Citation
The reliability and predictive validity of NAEYC accreditation criteria for early care and education programs

Material Information

Title:
The reliability and predictive validity of NAEYC accreditation criteria for early care and education programs
Creator:
Moore Kneas, Kimberly
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xv, 353 leaves : forms ; 29 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Early childhood education -- United States ( lcsh )
Early childhood educators -- Training of -- United States ( lcsh )
Early childhood education ( fast )
Early childhood educators -- Training of ( fast )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 343-353).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Philosophy, Educational Leadership and Innovation.
General Note:
School of Education and Human Development
Statement of Responsibility:
by Kimberly Moore Kneas.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
37296606 ( OCLC )
ocm37296606
Classification:
LD1190.E3 1996d .M667 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
THE RELIABILITY AND PREDICTIVE VALIDITY OF
NAEYC ACCREDITATION CRITERIA
FOR EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS
by
Kimberly Moore Kneas
B.S., Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 1974
M.S., Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 1975
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Educational Leadership and Innovations
1996


1996 by Kimberly Moore Kneas
All rights reserved.


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Kimberly Moore Kneas
has been approved
by
Donna L. Wittmer
Rodney M. Muth
Date
Deborah L. Kellogg


!
!
i
Moore Kneas, Kimberly (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation)
The Reliability and Predictive Validity of NAEYC Accreditation Criteria for
Early Care and Education Programs
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Donna L. Wittmer
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to reexamine the reliability and
examine the predictive validity of the criteria used by early care and
education programs in the process of accreditation by the National
Association for the Education of Young Children. This study reexamined
the criteria (originally researched by Bredekamp, 1985) by estimating the
reliability at the item level and the component level. Percentages of
agreement between child care centers and validators on rankings of fully
met, partially met and not met were used at the item level. Correlation
coefficients were computed at the component level. This study also
determined, through a discriminant analysis, which components of criteria
were most frequently associated with the decision to accredit a program.
Data for this study came from the National Association for the
Education of Young Children and is comprised of 453 early care and
education programs that completed the NAEYC accreditation process.
Programs served children from birth through schoolage and represented 44
states and U.S. military programs operating in Germany and the United
Kingdom. The primary sample used one classroom from all 453 programs.
The secondary sample used every classroom, a total of 153, from 27
programs that served the widest age-range of children (infants through
schoolage).
The results of the item-level analysis show high percentages of
agreement, 90% or greater, between centers and validators, in 132 out of
177 criteria. The lowest percentage of agreement in the study was 68% on
one criteria. The component-level analysis revealed high correlation
coefficients, .81 in the primary sample and .97 in the secondary sample,
IV


between centers and validators ratings in all ten criteria components. In
the discriminant analysis of the primary sample, the components Teacher -
Child Interactions, Curriculum, Staffing, and Evaluation predicted the
decision to accredit a program. In the secondary sample analysis, the
components Teacher Child Interactions and Staffing again predicted
accreditation along with Health and Safety and Nutrition and Food
Service.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I
recommend its publication.
Signed
Donna L. Wittmer
v


DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my parents, Ronald and Betty Brown.
Throughout my life, they have consistendy espoused two concepts that I
know have guided me to this accomplishment. First, they raised me to
believe that I could do anything I tried, and wholeheartedly supported all
my attempts. Secondly, they praised and valued education and nurtured
an environment in which books and school were an exciting adventure that
was a source of both fun and pride to our family.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
As with any significant accomplishment, there are many people to
whom I am grateful. First, my family for their belief in me as well as their
support. My father and mother kept the positive phone calls coming, as
well as assisted with the initial organization of the mounds of data. My
sister, Sharen, who visited me during the last month of writing, cooked
dinner and didnt expect me to be a model hostess! And my nephew, Jason,
who helped me reorganize an important set of data.
My dissertation chair and committee provided important guidance
and thought provoking comments. Their willingness to read and discuss
this manuscript, over and over again, gave me the direction and counsel
necessary to elevate this work to a doctoral level.
To the National Association for the Education of Young Children,
for their vision that the profession of Early Care and Education should have
a set of high quality standards set forth in this Accreditation process.
Specifically, I would like to express my gratitude for the support of Sue
Bredekamp, Saundra Gilbert and Stacey Knox from the Academy of Early
Childhood Programs, and their staff.
To Childrens World Learning Centers, a company who believes in
the professional development of each individual employee. Specifically, my
boss and montor, Duane V. Larson, for his support and encouragement.
And my husband, Ed, for his patience, his willingness to listen and
constant support. His attention to detail and tenacity with the huge task
of data entry was without equal and propelled this work into completion. I
couldnt have done it without you!


CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................ 1
Demand for Quality Increasing ..............................3
Accreditation: Then and Now ................................5
Accreditation Process and Research ....................... 11
The Purpose of the Study................................. 15
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.................................... 18
Theoretical Foundations of Early Childhood ............... 18
Processes and Components of Early Childhood Quality . 18
Influential Educational and Psychological Theorists .21
How do Researchers Approach Quality in Early Care and
Education? ................................................26
Process and Regulation Studies ......................28
Quality Variables Indicate Optimal Child Development ..31
viii


Quality Research Worldwide...............................33
Accreditation .................................................34
Accreditation Across Professions ........................35
Accreditation in Early Childhood Programs................38
Accreditation Criteria and Quality ............................40
Interactions Among Staff and Children....................41
Curriculum and its Relationship to Quality...............43
Staff-Parent Interactions ...............................45
Staff Qualifications and Development.....................47
Administration...........................................49
Staffing.................................................53
Physical Environment ....................................54

Health and Safety .......................................57
Nutrition and Food Service...............................60
Evaluation ..............................................61
Summary..................................................63
Implications of the Research...................................64


3. METHODOLOGY
66
Theoretical Framework of the Methodology....................66
Reliability...........................................66
Validity .............................................68
Discriminant Analysis ................................71
Summary...............................................73
Research Questions and Design...............................74
Research Questions ...................................75
Design ...............................................75
Sampling .............................................83
4. RESULTS ..................................................... 106
Question One.............................................. 107
Item-level Analysis................................. 107
Percentages of Agreement............................ 183
Summary..............................................217
Component-level Correlations ........................217
Question Two...............................................224
x


Discriminant Analysis Primary Sample
Conclusions..........................
Discriminant Analysis-Secondary Sample
Conclusions .........................
5. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................238
Purpose of This Study .................................238
Discussion and Conclusions.............................242
Question One: Are the NAEYC accreditation criteria
reliable? .......................................242
Question Two: Which criteria components are most
frequently associated with the decision to accredit an
early childhood program? ..................261
Recommendations for Further Research...................270
Recommendations Related to NAEYC Accreditation Criteria . 272
Recommendations to Parents..........................273
Final Thoughts......................................275
224
230
231
237
xi


APPENDIX
A. NAEYC Accreditation-Classroom Observation Criteria . 278
B. NAEYC Accreditation-Administrators Report Criteria .. 305
BIBLIOGRAPHY
340
Xll


TABLES
TABLE
3.1 Ages of Children Served by Programs....................88
3.2 Gassrooms by Age.......................................89
3.3 Primary Sample
Director Education Level...............................91
3.4 Primary Sample
Director Credential Level..............................93
3.5 Primary Sample
Staff Education Level..................................95
3.6 Primary Sample
Staff Credential Level.................................97
3.7 Secondary Sample
Director Education Level...............................99
3.8 Secondary Sample
Director Credential Level............................ 100
3.9 Secondary Sample
Staff Education Level................................ 103
3.10 Secondary Sample
Staff Credential Level............................... 104
4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center
and by Validator .................................... 108
xm


4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible
Combination of Center and Validator Rating ...........147
4.3 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and
Validators for the Component Interactions Among
Staff And Children.................................... 184
4.4 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and
Validators for the Component Curriculum ............187
4.5 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and
Validators for the Component Staff/Parent Interactions 194
4.6 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and
Validators for the Component Staff Qualifications &
Development............................................ 196
4.7 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and
Validators for the Component Administration.........198
4.8 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and
Validators for the Component Staffing ................201
4.9 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and
Validators for the Component Physical Environment . 203
4.10 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and
Validators for the Criteria Health &. Safety........206
4.11 Total Percentage of Agreement Among Centers and Validators
for the Component Nutrition &. Food Service.........212
4.12 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and
Validators for the Component Evaluation.............215
4.13 Primary Sample Means, Standard Deviations, and
Correlation Coefficients of Component Ratings...........219
XIV


4.14 Secondary Sample Means, Standard Deviations, and
Correlation Coefficients of Component Ratings..........222
4.15 Primary Sample
Potential Discriminating Variables.....................225
4.16 Primary Sample
Canonical Discriminant Functions Evaluated at Group
Means (Group Centroids) ...............................227
4.17 Primary Sample
Pooled Within-Groups Correlations Between Discriminating
Variables and Canonical Discriminant Functions.........228
4.18 Primary Sample
Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function
Coefficients ..........................................229
4.19 Primary Sample
of Correctly Classified Cases .........................230
4.20 Secondary Sample
Potential Discriminating Variables.....................232
4.21 Secondary Sample
Canonical Discriminant Functions Evaluated at Group
Means (Group Centroids) ...............................233
4.22 Secondary Sample
Pooled Within-Groups Correlations Between Discriminating
Variables and Canonical Discriminant Functions.........234
4.23 Secondary Sample
Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function
Coefficients ..........................................236
4.24 Secondary Sample
of Correcdv Classified Cases ..........................236
xv


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Over the last twenty years, both adults and children have seen large
scale changes in their lifestyles. This trend of family change has been
particularly affected by the increased numbers of women in the work force
(Wilier et al. 1991). "Between 1970 and 1988, the proportion of working
women with children under the age of six increased from 30 to 56% . .
and [these numbers] are expected to continue unabated in the future, with
an unprecedented demand for child care (Chafel, 1992, p.149). This
expansion in the work force has affected American families in various ways.
In both dual-working and single-parent families, someone must take care of
the children. Many parents now purchase child care services outside the
home. The problem of selecting and purchasing appropriate care concerns
parents with children not yet in school and also parents of school-age
children who may spend time unsupervised before and/or after school.
One consequence of womens entrance into the labor force, which is
evident in every community across the country, is the number of children
1


enrolled in early childhood programs. In 1992, 28% of all three-year-olds
and 52% of all four-year-olds in the U.S. were enrolled either in a public or
private preschool program (U.S. Department of Education, 1993). Because
of this rise in numbers of children being cared for outside the home,
practitioners have become more aware of, and concerned about, the quality
of early childhood programs. Research has shown that high quality care
positively affects childrens development (Vandell &. Powers, 1983;
Peterson & Peterson, 1986; Howes & Olenick, 1986; Kontos & Fiene,
1986,1987). These researchers found that children benefit from high
quality programs by improving their abilities to socialize with peers, to
follow directions, and to improve their capabilities in math, language and
problem-solving. Improvements are also evident in higher verbal skills and
the childs enhanced ability to regulate his/her own behavior.
A major set of issues evolving in early care and education (ECE)
involves the quality of the programs available to meet the needs of young
children and their parents. In an effort to address the issue of overall
quality programing for children, a voluntary, national accreditation system
was developed by the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs
(NAECP). NAECP is a division of the National Association for the
Education of Young Children (NAEYC). NAEYC is a national organization
2


of professionals in the field of early care and education. In 1983-1984,
NAECP, the division of NAEYC that administers the NAEYC accreditation
process, called on hundreds of early childhood expens to collaborate in
creating this system of quality measurement. Their collaborative effon
produced a consensus on the highest set of quality standards to date and
incorporated ten research-based service quality component areas that
promote optimal child development.
Demand for Quality Increasing
Both educators and parents agree that early childhood programs
benefit children. The dilemma facing parents, operators of programs, and
policy makers are twofold-defining, and funding the quality level that
children require.
NAEYCs accreditation standards and criteria, set in 1985, were the
early childhood fields first attempts at a nationwide definition and
consensus of what service quality really encompassed. The ensuing ten
years, during which the accreditation process has been put into operation
across the country, have been a slow but steady progression of educators
and consumers digesting and realizing the value of both the criteria and the
accreditation process.
3


Currently, perhaps because accreditation is still new, educators are
more knowledgeable about the components of quality and thus value
accreditation more than consumers (Slavenas, 1993). The demand for
program quality is accelerating, as research demonstrates that high quality
early childhood programs result in cognitive and social gains for both low
and middle income children, and enable them to avoid school failure
(Schweinhart, 1989, p. 83).
Research suggests certain characteristics of the caregiver, the
program, and the environment as important indicators of quality. These
characteristics include items such as a stable staff and continuous program,
specific staff qualifications, limiting staff/child ratio and class size to
appropriate proportions, increased parent involvement, and ample physical
space and safe facilities (Chafel, 1992).
This demand for quality creates a need for standards to which
educators can be held accountable and which are meaningful to consumers.
Lillian Katz, former president of NAEYC, feels the early childhood
profession must continue to work on developing an accepted set of
professional standards of practice to which practitioners can equitably be
held accountable. Like others developing approaches to quality
management, she believes any approach to assessment of quality requires
4


not only criteria to apply to each program, but some consensus on
minimum standards for each criterion that must be satisfied for acceptable
quality (Katz, 1992).
The next section briefly explores accreditations uses in education
and why it is a welcome addition to the field of early care and education.
Accreditation: Then and Now
Accreditation systems have been used for years by institutions and
professions to define and uphold their standards. Peer and outside reviews
have been established as strong methods of maintaining desired standards
and encouraging improvement in the quality of education and/or services
offered.
Accreditation is a process that enables practitioners to provide and
consumers to select good-to-high quality early childhood services more
confidently. Educators use the criteria and process to verify good practices
and improve their programs for children. Consumers value the objective,
third partys endorsement of quality and use it as a rationale to justify their
choice of early childhood program or private school. For consumers and
practitioners, quality is important to the goal of providing optimal care and
development for their children.
5


"The need to assure quality experiences for young children in such
settings is a pressing social and parental need" (Slavenas, 1993, p. 31).
Educators have embraced the accreditation process as a method for
providing this assurance. Currently, more than four thousand programs
worldwide have met the required compliance with NAECP's criteria for
quality and have been awarded accreditation. More than eighty-five
hundred are in the self-study process. A national, toll-free telephone
number is available to parents to request a listing of accredited programs in
their specific city, state, or zip code. As public awareness of this third-party
endorsement of high quality has increased, more requests for this
information are processed by the Academy. "The continued trend in
educational consumerism is identified as a product of the intensified
business-school relationship, growing school choice movement, increased
parental demand for special programs, and increased school.. interest"
(Bainbridge, 1991, p. 32).
The impact of accreditation instruments and procedures is evidenced
in areas other than parental demand. Teacher preparation programs are
using the criteria of this accreditation process as one element of course
content on program quality. Students in high school classes through four-
year colleges and universities, plus those in Masters and Ph.D. programs
6


!
learn about accreditation criteria as one method to achieve and evaluate a
quality program for young children. In addition, early care and education
programs operating nationally under many different auspices are using the
criteria as a standard of performance for classroom staff.
The field of early care and education was made up of public, private,
full-day and half-day, as well as church and military-based programs. These
same programs were in existence when accreditation first began in 1985.
Each state, usually through the Department of Social or Human Services,
has the responsibility of regulation. Programs comply with minimum
regulations if they want to be licensed. Over the years, some programs may
have operated without a license while others complied with these
established regulations. In the early 1980s, Federal Interagency Day Care
Regulations were developed in an attempt to standardize the regulations
across all states. Due to funding limitations and a change of
administrations, these regulations were never put into effect nationally.
These minimum state regulations concerned national experts
involved in the education and care of young children. "It is ironic that at a
time when the number of children enrolled in child care centers and
preschool programs is increasing, the regulation of such programs is
decreasing" (Bredekamp, 1985, p. 1). According to Bredekamp, state
7


regulations were at widely varying levels in 1985. Accreditation standards
are designed to exceed most existing regulations to encourage a higher
quality program for children.
Mounting research strongly indicates that children thrive in quality
programs (Anderson, Nagle, Roberts, & Smith, 1981; Howes &. Olenick,
1986 ; McCartney, Scarr, Phillips, Grajek, &. Schwartz, 1982; McCartney,
1984; Vandell & Powers, 1983). To respond to the need for improved
quality and to develop and monitor an accreditation process, NAEYC
created the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs (NAECP).
The purpose of NAECP is to administer a voluntary accreditation system
for early childhood programs in the United States (NAEYC, 1985).
The accreditation process was developed by a nationwide task force
of early childhood and child development experts who worked under the
guidance of NAEYC. Their goal was to create and field-test both the
instruments and procedures of this new process. Four primary components
were formulated:
1. Classroom Observation,
2. Parent Survey,
3. Staff survey,
4. Administrator's Report
8


Parent and staff questionnaires were designed to gather information
relating to the program from other individuals concerned with the
operation of the program. The classroom and administrative documents are
a compilation of more than 100 criteria indicative of quality (see examples
in Appendixes A and B). The criteria were developed over a 3-year period
by reviewing approximately 50 evaluation documents and the research
literature on the effects on children of various components of an early
childhood program. The validity of the criteria as indicators of a good
quality program was tested by submitting them to approximately 250 early
childhood specialists throughout the country. Criteria were revised based
on the recommendations of the 175 specialists who responded. A draft of
the criteria was published in NAEYC's journal Young Children in
November 1983 and was distributed for review and comment to the
Association's 43,000 members. Many individuals and NAEYC Affiliate
Groups reviewed and critiqued the draft. Open hearings were also held at
NAEYC Conferences in 1982 and 1983 to receive comments about the
accreditation system. The criteria were then field-tested in 32 early
childhood programs in four areas of the country. The criteria were adopted
by NAEYC's Governing Board in July 1984 (NAEYC, 1985, p. 11).
NAEYCs accreditation process for early care and education
9


programs sets a standard of excellence but also allows for the diversity that
exists in the field. As Caldwell, NAEYC President from 1982 to 1984,
wrote:
Our aim has been to formulate criteria which are general
enough to cover different types of settings, yet specific enough
to be objectively observable; which are precise enough to
convey the true meaning of each component, yet
comprehensive enough to allow for individual variations. We
have not attempted to impose a narrow stereotype of quality
in early childhood programs. Rather, we have identified
specific areas of program realities which respect the diversity
of educational philosophies without compromising what we
know to be the developmental needs of young children.
(NAEYC, 1991, p. x)
While only a few uses of this system have been cited above, the
effects of accreditation are evidently already extensive for centers, staff,
consumers and mostly children. This has fulfilled the hope that "through
this process (accreditation), parents and the public could be assured that a
center had been evaluated and met a set of nationally recognized
professional standards" (Slavenas, 1993, p. 34). As current functions
10


expand and new uses are devised, the criteria which predict quality, as well
as the instruments and procedures of the accreditation process, are critical
to the early childhood community and to parents seeking a professional
endorsement of quality programming.
How does accreditation happen? The next section reviews the
procedure.
Accreditation Process and Research
The accreditation procedure involves three steps. First, the early
childhood program working toward accreditation completes a self-
evaluation called a self-study. This process involves teachers and
administrators independently observing various components of the program
related to specific criteria and indicators and then working together to
compare their findings. They then identify areas which do not meet the
standards and execute improvements. When complete, the program mails
the self-study, called a Program Description, to the NAECP and requests a
validation visit. NAECP then contacts one of more than 600 validators,
who have been trained on how to conduct a validation visit, and arranges a
suitable date for both the program and the validator(s). This visit is step
two. It is designed to allow NAECPs trained, objective, and professional
validators to verify the results reported in the Program Description.
11


Validators observe at least 50% of the classrooms in the program,
independently rate the same criteria the program used in its self-study, and
conduct an exit interview with program personnel. The report created is
then mailed to NAECP for consideration by the Commission. The
Commission, comprised of more than 300 individuals specifically chosen by
NAECP to serve as part of a team, makes the final decision on
accreditation. All Commission members must meet a rigid set of
qualifications including extensive education and experiences in early
childhood education as well as a broad understanding of applications and
practices which reflea research and acknowledged best praaice in the field.
Step three is a thorough and independent review of the program
description by each of three Commissioners. Each Commissioner receives a
copy of the Program Description and a criterion summary sheet on which
they record information from each component area. The Validators report
becomes the eyes and ears of the Commission since they do not visit
programs. Commissioners complete their individual review prior to
meeting with others on the team. Their final decision, which must be
unanimous, is reached after comparing their independent ratings. "For each
case, the Commission has a choice of two decisions: grant accreditation or
defer accreditation until improvements can be made or additional
12


information is obtained. Decisions are made on professional judgements
made within the limits of the Academy's Criteria" (NAEYC, 1985, p. 8).
NAECP notifies the program in writing of the decision. If deferred, the
program is sent a list of areas identified by the Commissioners as needing
improvement. Once these criteria have been improved, the program can
submit to another visit.
Bredekamp (1985) provided an estimate of the reliability of the
observation instrument and procedures for this accreditation process.
Separately, teachers and directors rated each criterion in the classroom.
They then discussed their ratings, assessed their performance, made
improvements and completed the self-study. Then, outside validators
verified that the report completed and submitted by the program personnel
was accurate by observing and independently rating a sampling of the same
classrooms. The criteria were deemed reliable when Bredekamp's research
examined the relationship of these ratings and found them to be consistent.
That is, the validators and program personnel rated most of the criteria the
same on a scale of 1 = not met, 2 = partially met and 3 = fully met.
The results of this research were used to rewrite the accreditation criteria,
with the goal to increase their clarity and thus, their reliability, creating the
observation instrument which is used today.
13


i
I
i
I
Since this 1985 undertaking, no research has been done to estimate
the reliability of the rewritten criteria for the accreditation process. When
the criteria were first established, Bredekamp stated "the most pressing
need for research will be a replication of this study using the revised
instruments and a larger, more random sample" (1985, p. 177).
The Academy undertook a review of the criteria from 1989 to 1991.
The criteria were revised "following a thorough review based on the first five
years of experience applying the criteria in accreditation decisions"
(NAEYC, 1985, p. 11). Responses from the profession were solicited by
NAEYC to begin the review and the most current research findings were
incorporated. Another dimension was added to this review through
information obtained from individuals and programs in the Accreditation
process. The research findings and information was scrutinized by
Academy staff and the advisory panel and minor clarifying changes were
made to the criteria in the classroom observation instrument and the
administrators report as well as parent and staff surveys. In these
revisions, a few new criteria, examples and indicators were added, some
criteria were deleted and the wording of some examples and indicators was
clarified to help both program personnel and validators more objectively
interpret the observed practices. Since that date, while hundreds of
14


programs have entered and completed Accreditation, no research has been
conducted to estimate the reliability of the criteria or processes.
The Purpose of the Study
The major advantage of this study is that it will provide valuable
information and results about quality related to accreditation in early care
and education to administrators, professionals, parents, and consumers. It
will also add to our knowledge of the validity and reliability of the current
NAEYC accreditation process. For more than four years, programs have
been using a system for which validity and reliability have not been directly
estimated.
The present study addresses these questions:
1. Is the current NAEYC Accreditation process reliable?
2. Which of the criteria are most frequently associated with the
decision to accredit an early childhood program?
This study contributes to the body of knowledge related to quality in
early childhood programs by:
1. estimating the reliability of the NAEYC accreditation criteria and
instruments, and
2. identifying which components of criteria are most frequently
15


associated with the decision to accredit a program.
This study will result in information which will be valuable to several
groups. To parents and other consumers of child care, it will provide
specific information which can be used accurately and easily to evaluate the
quality of early childhood programs. A reliable instrument and process are
also of value to the consumer because of both the subjective nature of many
quality components and the limited time they have to observe the entire
program. For accreditation to be meaningful and sound, it must allow for a
variety of differing factors across states and communities including
regulations and practices and distill the information into a reliable decision
to accredit (Bredekamp, personal conversation, May 1994). Establishing
the reliability of the criteria provides increased credibility for the
accreditation process guidelines and adds to their strength as useful tools in
the hands of persons and groups searching for quality in ECE programs.
Also, state licensing agencies and state advocates for early childhood
education can, with greater confidence, use the criteria to improve their
state regulations.
For teachers, administrators and other professionals in the field, the
results of this study will provide specific program guidance. The criteria
most consistendy found in accredited centers can be used as a guide in
16


areas such as environmental design and organization, interactions and
communications, and health and safety standards. Also impacted are
curriculum and equipment selection, as well as administrative systems
including staffing, program evaluation, training, and record keeping.
For the field of early care and education, a reliable process and
identified key criteria can be the focus of additional research. The field can
also use these criteria as a base and rationale for raising and maintaining
the professions quality standards. An increase in self-monitoring can lead
to a profession open enough to encourage and respect voluntary
monitoring of programs services. Such a process will only increase the
value of the professional staff s work, the value to those who purchase those
services, and the children in care .
To accomplish these purposes, the research will proceed in two steps.
First, it will estimate the reliability of the accreditation process criteria at
the item level and at the component level. Second, it will identify which
components of criteria predict the decision to accredit a program.
17


CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Theoretical Foundations of Early Childhood
The theoretical foundation of NAEYC accreditation and the criteria
is based on early childhood theory and assessment research and practice
that began more than 80 years ago and has continued to evolve both in the
fields of psychology and education. Several psychological and theoretical
perspectives are woven together in current early childhood theory and
practice. These perspectives provide a framework to discuss the criteria,
how they support quality in early care and education and how they relate
to successful completion of accreditation. (The theoretical framework of
the evaluation methodology is presented in Chapter 3.) This same
framework will be used again later in Chapter 5 as the conclusions and
recommendations are described.
Processes and Components of Early Childhood Quality
Early childhood education programs vary extensively. Creating
18


assessment processes and tools that identify key components common to all
programs has been a focus of the early childhood profession since 1974
(Harms &. Clifford, 1994). Researchers have looked to establish criteria for
teacher competencies, learning environments, and interactions between the
child and teacher in the classroom. Several examples of their efforts exist.
The Child Development Associate competency goals, which delineate
professional competence in early childhood practice, were developed to
increase the competence of staff. In 1985, the National Association for the
Education of Young Children published Accreditation Criteria and
Procedures for quality early childhood programs and launched its
accreditation procedure for centers and schools. Although targeting
different settings, these two accreditingfcredentialling systems have
common components of (a) staff-child interactions, (b) environment, (c)
curriculum, (d) parent relations, and (e) professional development. These
components were chosen based on research in education and psychology
and are used as a framework for the accreditation self-assessment process,
as will be reviewed later in this chapter. The two systems use criteria, also
supported by research, which directly support the growth and development
of young children.
Harms and Clifford (1994) list NAEYC accreditation as one of the
19


three most important advances in identifying the key components
common to all early childhood settings (p. 482). They go on to say that
these sets of empirically derived factors underscore the importance of
structure and process variables in quality child care. They also support the
importance of three key areas in the classroom-interactions, activities, and
routines-identified in the theoretical framework" (p. 484).
Many practices used in today's early childhood classrooms are guided
by the national guidelines and criteria that the NAEYC Accreditation
process incorporates. The criteria create a framework that ties programs to
a professional or industry set of standards by identifying the underlying
components of quality that should be present in all programs. For these to
be valued and credible, they must be proven reliable and accurate
predictors of high quality programs. Harms and Clifford state that
additional factor and cluster analysis of other quality-assessment
instruments are needed to further specify components of quality care
(1994, p. 484).
The next section describes influential theorists in the Early Care and
Education field. Their writings provide the theoretical framework of
NAEYCs components and criteria.
20


Influential Educational and Psychological Theorists
Freud influenced the child psychologists and early childhood
educators with his psychoanalytic approach. Erikson expanded Freud's
theory stressing the importance of the emotions and provided more detail
in understanding children's personalities, emotional, and social
developments. Piaget conducted research on how children leam and
"revolutionized the field with [his] view of children as active beings who
take responsibility for their own learning (Berk, 1994, p. 22). His theory
focused on the innate ability of children to explore openly and discover new
information and make new generalizations about their environment. He
said children constructed their own knowledge. Thus, his conceptual view
of how children leam is called constructivism.
Educators embraced constructivism as they created the
developmentally appropriate model of discovery learning using activity or
learning centers. The widely used curriculum frameworks of High Scope
and Bank Street College are examples of this model of early childhood
education. The basic format of using learning centers in the classroom for
particular types of play, planned and monitored by a professional teacher,
allows children to explore a variety of games, activities and materials from
which they leam as they play. It became a standard of good practice to
21


prepare an appropriate environment for children and then allow them to
learn through self-directed play. Piaget's theory led educators to take a
child's need for active learning through exploration into the forefront of
educational practices and establish this method of teaching as central to
early childhood practice.
While Piaget was primarily interested in childrens methods of
thinking and processing, other theorists were concerned with how the
environment could support learning in the early childhood stage of human
development. Their observations generated other theories that influenced
both philosophic approach and specific curriculum components such as the
environment, language, social studies, science and math. The investigations
affected both the environment of the classroom and the learning processes
that occur in that environment, as well as in the larger environment of the
school, home and community. Bronfenbrenner and Vygotsky specifically
are credited with significantly influencing the field of early childhood
education, especially in terms of the social aspects of how children learn
and the components viewed as important in creating an effective, good
quality classroom.
Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory (Berk, 1994) sees the
child's development as influenced by four layers of the environment. Each
22


layer influences the childs development, from the macro system that is the
farthest away from the child such as the countrys values, cultures and laws;
to the microsystems, in which the impressions of home and school are more
closely related to the child. Harms and Clifford (1994) dte
Bronfenbrenners work as that which initiated a rethinking of the way in
which early childhood professionals view learning settings for young
children (p. 479). His theory is based on a set of nested spheres of
influence on young children that contain all the environmental factors
responsible for the childs development.
These environmental elements range from the health and safety of
the home or school to the adults, peers, siblings and community influences
surrounding the child. The educational setting, in partnership with the
family, is an important sphere of influence. As we apply this framework to
the study of the educational setting, we are concerned primarily with the
influences on the child in the immediate setting itself and, to a lesser
extent, on the direct and indirect influences on that setting from the
outside (Harms &. Clifford, 1994, p. 480). These ecological ingredients all
combine in dynamic and ever changing patterns to affect the child.
Because children make choices and cause their own environmental changes,
they are viewed as both the products and the producers of their
23


environment. Thus, a network of everchanging interdependent influences
and dymanic effects is formed.
Vygotskys sociocultural theory focuses on how the culture, which is
comprised of beliefs, customs, and social skills, is transmitted from
generation to generation. He posits that children learn through meaningful
conversations with adults or more experienced peers. This theory varies
from Piagets emphasis on the individual construction of knowledge. The
added social perspective broadens the practitioners focus by contributing a
different point of view. Vygotsky's theory invites teachers to see children's
cognitive learning taking place with and through many social processes,
which can be used and/or structured by the teacher. Vygotsky ventured
further that these processes may differ in different cultures.
While these theorists have made multiple contributions to early care
and education theory and practice, we can summarize their contributions
simply. Bronfenbrenner is important because of his understanding of the
multiple ecological systems that lead to an awareness of the significant role
of parent involvement. Vygotskys emphasis on the impact of social
environments lead to emphasizing the importance of teacher/child
interactions and staff-to-child ratios. Piagets constructivist theory
influenced the early childhood professions emphasis on particular types of
24


adult-child interactions, curriculum and physical environments. Freud and
Erikson contributed to early childhood profissionals understanding the
importance of emotional expression and the development of childrens self-
concept in the developmental process, thus influencing recommended styles
of adult-child interactions and types of expereinces provided. These critical
theorists provided the framework for what is now called Developmentally
Appropriate Practice (DAP) in early childhood. DAP is the conceptual base
for accreditation and provides the foundation for each criteria and the
applications to how children learn. Each criterion, and each major
component of the accreditation process, has evolved from these theorists
and the combined research of psychologists and educators based on the
theoretical underpinnings of how young children learn and the multiple
influences on their development. The factors proven in research to be
critical to the development process have framed the practices early
childhood professionals use today.
The theory and practices for the assessment of early childhood
programs have gone through evolution and revision as have the criteria. In
Studying Educational Settings, Harms &. Clifford (1994) review several
quality assessment instruments commonly used in early childhood settings.
They create a taxonomy of quality early childhood practices that includes a
25


variety of educational settings for children in both home-based and center-
based environments. The categories begin with parental care in the childs
own home and move through nonparental care and family day-care homes
to part day and full day programs at both private and publicly funded child
care centers. This taxonomy explores the diversity of early childhood
programs such as Head Starts, church-sponsored programs, proprietary
child-care centers and family related care and considers the implication of a
theoretical framework that links contextual with intra program dynamics.
Bronfenbrenners work, described earlier, has a major influence in the
formation of this taxonomy. Quality improvement efforts must incorporate
the entire scope of the program dynamics such as self-assessment,
evaluation and staff development. This design increases our understanding
of the human, routine, and environmental influences that directly affect the
childs growth and development in an ECE setting.
The next section reviews specific research related to quality processes
and components in early care and education. It includes separate portions
which discuss each component area of NAEYC Accreditation criteria.
How do Researchers Approach Quality in Early Care and Education?
Bredekamp's (1986) work studied the reliability of the criteria in the
26


observation instrument and the procedures used by the accreditation
system. She theorized that "teachers and directors could evaluate their own
performance against predetermined criteria and that their ratings of
compliance could be verified by outside observers during on-site visits. The
feasibility of implementing such a system nationwide depends on the
development of reliable instruments and procedures" (p. 9).
Since Bredekamp's work in 1985-1986, few researchers have
undertaken projects related primarily to isolating and describing the criteria
that define the components of quality in early care and education
programs. Two principal types of quality research that surfaced in
Bredekamp's research review were child outcome studies and process
quality studies. Outcome studies look at the results of certain criteria on
the behavior and/or development of children. Process studies focus on the
specific practices or regulations that a program uses in its operations.
Subsequent research continued to analyze both the processes that are part
of quality care production and the outcomes of this care for young children.
The present research review focuses on these two areas that "have provided
guidance about the effects on children of multiple components of an early
childhood program" (Bredekamp, 1985, p. 34). In addition, research that
relates specifically to the quality criteria identified in NAEYC's
27


accreditation will be presented. These component areas are staff
qualifications and development, interactions between staff and children,
staffing, staff-parent interaction, curriculum, administration, evaluation,
physical environment, nutrition and food service and health and safety.
Process and Regulation Studies
Studies in early childhood education often focus on either the
processes used with children such as teacher-child interactions and
curriculum or regulations used to monitor the program such as ratio and
group size, sometimes called structural quality issues.
A few new process measurement tools have been devised and some
have been researched since 1986. Three tools, the Infant Toddler
Environment Rating Scale (ITERS)(Harms, Cryer, &. Clifford, 1987), the
Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS)(Harms &. Clifford,
1980) and the Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs (Abbott-
Shim &. Sibley, 1987) are "the major research measures of process quality
in child care settings in the United States and several other countries"
(Scarr, Eisenberg, &. Deater-Dekard, 1994, p. 134). While no published
research could be found by Scarr et al. (1994) or this author on the ITERS
or PROFILE, the ECERS instrument was used in research by Kontos and
28


Fiene (1987), and by Bredekamp (1985). The first study found 10 items
on the ECERS to be good predictors of overall quality in child care centers
as measured by teacher-child interactions and environmental observations.
Bredekamp (1985) reported that three factors-curriculum, interactions and
schedule-were good predictors of accreditation in 31 child care centers
studied. The measure of quality in Bredekamp's research was the successful
completion of NAEYC Accreditation through program improvements
guided by the Early C hildhood Classroom Observation.
The most recent large scale study concerning quality was The Cost,
Quality and Child Outcomes Study completed in 1995 (The Cost, Quality
and Child Outcomes Team). This study included over 400 programs in
four states and was conducted over approximately eighteen-months.
Results are reported through a series of findings that indicate, overall, that
quality is mediocre in child care. Results lead to several recommendations
and four major action steps. These action steps, directed to providers,
consumers and policymakers, are:
* Launch consumer and education efforts in the public and private
sectors to help parents identify high-quality child care programs
and to inform the American public of the liability of poor-quality
programs.
29


* Implement higher standards for child care at the state level, as a
major approach to eliminating poor-quality child care.
* Increase investments in child care staff to assure a skilled and
stable workforce.
* Assure adequate financing and support of child care. (Helbum,
1995, p. 11-12)
This study, the first to combine research involving both economic
factors and child outcomes, found that unless poor-quality child care is
curtailed, the development and well-being of large numbers of our nations
children may be jeopardized (Helbum, 1995, p. 11).
Another recent large study was conducted in 120 child care centers
in three states and encompassed 363 classrooms of infants, toddlers and
preschoolers (Scarr, Eisenberg &. Deater-Dekard, 1994). The goal of the
study was to evaluate how well the quality of child care is measured by
process and regulatable variables. Regulatable variables are criteria used by
states to specify such items as teacher/child ratio, required square feet of
space per child, and maximum group size.
30


Researchers identified three primary goals of quality measures and
several different approaches for developing and evaluating these measures.
The first two uses, for regulation and program improvement,
may necessitate exhaustive inventories of the many aspects of
quality care, even if the measure is redundant and
inefficient. .. The third use of quality measures, for research on
effects of variation in quality of care, does not require exhaustive
inventories but reliable and valid measures of those aspects of quality
that can be assessed with efficient and inexpensive measurement.
(Scarr et al. p. 132)
Scarr concluded that the measures of quality had to be reliable and valid to
be used effectively in research. This study also asserts quality measures
must be credible and practical in order for them to be easily used by
parents, public policy makers and professionals.
Quality Variables Indicate Optimal Child Development
Bredekamp (1985) and Kontos & Fiene (1987) outlined the framework
and Scarr et al. (1994) further defined the dimensions of quality as
Based on a number of criteria, . the most commonly agreed
31


upon are health and safety requirements, responsive and warm
interaction between staff and children, developmentally
appropriate curriculum, limited group size, age-appropriate
care giver-child ratios, adequate indoor and outdoor space,
and adequate staff training in either early childhood education
or child development. (Scarr et al. p. 133)
It is not surprising then, that numerous studies that have
assessed the quality of child-care centers by these variables find more
optimal developmental outcomes for children in centers that score
more highly than for children enrolled in lower quality care. (Howes
and Marx, 1992, p. 349)
Scarr reported:
The most popular process measures of quality proved to be
highly redundant and inefficient research measures. The
ITERS and ECERS scales could be readily reduced to a single
quality factor that required no more than 12 randomly
selected items to be measured with excellent reliability and
validity. The profile was best represented by one factor.
(Scarr et al. p. 147)
Scarr is clear in concluding that the implications for both research
32


and child care centers are practical and apparent. First, assessment of
quality can be researched much more efficiently and cost-effectively than
previously thought. Second, regulatable variables such as ratios and staff
training requirements "cannot be substituted for process measures of
quality care" (Scarr et al. p. 149).
Quality Research Worldwide
Quality in early childhood is becoming a worldwide concern and the
NAEYC criteria are influencing quality assessment in research and practice
in other countries. The Division of Mental Health of the World Health
Organization initiated a project "focusing on how the definition and
assessment of quality day care are culturally specific" (Dragonas, 1993, p.
1). Using NAEYC's accreditation criteria, a Child Care Facility Schedule
(CCFS) was developed and tested in ECE programs in Greece, Nigeria and
the Philippines.
This initial study resulted in an 80-item schedule covering eight
areas that define quality child care:
1. physical environment,
2. health and safety,
3. nutrition and food service,
33


4. administration,
5. staff-family interaction,
6. staff-children interaction,
7. observable child behavior, and
8. the curriculum.
Concurrent validity, criterion validity, and construct validity were
examined by comparing CCFS scores in 12 day care centers with ratings
based upon observation in the same centers. An additional study of 90 dav
care centers in Athens, Greece, further estimated CCFS validity. Results
showed that the CCFS was reliable and valid. The use of a shorter 43-item
version is suggested to render the measure more practical" (Dragonas, p. 1).
With uses of this process affecting research and practice worldwide,
it is even more critical that the reliability of accreditation criteria is
estimated again through this study. The sections which follow provide a
historical look at accreditation processes throughout many professions.
The discussion ends with research summaries on each component of
NAEYC Accreditation criteria.
Accreditation
Accreditation formally began in the United States in 1909 when the
34


North Central Accrediting Association adopted standards for colleges. The
first list of accredited colleges was published in 1916, and in 1917 1918,
standards were added for junior colleges and teachers colleges.
Accreditation is a process by which schools are evaluated and
recognized as having met specific standards of adequacy or excellence.
Accreditation certifies that a school meets minimum standards of quality
adopted by the accrediting agency (Alkin, 1992, p. 49-50).
Accreditation Across Professions
Accreditation has been used by the medical and education
professions for years to standardize and increase the credibility of practices
in hospitals and schools. In this authors experience, the process of
accreditation has provided the field of early childhood education with a
high quality base of criteria toward which programs can move and
maintain. Their personal and group motivation to accomplish the process
stems mostly from a pride and belief in their programs current high level of
quality. The self-study both affirms that pride plus pinpoints areas that
benefit from fine-tuning by staff.
Program accreditation has become a standard in educational settings.
Parents and consumers expect public and private schools of all levels to be
35


accredited by some outside body of experts. Accreditation has become a
tool to (a) communicate excellence to consumers and professionals, and, (b)
to establish clear standards in theory and practice. It also serves to show
and articulate consistent quality to consumers. Accreditation also alleviates
a larger concern the strengthening of education to meet the needs of
individuals in a rapidly changing society ((Alkin, 1992, p. 49).
Accreditation is a valuable indicator of quality to the public in other
professions (Bainbridge, 1991). Studies in the fields of
Home Economics (Radar, 1988),
Nursing and Home Health Care (Griffith, 1986),
Dentistry (Journal of Dental Education, 1994),
Journalism and Mass Communications (Garrison, 1983),
Community College curriculum (Simmons, 1993),
Elementary Schools (Coy & Hopfengardner, 1991),
Post-Secondary Schools (Council on Postsecondary
Accreditation, 1992), and
Early Care and Education programs worldwide (McCrea,
1989).
The benefits and value of an accreditation process have been
documented in each of these works. "The accreditation process provided a
36


valuable and necessary service in Home Economics units ... it remains a
major method of monitoring and promoting educational quality" (Radar,
1988, p. 5). "The accreditation process benefits institutions through
self-knowledge, accountability, the establishment of a legal standard, and
the competition it creates" (Zoffer, 1987, p. 27).
Coy and Hopfengardner (1991) conclude that the benefits of
Accreditation justify the lengthy process. They identify several values.
Each derives from an individual step: (1) self-evaluation generates
communication within and among departments, grade levels and staff; (2)
an on-site visitation brings new ideas for the curriculum, instruction, and
organization and exposes staff to other innovadve programs and personnel
and (3) the report from the visiting team presents constructive criticism
that can be used further to improve the program.
The early childhood profession, through the Accreditation process,
can increase credibility with the public, policy makers, and the profession.
The above-mentioned organizations provide practical examples and
research to document the benefits and value of such processes and
standards.
The single most repeated benefit of accreditation across all sources
listed above is promoting and monitoring quality standards. Others tout
37


accountability and establishment of agreed upon standards as positive
results. Most interestingly, one reported benefit is increased competition
known by itself to improve quality and service. Overall, the benefits of
accreditation span a wide range of positive effects across many professions.
Accreditation in Early Childhood Programs
Accreditation has only been possible since 1986 in early care and
education programs. Bredekamp's research and the development of
NAECP's process began the movement toward a national and consistendy
applied standard of quality in this field. Since then research has continued
that globally relates to the entire process and to the quality criteria.
Programs completing the accreditation process benefit in a variety of
ways. When 106 day care center directors were surveyed, they reported
accreditation helped the majority to market their programs better, improve
program components, and improve staff morale (Herr, 1993). Program
components cited as most frequently improved are curriculum,
administration, and health and safety. Other benefits reported by directors
are enhanced professionalism of staff, a source of pride for both parents and
staff, and reduced rates from insurance companies. The criteria also serve
as a catalyst for budgeting and for obtaining new, safer equipment and the
38


necessary motivation for maintenance staff to provide more appropriate
playground surfacing and apparatus.
Parents and communities also benefit from the accreditation process.
Accreditation can be a key differentiator to parents who are shopping for
program of good to high quality with a developmental philosophy.
Whether a family is searching in their own community, or in a new area to
which they may be moving, they can ask about the program's accreditation
status or knowledge of and progress toward accomplishing accreditation.
Parents are reassured by classrooms and administrators who hold
themselves accountable to high, voluntary standards that go beyond state
regulations. McCrea (1989) reports that many community benefits accrue
from the accreditation system. She found that the self-study portion of the
accreditation process facilitates staff development, parent education,
accountability to the community, and raises awareness of young children's
needs for appropriate programs.
Children, parents, and communities are more likely to experience
better quality in accredited programs than in nonaccredited ones. In the
Highlights of Major Findings of the National Child Care Staffing Study
(1989), better quality centers were more likely to be . accredited by the
National Association for the Education of Young Children (Whitebrook,
39


Phillips, & Howes, 1989, p. 4). The Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes
Study of Child Care Centers (1995) undertaken by a four-state team of
researchers coordinated through the University of Colorado at Denver
reported that accredited centers receive higher program quality scores.
Recommendations from this study include increasing funding so more
programs can accomplish the Accreditation process (Helbum, 1995, p.
12).
Accreditation Criteria and Quality
The specific accreditation criteria were chosedn based on a consensus
within the profession. These criteria provide the supporting framework to
move an early childhood program from their current status to one of higher
quality standards and practices.
Previous research (Bredekamp, 1989; Kontos &. Fiene, 1987; Scarr et
al. 1994) and consensus in the profession concludes that early childhood
quality is based on a number of criteria. Commonly agree upon criteria are,
1. health and safety requirements,
2. responsive and warm interaction between staff and children,
3. a developmentally appropriate curriculum,
4. limited group size,
40


5. age-appropriate caregiver-child ratios,
6. adequate indoor and outdoor space, and
7. adequate staff training either in early childhood education or
child development.
NAECP's accreditation program encompasses ten areas of quality
identical to those listed above with four expansions. Four additional
components are included:
1. staff-parent interaction
2. administration
3. evaluation
4. nutrition and food service
Each area contains at least seven and no more than forty-five items. These
component areas and specific criteria are used by programs to direct their
self-study which ultimately results in their programs improved education
and care services for children and families.
The following segments will briefly review the research in each of
these component areas, focusing on identifying those criteria that predict
program quality and subsequently good outcomes for children and families.
Interactions Among Staff and Children
41


Teachers and children's interactions are key components in creating a
developmentally appropriate experience for young children. The quality of
caregiver-child interactions has been found to be a strong predictor of
developmental status of young children. Affective and informational verbal
interactions between care-givers and children appear to accelerate verbal
and cognitive skills (McCartney, Scarr, Phillips, & Grajek, 1985). When
caregivers engage in more positive verbal interactions with the children,
parents and caregivers rated children as more considerate, sociable,
intelligent, and task-oriented (Phillips, McCartney, &. Scarr, 1987).
Studies of children in child care and nursery school settings found
that children with involved and responsive caregivers display more
exploratory behaviors (Anderson, Nagel, Roberts, &. Smith, 1981), are
more positive (Clark-Stewart, 1987; Holloway & Reichhart-Erickson,
1988), and display better peer relations (Howes, Phillips, &_ Whitebrook,
1992). Such children are more focused and less aggressive despite their
global program quality rating, adult-child ratios, or their caregiver's training
(Anderson et al. 1981; Howes, 1990).
The quality of caregiver-child interactions also predicts children's
behavior. The most positive effect on children is the appropriateness of the
care-giving by the adults (e.g., appropriate involvement and interaction,
42


encouragement of receptive and expressive language, appropriate scheduling
and supervising of activities), not the appropriateness of the activities or
room furnishings. In addition, amount of low-level teacher engagement
predicted the intensity of children's negative affect and the amount of high-
level teacher engagement predicted the intensity of children's positive
affect. "It appears, then, that the appropriateness of the teachers
interactions and involvement is more strongly related to children's
emotional experience in day care than the organization of the physical
setting or the structural characteristics such as teacher-child ratio and group
size" (Hestenes, IContos, & Bryan, 1993, p. 304). This study demonstrates
that important relationships do exist between child care quality and
childrens outcomes, specifically teacher-child interactions and emotional
expression.
Curriculum and its Relationship to Quality
Bredekamp's (1986) research identified the curriculum as one key
indicator of a high quality program. To define better the components of a
curriculum that produce a high quality experience, Bredekamp and NAEYC
developed a guidebook for teachers and administrators. Developmentally
Appropriate Practices: Birth Through Age Eight (Bredekamp. 1991)
43


clarifies and interprets each of the specific criteria and practices that must
be included to ensure a high quality curriculum in the classroom for
children from birth through age eight.
NAEYC's position statement on developmentally appropriate
practice (DAP) clearly supports:
1. children working in small informal groups most of the time,
2. children choosing from activities the teacher sets up, and
3. learning through interaction with adults (presumably teachers but
possibly parents or peers) during small group activities.
The word 'informal' is used to communicate the flexible, changing nature
of these groupings and to differentiate them from the traditional three
groups employed for reading instruction (Bredekamp, 1991, p. 117).
NAEYC describes its recommendations on a curriculum for young children
in a position statement on DAP developed in response to accreditation
related concerns. This position statement "was originally intended to 'open
up' curriculum and teaching practices and move them away from rigid,
traditional approaches (Bredekamp, 1991, p. 118). One of NAEYCs goals
is the achievement of individually appropriate programs for all children.
Bredekamp describes this goal as "an essential though neglected aspect of
NAEYC's definition of developmentally appropriate"(Bredekamp, 1991, p.
44


118).
Using the developmentally appropriate nomenclature, Dunn's
research on quality confirms children's positive outcomes in programs with
appropriate curriculums. "Children in more developmentally appropriate
classrooms exhibited lower levels of stress, e.g., hair twisting, finger
drumming (Bums, Hart, Charlesworth, &_I more prosocial behavior (Hirsh-Pasek, Hyson, & Rescorla, 1990) than
children in less appropriate classrooms" (Dunn, 1993, p. 170).
Staff-Parent Interactions
Accreditation criteria guide program staff to strengthen and create
more consistent interactions with parents. This support system has a
positive impact on children and families. The data indicate that although
family characteristics are important in determining the child's
developmental outcomes, day care quality does play an important role in
the lives of children and families using this service (Dunn, 1993, p.188).
Research also shows that parent-child relationships are influenced by
high quality programs. "There were also strong correlations between child
care quality ratings and mother-child and father-child interactions and the
security of infant-parent attachment" (Owen Henderson, 1989, p. 2).
45


