equip my student teachers to do what I do in a more confident way, so they can carry on what I meant to do in the first place. Lab student Marie noted, “I am confident to do what needs to be done when the head teacher steps out of the room. However, I’m not sure if parents will take my word, or respect how I am able to problem solve.” Teachers and lab/practicum students alike expressed the need for supportive professional training to accomplish their job responsibilities. Lab student, Romeo stated, “I study my head teacher, and move as she moves. If I have questions about her decisions, I lean to ask later and simply follow.” Lab/practicum students need encouragement and empowerment as they carry out their duties under the head teacher’s supervision. Hence, head teachers, parents, researchers, faculty members, and administrators all expressed a strong need for targeted professional training of student teachers in play-based 147
curriculum scaffolding, critical thinking skill-building, logical reasoning language-building, respectful conflict resolution, reciprocal authentic exchanges, and responsive social-emotional support. Emerging teachers in early education need assistance in developing their knowledge and skills into a doable daily routine and practice, which comes naturally as they work closely with children. Stevens (2015), in Education Week declared the following: This is the right time to make crucial, carefully considered decisions about how teachers should be prepared to educate very young children, and invariably a route predictably promoted by education schools and the teachers' unions is to require preschool teachers to get degrees in education (p. 1) However, the approach has been found to fail to produce a high-quality workforce and unnecessarily binds the emerging early-education sector to unequipped teacher-preparation programs (Stevens, 2015). Each classroom’s student teachers are to be trained in critical reasoning prompts and logical queries with children; they are not to be trained in simply classroom management instructions. Administrator Francois reflected on his role for the center as well as his own daughter’s attendance at the center: I’ve always been a research and statistical report resource for the ECD Department, especially when the faculty need findings for their program reviews. I help the faculty by supplying them the information I’ve obtained from campus surveys and assessments. This kind of information helps drive the decisions to add in-demand courses, or eliminate low enrolled courses. It also helps to see the changing landscape of needs and potential offerings for the professional workforce. I see the need for specialized training support for our early childhood workforce. Having my daughter enrolled at the center for 1 year, it was really enlightening to observe the numbers of students, teachers, parents (some of whom were also students), faculty and staff members use the center. Beyond the numbers, a real vibrant learning community was taking place here where my child was also learning. Faculty members Brenda, Nicole, and Patricia had very similar viewpoints regarding the center’s functions as outlined in the Family Handbook. 148
The community needs to know first and foremost that all of our center services exist because the plan to have a child study lab school was first put in place. If it were not for the lab school in place, a model school, a place for early education and childcare, and a parent advisory committee will not be alive today. All other functions follow because we have a child study center first. (Faculty Brenda) I was part of the original ECD faculty who proposed the need for a child study lab to the college. Then the need went into college council, then the district office, then the local ballots, then the city bond was approved. It is wonderful to be a part of history. (Faculty Nicole) The lab/practicum training component is key to the operations of the campus lab school, and all population groups need to understand its vital purpose to the college. Theme IV: Broad community buy-in is key for institutional support. Lab schools have traditionally survived and thrived as vital educational components of higher education institutions through support from diverse funding sources, foundation endowments, academic sponsors and benefactors, as well as monetary support from the host institution themselves. Besides the monetary contributions, the campus lab school setting needs to gain and gradually establish broad appeal to its constituents and community in order to merit continual significance to higher education aims. In this study, the researcher found that there was a consensus among all six populations that there needs to be broad buy-in of the community to support the center. The parents voiced the belief that the center’s main function of serving the early education and quality care needs for families is not efficiently implemented when basic needs are not provided by center staff, administrators, and faculty. The parent group recognized the multiple populations served by the center but placed priority according to their personal and familial goals. From the parents’ perspective, their child’s health, safety, wellbeing, education, and optimal development were inadequately attended to under the following conditions: decrease or no recruitment of competent teaching staff by administration, decrease of teaching staff engagement due to low morale, lack 149
of attention to training of lab/practicum students, and lack of effort given to child engagement, lack of funding of classroom resources for children by administration, and lack of expertise engagement by faculty. Researchers from within the college, from sister colleges, and from other institutions, perceived the center as a setting for their major or course requirements. They usually discovered the center’s availability for data collection through word of mouth, happenstance, or direction by their faculty member. Researchers stated the center needs more visibility in terms of being available for course requirement fulfillment. Researcher Joanne put it this way: In collaboration with the research analyst, Francois, for the county, I have to develop a needs assessment report each semester for ECD students. The report assists in defining the demand for more ECD courses, specializations, and learning communities. My job is to ensure that all our local ECD students are adequately served. This report justifies the need for more ECD faculty, support staff, or center teachers at the college. I present my findings to the county and the college. Unfortunately, the college is the entity that normally pays for additional positions. I research the demand, validate the needs, and present them. I am like an advocate for the ECD department and the field as a whole. I continually seek buy-in from the community stakeholders and constituents to the college. Looking around, researcher Solveigh asked, “Has the college administration ever come for a visit to this center? Are they aware of what the center does?” Researcher Cassie was exhilarated when asked to join the study. The following statement expresses the appreciation she felt for the center: If it weren’t for such a center like this one, where would I go to do my semesterlong observation project? Imagine me sitting at an office for an entire semester for my human resources course. The center is far more exciting and unpredictable as a research subject. Researchers seem to understand the circumstances surrounding limited availability of observation or project time slots, but they are concerned about their projects going uncompleted when the center is unable to accommodate their academic needs. Their ties with the center tend 150
to be more detached in comparison to other populations the center serves. Unlike lab/practicum students, researchers have options to conduct their course requirements at other higher education institutions. They perceive the center’s program is inefficient when an immediate time slot is unavailable, a preferred time slot is filled, the center front desk staff are not present to check them in, and there are few options for change in availability schedule. Researchers expressed the belief that it is the center’s responsibility to hire teachers and student teachers to staff programs for children at all times. In addition, they expressed the understanding that it is the center’s responsibility to meet the research needs of researchers with stable staffing, ongoing availability of slots, and that children can be themselves at all times. From the perspective of lab school proponents (Schwartz, 1991), establishing an identity within the college community requires an understanding of the key elements that constitute the campus children’s center and their internal relationship (within the host institution), as well acknowledgement of the other communities that play a role in the life of the children’s center. Sponsors, producers, and consumers are the communities that play an integral role of the center’s functioning and daily operations (Schwartz, 1991). The type of funding or fiscal support, and the kind of administration a campus center receives can serve as a stimulus for the center’s daily programming operations. Amidst the distinct center functions, the majority of children’s centers fall under the backing of one of two major administrative campus offices: academic services or student services. The program administration of the campus center has a significant impact on the focus, development, and delivery of curriculum, as well as professional development, reaching to the classroom level. Director Francois suggested, “Whenever you have a new dean, administrator, or president, you need to tell your stories. You almost need to educate up to be heard.” The term educating up is a common aim of these populations to develop support or buy-
151
in from decision-makers and key stakeholders. In this study, faculty and administrators envisioned their roles to be facilitators of learning and decision makers in helping support college students attain higher education. However, a frequent perception which holds sway shows administrators giving low priority to both the work of the ECD department and the center, and this perception is often due to lack of administrator visibility at the center and the wait length of additional hires for teaching staff at the center. Faculty member Nicole made the following remark along these lines: As the ECD faculty discovered interest in the community to develop a center, we knew then that the only way the center can have campus sustainability and college buy-in was to represent it under the academic division. Having the center as an academic program with the ECD department connects our theory to practice model nicely. Moreover, teachers and faculty have expressed the ongoing need to inform all administrators of the accurate operations of the center. As she reflected on the questions, faculty member Patricia stated the following: I really believe in community collaboration between all the groups who use the lab school. Unless we gather, hear, and understand each other’s goals, we will not be able to respect each other’s purposes for coming to the lab school. We need to acknowledge each other’s goals, ask questions about each other’s perspectives and approaches, and, also adapt to each other’s needs when necessary or appropriate. I really believe in “acknowledge, ask, and adapt” from my infant toddler training institutes. Teacher Melissa expressed her frustration with the perception of lack of institutional buy in as follows: ECD faculty, teachers, parents, the dean, and community stakeholders, like First 5, need to educate our district and board officials about the lab program. We need to dispel people’s notions that this is only a “babysitting” service or a “drop off” center for the college. Unfortunately, it is the district officials who drive these important decisions of institutional support to the campus. We are privileged to work in a center on campus that acts as a training facility for the workforce we send out to the community. Faculty member Nicole made a similar statement: 152
If administration simply observed and realized how many college students and researchers fulfill full-time equivalency status (FTES) through participation in practicum and curriculum lab courses, work experience courses, and through observation and activity assignments, they would be surprised to see how useful the campus children’s center is to the college’s educational goals. And, of course, without the children and families filling the classrooms, and the teachers modeling for the students, there wouldn’t be subjects for scientific inquiry. We need to tell our stories to administration; no one else will tell our stories. Researchers are impressed at the center’s collaboration across diverse groups. Researcher Cassie wanted to know how to garner a larger support from the college administration and campus community to share, distribute, and request resources. Researcher Cassie initially expressed her reservations by asserting the following: A school is kind of a business, but it has the heart of an active community that can have different expectations. For such an organization, one must run it efficiently knowing that there are many stakeholders within the life of the school. All these stakeholders have goals and objectives to achieve. I’ve observed that it gets hectic at the center, especially when all the groups collide in the morning usually– students, children, parents, faculty, and people like me. However, the teachers seem to know which responsibility belongs to them and are helpful to direct individuals to the right place for assistance. I’m impressed. It takes a solid understanding and a deep passion to run a school with so many different people coming with different demands. Hats off to the Center’s administration. Researcher Solveigh regarded the campus children’s center as an integral institution in her academic success and the success of her ROP students’ coursework, which emphasized the vital role the center was playing for the education population on campus: Without this center, how could I complete my practicum activities? Our local community college is privileged to have one onsite for the ECD Department students, researchers from other colleges, and now for my ROP students. They complete many of their observation assignments at the center. I believe all of them will be enrolling at this college, and ROP child development courses at their high school have just paved the way for them to seamlessly enter into community college with college units already. How wonderful is that? The center is truly serving the community; the college needs to see this bridge of course enrollment happening at ROP, then enrollment here at the campus as well. College administrators appear to perceive the center, and its operations, as a means to a desired end. They see the overall center operations fulfilling the need for all constituent groups. 153
Director Herb had been with the college for a solid 10 years prior to his recent retirement. Reflecting on the center’s first year of operation, Herb recounted the following: When the former college president wanted to shut down the center after barely a year of being open, I’m telling you, the Board of Trustees did not like that. The community did not like that proposed action. I know the community. There was much dissension in the background. It wasn’t a wise move, that’s all I can say. Director Herb also emphasized the importance of institutional support to the center’s functioning: When benefactors would like to sponsor campus programs and take interest in the center, the entire campus benefits. As foundation director, I am proud to have been instrumental in helping the center secure significant funding. The new funding highlights the need to support student parents to enroll, persist, and graduate from the college, but it also highlights the need for little ones to get their early start in learning. That’s why we are calling the new source of funding the 2GenFund, meaning two generations of people are learning from the help of the funding. A comprehensive campus child care model enables child care systems within a campus setting to utilize their overall combined resources and expertise to set, rather than to follow, trends, and it encourages all programs within a campus to build on a unity of action rather than to exist in a less effective, isolated, or polarized environment (Townley & Zeece, 1991). Director Herb carefully offered recommendations by saying, “I know networking takes time. It what I do all day long. Yet, the long-term benefits of established connections can carry the center to new heights.” However, when there is a gap of service in one or more areas, administrators see an ongoing gap to fill with their own project interests and agendas. Administrators see the following service gaps with their project priorities in mind: lack of student parent population, lack of center marketing, lack of operational funding, lack of center visibility, and misunderstanding of center mission by Board of Trustees. When lab/practicum students have had an in-depth initial orientation and/or training prior to entering the program, they generally support and view positively the class’ routines or 154