Parents of children in high quality care are more sensitive and positive with
their children. Interactions between fathers and their children in high
quality care are affected also. Ackerman et al. (1989) shows that fathers of
children in child care spent twice as much time with their children as do
fathers with children who are cared for in their own homes (Howes, 1990,
p. 76e).
Positive staff-parent interaction has been defined as daily
communication, either verbal or written, teacher-parent conferences and an
open door policy that encourages parent participation in their child's
activities. These ongoing techniques increase the communication and
interaction at home and also between home and the early childhood
program. Feagans and Manlove (1994) studied children in three central
Pennsylvania day care centers. Good communication was defined as
interactions concerning the child at least three times per week between the
family and the childs care-giver. The researcher stresses that good
communication between the childs two worlds is necessary to support
optimal development in both settings. Their study also revealed that
parents and day care staff had many shared goals for the children and few
areas of misunderstanding when communication was consistent. Parents
and teachers agreed in the survey on two of five child behaviors considered
46


most desirable. Children being even-tempered and listening well to
parents/day care staff was valued highly by both groups. In the other three
desirable choices of child behavior, parents chose emotional characteristics
(cheerful, outgoing and sociable, warm and affectionate toward family/day
care staff), and teachers chose social characteristics (liked by other children,
communicates well, and gets along well).
Staff Qualifications and Development
Levels of staff qualifications, content of training and the process of
career development are a subject of much debate in the ECE profession.
The most informative and broad-based study of these issues conducted to
date, the National Child Care Staffing Study (NCCSS), was completed in
1989. This study identified a concern related to the amount of preservice
training required for early childhood staff.
Only 16 states require any preservice training for teachers in
child care centers, and because most state certification
standards do not address professional preparation for working
with children in the preschool period, many practitioners
teach the way they were taught in traditional, didactic
fashion. (Bredekamp, 1993, p. 119)
47


Limited staff training, then, may contribute to teachers using a more
autocratic style with children.
Child care centers are either hiring staff with training or are
providing in-service training. The NCCSS also found that staff in child-
care centers were more highly trained than required by state regulations
(Howes ScMarx, 1992, p. 35).
NCCSS recommendations relating to staff training and qualifications
are to promote formal education and training opportunities for child care
teachers to improve their ability to interact effectively with children and to
create developmentally appropriate environments, develop career ladders,
establish a national training fund (Whitebrook et al. 1989, p. 17). It is
unclear, however, how much training is staff is necessary for affecting
childrens positive outsomes.
Higher education and ongoing training for early childhood
professionals are separate categories in educational research. Research in
both areas has shown that formal education and/or postsecondary training
in early childhood education positively impacted children resulting in
higher levels of interaction and language stimulation between teachers and
children (Whitebrook, et al. 1989; Helbum, 1995). Higher education and
training of staff have also been associated with higher levels of cooperation
48


and persistence in activities among children, improvements in childrens
language skills, general knowledge and lower ratings of both child apathy
and dangers in their environment (Ruopp et al. 1979).
Administration
Administration in the accreditation system refers to the team of
individuals who manage and lead the early care and education program.
Usually this includes the director of the program and may also include an
assistant director, educational program coordinator, and trainer. The
impact of this person, or team, has been linked to higher quality in the
overall experience for children. Research related to administrators and their
roles and affect on programs follows.
Preparation Requirements. Doherty (1992) found agreement among
52 key informants across Canada and the U. S. that the role of an ECE
administrator is pivotal and requires both a solid grounding in early
childhood education and additional training in administration and
personnel management (p. 43). This data concurred with forde-Blooms
(1989) study that found the directors formal education level (university
degree or no university degree) was the strongest predictor of quality as
49


measured by the NAEYC scale. She also found a statistically significant
relationship between quality and specialized training in ECE and between
quality and training in the administration of a child care center.
Leadership as an Indicator of Program Quality. In her study of
administrators/leaders in ECE programs, Culkin (1994) identified a new
type of leadership: shared responsibility and transformational leadership
(p. 193) emerging in quality centers. She concludes in her review of the
literature that the role of an ECE administrator is a demanding one, not
always clearly defined or predictable. The enthusiasm of her key-
informants for their jobs was the fundamental basis for their decision to
remain in a field where training is sporadic and inconsistent at best and
salaries are not commensurate with advanced training and experience.
Reckmeyer (1990) studied outstanding centers and found them to
have outstanding leaders. They were typically women with broad
experiences in ECE who were also involved in community child advocacy
efforts. They had several traits in common. For example, a sense of
mission, a progressive attitude toward involvement of parents and staff that
resulted in teamwork, a visibly structured organization and funding from
more sources than tuition income.
50


Larkin (1992) found communication to be a central skill needed by
ECE administrators. With little preparation for their new roles as leader in
the center, they also needed proficiencies in facilities and budget
management, curriculum knowledge, and negotiating. Larkins results
corroborate those of Buckner (1988). Studying ten outstanding centers in
California, the commonalities of their administrators focused on
communication as the essential skill of each. Both parents and teachers
who interviewed for the study stated they wanted directors who were
organized leaders who created teams in which both groups had valued and
active roles in decision-making.
Competencies for Administrators/Leaders. Early Childhood college
texts have incorporated the findings of research in developing skills and
tasks lists of ECE administrators (Decker and Decker, 1988; Jorde-Bloom,
1989, 1991; Morgan, 1993). Gwen Morgan (1993) developed these
fundamental capabilities into three global competencies of effective ECE
administrators. They are:
1. the ability to maintain an effective organization, the facility, and
the legal and financial scope of the business,
2. the ability to plan and carry out administrative systems,
51


personnel management, and staff development that supports and promotes
the mission, goals and philosophy of the program, and
3. the ability to foster healthy community relations and positively
influence the child care policy that affects the program.
The abundance of literature focused on administration over the years
is evident. There has been less focus on the administrator. The emphasis is
changing, however, no doubt due to the new and challenging role of this
position. Early studies focused on establishing the importance of the role;
more recent ones have attempted to define the necessary competencies and
skills. The current trend may be moving toward a synthesis of the position
as a leader with the accompaniments required to manage a successful
center. Currently, several ECE organizations and individuals, including
representatives of NAEYC, NCCA, The American Business Collaboration,
and philanthropic communities and focused on beginning to investigate the
development of a director credentialling process that would add consistency
and credibility to the position nationally.
This development reflects practice in elementary education. The
overwhelming body of professional literature about supervision and
administration points to the important role of the building principal or
director in creating a good learning climate (Williams &. Fromberg, 1992,
52


p. 491). Since the central concern of early childhood education is to create
an optimal early learning climate for young children, administrators and
leaders must manage programs that provide children a foundation of
lifetime learning and participation as citizens. Within all these
considerations, adults, whether teachers, administrators, or parents, have an
important responsibility to provide sensitive and intelligent caring and
education.
Staffing
In this accreditation process, staffing means the ratio of teachers or
caregivers to children at any given period during operating hours. This
differs from staff qualifications and development in that staffing does not
consider the abilities of the care-givers, only the numerical ratio of teachers
to children.
Although not identified as one key indicator of quality by
Bredekamp's research, the adult-to-child ratio of an early childhood
classroom has been found to affect the quality of the experience for
children. In the late 70's and throughout the 80s, studies concluded that
fewer children per teacher provided the most optimal environment for
adult-child conversations (Ruopp et al., 1979; Bruner, 1980; Francis &.
53


Self, 1982; Howes &. Rubenstein, 1985).
The NCCSS also addressed the issue of staff-to-child ratios.
Completed in 1989, this project confirmed that a commitment to pay for
quality requires an understanding of the ingredients demanded by quality.
It is widely accepted that staff in sufficient numbers will lead to good care
(Whitebrook et al. p. 3).
The Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers study
(Helbum, 1995) lists among the action steps increase investments in child
care staff to assure a skilled and stable workforce (p. 12). A major finding
here and by Howes (1992) is that wages discriminate best between quality
levels of centers as did the higher staff-to-child ratios (p. 4) and the
training and education of staff and administrators.
Physical Environment
Some research has been conducted on the impact of the physical
environment on young children's behavior. These studies, primarily
completed prior to 1985, describe how much space (35 square feet per
child) and its arrangement as clearly critical to a high quality environment
(Howes, 1983; Clarke-Stewart &. Grubber, 1984). Howes and Clarke-
Stewart and Grubber also found that child designed spaces contributes to
54


children responding to each other more positively. Children enrolled in
high quality early childhood programs had higher social and cognitive
competence (Clarke-Stewart &. Grubber, p. 3).
To create a consistent learning environment, Harms and Clifford
developed the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (1980) (ECERS).
The comprehensive scale includes a physical environment measurement
tool that is accepted and used widely by administrators and researchers.
This instrument uses a broad definition of an early childhood environment
and provides a scale to assess the variations of quality across the basic
elements included. The content was generated through research findings
and a validation process with early childhood professionals, classroom
teachers and their supervisors.
The scale of one (inadequate) to seven (excellent) describes each odd
level related to the particular component being assessed. Reliability and
validity studies of the scale (Bailey, Clifford, Sc Harms, 1982; Harms &
Clifford, 1982) shows the device to be both reliable and valid. One
additional study (McCartney, et al. 1982) relates the childs environment
to outcome measures. The ECERS total score was predictive of language,
intellectual development and social competence.
In an opposing view of the ECERS, Clarke-Stewart (1987) reports on
55


three studies using this tool. Their results were surprisingly inconsistent
(p. 112) with researchers finding both positive and negative correlations of
ECERS to social competence, intelligence and language of children in
centers. Clarke-Stewart associates these incongruous findings to the fact
that the ECERS scale was created from experts suggestions and the fact
that items were not empirically weighted but given equal weight across the
entire device. She also alludes to the fact that the overall index of quality is
achieved simply by adding up all items in a component, which arbitrarily
weights the total by the number of items in a particular subscale.
The National Child Care Staffing Study (1989) also incorporated
physical environment into its contents. The summary of findings reports
a commitment to pay for quality requires an understanding of the
ingredients demanded by quality. It is widely accepted that.. proper
equipment and activities will lead to good care" (Whitebrook et al. p. 3).
Current discussion and opinion in the field of early childhood
education supports the importance of privacy within the physical
environment of young children. Solitary play areas and learning centers
designed for only one child are two solutions used frequently to provide
this privacy. Bredekamp's (1985) research showed a strong correlation
between high quality programs and private spaces for children in group
56


settings.
The results of research in this area are compelling. The physical
environment in high quality early childhood programs, including the use of
child-designed spaces, learning centers and private spaces, positively
impacts the social, cognitive and physical development of young children in
most studies.
This data was used by NAEYC and Bredekamp to formulate the
accreditation criteria resulting in a comprehensive section on physical
environment. Eleven criteria are included which relate directly to
establishing a classroom that promotes childrens optimal growth and
development. Clark-Stewarts article adds an interesting perspective to the
body of research and identifies an important area on which more research
should focus.
Health and Safety
Health and safety are the most consistently used criteria in the
regulation of early childhood programs around the world. This is due to
the comprehensive agreement across the profession and across cultures that
all children require a safe and healthy environment. Prior to NAEYC's
accreditation criterion focusing heavily on health and safety, the ECERS
57


scale included many criteria and references to healthy and safe components
of an early childhood classroom. Recently, new criteria developed for
school-age programs by the American Association of Family and Consumer
Sciences (Tools for Schools), highlights health and safety as one of the
"seven principles of developmentally appropriate school-age child care
programs" (Albrecht &. Plantz, 1993, p. 1).
Other studies, research and recommendations have included health
and safety as primary components of a high quality and developmentally
appropriate program for children (Missouri State Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education, 1991; Southern Association on
Children Under Six, 1990; Honig, 1987). The U.S. Congress (1984)
drafted a report which
. . establishes a strategy for Federal action on behalf of the
nation's children and their families. Section III specifies goals
and recommendations for realizing in practice the four basic
rights of children: (1) the right to a high quality education;
(2) the right to grow up in a family that is economically
self-sufficient; (3) the right to a healthy body, and (4) the
right to a safe and livable environment. (Congress of the U.S.,
p. 4)
58


Ignico (1994) researched young children in school physical
education programs and found they had a significant, positive effect on
childrens fundamental motor skill performances (Ignico, 1992a, 1992b)
and health-related fitness (Ignico, 1990). She reports that children
enrolled in a program providing daily physical education perform much
better on tests of health-related fitness than those children participating
only twice weekly in a physical education program.
Research surrounding quality and accreditation consistently includes
health and safety as prime ingredients (Marotz, Cross, & Rush, 1993).
The Council on Physical Education for Children (1994) recommends that
preschool children receive daily instruction in fundamental motor skills,
movement concepts, and activities.
In the last five years, the profession has realized that state licensing
standards primarily address minimum health and safety issues and provide
a base below which no early childhood programs should operate (Missouri
State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 1991, p. 1).
The quality of accredited programs is set at a higher level in several
developmental and pedagogical domains. Including health and safety is a
universally agreed upon practice strongly supported by professional
consensus.
59


Nutrition and Food Service
Despite recognition of the importance of good nutrition for
children's cognitive development, many children in America are poorly
nourished (Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1994, p. 1).
A nutrition component is recommended by the Food and Nutrition Service
of the United States Department of Agriculture, the Expanded Food and
Nutrition Education Program, and the National Dairy Council (Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, 1994, p. 2).
A childs nutritional status affects behavior. Well nourished children
are more alert and attentive and benefit more from learning experiences and
physical activities. Poorly nourished children may be quiet and withdrawn,
or hyperactive and disruptive during class activities (Underwood, 1987).
Resistance to infection and disease are also affected by nutrition.
Children who are well nourished become ill less frequendy; they also
recover more quickly when they are sick. Poorly nourished children are
more susceptible to illness and infection (Guthrie, 1989).
Nutritional deficiencies during infancy and early childhood may
cause developmental abnormalities that cannot be remedied later. Thus,
proper nutrition is critical during these early stages of development and
periods of active growth. The USDA recommended dietary allowances and
60


patterns of feeding are held as the national standards of nutrition for young
children. Proper nutrition and food choices are critical to the optimal
growth and development of all children. Many state licensing regulations
(e.g., Virginia, Colorado, Minnesota and California) include and monitor
standards that dictate the portions and types of foods served. Very few
states add standards that describe the teacher's role in modeling eating
manners and positive attitudes toward trying new and eating a variety of
foods. The current accreditation criteria include standards that define all
these concerns plus the cultural variety of foods that should be offered to
young children.
Evaluation
Evaluation has proven to be an important tool that positively affects
program improvement (Cryanm, Ellet, McConnell, and Atyeo, 1978).
Parents, teachers and administrators all have a decisive role in completing
periodic evaluations, drawing implications from the results, and planning
and executing the needed improvements. Many types of evaluation are
possible in an early care and education program. Program evaluation, staff
evaluation, parent response and even evaluations completed by the older
children in the program can provide valuable information that can
61


significantly improve the programs education and services to children and
their families.
In the early 1960s, Head Start programs were the predominant
groups effectively using parent involvement in programs for young children.
Parents were used as classroom assistants and in other ways throughout the
program, including evaluation. Parent Cooperative programs were also
places that incorporated parent evaluation as a mandatory part of the
program. Sadly, this practice did not permeate the profession. Parent
participation can be difficult to achieve when parents are in full time jobs.
When accreditation standards were first published in 1985, few
programs used parents or staff to evaluate the success and the ongoing goals
of the program. Since the inception of the accreditation system, teachers
and administrators have begun to more consistently request responses from
parents and staff. Today, evaluation procedures are described as varied and
well developed (Slavenas, 1993). Most programs gather information from
several sources during the evaluation process, as does NAEYC
Accreditation, and use more than one method. Open ended, process
oriented methods such as observation and interview are used more
frequently than questionnaires and check sheets (Slavenas, 1993, p. 44).
Decker and Decker (1988), provide an overview of the difficulties
62


encountered in evaluating early childhood programs. The most prevalent
issue is that various components of a program are often evaluated by
different people at different times. Despite this finding, Cryanm et al.
(1978), Decker and Decker (1988) and Slavenas (1993) found that
programs that conducted periodic evaluations improved consistendy.
Greatest program improvement occurred in the personal and professional
behaviors of the teachers and the management structure of the center.
Summary
The literature and research reviewed in this section point to many
components that are clearly and direcdy related to early childhood program
quality. Researchers who look at the global context of quality in early care
and education have discovered that the criteria and indicators, while most
often researched separately, affect both each other and children directly and
indirectly (Doherty, 1991). Bredekamps (1985) research identified
teacher-child interactions, curriculum, and health and safety as key quality
indicators. While research still supports the curriculum and interactions as
critical indicators of quality, the previous review presents new data. These
findings implicate staff education and training, wages, administrator
experience, administrator/teacher curriculum planning, evaluation, staff-
63


parent interactions and teacher-child ratio as additional indicators of
quality. Research has not yet identified the extent to which each of the
previously mentioned components, or groupings of criteria within
components, relate to a good or high quality program or predict the
programs accomplishment of accreditation.
Implications of the Research
This proposed research is the next logical study specifically relating
to the reliability of the accreditation criteria and instruments of the
NAECP. Bredekamp (1985) states the need for this step in the conclusions
of her study. In personal conversations (May 1994) with Bredekamp, she
repeats how important this new research is to the integrity of the current
process and, even more critical, to the credibility and the future direction of
the accreditation system. This research may point out components and/or
areas that need clarification, interpretation, revision or more emphasis as
the process of reviewing the criteria is taking place.
The reliability of the observation instrument was analyzed in
Bredekamp's original research (1986) by correlating the ratings of different
observersteachers, directors and validators--all rating the same classroom
on at least three different occasions. These ratings were collected in 31
64


programs in four states. This study, using data from more than 450
programs, will provide a much broader national perspective and analysis.
For an accreditation system to be administered nationwide with any
degree of credibility, both the instruments and procedures must be reliable.
Directors seeking accreditation must be confident that the process applied
to their programs is consistent, dependable, predictable and stable.
Commissioners must be assured that the information they evaluate is
reliable. Parents must feel this objective, third party endorsement is one
they can be assured will consistently acknowledge and promote the optimal
program they seek for their children.
This study estimates the reliability of the accreditation criteria for
the academic community, practitioners, and the public. It adds to the
existing research base related to the reliability of accreditation criteria and
process, and documents specific criteria that predict success in
accreditation.
This chapter has reviewed the theoretical foundations of NAEYC
Accreditation criteria and processes. In Chapter 3, the theoretical
framework of the evaluation, the research questions, and the methodologies
used in this study will be discussed.
65


CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Theoretical Framework of the Methodology
This research utilizes classical test theory and several of their forms
as its primary theoretical framework. A brief description follows of the key
psychometric properties of reliability and validity as they relate to the
processes of accreditation and this study.
Educational testing has accepted and diligently used reliability and
validity for many years (Crocker &_ Algina, 1986;Alkin, 1992). Tests of
subject knowledge and course content, including intelligence testing tools
such as the Stanford Binet Intelligence Test and the Scholastic Aptitude
Test, have been researched to verify their reliability and validity. An
accreditation system must embody the same theoretical vigor in its base.
The instruments and procedures must be stable, predictable, dependable,
and consistent in order to ensure objective and reliable program evaluation
(Bredekamp, 1985, p. 9).
Reliability
66


One of the most important characteristics of a test is its reliability
(Sills, 1968, p. 372). The ability of a test and its questions (or an
accreditation system and its criteria) to measure information consistently is
critical to education, industry and psychology. Reliability estimates
indicate the stability, internal consistency, and equivalence of the terms or
parts composing the measurement device (Klecka, 1980, p. 449). In
observing behaviors and rating criteria, random errors such as guessing,
inattention, misunderstanding or environmental influences must be as
small as possible (Crocker &. Algina, 1986). The greater the consistency
(reflected by a reliability coefficient that approaches +1.0), the greater the
confidence test users have that test scores reflect differences in individuals
rather than errors in measurement (Williams &. Fromberg, 1992, p. 289).
Reliability is also defined as the agreement by two observers or raters
who are observing or rating the same phenomenon on different occasions
(Medley & Mitzel, 1963). Agreement between observers is an essential
form of reliability required when using observational procedures (Williams
& Fromberg, 1992). This is the theory underlying the NAEYC
Accreditation process.
67


Inter-rater reliability is defined as the extent to which an observer,
rater or examiner gives the same score to persons, criteria or processes that
are comparable (Crocker &_ Algina, 1986). Since accreditation consists of
different raters or observers rating the same criteria on different occasions,
the inter-rater reliability is a critical part of the system.
Validity
Validity is the degree to which a test, observational device, or any
other assessment procedure measures what it claims to measure in a way
that is free from systematic error. In another approach validation research
involves developing a procedure for using test data to categorize examinees
into two or more groups (Crocker & Algina, 1986, p. 256). Two major
forms of validity are of concern in this study.
Content validity relates to what the test or observation measures and
how well it measures what it is used to measure (Crocker &. Algina, 1986;
ICecka, 1980). The most common application of content validity is the
achievement test. In an achievement test, the questions are framed by the
outcomes to be measured. Content validation is employed when it seems
likely that the test users mil want to draw inferences from observed test
68


scores to performances on a larger domain of tasks similar to items on the
test (Crocker ScAlgina, 1986, p. 238).
The goal of NAEYC Accreditation is to authenticate programs that
provide a high quality experience for children. The idea that the larger
domain of high quality in early care and education can be met through
NAEYC Accreditation criteria must be validated. NAEYC accomplished
this task through the 1984 and 1991 reviews of the criteria by the early
care and education profession. This study used a comprehensive review of
current research to corroborate the content of the criteria.
Predictive validity considers whether a score on an observational
measure is related to performance later on measures such as achievement
tests, teacher ratings, or student grades (Crocker &. Algina, 1986).
Education, industry, clinical and personality psychologies often wish to
predict peoples behavior based on a set known information. For reasons
of efficiency and economy, we often look for a subset of total available
information that by itself can explain and predict future performance or
behavior to a useful degree (Klecka, 1980, p. 398).
Since predictively valid tests are excellent indicators of future
69


performance, they directly apply to this study. The criteria in this study
guide the program to the high level of operational quality required to
achieve NAEYC accreditation. Assuming that some components are more
powerful in their relationship to the decision to accredit a program is
logical. These individual components, ascertained by a step-wise
discriminant analysis, are those which will most accurately predict
NAEYCs decision to accredit an early care and education program.
Reliability and validity are important to accreditation for two
additional reasons. The first focuses on the purpose of an accreditation
system. State regulations for the operation of early care and education
programs vary greatly, despite clear results of research in the field. NAEYC
developed an accreditation system in the belief that children would flourish
under a stronger, more detailed set of standards.
The second reason focuses on the use of accreditation. For this
system to be useable in all states, by many differently trained and educated
individuals, it had to be proven reliable. The early care and education
profession encompasses a diverse group of practitioners. In such a field,
which is also young and emerging, professional preparation programs are
70


diverse as well. Each individual using this system must be able dearly to
interpret the goals and work to implement them accordingly, and do so in a
consistent way.
Discriminant Analysis
The statistical process used in the second step of this study is discriminant
analysis. The basis purpose of discriminate analysis is to estimate the
relationship between a single non-metric dependent variable and a set of
metric independent variables (Hair, 1979). In this research, the dependent
variable is the dedsion to accredit. The independent variables are the
components of criteria, rated by center and by validator. The initial plan
was to use each criteria from the accreditation process individually.
However, the variance in the ratings was so small that this proved
impossible. For this analysis, the scores of each criteria grouped within
related components are averaged and the mean is considered as one variable
as rated by validator and a second variable as rated by center, produdng
twenty total scores. These twenty scores become the variables of the
discriminant analysis.
71


In this study, discriminant analysis is used to predict which
components of criteria are most powerful in the decision to accredit a
program. This process estimates each discriminant function by entering the
independent variables sequentially, called the stepwise method. This
procedure is accomplished according to the discriminatory power they add
to the discriminant function. The result of this analysis will produce the
variables, e.g., criteria components, which are the most powerful in the
accreditation decision.
Discriminate analysis identifies the variables with the greatest
differences between the groups and derives a discriminate weighing
coefficient to reflect these differences. It then uses the weights and each
individuals ratings on the characteristics to develop the discriminate score
for each respondent and finally assigns each respondent to a group
according to the discriminate score (Hair, 1979, p. 186).
There are some important assumptions underlying discriminant
analysis. First, the dependent variables must be categorical, with at least
two groups. Second, the analysis is adversely affected by collinearity
among the independent variables. Multicollinearity denotes that two or
72


more independent variables are highly correlated, so that one variable can
be highly explained or predicted by the other variables and thus adds little
to the explanatory power of the entire set. This consideration becomes
especially critical when stepwise procedures are employed. Third, variables
must be measured at the interval ratio level. Fourth, each group must be
drawn from a population which has a multi-variate normal distribution.
The final assumption is that the population covariant matrices are equal for
each group. Unequal covariant matrices can adversely affect the
classification process. If the sample sizes are small and the covariant
matrices are unequal, then the statistical significance of the estimation
process is adversely affected. The large sample size and characteristics of
the variables meet these assumptions, thus justifiying the use of
discriminant analysis for step two of this study.
Summary
Since accreditation is synonymous with quality to practitioners,
policy makers and consumers, the reliability and validity of an accreditation
system are critical. Understanding which accreditation components may
73


predict the success of accreditation is also important to many audiences.
For practitioners, this voluntary procedure is a testimony to their
dedication to uphold a higher set of professional standards. For policy
makers, accreditation can be a standard used to distinguish one program
from another when awarding state or federal funds. For consumers, these
criteria, proven to be reliable and valid, can become a selection tool for the
best program for their children. For children, these standards assure a high
quality, individualized, developmentally appropriate experience that is
warm and nurturing.
Research Questions and Design
This study is designed to use data from early care and education
programs across the country that have completed the accreditation process
The data were collected by the Academy during the process of accrediting
centers in the spring of 1994. Ratings on each criterion, by center and by
validator, will be entered and analyzed. The Commission's decision to
grant or defer accreditation will be entered and considered in the analysis.
This accreditation decision will be the dependent variable in this analysis.
74


Research Questions
Two key research questions comprise this study:
1. Are the current Accreditation criteria and instruments reliable?
2. Which components of criteria are most frequently associated with
the decision to accredit an early childhood program?
Design
The following discussion describes how each question is addressed.
Question #l~Are the current Accreditation criteria and instruments
reliable? Estimates of reliability will be computed on the criterion (or item)
level and the component level. Two steps will be incorporated. Step one is
the item-by-item analysis of the percentage of agreement between centers
and validators on each of the 177 criteria. A contingency table will be
created to illustrate the total percentage of agreement of each criterion in
each of the ten NAEYC accreditation component areas. Additional tables
will also present number, percentage of occurance and frequency of
individual ratings and combinations of ratings by center and by validator.
Step two is a correlational analysis of the component level totals.
Two ratings, center and validator, are recorded for each criterion. A
75


numerical score of 1, 2 or 3 indicating, not met, partially met, or
fully met, respectively, is given independently by the program personnel
(the center rating) and the validator (the outside observer). The sum of
these ratings will produce a total score by center and a total by validator for
each component of criteria. These scores will be used in the correlational
analysis.
During the programs self-study phase of accreditation, each criterion
is rated independently by the center director and the classroom teacher.
They discuss the ratings and, after making improvements, come to an
agreement on a final rating of 1, 2, or 3 for every criterion. These
ratings are reported to the Academy in two documents, the Program
Description and the Administrators Report. The Academy then assigns an
outside observer, a validator, to visit the program and observe and
document the programs ratings. Validators accomplish this by completing
an independent rating of the same criteria. Their report is returned to the
Academy for consideration by a team of commissioners, who decide
whether or not to accredit the program.
Question #2--Which components are most frequently associated
76


with the decision to accredit an early childhood program? Before this
question can be answered, it is important to understand how the decision
to accredit or defer a program is made by the Academy of Early Childhood
Programs personnel.
The ratings submitted by centers combined with the ratings
submitted by validators are recorded on the Program Description. These
are randomly assigned to 3-member teams of commissioners.
Commissioners receive training in the specific processes and key points
necessary to decide whether or not to accredit an early childhood program.
A select group of commissioners is asked to serve three year terms on
NAEYCs Accreditation Advisory Panel. The May 1994 commission was
comprised primarily of these Academy panel members. They are well
respected in the field for their early childhood knowledge, expertise and
practical experience. They also have a broad understanding of early
childhood care and education across the United States and practical
experience either managing or working in an operating program. This
specific team of commissioners on the Advisory Panel, was the primary
body responsible for the accreditation decisions of the May 1994
I


commission which encompasses at least half the 453 programs included in
this study.
Prior to arriving at the site for the collaboration meeting, each
commissioner receives copies of up to thirty program descriptions to review.
Commissioners complete an independent evaluation of center and
validators numerical ratings which result in a valid or non valid designation
on each criterion. The valid (V) and non valid (NV) status is ascertained
by validators at the time of the visit and are based on a numerical scoring
process established by the Academy of Early Childhood Programs. The
specific numerical rules are a part of validator training and are provided to
validators in writing. A brief synopsis of this ruling, as provided by NAEYC
is as follows:
For programs with fewer than seven classrooms, no more than
two occasions of a one point difference in ratings between
center and validator, and no occasion of a two-point
difference, can occur for the criteria to be valid. For programs
with more than seven classrooms, no more than three
occasions of a one point difference in ratings among center
78


and validator, and no more than one occasion of a two point
difference, can occur for the criteria to be valid. (NAEYC,
1994, p. 7)
If ratings fall outside these parameters, the criterion is non valid due to the
variation in the programs report compared with the validators observation.
As commissioners are independently evaluating the program, they
look at both numerical ratings and the valid/non valid designation of each
criterion. A criterion may be non valid for several reasons. The first reason
may be due to improvements which have occurred in the program between
the time the program submitted its materials to NAEYC and the actual day
of the validators visit. These non validated items are treated positively and
reflect the programs continuous improvement within the specific criteria.
Secondly, non validated items may result from a discrepancy
between the centers rating and the validators rating (here, the validators
rating is lower than the centers rating). These are specifically noted by the
commissioners. After reviewing all non validated items and the numerical
scores, the commissioner makes a preliminary determination of
accreditation or deferral. This determination will be based on the sum of a
79


variety of impressions and facts reviewed throughout the program
description. If a pattern of low scores exists in a specific classroom, the
commissioner may determine accreditation should not be granted until this
classroom has improved. Key component areas, which have been
determined through research findings and discussed during the
commissioner training, are also a focus for commissioners. If specific non-
validated items in these areas occur frequently in several classrooms, then
the decision may be to defer accreditation.
Commissioners are blind to the name, the sponsorship and operating
auspices of the program. During training, they are guided to keep the
following in mind when making accreditation decisions: 1) Always, the
experience of the child is the most important consideration. 2) Key quality
component areas such as teacher-child interactions, health and safety and
curriculum are serious concerns when non validated. 3) The consistency
and objectivity of Academy decisions are essential to the integrity of the
i
i
I accreditation process (Personal experience at NAEYC Commissioner
l
I
training, May 1994).
The commissioners meet with their independent ratings already
I
80


established. Each commissioner has been given primary responsibility, by
the Academy, to lead the discussion on a group of programs. The resulting
discussion then focuses on each commissioner sharing his/her independent
ratings and his/her decision to accredit or defer. If agreement is present,
the deliberation is short. If questions or disparate views exist,
commissioners work among themselves to resolve their concerns and arrive
at a consensus. If more detail is needed, an Academy staff member may
provide additional insight into the program or retrieve the precise program
description in which validators commented as they were observing and
completing their ratings. This often clarifies the question or concern on
specific criteria for the commissioners. The deliberation continues until a
consensus is reached bv the team.
Since the Academy is acutely aware of the differences among states,
provisions exist in the training of commissioners and the decision process to
adapt to these differences. Child-staff ratio and group size are a prime
example of these differences. NAEYC states, in the Guide to Accreditation,
Smaller group sizes and lower staff-child ratios have been
found to be strong predictors of compliance with indicators of
81


quality such as positive interactions between staff and
children and developmentally appropriate curriculum.
Variations in group sizes and ratios are acceptable in cases
where the program demonstrates a very high level of
compliance with criteria for interactions (A), curriculum (B),
staff qualifications (D), health and safety (H), and physical
environment. (Bredekamp, 1991, p. 47)
This view was taken to encourage programs which operated within states
whose regulations did not approach NAEYCs recommended standards to
participate in the accreditation process. In the early days, if programs had
felt they had to strictly meet NAEYC recommended ratios and group sizes,
they would not have attempted to complete the accreditation process
because they knew failure was inevitable.
A discriminant function analysis will be used to answer question #2-
which components are most frequently associated with the decision to
accredit an early childhood program? The variables are individual scores
averaged together to produce a mean for the component level and are
reported by center and by validator. This analysis will result in
82


identification of specific accreditation components by center and by
validator, which are the most discriminating in the decision to accredit an
early childhood program.
To validate this analysis, a secondary data sample will be used. In
this smaller sample, ratings from every classroom in 26 select programs will
be analyzed. Since the accreditation decision is based on the performance
of the entire program, this secondary sample will reflea the mean rating of
all classrooms, by center and by validator.
The mean component scores will become the variables used in the
secondary discriminant analysis. The results of the secondary sample
analysis will then be compared with the results of the primary sample.
Sampling
The data are taken from early childhood programs that completed
the accreditation process in 1994. The unit of analysis is the program. The
dependent variable is the decision to accredit or defer. The independent
variables are 177 criteria, and their corresponding components, in the
Classroom Observation instrument and in the Administrators Report. (See
Appendixes A &. B.)
83


The data consist of a random group of 453 NAEYC accreditation
Program Descriptions which were considered by Commissioners in May
and June of 1994. These programs completed their self-study phase before
March of 1994 and received a validation visit during April or May of 1994.
Validators were assigned randomly to visit each program by Academy staff.
An individual or a team of validators conducted the validation visit,
depending on the size of the program. For example, a large program (e.g,:
200 children and nine classrooms) would require two validators for two
days to complete the observations and verification of administrative
documents. All validators on the team observe different classrooms, so the
data available are not multiple observations of the same classroom. The
data contains independent ratings on each criterion by center (teacher and
director's ratings averaged to get one score) and by validator.
All programs considered by both commissions are included, except
those that could not be decided upon by the team. These cases needed
more information before a final decision could be rendered. These
programs were either submitted incompletely to the Academy, were
completed incorrectly or missing information in the classroom observation
84


or the administrative section.
Information is recorded which shows the program code, accreditation
decision, first time accreditation or reaccreditation, the age of the program,
total enrollment and age level of children in the classroom selected for data
entry. The formal education completed and earned credentials of both the
classroom teacher and the center director were also entered as separate
variables. The same scale is used for both director and teacher education
and credential level.
A staff qualification chart in the program description includes an
executive director, administrator, or center director responsible for
administering the program. If the director is also a classroom teacher that
classroom is not chosen unless it is the only classroom in the entire
program.
All program staff are listed on this chart. The staff person designated
as the lead teacher for the selected classroom was utilized. Thus, the
variables represent a specific age level classroom with the corresponding
lead teachers education and credentials.
A random assignment by classroom was completed to select the data.
85


Full Text

PAGE 1

THE RELIABILITY AND PREDICfiVE VALIDITY OF NAEYC ACCREDITATION CRITERIA FOR EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS by IGmberly Moore Kneas B.S., Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 1974 M.S., Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 1975 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Educational Leadership and Innovations 1996

PAGE 2

1996 by Kimberly Moore Kneas All rights reserved.

PAGE 3

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by IGmberly Moore I
PAGE 4

Moore Kneas, Kimberly (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation) The Reliability and Predictive Validity of NAEYC Accreditation Criteria for Early Care and Education Programs Thesis directed by Associate Professor Donna L. Wittmer ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to reexamine the reliability and examine the predictive validity of the criteria used by early care and education programs in the process of accreditation by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. This study reexamined the criteria (originally researched by Bredekamp, 1985) by estimating the reliability at the item level and the component level. Percentages of agreement between child care centers and validators on rankings of fully met, partially met and not met were used at the item level. Correlation coefficients were computed at the component level. This study also determined, through a discriminant analysis, which components of criteria were most frequently associated with the decision to accredit a program. Data for this study came from the National Association for the Education of Young Children and is comprised of 453 early care and education programs that completed the NAEYC accreditation process. Programs served children from birth through schoolage and represented 44 states and U.S. military programs operating in Germany and the United IGngdom. The primary sample used one classroom from all453 programs. The secondary sample used every classroom, a total of 153, from 27 programs that served the widest age-range of children (infants through schoolage). The results of the item-level analysis show high percentages of agreement, 90% or greater, between centers and validators, in 132 out of 177 criteria. The lowest percentage of agreement in the study was 68% on one criteria. The component -level analysis revealed high correlation coefficients, .81 in the primary sample and 97 in the secondary sample, iv

PAGE 5

between centers and validators ratings in all ten criteria components. In the discriminant analysis of the primary sample, the components TeacherChild Interactions, Curriculum, Staffing, and Evaluation predicted the decision to accredit a program. In the secondary sample analysis, the components TeacherChild Interactions and Staffing again predicted accreditation along with Health and Safety and Nutrition and Food Service. This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. I recommend its publication. Signed Donna L. Wittmer v

PAGE 6

DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my parents, Ronald and Betty Brown. Throughout my life, they have consistently espoused two concepts that I know have guided me to this accomplishment. First, they raised me to believe that I could do anything I tried, and wholeheartedly supponed all my attempts. Secondly, they praised and valued education and nunured an environment in which books and school were an exciting adventure that was a source of both fun and pride to our family.

PAGE 7

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As with any significant accomplishment, there are many people to whom I am grateful. First, my family for their belief in me as well as their support. My father and mother kept the positive phone calls coming, as well as assisted with the initial organization of the mounds of data. My sister, Sharen, who visited me during the last month of writing, cooked dinner and didn't expect me to be a model hostess! And my nephew, Jason, who helped me reorganize an important set of data. My dissertation chair and committee provided important guidance and thought provoking comments. Their willingness to read and discuss this manuscript, over and over again, gave me the direction and counsel necessary to elevate this work to a doctoral level. To the National Association for the Education of Young Children, for their vision that the profession of Early Care and Education should have a set of high quality standards set forth in this Accreditation process. Specifically, I would like to express my gratitude for the support of Sue Bredekamp, Saundra Gilbert and Stacey Knox from the Academy of Early Childhood Programs, and their staff. To Children's World Learning Centers, a company who believes in the professional development of each individual employee. Specifically, my boss and montor, Duane V. Larson, for his suppon and encouragement. And my husband, Ed, for his patience, his willingness to listen and constant support. His attention to detail and tenacity with the huge task of data entry was without equal and propelled this work into completion. I couldn't have done it without vou! .I

PAGE 8

CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Demand for Quality Increasing ........................... 3 Accreditation: Then and Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Accreditation Process and Research . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ....................... 0 18 Theoretical Foundations of Early Childhood . . . . . . . . 18 Processes and Components of Early Childhood Quality . 18 Influential Educational and Psychological Theorists 21 How do Researchers Approach Quality in Early Care and Education? ............. 0 0 26 Process and Regulation Studies . . . . . . . . . . 28 Quality Variables Indicate Optimal Child Development 3 1 Vlll

PAGE 9

Quality Research Worldwide ....................... 33 Accreditation ........................................ 34 Accreditation Across Professions .................... 35 Accreditation in Early Childhood Programs . . . . . . 3 8 Accreditation Criteria and Quality ....................... 40 Interactions Among Staff and Children . . . . . . . 41 Curriculum and its Relationship to Quality . . . . . . 43 Staff-Parent Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Staff Qualifications and Development . . . . . . . . 4 7 Administration .................................. 49 Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Health and Safety ............................... 57 Nutrition and Food Service ........................ 60 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Summary ...................................... 63 Implications of the Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 ix

PAGE 10

3. METHODOLOGY ...................................... 66 Theoretical Framework of the Methodology . . . . . . . . 66 Reliability ...................................... 66 Validity ....................................... 68 Discriminant Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Summary ...................................... 73 Research Questions and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5 Design ........................................ 75 Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 4. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 06 Question One ....................................... 107 Item-level Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 07 Percentages of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7 Component-level Correlations . . . . . . . . . . 21 7 Question Two ....................................... 224 X

PAGE 11

Discriminant AnalysisPrimary Sample ............. 224 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 Discriminant Analysis--Secondary Sample . . . . . . 231 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7 5. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ................ 238 Purpose of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 Discussion and Conclusions ............................ 242 Question One: Are the NAEYC accreditation criteria reliable? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 Question Two: Which criteria components are most frequently associated with the decision to accredit an early childhood program? . . . . . . . . . 2 61 Recommendations for Further Research ................... 270 Recommendations Related to NAEYC Accreditation Criteria . 2 72 Recommendations to Parents ........................... 273 Final Thoughts ...................................... 275 xi

PAGE 12

APPENDIX A B. NAEYC Accreditation-Oassroom Observation Criteria NAEYC Accreditation-Administrator's Report Criteria 278 305 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 xii

PAGE 13

TABLES TABLE 3.1 Ages of Children Served by Programs . . . . . . . . 88 3.2 Oassrooms by Age ............................... 89 3.3 Primary Sample Director Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 3. 4 Primary Sample Director Credential Level .......................... 93 3.5 Primary Sample Staff Education Level ............................. 95 3. 6 Primary Sample Staff Credential Level ............................. 97 3. 7 Secondary Sample Director Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 3.8 Secondary Sample Director Credential Level . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 00 3.9 Secondary Sample Staff Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 3.10 Secondary Sample Staff Credential Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by V alidator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 08 xiii

PAGE 14

4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and V alidator Rating . . . . 14 7 4.3 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Component Interactions Among Staff And Children .............................. 184 4.4 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and Validators for the ComponentCurriculum .......... 187 4.5 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Component Staff/Parent Interactions 194 4.6 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Component Staff Qualifications & Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 96 4.7 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Component Administration . . . . 198 4.8 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Component Staffing . . . . . . 20 I 4.9 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Component Physical Environment . 203 4.10 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and Validators for the CriteriaHealth & Safety .......... 206 4.11 Total Percentage of Agreement Among Centers and V alidators for the ComponentNutrition & Food Service ........ 212 4.12 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Component Evaluation . . . . . 215 4.13 Primary Sample Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Coefficients of Component Ratings . . . . 219 xiv

PAGE 15

4.14 Secondary SampleMeans, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Coefficients of Component Ratings . . . . 222 4.15 Primary Sample Potential Discriminating Variables . . . . . . . . . 225 4.16 Primary Sample Canonical Discriminant Functions Evaluated at Group Means (Group Centroids) ........................ 227 4.17 Primary Sample Pooled Within-Groups Correlations Between Discriminating Variables and Canonical Discriminant Functions . . . 228 4.18 Primary Sample Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 4.19 Primary Sample of Correctly Classified Cases . . . . . . . . . . . 230 4.20 Secondary Sample Potential Discriminating Variables . . . . . . . . . 232 4.21 Secondary Sample Canonical Discriminant Functions Evaluated at Group Means (Group Centroids) ........................ 233 4.22 Secondary Sample Pooled Within-Groups Correlations Between Discriminating Variables and Canonical Discriminant Functions . . . 234 4.23 Secondary Sample Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients ................................... 236 4.24 Secondary Sample of Correctlv Classified Cases ...................... 236 ; XV

PAGE 16

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Over the last twenty years, both adults and children have seen large scale changes in their lifestyles. This trend of family change has been panicularly affected by the increased numbers of women in the work force (Willer et al. 1991 ). "Between 1970 and 1988, the proportion of working women with children under the age of six increased from 30 to 56% ... and [these numbers] are expected to continue unabated in the future, with an unprecedented demand for child care" (Chafe!, 1992, p.l49). This expansion in the work force has affected American families in various ways. In both dual-working and single-parent families, someone must take care of the children. Many parents now purchase child care services outside the home. The problem of selecting and purchasing appropriate care concerns parents with children not yet in school and also parents of school-age children who may spend time unsupervised before and/or after school. One consequence of women's entrance into the labor force, which is evident in every community across the country, is the number of children l

PAGE 17

enrolled in early childhood programs. In 1992, 28% of all three-year-olds and 52% of all four-year-olds in the U.S. were enrolled either in a public or private preschool program (U.S. Department of Education, 1993). Because of this rise in numbers of children being cared for outside the home, practitioners have become more aware of, and concerned about, the quality of early childhood programs. Research has shown that high quality care positively affects children's development (Yandell & Powers, 1983; Peterson & Peterson, 1986; Howes & Olenick, 1986; Kontos & Fiene, 1986, 1987). These researchers found that children benefit from high quality programs by improving their abilities to socialize with peers, to follow directions, and to improve their capabilities in math, language and problem-solving. Improvements are also evident in higher verbal skills and the child's enhanced ability to regulate his/her own behavior. A major set of issues evolving in early care and education (ECE) involves the quality of the programs available to meet the needs of young children and their parents. In an effon to address the issue of overall quality programing for children, a voluntary, national accreditation system was developed by the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs (NAECP). NAECP is a division of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). NAEYC is a national organization 2

PAGE 18

of professionals in the field of early care and education. In 1983-1984, NAECP, the division of NAEYC that administers the NAEYC accreditation process, called on hundreds of early childhood expens to collaborate in creating this system of quality measurement. Their collaborative effon produced a consensus on the highest set of quality standards to date and incorporated ten research-based service quality component areas that promote optimal child development. Demand for Quality Increasing Both educators and parents agree that early childhood programs benefit children. The dilemma facing parents, operators of programs, and policy makers are twofold--defining, and funding the quality level that children require. NAEYC's accreditation standards and criteria, set in 1985, were the early childhood field's first attempts at a nationwide definition and consensus of what service quality really encompassed. The ensuing ten years, during which the accreditation process has been put into operation across the country, have been a slow but steady progression of educators and consumers digesting and realizing the value of both the criteria and the accreditation process. 3

PAGE 19

Currently, perhaps because accreditation is still new, educators are more knowledgeable about the components of quality and thus value accreditation more than consumers (Slavenas, 1993) ... The demand for program quality is accelerating, as research demonstrates that high quality early childhood programs result in cognitive and social gains for both low and middle income children, and enable them to avoid school failure" (Schweinhart, 1989, p. 83). Research suggests cenain characteristics of the caregiver, the program, and the environment as imponant indicators of quality. These characteristics include items such as a stable staff and continuous program, specific staff qualifications, limiting staff/child ratio and class size to appropriate proportions, increased parent involvement, and ample physical space and safe facilities (Chafel, 1992). This demand for quality creates a need for standards to which educators can be held accountable and which are meaningful to consumers. Lillian Katz, former president of NAEYC, feels the early childhood profession must continue to work on developing an accepted set of professional standards of practice to which practitioners can equitably be held accountable. Like others developing approaches to quality management, she believes any approach to assessment of quality requires 4

PAGE 20

not only criteria to apply to each program, but some consensus on minimum standards for each criterion that must be satisfied for acceptable quality (Katz, I 992). The next section briefly explores accreditation's uses in education and why it is a welcome addition to the field of early care and education. Accreditation: Then and Now Accreditation systems have been used for years by institutions and professions to define and uphold their standards. Peer and outside reviews have been established as strong methods of maintaining desired standards and encouraging improvement in the quality of education and/or services offered. Accreditation is a process that enables practitioners to provide and consumers to select good-to-high quality early childhood services more confidently Educators use the criteria and process to verify good practices and improve their programs for children. Consumers value the objective, third party's endorsement of quality and use it as a rationale to justify their choice of early childhood program or private school. For consumers and practitioners, quality is important to the goal of providing optimal care and development for their children. 5

PAGE 21

"The need to assure quality experiences for young children in such settings is a pressing soda! and parental need" (Slavenas, 1993, p. 31 ). Educators have embraced the accreditation process as a method for providing this assurance. Currently, more than four thousand programs worldwide have met the required compliance with NAECP's criteria for quality and have been awarded accreditation. More than eighty-five hundred are in the self-study process. A national, toll-free telephone number is available to parents to request a listing of accredited programs in their specific city, state, or zip code. As public awareness of this third-pany endorsement of high quality has increased, more requests for this information are processed by the Academy. "The continued uend in educational consumerism is identified as a product of the intensified business-school relationship, growing school choice movement, increased parental demand for special programs, and increased school ... interest" (Bainbridge, 1991, p. 32). The impact of accreditation instruments and procedures is evidenced in areas other than parental demand. Teacher preparation programs are using the criteria of this accreditation process as one element of course content on program quality. Students in high school classes through four year colleges and universities, plus those in Master's and Ph.D. programs 6

PAGE 22

learn about accreditation criteria as one method to achieve and evaluate a quality program for young children In addition, early care and education programs operating nationally under many different auspices are using the criteria as a standard of performance for classroom staff. The field of early care and education was made up of public, private, full-day and half-day, as well as church and military-based programs. These same programs were in existence when accreditation first began in 1985. Each state, usually through the Department of Sodal or Human Services, has the responsibility of regulation. Programs comply with minimum regulations if they want to be licensed. Over the years, some programs may have operated without a license while others complied with these established regulations. In the early 1980s, Federal Interagency Day Care Regulations were developed in an attempt to standardize the regulations across all states. Due to funding limitations and a change of administrations, these regulations were never put into effect nationally. These minimum state regulations concerned national experts involved in the education and care of young children. "It is ironic that at a time when the number of children enrolled in child care centers and preschool programs is increasing, the regulation of such programs is decreasing" (Bredekamp, 1985, p. 1 ). According to Bredekamp, state 7

PAGE 23

regulations were at widely varying levels in 1 985. Accreditation standards are designed to exceed most existing regulations to encourage a higher quality program for children. Mounting research suongly indicates that children thrive in quality programs (Anderson, Nagle, Roberts, & Smith, 1981; Howes & Olenick, 1986 ; McCartney, Scarr, Phillips, Grajek, & Schwanz, 1982; McCanney, 1984; Yandell & Powers, 1983). To respond to the need for improved quality and to develop and monitor an accreditation process, NAEYC created the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs (NAECP). The purpose of NAECP is to administer a voluntary accreditation system for early childhood programs in the United States (NAEYC, 1985). The accreditation process was developed by a nationwide task force of early childhood and child development expens who worked under the guidance of NAEYC. Their goal was to create and field-test both the instruments and procedures of this new process. Four primary components were fom1ulated: 1. Classroom Observation, 2. Parent Survey, 3. Staff survey, 4. Administrator's Repon 8