activities. On the other hand, newly enrolled families or late-start students catching up with the class are understandably confused, riddled with questions, and have slight difficulty folding in with the program’s educational philosophy, goals, and routines. Lab student Lindsay gave her insight about her time in the center: I live an hour away from the college, and where I live there are no viable child study places. I guess I can observe a preschool classroom in the community. But, I do not want to just observe to fulfill my assignments. I wanted to observe and learn from a designated place of child study like this one. Lab student Marie expressed the need to be able “to get work experience in a carefullyplanned place of study, not just another family home daycare or preschool near my house.” She revealed the following sentiments: When I engage in lab/practicum work experience hours here at the center, I get to do and experience what I really want to do in life. I know working in child development does not pay the bills (my night mail job does), but at least I get to be myself and enjoy working with young children when I’m here, even if I have another job. The value of a campus lab school ostensibly surpasses other laboratory components within the same campus. A broad buy-in and comprehensive understanding of multiple missions from all its immediate constituents, such as parents, teachers, lab/practicum students, faculty, administrators, and researchers, can cause a major shift in its low status image on campus. Faculty member, Brenda, confidently stated, “Serving various populations is part and parcel of a thriving center. I am not aware of a child study center that is limited in scope. It is exactly how a center on a college campus should operate.” Lab student Lindsay expressed similar sentiments: A center on campus needs to serve multiple populations because it needs to reach the current students, faculty, administration, and the upcoming students, families and community. I’m sure many of the children here will attend Scenic Innovation College when it is their turn to go to college. Am I right? Researcher Solveigh expressed her thoughts as follows: 155
Besides serving the onsite campus populations, I believe the center needs to reach out to other student groups, community members, chamber of commerce, and city officials. The center needs to showcase how teaching and learning takes place at the college. The center is already serving diverse groups; yet can do so much more, and there is potential for exposure and outreach. All in all, lab students, researchers, teaching staff, faculty and administrators, and even the parent group, echoed these sentiments about the need for broad buy to garner institutional support for the center. Theme V: Family enrollment is key to center operations. The importance of families enrolling in the center cannot be overstated. However, as mentioned previously, the parents’ perspective of the center’s overriding priorities was different from the rest of the population groups. The parents saw their role as primarily one of supporting their children’s development progress, building their family’s network with families and communities, and learning further about research-based child rearing practices. Parent Ana echoed her sentiments about the center’s importance in her life: To be able to send my child at the center, as a toddler, was difficult at first, because my family tells me, no one else can take care of your child better than yourself. But, for someone like me who needs to return back to work, the center’s childcare service to the public community, like our family, is invaluable. There are high quality programs that can offer my child a much richer learning experience, than if my child stayed home with me (I am not a natural teacher). The key is that it has to be “high quality.” And, I am grateful for the learning opportunities, and positive development my child has experienced at the center. Parent Natasha expressed her investment at the center as follows: The center is a child’s second home, an extension of their real home. I will not entrust my child’s safety, development, and learning to simply anyone I do not trust or feel comfortable with. To send your child to a place of learning, it is a huge investment on a parent’s side. She quickly followed with, “the second one will be coming to this center as well. Parent Gwen struggled to find words to express her appreciation for the center:
156
Where will I bring my son while I attend school? While I work part-time? The center is a big help to my family’s life. How can a family make it without the support I get from here? Thank you to the center and the college. You exist because of families like ours. The families’ concern for their children’s safety, security, and learning were evident in their responses. The strong personal and familial connection families have with center services manifest an investment beyond academic and occupational obligations; they are making an investment in their own child’s growth and development. Along these lines, parent Natasha made the following remark: I am amazed observing the different groups, such as students, aides, teachers, professors, utilizing the center. In order for all goals to be accomplished, there must be an understanding of priorities, am I right? I’m pretty sure the care and education of the children come first before anything else.” In terms of roles, five of the six populations considered their roles to be connected to the aims of the higher education institution albeit in different capacities. Administrator, faculty, teachers, lab/practicum students, and researchers generally exhibited similar and correlating perspectives towards the main functions of the center. The parent group, in contrast, found their use of the center’s services closely tied in with their own personal and familial goals. Parent Gwen declared, “The center does serve many kinds of people at the campus. I see it every day. It’s so interesting to see why people need the center. I wonder if sometimes there are conflicts between people served.” Parents generally stated they saw lab school classrooms transform into a frenzied environment with many functions, wherein teachers are taxed with student and activity evaluations, and children’s specific individual needs are not addressed regularly. Thus, parent Gwen also added the following: My child’s classroom gets very hectic in the morning with the presence of staff, children, families, students, and faculty coming in all at the same time, but I still believe the primary priority of the center is the care and supervision of children. All other missions are secondary. I enrolled my child here at this quality center because it is obvious that this is the major priority as well. 157
Understandably, the parent group believed the main purpose of the center was to give quality care and education for their children as they attended school or work. Parent Natasha’s statement reflects this understanding: I understand that there are reasons why the center is on a campus site. There are multiple obligations the college fulfills for different groups. However, I believe the service to families needing childcare as they work, attend school, or pursue their life goals, is the key priority of the center’s operations. Parent Gwen reiterated her sentiments about the center’s “number one purpose:” The center gives us parents the chance to improve our lives, our children’s lives. We can get our education or work while our child learns. It is the number one purpose that helps both parent and child. The other groups can wait to be served, but families come first. With some ambivalence, parent Ana underscored her view of the center’s priority: Even with the many people the center is supposed to serve, the main priority is still serving the child and family, correct? There wouldn’t be a center if it weren’t for the families. This is what I think, and this is what it should be. This understanding of the center’s primary function was far different from the rest of the populations. The parents maintained that service to children and families for early education and childcare service was the main and most important function of the center. Parent Ana reiterated her view that the center depended on its “primary population:” If it weren’t for the center’s primary population, the children and their families, would there be an actual setting for training aspiring teachers for the workforce? Will there be an arena where faculty could implement theory to practice? Would there be a place where researcher could gain observations and experimental date from? Will there be a viable way where the college can see the need for early childhood? From the initial and follow-up interviews, it was clearly apparent that parents believed that service to their families is the primary purpose of the child lab school on campus, and service to students getting a degree must be the last priority.
158
How the Study Informs Our Professional Work with Multiple Populations Reflecting on the five emerging themes that embody the voices, perspectives, viewpoints, and burdens of the six population groups utilizing the center regularly, the researcher examined the data regarding the center’s efficiency in serving multiples user groups simultaneously. Slowly but surely, the researcher gradually discovered and explored the themes applicable to all the groups concerned. Thus, through summarizing the findings, the researcher found key approaches to improve and enhance the center’s service to the different population groups. Typically, early education departments have their corresponding campus lab schools governed under an academic division or a student service division. For this research study, the campus center was clearly functioning directly, as well as indirectly, under the auspices of the academic division of the college. Consequently, the center’s program identity and function marks the quality (or lack thereof) of early education philosophy and child development best practice it delivers. From its onset, all population groups were aware, some acutely while others indifferently, that the center worked in cooperation and close collaboration with the ECD department of the college. To ensure that any changes or improvements to the center’s multiple functions are implemented smoothly, extensive dialogue needs to take place, especially between the administrator, program director, course faculty, parents, and students (Knudsen Lindauer & Berghout Austin, 1999). Notwithstanding, user groups whose focus and responsibilities were primarily to fulfill higher education goals, such as administrators, faculty, teachers, practicum lab students, and researchers, tended to recognize the importance of the center as an avenue for fulfilling the multiple purposes of teacher training, practice teaching and demonstration, while providing the added benefit of delivering early education and care to young children and their families. The
159
only user group whose focus and responsibilities were to provide for their child’s early education and care needs tended to believe that the primary goal for the center was to serve the child’s and families’ needs first and foremost before any academic or scholarly requirements. These themes satisfactorily coincided with known theories in the early childhood education field of knowledge, and reiterated the tenets of researchers (Katz, 1990; Keyes, 1990; McBride, 1995; Townley & Zeece, 1991). Lab/practicum students. Preservice teachers clearly need to learn about their students (the children), and they begin that process through nurturing meaningful relationships with children in their learning (Witmer, 2005). If early educators are focused on making learning meaningful and fostering child achievement, strong relationships among all lab school constituents are imperative (Witmer, 2005). Lab student Marie elaborated on this idea: Because of my own background, I have a heart for children with developmental needs. Oftentimes, the parents are in denial of the need for their child’s support. I believe that solid and strong relationships need to be fostered with the child and family in mind. When the child needs assistance of some sort, the parent also needs support. Relationships need to be made with the child and the parent in partnership. Children, as well as lab practicum students, who feel successful, are more willing to take educational risks in a caring classroom climate. Having students participate in the decisionmaking for a project, and giving them some choices supports the concept that students have a responsibility and a say in their own learning. In turn, this notion fosters more intrinsic motivation to learn and a relationship-based on reciprocity of respect (Glasser, 1998). This research is congruent with the remark made by lab student Lindsay: I am enrolled in practicum to gain a deeper understanding of how theory translates into my daily practice. I am given autonomy by ECD faculty and head teachers to decide on activities based on the children’s interests. I like the autonomy; it makes me feel like I am in charge of the children’s classroom. However, I still need a bit of guidance to extend the children’s interests into other learning domains. 160
Although some have argued that lab schools are ideal situations and not reflective of the real world (Townley & Zeece, 1991), this notion should not however diminish the role that lab schools play in providing training in child development and early childhood education. The argument can be made that students trained in the well-supervised, reflective, and peer-oriented environment of the laboratory develop knowledge, skills, and confidence that they can then generalize to other settings outside of the confines of the laboratory school. Although it is possible to make laboratory programs more reflective of the real world, it is difficult to make them completely equivalent to the real world. Director Herb called the center “a carefully modeled facility of instruction and training for young children and college students.” Laboratory participation is not viewed as the culminating experience for students and researchers, but the first of a sequence of culminating experiences, which will take place in settings within the community (Knudsen Lindauer & Berghout Austin, 1999). Extensive time and effort needs to be expended in developing an effective means of rotating students through laboratory times, teacher and director planning times, teacher and student reflection times, and parent forum avenues (Knudsen Lindauer & Berghout Austin, 1999). However, the final results of an extensive and coherent dialogue between all concerned population groups must be a very manageable, logical, and scheduled (Knudsen Lindauer & Berghout Austin, 1999). Faculty members Brenda and Nicole voiced similar struggles in getting all their students’ projects accomplished at the lab school. Nicole suggested, “If we begin serving more ECD students in our classes and they each need to do children’s activities, perhaps we can give priorities to day students as opposed to evening students to accomplish our work?” Faculty member Patricia added, “I feel for the evening students who are often more mature and seasoned teachers. They are limited in getting their projects done because they work full-time.