PAGE 24

Parent and staff questionnaires were designed to gather information relating to the program from other individuals concerned with the operation of the program. The classroom and adminisuative documents are a compilation of more than I 00 criteria indicative of quality (see examples in Appendixes A and B). The criteria were developed over a 3-year period by reviewing approximately 50 evaluation documents and the research literature on the effects on children of various components of an early childhood program. The validity of the criteria as indicators of a good quality program was tested by submitting them to approximately 250 early childhood specialists throughout the country. Criteria were revised based on the recommendations of the l 7 5 specialists who responded. A draft of the criteria was published in NAEYC's journal Young Children in November I 983 and was distributed for review and comment to the Association's 43,000 members. Many individuals and NAEYC Affiliate Groups reviewed and critiqued the draft. Open hearings were also held at NAEYC Conferences in I982 and 1983 to receive comments about the accreditation system. The criteria were then field-tested in 32 early childhood programs in four areas of the country. The criteria were adopted by NAEYC's Governing Board in July 1984 (NAEYC, 1985, p. I1 ). NAEYC's accreditation process for early care and education 9

PAGE 25

programs sets a standard of excellence but also allows for the diversity that exists in the field. As Caldwell, NAEYC President from 1982 to 1984, wrote: Our aim has been to formulate criteria which are general enough to cover different types of settings, yet specific enough to be objectively observable; which are precise enough to convey the true meaning of each component, yet comprehensive enough to allow for individual variations. We have not attempted to impose a narrow stereotype of quality in early childhood programs. Rather, we have identified specific areas of program realities which respect the diversity of educational philosophies without compromising what we know to be the developmental needs of young children. (NAEYC, 1991, p. x) While only a few uses of this system have been cited above, the effects of accreditation are evidently already extensive for centers, staff, consumers and mostly children. This has fulfilled the hope that "through this process (accreditation), parents and the public could be assured that a center had been evaluated and met a set of nationally recognized professional standards" (Slavenas, 1993, p. 34). As current functions 10

PAGE 26

expand and new uses are devised, the criteria which predict quality, as well as the instruments and procedures of the accreditation process, are critical to the early childhood community and to parents seeking a professional endorsement of quality programming. How does accreditation happen? The next section reviews the procedure. Accreditation Process and Research The accreditation procedure involves three steps. First, the early childhood program working toward accreditation completes a self evaluation called a self-study. This process involves teachers and administrators independently observing various components of the program related to specific criteria and indicators and then working together to compare their findings. They then identify areas which do not meet the standards and execute improvements. \Vhen complete, the program mails the self-study, called a Program Description, to the NAECP and requests a validation visit. NAECP then contacts one of more than 600 validators, who have been trained on how to conduct a validation visit, and arranges a suitable date for both the program and the validator(s). This visit is step two. It is designed to allow NAECP's trained, objective, and professional validators to verify the results reponed in the Program Description. 11

PAGE 27

V alidators observe at least 50% of the classrooms in the program, independently rate the same criteria the program used in its self-study, and conduct an exit interview with program personnel. The report created is then mailed to NAECP for consideration by the Commission. The Commission, comprised of more than 300 individuals specifically chosen by NAECP to serve as part of a team, makes the final decision on accreditation. All Commission members must meet a rigid set of qualifications including extensive education and experiences in early childhood education as well as a broad understanding of applications and practices which reflect research and acknowledged best practice in the field. Step three is a thorough and independent review of the program description by each of three Commissioners. Each Commissioner receives a copy of the Program Description and a criterion summary sheet on which they record information from each component area. The Validator's report becomes the eyes and ears of the Commission since they do not visit programs. Commissioners complete their individual review prior to meeting with others on the team. Their final decision, which must be unanimous, is reached after comparing their independent ratings. "For each case, the Commission has a choice of two decisions: grant accreditation or defer accreditation until improvements can be made or additional 12

PAGE 28

information is obtained. Dedsions are made on professional judgements made within the limits of the Academy's Criteria" (NAEYC, 1985, p. 8). NAECP notifies the program in writing of the dedsion. If deferred, the program is sent a list of areas identified by the Commissioners as needing improvement. Once these criteria have been improved, the program can submit to another visit. Bredekamp ( 1985) provided an estimate of the reliability of the observation instrument and procedures for this accreditation process. Separately, teachers and directors rated each criterion in the classroom. They then discussed their ratings, assessed their performance, made improvements and completed the self-study. Then, outside validators verified that the repon completed and submitted by the program personnel was accurate by observing and independently rating a sampling of the same classrooms The criteria were deemed reliable when Bredekamp's research examined the relationship of these ratings and found them to be consistent. That is, the validator's and program personnel rated most of the criteria the same on a scale of "1 =not met," "2 = panially met" and "3 =fully met." The results of this research were used to re\vrite the accreditation criteria, with the goal to increase their clarity and thus, their reliability, creating the observation instrument which is used today. 13

PAGE 29

Since this 1985 undertaking, no research has been done to estimate the reliability of the rewritten criteria for the accreditation process. When the criteria were first established, Bredekamp stated "the most pressing need for research will be a replication of this study using the revised instruments and a larger, more random sample" (1985, p. 177). The Academy undertook a review of the criteria from 1989 to 1991. The criteria were revised "following a thorough review based on the first five years of experience applying the criteria in accreditation decisions" (NAEYC, 1985, p. 11 ). Responses from the profession were solicited by NAEYC to begin the review and the most current research findings were incorporated. Another dimension was added to this review through information obtained from individuals and programs in the Accreditation process. The research findings and information was scrutinized by Academy staff and the advisory panel and minor clarifying changes were made to the criteria in the classroom observation instrument and the administrator's report as well as parent and staff surveys. In these revisions, a few new criteria, examples and indicators were added, some criteria were deleted and the wording of some examples and indicators was clarified to help both program personnel and validators more objectively interpret the observed practices. Since that date, while hundreds of 14

PAGE 30

programs have entered and completed Accreditation, no has been conducted to estimate the reliability of the criteria or processes. The Purpose of the Study The major advantage of this study is that it will provide valuable information and results about quality related to accreditation in early care and education to administrators, professionals, parents, and consumers It will also add to our knowledge of the validity and reliability of the current NAEYC accreditation process. For more than four years, programs have been using a system for which validity and reliability have not been directly estimated. The present study addresses these questions: 1. Is the current NAEYC Accreditation process reliable? 2. Which of the criteria are most frequently associated with the decision to accredit an early childhood program? This study contributes to the body of knowledge related to quality in early childhood programs by: 1. estimating the reliability of the NAEYC accreditation criteria and instruments, and 2. identifying which components of criteria are most frequently 15

PAGE 31

associated with the decision to accredit a program. This study will result in information which will be valuable to several groups. To parents and other consumers of child care, it will provide specific information which can be used accurately and easily to evaluate the quality of early childhood programs. A reliable instrument and process are also of value to the consumer because of both the subjective nature of many quality components and the limited time they have to observe the entire program. For accreditation to be meaningful and sound, it must allow for a variety of differing factors across states and communities including regulations and practices and distill the information into a reliable decision to accredit (Bredekamp, personal conversation, May 1994). Establishing the reliability of the criteria provides increased credibility for the accreditation process guidelines and adds to their strength as useful tools in the hands of persons and groups searching for quality in ECE programs. Also, state licensing agencies and state advocates for early childhood education can, with greater confidence, use the criteria to improve their state regulations. For teachers, administrators and other professionals in the field, the results of this study will provide specific program guidance. The criteria most consistently found in accredited centers can be used as a guide in 16

PAGE 32

areas such as environmental design and organization, interactions and communications, and health and safety standards. Also impacted are curriculum and equipment selection, as well as administrative systems including staffing, program evaluation, training, and record keeping. For the field of early care and education, a reliable process and identified key criteria can be the focus of additional research. The field can also use these criteria as a base and rationale for raising and maintaining the profession's quality standards. An increase in self-monitoring can lead to a profession open enough to encourage and respect voluntary monitoring of program's services. Such a process will only increase the value of the professional staffs work, the value to those who purchase those services, and the children in care. To accomplish these purposes, the research will proceed in two steps. First, it will estimate the reliability of the accreditation process criteria at the item level and at the component level. Second, it will identify which components of criteria predict the decision to accredit a program. 17

PAGE 33

CHAPTER2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Theoretical Foundations of Early Childhood The theoretical foundation of NAEYC accreditation and the criteria is based on early childhood theory and assessment research and practice that began more than 80 years ago and has continued to evolve both in the fields of psychology and education. Several psychological and theoretical perspectives are woven together in current early childhood theory and practice. These perspectives provide a framework to discuss the criteria, how they support quality in early care and education and how they relate to successful completion of accreditation. (The theoretical framework of the evaluation methodology is presented in Chapter 3.) This same framework will be used again later in Chapter 5 as the conclusions and recommendations are described. Processes and Components of Early Childhood Quality Early childhood education programs vary extensively. Creating 18

PAGE 34

assessment processes and tools that identify key components common to all programs has been a focus of the early childhood profession since 197 4 (Harms & Clifford, 1994). Researchers have looked to establish criteria for teacher competencies, learning environments, and interactions between the child and teacher in the classroom. Several examples of their effons exist. The Child Development Associate competency goals, which delineate professional competence in early childhood practice, were developed to increase the competence of staff. In 1985, the National Association for the Education of Young Children published "Accreditation Criteria and Procedures" for quality early childhood programs and launched its accreditation procedure for centers and schools. Although targeting different settings, these two accreditinwcredentialling systems have common components of (a) staff-child interactions, (b) environment, (c) curriatlum, (d) parent relations, and (e) professional development. These components were chosen based on research in education and psychology and are used as a framework for the accreditation self-assessment process, as will be reviewed later in this chapter. The two systems use criteria, also supponed by research, which directly suppon the growth and development of young children. Harms and Clifford ( 1994) list NAEYC accreditation as one of the 19

PAGE 35

three most "imponant advances in identifying the key components common to all early childhood settings" (p. 482). They go on to say that these "sets of empirically derived factors underscore the imponance of structure and process variables in quality child care. They also suppon the imponance of three key areas in the classroom--interactions, activities, and routines--identified in the theoretical framework" (p. 484). Many practices used in today's early childhood classrooms are guided by the national guidelines and criteria that the NAEYC Accreditation process incorporates. The criteria create a framework that ties programs to a professional or industry set of standards by identifying the underlying components of quality that should be present in all programs. For these to be valued and credible, they must be proven reliable and accurate predictors of high quality programs. Harms and Clifford state that "additional factor and cluster analysis of other quality-assessment instruments are needed to funher specify components of quality care" (1994, p. 484). The next section describes influential theorists in the Early Care and Education field. Their writings provide the theoretical framework of NAEYC's components and criteria. 20

PAGE 36

Influential Educational and Psychological Theorists Freud influenced the child psychologists and early childhood educators with his psychoanalytic approach. Erikson expanded Freud's theory stressing the imponance of the emotions and provided more detail in understanding children's personalities, emotional, and social developments. Piaget conducted research on how children learn and "revolutionized the field with [his] view of children as active beings who take responsibility for their own learning" (Berk, 1994, p. 22). His theory focused on the innate ability of children to explore openly and discover new information and make new generalizations about their environment. He said children constructed their own knowledge. Thus, his conceptual view of how children learn is called constructivism. Educators embraced constructivism as they created the developmentally appropriate model of discovery learning using activity or learning centers. The widely used curriculum frameworks of High Scope and Bank Street College are examples of this model of early childhood education. The basic format of using learning centers in the classroom for panicular types of play, planned and monitored by a professional teacher, allows children to explore a variety of games, activities and materials from which they learn as they play. It became a standard of good practice to 21

PAGE 37

prepare an appropriate environment for children and then allow them to learn through self-directed play. Piaget's theory led educators to take a child's need for active learning through exploration into the forefront of educational practices and establish this method of teaching as central to early childhood practice. While Piaget was primarily interested in children's methods of thinking and processing, other theorists were concerned with how the environment could suppon learning in the early childhood stage of human development. Their observations generated other theories that influenced both philosophic approach and specific curriculum components such as the environment, language, social studies, science and math. The investigations affected both the environment of the classroom and the learning processes that occur in that environment, as well as in the larger environment of the school, home and community. Bronfenbrenner and Vygotsky specifically are credited with significantly influencing the field of early childhood education, especially in terms of the social aspects of how children learn and the components viewed as imponant in creating an effective, good quality classroom. Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory (Berk, 1994) sees the child's development as influenced by four layers of the environment. Each 22

PAGE 38

layer influences the child's development, from the macro system that is the farthest away from the child such as the country's values, cultures and laws; to the microsystems, in which the impressions of home and school are more closely related to the child. Harms and Clifford ( 1994) dte Bronfenbrenner's work as that which "initiated a rethinking of the way in which early childhood professionals view learning settings for young children" (p. 479). His theory is based on a set of nested spheres of influence on young children that contain all the environmental factors responsible for the child's development. These environmental elements range from the health and safety of the home or school to the adults, peers, siblings and community influences surrounding the child. The educational setting, in partnership with the family, is an important sphere of influence "As we apply this framework to the study of the educational setting, we are concerned primarily with the influences on the child in the immediate setting itself and, to a lesser extent, on the direct and indirect influences on that setting from the outside" (Harms & Clifford, 1994, p. 480). These ecological ingredients all combine in dynamic and ever changing patterns to affect the child. Because children make choices and cause their own environmental changes, they are viewed as both the products and the producers of their 23

PAGE 39

environment. Thus, a network of everchanging interdependent influences and dymanic effects is formed. Vygotsky's sociocultural theory focuses on how the culture, which is comprised of beliefs, customs, and social skills, is transmitted from generation to generation. He posits that children learn through meaningful conversations with adults or more experienced peers. This theory varies from Piaget's emphasis on the individual construction of knowledge. The added social perspective broadens the practitioner's focus by contributing a different point of view. Vygotsky's theory invites teachers to see children's cognitive learning taking place with and through many social processes, which can be used and/or structured by the teacher. Vygotsky ventured further that these processes may differ in different cultures. While these theorists have made multiple contributions to early care and education theory and practice, we can summarize their contributions simply. Bronfenbrenner is imponant because of his understanding of the multiple ecological systems that lead to an awareness of the significant role of parent involvement. Vygotsky s emphasis on the impact of social environments lead to emphasizing the imponance of teacher/child interactions and staff-to-child ratios. Piaget's constructivist theory influenced the early childhood profession's emphasis on panicular types of 24

PAGE 40

adult-child interactions, curriculum and physical environments. Freud and Erikson contributed to early childhood profissionals understanding the imponance of emotional expression and the development of children's self concept in the developmental process, thus influencing recommended styles of adult-child interactions and types of expereinces provided. These critical theorists provided the framework for what is now called Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) in early childhood. DAP is the conceptual base for accreditation and provides the foundation for each criteria and the applications to how children learn. Each criterion, and each major component of the accreditation process has evolved from these theorists and the combined research of psychologists and educators based on the theoretical underpinnings of how young children learn and the multiple influences on their development. The factors proven in research to be critical to the development process have framed the practices early childhood professionals use today. The theory and practices for the assessment of early childhood programs have gone through evolution and revision as have the criteria. In "Studying Educational Settings," Harms & Clifford ( 1994) review several quality assessment instruments commonly used in early childhood settings. They create a taxonomy of quality early childhood practices that includes a 25

PAGE 41

variety of educational settings for children in both home-based and center based environments. The categories begin with parental care in the child's own home and move through nonparental care and family day-care homes to part day and full day programs at both private and publicly funded child care centers. This taxonomy explores the diversity of early childhood programs such as Head Statts, church-sponsored programs, proprietary child-care centers and family related care and considers the implication of a theoretical framework that links contextual with intra program dynamics. Bronfenbrenner's work, described earlier, has a major influence in the formation of this taxonomy. Quality improvement effons must incorporate the entire scope of the program dynamics such as self-assessment, evaluation and staff development. This design increases our understanding of the human, routine, and environmental influences that directly affect the child's growth and development in an ECE setting. The next section reviews specific research related to quality processes and components in early care and education. It includes separate ponions which discuss each component area of NAEYC Accreditation criteria. How do Researchers Approach Quality in Early Care and Education? Bredekamp's (I 986) work studied the reliability of the criteria in the 26

PAGE 42

observation instrument and the procedures used by the accreditation system. She theorized that "teachers and directors could evaluate their own performance against predetermined criteria and that their ratings of compliance could be verified by outside observers during on-site visits. The feasibility of implementing such a system nationwide depends on the development of reliable instruments and procedures" (p. 9). Since Bredekamp's work in 1985-1986, few researchers have undenaken projects related primarily to isolating and describing the criteria that define the components of quality in early care and education programs. Two principal types of quality research that surfaced in Bredekamp's research review were child outcome studies and process quality studies. Outcome studies look at the results of cenain criteria on the behavior and/or development of children. Process studies focus on the specific practices or regulations that a program uses in its operations. Subsequent research continued to analyze both the processes that are pan of quality care production and the outcomes of this care for young children. The present research review focuses on these two areas that "have provided guidance about the effects on children of multiple components of an early childhood program" (Bredekamp, 1985, p. 34). In addition, research that relates specifically to the quality criteria identified in NAEYC's 27

PAGE 43

accreditation will be presented. These component areas are staff qualifications and development, interactions between staff and children, staffing, staff-parent interaction, curriculum, administration, evaluation, physical environment, nutrition and food service and health and safety. Process and Regulation Studies Studies in early childhood education often focus on either the processes used with children such as teacher-child interactions and curriculum or regulations used to monitor the program such as ratio and group size, sometimes called structural quality issues. A few new process measurement tools have been devised and some have been researched since 1986. Three tools, the Infant Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS)(Harms, Cryer, & Clifford, 1987), the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS)(Harms & Clifford, 1980) and the Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs (Abbott Shim & Sibley, 1987) are "the major research measures of process quality in child care settings in the United States and several other countries" (Scarr, Eisenberg, & Deater-Dekard, 1994, p. 134). While no published research could be found by Scarr et al. ( 1 994) or this author on the ITERS or PROFILE, the ECERS instrument was used in research by Kontos and 28

PAGE 44

Fiene ( 1987), and by Bredekamp ( 1985). The first study found 10 items on the ECERS to be good predictors of overall quality in child care centers as measured by teacher-child interactions and environmental obseiVations. Bredekamp ( l 985) reponed that three factors--curriculum, interactions and schedule--were good predictors of accreditation in 31 child care centers studied. The measure of quality in Bredekamp's research was the successful completion of NAEYC Accreditation through program improvements guided by the Early C hildhood Classroom Observation. The most recent large scale study concerning quality was The Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study completed in 1995 (The Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Team). This study included over 400 programs in four states and was conducted over approximately eighteen-months. Results are reponed through a series of findings that indicate, overall, that quality is mediocre in child care. Results lead to several recommendations and four major action steps. These action steps, directed to providers, consumers and policymakers, are: Launch consumer and education efforts in the public and private sectors to help parents identify high-quality child care programs and to inform the American public of the liability of poor-quality programs. 29

PAGE 45

* Implement higher standards for child care at the state level, as a major approach to eliminating poor-quality child care. Increase investments in child care staff to assure a skilled and stable workforce. Assure adequate financing and support of child care. (Helbum, 1995, p. 11-12) This study, the first to combine research involving both economic factors and child outcomes, found that "unless poor-quality child care is curtailed, the development and well-being of large numbers of our nation's children may be jeopardized" (Helbum, 1995, p. 11 ). Another recent large study was conducted in 120 child care centers in three states and encompassed 363 classrooms of infants, toddlers and preschoolers (Scarr, Eisenberg & Deater-Dekard, 1994). The goal of the study was to evaluate how well the quality of child care is measured by process and regulatable variables. Regulatable variables are criteria used by states to specify such items as teacher/child ratio, required square feet of space per child, and maximum group size. 30

PAGE 46

Researchers identified three primary goals of quality measures and several different approaches for developing and evaluating these measures. The first two uses, for regulation and program improvement, may necessitate exhaustive inventories of the many aspects of quality care, even if the measure is redundant and inefficient. ... The third use of quality measures, for research on effects of variation in quality of care, does not require exhaustive inventories but reliable and valid measures of those aspects of quality that can be assessed with efficient and inexpensive measurement. (Scarr et al. p. 132) Scarr concluded that the measures of quality had to be reliable and valid to be used effectively in research. This study also assens quality measures must be credible and practical in order for them to be easily used by parents, public policy makers and professionals. Quality Variables Indicate Optimal Child Development Bredekamp ( 1985) and Kontos & Fiene ( 1987) outlined the framework and Scarr et al. ( 1994) further defined the dimensions of quality as Based on a number of criteria, ... the most commonly agreed 31

PAGE 47

upon are health and safety requirements, responsive and warm interaction between staff and children, developmentally appropriate curriculum, limited group size, age-appropriate care giver-child ratios, adequate indoor and outdoor space, and adequate staff training in either early childhood education or child development. (Scarr et al. p. 133) It is not surprising then, that numerous studies that have assessed the quality of child-care centers by these variables find more optimal developmental outcomes for children in centers that score more highly than for children enrolled in lower quality care (Howes and Marx, l 992, p. 349) Scarr reponed: The most popular process measures of quality proved to be highly redundant and inefficient research measures. The ITERS and ECERS scales could be readily reduced to a single quality factor that required no more than 12 randomly selected items to be measured with excellent reliability and validity. The profile was best represented by one factor. (Scarr et al. p. 147) Scarr is clear in concluding that the implications for both research 32

PAGE 48

and child care centers are practical and apparent. First, assessment of quality can be researched much more efficiently and cost-effectively than previously thought. Second, regulatable variables such as ratios and staff uaining requirements "cannot be substituted for process measures of quality care" (Scarr et al. p. 149). Quality Research Worldwide Quality in early childhood is becoming a worldwide concern and the NAEYC criteria are influencing quality assessment in research and practice in other countries. The Division of Mental Health of the World Health Organization initiated a project "focusing on how the definition and assessment of quality day care are culturally specific" (Dragonas, 1993, p. l ). Using NAEYC's accreditation criteria, a Child Care Facility Schedule (CCFS) was developed and tested in ECE programs in Greece, Nigeria and the Philippines. This initial study resulted in an 80-item schedule covering eight areas that define quality child care: I. physical environment, 2. health and safety, 3. nutrition and food service, 33

PAGE 49

4. administration, 5. staff-family interaction, 6. staff-children interaction, 7. observable child behavior, and 8. the curriculum. Concurrent validity, criterion validity, and construct validity were examined by comparing CCFS scores in 12 day care centers with ratings based upon observation in the same centers. An additional study of 90 day care centers in Athens, Greece, funher estimated CCFS validity. Results showed that the CCFS was reliable and valid. The use of a shoner 43-item version is suggested to render the measure more practical" (Dragonas, p. 1 ). With uses of this process affecting research and practice worldwide it is even more critical that the reliability of accreditation criteria is estimated again through this study. The sections which follow provide a historical look at accreditation processes throughout many professions. The discussion ends with research summaries on each component of NAEYC Accreditation criteria. Accreditation Accreditation formally began in the United States in 1909 when the 34

PAGE 50

Nonh Central Accrediting Association adopted standards for colleges. The first list of accredited colleges was published in 1916, and in 1917 1918, standards were added for junior colleges and teachers' colleges. Accreditation is "a process by which schools are evaluated and recognized as having met specific standards of adequacy or excellence. Accreditation certifies that a school meets minimum standards of quality adopted by the accrediting agency" (Aikin, 1992, p. 49-50). Accreditation Across Professions Accreditation has been used by the medical and education professions for years to standardize and increase the credibility of practices in hospitals and schools. In this author's experience, the process of accreditation has provided the field of early childhood education with a high quality base of criteria toward which programs can move and maintain. Their personal and group motivation to accomplish the process stems mostly from a pride and belief in their program's current high level of quality. The self-study both affirms that pride plus pinpoints areas that benefit from fine-tuning by staff. Program accreditation has become a standard in educational settings. Parents and consumers expect public and private schools of all levels to be 35

PAGE 51

accredited by some outside body of experts. Accreditation has become a tool to (a) communicate excellence to consumers and professionals, and, (b) to establish clear standards in theory and practice. It also serves to show and articulate consistent quality to consumers. Accreditation also alleviates "a larger concernthe strengthening of education to meet the needs of individuals in a rapidly changing society" ((Aikin, 1992, p. 49). Accreditation is a valuable indicator of quality to the public in other professions (Bainbridge, 1991). Studies in the fields of Home Economics (Radar, 1988), Nursing and Home Health Care (Griffith, 1986), Dentistry (Journal of Dental Education, 1994), Journalism and Mass Communications (Garrison, 1983), Community College curriculum (Simmons, 1993), Elementary Schools (Coy & Hopfengardner, 1991 ), Post-Secondary Schools (Council on Postsecondary Accreditation, 1992), and Early Care and Education programs worldwide (McCrea, 1989). The benefits and value of an accreditation process have been documented in each of these works. "The accreditation process provided a 36

PAGE 52

valuable and necessary service in Home Economics units . it remains a major method of monitoring and promoting educational quality" (Radar, 1988, p. 5). "The accreditation process benefits institutions through self-knowledge, accountability, the establishment of a legal standard, and the competition it creates" (Zoffer, 1987, p. 27). Coy and Hopfengardner ( 1991) conclude that the benefits of Accreditation justify the lengthy process. They identify several values. Each derives from an individual step: ( l) self-evaluation generates communication within and among departments grade levels and staff; (2) an on-site visitation brings new ideas for the curriculum, instruction and organization and exposes staff to other innovative programs and personnel; and (3) the repon from the visiting team presents constructive criticism that can be used further to improve the program The early childhood profession, through the Accreditation process, can increase credibility with the public, policy makers, and the profession. The above-mentioned organizations provide practical examples and research to document the benefits and value of such processes and standards. The single most repeated benefit of accreditation across all sources listed above is promoting and monitoring quality standards. Others tout 37

PAGE 53

accountability and establishment of agreed upon standards as positive results. Most interestingly, one reponed benefit is increased competition known by itself to improve quality and service. Overall, the benefits of accreditation span a wide range of positive effects across many professions. Accreditation in Early Childhood Programs Accreditation has only been possible since 1 986 in early care and education programs. Bredekamp's research and the development of NAECP's process began the movement toward a national and consistently applied standard of quality in this field. Since then research has continued that globally relates to the entire process and to the quality criteria. Programs completing the accreditation process benefit in a variety of ways. When 106 day care center directors were surveyed, they reported accreditation helped the majority to market their programs better, improve program components, and improve staff morale (Herr, 1993). Program components cited as most frequently improved are curriculum, administration, and health and safety. Other benefits reported by directors are enhanced professionalism of staff, a source of pride for both parents and staff, and reduced rates from insurance companies. The criteria also serve as a catalyst for budgeting and for obtaining new, safer equipment and the 38

PAGE 54

necessary motivation for maintenance staff to provide more appropriate playground surfacing and apparatus. Parents and communities also benefit from the accreditation process. Accreditation can be a key differentiator to parents who are shopping for program of good to high quality with a developmental philosophy. Whether a family is searching in their own community, or in a new area to which they may be moving, they can ask about the program's accreditation status or knowledge of and progress toward accomplishing accreditation. Parents are reassured by classrooms and administrators who hold themselves accountable to high, voluntary standards that go beyond state regulations. McCrea ( 1989) reports that many community benefits accrue from the accreditation system. She found that the self-study portion of the accreditation process facilitates staff development, parent education, accountability to the community, and raises awareness of young children's needs for appropriate programs. Children, parents, and communities are more likely to experience better quality in accredited programs than in nonaccredited ones. In the 'Highlights of Major Findings' of the National Child Care Staffing Study ( 1989), "better quality centers were more likely to be ... accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children" (Whitebrook, 39

PAGE 55

Phillips, & Howes, 1989, p. 4). The Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study of Child Care Centers ( 1995) undenaken by a fourstate team of researchers coordinated through the University of Colorado at Denver reponed that accredited centers receive higher program quality scores. Recommendations from this study include "increasing funding so more programs can accomplish the Accreditation process" (Helburn, 1995, p. 12). Accreditation Criteria and Quality The specific accreditation criteria were chosedn based on a consensus within the profession. These criteria provide the supponing framework to move an early childhood program from their current status to one of higher quality standards and practices. Previous research (Bredekamp, 1989; Kontos & Fiene, 1987; Scarr et al. 1 994) and consensus in the profession concludes that early childhood quality is based on a number of criteria. Commonly agree upon criteria are, 1. health and safety requirements, 2. responsive and warm interaction between staff and children, 3. a developmentally appropriate curriculum, 4. limited group size, 40

PAGE 56

5. age-appropriate caregiver-child ratios, 6. adequate indoor and outdoor space, and 7. adequate staff training either in early childhood education or child development. NAECP's accreditation program encompasses ten areas of quality identical to those listed above with four expansions. Four additional components are included: 1. staff-parent interaction 2. administration 3. evaluation 4. nutrition and food service Each area contains at least seven and no more than fony-five items. These component areas and specific criteria are used by programs to direct their self-study which ultimately results in their program's improved education and care services for children and families. The following segments will briefly review the research in each of these component areas, focusing on identifying those criteria that predict program quality and subsequently good outcomes for children and families. Interactions Among Staff and Children 41

PAGE 57

Teachers and children's interactions are key components in creating a developmentally appropriate experience for young children. The quality of caregiver-child interactions has been found to be a strong predictor of developmental status of young children. Mfective and informational verbal interactions between care-givers and children appear to accelerate verbal and cognitive skills (McCartney, Scarr, Phillips, & Grajek, 1985). When caregivers engage in more positive verbal interactions with the children, parents and caregivers rated children as more considerate, sociable, intelligent, and task-oriented (Phillips, McCartney, & Scarr, 1987). Studies of children in child care and nursery school settings found that children with involved and responsive caregivers display more exploratory behaviors (Anderson, Nagel, Roberts, & Smith, 1981 ), are more positive (Clark-Stewart, 1987; Holloway & Reichhan-Erickson, 1988), and display better peer relations (Howes Phillips, & Whitebrook, 1992). Such children are more focused and less aggressive despite their global program quality rating, adult-child ratios, or their caregiver's training (Anderson et al. 1981; Howes, 1990). The quality of caregiver-child interactions also predicts children's behavior. The most positive effect on children is the appropriateness of the care-giving by the adults (e.g., appropriate involvement and interaction, 42

PAGE 58

encouragement of receptive and expressive language, appropriate scheduling and supervising of activities), not the appropriateness of the activities or room furnishings. In addition, amount of low-level teacher engagement predicted the intensity of children's negative affect and the amount of high level teacher engagement predicted the intensity of children's positive affect. "It appears, then, that the appropriateness of the teacher's interactions and involvement is more strongly related to children's emotional experience in day care than the organization of the physical setting or the structural characteristics such as teacher-child ratio and group size" (Hestenes, Kontos, & Bryan, 1993, p. 304). This study demonstrates that imponant relationships do exist between child care quality and children's outcomes, specifically teacher-child interactions and emotional expression. Curriculum and its Relationship to Quality Bredekamp's ( 1986) research identified the curriculum as one key indicator of a high quality program. To define better the components of a curriculum that produce a high quality experience, Bredekamp and NAEYC developed a guidebook for teachers and administrators. Developmentally Appropriate Practices: Binh Through Age Eight (Bredekamp, 1 991) 43

PAGE 59

clarifies and interprets each of the specific criteria and practices that must be included to ensure a high quality curriculum in the classroom for children from birth through age eight. NAEYC's position statement on developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) dearly supports: 1. children working in small informal groups most of the time, 2. children choosing from activities the teacher sets up, and 3. learning through interaction with adults (presumably teachers but possibly parents or peers) during small group activities. "The word 'informal' is used to communicate the flexible, changing nature of these groupings and to differentiate them from the traditional three groups employed for reading instruction" (Bredekamp, 1991, p. 117). NAEYC describes its recommendations on a curriculum for young children in a position statement on DAP developed in response to accreditation related concerns. This position statement 'was originally intended to 'open up' curriculum and teaching practices and move them away from rigid, traditional approaches" (Bredekamp, 1991, p. 118). One of NAEYC's goals is the achievement of individually appropriate programs for all children. Bredekamp describes this goal as "an essential though neglected aspect of NAEYC's definition of developmentally appropriate"(Bredekamp, 1991, p. 44

PAGE 60

118). Using the developmentally appropriate nomenclature, Dunn's research on quality confirms children's positive outcomes in programs with appropriate curriculums. "Children in more developmentally appropriate classrooms exhibited lower levels of stress, e.g., hair twisting, finger drumming (Burns, Hart, Charlesworth, & Kirk, 1990), more creativity, and more prosocial behavior (Hirsh-Pasek, Hyson, & Rescorla, 1990) than children in less appropriate classrooms" (Dunn, 1993, p. 170). Staff-Parent Interactions Accreditation criteria guide program staff to strengthen and create more consistent interactions with parents. This suppon system has a positive impact on children and families. "The data indicate that although family characteristics are imponant in determining the child's developmental outcomes, day care quality does play an important role in the lives of children and families using this service" (Dunn, 1993, p.188). Research also shows that parent-child relationships are influenced by high quality programs. "There were also strong correlations between child care quality ratings and mother-child and father-child interactions and the security of infant-parent attachment" (Owen & Henderson, 1989, p. 2). 45

PAGE 61

Parents of children in high quality care are more sensitive and positive with their children. Interactions between fathers and their children in high quality care are affected also. Ackerman et al. ( 1989) shows that fathers of children in child care spent twice as much time with their children as do fathers with children who are cared for in their own homes (Howes, 1990, p. 76e). Positive staff-parent interaction has been defined as daily communication, either verbal or written, teacher-parent conferences and an open door policy that encourages parent panidpation in their child's activities. These ongoing techniques increase the communication and interaction at home and also between home and the early childhood program. Feagans and Manlove ( 1994) studied children in three central Pennsylvania day care centers. Good communication was defined as interactions concerning the child at least three times per week between the family and the child's care-giver. The researcher suesses that good communication between the child's two worlds is necessary to suppon optimal development in both settings. Their study also revealed that parents and day care staff had many shared goals for the children and few areas of misunderstanding when communication was consistent. Parents and teachers agreed in the survey on two of five child behaviors considered 46

PAGE 62

most desirable. Children being even-tempered and listening well to parents/day care staff was valued highly by both groups. In the other three desirable choices of child behavior, parents chose emotional characteristics (cheerful, outgoing and sociable, warm and affectionate toward family/day care staff), and teachers chose social characteristics (liked by other children, communicates well, and gets along well). Staff Qualifications and Development Levels of staff qualifications, content of training and the process of career development are a subject of much debate in the ECE profession. The most informative and broad-based study of these issues conducted to date, the National Child Care Staffing Study (NCCSS), was completed in 1989. This study identified a concern related to the amount of preservice training required for early childhood staff. Only 16 states require any preservice training for teachers in child care centers, and because most state certification standards do not address professional preparation for working with children in the preschool period, many practitioners teach the way they were taught in traditional, didactic fashion. (Bredekamp, 1993, p. 119) 47

PAGE 63

Limited staff training, then, may contribute to teachers using a more autocratic style with children. Child care centers are either hiring staff with training or are providing in-service training. "The NCCSS also found that staff in child care centers were more highly trained than required by state regulations" (Howes & Marx, 1992, p. 35). NCCSS recommendations relating to staff training and qualifications are to 'promote formal education and training opponunities for child care teachers to improve their ability to interact effectively with children and to create developmentally appropriate environments, develop career ladders, establish a national training fund" (Whitebrook et al. 1989, p. 17). It is unclear, however, how much training is staff is necessary for affecting children's positive outsomes. Higher education and ongoing training for early childhood professionals are separate categories in educational research. Research in both areas has shown that formal education and/or postsecondary training in early childhood education positively impacted children resulting in higher levels of interaction and language stimulation between teachers and children (Whitebrook, et al. 1989; Helbum, 1995). Higher education and training of staff have also been associated with higher levels of cooperation 48

PAGE 64

and persistence in activities among children, improvements in children's language skills, general knowledge and lower ratings of both child apathy and dangers in their environment (Ruopp et al. 1979). Administration Administration in the accreditation system refers to the team of individuals who manage and lead the early care and education program. Usually this includes the director of the program and may also include an assistant director, educational program coordinator, and trainer. The impact of this person, or team, has been linked to higher quality in the overall experience for children. Research related to administrators and their roles and affect on programs follows. Preparation Requirements. Doherty ( 1992) found agreement among 52 key informants across Canada and the U.S. that the role of an ECE administrator is "pivotal and requires both a solid grounding in early childhood education and additional training in administration and personnel management" (p. 43). This data concurred with Jorde-Bloom's ( 1989) study that found the director's formal education level (university degree or no university degree) was the strongest predictor of quality as 49

PAGE 65

measured by the NAEYC scale. She also found a statistically significant relationship between quality and specialized training in ECE and between quality and training in the administration of a child care center. Leadership as an Indicator of Program Quality. In her study of administrators/leaders in ECE programs, Culkin ( 1994) identified a "new type of leadership: shared responsibility and transformational leadership" (p. I 93) emerging in quality centers. She concludes in her review of the literature that the role of an ECE administrator is a demanding one, not always clearly defined or predictable. The enthusiasm of her key informants for their jobs was the fundamental basis for their decision to remain in a field where training is sporadic and inconsistent at best and salaries are not commensurate with advanced training and experience. Reckmeyer ( I 990) studied outstanding centers and found them to have outstanding leaders. They were typically women with broad experiences in ECE who were also involved in community child advocacy effons. They had several traits in common. For example, a sense of mission, a progressive attitude toward involvement of parents and staff that resulted in teamwork, a visibly structured organization and funding from more sources than tuition income. 50

PAGE 66

Larkin ( 1992) found communication to be a central skill needed by ECE administrators. With little preparation for their new roles as leader in the center. they also needed proficiencies in facilities and budget management. curriculum knowledge. and negotiating. Larkin's results corroborate those of Buckner ( 1988). Studying ten outstanding centers in California. the commonalities of their administrators focused on communication as the essential skill of each. Both parents and teachers who interviewed for the study stated they wanted directors who were organized leaders who created teams in which both groups had valued and active roles in decision-making. Competencies for Administrators/Leaders. Early Childhood college texts have incorporated the findings of research in developing skills and tasks' lists of ECE administrators (Decker and Decker, 1988; Jorde-Bloom. 1989. 1991; Morgan, 1993). Gwen Morgan ( 1993) developed these fundamental capabilities into three global competencies of effective ECE administrators. They are: I. the ability to maintain an effective organization. the facility, and the legal and financial scope of the business, 2. the ability to plan and carry out administrative systems, 51

PAGE 67

personnel management, and staff development that suppons and promotes the mission, goals and philosophy of the program, and 3. the ability to foster healthy community relations and positively influence the child care policy that affects the program. The abundance of literature focused on administration over the years is evident. There has been less focus on the administrator. The emphasis is changing, however, no doubt due to the new and challenging role of this position. Early studies focused on establishing the imponance of the role; more recent ones have attempted to define the necessary competencies and skills. The current trend may be moving toward a synthesis of the position as a leader with the accompaniments required to manage a successful center. Currently, several ECE organizations and individuals, including representatives of NAEYC, NCCA, The American Business Collaboration, and philanthropic communities and focused on beginning to investigate the development of a director credentialling process that would add consistency and credibility to the position nationally. This development reflects practice in elementary education. "The overwhelming body of professional literature about supervision and administration points to the imponant role of the building principal or director in creating a good learning climate" (Williams & Fromberg, 1992, 52

PAGE 68

p. 491 ). Since the cenual concern of early childhood education is to create an optimal early learning climate for young children, administrators and leaders must manage programs that provide children a foundation of lifetime learning and participation as citizens. Within all these considerations, adults, whether teachers, administrators, or parents, have an imponant responsibility to provide sensitive and intelligent caring and education. Staffing In this accreditation process, staffing means the ratio of teachers or caregivers to children at any given period during operating hours. This differs from staff qualifications and development in that staffing does not consider the abilities of the care-givers, only the numerical ratio of teachers to children. Although not identified as one key indicator of quality by Bredekarnp's research, the adult-to-child ratio of an early childhood classroom has been found to affect the quality of the experience for children. In the late 70's and throughout the 80's, studies concluded that fewer children per teacher provided the most optimal environment for adult-child conversations (Ruopp et al., 1979; Bruner, 1980; Francis & 53

PAGE 69

Self, 1982; Howes & Rubenstein, 1985). The NCCSS also addressed the issue of staff-to-child ratios. Completed in 1989, this project confirmed that "a commitment to pay for quality requires an understanding of the ingredients demanded by quality. It is widely accepted that staff in sufficient numbers will lead to good care" (Whitebrook et al. p. 3). The Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers study (Helbum, 1995) lists among the action steps "increase investments in child care staff to assure a skilled and stable workforce" (p. 12). A major finding here and by Howes ( 1992) is that wages discriminate best between quality levels of centers as did "the higher staff-to-child ratios" (p. 4) and the training and education of staff and administrators. Physical Environment Some research has been conducted on the impact of the physical environment on young children's behavior. These studies, primarily completed prior to 1985, describe how much space (35 square feet per child) and its arrangement as clearly critical to a high quality environment (Howes, 1983; Clarke-Stewan & Grubber, 1984). Howes and ClarkeStewan and Grubber also found that child designed spaces contributes to 54

PAGE 70

children responding to each other more positively. Children enrolled "in I high quality early childhood programs had higher social and cognitive I competence" (Oarke-Stewart & Grubber, p. 3) I I To create a consistent learning environment, Harms and Clifford developed the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale ( 1 980) (ECERS). The comprehensive scale includes a physical environment measurement tool that is accepted and used widely by administrators and researchers. This instrument uses a broad definition of an early childhood environment and provides a scale to assess the variations of quality across the basic elements included. The content was generated through research findings and a validation process with early childhood professionals, classroom teachers and their supervisors. The scale of one (inadequate) to seven (excellent) describes each odd level related to the particular component being assessed. Reliability and validity studies of the scale (Bailey, Oifford, & Harms, 1982; Harms & Clifford, 1982) shows the device to be both reliable and valid. One additional study (McCartney, et al. 1982) relates the child's environment to outcome measures. The ECERS total score was predictive of language, intellectual development and social competence. In an opposing view of the ECERS, Clarke-Stewart ( 1987) reports on 55

PAGE 71

: I three studies using this tool. Their results were "surprisingly inconsistent" (p. 112) with researchers finding both positive and negative correlations of ECERS to social competence, intelligence and language of children in centers. Oarke-Stewart associates these incongruous findings to the fact that the ECERS scale was created from experts' suggestions and the fact that items were not empirically weighted but given equal weight across the entire device. She also alludes to the fact that the overall index of quality is achieved simply by adding up all items in a component, which arbitrarily weights the total by the number of items in a panicular subscale. The National Child Care Staffing Study ( 1989) also incorporated I physical environment into its contents. The summary of findings repons I I I I i I I I "a commitment to pay for quality requires an understanding of the ingredients demanded by quality. It is widely accepted that ... proper equipment and activities will lead to good care" (Whitebrook et al. p. 3). Current discussion and opinion in the field of early childhood education supports the importance of privacy within the physical environment of young children. Solitary play areas and learning centers designed for only one child are two solutions used frequently to provide this privacy. Bredekamp's ( 1985) research showed a strong correlation between high quality programs and private spaces for children in group 56

PAGE 72

settings. The results of research in this area are compelling. The physical : I environment in high quality early childhood programs, including the use of I I I I I I I I I child-designed spaces, learning centers and private spaces, positively impacts the social, cognitive and physical development of young children in most studies. This data was used by NAEYC and Bredekamp to formulate the accreditation criteria resulting in a comprehensive section on physical environment. Eleven criteria are included which relate directly to establishing a classroom that promotes children's optimal growth and development. Oark-Stewan's article adds an interesting perspective to the body of research and identifies an important area on which more research should focus. Health and Safety Health and safety are the most consistently used criteria in the regulation of early childhood programs around the world. This is due to the comprehensive agreement across the profession and across cultures that all children require a safe and healthy environment. Prior to NAEYC's accreditation criterion focusing heavily on health and safety. the ECERS 57

PAGE 73

I i I I I I I I I I I I I : I i I I scale included many criteria and references to healthy and safe components of an early childhood classroom. Recently, new criteria developed for school-age programs by the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (Tools for Schools), highlights health and safety as one of the "seven principles of developmentally appropriate school-age child care programs" (Albrecht & Plantz, 1993, p. I). Other studies, research and recommendations have included health and safety as primary components of a high quality and developmentally appropriate program for children (Missouri State Depanment of Elementary and Secondary Education, I 99I; Southern Association on Children Under Six, 1990; Honig, 1987). The U.S Congress (1984) drafted a report which ... establishes a strategy for Federal action on behalf of the nation's children and their families. Section III specifies goals and recommendations for realizing in practice the four basic rights of children: ( l) the right to a high quality education; (2) the right to grow up in a family that is economically self-sufficient; (3) the right to a healthy body, and (4) the right to a safe and livable environment. (Congress of the U.S., p.4) 58

PAGE 74

I I I I I I lgnico ( 1 994) researched young children in school physical education programs and found they had a "significant, positive effect on children's fundamental motor skill performances (lgnico, 1992a, 1992b) and health-related fitness" (lgnico, 1990). She reports that children enrolled in a program providing daily physical education perform much better on tests of health-related fitness than those children participating only twice weekly in a physical education program. Research surrounding quality and accreditation consistently includes health and safety as prime ingredients (Marotz, Cross, & Rush, 1993). The Council on Physical Education for Children ( 1994) recommends that preschool children receive daily instruction in fundamental motor skills, movement concepts, and activities. In the last five years, the profession has realized that "state licensing standards primarily address minimum health and safety issues and provide a base below which no early childhood programs should operate" (Missouri State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 1991, p. 1). The quality of accredited programs is set at a higher level in several developmental and pedagogical domains. Including health and safety is a universally agreed upon practice strongly supported by professional consensus. 59

PAGE 75

Nutrition and Food Service "Despite recognition of the importance of good nutrition for children's cognitive development, many children in America are poorly nourished" (Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1994, p. I). A nutrition component is recommended by the Food and Nutrition Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, and the National Dairy Council (Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1994, p 2). A child's nutritional status affects behavior. Well nourished children are more alert and attentive and benefit more from learning experiences and physical activities. Poorly nourished children may be quiet and withdrawn, or hyperactive and disruptive during class activities (Underwood, 1987) Resistance to infection and disease are also affected by nutrition. Children who are well nourished become ill less frequently; they also recover more quickly when they are sick. Poorly nourished children are more susceptible to illness and infection (Guthrie, 1989). Nutritional deficiencies during infancy and early childhood may cause developmental abnormalities that cannot be remedied later. Thus, proper nutrition is critical during these early stages of development and periods of active growth. The USDA recommended dietary allowances and 60

PAGE 76

! I I I :I I I : I I I I l I I I I I : I I l l i l I I I I I I patterns of feeding are held as the national standards of nutrition for young children. Proper nutrition and food choices are critical to the optimal growth and development of all children. Many state licensing regulations (e.g., Virginia, Colorado, Minnesota and California) include and monitor standards that dictate the portions and types of foods served. Very few states add standards that describe the teacher's role in modeling eating manners and positive attitudes toward trying new and eating a variety of foods. The current accreditation criteria include standards that define all these concerns plus the cultural variety of foods that should be offered to young children. Evaluation Evaluation has proven to be an important tool that positively affects program improvement (Cryanm, Ellet, McConnell, and Atyeo, 1978). Parents, teachers and administrators all have a decisive role in completing periodic evaluations, drawing implications from the results, and planning and executing the needed improvements. Many types of evaluation are possible in an early care and education program. Program evaluation, staff evaluation, parent response and even evaluations completed by the older children in the program can provide valuable information that can 61

PAGE 77

i I i I : I I significantly improve the program's education and services to children and their families. In the early 1960s, Head Start programs were the predominant groups effectively using parent involvement in programs for young children. Parents were used as classroom assistants and in other ways throughout the : I program, including evaluation. Parent Cooperative programs were also I : I : 1 places that incorporated parent evaluation as a mandatory part of the ; I program. Sadly, this practice did not permeate the profession. Parent participation can be difficult to achieve when parents are in full time jobs. When accreditation standards were first published in 1985, few programs used parents or staff to evaluate the success and the ongoing goals of the program. Since the inception of the accreditation system, teachers and administrators have begun to more consistently request responses from parents and staff. Today, evaluation procedures are described as varied and well developed (Slavenas, 1993). Most programs gather information from several sources during the evaluation process, as does NAEYC Accreditation, and use more than one method. "Open ended, process oriented methods such as observation and interview are used more frequently than questionnaires and check sheets" (Slavenas, 1993, p. 44) Decker and Decker ( 1988), provide an overview of the difficulties 62

PAGE 78

encountered in evaluating early childhood programs. The most prevalent issue is that various components of a program are often evaluated by I different people at different times. Despite this finding, Cryanm et al. : I I (1978), Decker and Decker (1988) and Slavenas (1993) found that programs that conducted periodic evaluations improved consistently. Greatest program improvement occurred in the personal and professional behaviors of the teachers and the management structure of the center. Summary The literature and research reviewed in this section point to many I I components that are dearly and directly related to early childhood program quality. Researchers who look at the global context of quality in early care I I and education have discovered that the criteria and indicators, while most I often researched separately, affect both each other and children directly and 1 indirectly (Doherty. 1991). Bredekamp 's (1985) research identified I teacher-child interactions, curriculum, and health and safety as key quality indicators. While research still supports the curriculum and interactions as critical indicators of quality, the previous review presents new data. These findings implicate staff education and training, wages, administrator experience, administrator/teacher curriculum planning, evaluation, staff63

PAGE 79

I I I I parent interactions and teacher-child ratio as additional indicators of quality. Research has not yet identified the extent to which each of the previously mentioned components, or groupings of criteria within components, relate to a good or high quality program or predict the program's accomplishment of accreditation. Implications of the Research This proposed research is the next logical study specifically relating to the reliability of the accreditation criteria and instruments of the NAECP. Bredekamp ( 1985) states the need for this step in the conclusions of her study. In personal conversations (May 1994) with Bredekamp, she repeats how important this new research is to the integrity of the current process and, even more critical, to the credibility and the future direction of the accreditation system. This research may point out components and/or areas that need clarification, interpretation, revision or more emphasis as the process of reviewing the criteria is taking place. The reliability of the observation instrument was analyzed in Bredekamp's original research ( 1986) by correlating the ratings of different observers--teachers, directors and validators--all rating the same classroom on at least three different occasions. These ratings were collected in 31 64