161
They can conduct their activities with another classroom other than their own however.” The extensive planning, communication, and organization that occur to enhance the coordination or service functions are an academic payoff for the college. Tinkering with the center coordination of functions based on the needs of faculty, student, teacher, administrator, and family must become an annual project (Knudsen Lindauer & Berghout Austin, 1999). Children. It is in the enrollment of children of students that contributes to college enrollment, and enrollment of children of university employees contributes to recruitment and retention of the college work force (Schwartz, 1991). Consequently, the consumers are the primary reason for the existence of the centers (Schwartz, 1991). Despite the fact that children are the ones most affected by variations in the quality of childcare, almost no one has studied their perspective. Certainly, it is not unique that children’s opinion and perspectives on their own care are disregarded. Children are rarely asked, for example, about their lives in school and school culture (Graue & Walsh, 1998). However, children’s perspectives on childcare quality would broaden the current understanding of best practices and may influence and improve the current system of formal and informal care. When children are emotionally attached, they feel secure and safe; this engenders a confidence to go off and explore. However, without a reliable person to attach to, children might be unsure of themselves, become demanding in their behavior, or become withdrawn. These are often the children who come across as needy and who may be at risk of harm. The children, being the primary consumers of the campus center’s multiple functions, undoubtedly have the highest stakes invested within the campus system. If the campus lab school falls short of appropriately providing for its prime consumer, the children, then operations of its multiple functions to different service groups remain ineffectual and irrelevant. As the program director of a struggling start-up center, I strive hard to ensure that the
162
triumphs and trials experienced by the campus center never alter what we professionals know is best for children and how they learn best in our care. After all is said and done, the child’s learning and development must be prioritized, promoted, and preserved. Children develop stronger attachments to caregivers whose interactions with children are typically positive and at close range compared to caregivers whose interactions are typically interventions from long distance (King & MacKinnon, 1988). There are six standards necessary to foster relationship-driven teaching: safe, valuable, successful, involving, caring, and enabling. Children need to feel physically and emotionally safe in their learning environment (Rogers & Renald, 1999). Meaningful learning depends on eliminating intimidation or peril to be successful (Jensen, 1998). However, teachers need to do more than that. Teachers need to create conditions for students to feel safe by eliminating all sarcasm and put-downs in the classroom and by nurturing an environment where taking educational risks is valued (Jensen, 1998). Teacher Desiree underscored this idea as she reiterated her classroom policy: In my safe classroom, the children only need to remember three rules of behavior: they cannot hurt themselves, they cannot hurt others, and they cannot destroy property. These three rules apply to all of behaviors a child can choose each day. I empower them by informing them I know they can choose well. Content that helps children to fulfill a need, solve a problem, or engage in an activity that is interesting and enjoyable is more valuable to students because they can see the learning’s value (Glasser, 1998). When children perceive that they are capable of being success and that the teacher will enable them to be successful, they are more likely to engage in learning; in other words, the more involved the children are with the content, the more teachers are able to teach (Glasser, 1998). Children’s participation and engagement with curriculum is key to academic advancement to the next level. Administrators. In our highly litigious and divided society, many teachers, directors, 163
and administrators are concerned about meeting students’ needs and working with parents cooperatively and proactively in order to avoid lawsuits; the insecurity with which they face their duties can often hinder and derail healthy working relationships rather than to foster and build on them (Lynch, 2000). Increasingly, teachers and their administrators are often fearful of liability and lawsuits, and frequently teachers feel unprepared and ill-equipped to deal with difficult parents and their urgent concerns (Pape, 1999). Director Herb remarked, “I saw a group of children on campus with their teachers, and the teachers were, well, not very aware. It can be a potential hazard to the college if the teacher is tuned out.” Encouraging parent involvement and partnering with parents collaboratively are key components to establishing these helpful working relationships (Pape, 1999). Parent Natasha stated, “By volunteering to be the Parent Advisory Committee President this year, I get to be immersed in the school and college culture. I get to work with administrators, teachers, faculty, and Campus Safety. It’s a collaborative project.” Furthermore, the teachers need administrators and supervisors who support the use of instructional practices, who recognize these practices lead to positive development in young children, and who are supportive of ongoing professional development through mentoring, monitoring, and supervision (Howes, James, & Ritchie, 2003; Ramey & Ramey, 2005). Sometimes there are perceived barriers to building these parent-teacher relationships, wherein parents may have negative memories of their own school experience and project this feeling onto their children, as well as their encounters with school personnel or administration. Some school environments do not display warmth, welcoming and nurture to the community at hand (Pape, 1999). Other times, parents are merely clueless and untrained in how they can be involved in their child’s education (Pape, 1999). Teacher Melissa reported, “Our way of getting buy-in from
164
new parents or families is by informing them they can bring their other children to the meetings, and the meetings always have refreshments. It works sometimes.” Teachers, assistants, and director. In previous research, when teachers are asked about quality of care, they often choose the same factors that parents choose, including caregiver traits, such as warmth, nurture, and sensitivity (Galinsky, Howes, Kontos, & Shinn, 1994). According to the limited research that has been done gathering the perceptions of children, children would like their child care program to be similar to their home, like a second home; and that the staff be likeable and appealing with whom they can regard as playmates (Langstead, 1994). To function adequately, the college must have control in the selection the staff for the laboratory school, and there must not be too much interference by the local authorities with the teachers of the school in working out a philosophy of education (Wagenhorst, 1946). Wagenhorst (1946) addressed this idea as follows: These demonstrating and supervising teachers should be artists of a high order who will not hesitate to deviate from the beaten paths of old techniques, but be eagerly alert to try new instruments and materials for teaching and learning, especially those which have already proved successful in experimental schools (p. 271) With cutting-edge equipment and “a well-prepared staff under dynamic leadership, the laboratory school can wield a powerful influence in the promotion of a modern educational program and innovative practice in its field, and the larger field of educational leadership” (Wagenhorst, 1946, p. 271-272). The study’s findings support this view. Teacher Vashti reported, “Besides possessing child development permits, the head teachers are encouraged to attain their Bachelor’s degrees, and even Master’s degrees, due to the highly-qualified expectations from Title V regulations imposed by the state to today’s lab school personnel.” Regular and consistent communication at all levels (e.g., program administrators, teachers, parents, and children) is essential to the success of a split placement integration model (Griffin, 165
1993). Efforts are made to ensure continuity of language and activities between programs as well as among teachers and parents. Special attention is given to help parents of the deaf children feel comfort. The role for the director is to develop a staff team that is sensitive to both the child and their parent's needs, as well as observant and able to act on their responsibilities across the entire safeguarding spectrum (Rushfort, 2009). Such responsibilities include assisting in the early intervention stage (e.g., perhaps helping to support a mother suffering post-natal depression to receive responsive sensitivity from the teachers), to giving more targeted levels of support for a child with additional special needs, right through to ensuring child protection, such assisting a child who has been emotionally and physically neglected by a family member, or who belongs to a family with mental health or substance abuse problems (Rushfort, 2009). In a wide range of circumstances, the director and teachers need to be perceptive and discerning of their child and parent populations. From the beginning, the director is responsible for ensuring that there is a clear philosophy for the setting, which reflects the values, beliefs, and principles of high quality early care and education; this philosophy naturally includes the setting’s commitment to having children and parents at the heart of everything it does (Rushfort, 2009). The best teachers seek to identify challenges in order to individualize their efforts with each child. By identifying the child’s zone of proximal development, they can then structure activities, not to match the child’s current functional level, but to provide support for the child to work just above his or her current ability and thus advance his or her development. To help the child make the leap, the teacher needs to have individual knowledge of the child’s current capabilities and skills, and must understand the step that lies immediately ahead for that child (Frede, 1995).
166
As was made evident in this study, teachers do not work in a vacuum but are part of a larger educational system. Classroom quality and positive child outcomes are influenced by a host of other system components, where even the most highly skilled teachers need adequate materials, curricular support, skilled teaching assistants, and a physical setting or learning environment that is appropriate in meeting the needs of young children (Early et al., 2007). Along these lines, teacher Melissa stated the following: I was hired with the understanding that I will gain my Site Supervisor permit and become a head teacher in four short months. The center administration has high standards, because we train college students. [The] education code actually only requires a teacher to possess a Master Teacher permit, but I’m glad I was pushed to attain a higher credential. We wear many hats as teachers, but I’m fortunate to have finished the courses for a Site Supervisor permit. Furthermore, the teachers need administrators and supervisors who support the use of those educational practices that lead to positive development in young children and ongoing professional development through mentoring, monitoring, and supervision (Howes et al., 2003; Ramey & Ramey, 2005). The director of the lab school should responsible, not only for its administration, but also for the cooperation of staff members, the departments of education, and other disciplines (Wagenhorst, 1946). On the importance of staff cooperation and collaboration to function effectively on behalf of the children, teacher Desiree made the following statement: I like having staff meetings and trainings weekly while the children rest. The teaching staff get to discuss, deliberate, and reflect on the week’s successes as well as blunders. We learn to collaborate and connect even if we all have different talents. All demonstration curricula are to be designed by the lab director, where a “practicum” course for student teachers, will greatly ease the adaptations for college students from theory to practice (Wagenhorst, 1946). Faculty Patricia stated, “Part of my role is that I make sure I have my ECD 90 students send me their curriculum plans first, then check with the head teacher, and
167
then execute with the children the week after. It’s quite a sequence and process if done correctly.” Researchers. From the researchers’ perspectives, one effective approach to widen academic support is to broaden knowledge and share offerings of the lab’s research function (File, 2012). In recent years, the establishment of a council composed of faculty, teachers, and family members highlight such information (Barbour & Bersani, 1991); where such council is responsible for shared governance which merge perspectives into a balance. Faculty member Brenda observed, “Researchers at the center are mostly from our community college, or sister college, where research is not the focus, but observation projects prevail,” A multifaceted reinvention of the lab school must take place at host institutions (Stremmel, Hill, & Fu, 2003). One institution was concerned about the model presented by their program, and they instituted several changes in staffing, philosophy, and curriculum. However, they also instituted the regular practice of teacher research by their staff. This change was important to the research mission of the university lab; such a model results in collaborations among teachers, students, and faculty (Stremmel et al., 2003). These kinds of institutional responses can serve to address two important challenges: the appeal of research to university lab staff and the importance of balancing the needs of teachers and researchers. However, more can be done to increase the appeal of research to staff, particularly when staff will not be collaboratively involved. Many research efforts call for staff time in responding to surveys, interviews, or other data collection methods. In externally funded initiatives, researchers often build in expenses to provide something to staff to increase the appeal of giving their time and to express their appreciation of these contributions. This might range from gift cards, to classroom supplies, to books. However, much of the research
168
conducted in university labs is not externally funded and is indeed being conducted on a shoestring, including the volunteer contributions of graduate students. Because university labs are chosen for research more often than any one community-based organization, teachers in university labs may pay a hefty price in giving their time to the research enterprise. There is a need to be creative in efforts to acknowledge the contributions of teacher time. One avenue might be to explore potential benefits of the university community that could be extended to teachers, including tickets to lectures or events, enrollment in a workshop, a noncredit offering, or even a credit course. For a research institution, this could be considered one of the costs of doing business that could be borne on the local level in order to fully utilize the potential of the university lab. Faculty. Campus childcare centers can help fulfill a variety of institutional missions while also addressing the causes and effects of some of today’s pressing societal needs (Keyes, 1990). While it is therefore in the best interest of the entire campus community to support child care center development, the diverse roles of faculty members exemplify the multiple reasons for contributing to the development of these crucial programs (Wagenhorst, 1946). Faculty member Nicole observed, “ECD Faculty members learn about each other’s ‘student learning outcomes’ and gain insight into each other’s courses through ECD retreats and academic division meetings.” She added, “Sometimes it is helpful to see how another instructor facilitates the same course.” Lab school faculty can share their expert knowledge in their field to center staff (Witmer, 2005). It is expected that supervising teachers must welcome observations and visits by college staff or faculty, and be available and willing to inform and demonstrate for faculty courses (Witmer, 2005). Administrator Francois noted, “There needs to be more collaboration between
169
ECD faculty with outside departments, in order for other entities to richly experience the accommodating and inviting learning environment everyone feels when observing the center.” A vital role of the campus lab school is to inform and inspire the preservice student preparing to teach, to decrease transitions and ambiguity of the theory to practice model, and to demonstrate leadership in education (Witmer, 2005). However, the function of the laboratory school is not limited to the preservice education of teachers; it also extends to the success of the graduates of the college after they have entered into their in-service career of teaching. Naturally, this responsibility can be met most effectively with a follow-up service by those who made the preliminary induction. Visits to the classroom of beginning teachers by their student teaching supervisors need to be intentionally implemented, wherein such visits are often revelations for those who make them and are of great help in supervising the work of students subsequently assigned for induction (Witmer, 2005). Faculty Brenda stated that “being a community college lab school for the Tri-Valley, we are the demonstration school for the region, wherein teachers, directors, and other educators can gain knowledge, ideas, and training from witnessing the school’s facility and daily practices.” A first and valuable function of the campus lab school is the program’s demonstration of efficient classroom management and work with children (Witmer, 2005). Faculty observe with their classes, students start course work with minimal classroom participation, then eventually develop teaching and learning skills to achieve full responsibility in the classroom setting (Witmer, 2005). On the other hand, experienced teachers or faculty visit the lab schools for slightly different reasons, usually for educational incentive and professional growth (Witmer, 2005). Lab student Lindsay reported the following observation: We have researchers who come from the nearby state universities (East, West, and South) to fulfill their upper division course work in child development, 170
mostly nursing students. Many of them used to attend Scenic Innovation College. Sometimes I help check them in. It’s nice when these former students return. Supervising teachers in lab schools must emphasize understanding basic human needs, engaging with children, and encouraging authentic relationships with them (Witmer, 2005). As preservice teachers grow to understand and show teaching and learning personality, faculty and supervising teachers need to crucially guide them as adult role models, not as peers (Witmer, 2005). In teacher education courses, there needs to be a clear and healthy relationship distinction in student learners to learn from faculty and supervising teachers (Witmer, 2005). Parents. Parents are the discovered outliers in this specific research study. Unlike students, faculty, researchers, and administrators, they demonstrated little concern about the academic goals and graduation requirements expected by the college or university. Researchers have only begun to ask parents, teachers, and children—the people who participate most directly in child care—how they define quality childcare. Parents in the National Child Care Survey (Hofferth, Brayfield, Deich, & Holcomb, 1991) said that the most important factors in how they chose childcare were health and safety criteria plus the warm and sensitive characteristics of the caregiver. A third factor valued by parents is a high level of parent-caregiver communication (Cryer & Burchinal, 1997; Kontos et al., 1995). Parent Gwen complimented her child’s teacher as follows: My child’s teacher and I are partners, or teammates I guess, in my child’s learning and development. She and I communicate closely about my child’s patterns, temperament, personality, and also changes. Because I trust her, I can take honest and transparent news about my child, and know she looks out for the best interest of my child. Parents do listen to the advice of those who are professionals in early childhood education. Because of the significance of the task to which their advice is applied, the rearing of children, researchers are encouraged to take their responsibilities seriously. Parents are entitled to 171
information based on evidence, rather than belief, presented in a manner reflecting an understanding of the significance of the parental task and a respect for parents’ capability. The effect of parent involvement in school, such as parent participation, is crucial to parental satisfaction regarding the program’s teacher, the lab school, and student development (Herman & Yeh, 1980). Rightly so, families often form views on program quality based on their relationship with their child’s teacher; practicum teaching programs must emphasize the educating the students effective methods of reciprocal partnerships with families (Witmer, 2005). Ghazvini and Readdick (1994) found that the frequency of parent-teacher communication is positively correlated to a quality program for children. Emlen (1999) suggested that a fourth variable, flexibility, is the major factor in parental selection and definition of quality childcare. Families that have limited flexibility in work choose childcare arrangements that are very adaptable. Parent Ana stated, “I try to spread the word about the center. In fact, I have more family friends who are interested in enrolling their child in the center, but the limited college calendar prevents these families from committing themselves.” The prevailing definition of childcare quality, which researchers and early childhood professionals have defined as good for the child, has dominated childcare research. Although this is an important perspective to investigate when studying childcare quality, it is only one of several perspectives to consider. For example, studies comparing parental ratings of program quality to that of educators indicate that parents give programs higher ratings than educators do (Helburn, 1995). Explanations for this difference center on the lack of information parents have about the indicators of quality or the different perspectives that parents have of quality. Another explanation is that the description and evaluation of quality care has been dominated by experts from government, certain professions, and academic research—to the exclusion of others (Pence
172
and Moss, 1994). Some researchers have concluded that there needs to be an understanding of what parents envision for their children, both at home and in early childhood, because parents’ perspectives may widen current definitions of program quality (Cryer & Burchinal, 1997; Zinzeleta and Little, 1997). The exclusive focus on this one perspective has limited researchers’ understanding of childcare quality. For example, if parents are provided with criteria defining a “high quality child outcome” program, and parents decide on other choices, parents are viewed as making “bad” choice; although from the parents’ viewpoint, the program may not meet the family’s definition of care due to differences in values, culture, expectations, work schedule, convenience, or family finances (Anderson, Nagle, Roberts, & Smith, 1981; McCartney, Scarr, Phillips, Grajek, & Schwarz, 1982). New research attempts to define quality in early care and education plus how such quality guides a child’s development, especially in cognitive and social development (Anderson, Nagle, Roberts, & Smith, 1981; McCartney, Scarr, Phillips, Grajek, & Schwarz, 1982). As of late, program criteria quality has focused on the variables of class composition, embedded curriculum, program philosophy, learning environment, teacher characteristics, teacher-child interactions, and family-staff communication (Anderson, Nagle, Roberts, & Smith, 1981; McCartney, Scarr, Phillips, Grajek, & Schwarz, 1982). Based on the superficial descriptions of program evaluations, and on teachers’ descriptions of their experiences with assessments, it can be argued that any good evaluation should begin with a deep understanding of the program, with an open forum about program values and definitions of quality (Lee & Walsh, 2004). Actual teachers need to be involved in the evaluation process and challenge accepted definitions of program quality, evaluations will remain yet another obligatory task for teachers to accept (Lee & Walsh, 2004). Actual teachers
173
working with children need to have voices in deciding factors of program quality definitions, based on real world models.
174
Chapter Five Summary of Major Findings Introduction The main research question explored and addressed by this particular study was “how does a single campus children’s center fulfill its mission and functions by serving six major populations?” The following supplemental questions were addressed as each population’s data were gathered, studied, and analyzed: How do population groups perceive the main purposes of the school? How, if any, is the center’s operations affected by serving multiple populations? These main and supplemental questions drove the recruitment, investigative queries, interview approach, and implementation of methods in the research study. In determining my center’s program management in serving various interest groups, the research study goals of understanding and sense of the service efficacy of a center is many-sided in itself. Unbeknownst to the children, the concerned interest groups and stakeholders, such as administrators, faculty, researchers, teachers and parents, direct and drive the daily maintenance of the center, yet it is the children themselves that bring meaning to the life of the school. In a day and age when there exist uncertainties in the economic, political, academic, and social landscape of higher education, within the life of the campus center, the health, safety, wellbeing, and optimal learning of the child must be consistently given the utmost attention and care. It is in maintaining this specific priority that each of the population groups gains a meaningful outcome of their work. When children receive high quality care and early education, all other priorities fall into place. During data analysis, the researcher discovered the emergence of five key tenets of effective center operations in working with multiple populations; these basic
175
approaches are fundamental principles to the work of early education professionals with young children in the field of child development. Discussion of Themes The researcher’s start-up work experience, along with the literature review and descriptive theoretical framework, served as a backdrop for the data collection of interactive activities and interview questions. The data set (particularly with the parent group) revealed further population priorities, which then evolved into five main themes specific to the effective operations of the center. Theme I: Solid and strong relationships are a must for a quality program. A solid and strong relationship between a young child and his or her teacher constitutes a key component, which is integral to the learning opportunities of the classroom. Young children learn and develop in the context of important relationships (California Department of Education, 2006). Moreover, while relationships are important throughout life, they play an especially crucial and pivotal role during the early years of childhood (California Department of Education, 2006). The California Department of Education’s (2006) Infant Toddler Learning and Development Program Guidelines underscore this importance of this relationship A nurturing relationship with at least one loving, trusting, and responsive adult is essential for a child to develop trust and a healthy sense of self; for within the child’s first relationships he learns about himself, establishes a base to explore the world, and discovers how to engage adults to meet his needs. (p. 17) Close and frequent relationships with trusted and responsive adults lay the foundation that young children use to build skills that strengthen children’s capacity to learn and develop, wherein these special relationships influence a child’s emerging sense of self and understanding of others and the world around them (California Department of Education, 2009).
176
Furthermore, solid and strong relationships support all learning domains (California Department of Education, 2006). When a young children’s safety and security are ensured by their primary teacher or caregiver, they are able to feel confident and competent enough to engage in discovery and exploration within and outside of their learning opportunities and environment. The California Department of Education (2006) guidelines further stated: “When young children know that caring adults are physically and emotionally available to provide encouragement, help, love, and appreciation, a strong foundation is set for healthy relationships and lifelong learning” (p. 17). In their formative years, young children learn by developing relationships with one another, by imitating other children, and become emotionally connected to their peers (California Department of Education, 2006). Basically, “learning and development with young children are integrated across all domains (physical, social-emotional, language and communication, and cognitive)” (California Department of Education, 2006, p. 88.). Moreover, one of the main responsibilities of teachers is “to build and maintain positive relationships with the child’s family as well” (California Department of Education, 2009, p. 30). Such “two-way sharing of information” allows early educators “to interact in familiar ways and build connections between home and school” (California Department of Education, 2009, p. 30). Family-oriented programs must be an accepted component of a center’s immediate and longterm program. “When programs and teachers support the relationship between the family and child as the primary relationship in a child’s life, are responsive to families’ rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and intentionally provide avenues to build relationships with families” (California Department of Education, 2006, p. 57-59), all trusted adults (teachers/lab practicum students/faculty/administrators) in the program benefit. The California Department of Education
177
further emphasized that through these relationships teachers are able to “gain insight” (p. 41) into the ways they can contribute to children’s “learning and development” (p. 41). In order for preservice teachers to understand the importance of nurturing relationships with the children, teachers need to be in tune with the children (Witmer, 2005). Fostering strong relationships among all populations is imperative to the cause of making learning meaningful and achieving later academic success (Witmer, 2005). Effective program administration and teaching staff “build trusting collaborative relationships with families” (California Department of Education, 2015, p. 130-138). There program staff and teachers value the primary role of families in promoting children’s development, empower family members as advocates for their children, use responsive communication strategies sensitive to family diversity, support a welcoming and inclusive interaction environment, provide relevant consistent information concerning their child’s progress, advocate for resilient families, and, engage families in honoring their home language and culture (California Department of Education, 2015). Theme II: All groups must learn to adjust. Today’s lab schools must evolve, change, and operate with a “lab school framework” in mind, wherein teachers engage in reflective practice, actively intersect research and theory with practice, serve as mentor models to students, and provide support for lab school projects (Branscomb & McBride, 2005). This framework includes expectations for teachers that supersede the regular experiences of an ordinary group care setting; where in a lab school, teachers should intentionally reflect the reason for their actions and decisions with children, how the learning environment contributes to optimal child health and development, and how learning pedagogy aligns with the philosophy and mission of the lab school (Branscomb & McBride, 2005). Teaching staff, administrators, faculty, lab/practicum students, and researchers must possess flexibility to adjust to continual changes
178
that are necessary in serving multiple populations. Key to a quality integrative program is the openness to develop. Campus lab school programs can serve as exemplary models for the community, advocates for children’s health and development, and as educational resources for campus departments or disciplines; integration of theory and practice, research projects, and service deliveries are key to their daily existence (Keyes & Boulton, 1995). They can share information, train early care and education professionals of the future, develop meaningful relationships with families, and strengthen community connections to advocate for the benefit of children. Curricula, faculty roles, schedules, tasks, and administration must manifest adaptability and flexibility in order to gain a learning context of liberty and skill mastery (West & Gadsden Jr., 1973). Theme III: Training and intentional practice of all emerging teachers is crucial. In order to understand the importance of nurturing relationships in education, preservice teachers need to learn to observe, document and be in tune with the children (Witmer, 2005). The original work of respectful, responsive, and reciprocal early educators look to propel future training of early educators of tomorrow (Honig, 1996). However, once early educators are immersed in the daily life of an early childhood setting, the humdrum tends can greatly influence constraints on each teacher’s skills to be objective, to reflect, and consider other approaches of managing and interacting (Sarason, 1987). Similarly, the daily pressures experienced within typical group care settings face difficulties in providing for basic quality in early care and education and allow limited consideration of theory-to-practice innovations (Whitebrook, Howes, & Phillips, 1989).
179
Campus childcare programs have their own specific collection of intrinsic pressures (Keyes & Cook, 1988). A reflective and responsive early educator will admit that a solutionbased decision making orientation is an esteemed value of campus academic culture. If campus lab schools do not take advantage of an environment relative objectivity and a school culture to propose intentional early childhood practice, opportunities are wasted and thus hard to duplicate in other early childhood settings (Keyes & Cook, 1988). The role of laboratory schools is expanding to include “a commitment to change that continually reflects research, experimentation, and inquiry into basic and applied knowledge in education, rather than the more comfortable stability of demonstrating programs and practices already accepted by the profession” (Hunter, 1970, p. 14). In the 21st century, caregivers will require more professional skills, specifically professional training to be politically and socially acute in local institutions; which are in high demand for the early childhood workforce to engage in intensive training preparations between agencies and campuses (Honig, 1996). When public, private, and nonprofit institutions collaboratively gird and prepare early childhood professionals, a movement for teacher training support will be gained in the community (Honig, 1996). Theme IV: Broad community buy-in is key for all groups. Exemplary early childhood programs find an effective system that harnesses all its constituents’ skills and experiences together in order for children, educators, parents, and community members to develop well (Comer & Ben-Avie, 2010). Healthy interactions between educators and families create the policies for programs to positively influence families’ livelihoods and home lives, and, consequently, encourage families to help improve and advocate for early childhood learning centers (Comer & Ben-Avie, 2010).
180
With this process, family engagement becomes interconnected into the community’s core values in order to achieve the desired learning and developmental outcomes of the children; where the more educators and families participate together in improving program management, the more ordinary and daily interactions will serve to promote community mindedness (Comer & Ben-Avie, 2010). Children need a healthy, stable, and involved community in their lives to learn and develop optimally. As higher education institutions govern campus child development centers, centers need to actively participate with the intellectual press of the campus community hosting the center, where the respect for research is at its core (Bickimer, 1991). Centers, with the active participation of their user groups, need to tell and promote their daily stories of the trials and triumphs of being a multifaceted hub for multiple user groups to work together and thrive simultaneously together. Basically, “campus child care centers are not yet part of the ‘warp and woof’ of university life” (Bickimer, 1991, p. 38), yet the intentional and concerted effort of the user groups must break the mold of isolationism, or working in silos within their own center walls, in order to enlighten and benefit the community-at-large. Effective partnerships can be fostered when an intentional commitment is made to foster such relationships among all the stakeholders; because relationships are stepping stones of effective teaching and student success, school educators, administrators, parents, and students need to work collaboratively (Witmer, 2005). When respectfully encouraged to think about underlying assumptions and values in nonthreatening but engaging ways, practitioners and other stakeholders have the potential to build on strengths, explore other perspectives, and move beyond prior beliefs and practices to intentional involvement and participation (Lee & Walsh,
181
2004). All user groups of the center need to participate in open opportunities to engage other groups in working together for the smooth operation of the center. Theme V: Family enrollment is key to center operations. In a recent 2012 survey conducted by Erickson (2012), parents chose to send their children to lab schools for these specific reasons: academic reputation of school, small teacher to student ratios and class sizes, and quality of teachers. Families mainly decide on choices regarding their children’s care provider, while teachers, caregivers, and director provide the type and quality of care for the children; and, further, faculty, administrators, lab students, and researchers can influence the consistency and continuity of care (McMullen & Lash, 2012). Multiple user groups with meaningful relationships within care and education framework surrounding children and their families in campus-affiliated programs is a must (McMullen & Lash, 2012). With the majority of children being cared for outside the home, definitions of what constitutes quality child development programs is crucial. The understanding could augment how funding is currently allocated for the delivery of child care services and how local services are designed to meet specific community needs (Ceglowski & Bacigalupa, 2002). At the heart of this context, the idea that multiple perspectives merit consideration of the quality of care and education for children is sound practice; namely, the child’s, the family’s, the teacher’s or caregiver’s, and the program director’s (Katz as cited in McMullen & Lash, 2012). The adapted model places the child and family at the center of the care. Each perspective represents one of the system groups which has influences on the child and family; as a result, influence decisions made throughout the context of care as a whole. The adaptive model is explained in detail by its author (Keyes, 1990, p. 4): “The inner circle is the microsystem, composed of individual families. The next layer is the mesosystem, where the campus children’s centers reside within 182
university or college systems. Superimposed on the mesosystem is the exosystem, within which local agencies, mass media, and work are located. The outermost layer is the macrosystem, the site of social, political, economic, and educational systems. Forces in each of these systems affect the field, and the field in turn influences the systems. For example, changes in the demographics of families, and college students within the microsystem were the impetus for the development of the campus children’s centers and the growth of the field. Growth was accelerated by increasing media attention to issues affecting families and children, a force from the exosystem, and by government policies in the macrosystem. Further, each campus center is linked to a college or university system, which in itself is composed of many communities, each affecting the other (Keyes, 1991, p. 4).” The model is comprised of the following components (McMullen & Lash, 2012). The child and family in the classroom (consumers) comprise the microsystem. Caregivers, teachers, and the director of the program (producers) are included the ecosystem. Within the exosystem are campus administrators, researchers, lab students, and faculty members related to the children’s learning environment in the early childhood program (sponsors). Finally, the macrosystem is comprised of norms, values, and cultures immersed within and throughout the context of care. Reciprocity of relationships and communication flow through the system (See Figure 1). This model is based on an assumption that the context of care involves reciprocal relationships among the user groups, with shared participation decision making about policy and practices that transfer information into early care and education values (e.g., whether adults other than caregivers or parents should be in the classroom, or how many can be present at any given time).