PAGE 80

programs in four states. This study, using data from more than 450 programs, will provide a much broader national perspective and analysis. : I For an accreditation system to be administered nationwide with any I degree of credibility, both the instruments and procedures must be reliable I 1 Directors seeking accreditation must be confident that the process applied to their programs is consistent, dependable, predictable and stable. Commissioners must be assured that the information they evaluate is reliable. Parents must feel this objective, third party endorsement is one they can be assured will consistently acknowledge and promote the optimal program they seek for their children. This study estimates the reliability of the accreditation criteria for the academic community, practitioners, and the public. It adds to the existing research base related to the reliability of accreditation criteria and process, and documents specific criteria that predict success in accreditation. This chapter has reviewed the theoretical foundations of NAEYC Accreditation criteria and processes. In Chapter 3, the theoretical framework of the evaluation, the research questions, and the methodologies I i used in this studv will be discussed. I I 65

PAGE 81

CHAPTER3 METHODOLOGY Theoretical Framework of the Methodology This research utilizes classical test theory and several of their forms as its primary theoretical framework. A brief description follows of the key psychometric properties of reliability and validity as they relate to the processes of accreditation and this study. Educational testing has accepted and diligently used reliability and validity for many years (Crocker &Algina, 1986; Aikin, 1992). Tests of subject knowledge and course content, including intelligence testing tools such as the Stanford Binet Intelligence Test and the Scholastic Aptitude Test, have been researched to verify their reliability and validity. An I accreditation system must embody the same theoretical vigor in its base . "The instruments and procedures must be stable, predictable, dependable, I and consistent in order to ensure objective and reliable program evaluation" I (Bredekamp, 1985, p. 9). i I Reliability I 66

PAGE 82

: I .. One of the most important characteristics of a test is its reliability" (Sills, 1968, p 372). The ability of a test and its questions (or an accreditation system and its criteria) to measure information consistently is critical to education, industry and psychology. ..Reliability estimates indicate the stability, internal consistency, and equivalence of the terms or parts composing the measurement device" (Klecka, 1980, p. 449). In observing behaviors and rating criteria, random errors such as guessing, inattention, misunderstanding or environmental influences must be as small as possible (Crocker &Algina 1986) ..The greater the consistency (reflected by a reliability coefficient that approaches + 1.0), the greater the confidence test users have that test scores reflect differences in individuals I j rather than errors in measurement" (Williams & Fromberg, 1992, p. 289). I Reliability is also defined as the agreement by two observers or raters I who are observing or rating the same phenomenon on different occasions (Medley & Mitzel, 1963) Agreement between observers is an essential form of reliability required when using observational procedures (Williams & Fromberg, 1992). This is the theory underlying the NAEYC Accreditation process 67

PAGE 83

Inter-rater reliability is defined as the extent to which an observer, rater or examiner gives the same score to persons, criteria or processes that are comparable (Crocker &Algina, 1986). Since accreditation consists of different raters or observers rating the same criteria on different occasions, the inter-rater reliability is a critical pan of the system. Validity = I I Validity is the degree to which a test, observational device, or any other assessment procedure measures what it claims to measure in a way that is free from systematic error. In another approach "validation research involves developing a procedure for using test data to categorize examinees I into two or more groups" (Crocker &Algina, 1986, p. 256). Two major I I forms of validity are of concern in this study Content validity relates to what the test or observation measures and how well it measures what it is used to measure (Crocker &Algina, 1986; IGeru, 1980). The most common application of content validity is the achievement test. In an achievement test, the questions are framed by the outcomes to be measured. ..Content validation is employed when it seems likely that the test users will want to draw inferences from observed test I 68 I I

PAGE 84

scores to performances on a larger domain of tasks similar to items on the test" (Crocker &Algina, 1986, p. 238) The goal of NAEYC Accreditation is to authenticate programs that i I I provide a high quality experience for children. The idea that the larger : I : I domain of high quality in early care and education can be met through I NAEYC Accreditation criteria must be validated. NAEYC accomplished this task through the 1984 and 1991 reviews of the criteria by the early care and education profession. This study used a comprehensive review of I current research to corroborate the content of the criteria. Predictive validity considers whether a score on an observational measure is related to performance later on measures such as achievement tests, teacher ratings, or student grades (Crocker &Algina, 1986). Education, industry, clinical and personality psychologies often wish to I predict people's behavior based on a set known information ... For reasons I of efficiency and economy, we often look for a subset of total available I I information that by itself can explain and predict future performance or behavior to a useful degree" (Klecka, 1980, p. 398). Since predictively valid tests are excellent indicators of future I I I 69 : I

PAGE 85

I I i I I performance, they directly apply to this study. The criteria in this study I I guide the program to the high level of operational quality required to I I I I achieve NAEYC accreditation. Assuming that some components are more powerful in their relationship to the decision to accredit a program is logical. These individual components, ascenained by a step-wise discriminant analysis, are those which will most accurately predict NAEYC's decision to accredit an early care and education program. Reliability and validity are imponant to accreditation for two additional reasons The first focuses on the purpose of an accreditation system. State regulations for the operation of early care and education programs vary greatly, despite clear results of research in the field. NAEYC developed an accreditation system in the belief that children would flourish under a stronger, more detailed set of standards. The second reason focuses on the use of accreditation. For this system to be useable in all states, by many trained and educated individuals, it had to be proven reliable. The early care and education profession encompasses a diverse group of practitioners. In such a field, which is also young and emerging, professional preparation programs are 70

PAGE 86

diverse as well. Each individual using this system must be able clearly to ; 1 interpret the goals and work to implement them accordingly, and do so in a consistent way. I Discriminant Analysis The statistical process used in the second step of this study is discriminant analysis. The basis purpose of discriminate analysis is to estimate the relationship between a single non-metric dependent variable and a set of metric independent variables (Hair, 1979). In this research, the dependent variable is the decision to accredit. The independent variables are the components of criteria, rated by center and by validator. The initial plan I was to use each criteria from the accreditation process individually. I I However, the variance in the ratings was so small that this proved I impossible. For this analysis, the scores of each criteria grouped within I related components are averaged and the mean is considered as one variable as rated by validator and a second variable as rated by center, producing twenty total scores. These twenty scores become the variables of the I discriminant analysis. I I I 71

PAGE 87

In this study, discriminant analysis is used to predict which components of criteria are most powerful in the decision to accredit a program. This process estimates each discriminant function by entering the independent variables sequentially, called the stepwise method. This procedure is accomplished according to the discriminatory power they add to the discriminant function. The result of this analysis will produce the variables, e.g., criteria components, which are the most powerful in the accreditation decision. Discriminate analysis "identifies the variables with the greatest differences between the groups and derives a discriminate weighing I I coefficient to reflect these differences It then uses the weights and each individual's ratings on the characteristics to develop the discriminate score I for each respondent and finally assigns each respondent to a group I : I i according to the discriminate score" (Hair, 1979, p. 186). There are some important assumptions underlying discriminant analysis. First, the dependent variables must be categorical, with at least I I two groups. Second, the analysis is adversely affected by collinearity among the independent variables. Multicollinearity denotes that two or 72

PAGE 88

I I I I more independent variables are highly correlated, so that one variable can be highly explained or predicted by the other variables and thus adds little to the explanatory power of the entire set. This consideration becomes especially critical when stepwise procedures are employed. Third, variables must be measured at the interval ratio level. Fourth, each group must be drawn from a population which has a multi-variate normal distribution. The final assumption is that the population covariant matrices are equal for each group. Unequal covariant matrices can adversely affect the classification process. If the sample sizes are small and the covariant matrices are unequal, then the statistical significance of the estimation process is adversely affected. The large sample size and characteristics of the variables meet these assumptions, thus justifiying the use of discriminant analysis for step two of this study. Summary Since accreditation is synonymous with quality to practitioners, policy makers and consumers, the reliability and validity of an accreditation svstem are critical. Understanding which accreditation components may 73

PAGE 89

predict the success of accreditation is also important to many audiences. I For practitioners, this voluntary procedure is a testimony to their dedication to uphold a higher set of professional standards. For policy makers, accreditation can be a standard used to distinguish one program I from another when awarding state or federal funds. For consumers, these criteria, proven to be reliable and valid, can become a selection tool for the I I i I : i : I I I I I I I I best program for their children. For children, these standards assure a high quality, individualized, developmentally appropriate experience that is warm and nurturing. Research Questions and Design This study is designed to use data from early care and education programs across the country that have completed the accreditation process. The data were collected by the Academy during the process of accrediting centers in the spring of 1994. Ratings on each criterion by center and by validator, will be entered and analyzed. The Commission's decision to grant or defer accreditation will be entered and considered in the analysis This accreditation decision will be the dependent variable in this analysis. 74

PAGE 90

' ' ' I I Research Questions Two key research questions comprise this study: l. Are the current Accreditation criteria and instruments reliable? 2. Which components of criteria are most frequently associated with the decision to accredit an early childhood program? Design The following discussion describes how each question is addressed. Question # 1--Are the current Accreditation criteria and instruments reliable? Estimates of reliability will be computed on the criterion (or item) level and the component level. Two steps will be incorporated. Step one is the item-by-item analysis of the percentage of agreement between centers and validators on each of the l 77 criteria. A contingency table will be created to illustrate the total percentage of agreement of each criterion in each of the ten NAEYC accreditation component areas. Additional tables will also present number, percentage of occurance and frequency of individual ratings and combinations of ratings by center and by validator. Step two is a correlational analysis of the component level totals. Two ratings, center and validator, are recorded for each criterion. A 75

PAGE 91

numerical score of "1 .. "2" or "3" indicating, "not met," "partially met," or ; I "fully met," respectively, is given independently by the program personnel : (the "center" rating) and the validator (the outside observer). The sum of these ratings will produce a total score by center and a total by validator for : I each component of criteria. These scores will be used in the correlational analysis. During the program's self-study phase of accreditation, each criterion is rated independently by the center director and the classroom teacher. They discuss the ratings and, after making improvements, come to an agreement on a final rating of "1," "2, "or ''3 .. for every criterion. These ratings are reported to the Academy in two documents, the Program Description and the Administrator's Report. The Academy then assigns an outside observer, a validator, to visit the program and observe and 1 document the program's ratings. Validators accomplish this by completing I an independent rating of the same criteria. Their report is returned to the Academy for consideration by a team of commissioners, who decide whether or not to accredit the program. Question #2-Which components are most frequently associated 76

PAGE 92

I : I I : I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I with the decision to accredit an early childhood program? Before this question can be answered, it is imponant to understand how the decision to accredit or defer a program is made by the Academy of Early Childhood Program's personnel. The ratings submitted by centers combined with the ratings submitted by validators are recorded on the Program Description. These are randomly assigned to 3-member teams of commissioners. Commissioners receive training in the specific processes and key points necessary to decide whether or not to accredit an early childhood program. A select group of commissioners is asked to serve three year terms on NAEYC' s Accreditation Advisory Panel. The May l 994 commission was comprised primarily of these Academy panel members. They are well respected in the field for their early childhood knowledge, expenise and practical experience. They also have a broad understanding of early childhood care and education across the United States and practical experience either managing or working in an operating program. This specific team of commissioners on the Advisory Panel, was the primary body responsible for the accreditation decisions of the May 1994 77

PAGE 93

commission which encompasses at least half the 453 programs included in :I this study. Prior to arriving at the site for the collaboration meeting, each I commissioner receives copies of up to thiny program to review. Commissioners complete an independent evaluation of center and I i validator's numerical ratings which result in a valid or non valid designation I j on each criterion. The valid (V) and non valid (NV) status is ascenained I I by validators at the time of the visit and are based on a numerical scoring process established by the Academy of Early Childhood Programs. The specific numerical rules are a pan of validator training and are provided to validators in writing. A brief synopsis of this ruling, as provided by NAEYC is as follows: For programs with fewer than seven classrooms, no more than two occasions of a one point difference in ratings between center and validator, and no occasion of a two-point difference, can occur for the criteria to be valid. For programs with more than seven classrooms, no more than three occasions of a one point difference in ratings among center 78

PAGE 94

I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I and validator, and no more than one occasion of a two point difference, can occur for the criteria to be valid. (NAEYC, 1994, p. 7) If ratings fall outside these parameters, the criterion is non valid due to the variation in the program's repon compared with the validator's observation. As commissioners are independently evaluating the program, they look at both numerical ratings and the valid/non valid designation of each criterion. A criterion may be non valid for several reasons. The first reason may be due to improvements which have occurred in the program between the time the program submitted its materials to NAEYC and the actual day of the validator's visit. These non validated items are treated positively and reflect the program's continuous improvement within the specific criteria. Secondly, non validated items may result from a discrepancy between the center's rating and the validator's rating (here, the validator's rating is lower than the center's rating). These are specifically noted by the commissioners. After reviewing all non validated items and the numerical scores, the commissioner makes a preliminary determination of accreditation or deferral. This determination will be based on the sum of a 79

PAGE 95

I I l : I I I I I i I I variety of impressions and facts reviewed throughout the program description. If a pattern of low scores exists in a specific classroom, the commissioner may determine accreditation should not be granted until this classroom has improved. Key component areas, which have been determined through research fmdings and discussed during the commissioner training, are also a focus for commissioners. If spedfic nonvalidated items in these areas occur frequently in several classrooms, then the decision may be to defer accreditation. Commissioners are blind to the name, the sponsorship and operating auspices of the program. During training, they are guided to keep the following in mind when making accreditation decisions: 1) Always, the experience of the child is the most imponant consideration. 2) Key quality component areas such as teacher-child interactions, health and safety and curriculum are serious concerns when non validated. 3) The consistency and objectivity of Academy dedsions are essential to the integrity of the accreditation process (Personal experience at NAEYC Commissioner training, May 1 994). The commissioners meet with their independent ratings already 80

PAGE 96

; i I I : I : I I I I I I I I I I I I I : i established. Each commissioner has been given primary responsibility, by the Academy, to lead the discussion on a group of programs. The resulting discussion then focuses on each commissioner sharing his/her independent ratings and his/her decision to accredit or defer. If agreement is present, the deliberation is short. If questions or disparate views exist, commissioners work among themselves to resolve their concerns and arrive at a consensus. If more detail is needed, an Academy staff member may provide additional insight into the program or retrieve the precise program description in which validators commented as they were observing and completing their ratings. This often clarifies the question or concern on specific criteria for the commissioners. The deliberation continues until a consensus is reached by the team. Since the Academy is acutely aware of the differences among states, provisions exist in the training of commissioners and the decision process to adapt to these differences. Child-staff ratio and group size are a prime example of these differences. NAEYC states, in the Guide to Accreditation, Smaller group sizes and lower staff-child ratios have been found to be strong predictors of compliance with indicators of 81

PAGE 97

quality such as positive interactions between staff and children and developmentally appropriate curriculum. Variations in group sizes and ratios are acceptable in cases where the program demonstrates a very high level of compliance with criteria for interactions (A), curriculum (B), I staff qualifications (0), health and safety (H), and physical I environment. (Bredekamp, 1991, p. 47) This view was taken to encourage programs which operated within states I whose regulations did not approach NAEYC's recommended standards to partidpate in the accreditation process. In the early days, if programs had felt they had to strictly meet NAEYC recommended ratios and group sizes, they would not have attempted to complete the accreditation process because they knew failure was inevitable. A discriminant function analysis will be used to answer question #2-which components are most frequently assodated with the decision to accredit an early childhood program? The variables are individual scores averaged together to produce a mean for the component level and are reponed by center and by validator. This analysis will result in 82

PAGE 98

identification of specific accreditation components by center and by I I I I validator, which are the most discriminating in the decision to accredit an early childhood program. : j To validate this analysis, a secondary data sample will be used. In I this smaller sample, ratings from classroom in 26 select programs will : I I be analyzed. Since the accreditation decision is based on the performance I I I I I : I I I of the entire program, this secondary sample will reflect the mean rating of all classrooms, by center and by validator. The mean component scores will become the variables used in the secondary discriminant analysis. The results of the secondary sample analysis will then be compared with the results of the primary sample. Sampling The data are taken from early childhood programs that completed the accreditation process in 1994. The unit of analysis is the program. The dependent variable is the decision to accredit or defer. The independent variables are l 77 criteria, and their corresponding components, in the Classroom Observation instrument and in the Administrator s Repon. (See Appendixes A & B.) 83

PAGE 99

The data consist of a random group of 453 NAEYC accreditation Program Descriptions which were considered by Commissioners in May and June of 1994. These programs completed their self-study phase before : I 1 March of 1994 and received a validation visit during April or May of 1994. I I I V alidators were assigned randomly to visit each program by Academy staff. An individual or a team of validators conducted the validation visit, depending on the size of the program. For example, a large program (e.g,: 200 children and nine classrooms) would require two validators for two days to complete the observations and verification of administrative documents. All validators on the team observe different classrooms, so the data available are not multiple observations of the same classroom. The data contains independent ratings on each criterion by center (teacher and director's ratings averaged to get one score) and by validator. All programs considered by both commissions are included, except those that could not be decided upon by the team. These cases needed more information before a final decision could be rendered. These programs were either submitted incompletely to the Academy, were completed incorrectly or missing information in the classroom observation 84

PAGE 100

I :I I I I I or the administrative section. Information is recorded which shows the program code, accreditation decision, first time accreditation or reaccreditation, the age of the program, total enrollment and age level of children in the classroom selected for data entry. The formal education completed and earned credentials of both the classroom teacher and the center director were also entered as separate variables. The same scale is used for both director and teacher education and credential level. A staff qualification chan in the program description includes an executive director, administrator, or center director responsible for administering the program. If the director is also a classroom teacher that classroom is not chosen unless it is the only classroom in the entire program. All program staff are listed on this chan. The staff person designated as the lead teacher for the selected classroom was utilized. Thus, the variables represent a specific age level classroom with the corresponding lead teacher's education and credentials. A random assignment by classroom was completed to select the data. 85

PAGE 101

: 1 If the program served only one age level child, that age classroom was : I : I 1 selected for entry. Age level classrooms were only considered valid if the program and the validator both rated the specific criteria that corresponded : I to the appropriate age-level equipment. Only one classroom per program I I I I I I I was used because the same dependant variable applied to all classrooms. Primary Sample The following synopsis outlines the characteristics of the primary sample population. Of the 453 programs included in this data set, 324 were accredited and 129 were deferred. This represents a 28.5% deferral rate and a 71.5% rate of accreditation. This deferral rate is slightly above NAEYC's published average of 25% The overwhelming number of programs in the data sample were in the accreditation process for the first time. Four hundred four, 89.2%, fell in this category, while 49 or 10.8% were accomplishing the accreditation process for the second or more time. (Programs must reapply for accreditation every three years to remain accredited by NAEYC. Should they not reapply, the accreditation automatically expires after three years.) The combination of age levels across all programs in the data set encompasses programs with infants only through nine additional groupings 86

PAGE 102

I and culminating with programs which serve children binh through age twelve. Table 3.1 illustrates the breakdown of age levels, combinations within programs, the frequency with which they occur in the primary sample and the percent of the total they represent. More than 50% of the programs serve preschool children only. The next largest percent of ages within a program were toddlers and I I preschoolers combined, followed by preschool and schoolage combined. Thiny-six programs or 7.9% served infants, toddlers, preschool and schoolage. This sample represents every possible combination of age levels within an early childhood program serving children from binh through age I twelve. 87

PAGE 103

Table 3.1 Ages of Children Served by Programs Ages of Children Frequency Percent Infants Only 1 .2 Toddlers Only 1 .2 Preschool Only 235 51.8 Schoolage Only 6 1.3 Infants & Toddlers 4 .9 Toddlers & Preschool 73 16.1 Infants, Toddlers, & Preschool 20 4.4 Preschool & Schoolage 59 13.0 Toddlers, Preschool & Schoolage 18 3.9 lnf, Todd, Preschool & Schoolage 36 7.9 Total number of programs 453 99.7 Of the individual classrooms randomly selected, seen in Table 3.2, the frequency and percentage mirror the results of the age-level breakdown. Two hundred fifty-two or 55.6% of the programs containing only preschool classrooms were randomly selected for use. The next largest percentage, 21.2%, were toddler classrooms, serving children twelve months through 88

PAGE 104

I I I I I : I thirty-six months. Similar percentages of infant and schoolage programs, 12.4% and 10.8% respectively, were selected for entry as well. Table 3.2 Classrooms by Age 1 Classrooms Frequency Percent Infants (Birth-12 months) 56 12.4 Toddlers ( 12 36 months) 96 21.2 Preschool (3, 4, & 5 yrs) 252 55.6 Schoolage ( I st 6th Grade) 49 10.8 Total 453 100.0 Programs must be in operation for a minimum of one year before a NAEYC validation visit can be done. However, programs can be in operation less than one year and still participate in the self-study process. This is reflected in the number of years programs report having been in operation. Six programs ( 1.3%) mailed materials to NAEYC before their first year anniversary. In this data set, 51.7% of the programs have been in operation for eight years or less; 67% had been in operation fifteen years or less and more than 85% of the programs have been in operation less than 89

PAGE 105

twenty-five years. At least one program in this sampling had been in i I operation every year from zero through 40 years. Three programs reponed being in operation fony years, while two programs reponed 43 years of I I i I I I i I I I existence. Three programs reported fifty years in operation and the oldest program had operated for 78 years. The largest number and single percentage of programs, 48 ( l 0.6%), were in operation for three years at the time they submitted their materials to NAEYC. The next highest number of programs, 41 (9 .1%) had been open for two years. More than 56% of programs in this sample are less than ten years old. Programs must serve a minimum of ten children to panidpate in the NAEYC accreditation process. This category represented the widest range of variance. The smallest program operating served 14 children, and the largest program served 700. Fifty percent of the programs served 75 children or less. Programs which served 121 or fewer children represented 7 5. 7% of the total data set. An additional 18% of the programs served between 121 and 201 children. Only 7.2% of these served more than 200 children. 90

PAGE 106

Both director education and director credential levels were recorded in the data set. (See Tables 3.3 and 3.4.) The category recording the highest percentage for education level was College Graduate: Other Field : i such as Psychology, Sociology, and Elementary Education. This group comprised 32.5%, 14 7 out of 453 directors. The next highest percentage fell in the category of master's degree in ECE with 14.3%, followed by a B.S. or a BA. degree in ECE at 13.9% or 63 directors. At 10.2%, two categories reported 46 directors. They were directors who had thirteen or 1 more units in ECFJCD and directors who reponed no education level at all. I I I Table 3.3 Primary Sample Director Education Level Highest Level Attained Frequency None 46 Some High School I High School Graduate 6 Some College 4 l-6 Units in ECE/CD 6 7-12 Units in ECFJCD 4 13 or more Units in ECE/CD 46 91 Percent 10.2 .2 1.3 .9 1.3 .9 10.2

PAGE 107

AA Degree in ECE/CD 15 3.3 BA./B.S. Degree in ECF/CD 63 13.9 : I College Graduate Other 147 32.5 I Graduate Work in ECE/CD 42 9.3 Master's Degree in ECF/CD 66 14.6 Doctorate Degree in ECE/CD 7 1.5 Total 453 100.1 I I I I Table 3.4 repons director's level of state cenification or achievement j of the Child Development Associate (CDA) credential or achievement of I i I specific training created by and required by their employer. Of the 453 directors, 218 or 48.1% recorded no credential or completion of any specific training. Forty-four or 9 .7% reponed achieving a CDA credential or state cenification in early childhood education. Following closely behind that, 43 directors or 9.5% had completed specific training required by and provided by their employer. The highest percentage of directors who had achieved cenification or achieved a credential were those achieving state cenification in elementary education at 13.9% or 63 directors. The lowest number in any category was one director reporting a CDA credential and director qualification within his/her state. 92

PAGE 108

Table 3.4 Primary Sample Director Credential Level Credential Acquired Frequency None 218 CDA Credential 44 State CertificationECE 44 State CertificationElementary Ed. 63 Director Qualified by State 11 CDA Credential & Dir. Qualified 1 CDA Credential & State Cen. -ECE 6 CDA Credential & State Cen.-El. Ed. 3 Completed Specific Employer Training 43 CDA Credential & Employer Training 20 Total 453 Percent 48.1 9.7 9.7 13.9 2.4 .2 1.3 .7 9.5 4.4 99.9 Also recorded is the highest education level achieved by staff and also the highest, or any, credential the staff member had attained, Table 3.5. The largest percentage of staff education level fell into the category of "other college graduate" at 22.5% or I 02 of the 453 staff members. An additional 39% of the total was spread across three categories; two achieving identical percentages and one fell slightly below that. The staff 93

PAGE 109

with a B.SJBA. degree in ECF/CD and those with thirteen or more units in ECF/CD achieved 14.6% each or a total number of 66 in each individual category. Only 27% of the total reponed had twelve units or less in early childhood education/child development, some college or high school. Slightly over 1 0% reponed only some college or being a high school graduate. The same percentage, just over 10%, reponed graduate work or a master's degree in early childhood education. 94

PAGE 110

Table 3.5 Primary Sample Staff Education Level 1 Highest Level Attained Frequency Percent None 6 1.3 Some High School 1 .2 High School Graduate 20 4.4 Some College 26 5.7 1-6 Units in ECFJCD 39 8 6 7-12 Units in ECE/CD 31 6.8 13 or more Units in ECFJCD 66 14.6 AA. Degree in ECFJCD 50 11.0 BA./B.S. Degree in ECFJCD 66 14.6 College Graduate Other 102 22.5 Graduate Work in ECFJCD 25 5.5 Master's Degree in ECFJCD 21 4.6 Doctorate Degree in ECFJCD Total 453 99 8 Note. Cells containing a dash indicate no responses were reponed in this category. Staff credentialling levels are notably different from director credentialling levels. Table 3.6 shows 208 or 45.9% reponing no credential attained. The largest percentage in one specific credential category were 95

PAGE 111

staff who had attained the CDA credential; this represents 85 teachers and 18.8% of the total. The next 19% of the total fell into two categories, state certification in early childhood education/child development or state certification in elementary education. Three staff reponed being director qualified in their state. Five staff reponed having a CDA credential and either being director qualified or having a state certification in ECE or Elementary Education. Ten percent or 41 staff members reponed completing specific training provided and required by their employer while 5.3% reponed achieving both a CDA credential and completing their employer required training. 96

PAGE 112

Table 3.6 Primary Sample Staff Credential Level I Credential Acquired Frequency None 208 CDA Credential 85 State Certification ECE 47 State Cenification Elementary Ed. 40 Director Qualified by State 3 CDA Credential & Dir. Qualified I CDA Credential & State Cert. ECE 3 CDA Credential & State Cert. -El. Ed. I Completed Spedfic Employer Training 41 CDA Credential & Employer Training 24 Total 453 Percent 45.9 18.8 10.4 8.8 .7 .2 .7 .2 9.1 5.3 100.1 Secondary Sample. Since the accreditation decision is made by considering all classrooms within a program, an additional, secondary data set will be used to validate the results of the primary sample. Programs selected included those with the broadest range of enrollment. This resulted in a secondary sample of 28 programs with 153 classrooms serving infants through school-age children. This secondary sample will be 97

PAGE 113

analyzed and compared with the larger sample. Results will demonstrate whether or not the data set with one classroom recorded will produce the same results as the smaller set of data with all classrooms recorded Secondary sample programs were relatively evenly divided with 13 accredited and 15 deferred. Every program in this sample was panidpating in accreditation for the first time. All programs included children from birth through age twelve. Age of the program varied from one year in operation to 78 years serving families and children. Twenty-one or 75% of the sample has been operating for twelve years or less. Total enrollment of the programs varied almost as much as the primary sample, from 56 children to 425 children. Only two programs had the same number 117, of children enrolled. Both director education level and director credential levels were recorded in the data set. (See Tables 3 7 and 3.8.) The category recording the highest percentage for education level was College Graduate: Other Field such as Psychology, Sociology, and Elementary Education. This group comprised 35.7%, 10 out of 28 directors. The next highest percentage fell in the category of master's degree in ECE with five directors 98

PAGE 114

or 17.9%. B.SJBA or AA degree in ECE followed at 10.7% or three directors in each category. Founeen percent, six individuals reponed thineen or more units in ECE and one director had 1-6 units in early childhood. This sample differed from the primary sample in that no directors reponed some college or lower levels of education or earned doctorates. Table 3.7 Secondary Sample Director Education Level I 1 Highest Level Attained Frequency Percent None Some High School High School Graduate Some College 1-6 Units in ECE/CD 7-12 Units in ECE/CD 13 or more Units in ECE/CD AA. Degree in ECE/CD BA.!B.S. Degree in ECE/CD College Graduate Other Graduate Work in ECE/CD 99 1 4 3 3 10 2 3.6 14.3 10.7 10.7 35.7 7.1

PAGE 115

Master's Degree in ECE/CD Doctorate Degree in ECF/CD Total 5 28 17.9 100.0 Note. Cells containing a dash indicate no responses were reported in this category. Director Credential Level, Table 3.8, reports director's level of state certification or achievement of the Child Development Associate (CDA) credential or specific training required and provided by their employer. Table 3.8 Secondary Sample Director Credential Level I Credential Acquired Frequency None CDA Credential State Certification ECE State Certification Elementary Ed. Director Qualified by State CDA Credential & Dir. Qualified CDA Credential & State Cen. ECE CDA Credential & State Cen.-El. Ed. Completed Specific Employer Training 100 16 2 2 3 1 3 Percent 57.1 7.1 7.1 10.7 3.6 10.7

PAGE 116

CDA Credential & Employer Training Total 1 28 3.6 99.9 Note. Cells containing a dash indicate no responses were reported in this category. Of the 28 directors, 16 or 57.1% recorded no credential or completion of any specific training. Two groups, three directors and 10.7%, each reported being state certified in elementary education and accomplishing specific required training provided by their employer. Following closely behind that, two groups of two directors or 7.1 %, had each completed their CDA credential or were state certified in ECE. Two categories accounted for the lowest number. Both reported one director with a CDA credential and either ECE cenification within their state or specific employer training. Also recorded is the highest education level achieved by staff plus the highest, or any, credential the staff member had attained, Table 3.9. The largest percentage of secondary sample staff education level, 25% or seven staff, fell into the category of "other college graduate. Thirteen or more units in ECE/CD represented the next highest category with six individuals or 21.4%, followed by four reporting 1-6 units in ECE. Three, 10.7% each, reported some college, an A.A. degree in ECE or a B.SJB.A. degree in 101

PAGE 117

ECFICD. The remaining 7.2% of the total was spread across two categories achieving identical, 3.6, percentages. These were high school education and i I ; I 7-12 units in ECE. 102

PAGE 118

Table 3.9 Secondary Sample Staff Education Level I Highest Level Attained Frequency Percent I None Some High School High School Graduate 2 3.6 Some College 3 10.7 1-6 Units in ECF/CD 4 14.3 7-12 Units in ECF/CD 1 3.6 13 or more Units in ECF/CD 6 21.4 AA. Degree in ECF/CD 3 10.7 BA./B.S. Degree in ECF/CD 3 10.7 College Graduate Other 7 25 0 Graduate Work in ECF/CD Master's Degree in ECF/CD Doctorate Degree in ECF/CD Total 28 100.0 Note Cells containing a dash indicate no responses were reported in this category Unlike the primary sample, staff credentialling levels are similar to director credentialling levels. Table 3 10 shows 16 or 57 .l% reporting no credential attained. The largest percentage in one specific credential 103

PAGE 119

category were staff who had attained the CDA credential; this represents four teachers and 14.3% of the total. The next 21.4% of the total fell into two categories, state certification in elementary education or CDA credential and specific employer training, with three teachers or 10.7% each. Two staff, 7.1 %, reponed having a state certification in ECE. Table 3.10 Secondary Sample Staff Credential Level Credential Acquired Frequency None CDA Credential State Certification-ECE State CertificationElementary Ed. Director Qualified by State CDA Credential & Dir. Qualified CDA Credential & State Cen. -ECE CDA Credential & State Cert.-El. Ed. Completed Specific Employer Training CDA Credential & Employer Training Total 16 4 2 3 3 28 Percent 57. 1 14.3 7.1 10.7 10.7 99.9 Note. Cells containing a dash indicate no responses were reported in this 104

PAGE 120

category. The summaries of the demographics of the primary and secondary sample populations indicate a wide representation of programs in the accreditation process. All ages from birth through age twelve are reported served and programs had been in existence for many years. The education and credential levels of directors and staff represent the broad range of individuals and various backgrounds of the men and women who provide services to children and families in this field. These demographics also subtly reflect the fluctuation of education and credentials required currently by state regulations. This sample description represents a snapshot of 453 programs which were culminating their accreditation process in May and June of 1994. Their backgrounds and experiences, and the children and families they serve, accurately represent the profession of early care and education. With so many various representations included, the results from this study should be generalizable to any program in the NAEYC accreditation process. 105

PAGE 121

CHAPTER4 RESULTS This chapter describes the data analyses and results of the study. Results are presented in the order in which the research questions were asked and the analyses were performed. This chapter will present the statistical results while Chapter five will discuss the significance of these results. The two research questions prompted a number of different analyses. This section reviews each question and provides an overview of the data analysis performed and results obtained. The two research questions are: 1. Are the current NAEYC Accreditation criteria and instruments reliable? 2. Which components of NAEYC Accreditation criteria are most frequently associated with the decision to accredit an early childhood program? 106

PAGE 122

Question One Are the current Accreditation criteria and instruments reliable? This question examined 177 criteria (see Appendixes A & B) within ten components. The reliability of the accreditation criteria and instruments was estimated through an item-level analysis of the percentage of agreement of the ratings by center and by validator. Percentage of agreement is reported for each criteria within NAEYC Accreditations's ten component areas Results are reported for the individual criteria at the item-level and then for the component-level. The reliability of each of the ten accreditation components is then analyzed by performing a correlational analysis at the component-level ratings by center and by validator. Item-level Analysis An overview of the primary data set is provided in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Table 4 1 illustrates the item-level frequencies and percentages of time that each rating-scale option--3 (fully met), 2 (partially met), and 1 (not met)--by center and by validator, occurred Table 4.2 presents the item level numbers and occurrences of combinations of ratings by center/validator. 107

PAGE 123

0 00 Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria CENTER RATINGS VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 1 3 2 1 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) Staff interact frequently with n=445 n=B n=O n=429 n=24 AI children 98.2% 1 8% 0% 94.7% 5 3% -Staff are available & n=443 n=lO n=O n=428 n=25 A2 responsive 97.8% 2.2% 0% 94.5% 5.5% A3a Speech is friendly. courteous n=434 n=l9 n=O n=426 n=27 95.8% 4.2% 0% 94.6% 6. 0% Staff encourage language in n=444 n=9 n=O n=432 A3b n=21 all ages 98. 0% 2.0% 0% 95.4% 4.6% Staff treat children & cultures n=437 n=l5 n=l n=425 n=28 A4a equally 96.5% 3 3% .2% 93.8% 6.2% Staff provide both sexes equal n=441 n=l2 n=O n=440 n=l3 A4b opportunities 97.1% 2 6% 0% 96 .1% 2.9% Note. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria. n=2 .4% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=l .2% n=2 .4%

PAGE 124

-0 \0 .--Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria CENTER RATINGS VALIDA TOR RATINGS 3 2 I 3 2 I (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) AS Staff encourage independence n=445 n=8 n=O n=437 n=l6 when ready 98.2% 1.8% 0% 96.5% 3.5% A6a Staff use positive guidance n=416 n=37 n=O n=408 n=45 approaches 91.8% 8 2% 0% 90.1% 9.9% A6b Staff do not use negative n=440 n=l3 n=O n=445 n=8 punishments 97 .1% 2.8% 0% 98.2% 1.8% Overall sound is pleasant n=438 n=IS n=O A7 n=437 n=IS 96.7% 3.3% 0% 96.5% 3.3% --------A8a Children relaxed, happy, n=452 n=l n=O n=447 n=6 involved 99 8% 2% 0% 98.7% 1.3% ASh Staff help in dealing with n=438 n=IS n=O n=416 n=36 anger, sadness 96. 7% 3.3% 0% 91.8% 7.9% ----Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 .. indicates Administration Report criteria. n=l .2% n=3 .7% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=l .2

PAGE 125

.... . -. ---------------Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria A9 AIO All Staff encourage prosocial behaviors Staff expectations arc dcv appropriate Staff encourage talking about feelings, ideas 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) -------------n=438 96.7% n=445 98. 2% n=437 96.5% n=l5 3.3% n=B 1.8% --n=l4 3.1% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 I (fully met) (partially met)(not met) n=429 94 7% n=440 97.1% n=424 93. 6% n=24 5.3% n=13 2 9% n=29 6.4% ----' n=l 2% n=O 0% n=2 .4% ..-----------------0 Ill Written philosophy & goals n=446 98 5% ---------------------------- B2a B2h Written curriculum plans Environment & activities reflect philosophy n=422 93 2% n=443 97 8% n=7 1.5% n=24 5.3% n=2 .4% n=O n=443 0% 97 8% -----n=O n=422 0% n=24 93.2% -n=O n=436 0% 96. 2% n=3 .7% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% 5.3% n=9 2.0% ------------------------------------Report crittria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid On all other criteria, valiclator's rating options arc identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria

PAGE 126

,_. -..... Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 1 VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 1 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) --------------. Modifications for children w/ R3a46 special needs n=389 85.9% n=41 9.1% -----------------------------B3a B3b B3c Classroom modifications made for children with special needs Professional made Staff aware of special needs & trained on IEP n=310 68.4% n=433 95.6% n=358 79.0% n=99 21.9% n=9 2 0% n=64 14.1% n=3 n=430 .7% n=l3 94.9% -n=S n=336 1.1% n= II 72.2% n=O n=439 0% 96.9% n=3 n=378 .7% n=64 83.4% 14.1% n=O 0% n=SO 17.7% n=O 0% n=O 0% Note. Administrator Report criteria allow validator.s only two rating options, 3 = and I = "not valid." On all or her criteria, validator's rating options arc identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453 indicates Administration Report criteria. 2.9% .2% n=4 .9%

PAGE 127

-('..J -------------------Table 4 1 _______ Criteria Rating Frequencies and_ Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 1 VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partiaUy met)(not met) R3d .. B4a47 Special child's parents involved/needs met All ages play outdoors daily ----------------B4a All ages play outdoors daily ------------------.. Quiet/active play scheduled R4h47 -----------------R4b Quiet/active play scheduled -----------n=354 78 .1% n=424 93.6% n=424 93.6% n=448 98. 9% n=445 98. 2% n=69 15. 2% n=l9 4 2% n=21 4 6% n=l .2% n=7 1.5% n=4 9% n=5 1.1% n=5 1.1% n=O 0% n=312 n=l36 68 9% 30.0% n=438 n=ll 96. 7% n=438 96. 7% n=446 98.5% ----n=O n=446 0% 98.5% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=l4 3 .1% n=O 0% n=6 1 3% Note Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other critelia validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 indicates Administration Report rriteria 2.4% n=l 2% n=3 .7% n=l .2%

PAGE 128

,_. ,_. w -------------Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by V alidator # Brief Description of Criteria 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 (fully met) (partiaJiy met)(not met) -----------------------------Option of indiv, large, small n=436 n=IO n=O n=434 n=O B4c48 groups 96. 2% 2.2% 0% n=12 95.8% 0% ----------------B4c Option of lndiv, large, small n=441 n=IO n=O n=431 n=21 groups 97 4% 2.2% 0% 95.1% 4.6% ------------------" Balance of large/small muscle n=440 n=6 n=O n=437 n=O B4d48 97 .1% 1.3% 0% 96.5% 0% ---------B4d Balance of large/small muscle n=444 n=7 n=O n=440 n=ll 98.0% 1 5% 0% 97.1% 2.4% ----------------------Balance of child-, staff-n=435 n=ll n=O n=435 n=O 84e48 initiated 96.0% 2.4% 0% n=ll 96.0% 0% ----------Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria 2.6% n=2 .4% n=9 2.0% n=l .2% 2.4%

PAGE 129

..... -------------Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator -----# Brief Description of Criteria 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 1 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) B4c Balance of child-, staff. n=442 n=7 n=O initiated 97.6% 1 .5% 0% -----------USa Multiracial, nonsexist n=361 n=91 n=O materials 79 7% 20.1% 0% -------------------------------------DAP materials and equip, n=72 n=l n=O B5b Infants 15.9% 2% 0% -------------------DAP materials and equip, n=II3 n=B n=O BSc Toddlers 24 9% 1.8% 0% ---------------------------------DAP materials and equip, n=293 n= II n=O BSd Preschoolers 64 7% 2.4% 0% ------------------------DAP materials and equip, n=50 n=IO n=3 B5c School-agers 11.0% 2.2% 7% ---------------------------------VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 1 (fully met) (partially met)(not met) 1\=431 n=20 95.1% 4.4% n=342 n=IIO 75 .5% 24 .3% n=60 n=7 13. 2% 1.5% n=95 n=2l 21.0% 4.6% n=270 n=32 59.6% 7 0% n=49 n=9 10 8% 2 .0% Note Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options arc identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria n=l .2% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0%

PAGE 130

..... ..... lll Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 VALIDA TOR RATINGS 1 3 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) B6 ------------DAP use of media n=301 66.4% n=2S 5.5% n=3 .7% n=297 n=27 n=2 65.6% 6.0% .4% ------------------------------------------R7a Foster positive self concept n=431 95 .1% -----------------------B7b B7c Develop social skills Encourage thinking, reasoning, c1uestioning n=440 97.1% n=420 92 7% n=20 4.4% n=l2 2.6% n=31 6.8% ----------------------------------B7d B7e Encourage languagl'/literaq development Enhance physical development n=428 94.5% n=430 94.9% n=25 5.5% n=23 5 .1% n=O n=428 n=23 0% 94.5% 5 .1% --n=O n=439 n=l3 0% 96. 9% 2 9 -n=l n=418 n=34 2% 92.3% 7.5% n=O n=417 n=36 0% 92.1% 7.9% n=O n=423 n=30 0% 93.4% 6.6% Administra!Or Report criteria allow validators only two rating options 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria valida10r's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria n=l 2% ---n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0%

PAGE 131

...... -0\ Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 1 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) B7f B7g 87h B8 Encourage health, safety. nutrition Encourage creative expression Respect cultural diversity Children have time to select own activities n=423 93.4% n=414 91.4% n=344 75.9% n=439 96.9% n=29 6 3% n=39 8 6% n=I07 23.6% n=l4 3.1% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=2 .4% ------n=O 0% n=421 n=31 92.9% 6.8% ----n=395 n=58 87.2% 12.8% n=338 n=ll5 74.6% 25.4% n=426 n=27 94.0% 6.0% --------------------------------------------B9 HIO Smooth, unrcgimenttd transitions Staff arc flexible n=404 89 .2% n=451 99. 6% ------------------------------------n=47 10.4% n=l .2% n=O 0% n=l .2% n=405 89.4% n=443 97.8% ---------------n=48 10.6% n=IO 2.2% Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 .. indicates Administration Report criteria n=O 0% n=O 0% -n=O 0% -n=O 0% n=O 0% n=l .2%

PAGE 132

--........ Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria Rll Routines tasks arc relaxed and individual 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) -----n=442 n=8 n=O 97.6% 1.8% 0% -------- Cia Clb C2 Written philosophy available to parents ----------Written operating policies & nutritional plans Orientation to center for parents and children n=443 97.8% n=427 94.3% n=436 96.2% n=S 1.1% ------n=14 3 1% n=l2 2 6% n=O 0% n=5 1.1% n=O 0% VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 (fully met) (partially met)(not met) n=429 n=22 94.7% 4 .9% --n=436 n=O n=l2 96.2% 0% n=395 n=O n=53 87.2% 0% 11.7% n=421 n=O n=27 92.9% 0% Note. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid On all other criteria, validator's rating options arc identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria n=O 0% 2.6% 6.0%

PAGE 133

-...... 00 Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator ------. # Brief Description of Criteria Staff and parents C3a communicate about t:hild rearing C3b Staff give parents ideas for development and lt>arning 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) n=405 89.4% n=386 85.2% n=43 9.5% n=61 13. 5% ----------------------------.. C4a Parents arc welcome visitors at all times --------------Parents and other family .. C4b involvement encouraged n=443 97.8% n=438 96.7% n='i 1.1% n= II 2.4% VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 (fully met) (partially met)(not met) n=O n=403 0% n=45 n=O 0% n=O 0% 89.0% n=385 n=62 85.0% 13. 7% n=442 97.6% n=O n=434 0% n=l5 95.8% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% 9.8% n=6 1.3% 3.3% -------------------------------------------------------Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I ="not valid ." On all other criteria, validator's rating options arc identical to center's options. The total number of centers CCJuals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria.

PAGE 134

--"' Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) Day-to-day happenings shared .. C5a v e rbally/in writing Changes in physicaVcmotional .. C5b state arc reported .. C6 Conferences held at ll ast once/ year, mor e if needed n=423 93.4% n=442 97 6% n=407 89. 8% ------------------------.. C7 Parents informed regularly using many avenues Communiration ensures .. CRa smooth daily transitions n=441 97.4% n=416 91.8% n=26 n=O 5.7% 0% -n=6 n=O 1.3% 0% n=38 n=O 8.4% 0% ---n=4 n=O .9% 0% n=l7 n=O 3 8% 0% VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 (fully met) (partially met)(not met) n=425 n=O n=24 93 8% 0% n=437 n=O n=l2 96. 5% 0% n=412 n=O n=33 90. 9% 0% n=440 n=O 97 .1% 0% -n=420 n=O n=24 92.7% 0% 5 3% 2.6% 7.3% n=S 1.1% 5 3% ---------------------------------------Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 .. indicates Administration Report criteria.

PAGE 135

-""' 0 Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 I VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) C8b ... Dla Staff and parent communication ensures continuity from one year to next Staff working wilh children arc over IR n=384 84.8% n=424 93. 6% ---------------------Teacher assists. are HS grads, D I b have prof dcv n=375 82.8% n=61 13.5% n=22 4.9% n=48 10.6% n=l .2% n=O 0% n=322 n=l25 71.1% 27. 6% n=444 98.0% n=3 n=436 7% n=l2 96.2% -------. -------------------------------Teachers have CDA, or M D I c degree in ECE/CD --------------n=294 64.9% 1\= 134 29.6% n=l2 2.6% n=401 1\=39 88.5% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options arc identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria. n=4 .9% 2.6% 8.6%

PAGE 136

-N Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator --# Brief Description of Criteria 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 1 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) School-age teachers trained in n=l05 n=l7 n=3 A Did CD, ECE, Recre 23 2% 3.8% 7% ----------------------------Training plans developed n=368 n=41 n=2 A Die individuals / program 81.2% 9 .1% .4% ------------------------------Director trained/experienced n=424 n=20 n=3 D2a in ECE/HR/Fin 93 6% 4.4% .7% -------------------------ECS w/3yrs exp&/or MS n=365 n=62 n=l9 A D2b directs program 80.6% 13.7% 4 2% ----------------------------VAUDATOR RATINGS 3 2 1 (fully met) (partially met)(not met) n=425 n=O n=l4 93 8% 0% n=424 n=O n=l5 93 6% 0% n=430 n=O n=l7 94 9% 0% n=418 n=O n=29 92. 3% 0% --Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid ." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options The totnl number of renters equals 453 A indicates Administration Report criteria 3.1% 3.3% 3.8% 6.4%

PAGE 137

Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 1 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) ---------New staff oriented to program D3 Regular training opportunities IHa provided Specific training topics D4b addressed Accurate and nrrrcnt staff DS qualifications kept n=398 87 9% n=429 94 7% n=411 90 7% n=427 94.3% n=48 10. 6% n=IB 4 .0% n=37 8 2% ----------n=21 4.6% n=l n=403 n=O .2% n=44 89.0% 0% -----n=2 n=431 n=O .4% n= 18 95 .1% 0% n=l n=418 n=O .2% n=31 92 .3% 0% --n=O n=427 n=O 0% n=22 94.3% 0% Note Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid On all other criteria, validator s rating options are identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453. indicatt's Administration Report criteria. 9 7% 4.0% 6 .8% 4.9%

PAGE 138

-N w Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) -------------------- El E2 E3a Annual assessment of program conducted Written operating polic.:ics and procedures Written personnel policies Nondiscriminatory hiring E3b practices n=404 89 2% n=442 97. 6% n=387 85.4% n=433 95. 6% n=42 9.3% n=6 1.3% n=60 13.2% n=l2 2.6% n=2 .4% n=l .2% n=l 2% n=4 9% VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 (fully met) (partially met)(not met) n=418 n=O n=30 92.3% 0% -------n=44:l n=O 97.6% 0% -----------n=409 n=O n=40 90.3% 0% n=430 n=O n=20 94. 9% 0% Note. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria validatur's rating options arc identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453 indicatts Administration Repon criteria 6 6% n=7 1.5% 8.8% 4.4%

PAGE 139

..... N Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator ----I # Brief Description of Criteria 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) "'E4 .. ESa Benefits package for full-time staff Staff & child attendanc e kept Confidenti al st a ff personnel "' E5b files kept n==294 64.9% n=445 98. 2% n=425 93 .8% n== 146 32. 2% n=4 .9% n==222 4 .9% -------------------------.. E6a Written policies for Board membe rs & staff n==286 63.1% ----------------------------.. E6b Board informed about high quality, OAP n=337 74.4% n=9 2 .0% n=5 1.1% n==6 1.3% n=l 2% -n==l .2% n=2 .4% n=2 .4% n=388 n=O n==62 85 7% 0% 13. 7% -n=448 n=O 98.9% 0% n=420 n=O n=28 92. 7% 0% n=444 n=O 98.0% 0% --n=440 n=O 97 .1% 0% Adrninistra!Or Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria validawr's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equa l s 453 .. indicates Administration Report criteria n=2 .4% 6 .2% n=4 .9% n=7 1 .5%

PAGE 140

125

PAGE 141

,_. N 0\ -----------------------------------------------------------Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria CENTER RATINGS 2 VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 3 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) E6c E7 Minutes kept of Board meetings n=353 77 9% ------Fiscal remrds kept, short & n=412 93.2% long term n=4 .9% n=25 5.5% n=5 1.1% n=439 96.9% ------n=l .2% n=440 97. 11)6 n=O 0% n=O 0% ... --. ... ----------------------------- E8a Acrident/liahility insurance for children/staff n=43H 96. 7% n=8 1.8% n=2 n=443 .4% 97.8% -------. ------------------------ ERb Vehicle insurance maintained n::237 52.3% . . ---. ---.... . ........ --------... E9 Director uses community resources n = 43R 96. 7% n=l 2% n=9 2 .0% n=l n=444 .2% 98.0% n= I n = 431 .2% n=l7 95.1% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% Report criteria allow v11lidators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options arc identical to center's options The towl numher of centers C
PAGE 142

-N -....) ---------------------------------Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator ----# Brief Description of Criteria 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 ----------------(fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(nol met) Frequent program/family E I Oa communication n=435 96.0% --------------------------Staff plan and consult E I Ob together --------------------Regular staff meetings held to E I Oc plan, train n=422 93.2% n=434 95.8% ----------------------------Staff provided paid planning "EIOd time n=37R 83.4% n=l2 2 6% n=26 5.7% n= 15 3 3% n=64 14.1% --------------. --------------------------n=l n=427 n=O .2% n=21 94.3% 0% n=2 n=427 n=O 4% n=23 94.3% 0% n=O n=434 n=O 0% n=l6 95 .8% 0% ----------n==7 n=391 n=O 1.5% n=59 86.3% 0% 13. 0% Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options arc ideuticalto center's options The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria 4.7% 5.1% 3.5%

PAGE 143

,_. """ 00 Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) -----------Swff provided space away n=330 n=79 n=17 Ell from children daily 72.8% 17.4% 3 .8% -----------------Family/chiiU/staff information n=418 n=28 n=l El2 confidential 92.3% 6 .2 % 2% -------------- El3 Person of authority available n=443 n=3 n=l in director's absence 97.8% .7% 2% --------------------------Groups meet maximum size n=373 n=65 n=9 f I recommendations 82.3% 14. 3% 2 0% -----------------------------------VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 1 (fully met) (partially met)(not met) n=388 n=O n=60 85.7% 0% 13. 2% n=429 n=O n=IB 94 7% 0% n=440 n=O 97.1% 0% n=380 n=O n=68 83.9% 0% 15.0% Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, va1idator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 indicates Administration Report criteria 4.0% n=7 1.5%

PAGE 144

,_. N \0 --------------------------Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria Groups meet maximum staff F2a child ratio Substitutes provided to meet F2h ratios -----------Staff have primary F3a responsibility for specific groups of children 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) -n=387 85.4% n=355 78 4% n=419 92.5% ---n=S6 12.4% n=92 20.3% n=23 5.1% n=S 1.1% n=O 0% n=5 1.1% ----------------Continuity of classroom staff n=442 n=4 n=2 F3b maintained 97.6% .9% .4% .. ---------------------VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 1 (fully met) (partially met)(not met) n=407 n=42 89.8% --------------n=374 n=75 82.6% 16.6% n=418 n=31 92.3% n=436 n=l3 96.2% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% Note Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options arc identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria. 9.3% 6.8% 2.9%

PAGE 145

w 0 -------------------, Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 I (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) Same staff with .. F3c infant/toddlers majority of day F4 Child spends majority of day in groups which meet recommended ratios and group sizes .. 35 sq ft. Indoor play space/ Gla67 child (; Ia Indoor space not crowded n=l77 39.1% n=419 92.5% n=414 91.4% n=424 93.6% ------------------------------------------.. 75 sq ft. Outdoor play space/ Glb67 child n=435 96.0% n=5 1.1% n=26 5 7% n=28 6.2% 11=29 6.4% n=4 .9% --n=l n=429 2% n=IB 'J4.7% -------n=l n=422 2% n =26 93 .2% n=6 n=435 1 3% n=l3 96.0% n=O n=438 0% 96. 7% n=7 n=447 1.5% 98.7% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=l5 3 .3% n=O 0% Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other nitcria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 .. indicates Administration Report criteria. 4.0% 5.7% 2.9% n=O 0% n=l .2%

PAGE 146

w ..... ---------------------------------------------------------------------Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria CENTER RATINGS VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 I 3 2 I (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) -----------Glb Enough useable outdoor space n=433 n=l6 n=4 n=447 n=5 for each age 95.6% 3.5% .9% 98.7% 1.1% --G2 Space arranged for n=438 n=l5 n=O n=436 n=17 indiv/smaiVlarge groups 96.7% 3 3% 0% 96.2% 3.8% -------G3 Space facilitates variety of n=399 n=54 n=O n=384 n=69 activities 88.1% 11.9% 0% 84.8% 15.2% ------G4 Variety of age appropriate n=418 n=35 n=O n=407 n=46 materials/equip 92.3% 7.7% 0% 89.8% 10.2% ----------G5 Space provided for each n=428 n=23 n=2 n=438 n=l3 child's brlongings 94 5% 5.1% .4% 96.7 2.9% --G6 Private areas indoors & n=418 n=30 n=3 n=402 n=49 outdoors 92.3% 6 6% .7% 88.7% 10.8% ---------Note. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating opti.ons, 3 = "valid" and 1 = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options arc identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria. n=l 2.2% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0%

PAGE 147

-----------------------------------------------------....... w 1\.:) Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria ------G7 Soft clements available ------G8 Sound absorbing materials cut down noise -------G9a Variety of activities outdoors year-round Outdoor play area protected G9b by fences/barriers --------------Program meets all local .. HI requirements & state licensing regulations 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) --n=415 n=34 n=2 91.6% 7.5% .4% n=433 n=IB n=O 95.6% 4.0% 0% n=362 n=B3 n=4 79.9% 18.3% .9% n=418 n=25 n=6 92.3% 5 5% 1.3% n=438 n=6 n=l 96.7% 1.3% .2% VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 I (fully met) (partially met)(not met) n=395 n=56 87.2% 12.4% n=436 n=l5 96.2% 3 3% n=346 n=l03 76.4% 22 .7% n=414 n=35 91.4% 7 7% n=439 n=O 96.9% 0% Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid On all other criteria, validator's rating options arc identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 .. indicates Administration Report criteria. n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=9 2.0%

PAGE 148

...... w w Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 1 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) Staff health records include n=345 n=95 n=5 n=416 n = O H2a TB/physical 76.2% 21.0% 1.1% n=32 91.8% 0% ----------- H2b New staff serve probationary n=418 n=20 n=6 n=443 n=O period 92.3% 4.4% 1.3% 97.8% 0% -Child health records include n=436 n=ll n=l n=429 n=O H3 h e alth exam 96.2% 2.4% 2% n=l9 94.7% 0% ---------------Written policies limiting sick n=440 n=B n=l n=433 n=O A J-f4 children & staff 97.1% 1.8% .2% n=l6 95 6% 0% --------------------------- H5 Children released to n=432 n=l6 n=l n=442 n=O authorized parties only 95.4% 3.5% .2% 97. 6% 0% --------------------R e port criteria allow v a lidators only two rating options, 3 = "valid and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options arc identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria 7 1% n=5 1.1% 4 .2% 3.5% n=6 1.3%

PAGE 149

w ---Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria CENTER RATINGS VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 1 3 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) ----Vehicles n=230 n=l5 n=3 n=430 n=O 1-16 licenselVmaintained/rcstraint 50.8% 3.3% .7% n=l8 devices, 94.9% 0% --------H7a Children supervised by adults n=445 n=8 n=O n=423 n=30 at all times 98.2% 1.8% 0% 93.4% 6.6% Parents informed/field trip n=419 n=l4 n=3 n=441 n=O H7b procedures/policies 92 .5% 3.1% .7% 97.4% 0% Staff alert to children's health n=444 n=4 n=l n=436 n=O H8 98.0% 9% .2% n=l3 96 2% 0% ---- H9a Procedures known for n=447 n=l n=l n=444 n=O reporting abuse/neglect 98.7% .2% 2% 98.0% 0% Note. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria. 4.0% n=O 0% n=7 1.5% 2.9% n=5 1.1%

PAGE 150

,_ w Vl --------------Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria CENTER RATINGS VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 1 3 2 1 L ____ (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) a. H9b Suspected abuse/neglect n=443 n=2 n=l n=442 n=O reported 97.8% .4% 2% 97.6% 0% At least one staff w/ firstn=407 n=36 n=5 n=437 n=O a. HID aid/CPR in center 89.8% 7 9% 1.1% n= II 96.5% 0% -----, H II a Adequate first-aid supplies n=442 n=S n=l n=439 n=O 97.6% 1.1% .2% 96.9% available 0% ----Plan exits for medical n=443 n=5 n=l n=438 n=O a. H I I b emergency response 97.8% 1.1% 2% n=ll 96.7% 0% -------Hl2 Children dressed n=438 n=l5 n=O n=446 n=7 appropriately in & outside 96.7% 3.3% Oo/o 98.5% 1.5% Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options arc identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453. a. indicates Administration Report criteria n=6 1 3% 2.4% n=9 2.0% 2.4% n=O 0%

PAGE 151

-----------------------------, -w 0\ Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria CENTER RATINGS VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 I 3 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) ,. H 13a Facility cleaned daily, n=441 n=7 n=l n=445 n=O disinfected, trash removed 97.4% 1.5% .2% 98.2% 0% H 3 Staff & children keep areas n=450 n=3 n=O n=438 n=l5 I a36 I 99. 3% .7% 0% 96.7% 3.3% c ean -----.. H 3 b Infant equipment washed and n=IIS n=3 n=l n=446 n=O 1 disinfected twice per week 26.0% 7% .2% 98 5% 0% ---Hl3b3 Toilt>ting & diapering areas n=429 n=l6 n=O n=423 n=26 7 sanitary 94.7% 3 5% 0% 93 4% 5 7% -----Staff was hands before n=444 n=6 n=2 n=412 n=40 .. H 14a preparing & serving meals, 98. 0% 1.3% .4% 90.9% 8.8% feeding children Hl4b Running water dose to n=420 n=28 n=l n=409 n=41 diaperingltoileting 92 7% 6.2% .2% 90. 3% 9.1% Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options arc identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 .. indicates Administration Report criteria. n=3 .7% n=O 0% n=l .2% n=l .2% n=5 1.1% n=l 2%

PAGE 152

-w '-1 --------------Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria CENTER RATINGS VALIDA TOR RATINGS 3 2 1 3 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) --Hl5a BuildinglplaygrouncVequip n=314 n=l38 n=l n=288 n=l64 safe/dean/repaired 69.3% 30. 5% 2% 63 6% 36.2% HI Sh Infant/toddler toys too large n=l45 n=O n=O n=l39 n=4 to be swallowed 32 0% 0% 0% 30. 7% 9% Bedding washed weekly/used n=287 n=ll n=l n=440 n=O "Hl6a b h 'ld 63.4% 2.4% .2% 97.1% 0% y one c t Occupied cribs have sides n=70 n=O n=O I -IJ6b n=64 n=2 locked 15.5% 0% 0% 14.1% .4% ------------------------Toilets, water, sinks easily n=416 n=24 n=2 n=41 I n=29 II I 7a accessiblt/l'hildren 91.8% 5 3% .4% 90.7% 6.4% H17h Soap & disposable towels n=447 n=5 n=O n=448 n=5 provided 98.7% 1.1% 0% 98.9% 1.1% Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options arc identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 indicates Administration Report criteria. n=O 0% n=O 0% n=9 2.0% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0%

PAGE 153

-w 00 Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria CENTER RATINGS VALIDA TOR RATINGS 3 2 1 3 2 1 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) ---Hl7c Child wash hands/before n=39R n=54 n=O n=367 n=87 meals/after toileting 87 9% 11.9% 0% 79.9% 19% Hot water for child doesn't n=432 n=8 n=8 n=425 n=O Hl7 exceed 110 95.4% 1 8% 1.8% n=24 93.8% 0% ------Hl8a Areas well-lit, ventilated, n=431 n=l9 n=O n=445 n=5 temp. comfortable 95 .1% 4 2% 0% 98.2% 1.1% Hl8b Electrical outlets capped (NA n=411 n=17 n=2 n=403 n=27 for school-agers) 90.7% 3 8% .4% 89.0% 6.0% H18c Floor coverings attached or n=440 n=6 n=3 n=435 n=15 non-slip 97 .1% 1.3% .7% 96.0% 3.3% --Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options arc identical to center's options The total number of centers Cl{Uals 453. indicatrs Administration Report criteria n=5 1.1% 5.3% n=l .2% n=1 .2% n=1 .2%

PAGE 154

w \0 Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria CENTER RATINGS VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 I 3 2 I (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) ---------------Certification of nontoxic n=375 n=49 n=24 n=417 n=O HI Bd building materials 82.8% 10.8 5.3% n=31 92.1% 0% -------H 8 Stairwells well-lighted w/ n=229 n=O n=l n=447 n=O I e 50. 6% 0% .2% 98.7% 0% handrails -----Screens on windows which n=360 n=33 n=20 n=434 n=O H 18f open 79 5% 7 3% 4.4% n=15 95 8% 0% ----Cushioning under n=402 n=34 n=ll n=388 n=58 Hl9a slides/swings/climbers 88.7% 7 5% 2.4% 85 .7% 12. 0% ---Hl9b Playground equip/furniture n=417 n=27 n=2 n=421 n=26 securely anchored 92.1% 6.0% .4% 92 9% 5.7% --------Report criteria allow validators only two rating options 3 = uvalid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options arc identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 ... indicates Administration Report criteria 6 8% n=3 7% 3.3% n=2 .4% n=2 .4%

PAGE 155

,.$:>.. 0 Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria H20 a Chemicals/dangerous products inaccessible ------" H:lOb Medication administered under policies -Staff know primary & "H21a secondary evacuations --------------------" HZI b Wr i tten emergency procedures posted Staff familiar with emergency H22a procedures ---3 CENTER RATINGS 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) n=407 n=41 n=l 89 8% 9 .1% 2% n=405 n=3 n=7 89.4% .7% 1.5% n=385 n=62 n=l 85 .1% 13. 7% 2% n=446 n=2 n=l 98 5% .4% 2% n=412 n=36 n=l 90. 9 7 9 2% VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 (fully met) (partially met)(not met) n=371 n=78 81.9% 17.2% n=443 n=O 97.8% 0% n=400 n=O n=49 88 3% 0% 10 8% n=444 n=O 98 0 0% n=412 n=O n=37 90. 9% 0% Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, v a lidator's rating options are identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration criteria n=2 .4% n=6 1.3% n=5 1.1 8.2%

PAGE 156

-Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria CENTER RATINGS VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 I 3 2 I (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) ----Smoke detectors and fire n=439 n=B n=2 n=433 n=O H22b extinguishers provided and 96.9% 1.8% .4% n=l6 periodically checked 95.6% 0% Emergency telephone n=447 n=O n=l n=437 n=O H22c numbers posted by telephones 98 .7% 0% .2% n=l2 96.5% 0% --Meals/snacks meet child's n=407 n=IB n=5 n=431 n=O II nutritional req 89 8% 4.0% 1.1% n=l4 95 .1% 0% ----Written menus p(lsted for n=365 n=l7 n=l9 n=405 n=O 12a parents 80. 6% 3. 8% 4.2% n=41 89.4% 0% Note. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options arc identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria. 3 5% 2 6% 3.1% 9.1%

PAGE 157

N -----Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) Infant/toddler parents n=l42 n=9 n=O .. 12b provided feeding times & 31.3% 2 0% 0% consumption information ------Foods of child's cultural n=350 n=77 n=S .. 13 background served 77.3% 17. 0% 1.1% --------------Mealtime n=401 n=45 n=l Al3,42 pleasant/sociaVIeaming exper. 88.5% 9 9% 2% --------------Parents educated on foods to n=l66 n=9 n=l .. 14 be brought in 36.6% 2.0% 2% ----------------------Program mmplies with legal n=360 n=3 n=6 .. 15 requirements 79.5% .7% 1.3% ---VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 I (fully met) (partially met)(not met) n=432 n=O n=l4 95.4% 0% n=434 n=O n=ll 95 8% 0% n=376 n=73 83.0% 16.1% n=438 n=O 96. 7% 0% n=429 n=O n=IS 94 7% 0% Note Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid and I = "not valid On all other criteria, validatur's rating options arc identical to center s options The total number of centers equals 453 .. indicates Administration Report criteria. 3 .1% 2.4% n=O 0% n=6 1 3% 3.3%

PAGE 158

-w ------------------------------Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by V alidator # Brief Description of Criteria CENTER RATINGS VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 l 3 2 l (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) -------Staff evaluated at least n=418 n=27 n=l n=427 n=O J Ia annually by supervisor 92. 3% 6.0% 2% n=l9 94.3% 0% -----Written staff evaluation n=428 n=l4 n=4 n=426 n=O ... fib results confidential 94 5% 3 .1% .9% nc20 94.0% 0% Staff evaluations include n=432 n=l I n=3 n=424 n=O "Jlc classroom observation 95.4% 2.4% .7% n=22 93.6% 0% ------------Staff informed of evaluation n=420 n=26 n=l n=418 n=O I ld criteria in advance 92.7% 5 7% .2% n=29 92.3% 0% -------Note. Administrator Report critt>ria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria 4.2% 4.4% 4 9% 6.4%

PAGE 159

Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria 3 CENTER RATINGS 2 VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 I (fully met) (partially met) (not met) (fully met) (partially met)(not met) Staff may evaluate own "' II e performance ... I If Training plan generated from evaluation n=414 91.4% n=381 84.1% n=31 6 .H% n=62 13. 7% ---------------------------------... J2a J:lb Total school evaluation occurs once/year Evaluation reviews compensation, benefits, and turnover; plan developed to improve n=356 78.6% n=BO 17.7% -----n=343 75.7% n=75 16 6% n=2 n=408 .4% n=39 90.1% n=3 n=387 .7% n=60 85.4% 13. 2% n=4 n=320 .9% n=l23 70.6% 27. 2% n=l6 n=359 3.5% n=83 79 2% 18.3% n=O 0% n=O 0% n=O 0% -n=O 0% Note Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 ... indicates Administration Report criteria 8.6%

PAGE 160

.-VI r --Table 4.1 Criteria Rating Frequencies and Percentages by Center and by Validator # Brief Description of Criteria Written description of child s A 13 individual development used for planning/communicating ----3 CENTER RATINGS 2 (fully met) (partially met) (not met) n=3BI n=61 84 .1% 13. 5% VALIDATOR RATINGS 3 2 (fully met) (partially met)(not met) n=l n=404 n=O 2% n=39 89. 2% 0% Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid. On all other criteria, validator's rating options ar e identical to c e nter's options The total number of centers equals 453. A indicat e s Administration Report criteria. 8.6%

PAGE 161

, I : I : I :I I I : I I In summary, the overall trend in this table is an easily recognizable pattern of "3--fully met" ratings by centers and by validators. This is corroborated by the 73% accreditation rate of programs in the primary data sample. Also apparent is the consistency with which centers rate themselves higher than validators. The item-level discussion beginning with Table 4.3 provides more detail on the percentage of agreement between centers and validators. The next presentation, Table 4.2, displays a summary of the center/validator's combined ratings on each item. The center has the option of rating all I 77 criteria as "3--fully met," "2--partially met," or "1-not met." The number and percentages of time that each combination of ratings occurred is exhibited. Centers and validators have different rating options in the Classroom Observation booklet and in the Administrator's I Report document. V alidators have the same option on the 69 classroom 1 criteria. However, on the 108 criteria in the Administrator's Repon, I I validator's have two options. These are valid (entered as "3") and non1 valid (entered as .. 1 "). The ratio displays the center rating first, then the I validator rating. : i i I 146

PAGE 162

,_. of;. '-l Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/1 1/3 1/2 L.. AI Staff interact frequently with n=422 n=23 n=7 n=l children 93.2% 5 .1% 1.5% .2% ---------------Staff are available & responsive n=420 n=23 n=S n=2 A2 92.7% 5.1% 1 .8% .4% ---A3a Spe e ch is friendly courteous n=411 n=23 n=8 n=2 90. 7% 5.1% 3.3% .9% ----------A3b Staff encourage language in n=423 n=21 n=9 n=O all ages 93.4% 4.6% 2.0% 0% -----Staff treat children & cultures n=415 n=22 n=9 n=6 A4a equally 91.8% 4 9% 2.0% 1.3% ----------------ratio, #/#, represents the> center's rating first, then the validator's rating Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453 indicates Administration Report criteria 1/1

PAGE 163

00 Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/1 l/3 1/2 ----A4h Staff provide both sexes equal n=429 n=l2 n=ll n=l opportunities 94. 7% 2 6% 2.4% .2% ----------Staff encourage independence n=429 n=16 n=B n=O AS when ready 94.7% 3 5% 1.8% .0% ----------Staff use positive guidance n=377 n=39 n=31 n=6 A6a approaches 83.2% 8.6% 6.8% 1.3% -------Staff do not use negative n=433 n=7 n=l2 n=l A6b punishments 95.6% 1.5% 2.6% .2% ---------Overall sound is pleasant n=425 n=l3 n=l2 n=2 A7 94.0% 2.9% 2.7% .4% ------------The ratio, #/#, represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria. 1/1

PAGE 164

..... \0 Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3{3 3/2 3/l 2/3 2/2 2/l l/3 l/2 --Children relaxed, happy, n=446 n=6 n=l n=O ARa involved 98 5% 1 3% 2% .0% -------ASh Staff help in dealing with anger, n=403 n=35 n=l3 n=l sadness 89 2% 7 7% 2 .9% .2% -----------Staff encourage prosocial n=417 n=21 n=l2 n=2 A9 behaviors 92 .1% 4 6% 2 6% .7% -----------------Staff expectations are dev. n=433 n=l2 n=7 n=l AIO appropriate 95 6% 2 6% 1.5% .2% ---Staff encourage talking about n=410 n=27 n=l2 n=2 All feelings, ideas 90.9% 6.0% 2 .7% .4% Note. The ratio, #/#, represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria 1/1

PAGE 165

VI 0 .... . -.... -...... . ... -. --. --Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 212 2/1 l/3 1/2 --Written philosophy & goals n=443 n=3 Bl 99.3% .7% ------------Written curriculum plans n=407 n=l5 B2a 91.3% n=IS 3.4% n=9 3.4% 2 % ---Environment & activities reflect n=435 n=B n=l n=l B2b philosophy 97 8% 1.8% .2% .2% ------Modifications for children w/ n=381 n=B n=36 n=5 n=3 B3a46 special needs 88.0% 1.8% 8 .3% 1.2% .7% -------------------Classroom mods for children w/ n=275 n=26 n=44 n=SO n=S n=O B3a special needs 68. 8% 6.5% II.% 12. 5% 1.3% .0% ratio, #/#,represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and 1 = "not valid On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453 indicates Administration Report criteria. 1/1 n=O .0%

PAGE 166

-VI -----------------------------------Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/l 2/3 2/2 2/l 1/3 1/2 --Professional referrals made n=430 n=3 n=B n=l "B3b 97 .3% .7% 1.8% .2% ---------------Staff aware of sprcial needs & n=310 n=48 n=48 n=l6 n=3 .. B3c trainld on I EP 72.9% 11.3% I 1.3% 3.8% .7% ------------------- B3d Special child's parents n=247 n=I07 n=40 n=29 n=4 involvecVneeds met 57.8% 25.1% 9.4% 6.8% .9% All ages play outdoors daily n=416 n=8 n=16 n=3 n=5 .. 4a47 92 9% 1.8% 3.6% 7% 1.1% B4a All ages play outdoors daily n=416 n=8 n=l6 n=5 n=5 n=O 92.4% 1 8% 3 6% 1.1% 1.1% 0% -------------------------Note. The ratio,#/#, represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 .. indicates Administration Report criteria. 1/1 n=O .0% n=O .0% n=O .0%

PAGE 167

,_. V1 N Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/1 1/3 1/2 ------- B4b47 Quiel/active play scheduled n=446 n=2 n=O n=l 99.3% .4% .0% .2% -84b Quiel/active play scheduled n=439 n=6 n=7 n=O 97.1% 1 .3% 1.5% .0% ------------Option of indiv, large small n=427 n=9 n=7 n=3 B4c48 groups 95.7% 2 .0% 1.6% .7% --------84c Option of lndiv, large, small n=421 n=20 n=9 n=l groups 93 .3% 4 4% 2 .0% .2% ------------Balance of large/small muscle n=435 n=5 n=2 n=4 84d48 97.5% 1.1% .4% .9% -------------------------ratio, #/#,represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria. l/1

PAGE 168

-VI UJ Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria L_ ____________ 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/1 1/3 1/2 B4d Balance of large/small muscle n=434 n=IO n=6 n=l 96. 2% 2.2% 1 3% .2% ----------. ----------------Balance of child-, staff-initiated n=425 n=IO n=IO n=l B4c48 95 3% 2 2% 2.2% .2% ---------------------Balance of child-, staff-initiated n-422 n-20 n=7 n-o B4c 94.0% 4 5% 1.6% 0% -----------Multiracial, nonsexist materials n=291 n=70 n=51 n=40 B5a 64.4% 15.5% 11.3% 8.8% -----------------DAP mattrials and equip, n=60 n=7 BSb Infants 89.6% 10 4% Note The ratio, #/#,represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria. 1/1

PAGE 169

..-VI Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/1 1/3 1/2 --DAP materials and equip, n=88 n=17 n=4 n=4 85c Toddlers 77 9% 15. 0% 3 5% 3 5% -------B5d DAP materials and equip, n=260 n=28 n=7 n=4 Preschoolers 87.0% 9.4% 2 3% 1.3% --DAP mat erials and equip, n=41 n=6 n=7 n=3 B5e School-agers 71.9% 10. 5% 12. 3% 5 3% -----DAI' use of media n=269 n=15 n=12 n=12 n=3 n=8 B6 86 5% 4 8% 3 9% 3 9% 1 0% .0% -Foster positive self concept n=410 n=21 n=IB n=2 B7a 90. 9% 4 7% 4.0% .4% ------NruL,. The ratio,#/#, represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = u valid and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator s rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria 1/1

PAGE 170

-V1 V1 Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 212 2/1 l/3 1/2 Develop social skills n=428 n=l2 n=ll n=l B7b 94.7% 2.7% 2.4% .2% Encourage thinking, reasoning. n=396 n=24 n=22 n=9 n=O n=l B7c questioning 87 6% 5.3% 4 9% 2 0% .0% 2% ------B7d Encourage languagf'/literacy n=400 n=28 n=l7 n=8 development 88.3% 6 2% 3.8% 1.8% ---Enhance physic.:al development n=404 n=26 n=l9 n=4 B7c 89 2% 5 7% 4 2% 9% ---------------Enrourage health, safety, n=39B n=24 n=22 n=7 B7h nutrition BR.2% 5.3% 4 9% 1.6% ---------ratio, #/#,represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria Ill ----

PAGE 171

l.n 0\ Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 313 312 311 213 212 211 113 112 -------Encourage creative expression n=365 n=49 n=30 n=9 B7g 80.6% 10.6% 6 6% 2.0% ------------B7h Respect cultural diversity n=283 n=61 n=54 n=53 n=l n=l 62.5% 13.5% 11.9% 11.7% .2% 2% --------------Children have time to select own n=417 n=22 n=9 n=5 B activities 92 .1% 4 .9% 2 0% 1.1% --------------B9 Smooth, unregimented n=369 n=35 n=34 n =l3 transitions 81.8% 7.8% 7.5% 2.9% -----------Staff are flexible n=441 n=lO n=l n=O n=l n=O BIO 97.4% 2 2% 2% 0% 2% .0% ----ratio,#/#, represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid and I = "not valid ." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 indicates Administration Report criteria Ill

PAGE 172

-VI ....... Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/1 1/3 1/2 Routines tasks arc relaxed and n=422 n=20 n=6 n=2 Bll individual 93 8% 4.4% 1.3% .4% ----Written philosophy available to n=435 n=8 n=l n=4 Cia parents 97 .1% I .R% .2% .9% --- Clb Written operating policies & n=381 n=46 n=9 n=S n=2 nutritional plans 85 4% 10 3% 2.0% 1.1% .4% --------Orientation to center for parents n=413 n=23 n=S n=4 C2 and children 92.2% 5 .1% 1.8% .9% C3a Staff and parents communicate n=371 n=34 n=32 n=d I about child rearing 82.8% 7.6% 7 .1% 2.5% ---------ratio, #/#,represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 ="valid" and I ="not valid On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria. 1/1 n=3 .7%

PAGE 173

Vl 00 Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/1 113 1/2 ---Staff give parents ideas for n=337 n=49 n=48 n=l3 C3b development and learning 75 4% 11.0% 10.7% 2 9% ------Parents arc welcome visitors at n=441 n=2 n=l n=4 .. C4a all times 98.4% .4% 2% 9% --------.. C4b Parents and other family n=427 n=ll n=7 n=4 involvement encouraged 95 .1% 2.4% 1.6% .9% -----.. C5a Day-to-day happenings shared n=405 n=IB n=20 n=6 verbally/in writing 90.2% 4.0% 4.5% 1.3% ------- C5b Changes in physicaVcmotional n=435 n=7 n=l n=S state are reported 97 .1% 1.6% .2% 1.1% ---------ratio,#/#, represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid On all other criteria, validators rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 .. indicates Administration Report criteria 1/1 ----

PAGE 174

lll \0 Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/1 1/3 1/2 -Conferences hdd at least once/ n=384 n=23 n=28 n=IO C6 year, more if needed 86. 3% 5.2% 6.3% 2 2% C7 Parents informed regularly using n=438 n=3 n=2 n=2 manv avenues 98.4% .7% .4% .4% ------Communication ensures smooth n=397 n=l9 n=l2 n=5 C8a daily transitions 91.7% 4 4% 2 8% 1.2% --------Staff and parent communication n=283 n=IOI n=37 n=24 n=l C8b ensures continuity from one year 63 5% 22.6% 8.3% 5.4% .2% to next ----------------------Staff working with children arc n=421 n=3 n=21 n=l Dla over I 8 94 4% .7% 4.7% .2% -----------ratio, #/#,represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow valida10rs only two rating options, 3 = valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options arc identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria 1/1 n=O .0%

PAGE 175

....... 0\ 0 Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/1 1/3 1/2 --Teacher assists. are HS grads, n=36.6 n=9 n=45 n=3 n=3 Dlb have prof. dev. 85 9% 2.1% 10. 6% .7% .7% ----------------------Teachers have CDA, or M n=268 n=26 n=l23 n=ll n= 10 Die degree in ECPJCD 60.9% 5.9% 28.0% 2 5% 2.3% -------------School-age teachers trained in n=95 n=IO n=l3 n=4 n=2 Did CD, ECE, Recre 76.6% 8 .1% 10.5% 3 2% 1.6% Ole Training plans developed n=357 n=IO n=36 n=5 n=2 individuals/program 87.1% 2.4% 8 8% 1.2% .5% ----Director trained/experienced in n=410 n=l4 n=IS n=2 n=2 D2a ECPJHR/Fin 91.7% 3.1% 4.0% .4% .4% ratio, #/#,represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid ." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 indicates Administration Report criteria 1/1 n=O .0% n=2 .5% n=O .0% n=O .0% n=l .2%

PAGE 176

-0\ Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/1 1/3 1/2 -------------ECS w/3yrs exp&/or MS directs n=345 n=20 n=57 n=5 n=15 D2b program 77.4% 4.5% 12. 8% 1.1% 3.4% -----New staff oriented to program n=364 n=34 n=38 n=IO n=l ... 1.)3 81.4% 7.6% 8.5% 2.2% .2% -------- D4a Regular training opportunities n=413 n=l6 n=16 n=2 n=2 provided 92.0% 3.6% 3 6% .4% .4% Specific training topics n=390 n=21 n=27 n=IO n=l D4b addressed 86.9% 4 7% 6.0% 2 2% 2% -Accurate and current staff n=406 n=21 n=20 n=l ... 1)5 qualifications kept 90.6% 4 7% 4 5% .2% -----------ratio, #/#,represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options. 3 = "valid" and I = not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 "' indicatrs Administration Report criteria. 1/1 n=4 .9% n=O .0% n=O 0% n=O .0%

PAGE 177

-0\ N Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/1 113 1/2 -----Annual assessment of program n=384 n=O n=20 n=33 n=O n=9 n=O n=l 4 El conducted 85 7% .0% 4.5% 7 4% 0% 2 0% .0% 2% ----------4 E2 Written operating policies and n==439 n=3 n=2 n=4 n=l n=O procedures 97 8% .7% .4% 9% .2v .0% Written personnd policies n=361 n=26 n=46 n=l4 n=l n=O E3a 80. 6% 5 8% 10.3% 3 .1% 2% .0% ----------------4 E3b Nondiscriminatory hiring n=416 n=l7 n=IO n=2 n=3 n=l practices 92 7% 3.6% 2 2% .4% 7% 2% -----------------Benefits package for full-time n=255 n=39 n=l24 n=22 n=S n=l 4 E4 staff 57.2% 8.7% 27 8% 4 9% 1.1% 2% ratio, #/#,represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options arc identical to center s options. The total number of centers equals 453 4 indicates Administration Report criteria. l/1 n=l .2%

PAGE 178

....... 0\ w -Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/l 2/3 2/2 2/l l/3 1/2 -----Staff & child attendance kept n=443 n=2 n=4 n=O n=l n=O A ESa 98.4% .4% .9% 0% .2% .0% ------Confidential staff personnel files n=401 n=24 n=l8 n=4 n=l n=O A ESb kept 89. 5% 5 4% 4.0% 9% .2% .0% -----Written polici e s for Board n=284 n=2 n=7 n=2 n=l n=O ... E6a members & staff 95 9% 7% 2.4% .7% .3% 0% --------Board informed about high n=330 n=7 n=5 n=O n=l n=O A E6b quality, DAP 96. 2% 2.0% 1.5% .0% .3% 0% ---Minutes kept of Board meetings n=347 n=6 n=4 n=O n=4 n=l A E6c 95.9% 1.7% 1.1% .0% 1.1% .3% -------.t::!..u1t.._ The ratio, #/#, represents the center's rating first then the validator's rating Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid On all other criteria, validator's rating options arc identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453 A indkates Administration Report criteria 1/1

PAGE 179

-0\ Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/1 1/3 1/2 -Fiscal records kept, short & long n=415 n=7 n=24 n=l n=l n=O .. E.7 term 92 6% 1.6% 5.4% .2% .2% 0% --------Accident/liability insurance for n=434 n=4 n=7 n=l n=2 n=O .. E8a childreiV'staff 96. 9% 9% 1 6% 2% .4% .0% --------Vehicle insurance maintained n=234 n::;3 n=l n=O n=l n=O .. EBb 97. 9% 1 3% .4% .0% .4% .0% ------.. E.9 Director uses community n=422 n=l6 n=8 n=l n=l n=O resources 94.2% 3 6% 1 8% 2% .2% 0% "EIOa Frequent program/family n=420 n=IS n=6 n=6 n=O n=l communication 93 8% 3 3% 1 3% 1.3% .0% .2% -----------Note The ratio, #/#, represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453 .. indicates Administration Report criteria. 1/1

PAGE 180

-0\ IJl Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/l 2/3 2/2 2/l l/3 1/2 EIOh Staff plan and consult together n=405 n=O n=l7 n=22 n=O n=4 n=O n=l 90. 0% .0% 3 8% 4 9% .0% 9% .0% .2% -------- EIOc Regular staff meetings held to n=419 n=IS n=14 n=l plan, train 93 3% 3.3% 3.1% .2% ------------ EIOd Staff provided paid planning n=334 n=44 n=49 n=IS n=7 n=O time 74.4% 9.8% 10 9% 3.3% 1.6% .0% -----Staff provided space away from n=287 n=43 n=64 n=l5 n=IS n=2 ElI children daily 67.4% 10.1% 15.0% 3.5% 3.5% .5% ----------- E12 Family/child/staff information n=406 n=l2 n=22 n=6 n=l n=O confidential 90. 8% 2 7% 4.9% 1.3% 2% 0% -------------ratio, #/#, represems the center's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria. 1/l n=l 2%

PAGE 181

-0\ 0\ Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 312 3/l 2/3 2/2 2/l l/3 l/2 --------Person of authority available in n=437 n=6 n=2 n=l n=l n=O A El3 director's absence 97.8% 1 3% .4% .2% .2% .0% A Fl Groups meet maximum size n::::373 n::::37 n=40 n=25 n=4 recommendations 75 2% 8 3% 8.9% 5.6% .9% -------A F2a Groups meet maximum staffn=370 n::::l7 n=35 n::::2l n=l child ratio 82 6 3.8 7 .8 4.7 .2 Substitutes provided to meet n=304 n=51 n=68 n=24 A F2b ratios 68 0% 11.4% 15. 2% 5.4% --------------A F3a Staff have primary responsibility n::::397 n=22 n:::: 17 n=6 n=2 for specific groups of children 88.8% 4 .9% 3 .8% 1.3% 4% ---------ratio,#/#, represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator s rating options are identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453. A indicates Administration Report criteria. l/1 n::::5 1.1% n=4 .9 n=3 .7%

PAGE 182

-0\ '-1 Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/l 2/3 2/2 2/1 1/3 1/2 Indoor space not crowded n=415 n=9 n=23 n=6 Gla 91.6% 2 0% 5 .1% 1.3% 75 sq. ft. Outdoor play space/ n=435 n=O n=4 n=O n=6 ... Glb67 child 97.5% .0% .9% .0% 1.3% ------Glb Enough useable outdoor space n=431 n=l n=l n=l2 n=4 n=O n=4 n=O for each age 95 .1% 2% .2% 2 6% 9% .0% 9% .0% ----Space arranged for n=423 n=IS n=l3 n=2 G2 indiv/smalVIarge groups 93.4% 3 .3% 2.9% .4% ----Space facilitates variety of n=353 n=46 n=31 n=23 G3 activities 77.9% 10 .2% 6 8% 5.1% Note. The ratio, #/#,represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 ... indicates Administration Report criteria 1/1 n=l .2% n=O .0%

PAGE 183

0\ 00 --Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/1 l/3 1/2 G4 Variety of age appropriate n=381 n=37 n=26 n=9 materials/equip 84 .1% 8 2% 5 7% 2.0% Space provided for each child's n=422 n=6 n=l6 n=7 GS belongings 93 6% 1.3% 3.5% 1.6% ---------------Private areas indoors & outdoors n=382 n=36 n=IS n=l2 n=2 n=l G6 84 7% 8.0% 4.0% 2 7% .4% 2% -------Soft clements available n=367 n=48 n=27 n=7 n=l n=l G7 81.4% 10. 6% 6.0% 1.6% .2% .2% -------Sound absorbing materials cut n=421 n=l2 n=l5 n=3 G8 down noise 93.3% 2 7% 3 3% 7% -------N.2.tt.., The ratio, #/#,represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria Ill

PAGE 184

0\ "' Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating ---# Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/l l/3 1/2 ----G9a Variety of activities outdoors n=302 n=60 n=41 n=42 n=3 n=l year-round 67 3% 13.4% 9.1% 9.4% .7% .2% --G9b Outdoor play area protected by n=393 n=24 n=IS n=IO n=S n=l fences/barriers 87.7% 5.4% 3.3% 2 2% 1.1% 2% ---Program meets all local n=429 n=9 n=6 n=O n=l HI requirements & state licensing 96. 4% 2.0% 1.3% .0% .2% regulations ----Staff health records include n=324 n=21 n=85 n=IO n=4 H2a TB/physical 72.896 4 7% 19.1% 2 2% .9% -----New staff serve probationary n=416 n=2 n=l8 n = 2 n=5 H2b period 93 7% 5% 4.1% .5% 1.1% ---------Note The ratio,#/#, represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = valid and I ="not valid On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center s options The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria 1/1 n=O .0% n=l 2% n=l 2%

PAGE 185

..... ......... 0 Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating --# Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/1 1/3 1/2 ----Child health records include n=418 n=18 n=IO n=l n=l H3 health exam 93.3% 4.0% 2.2% .2% .2% -----------Written policies limiting sick n=428 n=l2 n=4 n=4 H4 children & staff 95.5% 2.7% .9% .9% -----------------Children released to authorized n=427 n=4 n=l4 n=2 n=l .. 115 parties only 95.3% 9% 3.1% .4% 2% ---------Vehicles n=214 n=l6 n=l3 n=2 n=2 H6 liccnse
PAGE 188

""-) w ---Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating ---# Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 312 3/1 2/3 212 2/1 1/3 1/2 -------------A Hl3b Infant equipment washed and n=117 n=l n=3 n=O disinfected twice per week 96.7% .8% 2.5% 0% --------------Hl3b37 Toileting & diapering areas n=405 n=23 n=I3 n=3 sanitary 91. 2% 5.2% 2 9% 7% ---------------------------Staff wash hands before n=404 8n=40 n=6 n=O n=2 0 Hl4a preparing & serving meals, 89.4% 8.8% 1.3% .0% .4% .0% feeding children -------------------Running water close to 389 30 17 I I I 0 Hl4b diaperingltoileting 86. 8% 6 7% 3.8% 2 5% 2% 0% -----------------8uildinglplaygroundlequip n=235 n=7B n=53 n=B5 n=O HI Sa safe/dean/repaired 52 0% 17. 3% 11.7% 18. 8% .0% ------. ------------ratio ,#/#, represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options The total numb e r of centers equals 453 indicates Administration Report criteria 1/1 n=l 2%

PAGE 189

--......) Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/1 1/3 1/2 -----HISb Infant/toddler toys too large to n=l34 n=3 n=2 n=l be swallowed 95 7% 2.1% 1.4% 7% -------... Hl6a Bedding washed weekly/used by n=279 n=B n=IO n=l n=l one child 93.3% 2.7% 3.3% 1.3% .3% -----------Hl6b Occupied cribs have sides locked n=63 n=2 98 2% 7% ------------Toilets, water, sink s easily n=393 n=l8 n=l4 n=9 n=O n=2 Hl7a accessible/children 90.1% 4.1% 3 2% 2 .1% 0% .5% ----Hl7b Soap & disposable towels n=444 n=3 n=3 n=2 provid e d 98. 2% 7% .7% 4% -------ratio, #/#,represents the cemer's rating first, then the validator's rating Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options. 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are ide ntical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 ... indicates Administration Report criteria. 1/1 n=O .0%

PAGE 190

...... -.....! Vl Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating --------------# Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/l 2/3 2/2 2/l l/3 1/2 Child wash hands/before n=411 n=21 n=6 n=2 n=7 Hl7c meals/after toileting 91.7% 4.7% 1 3% .4% 1.6% ----------Hot water for child doesn't n=336 n=62 n=30 n=24 Hl7 exceed 110 o 74 3% 13. 7% 6 6% 5.3% -----------------Areas well-lit, ventilated, temp n=427 n=4 n=l8 n=l n=2 Hl8a comfortable 94 9% 9% 4 0% .2% 5% Electrical outlets capped (NA for n=384 n=24 n=l4 n=3 n=2 Hl8b school-agers) 89.9% 5.6% 3.3% .7% .5% ------Floor coverings attached or non n=428 n=12 n=3 n=3 n=3 n=O HIRe slip 95 3% 2 7% .7% .7% .7% 0% ----------------ratio, #/#, represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria validator's rating options are identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria. l/1 n=l 2% n=O .0% n= .0% 0

PAGE 191

-.....) 0\ --Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating -----# Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/l 2/3 2/2 2/l l/3 1/2 ---Certification of nontoxic n=355 n=20 n=43 n=6 n=18 ... Hl8d building materials 79.4% 4 5% 9.6% 1 3% 4.0% -------------------Stainvells well-lighted w/ n=226 n=3 n=l ... H18e handrails 98 3% 1 3% .4% -----------------... HJRf Screens on windows which open n=349 n=11 n=30 n=3 n=18 84.7 2.7% 7.3% 7% 4 4% .. -----------------Cushioning under n=355 n=45 n=23 n=ll n=9 n=2 H19a slides/s\vings/climbers 79.8% 10 .1% 5 .2% 2.5% 2.0% .4% --------------------Playground equip/furniture n=399 n=17 n=20 n=7 n=O n=2 Hl9b securely anchored 89 7% 3.8% 4.5% 1.6% 0% .4% Note. The ratio,#/#, represents the ctnter's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid ." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 ... indicates Administration Report criteria 1/1 n=5 1.1% n=O 0% n=1 2%

PAGE 192

-""-1 ""-1 ----------------------Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating -----# Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/1 1/3 1/2 Chemicals/dangerous products n=346 n=61 n=24 n=17 n=l n=O H20a inaccessible 77.1% 13. 6% 5.3% 3.8% .2% .0% ----Medication administered under n=399 n=O n=6 n=3 n=O n=O n=6 n=l H20b policies 96.1% 0% 1.4% 7% 0% .0% 1.4% .2% ---------------- H:lla Staff know primary & secondary n=348 n=37 n=SO n=l2 n=l evacuations 77.7% 8.3% 11.2% 2 7% .2% Writlen emergency procedur e s n=441 n = 5 n = 2 n=O n=l H21b posted 98 2% 1.1% .4% .0% 2% --------------- H22a Staff familiar with emergency n=380 n=32 n=31 n=S n=l procedures 84 .6% 7.1% 6.9% 1.1% .2% ------------------ratio, #/#,represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow validarors only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453 indicates Administration Report criteria. 1/1 n=O .0% n=O 0% n=O .0% n=O 0%

PAGE 193

-'l 00 ------------------------------------------------------------------. Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating -----------------# Brief Description of Criteria 313 312 3/1 213 2/2 2/1 1/3 1/2 Smoke detectors and lire n=425 n=l4 n=7 n=l n=l H22b extinguishers provided and 94 7% 3.1% 1.6% .2% .2% periodically checked ------------------- H22c Emergency telephone numbers n=435 n=l2 n=l posted by telephones 97.1% 2.7% .2% ----------Meals/snacks meet child's n=396 n=O n=ll n=IS n=O n=3 n=4 n=l II nutritional req. 92 .1% 0% 2.6% 3.5% .0% 7 .9% .2% ------Written menus posted for n=337 n=28 n=l3 n=4 n=IO 12a parents 84 0% 7.0% 3.2% 1.0% 2.5% -----------------------ratio, #/#, represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to t enter's options The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria. 1/1 n=l 2% n=O .0% n=O .0% n=9 2.2%

PAGE 194

-"' ..0 Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating ------------# Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/1 1/3 l/2 -----Infant/toddler parents provided n=l30 n=l2 n=7 n=2 .. 12b feeding times & consumption 86.1% 7 .9% 4.6% 1.3% information --------------------Foods of child's cultural n=341 n=9 n=75 n=2 n=S .. 13 background served 78.9% 2.1% 17 4% .5% 1 .2% -------Mealtime pleasant/sociaVIearning n=349 n=52 n=24 n=21 n=l n=O .. 13.42 ex per 78.1% 11. 6% 5.4% 4.7% .2% .0% ---------------------Parents educated on foods to be n= 161 n=5 n=9 n=O n=1 .. 14 brought in 91.5% 2.8% 5 .1% .0% .6% ---Program complies with legal n=347 n=l3 n=2 n=l n=5 .. 15 nquirements 94.0% 3.5% .5% .3% 1.4% --------------ratio, #/#, represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453 .. indicates Administration Report criteria. 1/1 ----n=O .0% n=O .0% n=l .3%

PAGE 195

-00 0 Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating # Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/1 l/3 1/2 ----Staff evaluated at least annually n=406 n=I2 n=20 n=7 n=l J I a by supervisor 91.0% 2 7% 4.5% 1.6% .2% -------------Written staff evaluation results n=414 n=l4 n=IO n=4 n=2 confidential 92.8% 3.1% 2.2% .9% .4% ---------Staff evaluations include n=414 n=IB n=9 n=2 n=l J 1<: classroom observation 92 8% 4.0% 2.0% .4% 2% ------------Staff informed of evaluation n=394 n=26 n=23 n=3 n=l J Id criteria in advance 88 .1% 5.8% 5 .1% .7% .2% ---------Staff may evaluate own n=381 n=33 n=26 n=5 n=l J le performance 85.2% 7.4% 5 .8% 1.1% 2% ---Note The ratio,#/#, represents the center's rating first, then the validator's rating Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 = "valid" and I = "not valid On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options. The total number of centers equals 453. indicates Administration Report criteria. 1/1 n=O .0% n=2 .4% n=2 .4% n=O 0% n=l .2%

PAGE 196

-00 ----------Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Occurrences for Each Possible Combination of Center and Validator Rating ----# Brief Description of Criteria 3/3 3/2 3/1 2/3 2/2 2/1 1/3 1/2 --------Training plan generated from n=335 n=46 n=49 n=l3 n=2 I If evaluation 75.1% 10.3% 11.0% 2.9% .4% ---------Total school evaluation occurs n=252 n= 104 n=62 n=l8 n=3 .. J2a once/year 57 3% 23.6% 14.1% 4 .1% 7% -----------------Evaluation reviews n=287 n=56 n=S4 n=21 n=IO J2b compensation, benefits, and 66.1% 12.9% 12.4% 4 8% 2 3% turnover; plan developed to improve -----------------Written description of child's n=362 n=l9 n=41 n=20 n=l 13 individual development used 81.7% 4 3% 9.3% 4.5% .2% for planning/communicating --.. ----------------------ratio,#/#, rcpresl'niS the center's rating first, then the validator's rating. Administrator Report criteria allow validators only two rating options, 3 ="valid" and I = "not valid." On all other criteria, validator's rating options are identical to center's options The total number of centers equals 453 indicates Administration Report criteria 1/1 n=l .2% n=l 2% n=6 1.4% n=O .0%

PAGE 197

Table 4.2 provides a comprehensive look at the combinations of the item-level center/validator ratings. Eighty-two percent of the criteria received ratings of 3/3, or fully met, by both centers and validators. Only 16% of the criteria were rated fully met, 3/3, less than 80% of the time and only 4 criteria, or 2%, were rated fully met less than 60% of the time. Other interesting results from Table 4.2 include: 1. Component A, Interactions Among Staff and Children, only "3 met" and "2 -partially met" ratings were recorded. There were no "1 -not met" ratings given by either centers or validators in this single component. 2. In the Staff Qualifications & Development and Administration components, validators rated centers higher than they did themselves 28% of the time on each of two specific criteria, Ole, "Teachers have CDA or M degree in ECE/CD" and criterion E4, "Benefits package is available for full-time staff." 3. The highest rated criterion (99.8% fully met by centers and validators) was G 1 b6 7, "There is a minimum of 7 5 square feet of play space outdoors per child (when space is in use) The lowest rated criterion in this data was B3d at 68.0% fully met by both center and validator "Parents are involved in development and use of individual education plans for 182