183
Macrosystem Culture, Values & Norms of Campus
Exosystem
Campus Department, Administrators & Faculty
Mesosystem
Teachers & Director of program
Microsystem
Child & Family in classroom
Figure 1. Model representation of children’s programs showing “reciprocity of relationships and communication in the system, imbedded within the norms, values, and cultures of its macrosystem (McMullen & Lash, 2012, p. 3).”
184
Exosystem
Mesosytem
Microsystem
Figure 2. “Reciprocity of relationships and communication flow through the systems (McMullen & Lash, 2012, p. 3).” Campus children’s programs, like infants, grow and develop in special contexts of care (Reifel, 2003). There may be similar missions and roles, but each program determines what features will be emphasized in its context of care. The primary elements involve a program’s values and priorities will directly and indirectly affect the care of children and their families, and relationships between and among participants in campus children’s programs will show increased or decreased interplay about mission and roles, and power will be shared in deciding which values translate into daily practice. Amidst the reciprocal relationships in campus children’s centers, families are the prime consumers of programs, and in return, they supply the primary subject of the care, their children. Without the active participation of children and their
185
families, the system of relationship exchange within a context of care cannot take place; parents’ consumer participation is at the heart of the life of a campus children’s center. Implications for Further Study Early education proponents have declared “preschool–done right, tightly targeted, and intensively delivered, with sound cognitive standards, quality criteria, and readiness assessments–must be the proper work of early childhood educators and the early learning community (Finn, 2010, p. 16).” Furthermore, there is a momentum to transform campus children’s centers into “formidable models and assets of early childhood development programs done right to their local communities (Chester, 2010, p. 16).” Advocacy for campus children’s centers to be catalysts toward improvement of high quality early education and care must not cease. The voices of participants have informed the study, and the findings have implications for theory, research, and practice. Because meaningful relationships are the building blocks of effective teaching and student success, school educators, administrators, parents, and students need to work collaboratively. Effective partnerships can be fostered when an intentional commitment is made to these working relationships among all the stakeholders. As a scholarpractitioner, the researcher plans to carry forward from the initial study begun in early education, and continue to understand the work, improve educational experiences for each population group served, collaborate and strategically partner with key stakeholder populations, and extend early education best practices and advocacy to the larger community at hand. At every mixed multiple population opportunity, center program directors need to explain and emphasize the mission, vision, functions and philosophy of the center. In working with mixed groups, there needs to be an “open door policy” in inviting queries and welcoming
186
questions about the center’s purposes and functions to its community members. It is also vital to make user groups aware of each other’s existence, purpose, and role in the center’s causes. There may need to be efforts made to educate user groups about each group’s participation, value, and need to belong to the life of the center. Another recommendation is to have representatives from each user group be part of an overall center committee, such as a Safety Commission. It is also recommended that a school culture (e.g., procedures, policies, modeling, and mentoring) be established of center multi-use along with the daily practice of positive adult-tochild interactions regardless of user group. Each population group must be ensured it has a voice within center operations. There needs to be avenues for opinions to be heard (e.g., committees, clubs, advisory groups, support groups, meetings, workshops, joint seminars). In devising collaborative work, at best one representative from each of the user groups should be included. With the best interest of children and their learning in mind, opportunities should be devised in which user groups can collaborate in small to large, short to long-term projects in the best interest of serving the children’s needs. These might include fundraisers, campus events, educational collaborative projects, school mural artwork, and many more. With all of their noble achievements and historical accumulations, the laboratory schools need to get a new grip on their aims and aspirations (Windrow, 1955). Laboratory schools need to look beyond the minutiae of their daily routine and catch that specific quality, which Whitehead called “a habitual vision of greatness (p. 264).” The schools need to rediscover and retain that vision of greatness, with the belief they are better than they are, in order that the communities where they reside may strive to become better than they are (Windrow, 1955).
187
Believing that a spirit of understanding, cordiality, and world-class service should characterize the relationships of laboratory schools and its public, and with particular reference to this all-important public, Windrow (1955) recommended the following future approaches: First, the laboratory school must have “a deliberate approach of a carefully planned program of public relations, wherein every technique and insight, from the past to the present day’s scientific advances, which offers a promise of improvement must be used (Windrow, 1955, p. 272). Advancements in knowledge and research, however, little or insignificant, need to inform higher education institutions of the benefits of campus children’s centers benefits. Second, while turning on all the available engagement in human relations, laboratory schools must use the precaution of “negotiating from strength” (Windrow, 1955, p. 272). In a positive and diplomatic manner, laboratory schools must use every noble and collegial approach to assist college administration, and any special campus committees, to choose upcoming faculty who will have both an understanding and interest in the professional advancement of the lab school (Windrow, 1955). In a pessimistic view of higher education institutions, the formal acceptance of a campus children’s center into mainstream college politics can be achieved by regulating this acceptance through the awareness of a “hidden government, where one must grasp the balance between formal and informal influences” (Bickimer, 1991, p. 39). As Bickimer (1991) remarked, “So powerful is this informal force that it can grease the wheels of administrative communication or stop them, and literally assures coordinated action, or prohibits it” (Bickimer, 1991, p. 39). Campus lab school directors, faculty, and staff need to intentionally maneuver the political arena with college decision makers in a collegial and appropriate way in order to lobby and further the aims of a successful lab program. Basically, no campus children’s
188
center will escape “step-child status” (Bickimer, 1991, p. 39) until it is part and parcel of the informal network of the academic setting. Third, lab schools should continue to exert intentional effort to improve working developmentally and appropriately with children and families, wherein excellent teaching and learning are the solid foundations of a campus lab school (Windrow, 1955). The expanding role of laboratory schools “embraces a commitment to change that continually reflects research, experimentation, and inquiry into basic and applied knowledge in education, rather than the more comfortable stability of demonstrating programs and practices already accepted by the profession” (Hunter, 1970, p. 14). Hunter (1970) elaborated on this role as follows: A school which adopts this new role will have as its functions: research, experimentation, and inquiry into the phenomena of education, dissemination of results from such activities, development of leaders in clinical practice, and demonstration, observation, and documentation related to the first three functions. (p. 14) Good teaching, training, research, and results must reflect back and fulfill the college’s educational master plan, mission and vision; and, thus, mirror the academic and professional goals of the host institution it serves. Lab schools of tomorrow need to make educational reform changes that will have a significant effect on academic curriculum, school structural systems, and professional development pathways (Cardellichio, 1997). Emerging lab schools need to develop into vehicles of curriculum change and professional development advancements through public education’s academic, structural, and professional domains (Cardellichio, 1997). With appropriate leadership, this child of campus lab school can be birthed and grown to meet the advancements of the 21st century.
189
References About Scenic Innovation College. (2015). Retrieved from www.scenicinnovationcollege@edu/aboutscenicinnovationcollege Anderson, C. (2010). Presenting and evaluating qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(8), 1-7. Anderson, C., Getz, M., & Siegfried, J. (1995). Who’s minding the kids? National Association of College and University Business, 46-52. Barbour, C., Barbour, N. H., & Scully, P. A. (2006). Features of quality care. Retrieved from www.education.com/features-quality-child-care.com Barbour, N. (2003). The early history of child development programs. New York, NY: Elsevier. Barbour, N. E., & Bersani, C. U. (1991). The campus child care center as a professional development school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 43-49. Barnett, W. S., Frede, E. C., Mobasher, H., & Mohr, P. (1988). The efficacy of public preschool programs and the relationship of program quality to efficacy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(1), 37-49. Bergmann, B. R. (1996). Saving our children from poverty: What the United States can learn from France. New York, N.Y.: Russell Sage Foundation. Berlinger, D. C. (1985). Laboratory settings and the study of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(6), 2-8. Bickimer, D. A. (1991). Leadership and the campus child care setting: Theory into practice. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 37-42. Blau, D. (2000). The production of quality in child care centers: Another look. Applied Developmental Science, 4(3), 136-148. Blau, D. M. (2002). The supply of quality in child care centers: Another look. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(3), 483-496. Bowers, S. (2000, March). Are campus child development centers obsolete? College Student Journal, 34(1), 133-138. Branscomb, K. R., & McBride, B. A. (2005). Academics versus service: Balancing competing missions in laboratory schools offering full-day programming. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 25, 113-121. Brown, M. H., & Freeman, N. K. (2003). The children’s center’s survival, brinkmanship, persistence, and creativity (12 ed.). Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier.