PAGE 198

children with special needs. Staff addresses the needs of children with special needs." Percentages of Agreement The following section presents the results of the item-level analysis, using percentage of agreement, between centers' and validators' ratings. This includes agreement at all three levels of "3 -met," "2 -partially met" and ''l not met" ratings. Agreement is defined for classroom criteria as identical ratings of "I," "2," or "3" by center and by validator on any given item. For Administrator Repon items, agreement is defined as any given center rating paired with a "3" rating (to indicate "valid") by the validator. Items are discussed separately within their overall component. Interactions Among Teachers and Children. NAEYC's stated goal for this component is: Interactions between children and staff provide opportunities for children to develop an understanding of self and others and are characterized by warmth, personal respect, individuality, positive suppon, and responsiveness. Staff facilitate interactions among 183

PAGE 199

children to provide opponunities for development of self-esteem, social competence, and intellectual growth. (NAEYC, 1991, p. 15) This group of criteria (see Table 4.3) focuses on processes used by teachers to interact with the children in their care. Table 4.3 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Component -Interactions Among Staff And Children Criteria Number and Brief Description Percentage of I Agreement i AI Staff interact frequently with children 93.4 A2 Staff are available & responsive 93.1 A3a Speech is friendly, courteous 91.6 A3b Staff encourage language in all ages 93.4 A4a Staff treat children & cultures equally 93.1 A4b Staff provide both sexes equal opponunities 94.9 A5 Staff encourage independence when ready 94.7 A6a Staff use positive guidance approaches 84.5 A6b Staff do not use negative punishments 95.8 184

PAGE 200

Table 4.3 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Component Interactions Among Staff And Children Criteria Number and Brief Description A? Overall sound is pleasant A8a Children relaxed, happy, involved A8b Staff help in dealing with anger, sadness A9 Staff encourage prosodal behaviors Al 0 Staff expectations are dev. appropriate Percentage of Agreement 94.4 98.5 89.4 92.8 95.8 All Staff encourage talking about feelings, ideas 91.3 Percentages of agreement across all 15 criteria were 83% or higher. Criterion A8a had the highest percentage of agreement of all the criteria in this section. It states "children are generally comfonable, relaxed, happy, and involved in play and other activities."1 According to the analysis, programs and validators agreed this criterion was fully met 98.5% of the time. 1All references to specific criteria in this chapter are from Childhood Program Description, NAEYC, 1991. 185

PAGE 201

Criterion A6a had the lowest percentage of agreement at 84.5%. This criterion reads "staff use positive approaches to help children behave constructively." This criterion involves staff using redirection, planning ahead, encouragement of appropriate behaviors, defining dear and consistent rules and discussing them with children, and encouraging children to think through and solve their problems or experience the logical and natural consequences of their behavior. Of the 15 criteria in this component, 13 had over 90% agreement among validators and centers that the criteria were fully met. Only two criteria, A6a & A8b had 80% agreement. In this component, there were not any criteria which were rated 1 or not met" and less than two percent of the criteria were agreed upon as "2 -partially met" by centers and by validators. Curriculum. The goal of the curriculum criteria is to encourage children to be actively and enthusiastically involved in developmentally appropriate activities which teach them about themselves, their community and the world around them (NAEYC, l 991). Percentages of agreement range from 68% to 99%, as indicated in Table 4.4. 186

PAGE 202

Table4.4 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Component Curriculum Criteria Number and Brief Description Bl Written philosophy &goals B3a B4a47 B4a B4b47 Written curriculum plans Environment & activities reflect philosophy Modifications for children w/ special needs Classroom mods for children w/ spec needs Professional referrals made Staff aware of special needs & trained on IEP Special child's parents involved/needs met All ages play outdoors daily All ages play outdoors daily Quiet/active play scheduled Administrator Repon item. 187 Percentage of Agreement 99.3 94.6 98.0 97.0 81.3 99.1 84.9 68.1 92.9 93.5 99.3

PAGE 203

Table 4.4 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Component Curriculum Criteria Number and Brief Description Percentage of Agreement I B4b Quiet/active play scheduled 97.1 B4c48 Option of indiv, large, small groups 97.3 B4c Option of lndiv large, small groups 93.5 B4d48 Balance of large/small muscle 98.0 B4d Balance of large/small muscle 96.4 B4e48 Balance of child-, staff-initiated 97.5 B4e Balance of child-, staff-initiated 94.0 B5a Multiracial, nonsexist materials 73.2 B5b DAP materials and equip, Infants 89.6 B5c DAP materials and equip, Toddlers 81.4 B5d DAP materials and equip, Preschoolers 88.3 B5e DAP materials and equip, School-agers 77.2 B6 DAP use of media 90.4 B7a Foster positive self-concept 91.3 B7b Develop social skills 94.9 Administrator Report item. 188

PAGE 204

Table 4.4 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Component Curriculum Criteria Number and Brief Description B 7 c Encourage thinking, reasoning, questioning B7d B7e B7f B7g B7h B8 B9 BIO B II Encourage language/literacy development Enhance physical development Encourage health, safety, nutrition Encourage creative expression Respect cultural diversity Children have time to select own activities Smooth, unregimented transitions Staff are flexible Routines tasks are relaxed and individual Administrator Report Item Percentage of Agreement 89.6 90.I 90.I 89.8 82 6 74.2 93.2 84.7 97.4 94.2 Of the 36 criteria in the curriculum component, 64% or 23, were I89

PAGE 205

rated at over 90% of agreement. The next highest group of criteria were in agreement over 80% of the time and this group contained 9 criteria or 25% of the total. The remaining 4 criteria represent 11% (70% agreement), and 3% (68% agreement). No criteria fell below 68% of agreement. The criteria which rated highest on percentage of agreement were B 1 and B4b47, at 99.3%. Criterion B1 states "the program has a written statement of its philosophy and goals for children that is available to staff and parents." B4b4 7 contends "the schedule provides for alternating periods of quiet and active play." B3b, at 99.1%, is the next in agreement and relates to teachers and administrators making professional referrals to families whenever necessary. At 97-98% of agreement, were criteria B2b, B4b, B4d48 and BIO. B2b states "the learning environment and activities for children reflect the program's philosophy and goals. B4b and B4d48 state: "the schedule provides for alternating periods of quiet and active play." B4d48 directs centers to provide the option of individual activities plus small and large group choices. BlO states "staff are flexible enough to change planned or routine activities." These criteria reflect routine pans of an early childhood program which are easy to observe and discuss in the director interview. 190

PAGE 206

The criteria which received the lowest percent of agreement was criterion B3d. Found in the administrator's repon, B3d states "parents are involved in development and use of individual education plans for children with special needs Staff address the needs of parents of children with special needs." Other criteria which received lower percentages of agreement between centers and validators were B3a B3c, B5a,B5e, and B 7h. B3a states "modifications are made in the environment, staffing pattern, schedule, and activities to meet child's special needs." B5a states "multiracial, nonsexist, nonstereotyping pictures, dolls books, and materials are available B7h states "respect cultural diversity." Both of these criteria deal with the same concern in the classroom of anti biased curriculum being available to children in a wide variety of methods and materials. B5a states specific manipulative materials, dolls, pictures and dramatic play props should be available to children while B 7h relates primarily to the interaction of the teacher with the children, including providing materials, nonstereotypical images and activities initiating positive discussions about children's cultural heritage, and infusing the curriculum in as many ways as possible with activities and programs which 191

PAGE 207

encourage nonstereotypical roles and behaviors as well as cultural diversity. B5e relates to developmentally appropriate materials being available for school-agers; and B3c reads "when disabled, developmentally delayed, or emotionally disturbed children are served, staff are aware of the identified/diagnosed special needs of individual children and are trained to follow through on spedfic intervention plans." Centers and validators agreed 82.6% and 84.7% of the time on B7g and B9 that describe efforts to encourage creative expression and conduct smooth, unregimented transitions for children throughout the day. Staff-Parent Interactions. The goal of this component states that "parents should be well-informed about and welcome as observers and contributors to the program"(NAEYC, 1991, p. 26). These criteria relate to communications between administrators, parents and classroom teachers. The content of the communication encompasses program issues, classroom routines, curriculum, information about the child's needs and interests, as well as parents suggestions and involvement in the program. Criteria C4a and C7, illustrated in Table 4.5, had the highest percentages of agreement (98.7% and 98.9%, respectively) and criterion 192

PAGE 208

C8b had the lowest percentage of agreement (72.0%). C4a states "parents are welcome visitors in the center at all times (for example, to observe, eat lunch with the child, or volunteer to help in the classroom). Criterion C7 states "parents are informed about the program and about policy or regulatory changes and other critical issues that could potentially affect the program and/or the early childhood profession through regular newsletters, bulletin boards, frequent notes, telephone calls and other similar measures." 193

PAGE 209

Table 4.5 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and Validators for the Component Staff/Parent Interactions Criteria Number and Brief Description Cla Written philosophy available to parents Clb Written operating policies & nutritional plans C2 Orientation to center for parents and children Percentage of Agreement 97.3 87.9 94.0 C3a Staff and parents communicate about child rearing 90.0 C3b Staff give parents ideas for development and learning 86.1 C4a Parents are welcome visitors at all times 98.7 C4b Parents and other family involvement encouraged 96.7 C5a Day-to-day happenings shared verbally/in writing 94.7 C5b Changes in physicaJ/emotional state are reponed 97.3 C6 Conferences held at least once/ year, more if needed C7 Parents informed regularly using many avenues C8a Communication ensures smooth daily transitions C8b Communication ensures program continuity Administrator Repon item. 92.6 98.9 94.5 72.0 The criterion which received the lowest percent of agreement, 72%, was C8b which states "staff and parents communicate to insure that the programs from which children come and to which they go from one year to 194

PAGE 210

the next provide continuity over time." This criterion refers to communication prior to the child moving into a new classroom within the program and/or prior to moving into a kindergarten program or their elementary school experience. Of the criteria in this component, 77% were agreed upon by centers and validators over 90% of the time (a total of IO criteria: Cia, C2, C3a, C4a, C4b, C5a, C5b, C6, C7 and C8a). 23%, or 2, of the criteria achieved 80% of agreement (Cib and C3b). Only one criterion, C8b, achieved 70% agreement, and no criteria were rated lower. Staff Qualifications and Development. This component deals with educational and experiential qualifications of the program staff and their ongoing plan for professional development. "The program is staffed by adults who understand child development and who recognize and provide for children's needs"(NAEYC, I99I, p. 30). Of these II criteria 9I %, or IO, achieved 90% agreement or greater, (Pia, Dib, Die, Die, D2a, D2b, 03, D4a, D4b, and 05). See Table 4.6. I95

PAGE 211

Table 4.6 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Component Staff Qualifications & Development Criteria Number and Brief Description D 1 a Staff working with children are over 18 D 1 b Teacher assists. are HS grads, have prof. dev. Ole Teachers have CDA, or AA degree in ECE/CD D ld School-age teachers trained in CD, ECE, Recre. Ole Training plans developed individuals/program D2a Director trained/experienced in ECFIHR/Fin D2b ECE w/3yrs exp &/or MS directs program New staff oriented to program D4a Regular training opportunities provided D4b Specific training topics addressed Accurate and current staff qualifications kept Administrator Report item. Percentage of Agreement 99.1 97.2 91.1 88.7 96.3 96.2 93.5 90.2 96.0 93.1 93.1 One criterion, DId, achieved 88%, the lowest percentage of agreement in this component. D I a, the criterion which received the highest percentage of agreement (99.I %), states "staff who work directly with children are 18 years of age or older. Volunteers are 16 years of age or older, receive 196

PAGE 212

orientation, and only work with children under supervision of qualified staff members." At the opposite end of the scale, criterion D 1d states "staff working with school-age children have training in child development, early childhood education, elementary education, recreation, or a related field." In this criterion, programs and validators agreed on this criteria 88.7% of the time. Administration. Administration involves all the operations of the early care and education program The goal of this component is "the program is officially and effectively administered with attention to the needs and desires of children, parents and staff' (NAEYC, 1991, p. 35). Criteria are included which evaluate the degree to which director and staff assess the program's strengths and weaknesses, comply with written policies and procedures, use written personnel policies, keep accurate records, manage a board of directors, keep long-range plans for budgeting and other financial operations, secure accident protection and liability insurance. Additional criteria are included which relate to using community resources to improve the services offered to, and provided for, staff and children (see 197

PAGE 213

Table 4.7). Table 4.7 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Component Administration Criteria Number and Brief Description Percentage of I A,greement I El Annual assessment of program conducted 93.3 E2 Written operating policies and procedures 98.4 E3a Written personnel policies 91.1 E3b Nondiscriminatory hiring practices 95.5 E4 Benefits package for full-time staff 86.1 E5a Staff & child attendance kept 99.6 E5b Confidential staff personnel files kept 93.8 E6a Written policies for Board members & staff 98.3 E6b Board informed about high quality, DAP 98.0 E6c Minutes kept of Board meetings 98.1 E7 Fiscal records kept, shon & long term 98.2 E8a Accident/liability insurance for 98.9 EBb Vehicle insurance maintained 98.7 E9 Director uses community resources 96.2 ElOa Frequent program/family communication 95.3 ElOb Staff plan and consult together 95.1 ElOc Regular staff meetings held to plan, train 96.4 EIOd Staff provided paid planning time 86.9 Ell Staff provided space away from children 85.9 El2 Family/child/staff information confidential 96.0 198

PAGE 214

Table 4.7 I Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators I for the Component Administration I Criteria Number and Brief Description Percentage of Affeement El3 Person of authority available in director's 98.4 Administrator Report Item In this group of 21 criteria, 86%, or 18 criteria, received 90% or higher percentage of agreement between programs and validators. Three criteria, E4, ElOd, and Ell, received 80% or higher percentage of agreement, and none were rated less. The highest percentage of agreement was found in criterion E5a, 99.6%. Criterion 5a states "attendance records of staff and children are kept." At 98.9% and 98.7% of agreement, criteria E8a and EBb direct the center to maintain acddent protection and liability insurance coverage for children and adults, plus vehicle insurance coverage. Several additional criteria, E2, E6a, E6, E6c, E7, and El3, all achieved at or above 98% of agreement. The criterion which received the lowest percentage of agreement was criterion Ell (85.9%) which states "staff are provided space and time away from children during the day (when staff work directly with children for more than 4 hours, staff are provided breaks of at least 15 minutes in each 199

PAGE 215

I 4-hour period)." Staffing. Goal: "The program is sufficiently staffed to meet the needs of and promote the physical, social, emotional, and cognitive development of children"(NAEYC, 1991, p. 39). Staffing criteria are those which relate to the number of children in a teacher's care and the group size or number of children in the classroom. Both segments are rated against NAEYC' s recommendations based on the age of the child. The principle of the criteria is the younger the child, the smaller the group size and the smaller the number of children which should be cared for by one teacher. The research reviewed earlier suppons smaller groups as directly related to the quality of the program (see Table 4.8). 200

PAGE 216

Table4.8 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Component Staffing Criteria Number and Brief Description F 1 Groups meet maximum size recommendations Groups meet maximum staff-child ratio Substitutes provided to meet ratios Staff have primary responsibility for specific groups of children Continuity of classroom staff maintained Percentage of Agreement 85.0 90.6 83.2 93.1 97.1 Same staff with infant/toddlers majority of day 90.1 Child spends majority of day in groups which 94.4 meet recommended ratios and group sizes Administrator Repon Item In the staffing component, five of seven criteria, or 71 %, reach 90 or higher percentage of agreement. Those criteria are F2a, F3a, F3b, F3c, and F4. F3b states "every attempt is made to have continuity of adults who work with children, panicularly infants and toddlers." F3b had the highest percentage of agreement at 97.1 %. F4, at 94.4%, states "a majority of the child's day is spent in activities utilizing recommended staff-child ratios 201

PAGE 217

and group size limitations while minimizing the number of transitions or regrouping children experience." Criteria F2a, F3a, and F3c (90.6%, 93.1 %, and 90.1 %, respectively) deal specifically with teacher/child ratios, and primary care givers assigned to groups of children, specifically the infant/toddler classroom. The lowest percentage of agreement was criterion F2b at 83.2%. This criterion states "substitutes are provided to maintain child-staff ratios when regular staff are absent. Substitutes for infants and toddlers are familiar with the children and oriented to children's schedules and individual differences in a systematic way before assignment." Criterion F 1 1 was the next lowest in percentage of agreement at 85.0%. This criterion states "the number of children in a group is limited to facilitate adult-child interaction and constructive activity among children. Groups of children may be age-determined or multi-age." Physical Environment. Goal: "The physical environment fosters optimal growth and development through opponunities for exploration and learning" (NAEYC, 1991, p. 43). The criteria within this component include both indoor and outdoor 202

PAGE 218

physical environments, a minimum of 35 sq. ft. of useable space inside and a minimum of 75 sq. ft. of useable space outside is recommended. The criteria evaluate health, safety, cleanliness, spatial arrangements and ageappropriate materials and equipment within the indoor and outdoor setting, see Table 4.9. Table 4.9 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Component Physical Environment Criteria Number and Brief Description Percentage of I I Agreement 1 -.Gla67 35 sq. ft. Indoor play space/ child 97.1 G1a Indoor space not crowded 92.9 -.Glb67 75 sq. ft. Outdoor play space/ child 99.8 G1b Enough useable outdoor space for each age 96.0 G2 Space arranged for indiv/smaWlarge groups 93.8 G3 Space facilitates variety of activities 83.0 G4 Variety of age appropriate materials/equip 86.1 G5 Space provided for each child's belongings 95.2 G6 Private areas indoors & outdoors 87.4 G7 Soft elements available 83.0 G8 Sound absorbing materials cut down noise 94.0 203

PAGE 219

: Table 4.9 I Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators I for the Component Physical Environment I Criteria Number and Brief Description G9a G9b Variety of activities outdoors year-round Outdoor play area protected by fences/barriers .. Administrator Report Item Percentage of Agreement 76.7 89.9 Of the 13 criteria in this component, 54%, or 7 achieved over 90% of agreement. Those criteria are Gla, Gla67, Glb67, Glb, G2, G5, G8. I Five criteria, 38%, achieved over 80% of agreement. These criteria are G3, G4, G6, G7, and G9b. Only one criteria received 70% of agreement in this group of components, G9a. At 99.8% of agreement, criterion G I b6 7, is the most consistently agreed upon in this component. This criterion states "there is a minimum of 75 sq. ft. of play space outdoors per child (when space is in use)." The additional criteria with 90% agreement or higher related to adequate and useable indoor play space, the arrangement of the indoor space, the availability of individual, private spaces for children and the use of sound 204

PAGE 220

absorbing materials within the room to reduce noise. The criterion receiving the lowest percentage of agreement was G9a which states "a variety of activities can go on outdoors throughout the year." This criterion contains several indicators which must be satisfied for the criterion to be fully met. They include 1) a balance of shade and sun 2) a variety of surfaces, such as hard top for wheeled toys, grass for rolling, sand and soil for digging and 3) a variety of age-appropriate equipment for riding, climbing, balancing and individual playing." The other two lower ranking criteria, G3 & G7, are at 83% of agreement. G3 states "space is arranged to facilitate a variety of activities for each age group" and G7 dictates soft elements used in the environment. Health & Safety. Goal: The health and safety of children and adults are protected and enhanced" (NAEYC, 1991, p. 47). Optimal health and safety for children and adults is essential. The criteria in this component focus on the prevention and spread of illness, preparation for emergencies, and the education of children regarding health and safety issues and practices, see Table 4.1 0. 205

PAGE 221

Table 4.10 I Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators j for the Criteria Health & Safety I Criteria Number and Brief Description Percentage of Agreement HI Licensed by state/local agencies 98.0 H2a Staff health records include TB/physical 92.8 H2b New staff serve probationary period 98.9 H3 Child health records include health exam 95.8 *H4 Written policies limiting sick children & 96.4 staff H5 Children released to authorized parties 98 7 only H6 Vehicles licensed/maintained/restraint 92.7 devices, H7a Children supervised by adults at all 93.0 times H7b Parents informed/field trip 98.4 procedures/policies H8 Staff alert to children's health 97.1 H9a Procedures known for reporting 98.9 abuse/neglect H9b Suspected abuse/neglect reported 98.7 HlO At least one staff w/ first-aid/CPR in 97.5 center Administrator Report Item 206

PAGE 222

Table 4.10 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Criteria Health & Safety Criteria Number and Brief Description I Percentage of 1 Agreement j Hlla Adequate first-aid supplies available 98.0 Hllb Plan exits for medical emergency 97.6 response Hl2 Children dressed appropriately in & 96.5 outside Hl3a Facility cleaned daily, disinfected, trash 99.3 removed Hl3a36 Staff & children keep areas clean 96.4 Hl3b Infant equipment washed and 99.2 disinfected twice per week Hl3b37 Toileting & diapering areas sanitary 91.9 Hl4a Staff wash hands before preparing & 89.4 serving meals, feeding children Hl4b Running water close to 89.3 diaperingltoileting Hl5a Building/playground/equip 70.8 safe/clean/repaired Hl5b Infant/toddler toys too large to be 96.4 swallowed Hl6a Bedding washed weekly/used by one 97.0 child Administrator Repon Item 207

PAGE 223

Table 4.10 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Criteria -Health & Safety Criteria Number and Brief Description Percentage of I Agreement 1 HI6b Occupied cribs have sides locked 96.9 Hl7a Toilets, water, sinks easily 92.2 accessible/children HI7b Soap & disposable towels provided 98.6 Hl7c Child wash hands/before meals/after 79.6 toileting HI? Hot water for child doesn't exceed ll 0 o 94.6 Hl8a Areas well-lit, ventilated, temp. 95.1 comfortable HI8b Electrical outlets capped (NA for school90.6 agers) Hl8c Floor coverings attached or non-slip 96.0 Hl8d Certification of nontoxic building 93.1 materials Hl8e Stairwells well-lighted w/ handrails 98.7 Hl8f Screens on windows which open 96.4 HI9a Cushioning under slides/swings/climbers 82.3 HI9b Playground equip/furniture securely 91.3 anchored Administrator Report Item 208

PAGE 224

Table 4.10 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Criteria Health & Safety Criteria Number and Brief Description H20 a Chemicals/dangerous products inaccessible Medication administered under policies Staff know primary & secondary evacuations Written emergency procedures posted Staff familiar with emergency procedures Smoke detectors/fire extinguishers checked Emergency phone numbers posted by phones Administrator Repon Item Percentage of I Agreement 80.9 98.5 89.1 98.9 91.8 96.4 97 3 Of the fony-five criteria in this component, 38 or 84% have 90% of agreement or more between centers and validators. Those criteria are HI, H2a, H2b, H3, H4, HS, H6, H7a&b, H8 H9a&b, HIO, Hlla&b, Hl2, Hl3a&b, Hl3a&b37, HISb, Hl6a&b, Hl7a&b, Hl7, Hl8a,b,c,d,e&f, H l9b, H20b, H2l b and H22a,b&c. The criteria receiving the highest percentage of agreement at 99.3%, 209

PAGE 225

is Hl3a which mandates "the facility is cleaned daily, including disinfecting bathroom fixtures and removing trash." At 99.2%, criterion Hl3b states, "infant's equipment is washed and disinfected at least twice a week and toys that are mouthed are washed daily." H9a and H2lb have the next highest percentage of agreement (98 9%) and state "staff know procedures for reporting suspected incidents of child abuse and/or neglect" and "written emergency procedures are posted in conspicuous places." Centers and validators agreed on their rating of this criterion 98.4% of the time. Close behind, are three criteria, H6, H9b, and Hl8e, with 98.7 agreement. HS specifies children are released only to authorized individuals; H9b mandates consistent reporting to local authorities of suspected incidents of child abuse and neglect. H 18e states "stairways are well-lighted and equipped with handrails." The following 5 criteria, 11% of the total, are rated at 80 percentage of agreement; H 14a&b, H 19a, H20a, & H21 a. H 14a directs staff to wash hands at appropriate times during the day and H 14b questions if there is a sink with running water of cornfonable temperature close to diapering and toileting areas. H 19a addresses proper cushioning materials in place under large indoor and outdoor equipment; H20a deals with the locked storage of 210

PAGE 226

I chemicals and potentially dangerous products or medicines; H2la asks if staff are familiar with both a primary and secondary evacuation route out of the building. Two criteria, or 4%, only reach 70% of agreement. These are Hl5a and Hl7c. Hl5a documents the safe, clean and repaired condition of the playground and HI 7 c discusses children washing hands after toileting and before meals. No criteria are rated lower than seventy percentage of agreement in the entire component by centers and validators. In summary, 84% of the 45 criteria in the health and safety component achieved agreement 90% or more of the time. Criteria representing 11% and 4% of the total in this component are agreed upon 80% and 70% of the time, respectively. No criteria fall below the 70% agreement mark by centers and validators. Nutrition and Food Service. Goal: "The nutritional needs of children and families are met in a manner that promotes physical, social, emotional and cognitive development" (NAEYC, 1991, p. 57). Nutrition and food service relates to the foods children eat and the atmosphere and setting in which they do this. The U.S. Recommended 211

PAGE 227

Daily Allowances are included in the criteria, and foods eaten during meals, as well as at snack time, are evaluated (see Table 4.11 ). Table 4.11 Total Percentage of Agreement Among Centers and V alidators for the Component Nutrition & Food Service I Criteria Number and Brief Description Meals/snacks meet child's nutritional requirements Written menus posted for parents Infant/toddler parents provided feeding times & consumption information Foods of child's cultural background served Percentage of Agreement 96.7 89.8 90.7 97.5 I3,42 Mealtime pleasant/social/learning exper. 82.8 Parents educated on foods to be brought in Program complies with legal requirements Administrator Repon Item 97.2 95.9 The atmosphere should be relaxed and social with at least one teacher sitting with children to model behavior as well as attitude. 212

PAGE 228

Children are encouraged to serve and feed themselves with special emphasis on their differing abilities from infancy through school age. Of these seven criteria, five or 71% achieve over 90% and two are rated at 80% of agreement. The remaining one criterion emerges at 70% of agreement by centers and validators. The criteria which receive the highest percentage of agreement are 13 at 97.5% and criterion 15 at 95.9%. Criterion 13 identifies that foods are served which represent the children's cultural backgrounds. I5 states "where food is prepared on the premises, the program is in compliance with legal requirements for food preparation and service. Food may be prepared in an approved facility and transponed to the program in appropriate, sanitary containers and at appropriate temperatures." At 80% of agreement, two criteria emerge. One, 12a (89%) focuses on policies for providing written menu information to parents. The second and lowest rating criterion at 82%, I3,42, states "mealtime is a pleasant social learning experience for children." This component also includes indicators which must be met including mealtimes promoting good personal habits, infants are held while bottle fed; one adult sits with children during meals; toddlers and preschoolers are encouraged to serve and feed 213

PAGE 229

themselves; and, appropriate chairs, tables and eating utensils are used for the size and developmental levels of the children Centers and validators did not rate any criteria at less than 82% of agreement. Evaluation Goal: "Systematic assessment of the effectiveness of the program in meeting its goals for children, parents, and staff is conducted to ensure that good quality care and education are provided and maintained" (NAEYC, 1991, p. 59). Evaluation criteria vary from parent and staff evaluation of the program to the administrator's use of the information. The long-term plan for the center is also scrutinized to ascenain whether it meets the needs of children, families, staff and the community (see Table 4.12). 214

PAGE 230

Table 4.12 Total Percentage of Agreement Between Centers and V alidators for the Component Evaluation Criteria Number and Brief Description J I a Staff evaluated at least annually by supervisor Jib Written staff evaluation results confidential J I c Staff evaluations include classroom observation J Id Staff informed of evaluation criteria in advance Tie Staff may evaluate own performance J If Training plan generated from evaluation Percentage of J Agreement j 95.7 95.5 95.I 93.5 91.3 86.5 J2a Total school evaluation occurs once/year 72.0 J2b Evaluation reviews compensation, benefits, and 80.9 turnover; plan developed to improve J3 Written description of child's individual 91.2 development used for planning/communicating Administrator Repon Item Of the nine criteria in this component, six or two-thirds achieve 90% of agreement. Centers and validators agree 80% of the time on two criteria, Jlf and J2b. The criteria which achieve 90% of agreement are Jla, Jib, Jlc, Jld, Jle, and J3. The remaining criteria, J2a, achieves 70% of agreement. The criteria which receives the highest percentages of agreement at 95.7%, 95.5%, and 95.1% are Jla, Jib, and J1c, respectively. Jla states 215

PAGE 231

staff are evaluated at least annually by their supervisor. Jib reads "results of staff evaluation are written and confidential. They are discussed privately with the staff member." Jlc reads "staff evaluations include classroom observation." J3, 91% of agreement, mandates a written description of the child's individual development is used for classroom planning and communicating with parents. At 80% of agreement are criteria Jlf and J2b. ]If suggests a training plan be generated from the annual evaluation of each staff member. J2b states that the program's yearly evaluation review compensation, benefits and turnover and a plan developed to assist in recruiting and retaining staff to build continuity of relationships with children. The lowest percentage of agreement individually represent II% of the criteria at 70%, 60% and 50% of agreement, respectively. The criterion receiving the lowest percentage of agreement is criterion J2a, which states "at least once a year, staff, other professionals, schoolage children and parents are involved in evaluating the program's effectiveness in meeting the needs of children and parents." This criterion receives only 72% agreement between centers and validators. 216

PAGE 232

Summary These data analyses yields percentages of agreement between centers and validators for each of the 177 criteria which comprise NAEYC accreditation. The results indicate that over half of the criteria have a percentage of agreement of 90% or greater between centers and validators. A smaller number of criteria have percentages of agreement of 80% and 70%, with no percentage of agreement less than 68%. Cultural influences on children have been the topic of both research and many books and articles since the accreditation process began. The interpretation of this criteria is very different across programs which operate differently throughout each of the United States. As much as these criteria have been described, this individual interpretation relates to the background culture and traditions of the teacher, the families and children in the program, as well as the administrators. Even the community creates a variety of responses which may account for lower percentage of agreement on some criteria. Component -level Correlations NAEYC Accreditation criteria are grouped into ten components of: A 217

PAGE 233

Interaction Among Staff and Children, B Curriculum, C Staff-Parent Interactions, D Staff Qualifications and Development, E Administration, F Staffing, G Physical Environment, H Health and Safety, I Nutrition and Food Service, and J-Evaluation. Each component's reliability is important to the reliability of the entire process. Table 4.13 gives the correlations (for each component) between center and validator ratings. The means and standard deviations are also given. 218

PAGE 234

------Table 4.13 Primary Sample Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Coefficients of Component Ratings Component Name #of N= ValidatQJ: Correlation items Mean so Mean so Coefficient --------A. Teacher-Child Interact. 15 449 2.97 .07 2.95 .12 0.1837 B Curriculum 36 453 2.65 .16 2.63 .15 0.7163 C Staff-Parent Interactions 13 450 2.92 .17 2.83 .26 0.5265 D. Staff Qualifications & 1 I 450 2.63 .25 2.87 24 0.3676 N Development ..... \() E. Administration 21 450 2.73 25 2.90 .18 0 .3338 F. Staffing 7 450 2 63 .27 2.82 .31 0.2094 G Physical Environment 13 453 2.91 .15 2.91 .13 0.5855 H. Health & Safety 45 453 2 67 19 2.81 .18 0.7762 I. Nutri. & Food Service 7 452 2.20 .45 2.87 .34 0.4091 J. Evaluation 9 447 2 87 .22 2.78 .34 0.3291 Total CenterNalidator 177 453 2.80 .17 2.71 .17 0.8137

PAGE 235

Component-level center and validator ratings correlated highest for health and safety (.78), curriculum (.72), physical environment (.59), and staff-parent interactions (.52). Ratings for the teacher-child interactions component, however, had a standard deviation of only .07 for the centers data and .12 for the validators data, indicating lack of variability, which attenuated the correlations. (Earlier in this chapter, Table 4.1 shows the consistent pattern of "3" ratings, or "fully met," by centers and by validators for items within the component--Teacher-Child Interactions.) The same correlational analysis was applied to the total set of ratings given by a validator or center, which included all ten components. The total correlation was 81. This indicated a very high estimate of reliability across all ten accreditation criteria components. The secondary sample correlational analysis is presented in Table 4.14. This analysis is important to the ultimate decision to accredit a program. As described earlier in Chapter ThreeMethodology, the decision to accredit a program incorporates assessment of all classrooms. Since the primary analysis could only 220

PAGE 236

use one classroom rating, a smaller, secondary sample was constructed to analyze the effects of all classrooms in one programs in the decision to accredit. The classroom ratings are averaged together to produce one variable which is used in the discriminant analysis. 221

PAGE 237

. .... ._ .... . ---. ...... ------....... ______ ---... ----------------------------------------------Table 4.14 Secondary Sample Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Coefficients of Component Ratings Component Name #of items N= Center Validator Correlation Mean so Mean SO Coefficient A. Teacher-Child Interactions 15 153 2.97 .07 2.92 .16 .0534 B. Curriculum 36 153 1.88 .40 1.71 .18 .7698 c. Staff-Parent Interactions 13 28 2.93 .16 .92 .13 .5848 D. Staff Qualifications & I I 28 2.81 .17 .90 .12 .2644 N Development N N E. Administration 21 28 2.63 .20 .89 .II .3881 F. Staffing 7 28 2.79 .21 .83 .22 .3382 G. Physical Environment 13 I 53 2.54 .24 2.47 .17 .6773 H. Health & Safety 45 153 1.41 .66 1.18 .22 .9624 I. Nutrition & Food Service 7 150 .83 .87 .52 .31 .9574 J. Evaluation 9 27 2.82 .29 .84 .20 .4357 Total CenterN alidator 177 153 2.39 .66 1.15 .22 .9734

PAGE 238

In the secondary sample, component-level center and validator ratings correlated higher in seven areas: curriculum (. 77), staff-parent interactions (.58), administration (.39), physical environment (.68), health and safety (. 96), nutrition and food service (. 96), and evaluation ( .44). Only teacher-child interactions (.05) and staff qualifications and development (.26) correlated higher in the primary sample (.18 and .37, respectively). Of the nine components, three (curriculum, staff-parent interactions and administration) correlated almost identically. As in the primary sample, the ratings for the teacher-child interactions component had a standard deviation of only .07 for the center s data and .16 for the validator's data indicating a lack of variability which affectuated the correlation. Physical environment, evaluation, and staffing correlate slightly higher in this secondary analysis Health and safety and nutrition and food service correlated significantly higher in the secondary sample, at .77 to .96 and .41 to .95, respectively Again, the same correlational analysis was applied to the total set of ratings given by validators and centers, which included all ten components. The total correlation of the secondary sample was .97 This indicated an 223

PAGE 239

extremely high estimate of reliability at the component-level. Question Two Which components of criteria are most frequently associated with the decision to accredit an early childhood program? For the results to be clear, it is important to understand how the decision to accredit is made. This process is described in chapter 3--Methodology. Discriminant Analysis Primary Sample Discriminant analysis was used to analyze the data. The independent variables are referred to as discriminating variables. These variables are constructed by incorporating ratings on all criteria in each component. Twenty potential discriminating variables, or predictors, are listed in Table 4.15. 224

PAGE 240

TCIVAL TCICNTR CURRVAL CURRCNTR SPIVAL SPICNTR SQDVAL SQDCNTR ADMINVAL ADMINCNTR STFGVAL STFGCNTR PEVAL PECNTR HSVAL HSCNTR NFSVAL NFSCNTR EVALVAL EVALCNTR Table 4.15-Primary Sample Potential Discriminating Variables DESCRIPTION Teacher Child InteractionsValidator Teacher Child Interactions Center Curriculum V alidator Curriculum Center Staff Parent InteractionsValidator Staff Parent Interactions Center Staff Qualifications & Development V alidator Staff Qualifications & Development -Center Administration V alidator AdministrationCenter Staffing V alidator StaffingCenter Physical Environment V alidator Physical Environment Center Health & Safety V alidator Health & Safety Center Nutrition & Food Service V alidator Nutrition & Food Service Center Evaluation V alidator Evaluation Center Mer comparing each variable separately against the dependent variable of "accreditation decision," the following 13 independent variables enter into the analysis: ADMINV AL, CURRY AL, EV AL VAL, HSV AL, NFSV AL, PEV AL, SPIV AL, SQDV AL, STFGV AL, TCICNTR, ADMINCNTR, CURRCNTR, EV ALCNTR. 225

PAGE 241

A stepwise process was selected with the selection rule focusing on minimizing Wilks' lambda. The stepwise method was selected to determine the strengths of each discriminating variable. This allowed interpretation of the strength of the prediction quality of the variable related to the decision to accredit the program. The results of the analysis are that TCIVAL (F=lOO.OO, p<.OOl), CURRVAL (F=72.43, p<.OOl), STFGVAL (F=59.24, p<.OOl), STFGCNTR (F=45.97, p<.OOl), and EVALCNTR (F=38.23, p<.OOl) were identified as the significant predictors of accreditation by the analysis. The remaining eight variables produced insufficient F levels and were not included in the analysis after step 5. The discriminant analysis results in one canonical discriminant function, since the dependent variable consisted of two groups (accredited or deferred). In Table 4.16, the coefficient for each independent variable in the function is given. 226

PAGE 242

Table 4.16-Primary Sample Canonical Discriminant Functions Evaluated at Group Means (Group Centroids) Group 0 =Deferred l = Accredited Function -1.02857 .42527 The mean of the function is a linear combination of the variables which were analyzed from the stepwise discriminant analysis. The two groups, "0" indicating deferred or not accredited, and "I" indicating accredited, have very different function values. The discriminant function variable correlations in Table 4.17 are helpful in interpreting the discriminant function. 227

PAGE 243

Table 4.17 Primary Sample Pooled Within-Groups Correlations Between Discriminating Variables and Canonical Discriminant Functions Discriminating Variables Function TCIVAL .72355 CURRVAL .63854 STFGVAL .49667 CURRCNTR .30630 EVALCNTR .22760 The information in Table 4.17 shows the within-groups correlations of the variables and the discriminant function. A within-groups correlation is a better estimate of the relationships between the variables than a total correlation because it looks only within each group (accredited or deferred) to estimate the strength of the variable within the discriminating function. The table lists the variables ordered by size of correlation within the function. Teacher-child interactions as rated by validators (TCIV AL) and curriculum as rated by validators (CURRV AL) have the highest correlations within the function. The standardized canonical discriminate function coefficients, Table 4.18, indicate the relative imponance of each predictor variable to the 228

PAGE 244

function. Again, teacher-child interactions as rated by validators (TCIV AL) has the highest discriminating power in the decision to accredit a program. Following closely behind, and similar to each other in power, are curriculum as rated by validators (CURRY AL) and staffing as rated by validators (STFGVAL). This one function represents 100% of the total variance explained. Table 4.18Primary Sample Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients Discriminating Variable TCIVAL CURRVAL STFGVAL EVALCNTR STFGCNTR Function Coefficient .62106 .44733 .42432 .20677 .22113 A classification table, Table 4.19, illustrates the numbers and percentages of centers that would be classified correctly using this one discriminant function to predict either accreditation or deferral. 229

PAGE 245

. I I Table 4.19 Primary Sample Table of Correctly Oassified Cases ACTUAL GROUP NUMBER OF CASES Group 0 (Defer) 129 Group 1 (Accredit) 316 Percentage of "grouped cases correctly classified: PREDICfED GROUP MEMBERSHIP Group 0 Group 1 84 45 65.1% 34.9% 46 270 14.6% 85.4% 79.55% Eighty percent of the programs would be correctly predicted, in terms of classifications tables. The table also indicates that 35% of the programs which would have been predicted to be accredited based on the analysis actually were not accredited by the Academy. Of the accredited centers, about 15% were predicted to be deferred, according to the results of this analvsis Conclusions Based on the results of the discriminant analysis, the variables that best predict accreditation were, in order, validators' ratings of teacher-child 230

PAGE 246

interactions, staffing, and curriculum. The next strongest predictors of accreditation are centers' ratings of evaluation and staffing. The only component in which both center and validator ratings emerge in this analysis is staffing. Of the cases predicted to be accredited or deferred, 80% were correctly classified using these discriminating variables. Discriminant Analysis--Secondary Sample Discriminant analysis was used to analyze this data set also. The independent variables are referred to as discriminating variables. Twenty potential discriminating variables, or predictors, are listed in Table 4 20. These variables are computed by averaging .all classroom ratings together within one program. 231

PAGE 247

Table 4.20 Secondary Sample Potential Discriminating Variables VARIABLE NAME SSTCIVAL SSTCICNTR SSCURRVAL SSCURRCNTR SSSPIVAL SSSPICNTR SSSQDVAL SSSQDCNTR SSADMINVAL SSADMINCNTR SSSTFGVAL SSSTFGCNTR SSPEVAL SSPECNTR SSHSVAL SSHSCNTR SSNFSVAL SSNFSCNTR SSEVALVAL SSEVALCNTR DESCRIIYTION Teacher Child Interactions-Validator Teacher Child Interactions-Center Curriculum V alidator Curriculum-Center Staff Parent Interactions V alidator Staff Parent Interactions-Center Staff Qualifications & Development V alidator Staff Qualifications & Development Center Administration V alidator Administration -Center Staffing V alidator Staffing-Center Physical Environment V alidator Physical Environment Center Health & Safety V alidator Health & Safety Center Nutrition & Food Service V alidator Nutrition & Food ServiceCenter Evaluation V alidator Evaluation -Center After comparing each variable separately against the dependent variable of "accreditation decision, n the following 9 independent variables were entered in to the analysis : SSADMINV AL, SSCURRV AL, SSHSCNTR, SSNFSV AL, SSSPIV AL, SSSTFGV AL, SSSTFGCNTR, AND SSTCIV AL. Identical processes were followed in this sample A stepwise 232

PAGE 248

process was selected with the selection rule focusing on minimizing Wilks' lambda. The stepwise method was used to determine the strength of each discriminating variable related to the decision to accredit the program. The results of the analysis are that SSHSVAL (F= 10.78, p<.0030), SSSTFGCNTR (F=I0.59, p<.0005), SSNFSVAL (F=9.814, p<.0002), and SSTCICNTR (F=9.25, p<.0002) were identified as the significant predictors of accreditation in the secondary sample analysis. The remaining five variables produced insufficient F levels and were not included in the analysis after step 4. Discriminant analysis results in one canonical discriminant function, since the dependent variable consisted of two groups (accredited or deferred). In Table 4.21, the coefficient for each independent variable in the function is given. Table 4.21 Secondary Sample Canonical Discriminant Functions Evaluated at Group Means (Group Centroids) Group 0 =Deferred 1 = Accredited 233 Function -1.11616 1.39520

PAGE 249

The mean of the function is a linear combination of the variables which were analyzed from the stepwise discriminant analysis. The two groups, "0" indicating deferred or not accredited, and" 1" indicating accredited, have very different function values. The correlations between the discriminant variables and the canonical discriminant function displayed in Table 4.22 are helpful in interpreting the discriminant function. Table 4.22 Secondary Sample Pooled Within-Groups Correlations Between Discriminating Variables and Canonical Discriminant Functions Discriminating Variables SSHSVAL SSNFSVAL SSSTFGCNTR SSTCICNTR Function .50638 .433577 .42213 .08519 The information in Table 4.22 shows the within-groups correlations of the variables and the discriminant function in the secondarv sample. A within-groups correlation is a better estimate of the relationships 234

PAGE 250

between the variables than a total correlation because it looks only within each group (accredited or deferred) to estimate the strength of the variable within the discriminating function. Table 4.22 lists the variables ordered by size of correlation within the function. Health and safety as rated by validators (SSHSV AL), nutrition and food service as rated by validators (SSNFSVAL), and staffing as rated by centers (SSSTFGCNTR) have the highest correlations within the function. The standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients, illustrated in Table 4.23, indicate the relative imponance of each predictor variable to the function. Again health and safety as rated by validators (SSHSV AL) has the highest discriminating power in the decision to accredit a program. Following closely behind, and very close in power, are nutrition and food service as rated by validators (SSNFSVAL) and staffing as rated by centers (SSSTFGCNTR). This one function represents 100% of the total variance explained in the secondary sample analysis. 235

PAGE 251

Table 4.23 Secondary Sample Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients Discriminating Variable SSHSVAL SSNFSVAL SSSTFGCNTR SSTCICNTR Function Coefficient .87737 .66704 .50856 -.59115 A classification table, Table 4.24, illustrates the numbers and i percentages of groups that be classified correctly using this one discriminant function to make a prediction of either accredit or defer. Table 4.24 Secondary Sample Table of Correctly Classified Cases PREDICTED GROUP MEMBERSHIP ACTUAL I GROUP Group 0 (Deferred) Group 1 (Accredited) NUMBER OF CASES 15 13 Percentage of "grouped" cases correctly classified: 236 Group 0 13 86.1% 2 15.4% 85.71% Group 1 2 13.3% 1 1 84.6%

PAGE 252

Eighty-six percent of the centers would be correctly predicted in terms of this classification table. The table also indicates that only 2 or 13% of the programs which would have been predicted to be accredited based on the analysis, were actually not accredited by the Academy. Of the accredited centers, about 2% percent were predicted to be deferred, according to the results of this analysis. Conclusions Based on the results of the secondary sample discriminant analysis, the variables that best predict accreditation were, in order, validators' ratings of health and safety and nutrition and food service. The next strongest secondary sample predictors of accreditation were centers' ratings of staffing and teacher-child interactions. Of the secondary sample centers, 86% were correctly classified using this single function. This chapter has discussed the results of the statistical analyses which are used to answer both research questions. The following chapter will discuss conclusions and recommendations which these results dictate. 237

PAGE 253

CHAPTERS CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter Overview This chapter discusses the material presented in chapter four and suggests reasons for the results. Here, I will also recommend additional research which could benefit the accreditation process as well as programs attempting to accomplish this industry milestone. In the beginning of the chapter, I summarize the most salient points based on the problem identified in chapter one. This is followed by a summary of the answers to the research questions posed in chapter three and a discussion of how these answers relate to previous research results. Finally, specific recommendations, based on the results of this study, are made to parents, consumers, programs and early childhood practitioners. These recommendations relate to improving the NAEYC Accreditation process as a tool to ascertain quality in early care and education programs. Purpose of This Study The purpose of this research is to re-establish the reliability of the 238

PAGE 254

accreditation criteria and instruments of the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs. The results are important to the establishment of the integrity of the current process and to the credibility and future direction of the accreditation system (personal conversation with Bredekamp, May 1994). The study estimated the reliability of the accreditation criteria and components, and identified which components most strongly predict the decision to accredit a program. It adds to the existing research base related to the reliability of accreditation criteria and process and documents specific criteria that predict success in accreditation. The two questions addressed in this study are: 1. Are the current accreditation criteria and instruments reliable? 2. Which components of criteria are most frequently associated with the decision to accredit an early childhood program? This study reexamined the criteria (originally researched by Bredekamp, 1 985) by estimating the reliability at the item-level and the component-level. Percentages of agreement between child care centers and validators on rankings of fully met, partially met and not met were used at the item level. Correlation coefficients were computed at the component level. This study also determined, through a discriminant analysis, which 239

PAGE 255

components of criteria were most frequently associated with the decision to accredit a program. Data for this study came from the National Association for the Education of Young Children and is comprised of 453 early care and education programs that completed the NAEYC accreditation process in the spring of I 994. Programs served children from binh through schoolage and represented 44 states and U .S. military programs operating in Germany and the United Kingdom. The primary sample used one classroom from all 453 programs. The secondary sample used every classroom, a total of 153, from 2 7 programs that all served infants through school age children. The results of the item-level analysis show high percentages of agreement, 90% or greater, between centers and validators, in 132 out of l 77 criteria. The lowest percentage of agreement in the study was 68% on one criteria. The component-level analysis revealed high correlation coefficients, .81 in the primary sample and 97 in the secondary sample, between centers and validators ratings in all ten criteria components. In the discriminant analysis of the primary sample, the components Teacher Child Interactions, Curriculum, Staffing, and Evaluation predicted the decision to accredit a program. In the secondary sample analysis, the 240

PAGE 256

components Teacher-Child Interactions and Staffing again predicted accreditation along with Health and Safety and Nutrition and Food Service. The unit of analysis was the entire early childhood program. The dependent variable was the decision to accredit or defer. The independent variables for the item-level analysis are ten components that include I 77 accreditation criteria found in the Oassroom Observation instrument and in the Administrator's Report. Variables used in the component level analysis and the discriminant analysis are the ten accreditation components. The programs of two commissions were randomly selected for this analysis from a population of nine commission meetings during 1 994 and encompass the broad diversity of early care and education programs. Complete descriptions of the sampling can be found in Chapter 3. The ratings from one classroom in a program are recorded in the primary sample. Since the unit of analysis is the program and the decision to accredit or defer applies to all classrooms, one classroom per program could be used to determine the reliability of the criteria. Since the accreditation decision is made by commissioners who consider all 241

PAGE 257

classrooms within a program, an additional smaller secondary data set is used to validate the results of the primary sample. The demographics of the programs in the data set represent the broadest range of programs and professionals in the field of early care and education. The broad range of programs accurately represents the profession, and with so many various representations included, the results from this study should be generalizable to any program in the NAEYC accreditation process. The following discussion summarizes the results reponed previously and offers detailed conclusions. Discussion and Conclusions Question One: Are the NAEYC accreditation criteria reliable? This question is answered by both item-level and component-level analyses. Item-level percentages of agreement are presented for each individual criteria. Component correlations are computed for the ten components of criterion, individually, as rated by validator and by center. Item-level Analysis. The item-by-item analysis of percentage of agreement shows that the majority of NAEYC accreditation criteria are reliable. Centers and validators agree that 7 5% of the l 77 criteria across all 242

PAGE 258

components were fully met 90% or more of the time. This high percentage of agreement is a strong estimate of the reliability of the individual items, called criteria, that comprise the NAEYC Accreditation. The highest percentage of agreement, 99 .8%, between centers and validators occurred with criterion G 1 b6 7. This criterion states, "there is a minimum of 7 5 square feet of play place outdoors per child (when space is in use)."2 This means that the center staff and outside validators agree that the standards represented in this criterion have been fully accomplished. Other criteria which centers and validators agreed upon at this same level were from the administrative component (E5a), curriculum (B l, B4b47), health and safety (Hl3a), and staff qualifications and development (Dla). At 99.6% of agreement, centers and validators rated criterion E5a, "attendance records of staff and children are kept," as fully met. Also rated at fully met 99.3% of the time were two curriculum criteria, Bl and B4b47. These criteria state "the program has a written statement of its philosophy and goals for children that is available to staff and parents" and "the schedule provides for alternating periods of quiet and 2All references to specific criteria in this chapter are from the Early Childhood Program Description, NAEYC, 1991. 243

PAGE 259

active play." Criterion Hl3a was also agreed upon as fully met by centers and validators 99.3% of the time. This criterion states, "the facility is cleaned daily, including disinfecting bathroom fixtures and removing trash." Centers and validators agree 99.3% of the time that criterion Dla, "staff who work directly with children are eighteen years of age or older. Volunteers are sixteen years of age or older, receive orientation, and only work with children under supervision of qualified staff members" was fully met. While no research focuses on effects of the age of or outcomes for children and families, state regulations clearly specify the age of the caregivers allowed to work with young children. This criterion may be so highly agreed upon because this same requirement is mandated by the majority of states in their minimum regulations for operating early care and education programs. Centers and validators had the least percentage of agreement on criterion B3d from the curriculum component (68.1 %). This criterion states, "parents are involved in development and use of individual education plans for children with special needs. Staff address the needs of parents of children with special needs." This researcher's hypothesis on the low percentage of agreement between centers and validators on this 244

PAGE 260

criterion is that many parents enrolled in early care and education programs do not have a child with special needs. This criterion is a component of the parent questionnaire, and thus all parents are asked this question, as well as staff. There is often a misunderstanding on the part of parents and some staff concerning whether the criterion must be responded to regardless of the parent's and staffs current experiences and immediate involvement with children with special needs. The special needs criterion is an interesting one to study. This author's opinion is that if this criterion had been rated only by classroom teachers, centers and parents who individually served children with special needs, the percentage of agreement would have been significantly higher. In this criterion alone, the lower percentage of agreement may be due to the "I =not met" rating referring to the fact that there were either no children in the program with special needs or a parent stating that their child did not have special needs. (While this analysis does not give detail data to support this statement, it is verified by personal experience guiding staff, parents and administrator's through the self-study process, and as a validator often questioned about this criterion during a validation visit.) Future clarification may benefit from the phrase "not applicable" being 245

PAGE 261

added to the classroom observation criterion as well as the parent survey criterion. Other criteria which had low percentages of agreement are Hl5a, 70.8%; C8b and J2a, 72%; and B7h, 74%. Validators and centers only agreed 70% that criterion, Hl5a, was fully met. This criterion states, "the building, play yard, and all equipment are maintained in safe, clean condition, and in good repair." This criterion includes four indicators which must be checked by validators for the criterion to be rated fully met. These indicators include no sharp edges, splinters, or missing parts; glass and trash are removed from children's play areas; outdoor sandboxes are covered when not in use; and the water play table is cleaned and sanitized with a bleach solution daily when in use. This criterion encompasses many varied indicators. Reasons for a lower percentage of agreement on this criterion are undoubtedly due to the fact that centers have checked everything thoroughly but with the variety of items included, validators observe one or two scenarios during the validation visit which prevent the criterion from being fully met. Centers (Table 4.2) did rate themselves a "3--fully met" and validators rated them "2--partially met" over 17% of the time. Conversely, centers rated themselves "2--partially met" and validators 246

PAGE 262

rated them higher at a "3--fully met" almost 12% of the time. The combination is 29% of non agreement in this one criterion. Other criteria which received lower percentages of agreement were CBb and J2a, 72%, and B7h, 74%. Criterion C8b states, "staff and parents communicate to insure that the programs from which children come and to which they go from one year to the next provide continuity over time" and J2a, "at least once a year, staff, other professionals, and school-age children are involved in evaluating the program's effectiveness in meeting the needs of children and parents." The last criterion, B 7h, reads "respect cultural diversity." While J2a appears to be a very objective criterion to evaluate, the other two criteria are open to a great deal of professional interpretation. This may be the primary reason for the lower percentage of agreement between centers and validators. Staff-Parent interaction, the "C" component and curriculum, the "B" component, both involve subjective interpretation of these specific criteria. C8b has no specific examples or indicators to describe communication among parents and staff relating to the transition children may go through as they enter or move on to the next program. The curriculum component contains several examples but, due to 247

PAGE 263

the diversity of the centers and children in the accreditation process and validators who are rating the centers, the interpretations can vary a great deal. Discrepancies may occur in expectations of communications regarding transitions as well as in the communication itself. For example, a teacher may feel that classroom activities planned to enhance a pre kindergarten child's listening skills is a preparation for positive transition to the kindergarten program. An individual validator may feel this is a natural part of the curriculum and not see these activities as having been specifically planned to ease the child's transition. This misunderstanding could cause disagreement in the rating of this criterion. Factors Influencing Agreement and Disagreement. This researcher s hypothesis is that several factors, including the self-study process, are primarily responsible for center's and validator's high percentages of agreement on most of the criteria. Low percentage of agreement can also be attributed to several factors. The following detail discusses these hypotheses. Since 1985 when the NAEYC Accreditation system began, a variety of initiatives have helped professionals in early care and education increase the reliability of these criteria. The first is that continuing research has 248

PAGE 264

substantiated that the criteria are based on factors that are important for positive developmental outcomes for young children and their families. Mounting evidence that high quality programs for children must include specific program components compels programs and professionals in early care and education to strive toward understanding and achieving these standards expressed by the components. NAEYC has published specific books focused on clarifying the importance and the specific definition of the criteria and their organizing components. Individual criteria have been clarified in articles or books or as a focus for a specific journal. For example, almost immediately after the accreditation criteria were published, the NAECP' s phone inquiries increased dramatically. Many of these calls related specifically to individual criteria which were unclear to programs in the self-study process. Recently thereafter, NAEYC published Developmentally Appropriate Pragice from Birth through Age 8, edited by Bredekamp ( 1986) A revision was completed in I 991 and reflects more detailed interpretations and clarifications of the criteria This book is used consistently across the profession to clarify practices which are appropriate for use in each classroom. 249

PAGE 265

Another interesting example of NAEYC's effort to clarify interpretations of a specific criterion relates to B 7h, the diversity criterion. In 1992, NAEYC published Antibiased Curriculum: Tools for Empowering Young Children. This book is a significant contribution to the body of work describing antibiased curricula It defines diversity and an tibias for the field and presents many new options for teachers' use in classrooms to assist children in developing healthy images of themselves as related to their gender, race, and cultural heritage. While this book provided much needed clarification, the content also creates controversy among professionals and parents in early childhood care and education. Diverse groups of educators and parents continually debate the meaning and efficacy of antibias curriculum. Early childhood teachers are challenged to provide appropriate curriculum and materials for the growing number of diverse children and families being served in their classrooms. In this author's opinion, these two issues may be the reasons for a lower percentage of agreement on this specific criterion. Reflecting back on both the highest and lowest percentage of agreement criteria among centers and validators produces an interesting view. All six of the highest percentage of agreement criteria are contained 250

PAGE 266

in the Administrator's Repon. None of the criteria which centers and validators agreed upon 99% or more of the time were found in the Classroom Observation booklet. The lowest percentage of agreement between centers and validators occurred in five criteria. Of these five, only two, H !Sa and B 7h, appear in the Oassroom Observation booklet. The remaining three criteria are found in the Administrator's Repon. This fact may indicate that some administrative repon criteria are more difficult to interpret, due to more subjective content, and thus could benefit from clearer wording for both centers and validators. This discussion has reviewed the criteria which centers and validators agreed upon most often as well as those which were agreed upon a lower percentage of the time. It is imponant to remember that even the lowest percentage of agreement between centers and validators was only 68%, well above a the half way mark which in mathematical analysis is statistically significant (Crocker &Algina, 1986). Over all 177 criteria, 73% or 129 were agreed upon by centers and validators at a level of 90% or higher and the remainder were received a 68% or higher percentage of agreement rating, which represents a positive estimate of reliability at the item level. Component-level Analysis. Review of the component level 251

PAGE 267

correlational analysis by validator and by center again substantiates the reliability. Four out of ten component scores correlate at .52 and above: health and safety, .78; curriculum, .72; physical environment, .59 and staff parent interaction, .53. Two components correlate at the .70 level or above, indicating very high correlation (Crocker &Algina, 1986). The two components which rated the highest were curriculum, .72, and health and safety, 78. Health and safety, at 78 correlation, are two of the most consistently used criteria to regulate high quality in early care and education programs around the world. These two highest correlated components are identified by research again and again as significant contributors to quality programs for young children. Bredekamp's 1985 research identified teacher child interactions, health and safety, and curriculum as the primary indicators of quality. Centers themselves cite curriculum and health and safety as the most frequently improved program components as a result of the accreditation process (Herr, 1993). Both curriculum and health and safety have continued as positive forces in quality programming for young children (Bums, et al., 1990; Dunn, 1993; Bredekamp, 1993). Research conducted since Bredecamp's original accreditation study suppons health and safety as a prime ingredient of 252

PAGE 268

comprehensive criteria for high quality (Albrecht et al., 1993; The State of Missouri, 1991; Southern Association on Children Under Six, 1990; Ignico, 1992a, 1992b, 1994; Marotz et al., 1993). Center and validator ratings for Staff-Parent Interactions and physical environment also correlated at significant levels (.53 and .59, respectively). More recent research confirms that positive staff-parent interaction (defined as some form of daily communication with the caregiver) strongly correlates to quality child care ratings (Owen et al, 1989; Ackerman et al. 1989, 1989; Howes, 1990; Feagans and Manlove 1 994). This research also reveals parents and staff have many shared goals for children and few areas of misunderstanding when communication between staff and parents is consistent. While relatively few additional studies have been completed since 1985 regarding the effects of physical environment on the developmental outcomes for young children, the use of the ITERS and ECERS have become consistent environmental measurement tools for both programs and research. These instruments provide a broad definition of a quality early care and education environment and provide a scale to optimize the quality across basic elements within the classroom. McCartney et al. 253

PAGE 269

( 1982) studied the child environment related to child outcome measures and reported that total ECERS' scores as predictive of increased language ability, intellectual development, and social competence among preschool children. The body of research on physical environment in high quality early care and education programs concludes that the use of spaces designed specifically for children, as well as learning centers and private areas for children positively impacts their social, cognitive, and physical development (Harms et al., 1980, 1983, 1993; Ignico, 1990, 1992a, 1992b, 1994). Of the six components in which ratings correlate below the .50 level, a deeper look at the item-by-item analysis (Table 4.1) reveals a consistent level of "3--fully met" ratings. This lack of variability in ratings by centers and by validators may be one reason for the lower correlations since a correlation analysis requires some variation in the scores to produce significant correlation coefficients. For example, in the component "Interactions Among Teachers and Children," the mean is 2.97 for the center scores and 2.95 for validators. There is little difference in these two means and even less difference in the standard deviations (.07 and .12, respectively) which further illustrates the high level of consistency in the 254

PAGE 270

ratings between centers and validators in this component. Interactions Among Teachers and Children is one of the primary components identified by Bredekamp's original research as critical for a quality early care and education program. Subsequent research (McCartney et al., 1982; 1985; Phillips et al., 1987; Holloway et al., 1988, Howes et al., 1992; Hestenes, 1993) supports the positive effects of quality teacher-child interactions on children's development and behavior. Children are found to be more positive, display better peer relations, are more focused and less aggressive, and are found to be more involved in exploratory behaviors when caregivers are responsive, positive and interactive with children. This research substantiates the importance of fully met ratings and the high percentage of agreement, by centers and by validators, on criteria within this component. Thirteen out of fifteen, or 87% of the criteria within the "Interactions" component were rated fully met by centers and validators 90% or more of the time. Other components which correlated below the .50 level show the same high percentage of consistent agreement between centers and validators. Staff qualifications and development, correlating at .37, shows ten out of eleven criteria agreed upon by centers and validators in excess of 255

PAGE 271

90% of the time. This represents the highest single percent of agreement. The Administration component follows the same trend. At .33 correlation, 18 out of 21 criteria are agreed upon by centers and validators at the fully met level more than 90% of the time. While not quite as highly agreed upon, the staffing criteria and the nutrition and food service criteria both report 71% of the criteria, or five of seven agreed upon by centers and validators in excess of 90% of the time. These two components correlated at .21 and .41, respectively. The research reviewed earlier in chapter two corroborates the inclusion of these criteria as important components for operating a high quality program for children. The total center and validator correlation, which encompasses all ratings in all ten components, produces a .81 correlation coefficient. This indicates a stronger estimate of reliability across all components than any one single component. Accreditation decisions are made considering the entire program description which shows all ratings by centers and by validators. This correlation coefficient indicates the final accreditation decision is being made using a set of criteria which is estimated to be highly reliable. In the secondary sample, the results of the total center and validator 256

PAGE 272

correlation and the correlations of individual components follow the same pattern as the primary sample. Here again, Health and Safety, .96 and Curriculum, 77, rate among the three highest components. In this secondary sample, the rating for Nutrition and Food Service, 96, also correlated very highly. The addition of Nutrition and Food Service and the higher correlation coefficient for Health and Safety may be due to the inclusion of all classrooms' data in this sample. Including all classrooms results in more infant, toddler, and two-year-old classrooms being included in the averages. The additional focus in these classrooms of younger children on the critical health and safety and nutrition issues may be a key factor in these high correlation coefficients. Staff-Parent Interactions, .58 and Physical Environment, .68, again correlated at a significant level in this secondary sample. Also following the same pattern as the primary sample, Teacher-Child Interactions, .05, Staff Qualifications and Development, .26, Staffing, .34, and Administration, .39 correlated lower. Again, looking at the high percentage of agreement and fully met ratings by both centers and validators (Table 4.2), it is important to note that the lack of variability in center and validator ratings may be the cause of these low correlation coefficients. 257

PAGE 273

The total center and validator correlation, which again encompasses averages of all classroom ratings, produces a 97 correlation coefficient in the secondary sample. This indicates an extremely high estimate of reliability across all criteria in this secondary sample. This secondary sample correlation does seem to indicate that, when all classrooms are used to make the accreditation decision, the estimate of reliability of the criteria and the process is extremely high. Possible reasons for high levels of reliability can be corroborated by further research. Studying the time which lapses between the center mailing their materials to the Academy and actually receiving a validation visit would be interesting. The effects of this time span (which is planned by the Academy to be approximately six to eight weeks) could have both a positive and negative impact on the center. Within this time, many things can happen in an early care and education program. The most positive of these possibilities involves the program and staff continuing to improve on the specific criteria which they may have rated partially met in their original program description. Conversely, during this period of time staff could change and other factors could impact the program which then may decrease the quality of the program. 258

PAGE 274

The high percentage of agreement found among the criteria may be due to consistent and improved validator and mentor uaining as well as the mentor programs sponsored by NAEYC. V alidator uaining has continued to go through refinement in the ten years of the accreditation process. The addition of a Training Coordinator position in the Academy in l 993 has further enhanced the consistency and content of validator uaining offered by NAECP throughout the country. The mentor program sponsored by NAEYC has also had a very positive impact on centers in the self-study process. This program, which is a voluntary program coordinated through the Academy, involves program directors who have accomplished accreditation volunteering to act as mentors for other local programs in the self-study process. Programs who request a mentor through NAECP are assigned one by the Academy staff. The participation of these mentors provides a hands-on, week-by-week support system for both the classroom teachers and the administrator involved in accreditation. Mentors are uained by Academy staff and are provided support materials by the Academy. The Academy also acts as a resource to provide connections between mentors and programs seeking this additional level of support. 259

PAGE 275

Low levels of agreement among centers and validators on some criteria may be caused by a variety of factors. My hypothesis is that differences in state standards may provide the greatest influence on these lower levels of agreement. Lower entry level skills of staff, lower requirements of professional preparation, and lower levels of support and resources available to programs across the country may combine to complicate agreement in some criteria. Controversial criteria within the early care and education profession, such as the anti-bias criteria, could also impact these low levels of agreement. Differences in interpretation of the criteria that could benefit from additional clarification are differences in cultures, values, and beliefs within communities and across different regions of the country. As was stated earlier, misunderstandings in the interpretation of criteria such as those related to special needs may have a major effect on the level of agreement. The fact that most of the lower percentage of agreement between centers and validators exists within areas of the Administrative Report could provide a focus for clarification. Rewording these criteria might assist centers and validators in interpreting them more succinctly. Summary. Overall, the consistently high percentage of agreement 260

PAGE 276

points to a strong estimate of reliability in NAEYC accreditation criteria. This strong estimate of reliability tells programs accreditation can be a trusted process and it tells policy makers that it can be a solid foundation for accountability of quality when granting funding to early care and education programs. The strong estimate of reliability tells parents that they can be confident an accredited program will provide their child optimal development over time. It also tells teachers and administrators that the process of accreditation is as worthwhile for program improvement as it is for fostering professional growth and development. Question Two: Which criteria components are most frequently associated with the decision to accredit an early childhood program? Primary Sample Results. The discriminant analysis of the primary sample produced five discriminating variables which strongly predict the decision to accredit a program. These components are, listed in order, Teacher-Child Interactions, Curriculum, and Staffing as rated by validators and Evaluation and Staffing as rated by centers. Teacher-child interactions and curriculum. Of these five discriminating variables, Teacher-Children Interactions and Curriculum 261

PAGE 277

were identified by Bredekamp's original research as key components in quality programs for children. The research completed prior to 1985 and additional studies reviewed in this work all corroborate the key role played by these two components in quality programs which produce positive developmental outcomes for children. Two of these, Teacher-Child Interactions and Curriculum, are consistently cited by the research in earlier sections as having positive relationships to both quality (Howes, 1990; Doherty, 1991; & Scarr et al., 1994) and optimal child development outcomes (Oark-Stewan, 1993). Staffing While staffing was not identified by the 1985 research as a key quality indicator, the research cited earlier has brought this component to the forefront along with interactions and curriculum as a key indicator of quality. This is the only component of criteria that discriminated both as rated by centers and as rated by validators in the decision to accredit a center. Both the Whitebrook ( 1989) study, and the Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes study ( 1995) identified more highly educated, trained and experienced child care staff as one of the prime ingredients demanded by quality programs. These studies include the training and education of both staff and administrators as an important component along with the staff262

PAGE 278

child ratio when providing optimal quality. This is a logical conclusion based on the fact that staff in sufficient numbers does not automatically guarantee appropriate interactions and curriculum planning within an early childhood classroom (Hestenes et al., 1993). Only training and education can assure that appropriate curriculum and warm, supportive interactions are occurring. Evaluation. The surprising and newly identified discriminant variable in this analysis is Evaluation. Although some have specifically related evaluation to the quality of the program, most researchers and practitioners do not see evaluation as a significant and individual contributor of accreditation. Therefore, the early childhood profession may not necessarily relate evaluation to high quality. Reflecting on the criteria within the evaluation component, clearly several elements are encompassed which directly and positively influence programs. Accreditation is about both meeting standards and improving the program. Evaluations are one means of communicating standards and subsequently improving the ability of those in the program who do not meet those standards. In other profession's accreditation processes, evaluation is consistently mentioned and often referred to as monitoring (Radar, l 988; 263

PAGE 279

Coy, 1991 ). It is viewed as a valuable process in itself and one which assists the program in meeting the higher standards required by the individual accreditation. Through self-evaluation and ongoing monitoring, programs maintain the high standards and continuously improve upon them. Evaluation of an Early Care and Education program allows teachers, children, parents and administrators to reflect on what is going on within the day-to-day operation, as well as look forward to what the program should be providing. When parents are actively involved in evaluation, the program improves based on their recommendations which ultimately meet their specific needs and those of their children. Evaluation accomplished in each classroom allows children the opponunity to share what they like and what is interesting to them. Since the early childhood profession values children's interests as key detenninants of curriculum content, using their evaluations of the program will naturally focus both teachers and administrators on providing imponant and meaningful curriculum. This process, in itself, will make the program more likely to produce positive child outcomes as well as meet the needs of families as a whole. Programs which are more meaningful to families and staff will thrive on the 264

PAGE 280

continued interactions and communications that ongoing evaluations will foster. Recent research (Slavenas, 1993) identifies current program evaluation processes as varied and well developed. Several methods are used for collecting information and open-ended processes are most frequent. Greatest improvements are reported in personal and professional behaviors of teachers and in the management structure of the center (Decker & Decker, 1988; Slavenas, 1993) Accuracy of classification. The classification table using the five discriminating variables is the test of the accuracy between the current group (0 or 1) and the predicted group within which the program should fall. In the primary sample, 80% of the 453 programs were classified correctly using the five discriminating variables. Based on these five discriminating variables, the classification table indicates 35% of the programs which were deferred should have been accredited by the Academy. Of the accredited centers, 14.6% should not have been according to the function of this analysis. It is important to again bring out the fact that the decision to accredit is made comprehensively. Commissioners review all ten 265

PAGE 281

components of criteria in both the Oassroom Observation and the Administrator's Report to make the final decision, so it is vital that programs focus on meeting all criteria included. In looking at the programs as a whole, the commissioners may have found variables which led them to their decision to either accredit or defer the program. Since there may be variances unaccounted for in this analysis, it is not possible to know on the basis of this data which factors caused these specific commission decisions. Equally important to consider in this analysis is the fact that data from only one classroom was included. In making the accreditation decision, the Academy staff and Commissioners always review the entire program. The ratings of the one randomly selected classroom, if not a true representation of all classrooms, may be the reason for the variance. Secondary Sample Results. The smaller secondary sample included all ratings by centers and validators for all classrooms within each program. To create a statistically appropriate measure, the classroom ratings were averaged together to produce one score which was entered into the analysis. The dependent variable is accredit ( 1) or defer (0). The results of this secondary sample discriminant analysis produce four discriminating variables. These four variables divide equally into groups rated by centers 266

PAGE 282

and by validators. Discriminating variables differ slightly. In order, the discriminating variables are Health and Safety and Nutrition and Food Service as rated by validators and Staffing and Teacher-Child Interactions as rated by centers. The first two discriminating variables are different than the primary sample Health and Safety and Nutrition and Food Service as rated by validators did not appear in the primary sample This may have been caused by the additional classrooms added in the secondary sample. It also may be affected by the fact that all secondary sample programs included infants and toddlers, while the primary sample was a mix predominantly weighted by preschool classrooms. Health and Safety, as mentioned earlier, was an original quality indicator as identified in Bredekamp's ( 1985) research. Nutrition and Food Service has surfaced in the general research literature as an important indicator of children s optimal functioning in a classroom (Underwood et al., 1987; Guthrie, 1989). Over the last five years the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National Dairy Council have advocated for expanded food and nutrition education programs as well as a more comprehensive approach for providing two-thirds of the child's minimum daily requirement of nutrients during the day in their early care and 267

PAGE 283

education program. Teacher-child interactions and staffing resurface Also identified as discriminating variables in the secondary sample are Staffing and Teacher Child Interactions as rated by centers. These two components correspond to the primary sample discriminating functions and confirm the importance of these two components in the prediction of accreditation in both samples. The fact that this secondary sample, although much smaller, included more classrooms corroborates the importance of appropriate interactions as well as staffing, which includes education and training, in the determination of quality as indicated by NAEYC Accreditation. Accuracy of classification. In the classification tables of the smaller secondary sample, 86% of the cases were correctly classified In each group of accredited and deferred, only two programs out of the 27 included were predicted to be incorrectly classified in the initial Academy commission decision. In other words, two programs which were deferred by the commission should have been accredited and two programs which were accredited should have been deferred according to this classification using these four discriminating variables. Summary. Almost identical percentages of accredited programs were 268

PAGE 284

both correctly and incorrectly classified in the primary and secondary samples. It is in the deferred group that the samples are significantly dissimilar. According to Table 4.19, 65% of these primary sample programs deferred were predicted to be accurately classified, while 35% which should have been accredited by the Academy (based on the discriminating factors) were not. In the secondary analysis, Table 4.24, only two or 13% of the deferred programs were predicted to be accredited. The data and comparison seems to indicate that including more classrooms in the analysis produces more accurate decisions to accredit or defer. It substantiates the established Academy practice of reviewing and incorporating all classroom ratings in the final decision to accredit or defer a program. This insight should encourage a strong focus and continued research on the components of the secondary sample discriminating variables of Health and Safety, Nutrition and Food Service, Teacher-Child Interactions and Staffing. The extremely strong total correlation coefficient, 97, of the secondary sample component-level analysis is another compelling indicator of the vigor of incorporating all classrooms in the final accreditation decision. 269

PAGE 285

Recommendations for Funher Research This study has shown that while the original research still remains reliable and valid, it is crucial to continue to evaluate both processes and content. The Academy has undenaken one extensive review of the criteria in 1991 and a second is in process. The Academy's Advisory Panel is involved in soliciting comments and reviewing specific aspects of both the process and content. As a former member of this Advisory Panel, a former program manager, a validator and commissioner, and one who has observed and occasionally directly assisted over 200 programs in achieving NAEYC Accreditation, my comments and conclusions in the section come from many aspects of practical experience. A funher analysis of the individual characteristics of the incorrectly classified programs (based on the discriminating factors identified in this study) in both the accredited and non-accredited groups could be very enlightening. The results of this analysis could guide the Academy on such things as the interpretation of the weight of specific criteria, and center, validator, and commissioner training related to the parameters around which accreditation decisions are made. Other recommendations for additional research include: 270

PAGE 286

I. Determine the significance of director and staff education level and qualifications as predictors of NAEYC accreditation. 2. Identify and categorize NAEYC Accreditation criteria into categories of process related and regulation focused criteria and analyze these groups related to the accreditation decision. Such research might prove valuable to state regulators as they work to improve their internal monitoring and licensing criteria. 3. Conduct a nationwide survey of parents of children under six years-old to ascertain their recognition and knowledge of NAEYC Accreditation. Additional insight into the value that parents place on accreditation, or third party endorsements in general, would be a valuable contribution in creating a more effective awareness of the value of NAEYC Accreditation to parents and other consumers. 4. Compare parents' specific needs and issues for their children with accreditation criteria to identify both the positive aspects and the deficiencies of the accreditation criteria from the parent's perspective. This research may help parents form positive perceptions of early childhood educators as supponive interested and informed professionals. 5. Compare state regulations with the number of accredited centers 271

PAGE 287

within that state. Does the influence of state standards prevent or encourage programs to participate in NAEYC Accreditation? Recommendations Related to NAEYC Accreditation Criteria l. A thorough review of criteria which fall lower than 80% of agreement could be valuable for the future direction of Accreditation. Rewording these criteria may result in more clearly interpreted standards which would result in higher percentage of agreement between centers and validators. 2. Solicit reviews of the literature on the above identified criteria that fall into the lower percentages of agreement. These articles and publications could be published the Academy Update, Young Children, Parent, Child, and other publications related to the early care and education as well as those often read by parents. These reviews would assist programs, validators, parents and policymakers in a more thorough understanding of the details of individual criteria and provide clarification of a wide array of issues. 3. Presentations at early childhood and child development conferences on topics related to the criteria discussed in number one above 272

PAGE 288

to create a more complete understanding and clearer interpretation of the meaning of the criteria. 4. Create opportunities for individuals within the field of early care and education to discuss and process criteria which represent areas of controversy within the field. Such forums and/or symposia could initiate discussion which would create consensus and allow dearer interpretation and best practice to evolve even within the most diverse group of professionals. 5. Re-engineer training for mentors and validators who could then assist centers in the interpretation of specific criteria as they proceed through the self-study. 6. Continually provide reviews of the research literature on specific criteria and components that are related to positive outcomes for young children (as well as keep current annotated bibliographies of research updated, e.g., Keeping Current in Child Care Research). Recommendations to Parents Parents of young children have double duty; to understand their work-related job and to understand their job as parent. The role of 273

PAGE 289

parenting is often a dichotomy. It is fun but challenging, scary but exhilarating, exhausting but energizing and worrisome but also very rewarding. The choice of which type of child care program, preschool, nursery school, before and after school program and summer program to select is very confusing. Applying the results of this research can clarify several important factors to use in the decision. To select the highest quality program which promotes optimal child development, the following components are critical: I. Teacher-child interactions must be respectful, responsive, and consistent Teachers will respond to children s requests and join in their play as well as offer directed experiences they know are appropriate for the developmental levels of the classroom 2 Curriculum must be organized, balanced between child-initiated and teacher-directed, and interesting to the children. Activities offered should represent a range of things that are easy, moderate and slightly challenging to each child. 3. Staffing and group sizes must be appropriate for the age-level of the classroom. Infants, toddlers and two-year-olds require more teachers than preschool and schoolage children. The size of the group should allow 274

PAGE 290

teachers time to focus on meeting the individual needs of children. 4. There must be varying opportunities for parents, teachers and older children to evaluate and comment on the program. At lease annually, a written evaluation should occur. Parents should be welcome to visit or spend longer periods of time in the program and classrooms at all times. Children's evaluations should ask about activity, schedule and snack preferences. 5. Procedures, policies and daily practices should be observable and focus on keeping children healthy and the program environment safe. 6. Foods served should follow the USDA recommended daily allowances, be served family style, and encourage children's choices and independence as they learn to serve and feed themselves. Final Thoughts Accreditation has grown to symbolize a higher level of quality in many professions. The conclusions of this study relate equally to Early Care and Education and to any other profession that values accreditation. Both processes and content must be continuously improved. As standards are set, results of research must be used to validate their reliability. As 275

PAGE 291

standards are achieved, research can document next steps. Specifically, the identification of evaluation as a critical predictor of accreditation relates across all professions. Education, nursing, home health care, dentistry, journalism, communications, and medicine have all identified evaluation as valuable. The evaluation component of their individual accreditation programs may also be a critical link to the quality products and services they offer. Since the inception of the NAEYC Accreditation process in 1985, the standards of the early care and education profession have been raised to a higher level of quality. Many directors and administrators seek an objective, third-pany endorsement for the parents of their program as well as for the professional pride of their staff. Accreditation is a source of pride to the entire team responsible for its accomplishment (Herr, 1993). Both the NAEYC Accreditation process and the professionals in the field of early care and education are focused on continuous improvement. Increased numbers of centers entering the self-study process and becoming accredited are evidence of this fact The NAEYC Accreditation process has been proven to be a valuable component for assuring the optimal development of children, the improvement of programs, and the 276

PAGE 292

professional development of staff and administrators. The research surrounding the criteria has brought new focus to the resources necessary to provide optimal experiences for children. Intensified recognition can lead to enhanced respect of the profession which, in turn, can also lead to more resources for our children. Increased clarity of the criteria and continued work on improving best practice in the profession will continue to move early care and education toward its goal of being recognized as a viable profession alongside its closely related foundations of education and psychology. 277

PAGE 293

Appendix A NAEYC Accreditation-Oassroom Observation Criteria 278

PAGE 294

Earl.v Childhood Ducrrpri011 A. 1Dt.er2Cdoas among Scaff' aod Cbi1dreD C&ITI&ION AL 5allflalerw:l(ftqlaeudywtda c:JUJdrea lbooriaa atl'ealoa.. rapecL (J Sed illlcna DOnYabally by smllinl-IOUdliaa-haldlaa-(J Sed IIIII: With and lislcn 10 ladiYiduaJ c:tUidrcn clur1naac I!Yillc:smd IOIIllncS(IftiYIIIII clcpuUaa. Cllln&) (J ScdaaM!yscckiiiCIIIlnl{ul COftYCISaUODS Willi cllildla\. (J ScdlltfCOIICoiO
PAGE 295

CRITI!:RJON A-31>. scalr..U.wldaiDdMdualddldraL,andCIIaJIIr'8FcbJidrea oraD ..-ro -laap8&e. For-t*. llqlcal -. rallt -.-..-. bclp z.yaNIIdl -INDp.lll<.,.-sopm-ua lew tot:bacl -acrs 10 calk lbaua lbull _.... -. .,.. -..p ........ piiOCOo.-....,----____ _____ ol ___ swr..- ..,... . -ca.c. -...-., .....,Ilk. ....,_ appannn:. and .,._,., ftluat.. .sac ltdJ&td. .... _cd ___ ... ___ ....., ___ ....,....,.,_ ICICN&Icl and Cl*lftJ la&G"WaWWIIO clllc-. dUJaar:a. A-4b. 5aft" dalldrm oL boch 10 IDe 18ft Ill aJIKIMdes. Foruawtp/. ....,.. ptOpl.-......... .,..acs 111a1 Cllllftla" ............... oa role Ccmaleliftllahocn.-auncs). Value pmWvc Jncla ot noloc ond IICIMryill..-...batiiiJirloond....,... "17bcnaclaiOWicdJJililtlfi4MdualdiB clren """"' .-s&en:ocypcS ill ..,._..., . 111eIUChU .......... ta.IP{ul far batll J:UIA ond bop). lfsmall--daipa&cd.dmdinJI Gwitk ta Accrrditanan G&OUPS c v v c v c v v y c y c v I I 1 I I I I I I VAUDAnON DECUION ClV ClNV lclv lei y lei v r ly lclvr I VI cl YICI y lc I vI ClV ClNV For lltllidlltDr __________ ___ I c I vI, I 1 cIvIc I vIc I vIc I vIc I y I c I y I, I vI av uNV 280

PAGE 296

Early Childhood Program A. lnteraclioas among Stall' and Cbildren COfltlrnud CaiTiaiON Stall' cncoaraae lndcpcnolenc:e lA c:hlldren me,..-ty. ,_....,.... ratJms: ..,,. -r plrr. Older-....: fiaacr feelial odf. Toddlal; ....a.aa ICkcllnt --nrea -,_., -.. 111'"'7'-Fi-= ICUial .-. dcaallnl. aaruu.... Sdloolblcm.S 0 Encou1'2(1aDCSU oC lie bdlavlor. 0 Consls&aU. cJcar rules cfCYd. drenanddiscusrcd WUhthcm ID make suretbqruodenland. 0 S&aa dexribc: lhc SKUallon ID enc:ouraJIC c:hlldtal s a:oJua. lion oC lhc problem lUber than 1mr-c lhc soiUllon. 0 lo!llc:al or natural conx quc:nccs applied iD problem IINallOnS. A-&. Scalfdonot,_pJty.leal paolshmcnlorotherocptift.U.. cJpllnc mcdulds dult hurt. &tptcn, or hiUili1J:ace chil clren. For-lffp/1. StolT do -force cbilcltcu IO Jilc or aplain IMir bu1 bclp children ruoanilc anochcr chiJd Ccellftp food or is ...,... Wdhhcld aa a disapline dnlcc. c::J GKOUPS c; v c; v c; v LC. Y(C Y IC Y c; v VIC V 1 I I I I l 1 l 1 ov uNV I cl v lc;lvlcl v r I v r l"lcl "I c; I y lc;l v lc; I VI ov QNV For IJGlldiJicw __________ lc;ivlclvlclvlc;lvlclvlclvlclvlc;lvlclvl QV ONV 281

PAGE 297

CKITI:KION Oftrall IOIIDd or poap 1s pleuaat-or the lime. _.....,. lloppy ...... ...,.._,....,.Ill> -, --dlaldo--A-8&. CbiJIIftD -ae-aJiyrorlabk. Jdaed.bappy,UIII imOtred Ill pa..y ..... odler 8ClMtJCS. A-ab SCalF bclp cb.IJdraa deal wtlb _,a- ....-. ..... ,._._ lloa by coml'orUna. ideat&lyllla. rdJeclllla rectlllp. ..... bdplaa chiJdreD -words 10 IO!Ye lbclr IJ")bJau. GROUPS y y c y c y v c c \' c y c y J l I I I I T r I VAUDAnON DECISION QV CINV Dlftaor's nub!& VAUDAnON DECJStON QV ClNV D I c I y I c I: I cIvIc I y I z I vIc I y I c I y I cIvIc I y I QV QNV 282

PAGE 298

Early Childhood ProtcraM Description C&ITI:&IOIC scaa'eac qepiOIOCialbebaYioft Ia c:h&klraa ..cia -cuopendaa. hdpiaa, raldal -. aJidq 10 tolwe .... letu. _.,.,.,.. --lhc-bdlrlbs. dacnbc. 184 alrcr llnlqiel 10 cle9elop ......-. be......... oppGI Mlee (or a ploliftlu4-.-""" AlO. scalf apeaalloiU orchil clteft's social bebaYior-ue deftlop-wly appropriue.. __ ,.. lnbnu in&crKt aawr. woalilc) (lftlr--.-her .. fUll -..e. 11m 10 tapOIId --afc IDicnalae-lifT. ,_ picca ol &be popular .. _...---"" IOCidlcd --lorndiO 11111'1: 100 oileD. Prcxlloolcn .... CBCDUnlfCd 10 .. opcn&c In-,...,.. ... Sc:llaol-qen llaYC CJIIPCII'unllics 10 JIOftlcipolcln .,.....,..-oriO or pby oloac. A ll. CJaiJdi'CD 11ft 10 la1k ..__ rediftp &ad Ideas irlsfad or soMa& problems wlda forcle. _...,.. AduiU 1Upply approprlllc -for lnbnu and coclclkn 10 help c11aa '""' woys 10 JI<:C alonJ In .......... Adulu iiiiCTYCftC quickly 10 acb ocher llccamc pll)'liC:IIIUid --lhc .... appn>priaCaiCIO ol such raponoa. Adulu diaaU ... ........., aol"""' cllildrcll 2 yon 11114 -GROUPS c y c y c y c y y y c y v I I I I I I I r r VAUDADON DI!CSION ov ONV Forr1G111141or _________ ICIVICIYICIYICIVICIYICIYICIVICI"ICIYI /Jtrft:tor's--011 Pllll"' VAUDADON DEOSION 0 V a NV ForCIGIII/4Ior _________ lclvlcivlclvlclvlclvlclvlclvlclvlclvl IJtrtors amtmmlr Ofl raJtrcg VAUDADON DEOSION 0 V a NV ForCIGIIII4Ior ______________ __ 283

PAGE 299

B. Curriculum C:aiTI!RION 8-3L ModiOc:aUoasaremadeill&be amroaaaear, IUIIlaa patud Klliaa m -c:IIIW'a 1peciU aced&. 0 IDdoor md OUldoor cnvtroG-maw :acc:aslblc 10 dal needs chUd IDc:JudiDa f2111pl. balh-. and playP'CJUIIII ac:cc:ss as oecdcd. :J Schedule: Is modified as oc:cdcd. sucb as shorter day or allamliYe aaiYIIlcs. 0 Proaram Is modified as oecdcd. sucb u pcoviSion oC Dlalcnab and equipment. UK ol suppoftlvc Kl'
PAGE 300

Em/y Childhood Program Ducriprion C&ITII:&ION a.. More IUD -opdoa ror poup aaMq (llldlYidaal. -a.-.,. orluppaap) ....uableor &be day. lalaaa UldiDCidJcn 11ftapeaal106aacdoabrF poap. B1cL. A balance or la'1JC auJKic/ mallmucle8CdYIIJcs iS proYided In dae dally IChedule. ll1e. A balance of cbJid.lnJtlaa:dl IQfr.Jnjllaled acdYity iS prolded wbUe limltbl& lbe -toCtimespeatlnla,..e poup,.wflnlllalediiCdYUy c:J G&OUPS c y y c y c y c y c v c y c y c y I I T I l I l l T VAUDADON D'1 ov ONV FariiGIIdiUor _________ ICIYICIYICIYICIVICIVICIVICIVICIYrlvl 0 V Q NV Far lltiiJI/DJor __________ 'C'Y'C'Y'C'YriYICIYICIYICIYICIVICIYI Dtrtars """"'""" 0t1 ralhlg V ALJDAnON DECSJON Q V Q NV lor'IIIJHJI4Ior _________ 285

PAGE 301

CRIT&RIOif ..,.. .. __ boob, aacl macaials are llftJJable. l>eftJopmcallllly approprfat.e -leriala aacl eqat.,are lldllable lor trif_,._ 0 Simple. lllbtwcllbl. opeoaJded. easily washable 1071 IUChucomalllcrs. beads. ncsliDI cup.. Q lbnlcs. squeak iDyl. aCliOal n:aaloa IDJS. Q Cuddly IOJ$ Q Toys 10 IIIOUih such u ICa!lcrs. rtnp. Q Pictures oC n:aJ Objects. Q CnwUng -WUh lllllnly. liable l'llrnlllftiO puD up ldC. o-elopaaeacally approprfuc maJeriaJs aacl eqalpmcm are nalbble ::I Push and pullloys. Q Sl.aCitlna ID)'I. laJ'IC wooden l'pOCibJbcad.s/cubcs. Q Slunty piCI1Irc boob. llluslc:. !J Pouadln& bcac:h. s1111plc pUZZles. Q Pbyldcphaoc.doUs.pracDd IOyl. Q l.u!lc paper. c:nyoas. iJ Slurdy furalturc 10 hold on 10 Q Sand and W3ICr iDyl. G11itk to AccrrditDiton GaO UPS c v v c v c v vic v c v c v c v I I I I T T l l l QV iJNV VALIDAnON DECSION !JV !JNV Dtrw:lor'--,..,.., Aw r=Fl D IJ N01 appUablc lclvlclvlc:lvlclvlclvlclvlclvlclvlclvl VAI.IDAnON DECISION QV 286

PAGE 302

Early Childhood DocriptiOII carTaarolf DcftlopmalUDy approprlatcmarcnals aadeqal,_m -aniJIIbk lor ft'S. a Aa!Ye play cquipmcm for climtliq 2Dd baJaadaa. a blocb 2Dd KCaiOiies. a Pllz:zles. llllllip'uladYe 1D7'1 a boob 2DI1 mUSical iDslruiDemS. a Aft suc11 u ftDaer 2Dd ICIDpeft pllnls. cnyoas, ICissors. md pure. a p1ay aweriais sucn IS cloDs. dress-up dOcbes and props. c:bilckaed funallure. puppea. a Saud Uld -=1D71 !He. Dndopmaually appropriatcmaraialsarellftilabJefor uhool ....... a Aai9e p1ay 111c1 maratalssudlas balsllldballs for orpDiZed pmes. a ConstrUction marertals ror woodWodtina. Wlk blocb. IICCeS50des forbloclasucllu filurcs, si(!Ds. ars. crees. a MaraWs ror bobby anc1 projeaS. projcas. a Materials rorclrmwics. c:ook lng. a Books. records. mUSical inSU\IIDCIIU. a Board ancs games. a Complex maaipulalive toys (conoect!D& or lalerlodda& JayS). jigsaw puzzles. GROUPS c v c v c y c v c v c v c v c.v c v l l l l l l l l l VALIDA nON DECSION av a NV ,_ UtiJitltiiOr __________ VALIDAl'ION DEaSION av a NV OWwctor'sCOtllmftL!ron rattng ,_ INZI/dlltor -----------287

PAGE 303

B. Curriculum COfllt,_, CRITERION 'lhi:DRofmedla.sudlalde-9bJoa.OJms,aadWieoca.-, lsl.lmllal1Dde9clopmcuadly pproprlate pi'OII'8mmiq. a Prosrams are pre9lewcd by adults prior 10 usc. a ADOiba' opdon ror aawtly IS always aYallabJe. a No dllld IS requiml10 \'lew lbcprosnm. a Sa1f discUA wtm 1s viewed Withchlldrcu IOdevdop crlrj. c;:al 91cWIDJ skillS. a Media are used IS spedal nmt5. rubcrdwlasrqular, cfaiJy IOUtiDe. 11-7. sratr prcmde wutcty or cleftlopmmtally RpproprWe b8Dds-on IICdYiiJes Cor c:hJl. dfta ID 11CbJcwe tbcfoUowiaa aoU: (/lAU gOdl COft dll#rlng 1M t=mtJI"S rW4twl ro th' agr group ktng ol>lrrwd.) For eanrrp/1. lnfaall,_.,... toddlas Hold and IOUdl. muc treq.-r eye conDCt and C'OIIIIDuniciU: WUh babies espcciOIIy dlllllll C2ftiiYIIII. Tall< and IIJIIIO babia. Allow tnflnlsto IIIDiefl' otlhcirbDdICS lhroulh ldf.inluated IDOIDf bdlaVQ' IUCh .. rolliJI&, lilllas lhcir dc'rclopmcN 0( ldr-bclp KIDs whcnn:ody. Encoun&c aoclsuppon each loddlcr'o-. ldr. W2lbn;. and dullbift&. IAicn and respond to toclcllcr's ernet11ne I:U> G111dt to Accrrditatton GROUPS I c v c v c v c v c v c v c v c v c v 1 J l 1 1 1 1 1 l a Not apptiable VAIJDAUON DEOSION ClV ClNV For 11t11141Uor __________ I cIvIc I vIc I vIc I vIc I vIc I vI cIvIc I,., c I vI Dtrwctar's amnnmrr on rrJttng VAUDAnON DECISION ClV QNV For11t11141Uor _________ OlderiGIIdlawlpoeocboolas Allow time rot dlildn::D IOall<--they ..... do. aocii!R. U.Ccldldren"siiiiDCSfrequaldrln...,..,pmos. Dosploy dlildrm" s -aoclpllcxcoof dllldral aocllhcir familia. EAcoutoF c:hlldral to -J*!llra aocl ldl Ranes .-aldr. fomllr. and aJitur2l prK Ilea Prooldc......., children 10 mlllltc.amty.-pandclallonstJotcca& ""'oltbat bodiCI aoclldf-bdp lldlls. 288 Sdlnc''-.n Prooldc oppDmlllllloS 10 .. lbc:abWiyiO -chotca. inldole own JCIIoltla. Allow DppOftliiiiiipenllft '""'""'"" COlllpcllliWCacun-uos. llccOIIIIU for ldr
PAGE 304

Emf.v Childhood Provom Ducnprron CIITI!IION --...... ........ Hold. po&. llldlaacb-. Talk 10, JiiiiiO,IIId play wl&b-boby oa a _....._ llapoDd 10 l8d apond oa cues-.,. 6am clllld. lalapu ialaala' -10 adler cllildraiiO bdp -lid IJoniiD -JIIOUP ("Mary llldlllln<.") Far-rrtfM. W...&a/)"'IUUIIer taddlcn Pnwidc 1ft -foriafu&allld-.oiOG plorc IUIIIIIIODipulale. Pnmdc UaJII co1or11a1 objccU rorbobiaiO look u Which mq. em rach for ODd pup. Pbynamintl....Shidlnapracs-u peel<+ boo ,pu..altc. -..... 10 lnfanu inicy auy poy ancoUon 10 auoc IUIII cft'cet. Prooidc 1atJe conwncn flail ol abjCClO ror IOddlns 10 cany, dump. and rdiJI. Hdp IOdclkn' dcVdopinll awan:n.,.. bf "" llccWialhmanilicsrormaldntl clloicaout itllcrf .., builcl -IQId Ocndcd qucs&lons oa..,.,.-. or....-. iaiaina llllharplay,-pnrndilllt iA ptoblcms. Oblcrte-....... such .. seeds powllla. or [!CU. <:tate opponunidcs 10 -o-.s. CDUNiftll ol>tnlial cxpennca rot pn:schoolen. Encoura!IC wucr llld And pay. 289 5cJaool.eten &CU"'IlaiUCh .. coolda8. -""" ill lbc c:ocamlllllly, inlonctlftll wllh >ililan.IIIUIUcukunl CllpCftCI'C "'ho roqucslalldlanCc.

PAGE 305

B. QzrricUlum COflllflud CRIT&RIOif a.7cL laapee IIDd II& tr..:r deftlopmm ,.,._,.. ......... ._ ........ ....__.,_.. Talk Ia a ........ .... * ......_-cpc......,. -=-* v..-,.-olljccu-._-* ..,.,. .............. llaponciiD_...,. _..,. IIIUiadlla ....... Dacoibo Car IOddlcft ICIIn: p11y IUdl u li
PAGE 306

Eorly Childhood PI'Ofl"11ll Descnption CaJTRaJON ED' qeaaddemourrarc -.IMallb. ..cer,, aadauCridoaal pNCIJCeL ,__,. AD ... .__ DiiCWo ...,.sDo-IOdoft:lop..rOll'--lllcllc-.-.-.-,. -.qc-pnaJcin&--Oispby tbiapiO -IL l'nmde lime -opact' ro. -pby. Encoutaae ICI1blllina wl&b cnyono. GROUPS c v c v c v c " c v c v c v L<: v I I I I I I I j l VAUDAUON Dll!aSION ov ONV Ftw rKIIJiiiUtw _________ r=al D I c I., I c I., I c I., I c I., I c I., I c I., I c I., I c I., I c I,. i QV ONV FtwrKIIJiiiUtw ____________ ___ Older IOddlustpr-=llookn Do anaciiYi&ocsiUCba bndll pllfttlna. dntrtaa. pbydDuah. .oc:slo;Ua.esatm:clnai;WQ. DomUiic:alacU1'1tiQIUCIIuliiiJIIftl. liaUnilltiO -.so. pJa)'laJ-an esp1ontocy procao-tllalt 10 ....,..._. pcoclucL Adult-cDadc IIIOdda. paaems. -pft'llnlra. 291 5cbooH&aa -pluiled and apontanCCUS xuYilla ID .,.. alldcaltssucll u mur:al:md eueJ pwu ln .. "'""""""-carpentry _,..,.,.. Enc:oun&c dlaCIIIJI. c:satm--pbyUIJ. ........ playina......,...,..,. -lllalmall 0(. _,.a( Ctlllura.