190
Burton, C. B., & Boulton, P. (1991). Campus child care: Toward an expanded professional identity. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 29-35. Butin, D. W. (2010). The education dissertation: A guide for practitioner scholars. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Calica, C. (2011). Child study lab school family handbook. Trivalley, CA: Scenic Innovation College. California Community College Early Childhood Educators. (2009). California Community College Early Childhood Educator’s position on enhanced funding for California’s community college lab schools. Unpublished manuscript. California Department of Education (2006). Infant/toddler learning & development program guidelines. Sacramento, CA: Author. California Department of Education (2009). California infant/toddler learning & development foundations. Sacramento, CA: Author. California Department of Education (2015). California preschool program guidelines. Sacramento, CA: Author. California Department of Education (2016). Defining quality child care [Originally published 2000]. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/re/caqdefinecare.asp Campion, W. W. (1992). Components of quality community college child care programs. Community/Junior College Quarterly, 16, 95-104. Cardellichio, T. L. (1997, June 1997). The lab school: A vehicle for curriculum change and professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 785-788. Cassidy, J., & Sanders, J. (2001). The university lab school for the 21st century: The early childhood development center. In J. Cassidy & S. Garrett (Eds.), Early childhood literacy: Programs and strategies to develop cultural, linguistic, scientific, and healthcare literacy for very young children and their families (pp. 1-19). Corpus Cristi, TX: Center for Educational Development, Evaluation and Research. Ceglowski, D., & Bacigalupa, C. (2002). Four perspectives on child care quality. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(2), 87-92. Chester, E. F. (2010, Nov. 2010). Targeted, not universal pre-k. The Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 12-16. Clawson, M. A. (2003). The dilemma of linking theory and research with practice in child development laboratory programs. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Clift, R. T., & Say, M. (1988). Teacher education: Collaboration or conflict? Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 2-7. 191
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Comer, J. P., & Ben-Avie, M. (2010). Promoting community in early childhood education programs: A comparison of two programs. Early Childhood Education Programs, 38, 8794. Cook, R. E. (1984). University involvement: A key to campus child care survival. Focus on Learning, 10(1), 17-25. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analyses issues for field studies. Chicago, Ill: Rand McNally. Couchenour, D., & Chrisman, K. (1989). Distinctions in the role and function of child development/early childhood laboratories. Paper presented at the April 13-16 annual meeting of the Southern Association for Children Under Six, Richmond, VA. Cryer, D. (1999). Defining and assessing early childhood program quality. Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, 563, 39-55. Cryer, D., & Burchinal, M. (1997). Parents as child care consumers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 35-58. Cutler, K., Bersani, C., Hutchkins, P., Browne, M., Lash, M., Kroeger, J., . . . Black, F. (2012). 2012. Early Education and Development, 23(2), 242-258. Dimidjian, V. J. (1984). Evaluating and improving service-oriented campus child care: A case study. Child Care Quarterly, 13(3), 193-208. Dreyfuss, S. (2014). Invest in high-quality early childhood education. Retrieved from www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/invest-in-high-quality-early-childhood-education.html Early, D. L., Maxwell, K. M., Burchinal, M., Alva, S., Bender, R. H., Bryant, D., & Zill, N. (2007, March-April 2007). Teacher’s education, classroom quality, and children’s academic skills: Results from seven studies of preschool programs. Child Development, 78(2), 558-580. Elicker, J., & Barbour, N. (2012). Introduction to the special issue on the university laboratory preschools in the 21st century. Early Education and Development, 23, 139-142. Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview. Erickson, P., Gray, N., Wesley, B., & Dunagan, E. (2012). Why parents choose laboratory schools for their children. National Association for Legal Professionals Journal, 2(2), 18. File, N. (2012). Identifying and addressing challenges to research in university laboratory preschools. Early Education and Development, 23(2), 143-152. 192
Follari, L (2007). Foundations and best practices in early childhood education: History, theories and approaches to learning. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Frede, E. C. (1995). The role of program quality in producing early childhood program benefits. The Future of Children, 5(3), 115-132. Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S., & Shinn, M. (1994). The study of children in family child care and relative care: Highlights of findings. in families and work institute. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute. Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory: A new psychology of human freedom. New York, N.Y.: Harper-Perennial. Gonzalez-Mena, J. (2008). Child, family, and community: Family-centered early care and education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Graue, M. E., & Walsh, D. J. (1998). Studying children in context: Theories, methods and ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Greene, E. (1985). Colleges hard pressed to meet demands for child care. Chronicle of Higher Education, 31, 29-30. Gumport, P. J. (2003). The demand-response scenario perspectives of community college presidents. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 586, 38-61. Harms, T., & Tracy, R. (2006). Linking research to best practice. Young Children, 61(4), 89-93. Helburn, S. W. (1995). Cost, quality and child outcomes in child care centers: A technical report. Denver: University of Colorado, Department of Economics: Center for Research in Economic and Social Policy. Herman, J. L., & Yeh, J. P. (1980). Some effects of parental involvement in school. Boston, MA: American Educational Research Association. Honig, A. S. (1996). Training early childhood educators for the future. Paper presented at the Early Childhood Educators for the Future, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Horm-Wingerd, D., & Cohen, S. (1991). Integrating research into campus and community early childhood programs. Child and Youth Care Forum, 20, 65-74. Howes, C., & Helburn, S. (1996). Child care cost and quality. The Future of Children, 6(2), 6282. Howes, C., James, J., & Ritchie, S. (2003). Pathways to effective teaching. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 140-120. Hunter, M. (1970, Sep. 1970). Expanding roles of laboratory schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 52(1), 14-19. 193
Ivins, G. H. (1942, May 1942). An administrator’s view of laboratory schools in teacher education. The High School Journal, 25(5), 213-218. Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Katz, L. (1993). Five perspectives on quality in early childhood programs. Retrieved from Early Childhood and Parenting Collaborative website: www.eacp.crc.illinois.edu/eearchve/books/fivepers.html Katz, L. (1993). Multiple perspectives on the quality of early childhood programs. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(2). http://dx.doi.org/Retrieved from Kellogg, L. (1999). The Kellogg Child Development Center: High quality child care. Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science, 563, 56-72. Keyes, C. (1991). Campus Children’s Centers: Two decades of ferment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 3-9. Keyes, C., & Cook, R. (1988). Campus Child Care Issues and Practices. Milwaukee, WI: National Coalition for Campus Child Care. Keyes, C. R. (1980). Campus child care centers: Diversity and change. Keynote address delivered at the symposium conducted at the National Coalition for Campus Child Care Conference, Ohio State University. Keyes, C. R. (1990). Multiple missions: Campus child care programs. Academe, 76(1), 25-28. Keyes, C. R., & Boulton, P. (1995). Campus children’s center: Support for children and families. Children Today, 23(4), 18-21. Keyes, C. R., & Boulton, P. (2007). Kids on Campus. Academe, 93(4), 41-43. Keyser, J. (2000). From parents to partners: Building a family-centered early childhood program. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press. King, C., & MacKinnon, D. E. (1988, Oct. 1988). Making difficult choices easier: A review of research on day care and children’s development. Family Relations, 37(4), 392-398. Knudsen Lindauer, S. L., & Berghout Austin, A. M. (1999). Redesigning a child development laboratory program to meet the changing needs of students, faculty, and parents. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 20(1), 59-65. Krashinsky, M. (1978). The cost of daycare in public programs. National Tax Journal, 31(4), 363-372. Kyle, M., Campion, W. J., & Ogden, W. R. (1999). Contemporary childcare issues facing colleges and universities. College Student Journal, 33(4), 482-484. 194
Lake, V. E., & Jones, I. (2008, Nov. 2008). Service-learning in early childhood teacher education: Using service to put meaning back into learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2148-2156. Lamb, P. M. (1962). The laboratory school: A historical perspective. Journal of Educational Research, 26(2), 107-109. Landreth, C. (1964, Sep. 1964). Child laboratories on university campuses. Child Development, 35(3), 989-992. Langstead, O. (1994). Looking at quality from the child’s perspective. In P. Moss & A. Pence (Eds.), Valuing quality in early childhood services: New approaches to defining quality (pp. 28-42). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lee, J., & Walsh, D. (2004). Quality in early childhood programs: Reflections from program evaluation practices. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(3), 351-373. Lewis, A. C. (1993). The payoff from a quality preschool. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(10), 748-749. http://dx.doi.org/Retrieved from Lynch, W. (2000). A task of leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(3), 241-242. Marshall, M. L. (2004). The quality of early child care and children’s development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 165-168. McBride, B. A. (1996). University-based child development laboratory programs: Emerging issues and challenges. Early Childhood Education Journal, 24(1), 17-21. McBride, B. A. (2000). An examination of roles of child development laboratory Programs in early childhood education. Paper presented at the National Association for the Education of the Young Child, Atlanta, Georgia. McBride, B. A. (2009). Meeting the challenges of lab school functions within the context of campus childcare. Paper presented at the National Association for the Education of the Young Child Annual Meeting, Washington DC. McBride, B. A., & Baumgartner, J. (2003). The changing profile of teaching, research and outreach activities in lab school programs. Advances in Early Education and Day Care, 12, 181-200. McBride, B. A., & Hicks, T. (1998). Parental and staff member perceptions of lab school functions and program quality. Early Child Development and Care, 21-32. McBride, B. A., Groves, M., Barbour, N., Horm, D., Stremmel, A., Lash, M., . . . Toussant, S. (2012). Child development laboratory schools as generators of knowledge in early childhood education: New models and approaches. Early Education and Development, 23(2), 153-164.
195
McBride, B. A., & Lee, J. (1995). University based child development laboratory schools: Multiple challenges and demands. In S. Reifel, Advances in Early Education and Daycare (7th ed., pp. 95-121). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. McMillin, L. A. (1996, August 1996). The Susquehanna Children’s Center: An example of university-community cooperation. History Teacher, 29, 492. McMullen, M. B., & Lash, M. (2012). Babies on campus: Service to infants and families among competing priorities in university child care programs. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 14(2), 1-16. Melhuish, E. D. (2011). Preschool matters. Science, 333(6040), 299-300. Miller, S. A. (1987, April 1987). Remaining afloat: The survival of a child development laboratory school. Paper presented at the National Association for the Education of the Young Child. Mocan, N. H. (1997). Cost function, efficiency, and quality in day care centers. Journal of Human Resources, 32(4), 861-891. Muldoon, L. C. (1984). Parenting education: A unique opportunity for child care centers. Focus on Learning, 10(1), 55-60. National Association for the Education of the Young Child. (1984a). NAEYC position statement of nomenclature, salaries, benefits, and the status of the early childhood profession. Young Children, 40(1), 9-14. National Association for the Education of the Young Child. (1984b). Survey of Child Care Salaries and Working Conditions. Young Children, 40(1), 52-55. National Coalition for Campus Children’s Centers. (2012a). Child care and laboratory schools on campus, 1-10. Retrieved from www.campuschildren.org/research National Coalition for Campus Children’s Centers. (2012b). Varieties of campus child care. Washington, DC: Institute for Womens Policy Research. Noble, J., Weaver, L., Lauffer, M., Miller, D., Taylor, N., Rosen-Simon, Z., Ghafourpour, K. (2014). Business plan. In Scenic Innovation College Child Study Lab School Business Plan 2011-2016 (). Trivalley, CA: Scenic Innovation College. Osborn, D. K. (1991). Early childhood history in historical perspective. Athens, GA: Education Associates. Pape, B. (1999). Involving parents lets students and teachers win. Education Digest, 64(6), 4751. Payne, R. K. (2013). A framework for understanding poverty: A cognitive approach. Highlands, TX: Aha Press. 196
Peissner-Feinberg, E. S., & Burchinal, M. R. (1997). Relations between preschool children’s child care experiences and concurrent development: The cost, quality and outcomes study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43(3), 451-477. Phillips, D. A., & Howes, C. (1987). What does research tell us? In D. Phillips (Ed.), Indicators of quality in child care: review of research (pp. 1-4). Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of the Young Child. Phillips, L. (2011). Children as citizens: Not on campus. Australian Universities’ Review, 53(2), 5-10. Powell, P. J. (2010, Nov.). The messiness of readiness. Phi Delta Kappan, 92, 26-28. Ramey, S. L., & Ramey, C. T. (2005). Creating and sustaining a high-quality workforce in child care, early intervention, and school readiness programs. In M. Zaslow & I. MartinezBeck (Eds.), Critical issues in early childhood professional development (pp. 355-368). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Reifel, S. (Ed.). (2003). Social contexts of early development and education, and reconceptualizing play. Advances in Early Education and Day Care, 13, 95-121. Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Ponitz, C. C. (2009). Introduction to the special issue on databased investigations of the quality of preschool and early child care environments. Early Education & Development, 20, 201-210. Rogers, S., & Renald, L. (1999). Relationship-driven teaching. Educational Leadership, 56(1), 157-160. Rushfort, C. (2009, February 2009). Management: Safeguarding children and families, part I: Develop policy and practice. London, UK: Nursery World. Samra, R. (2015). Local population demographics. Retrieved from www.scenicinnovationcollege/researchandplanning/documents/LocalDemos_Pop_RaceEth_households_economy.pdf Sarason, S. (1987). Policy, implementation and the problem of change. In S. L. Kagan & E. F. Zigler (Eds.), Early schooling: The national debate (pp. 116-126). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Schwartz, J. F., Walter, J., & Aven, S. D. (1968). A student-teaching laboratory. Improving College and University Teaching, 14(2), 116-117. Schwartz, S. L. (1991). Children’s centers in the campus community: Establishing an identity. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 11-17. Smith, K. L. (1991). Beyond campus child care: Supporting university families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 57-68. 197
Stevens, K. B. (2015). Early education teachers need better training. Retrieved from Education Week website: https://www.mobile.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/05/06/early-educationteachers-need-better-training.html Stipek, D. (2006, May 2006). No Child Left Behind comes to preschool. The Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 455-466. Stremmel, A. J., Hill, L. T., & Fu, V. R. (2003). An inside perspective of paradigm shifts in child development laboratory programs: Bridging theory and professional preparation. Advances in Early Care and Daycare, 12, 89-111. Thomas, G. (1956). Role of laboratory schools in introducing educational practices. Educational Leadership, 401-411. Townley, K. F., & Zeece, P. D. (1991). Managing the mission: The primary challenge to campus child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 19-27. Trochim, W. (1989). Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 355-366. U. S. General Accounting Office/Human Resources Division. (1990). Early childhood education: What are the COSIS of high quality programs?(GAO/HRD-9043BR). Washington, DC: Author. Vandell, D. L. (2004). Early child care: The known and the unknown. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50(3), 387-414. Wagenhorst, L. H. (1946, March). The function of a campus laboratory school of a state teachers college. Peabody Journal of Education, 23(5), 269-273. West, F., & Gadsden Jr., T. (1973, February). A major role for laboratory schools. Educational Leadership, 412-415. Whitebrook, M. (1984). Caring for children as work. In J. Greenman & R. Fuqua (Eds.), Muking day care better: Training, evaluation, and the process of change (pp. 664-673). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Whitebrook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1990). Who cares? Child care teachers and quality of care in America, Final report of the National Care Staffing Study. Berkeley, CA: Child Care Employee Project. Wilcox-Herzog, A. S., & McLaren, M. S. (2012). Lessons learned: Building a better laboratory school. National Association of Legal Professionals Journal, 4(1), 3. Wilson, R. (2005). Keeping kids close. Chronicle of Higher Education, A10. Windrow, J. E. (1955, March). The laboratory school and its publics. Peabody Journal of Education, 32(5), 261-271. 198
Witmer, M. M. (2005, May-June). The fourth R in education: relationships. The Relevance of Educational Psychology to Teacher Education, 78(5), 224-228. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Kindle ed.). Zaman, A., Amin, R., Momjian, I. E., & Lei, T. (2012). Complexities in managing the child care industry: An observation on challenges and potentials. Education, 132(4), 739-753.
199
Appendix A Community College Permission to Conduct Research
200
Appendix B Recruitment Flyer
VOLUNTEERS NEEDED FOR A RESEARCH STUDY University of California, Davis School of Education •
To describe how the Child Development Center carries out its major functions to the multiple populations it serves (children, families, college students, campus employees, faculty, researchers, and community stakeholders)
• Subjects who weekly utilize the services of the Child Development Center for one of the following functions: -
An early education and child care program for own children, OR An observation and activity site for course requirements, OR A laboratory training facility for work experience, OR A model demonstration school for best practices, OR An ongoing employment career workplace, OR A work experience site for Child Development Permit eligibility, OR An unpaid volunteer experience site, OR A collaborative site for partnership, OR A center for endowment and scholarships.
What will participants be asked to do? • Provide contact information and information will be kept confidential • Be interviewed 2X for 60-90 minutes in 3 months (initial and final) • Be audio-recorded and information will be kept confidential • Be observed at least 1x for 30 minutes in 3 months • There is no compensation for your participation in this study. If you have any questions or are interested, please contact: Principal Investigator Corinna Calica, M.A. CANDEL Program, UC Davis – Sonoma State Office # 2323 Phone Number: _ _ _-_ _ _-_ _ _ _ Email:
[email protected]
201
Appendix C Permission to Take Part in a Human Research Study
Title of Research Study: Fulfilling Multiple Missions Concurrently: An Ethnographic Look at a Campus Children’s Center’s Service to Four Populations and Its Impact on Program Quality Principal Investigator: Corinna Calica, CANDEL, School of Education, University of California Davis,
[email protected], _ _ _-_ _ _-_ _ _ _ Why am I being invited to take part in a research study? I invite you to take part in a research study, because belong to one of the center’s major population groups with whom the campus children’s center currently serves as part of its institution’s mission. I would take pleasure in speaking with you about how you understand the center functions to serve your needs, as well as those of other population groups. Your unique role and perspective is valuable to me as a researcher. I’d like to better understand the benefits, as well as challenges, you face when the center serves your needs. I would appreciate your perspective on how to help the center manage its multiple purposes. I believe your rich experience and useful knowledge will help me achieve the study I am seeking to examine.
What should I know about a research study? (Experimental Bill of Rights) Before you agree to take part in the research study, •
The researcher will explain this research study to you, including: - The nature and purpose of the research study - The procedures to be followed - Any common or important discomforts and risks - Any benefits you might expect
•
Whether or not you participate in the study, it is your decision.
•
It is purely voluntary to take part in this research. 202
•
You can choose to participate without force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence.
•
You can decide to participate now, and later withdraw from the study.
•
If you decide to withdraw from the study, your information will be secured, redacted, and there exist no punitive or negative measures held against your decision.
•
You are free to inquire and ask questions about the research study before you make your decision.
Who can I talk to? If you have questions, concerns, or complaints, or believe the research has hurt you, you can speak to the research team via phone at _ _ _- _ _ _- _ _ _ _ or via email at
[email protected]. The research has been reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Information to help you understand research is on-line at http://www.research.ucdavis.edu/IRBAdmin. You may talk to an IRB staff member at 916-7039151, email
[email protected], or write to 2921 Stockton Blvd., Suite 11400, Room 1429, Sacramento, CA 95817 for any of the following: • • • • •
Your questions, concerns, or complaints are not being met or answered by the research team. You cannot reach the research team. You want to talk to someone besides the research team. You have questions about your rights as a research subject. You want to get information or provide input about this research study.
Why is this research being done? This research study will focus on benefits and challenges, of a campus children’s center’s mission to provide service to multiple populations. 203
For higher education institutions, this investigative research can efficiently assist another similar community college in deciding and planning if campus children’s center’s purposes are achievable for a particular institution, its demographic population needs, and its organization timeline. For the field of child development, the research will help illustrate, define and uncover to the field the valuable, crucial, distinguishing and prevailing features, as well as detrimental elements that population groups experience when served by a campus children’s center simultaneously. How long will the research last? I expect that subjects will be involved in this research for approximately seven (7) months. The majority of the research will take place in the first four (4) months between March 2015 and July 2015. Minimal follow-up of research may be needed for the following three (3) months between August 2015 and October 2015. How many people will be studied? Twelve (12) individuals from four (4) population groups (parents, center staff, college students, researchers, stakeholders) served by the center What happens if I say yes, I want to be in this research? Observations If you agree to participate in the study, the researcher may observe your role in center or classroom interactions, environment, and daily routines. Each observation will last approximately 30–60 minutes long, and will take place 1-2 times during the research (a preliminary and a final observation). During these observations, the researcher will be taking field notes for data collection. Interviews
204
In addition to the observations, the subject will be interviewed one time during the research. These individual interviews will last approximately 60-90 minutes in length. Each interview will take place in a location at the campus children’s center site. It is possible that the interview will lead to more questions that will require a follow-up individual interview. During the interview, audio recording devices will be used and the researcher will take handwritten notes. Timeline Research Month February 2015
Tasks • •
March 2015 – July 2015
August 2015 – October 2015 November 2015
• • • • • • • • •
Identify participants, obtain consent as soon as IRB is approved Enrollment of participants concludes by the end of February 2015 Interview data collection Observations and field notes to be collected on study participants Additional data sources collected Follow-up data collection Process and analyze data collected Document methods used Document research process Research completed Research subject’s study participation concludes as of November 1, 2015
What happens if I do not want to be in the research? The subject may decide not to take part in the research and it will not be held against him or her. What happens if I say yes, but I change my mind later? The subject can leave the research at any time and it will not be held against him or her. What happens to the information collected for the research? Efforts will be made to limit use or disclosure of your personal information, including research study and records, to people who have need to review this information. The researcher cannot 205
promise complete confidentiality. Organizations may inspect and copy your information including the Internal Review Board (IRB) and other University of California representatives responsible for the management or oversight of this study. A Certificate of Confidentiality also does not prevent a researcher from disclosing information about you to prevent serious harm to yourself or others, such as reporting to the authorities’ incidents of child abuse, elder abuse, or spousal abuse. Signature for Capable Adult
Your signature documents your agreement to take part in this research. _________________________________________________ _________________________ Signature of subject Date
_________________________________________________
Printed name of subject
__________________________________________________ Signature of person obtaining consent
__________________________________________________ Printed name of person obtaining consent
My signature below documents that the information in the consent document and any other written information was accurately explained to, and apparently understood by, the subject, and the consent was freely given by the subject. ___________________________________________________ Signature of witness to consent process
___________________________________________________ Printed name of person witnessing consent process
206
___________________________ Date
Appendix D Interview Questions
Corinna D. Calica (# 996308803) CANDEL, SCOE, UC Davis-Sonoma State University May 5, 2015 Working Title: Fulfilling Multiple Missions Concurrently: An Ethnographic Study of a Campus Children’s Center’s Trials and Triumphs in Serving Six Populations and Its Impact on Program Efficiency (May 2015) Eighteen Interviews to six (6) Population Groups: 3 Center Parents, 3 College Administrators, 3 Center Teaching Staff, 3 Early Childhood Faculty, 3 Center Researchers, 3 Center Lab/Practicum Students Main Questions: 1. How does this specific campus children’s center fulfill its mission with efficiency by serving six major populations? 2. How, if any, are the center’s program quality positively and negatively affected by serving multiple populations? 3.
How do serving six major populations in a children’s center affect the efficiency of center’s services?
Learning Goals: -
To obtain knowledge of the participant’s role or ties to Center, To increase awareness how a participant perceives the purposes of the Center To understand of how the Center fulfills a need for each participant To be cognizant of how a participant utilizes the Center To determine which Center functions the participant deems important To discover of any impact Center has had on participant To uncover any service areas or populations overlooked by the Center To gain a sense of the service efficacy of the Center
207
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. What is your role in the Child Development Center? How do you feel you contribute to the Child Development Center? In your opinion, how do your role and responsibilities play a part in the operations of the center?
2. How is the Center different and similar to other early education programs in the neighboring communities? How do you feel the center makes a difference in the local community?
3. How often and how much time per day are you in direct contact with the Center’s: - Children,
- Parents,
- College students,
- Center staff,
- Faculty
- And researchers? 4. The Center functions as a child study training laboratory to college students, an early education child care center to children and families, an academic division department for faculty, a professional development school for teaching staff, and a model demonstration school for the community. How do you feel about the multi-faceted roles of the Center? Where do you see your role within the center’s multiple functions? In your own work, how are you capable to serve the campus populations within your role and responsibilities? 5. The center uniquely serves the differing needs of children, parents, college students, staff, faculty and researchers. In your opinion, what do you think of the center’s unique service to diverse population groups? 6.
What do you think about having parents’ needs served within the life of the center? How do you feel about meeting the childcare and academic needs of parents versus meeting the developmental needs of children? Can you think of a way(s) to adequately meet the needs of parents? 7. What do you think about having college students’ needs served within the life of the center? How do you feel about meeting the practicum training needs of college students 208
versus meeting the parent education needs of center parents? 8. What do you think about having center staff needs served within the life of the center? How do you feel about meeting the professional development needs of teaching staff versus meeting the academic needs of faculty? 9. What do you think about having researchers’ needs, like me, served within the life of the center? How do you feel about meeting the study needs of researchers versus meeting the curriculum needs of children? 10. How do you feel about the center functioning as a data collection site versus functioning as a research training site? 11. How do you feel about the center fully funded by the community college district or the center purely funded with parent fees? 12. What does the program look like when the different population needs are met simultaneously? How do you feel about multiple needs being met by a single center? 13. How do you feel about prioritization? In your view, must there be a prioritization in the service of needs? Why or why not? Does prioritization significant play an important part in fulfilling center functions? 14. If you were in charge of ensuring all campus populations’ needs are adequately met, how would you go about it? What would be your plan of action? Why do you choose this plan of action? 15. Reflection: You have five minutes to inform the researcher any information pertinent about the Center? Is there anything you would like to inform the researcher to add or clarify to your given responses?
209
Appendix E Descriptions of Each Participant from Six Population Groups
Parents Natasha has been with the center since the lab school opened for service in 2011 until present; she has had two children enrolled in the center for the past 5 school years. Natasha is the current president of the center’s Parent Advisory Committee (PAC) and has been involved in key district board meetings involving the center and the creation of the center’s business plan. Natasha possesses a MBA from Delhi University and is a current senior manager for a large national retailer. Natasha has been a staunch supporter and champion of the center since its inception in 2011. Natasha and her spouse have been the longest enrolled family in the center by far. Natasha is a middle class married female, in her late 30s, of North Indian descent, and she finished all of her undergraduate and graduate education in India prior to moving to the United States. Natasha has always believed that the campus children’s center can achieve and expand more only with stronger administrative backing, from the administration at the college to the district level. Ana has been a family client with the center for 3 school years. She is the current secretary for the PAC, and her involvement includes having her child enrolled in the center and volunteering for various center school activities. Ana takes copious notes in parent advisory meetings and she often reminds the attending families and staff about the mission and goals of the center. Ana lives within walking distance of the center. Ana is a professional dancer who teaches East Asian dances in a dance studio weekly. Although she recently joined the center, Ana and her spouse are impressed at how the center has helped their child emerge from her
210
shyness to interact with other children and adults alike. Ana is a working-class married female of South Indian descent in her late 20s. She earned her Bachelors of Science in Engineering abroad, is a recent immigrant to the United States, and is currently pregnant (she plans to send her upcoming child to the center when the child is old enough, but she wishes the center had an infant license to serve her upcoming child earlier). Ana has been a family enrolled with the center for 3 academic school years. Ana believes that one of the main functions of the center is to foster secure relationships with the children and teachers and to train emerging teachers to become proficient in early care and education. Gwen is a scholarship student parent of the center; she is a student representative for the PAC and majors at the college in early childhood education. In the past summer session, she has had one child enrolled at the center. Although Gwen has been an enrolled family for the center for 1 year, she is pursuing her Child Development Teacher Permit, and she has worked as a center part-time front desk staff for 4 years. Consequently, she is well known by most of the center families as the “front desk teacher.” Gwen is a working-class married female, in her late 30s, of Latina descent. She is a recent naturalized American citizen, and is currently taking English as a Second Language (ESL) classes as part of her AA degree in ECD at Scenic Innovation College. Gwen finds the center invaluable to her work experience as an early childhood educator and helpful to her professional development as an assistant teacher. She also finds it a valuable educational support system for her math learning community and her daily mastery of the English language. A budding Early Childhood major, Gwen believes that if a student teacher, observer, parent, or even faculty is flexible enough to adjust to changes in their preconceived ideas of child development, there is hope for change.
211
Faculty Brenda is a newly ECD tenured full-time faculty who also acts as the department coordinator for all full-time and adjunct faculty in the ECD department. Similar to the center director, Brenda hails from the same graduate program known for its staunch support for culturecentered education, experiential learning, and affirmation of diversity, social justice, and equity. Brenda is also an active coordinator of the Equal Opportunity Program plan for Scenic Innovation College. Brenda is the department coordinator, and the current “face” and “voice” for the ECD department. Brenda is a middle-class female, in her early 40s, of African American descent, married to a male early educator, and is also a parent of a 2-year-old who attends preschool elsewhere due to the “out-of-pocket” unaffordable fees charged by the center. Brenda believes that there needs to be access and equity in subsidizing income-eligible student families, as well as eligible faculty and/or staff families. Nicole is the longest tenured full-time ECD faculty in the department. She has been at the college since the inception of the center’s vision back in 1989. Nicole was one of the original proponents of the push for, and establishment of, a campus children’s center at Scenic Innovation College. She was one of the key faculty members who helped design and plan the center facility building with college architects, and she helped to purchase all the needed furniture through the passed city proposition funding. Over the past few years, Nicole has scaled back in faculty teaching responsibilities due to health issues. Nicole is an upper-middle class married female, in her late 50s, of Jewish descent, and is a recent grandmother and part-time caregiver to her first infant grandson. Nicole has been a dedicated faculty member with the college for 27 years. Nicole believes there is a strong need for institutional and administrative support to allow the lab school to serve its purposes as a legitimate campus lab program.
212
Patricia is a newly hired adjunct ECD faculty member who coordinates and teaches the lab practicum and work experience for all ECD majors. Besides teaching day and evening classes, she also spends much time modeling, mentoring, and monitoring her students’ activities in the center’s lab school. Patricia worked as a full-time head teacher for the center until the former college president attempted to close the center and laid off all center employees. Patricia has worked as an on-call substitute head teacher until recently securing full-time employment as an infant toddler director at a nearby engineering laboratory’s children’s center. Patricia and the center director share the same certification in infant toddler care and attend its professional development conferences annually together. Patricia is a middle-class married female, in her early 50s, of Caucasian descent, and a recent grandmother and part-time caregiver to her first toddler grandson. Patricia has worked for the community college district for 6 academic school years, with 3 years spent working as adjunct faculty and head teacher at the center. Patricia believes that there is a need for intentional community collaboration between all the groups served by the center in order to better understand everyone’s shared purposes, commitment to shared goals and partnerships, and professional respect for all the groups utilizing the campus children’s center. Administrators Louise is the supervising dean; she is in charge of overseeing the center under her academic division for the past 5 years. This specific administrator has insight into the center’s business plan, monthly expenses, seasonal hiring of staff, and event and/or resource approvals for the center. Dean Louise was part of the hiring committee for the center’s program director, and she has witnessed the challenges and victories the center has faced over the past 5 school years. Louise is the Dean of Behavioral Sciences, Business and Athletics (BSBA), and runs the
213
Physical Education Department located in proximity up the campus hill from the center. Dean Louise is an upper-middle class female, in her late 40s, of African American descent, who has no children of her own, and has recently wed her longtime female partner. Although Dean Louise has no prior child development knowledge and experience, working with the program director has continually enlightened Dean Louise’s perspective to the cause of children and student families within the campus community. Dean Louise has been with the college for 5 academic school years. In her interview, Dean Louise admitted the following: Prior to being assigned the center, I had no knowledge or background about the science of child development. I don’t even have children of my own to base any experience on. Yet, being involved in the center’s start-up hiring, being part of the Business Plan committee, and now being in charge of its oversight, I’ve taken a step back, asked many questions, and allowed myself to learn, grow, and experience how a lab school functions. Now I understand that the primary purpose of the center is to serve the coursework requirements for ECD students and other disciplines primarily. Faculty and teachers guide them, and families benefit from the richness of the experience at the same time. Herb is the foundation director for the college. In the past 3 school years, the center director, teaching staff, parents, and foundation director have worked on fundraising projects collaboratively, such as creating video footage, conducting family and staff interviews, auction recruitment, and scholarship promotion to the campus community. Prior to his recent retirement, Director Herb was able to raise raised $500,000.00 for the center through a private benefactor, wherein funds are redistributed through deserving student parent scholarships. This scholarship trust fund has become the signature fundraising effort for the Scenic Innovation College Foundation to date. Director Herb is a distinguished upper-middle class male, in his late 60s, of Caucasian descent. He has worked extensively for a major film and amusement park and is well known in the Tri-Valley community as the face and the fundraiser for Scenic Innovation College. He has recently retired soon after achieving his largest signature contribution for Scenic Innovation College. Director Herb is married, has no children of his own, is a board member for 214
local businesses, and sponsors a local endowment in his family’s name. Director Herb has been with the college for a solid 10 years prior to his recent retirement. Director Francois is the designated college research analyst for the campus. This particular administrator has readily worked with the center director and ECD faculty to gain valuable college research data to determine the number of college students served by the center, the number of student parents needing childcare services, etc. Director Francois has been instrumental in providing data to the center for college data reports, graduation retention rates, and grant-writing purposes. In the past year, Director Francois has been sympathetic and helpful to the center goals and has also enrolled his preschool daughter; she will attend the center for two full semesters prior to kindergarten entrance. Director Francois has been attending culturally centered leadership development conferences with program director annually. Director Francois is an analytically minded middle-class married male, in his early 40s, of South Indian descent, and has recently bought a residence in the neighboring campus neighborhood. Director Francois is sympathetic to the purposes and causes of the ECD department and center. Director Francois has worked for the community college district for 8 academic school years, with the recent 4 years at the college. Francois believes there is a need for further specialized training of the emerging teachers to transfer, based on the number of certificates the college grants to the department each year. Teachers Desiree is a newly hired ECD specialist who works 25 hours per week with the newly opened older toddler class. Although only in her mid-20s, she has a strong Head Start background and has notable accounting and administrative skills. Desiree is a newly married working-class female, of Latino descent, and has a newborn baby who is cared for by family as
215
she works. Desiree takes over the program director’s duties whenever she is out of the office. Desiree is in an expedited process of finishing her Bachelor’s degree at a nearby 4-year state university. Desiree has been working as a head teacher for three semesters at the center and is grateful for being given the opportunity. Desiree believes the center’s responsibility is to fulfill the needs of students, faculty, teachers, families, researchers, and administrators equally, but the impact of service and learning happens mostly for students, teachers, parents, and children. Melissa is a highly qualified ECD Specialist who currently holds a master’s degree in Early Childhood and two distinguished infant toddler certifications. Melissa is a married ECD specialist who sends her grandson to the younger toddler class. Every afternoon, she co-leads the older toddler class with Desiree. Every morning she also works part-time at a local naturalistic preschool alongside one of the current ECD adjunct faculty-teaching curriculum in the evenings. Melissa is a married middle-class female in her middle 50s, of Caucasian background, and she teaches evening ECD courses for Scenic Innovation College. Melissa has worked as head teacher for 3 academic school years at the center. Melissa believes that the entire college district needs to regard the center as a laboratory component like the other labs on the campus. Vashti is a single ECD Specialist who recently received her Child Development Site Supervisor permit and possesses an AA in Early Childhood. Vashti works afternoons at the center after her morning job at another sister college’s campus children’s center. Vashti is a working-class female, of Latino descent. She is a mother of five teenagers and young adults (three of whom are triplets) and is a current consultant for child development high quality child and program assessment. Vashti has worked as a substitute head teacher for 4 academic school
216
years at the center. Being an avid learner, Vashti believes teachers need to invest in professional development to achieve a successful workforce in the early childhood field. Lab/practicum students Marie is a recently married ECD major student who conducts her practicum hours at the youngest toddler class (18-24 months old). As a practicum student, she works alongside the head teachers to be trained and mentored in lab school best practices. Marie is a working-class married female who lives near the college; she is of African American descent and prefers working with the toddlers at the center. She has three school-aged children of her own, one of whom receives specials needs services. Although Marie has another evening mail industry job to “pay her bills,” she has been consistently working in the center for almost 4 years because “working with children is really what I want to do in life.” Marie has been a “work experience” practicum student for two semesters at the center. Marie believes there are ways ECD majors can achieve their passion of working with young children and grow as a teacher in a lab school, even if jobs are low paying: When I spend 5 hours per day with the toddlers, it is my break. What I mean is, working with young children is what I really want to do, but this job does not pay the bills. My other job does. But when I am here I get to do what I want to do, toddlers need me, and we have a strong bond throughout the year. I get to learn at the lab school from others; but at the same time, I get to see the children grow and develop over time. I form great relationships with the parents, other students, and the teachers as well. It’s a good place for me. It’s a place of learning for everyone even me. It’s my break. Really.
Lindsay is a married ECD major who conducts her practicum hours at the older toddler class (24-28 months old). Lindsay has been a practicum student for two semesters at the center She is slated to transfer to the local 4-year university and is completing the final classes she needs at Scenic Innovation College before transferring. Lindsay has a toddler enrolled at the youngest toddler class, and she travels in traffic over 1 hour from her home to attend class and 217
work at the center. Lindsay is a married working-class female, in her early 30s. She is of Caucasian descent. She stated she believes that having at least 1 year’s work experience at the center will be an added feature to all the early childhood courses she has completed. Lindsay believes the center’s crucial purpose is to espouse and demonstrate developmentally appropriate teaching, and learning must be moved forward to affect administration at a state level: In order to learn in a lab school, one must be adaptable and flexible to change. As students, we learn so much about what is appropriate for children’s learning and wellbeing. The center has changed my own practice, and it continues to change other student’s methods. I wish there was a way we can bring these kinds of changes to a more influential level, like the state level. Why do we only change within our college [when] state officials need to learn these things too? I would like to see center research brought to the state’s attention. We do not have that yet, I don’t think. Romeo is a married ECD major who is also a scholarship recipient of the center and is the current president of the college’s Associated Student Union. He stands out and feels proud to be one of the few male teachers in the field of ECD. He is a growing teacher who is very friendly and accommodating to families in the program. For 20 years, he was in the restaurant business until recently, when he decided to switch majors. He has three children, one of whom is diagnosed with special needs. He currently has a daughter enrolled in the youngest toddler class, and he envisions himself to be a special needs teacher in the near future. Romeo is a married working-class male, of Latino descent. He is a full-time student pursuing three majors and the designated “hot meal” cook for the center. Romeo has been a practicum student for two semesters at the center. Romeo believes in training more male emergent teachers in the field to break stereotypes and allow males the opportunity to engage in jobs without fear of stigma: I got into the field of child development after my son was diagnosed to be within the autism spectrum in preschool. As a parent, you want to learn, be trained, adjust and change. You want to apply the right strategies to help your child become successful in school. You make sacrifices for your child. All of a sudden, my restaurant job was not as important to me anymore. By being one of the only males in ECD classes, or even the field, I’m showing society that I can learn, adjust, change professions, and still be good at 218
what I do. I feel like I’m slowly changing minds and perceptions of working in this field. Once I become a better teacher, parents will slowly develop trust in me to form relationships with them and especially their child. I’m so grateful I can learn in a place that shapes the way we interact with children for generations to come. Researchers Solveigh is a married student who has nearly completed her Bachelor’s degree in ECD from a nearby 4-year state university. She also works as an administrative assistant to the local on-site professional development coordinator and as a high school Regional Occupational Program (ROP) instructor of early childhood at a local community high school. Solveigh is a local working-class married female, of Latino descent, and has a toddler attending the youngest toddler program. She tutors part-time English composition courses to struggling ECD students weekly. With permission of the faculty and director, Solveigh has been conducting her practicum lab project at the center for one entire semester, specifically 16 weeks. Joanne is a newly appointed full-time in-house professional development coordinator at the ECD department of Scenic Innovation College. Joanne’s office is strategically situated at the center site. Joanne is also an adjunct faculty for the ECD department and teaches weekend and evening classes. She coordinates the campus English and Math classes geared for ECD major students, such as English as a Second Language (ESL) and Math learning communities. Each semester, Joanne is responsible to report to a local Child Care Planning Council the number of students using the tutoring and professional development services throughout one semester. Joanne reports to the county the needs assessment data of many ECD major students receiving certificates, degrees, and child development permits at the end of each semester. Joanne is a local middle-class married female of Latino descent. She has one adult child and additionally works in the children’s classrooms when there is a shortage of teaching staff. Joanne has been conducting her needs assessment research for one entire semester, specifically 16 weeks. 219
Cassie is a single prebusiness student taking a Human Resources semester-long class. She is cleared by the program director to conduct observation studies at the center for 15 weeks. Cassie often came to the center and quietly observed the actual center operations from the center lobby each week for one semester (16 weeks) for her course requirement. Cassie is studying the flow of operations within the center’s office and classrooms and services to diverse clients by the site. Cassie is a working-class female, of Latino descent, and plans to achieve her AS in Business from Scenic Innovation College in a few more semesters. Cassie believes that the center is a complex institution with many roles to fulfill.
220