PAGE 307

carTEatolf B-7b. Rapea cuJQan1 ci.Mrsity. ,__...,.. All .... ----....-apoo -lllolldla:l-CIIIIula lllol cllildn:OI-aotlilldy 1ft,. well -llloi!CpftKIU llldr bmlly life-aalbtnl...,.. .... -10 build lppredlllaa I dill'etCDC'I:S....SCDUIIICr-. Toll< paiiiiOidy -Cldl clllld'& pii)'IICII cllonclcriRicl. flmlly cuk>lal bCIIaiL A.....S ol 1111f pvop IM>uJh -=-. ablcal. ... ...... __ .........,cullura. Cddlnlclloolidlyool-........ rdleclcdla doc'"""'" llcocl boob. dioplly .......... ol ..... -cuiDita. -......... ---10 lharellll.cnlU.-.-.11111 -ol-culr-. Toke lripo lo _._, adnlrll teo .....,.,.ol__.,. llll'o.e aD c:urricDiwn topiCs wt&h dj. inll ,_. Pfii'DOCIL Scaft' ptOrille awerials aad tisDC ror c:IUidfttl m RJect thdrownii!CIMdesdaartnsthe cby. :I Jn!anu and toddlers jc:as and IIIUatals for fra: choice. Q Sc:vc:nl altc:matm: IClMUc:s areawilablcforprachoolcr's c:hoicc. Q S&aa respect the dlild'l riiiU not to panldpatc: In IOGICIC UYitics Q swr piCk up on actlYitlcs that c:hildn:nmrt,orllllc:n:stSthal chilclrcn lhaw. tc:rials. plan and choasc lhclr own acr,.lliCS o( the umc. r=1 c=J Guick to Accnditatton GROUPS c y y c y c y c y c y c y c y I I I I I I I I 1 VAUDAnON DEOSJON QV ONV ForiiiiiJdator _________ I c I .. I c I .. I' I .. I c I .. I c I .. I c I .. I c I 1 c I .. I c I .. I VAUDAnON DEOSJON QV ONV For f1411111Uor __________ 292

PAGE 308

Emf.v Childhood Ducnptton carTaaro!f scaa coadaa -ch aa4 _., ... 0 Chlldms me !Old 10 actrady Cor lnASilioo abcad o( IIIDI:. 0 Childral = -always 1<: quiiCd 10 aJOWe u a lfOUP &om ooclelMry 10 .-her. 0 The new KlMly II prepared belon:lbeuansi&JOnCromlbc complcted ICllrily 10 aYoid WUiq. 0 Schookp:chlldralhclppbn and patlldpi.U: ID lbc change of ac&i"ricy. hiYC U!DeiO adjust 10 c:ll:lnF Cram sdlooiiO.,... llfiiD. c y c y I l GROUPS c y y y y c y y c y I I I I I I l VALIDAnON DEOSJON ov ONV Forfllllkl4lor _________ B-10. StaJr arc Oezlhle enouab 10 cbaaaeplllaaeiiOri'OIIdneK dritlcs. lclvlclvlclvlclvlclvlclvlclvlclvlciv a-u :,:--or inlcraa o/ll>e Olrft:IM'II-Dft rtltblg --. Scalf adlull 10 clwiJa ill -"10 poac'-lcn who...., r2l!y -... Pf001danll-JIC!S Orilh plac.e 10 .... il IIIey .-. laP"'IJ!Il khOO'-IJit:rS inCft:Ulftlt Ullctal in pcnonol-inll293 VALJDAnON DECJSION ov 0 NV For Wllltiaulr _________ VALJDAnON DCJSION QV QNV Far-Wllltiaulr __________

PAGE 309

G. Physical Envitonmeot CRITI:RIOI'I G-1&. tbcreis-aJtusablespace iPdoon 10 c:hiJclftll are crowded. G-tb. Tbcrelseaoaabusablespace for outdoor play for each qe poap. For_,.. od>cdulcdatdill'actllua-. Guidr to Acardilatton GaO tiPS c y c y c y c:; c v c v c v IC V r r T I I I T I T QV aNY lcl"rl"lcl"lclvlclvlcl"lcl"lcl"lclvl QV aNY G-:Z. jcj"jcj"jcj"jcj"jcj"jcj"jcj"jcj"jcl"l wtear-P. a clar pathways for Dinatw's-mr nuhtg VAUDAnON DEaSION 0 V a NV c:hlJdrc:n to mme from oac ID anocher WilhDul ciJ5. nubing actMllcs Cl An:as are DtplllZ&:d for easy SUpcrYisiDn by llalf. u Pfotlr.un stalf have to the dcsqlnated space 111 sum. cit:nt time to pn:pate the enYironmalt bdorcchildratar riVt:. 294

PAGE 310

Eorl;v Childhood Ducnption carTaaroN G-4. a'ftl'kryofK!Mdesforadl .. ..,.,. c IOddlas) an: pnmdcd opal spoa: Cor c:rawiJn&lloddllaa IDd procccu:d space (CK play, ICplftdnaaroupsot_. bile IDd lDCibUc illfaa&s (CK .cay. c en ha...: lllftiiiCd rot a 9U'II:ryollndiYldllalllld -u aroup ac:riYitlcs iDc:ludlft& bklckbuiJcliD&. clnmaUc play, art musiC, ldenCc, math. IIWilpulaliYCS, quiet boolc C Sand and water play and tiiOOdwoddn&arcaqjJ:ablc oa lqi\IJar occ:uions. C School-agcn an: proYidcd acpuw: space Cor lhcir pco-Jr2111 inCiudla& boch -and quia IICliYitlc:s 10 pcrmll IUIIalocd woc1c on pcojCCU /1. ftriety or qe-appropriale marerials anol equ.lpmcnt are nallablctorc:IUidftllillcloon anol ourdoots. Q A au111dcnl qu:aallrY ol GDIC: rills IDd cquipmc:N Is pco11w1na or walliD&. C Malc:rials arc: dllftblc and iD IOOd rcpait c Malcrials arc: orpnlzcd COQo Jlsu:nllycn low, opc:nshciYcs to cncoungc lndcpcndc:nl use by chJJdrc:n. C Elanmarcri:llsarc:accesslblc lO suJf lO add WViety 10 usual ac:riYlllc:s. C Marcrlals arc rorarcd and adapccdromaiNaln c:hildral's inlCtal. GaO UPS c y c c y c c y Y IC...!. I J l l l I I _I I cv CNV For ut1111141tw _________ ICIYri"ICIYICIYICIYICIYICIYICIVICIVI av CNV For r1tlllll4ltw _________ 295

PAGE 311

G. Physical Eaviroament coll..-1 Ca!TitaiOII G-6 G-7. ladMdaailp8CZ ill piU9ided forcacb cbiW'a bcJoaainP. IJ placciObaftackXb-inl-a are places lor llot'iiiS can cfcxhlna and CXbCr be loapl;s such u art won: ID. be l&kc:n .,__ PriYar.e areaswbaec:hlldreD can play or work alooe or with Crieacl aft nalbblc ws-n and ourdoors. For_,. _ conoen..........._ar,.,_ lllol IIIC c:uy ( oduiUIO IUpcnioc. The en.UOnment lucludes lOft dements. For_,._ Guitk to AccrrJttatton GllOUPS c 'V c v c v c v v v c v c v v I r I l I l 1 T -l VAIJDA110N DEOSION IJV ONV lclvrl ... l'lvlclvlclvlclvlclvl'lvl'lyl IJV QNV lclvlc lvlcivl'lvrl ... l'lvl'!vlcivlclvl ...... """'--ooA flamilurc ooA ID)'I. c:omrarabk-for-10 bold cblldmlln lhclr ..... Dtrraor'r-011 raltlfl VALIDA nON DI!CISJON QV ONV 296

PAGE 312

Early Childhood Description -=Ia .. Cldll.aC die ud nap are 110 cac dowll-lle. G-9a. A ftriay of 8Cllritia CUliO otl oatdoon lhe year. Q BaJaaa: of shalK and sun. Q Variety of sur&ccs Sl.ldl as 1W1110p forwhcd urys. pus Cor roWaa. and and SOil Cor diUIDK-Q Variety or ascapproprtuc Cor ridlniJ. climbbaJmcinB.IndMdual !'bY lrl8-G-91>. IICCUd from_. to RrO:CU ud ocha-clanprs by fences or by naaanl barriers. GaO UPS c , c , c v c 'C y c y J J J l l I I I I QV QNV ICIYICIYICIYICIYICIYICIYICIYICIYICIYI QV QNV ICIYICIYICIYICiYICI VICiYICIYICIYICIVI Dtrw:tor's "''"-orr rtUtrtg VAUDAnOI'l DEOSION Q V Q NV 297

PAGE 313

H. HeAlth and Safety CRITII:&ION H'7a. Ch.IJdteD ue uclcr 8dukper9tsloll a l'gr_,., laCaaa IIDd IOddlm 1ft -loft: __...._ .... and-Sc:lla 1 all" -cbildral 1ft IDd Ra-As Ide the faciUty, aaffand c:blJdralla!cpreuonabty clean. a Tables an: WUhcd andlioon; arc -cpt atlct meals. a Toys arc pldccd up after IIIC. to AccrrditOiion GROUPS c y c y c y c y c y LS_V c v c v v I 1 l I I 1 -r l J VAUDAnON DI!OSION ov ONV I c I y I c I y I c I y I c I y I c I y I c I y I c I v I c I 1 c I y I ..,.,.......,. 011 ralhrg VAUDAnON DEQSJON av CINV 298

PAGE 314

: I &rl_v ChildlrooJ Propam lklt:rrpt1on CRITaRIOI( Bb. TOiJedatl aad cQaperiaa.,.. --.......,.. Q or hdd C laundry ID <:bed dn:ft. 0 Owlainlllablc Is dlslaf=cd IDd COYer II dllpoecd after CICh IDC. 0 Tollclualll IMillzCd dally. BlU. SCall'wub dldr ......,_ wtdl _, .... -.. PIIf'Oprl-0 Bdore fccdlna-0 Bdore prepar!lll or KrYinl food. 0 A/kr dlapcrtn& or oatsUna cblldft:a wtdiiOilalnaornooc WlpUia. Q Allcr"--IID&pcuonniiDals. Ht<6b. ,ulak.tm nuuoJaawueror mmforable Is ._., 10 dlapaina .... GROUPS c v [<:: v I<::_ y v y v c v v c v I I I I J I I l _l QV ONV ............................................. __ OINuor'S CDtiUOiftla em raltllg VAUDAnON DEOSION QV ONV ............................................. ...... ICIYICIYICIYICIYICIYICIYICIYICIYICIVI QV Q NV m &NJIIII4ltw ____________ 299

PAGE 315

Guiclr to Accnduation H. Health aad Satcry CDffUffMM C&ITt:aJOJII Hl5L Tbc buiJd1Di, pl8yyvd. aad aDeqal,_ __ lnn'-' ill Ale, c:lcua CODdltioll ..... m load n:par. a uucliD& en fURYaalls, ormisiftapans. a Glass. aas11 1s I'I:IIIO'ICd &om cblldn:n's play an:u. a Ouldoor IUidboxa are c:u ered when DOlin IIIC a Tbe W8crplaylablc lsdcaoed and ADltiz.ed with bleach SOIUIIon dally, wbaiiD 111C. Hb. JaiFcoouabiOJiftftlll.-1 JowiD1 or cboldq. Hb. SldaofiDiaau'cribnrelna locked posilloD wileD criba aft oc:cvpkd. GROUPS c v c v c v c v c y c c v c v c v I I l I I I I I l CJV a NV For flt6lldltttw ----------lcivlclvlclvlclvlcivlclvlclvlclvlclvl a Noc applicable VAUDATJON DEOSION CJV a NV Dltwlor'-ort,.,.,., D a NOl applicable lclvlclvlclvlclvlclvlclvlcivlclvlclv l VAUDAnON DEOSION av a NV Dlrw:tDn CD!mft-on,.,,., For IMIIIdiiUw ----------300

PAGE 316

Early Childhood Program Docription C&IT&&IOIC 11-17a. Toilela, driall1aa ud -oy -!hie ID c:b1ldleD. For_...,. l'ldllll
PAGE 317

CaiTZaiOK Blla. Area __. by chlJclftD ue welJ.IJahtel aad 'ftDI1Ialed ... lrepc at camlonablc -.---. Hllb. earical-'leaiiiCCID'ftrtlll 'Wftb ptOU!Cthe ca.-. (NA !or room. uscd by IChOOHICIS only.) Rl8c. Floor CIOft:riap 11ft atDCbed 10 the Ooor or baclled with DOtHUp CUftliap. Gul
PAGE 318

I I Earl_v Childhood Program Oe.scriptttHt H. Health aad Safety COJIH--caiTaao" Bl9L ma&s. woodcbfpa,orllalldare '*"" aadcr climbUia equip-. sUdoes, md IIWtap. Bb. Cllmbiaaequlpmcm.swinp, Uld luF picas of furalnare 11ft: securely aadlored. (J>ro. anm submits ..mllation if an choring anam be easily observed.) __ .,.,.. Ull stonae-shela tndoors He2vy poeces of furrucure such as ...s.o -.rotSlft:ICCUftdsallleyanno< be c:llmDcd 00 by dlildlm. BZOa. AJlcbem!qls and pou:nllaJly dauguous producls Aida .. mcd.lcines or deanillg supplies ""' In otilfnal, labeled coaralnen In locked cab iDees in:lcccsslble 10 dlfl eben. (Diluced bleach solution used for sanJ121ion purposes should be inaccessible but not DCCeSSUily locked.) GROUPS c v c v c v c v c y c v e c y c y I I I I I I I I i VAUDA.nON DEOSION CJV CJNV For lltllll/lt6IOr ---------Dtrtor-'s a>m-on rrUtrtg VAUDA.110N DECSION CJV CJNV For IJGlldltlor ----------lei vlci vrl v lelvrl vlel VI civ lei v lei yl DtJYCUJr's commma an rrUtng VAIJDA.110N DECSION CJ V Q NV For lltiiU141or ----------303

PAGE 319

: I L Nuerition aad Food Senic:e C&ITI&IOif 1?-Mcahimc Ia a pleuaftliOCial aad leanWia a:pa I D"" lor cb.lldlca. 0 Nc:alllmes auliiUoft habtu. 0 lnlaala an: hdd wblle baalc fed and spoon fed 10 IOdal lftlerac:Uon CliO occur Q AI lc:lll ooc ldull llkl WMb Chlldn:D durin& mca1S tO pn>Yidc: lood role model aDd a IDICrftand l'ccd thcmSdYcs and -With clcaJHip a slb are for lhc lllZc and demopmcnul lcw:ls oC lhc c:lllldrcn. c v c v l I 304 Guick to Accnditorion GROUPS c v c v v v c v c v LC_ V I 1 I I I I J VAUDAnON DECISION cv CNV For llfiiiiiiJJor _________

PAGE 320

AppendixB NAEYC Accreditation-Administrator's Report Criteria 305 : I

PAGE 321

B. Qaricalam Cat T a at 0 II DIRKCTGa"S IIATJIIG ...._,_, B-l. ......... bcblldleatbacil lll'dablelDIG!fUidpueaa. B-:Z.. TbepropambasW'I'tllnaarlc:ulaaa plaas bued on knowledae of daJid clcftlopmauaadsn-IDftlofladJ. ykbaJ needs ..... illlleftsiL B-Zb.. The Janataa cntronment aad aa!Yitks for ddldren _phy and a-u. 306 Gui
PAGE 322

Earl_v Chiltllood P1'0pf111f Ducrrpt1on B. Curriculum B-3C-WbcncUDbkd,cleftlo.,rallyddayed. orcmodoaally Raft" are aware of lhe ldauJ. fiedtcli3poMdspeclal needs ofUidlridualc:bJJdrellaadue tftlDCd 10 follcnr duoaab on spedllc: lnrenenllon plans. Dlrwaor'S --011 ,.,,, .. 307 For I/GIJIIIJttw _________ Fori/GIJIIIJttw ____________ __ DOD I 2 ) Olcclc documcms For 1Jt11144uw _________

PAGE 323

B. Carria1buD ClliTillliON ftJoplll a and -or ladl'ridaal edac:adoa piau for wllh apeda1 __... Sld'....._dle__..or,.... cacs or cbJJdftll wllh pedal aeeds. ...._ PoreKb .,-p ofc:b.lld.a wriRCG daUy Kbedale Is pluDeclm8CbJfteabalaace of aaM&Isoa die loiJowtna .o-IOMz B-ib. 'IbeiCbcdalcproyldaforal IIeUre play. ....., _, 000 to Accf'ltdttotton Y&I.ID4nON PllOCII:Dua& JTQtoalbi-ft IHd DOD I Z For PIIHIIIIIIw _________ DttwllW's """'"'-on rrutng For IIGI/diUDr __________ Dtrtor's '"""-., "'""' For IIGI/diUDr __________ 308

PAGE 324

Emf.v Childhood Program Oucrlption B. Curricui1Uil C&ITI&IOif JHc. More tlwt -option for ....,... KIMly (IDdiYidaal, .. aftiiUic-of doe day. IDtaaD aadiOdlllcrs-pGIIp. &4cL A balance or 1a,.e mUKie/ small mDKie &CUYI&Jea arc provided. B1c. A balaace or cblld.Jalllaled/ Slaft"-inJdaled aaMly .. pro... cled. whUe llmltilla tbe -oftlmeapeallnlaqe poup,-a'..Jnldllred.aMsy. DIUCTOI"I LUUfG ...._, _, 000 VAUDATIO!f P&OCUIUU: VAJ.D)ATION D!CSIOI'I Ov ONV Forr1GIIIIIUor __________ 309 VAUD.UtON DEasiO!f Ov ONV VAUDATION DECUIO!f Ov ONV

PAGE 325

C. DbEf DC liD Ya Cbcdtdon_ .. Guitk to Accrrdllatton YALIEM.nON DIQSION Qv OI'IV oocr 310 D1t liD Ye DOD Dlt IOD Y VAlJDAnON Dt:CSION Qv QI'IV

PAGE 326

Early CIU/tlwod Program C81T881011 C-38. Sld'Uid paenammmuaicale ...,_cblldrcariaapi"8CCkaiA lbe home .... atlbe .......... lA order liD IIILiaJaalle pGCialda1 CODftJcD aad coallolioa lor c:bJJdrea. C-31>. SWfpcpueacs.,cdOcldcu for promorlaa children beahhy dnelopmenr aad lamiAa 111 home. C-4a. Pan:ncs are weJcume ,...._ lA lbe c:auer 111 1111 (for wllh a child, or _..._ .., help lA lbe c:laarooaa). DnmcT08'S IIAlUIG ... .....,_, 0[!]0 311 _c,_ DOD I 2 5 =-' DOD -... " DIOSIOH av CNV SM/fQ .. ,R,..IPI' C3b ODD I 2 _,Q r - ODD -... " OICdi: dacuiDc:nll VAUDAnON Dt:asiON av CNV VA.LIDAnON DCI5ION Qv ONV

PAGE 327

C. Sla!fPareat IDreraction CRITil&IOif C-41>. ParcDIIIIDOIOiberlamily_. bertl..-e -.-10 be JQ .olftd JQ cbe PfOP'Ul JQ....,.,. _..,.. C-5b. Chaa&es JQ a c:hiJds physlal oremodoaalstare&rercporf.ed 10 p!lftiiiS replarly. Dlallc:Ta&"S RAnftG _,_, 312 G11uk to Accrrditanon VAUDAnOH D!CJSIOII Ov OilY ........................................ ___ VAUDAnOH D!QSIOII Ov OIIV ........................................ ___ WD I J ) ooo DC No Ye YAllDAnoN DECSION 0 y OIIV

PAGE 328

Earl_v Chiltltood /Jocrlplion C. SadfPareat IDteraclfoa C&ITE&ION C4 CoAl-are beld atlaA -yar....SatOiha-1'-. a.-.led,to.U.:U.c:blldrcD'a ,..,..._, aceoaapllalullcau. &Dd d&IIJc:aldel boaoe....Sat tbc JII'OINIIIC-7. PlucDaareilllonDedaboattbc pt"'OnnD aad about polll:y or ....So&her c:rttiCal --lhal maid poteDdally dea tbc propua aad/or tbe early cblldJ>ood professiOn tbrouab replar buUcl!a boards, f.requcat aotea, telepboae calb. &Dd Olher almDar measures. c.aa. SWI"andpueaacomm11111cate to l!ldW'e lbal cbJJdreD c:xperiIIDOOib -JtJoas from OIIC CO aaocber-dur-1111 tbe day. DIUCTO&'S ll4nNG -......,.....,. 000 313 .... ------------------

PAGE 329

C. SdPU'ellt larer2ctioa CaiTIRION C-lb.. 5caft' aad puaag CXIIIUIItmlcue ID -dial &be pro,.,_ wbkh c:biJdreD -aad ID wWcb dlcy 10 6vaa oar yar to &be -piVWidemadaally-dmc. Praac:roa"S IIAnNG ..._, _, D. Staff Qaal1ficatioas aad Deftlopmenc D-U.. SQft' wbo work dlrealy wt&b chJidren-18 yan ot. or older. Vobuateers ue 16 yanofJIForolder, recetft orieruauoa. aDd oa1y work wilh chJidren 11DderlllpCI'-IIoD Of qaaWicd salf IIICID ben. D-lb. EartyChildhoodTcadlerMIisWUI(mft'wbollllplancnr propam aatridcs uader dJ. m:t su.-.aloa) ate hJP 1cbool or the eqamleataad parrlclpat.e ID professioaal clcYelopment JIIGII'UIIS-Oucor __ _... __ .., __ .., ___ tMe quaUilcaUoaa. Dtrwctor'r com.....us on rrJtl"' 314 G11itk to At:cntditmion VAUDAnOl'l DIOSJOI'I Qv QI'IV Sample doc:wncnts VAUDAnON DE.QSJON Qv ONV

PAGE 330

I Early Childhood PrtJ1(T'I11fl Dut:rlption D. Staft' Qualifications C&IT&&IOif D-Ie. Early ChiWhood Teachers (-a'whoarerspoaslblelor Cbr c:aft aad poap of dl114fta) haft a& leal a CDA Credalllal or u A.A. ..,_ Ia Early CbDd or eqatwaleaL O.lcl.. salf-'dalwtducbool-qc children baYe trs.lntna u. child ctnelopmenc, early childhood edacatloa, el emencary em-11oa. recftalloa. or a related Oelcl.. D-lc. ltl&aft'memba'sdonottbeapedlledquaWicatloas,a tralaJna plan. both been dcftloped aad II bela& llllplemenled for thole a&aft' JDaDberL Tralain& II apl'f'> prlsle tD tbe poap wtth wblch cbe .aft' member Is workJns. -hrgp/IUI and ftlt. U..C. of ongot"g. t.._mc:. tratnt,.) DIUCTO&"IIIATIIIG ........,_, o..cot __ _...., __ .., ___ .,._ 315 Sample dOCumenU to VAUDAnON D!CISIOI'I vc:ftfy swr Qualll"JCUioas o v o NV In Caller Protllc. __________________ __ SaiDplcdocumcnu VAUDAnON DEOSION Qv !JNV _______________

PAGE 331

D. scatr Qualifications caJT&aiOJC D-Z&. Cia' c.ur--or odlcr PP'O" prta1e lldminJsUUDr) of the bu UJd/or eapalcuee I'CknaliD eutr dtiklhood JII'OPUllllllmlailf. -'Do ...:Ia .... re_ ..... -'" D-Zb. An Early O.llclboocl Special IR (an lndMdllal-tcla a B.A. .... Ia Early O.lldbood Uacacloa/CiaUd Dewelop-mcaraada&laR3yanof fuiJ.daoeladtJacexpet kacL lela .,.,.....ciUidftuaad/ora .,...SU:UC depft Ia ECEICD) Ill employed todiftel the ella-c:uiona1 PftJir&lll (GI&Ybedae dlrecrororodlcrapJitOprial& penoa).lnpabUcxlaools,lhc lndiYiciualwbo ptVWidalllp-pon 10 preldllderpftea aad ldndcl'prlearacbenaad/or bo Ill rapoaslble for .,..,.. v.am dcftJopmcarlil aqaall fled Early O.llclboocl Special-1R. D-3. New SlaJf are 3dcqualdy orf. auedaboa&dlcplsaad pbJ. losophy of the pro&ram, emcraeacy health and ufccy proc:edwe. needs of clalJdrea usJaned to the sulf membcrsc:ue,pldaaceand claAIOOIIlm.aaapmCillleeh aJqacs, plaaacd daUy actlYf-ties of the propsm. and ex pcccadons for clhlc:al con-dueL Dla&CTOa'S UniCG ..._, _, Gui
PAGE 332

. I Eczrl.v Childhood PI'OfU'QirllN.scnpllon D. Stall' QUalifications D1&. 11lc pt08raiD pnmdcs rep. D-4b. JaruaiftiD&oppoftlUIJdes lor 1118 with chlldfta ..... famiUa.scaft'areapeacd roiUe I*' Ill ftl'lJar II'&IDlaa ..... profCAioaal cleftlopmeaL Tbe uaJataa may lac.lude ID ro other proarsms, re-..c:e awertab, -!oM, or CXNnework. 1118-bealth ..rur. chiJd erowdl aad cle9eJop--c. Plamtias learnJns K tMdes, IUJdaace and cllld-pllae ledmlqua, llabaa with commanlry llei'Ylea, COIDIII111Uatioaaadrdalloas with faaiJ1les.. _. repo111DJ chiJd abaK ..... aepea, lllhoc:Ky l'or _., cblldbood ....,.,._and die profeuloD, &be profeulon'a cde of ahlcaJ conduel, and ocher roplcs Deeded. The Pf'OIJ'&III ptOYidel &ralnUla and other opponliAilla ror .all 10 keep mor &be Ia-dewe.lop!Deftu Ill die Oeld, lllcJadlaa new pro-arams and practlc:a and peadlaapollc:y,Jealsla&Joa, or reJUiarorT c:haateL Aa:ara1e and CIU'ICDt reolDnll uekepcofllaft'qtGlirocalloas lacJudlaa UUKripa. c:enJn-CPeS,orotberdoauaeaeuloa of condaalll&la1aYic:e eda-c:a1loa.. DIUCTO&'SIIATIMG ...._, _,. Dtrwaor's-.,. ra1tng Dtrwell:ln-.,. raltng 317 rno I 5 VAUIM.nON MastON CJv ClNV WD VAUDAnON DII!CJSIOI'I Clv ONV 1 z lalcrYicw dJrccuw Awutllllltllor Sample docwnalta VAUrM.nON D!CSION CJv ClNV Awutllllltllor

PAGE 333

I I : I I E. Adm.iaistradoa CRITR810N EL AI a---ny, IJic oUiec -..... .all CIDIIdaa_.,ldeatJty._... Uld-.Juz z ............ co -P"'IRJil pl861rdlleyar. EZ. dDIIDII Jlf'CICIBIIurabopaulaa lacluciJaa boars. fees, m-. boiJdays. ldUd lA..... or CIUOIImaL E-ia. The JII'OII"UlbMwrtaeD ,_.. 10GACI polidQ iDchldln&Job claa1pcloat, CDIIIpauarJola kb ilu:l'cmaliS baed 011 pafonuDce aad Mdidoaal prv!euloaal dcftlopmaac, ralpaUoaaadcenaiDalloll, ..... ptewallc proadures. DIIUICTOR"t IIATIIIG ...._,. _, 318 Gui4h to AccrrditDiion z J ............................................. __ rrrn I Z J Olcdt doc1llllcaU ............................................. ...... UErD J VAIJI)AnON' DECSION a v a NV

PAGE 334

Eml_v Childhood Proprzm IJccripltort E. Adminiaralioa CaJT&aiOif E-31>. tUnaa pncUc:a are aoadisc:rim.laatDry (l'rwslotZ
PAGE 335

. I I 'I : I E. Adminiscratioa c:aaTaaaoN ..,.,_ CDoatWePCIIII pcnoaad flies -Rpc llldadJaa ....... .nib _.. or a:pealr r, tnaacripu or e4acalloa. "oamMDreloll ol bHer9lce 11SiDJaa, ..S .-liS of prrlrriollJL) -6L Ia cua where the ptOirSID ftCIDft,lbrpropalllbMwrit -pol.lclrs dei1DJna rola aod rrspoaslbWdesolboNd _._, aad -a:. [.Q, BOard mrmbrrs..Socber .... llllftislntor'S IUCb liS ICbool priaclpala are laformcd llhcMalbrclaDraDaadmrdaoda 111901ftd Ill lmplrmaal ..... h.lab qaallty, dcwdopaacalally appropriate prop-am. DIUCIO&"S llAl111G .._, _, 000 G11ilk to Accrrditalion a Noc appllcablc Dlrwclor'smm......uon rr11tng 320 VALIDA nON DECSIOI'i av al'IV VAUDAnON DEOSION av a NV

PAGE 336

Eml_v Childhood Progrom Ducrlptiolt E. AdminillratiOil C&ITI&IOif E-1. Pltlcal _... U'C Hpt wlda erideDce ollaltc,... ...... &-. .... --fiMIIdal p ........ {JNolealoas o( .. lcMc 1 year are llellled). Opcraclaa badacu aft pn: paftllla-oyud Jhcrc ... qaancrty recoacJ1.Iadoll of. E-1&. Acdllcac .,_._ ud 11-ablllcy ._,.._ co.enac .. ma!ng!,_t for c:hJJdftll and ..tula. poUq _, t:arteNd dwelt or rKidpl for ptqrrwnl.) DIUCTO&'S llAlUIG ... _,_, VAUDAnON DCISION Ov ONV Ohwaor'r-Oft ,.,, ForlllllillluDr __________ 321 VAUD.UIOI'fD!aSION Clv CINV

PAGE 337

E. Admiaisendon CRIT&&IOI'I !.-lb. Veblde ma!A..._._uyft!UdcOWDCd or-.... by the fKWcy ud .al CD tnMpOft chiJdla. 1!-9. Tbe.u.-(orocbcrappoo-prialll:.--)faaalllarwtlh Ulll maJrea appropcialc -.... c:la&Uaa .udal .a.lces:ralaad phyak:al -..u. aaea clea; ..... edacadoaal prolfiUIIS IIICb a ID-U -Eloa. 5ca8'aadadaaJaianloracom IDWlic:ale '-I-lly about tbe prosram. chlJdfta, and fam.IIJa. IIIUCUin Ulli'IG 0 Ncx appliallle Guith lo AcardiiDIIOfl j'j[j[j I J VAUDo\noN DECSION Ov 0 NV VAUDo\TION DEQSION Ov ONV 322

PAGE 338

Emfy Childhood Dumption E. Admiaistntioa CIITI!IION EIOb. Scaft piaD aad CODNlc 10-ldber EIOc. Replar nair mectlap ate held ror lUll ID CDDRh oa pr'OIRmpiuuWI&.IDplaafor lmpJrawt>U"' aDd .waiDa pis, plaaforiDdtridualc:b11-dreD. u4 dJICDM .,..,.,.... and'W'OrklaiCDIIdidoas(may bemeedapofmallpoupof or 1\all -a). Dla&CTOI' .... T1JIIG _,..,. 323 rorr 1 z VAUDAT101'1 DIOSION Clv C NV VAL1Do\1'10!11 O!QSIOIII Ov ON j'j[j[]Od 1 2 lotcmcw dJrcaor VAUDAnON DIOSION Cv CNV

PAGE 339

E. Adaaiaislratioa E-ll. Slaffuepooorideohpecuad llmeaway ...... c:hildftD ..... Jaadleday.(Wbea..a'wadt dJnctly wttb chJJdrea for ..-elbaa 4 baan, llafrue poorldedlloabofulaa 15 ...._ Ia acb ....._ pe-riod.) I!U. 5caO"bep ia6maadoaaboul cb.Ddraa, famliJa, ..... -daus maOclen!a' Sla6 refrain from commenlilll about cbiJdftll or faaal1ies Ia the praeace or Giber aduliS or c:hlJdrea. I!U. All apptOPriale pci'IOil Oil .. deslpa!ed 10 -udiD raJu! aalOa lllaneuwspocy,latheeweat or die .u.-t' abeac:c. otucro ... bT!IfG .... ..._, _,. G11Kk to Accrrditatton VAUDATJOI'I D!C510N' av a NV Dlrw:lon comm.mr 011 Jfllhlg __________ ___ 0 iquc:r l J J dln:ctor VAUDATJON DECISION av a NV _________________ ___ 324

PAGE 340

Early Chl/dhoJ THscrlption F. Staffiag to group tmd Slll.lf l : l 1 : 4 1:5 l:.f Z ycar.olds CZ.f to "' 11110&.) 1 : 4 1:5 1:6 GO lo l6 -> 1:5 1:6 1:7 l-rcar.olds 1 : 7 1:8 1:9 1 :10 +ycar.olds 1:8 1:9 1:10 $-ycar.olds 1:8 1:9 1:10 6. lo 1 :10 1:11 1 : 12 to I Z yc:ar-olds 1 : 12 1 :14 SmallcrJP'OUP siJICS and lcnoferiUO'Oncd m Center Ptofdc:.

PAGE 341

F. Staf!iag c:a&T&alo" P.a&. clllldftD -8ftllable 10 Jlf'O" ftdc penoaaJmu.-......wleuulaa-= aad ., oft'er ........... .. M8kd. (U#rtgllwdlllrtoppo.u.. fl1llldl f'Ofi/JS-,._ .-.lllw rwqllhWI-Jl
PAGE 342

! I I Earl_v Childhood Progrrztrr Orscription F. SW!Ia& c:aiTEaiOif Eftry-.p& .. lalldeiDbaft CIJIIIIaldlyolllllallawbowork with chiWn:a. JIUdc:llladF lafuds IIDCI tlllkiJas. Me. Iataa. 11DC1 IDddlen pea4 lhc ....,.,., of lbe ,.. ... ,_ -ada day. f-.4. A matonr1 of lhc chJJd .. day ai1Uziaa ,..,..__..,.. a:ail'-chdd ..... "'-ud .,..., .. llmJia-dam wblk m!glmlzfn& lbe naaaber ol UUllltJoDS or iJEIIWpfllp cbiJdftsa cape-nsaacrors unJtG Q Noc ppllablc DirtQr''-001 ralbrg Dtredor's -Oft l'dlbl& 327 VAUD4TION DlaSION Ov ONV jtrj[J[j VAUDoUtON DECJSIOI'I Ov ONV 2 J Olcdc Slaii'IIIJI Paacm For l1lilllllluDr E1DD VAUD4TION DI!.CSION Qv ONV 5 Olcdc SWilna Paacm

PAGE 343

G. ElmroiUDalt CIITIIION G-lL Tbere II a mlpi-ID Of 35 ..-rea or -we ....,.. -floor .,.ce per dUJd Indoors. D .. ICTOa"S IIAnNG ...._, _, 000 Gu1tk to AccJYdllation Dlftcuw'6-0fl _, ForfiGIIdluDr __________ G-lb. 'lbae II a m'n""""' of 75 .,._feel ofplay,..zoatdoors per c:bJid AnON DECSION Ov 0 NY

PAGE 344

Early Childhood Ducrrption H. Healcb aad Safety C&lTil.lOII 8&. 5DII beida _. ladlllle pbylllcal. .-...of....,_. ---(wllhialla2yan), ... _aeaq_iafor. lllllldoa. ChlJd balch ftlllOI'IIa JocJ1IIIe taallsol--ballbaamiMdoll, ap-tD-CWz ftll:llml or lmmtuUzaUo .... ..aaon.:.1110 ca11 ror the daUcl, aod lmponaJU Maltb blsiiOry(IDCb .. aliapes. c:m-k: m-). DIUCTO-s IIATIIIIG -...., _, VAIJD4fiON DCQSIOft Ov :lNV Forf111111111lor _________ 329 Sample doc:umcDls VAI.ID4nON DQ5JON o v a !'IV

PAGE 345

w w 0 ------------------------... -----------------------t!liJH\sh (!f:"tltf!: l I !G .. 11 G B I .. II t t1 -< i Oo 0 :;!! ll!, Is 1 l q t r 1! ri r fG .. G IG i J I II il I :J! --------------------------------------------------H ;= o4 Uf11i)i f fhthl! J lllli i f Gnl I GUi a j i DI t I :Bl ;;: i Oo Q :.. s 9.

PAGE 346

I I Early Childhood lNscrlptiolt H. Health aad Salety caJTII:aloll H"lb. .._are....._......,_ pr4l .... palld5 far Odd trip&. l'aftallllft fled ot .u .aMds -* doe c:eater. FJdd trfplare K _,.......,.,.._.. .... CJdoa N' "a"ID_ ... cqaace aa,er. .. loa. Pleld uipa aft preplaaaed ud cmaaeacy proced-aft prepared. T-poii'Ut.IOA ,.,....._
PAGE 347

H. Balda ..... Slltcty ca1Taa1o" B-9b. ...... lacldaD ol cblld .._ Ulll/or-.leclby,.,.. pcnoM lie repGIUid ID a,..,p:IIIIC .._. ...... 11-10. buc:erdlk:adoD .. ___.. c:r pedJalrlc Ont-11111 lft:SI maar. CPa lor lafaaD aad chJidrco, aad emcraeacy ma ae-n of chokial Is alwayslal.bc-.a.-& c:aiiOc:ata arellqlc oa me. Blla. Adequale IJJsaJd nppUes uei'CIIIIily .-liable. 332 G111clr to Acr:nclitatlon ............................................. -............................................. ..... E10Cf z J ObM:rYe supplies VAUDAnOI'I DICSIOI'I Ov OI'IV

PAGE 348

Early ChildltooJ PI'01:'fiM Dccriptiorr H. Health aad Salety C:&ITR8JOK Hllb. A plaat:ldlls forclaJiaa..ub 111811k:alm ; In lbaliDdaden-of aeutJ cme.wrtllaa,.._.alronu. ..... -..aporutiOa .. I Hb. aad clilkalecled a& leuc lWIIle ....._ Toysdllllue-a..l ue-.hed daJJy. DJaaCT08 .. UTnfG ..._,l'llllr Q NCK appllclblc Oblcrc fadllrr on UIW' VAJJD,UlON DEQSION I.DtcrYicw clirco:lor 0 v Q PC\' VAUDAT10N D!05JON Dv DHV Dt...aoncumiiWIIU on I'Dllll& _________ 333

PAGE 349

; I i I I I I I i I : I H. Health aad safety C&ITI&ION R-t6LIIIIIIridaal ........ ta_..... .......... ..,oaly -dalld--wablap. ............ c:rille, atiS, aDd __ _.....,lOlled. H-17. Bot wa1er does-aacd UO'P (43'C) a -'ela ..... by cbJJdraa. H 18d. Propam ptOrides catlfka doa dw buDdJaa llllllerials. ao lead paat or abeltc,are..edla lbeladl lry. Drucroa-s &ATING .......,_, [!]00 Q Not appllobk: .... G11ilk to Act:rrditatton iqrocr z ..,.,.,., ""',.,,. 334 VAUDAnON D!CISION iJv uNV

PAGE 350

Early Childltood Provam DacrlplitJit H. Health aad Safety CRIT&RIOJI Draacro&'S UTUOG .......,_, 0 Noc lppUcablc VAIJDAtlON DEQSJON Qv ONV D#rUW'I-011 ..U..., 335

PAGE 351

: I I H. Health aad Salety caaTaaaoN BZGb. MefJcN'ont.edmm II miD cbJJdftaoaifwhaaa'IOI'Iaal order... au.aaddlerperlkakHllaad ..... -IRauly dealpaled ftllfl' .. ember. Yrtaaa ,_... aellepc of rperlkaloa...,_IDc:bJidfta. BZ1L scaft':uefamJllarwttbprtma ryaad8ei:DIIIIaryewacuadon --..... praake ena&a tJoa proc:ecllawes moathly Rnb. YrtaeD emaaeacy Pf'OCZ' dufts:ue poaedlaconsplatous plaas. .. 1ATUIG 000 336 ro r..uer.-dlm:ulr; rdct VAUDA'nON D!QSION 10 Clultooaa Oblcrnlion 0 V Q NV VAUDAnON D!asiON Qv ONV Obsl:nc facillry VAUDAnON DEQSION Qv OHV ____________________ __

PAGE 352

Eorly Childhood Propam !Huripttoll H. Health and Safety HZla. Scaft' are laaaJUar wtlh _.. aad ptoczdlara lor --'ll'llnllap (where aeceauy). Dla&CTOa .. IIATUOG __,......., i'rorr YAUDA110N DSlON Clv iJNV l 2 3 VAliDATION DEClSION Ov ClNV Otftdor .. ......-.... ,.,.,., VAUD.\TION D!aSION Clv ClNV 337

PAGE 353

.I I. Nutridoa aad Poocl.ser.ice CIITIIIOIII IL IZb. Meala aaci/Or aacka arc ........... ID-lbe cldld'8 --.Joaail'lll(tllreaa r n Ill pi'CIJIOI'doD 10 lbeof dale lbe clall4 Ia lbe .,_. .,... each dq, u -aaelllled "' lbe Clllld CUe rood Propaal oltbe u.s. Depanaaeac of Aarlcalnare. -offood-.wdt.811-J11811ed_..uq1Dtbe..,eof lbec:lalldft881o&:eldlonud Ulddlen reqalre aaaller -oflood-.wdCreqaeody aod 8Cboolap cbll4leo require IIIIlChfood chao pracboolen. Fcedlaa limes and food CO& IWDpdoDiolonaadoalsptOYidecl 10 parcaa of lalaaa llld I04cllers ac lbe ea4 of ada clay. Dtalc:IOI"t IIAnNG ..._, _, Cl Noc applicable Dtr
PAGE 354

Earl_v Childhood Pf'DtU'D1'1 Ducription I. Nuaitioa aad Food Service CaJTr;KIOif J-4. Foods lndic:a&MolchiJdres'a cull11ral bac.kiJ'Oaada are --periDdJcally. lC &he pt'Oil'KID ._ DOt pro"* foocl. parems -edDcaced rqanUaa wellbal-aoced dlat may be .,_...t 6oaa boiDc. Pood broaiJal from bome II --s appropriately llDtJI coa....-1. Where food .. prepared OQ lbe premiMs, &he Jlf'OII'Uilll ID witb lepl requjremeD&a lor food preparatloa Uld la"t''a:. Pood may be prepaoed ar u apJII'O"CCII fadlltyaaduusportedrotbe pi'OIIJUftiDapproprtateaaJ. priate lelllperatllrea. DlaP:JOa .. unNG .... 000 VAUDA110NDECS101'1 Qv O!IIY /Jtnaar'l-011 nathtg ForlltiiJIIIIkw----------339 VAUDA1101'1 DECSJOI'I Qv O!IIY ForlltiiJIIIIkw _______________ ___ VAUDA110N DUJSJON Ov OIIIY

PAGE 355

J. E-matioa C&IT&&IOif Jl&. AIIMalr --a,-by die .a.--or ocbeuppaoplllel 1 ollioa. j-Ib. wrtCICil ud coalldcadaJ. prtqreJy witb the..,_..,_ J-Ic. Staff CYaluatloos Include ... 340 tu Accrrtditation id1ErDC l 2 s Olcck docwncnts

PAGE 356

Early Childhood Pmgrom Ducnpuon C:&ITR&IOif DntaerO&'IIIAT1JIG ..._, _,. 341 YALIDAY!Oif P&OCZDUU igUD ll V.umAnON DECSION Ov OHV VALIDATION DECISION 0 v OHV

PAGE 357

J. Eft1ua!ioo carTaatoN J %2. Al last ODCe a year cxber ICbool.. cbJidfta,aadpareatS&re .._,.._. Ia Cftlaada& the JH'OPSID' Ia aadpuaatL JZb. n.e aaa.l propam enlua don a:amlaa the adequacy of lllllf compauadoa aad bcndlaud-ofaa!ftunt-...... plalllacleftJopcd 10 IDCreue aalaris and beD-diu ao u 10 recndl mear and -don of qua!Jfled sa aad coadalllly of rdadoaalllpt. J-3. lad!Yidual descripcioaa o( childrefta dftdopmem and lcanalac.,.,wrtaenandcom plied a basis for Plaaalna approprlale lr:arnJAc des,ua-offacJllt:Ulnc chiJd, and .. ftCOrCis forlacommankadoaa with parenra. lltUC'rOra &AlUIG ...._, _, 342 G111Jr tu At:t:tTJitatton VALJDAnO!'I DEOSlON CJ y 0 !'IV VJUJDAnOI'I DI!CSIO!'I Ov Osv igJrj[j 1 J Chcdt docwncuts VAUDAnOI'I DCSION Ov Osv

PAGE 358

i I : I BIBUOGRAPHY Abbott-Shim, M., & Sibley, A. ( 1987). Assessment profile for early childhood programs: Preschool. infant and school age. Atlanta, GA: Quality Assist. Ackerman-Rose, S & Khanna, P. ( 1989). The relationship of high quality day care to middle class three-year-olds' language performance. Early Childhood Researcb Qyanerly. 4( 1), 97-116. Albrecht, K., & Plantz, M ( 1993). Developmentally appropriate practice in school-age child care programs (2nd ed.). Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. Aikin, M. C. (Ed). ( 1992). The Encyclopedia of Educational Research. (6th ed., Vol. 3). New York: Maanillian. Anderson, C., Nagle, R., Roberts, W., & Smith, J. ( 1981 ). Attachment to substitute caregivers as a function of center quality and caregiver involvement. Child Development. 52. 53-61. Bailey, D. B., Gifford, R., &Harms, T. (1982). Comparison of preschool environments for handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Topics in Early Childhood Education. 2. 9-20. Bainbridge, W. L. (1991, January). School choice: What parents and corporations want. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Suburban Superintendents, Marco Island, FL. Berk, L. E. ( 1994). Child development (3rd ed .). Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. Bredekamp, S ( 1993). Myths about developmentally appropriate practice: A response to Fowell and Lawton. Early Childhood Research Ouanerly. 8. 117-119. Bredekamp, S (Ed.). ( 1991). Developmentally appropriate praqice in early childhood programs serving children from binh through age 8 343

PAGE 359

(expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from binh through age 8 (expanded edition). Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Bredekamp, S. ( 1985). The reliability of the instruments and procedures of a national accreditation sysxem for early childhood programs. Unpublished doctoral dissenation. University of Maryland, College Park. Bruner, J. (1980) Under five in Britian. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope. Buckner, L. M. (1988). Supervising with communicative competence in early childhood centers: Sociopolitical implications of the legitimation deficit in administrator preparation. Unpublished doctoral dissenation, San Francisco University. Caldwell, B & Freyer, M. (1982). Day care and early education. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research on early childhood education. New York: Free Press. Chafe!, J. ( 1992). Head start: Making quality a national priority. Child &Youth Care Forum. 21(3), 147-163. Oarke-Stewart, K A ( 1987a). "In search of Consistencies in Child Care Research." In D. Phillips (Ed.}, Quality in child care: What does research tell us? (pp. 105-120). Washington, DC: NAEYC. Oarke-Stewart K A ( 1987b ). Predicting child development from childcare forms and features: The Chicago Study. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Quality in child care: Wbat does research tell us? (pp. 21-41). Washington, I DC: NAEYC. Clarke-Stewart, K A., & Grubber, C ( 1984). Daycare forms and features. In R. C. Ainslie (Ed.), Quality variations in daycare. New York: Praeger. 344

PAGE 360

Congress of the U. S. ( 1984). School facilities child care act. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Education. Ans and Humanities of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. United States Senate. 98th Congress. Second Session on S. 1531 to encourage the use of public school facilities before and after school hours for the care of school-aged children and for other purposes: Seminole. FL. Washington, DC: Congress of the U. S., Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 254 317) Council on Physical Education for Children. ( 1994). Developmentally appropriate physical education practices for young children. Reston, VA: AAHPERD Publications. Coy, R. L., & Hopfengardner, J.D. (1991). Showcasing excellence: A case for elementary school regional accreditation. Ohio: Dayton. (ERIC Abstract No. ED 340 107) Crocker, L., &Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modem test theory. Florida: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Cryan, J., Ellett, C., McConnell, A, &Atyeo, M. ( 1978). The development of the Criterion Referenced Early Childhood Education Program Assessment Instrument. Childhood Education. 55. 122-125. Culkin, M. L. ( 1994). The administrator/leader in early care and education settings: A qualitative study with implications for theory and practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Union Institute, Ohio. Decker, C. A, &Decker, J R. (1988). Planning and administering early childhood programs (4th ed) Columbus, OH: Merrill. Doherty, G. (I 99la). Quality matters in child care. Ontario, Canada: }esmond. Doherty, G. (199lb). Factors related to quality in child care: A reyiew of the literature. Toronto, Ontario: Ministry of Community and Social Services. 345

PAGE 361

Dragonas, T. et al. ( 1993, March 25-28). Assessing q.ualir.y day-care: The WHO child care facility schedule. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA. Dunbar, B. ( 1985). Mer-school programs for school-age children and parents: A reyiew of the researcb. Springfield, IL: lllinois State Board of Education, Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 272 305) Dunn, L. ( 1993). Proximal and distal features of day care quality and children's development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 8, 167192. Feagans, L. & Manlove, E. ( 1994). Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 15(4), p. 585. Ferratier, L. ( 1985). Attitudes. experience and education of lllinois elementary prindpals concerning early childbood education. Springfield, IL: lllinois State Board of Education, Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 264 036) Francis, P., &Self, P. (1982). Imitative responsiveness ofyoung children in day care and horne settings: The importance of the child to the caregiver ratio. Child Study Journal 12. 119-126. Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education. ( 1992). Accreditation. assessment. and institutional effectiveness: Resource papers for the COPA task force on institutional effectiveness. Washington, DC: Council on Postsecondary Accreditation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 343 513) Garrison, B. ( 1983, April). Learning from others: A journalism and mass communication perspective on curriculum accreditation. Association for Communication Administration Bulletin. 44. 32-39. Goodwin, W. L. &Goodwin, L. D. (1982). Measuring young children. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research on early childhood education. New York: Free Press. 346

PAGE 362

Gosling, A (1987, February). Extended day child care: Understanding and addressing the new demographics. Paper presented at the Convention of the American Association of School Administrators, New Orleans, LA. Griffith, D. G. ( 1986, June). Blending key ingredients to assure quality in home health care. Nursing and Health Care. 7(6), 301-302. Gutherie, H. ( 1989). Introductory nutrition. St. Louis, MO: Times Mirror/Mosby. Hair, J. F. (1979). Multivariate data analysis with readings. Tulsa, OK: PPC Books. Harms, T., & Clifford, R. ( 1980). Early childhood environment rating scale. New York: Teachers College Press. Harms, T., & Qifford, R.M. (1983) Assessing preschool environments with the early childhood environment rating scale. Studies in Educational Eva}uation. 8. 262-269. Harms, T., & Oifford, R. ( 1993). Studying educational settings. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research on the education of young children (pp. 477-492). New York: Macmillan &Maxwell Macmillan Canada, Inc. Harms, T., Cryer, D. & Oifford, R. ( 1990). Infant/toddler environment rating scale. New York: Teachers College Press. Harris, 0. C. ( 1973). Daycare: A study of parent's attitudes and opinions relative to before and after school care. DAI. 34(6-A), 3546-3547. Helbum, S.W. (Ed.). (1995) Cost. quality. and child outcomes in cbild care centers. technical report. Denver: Department of Economics, University of Colorado at Denver. Hestenes, L., Kontos, S. & Bryan, Y. ( 1993 ). Children's emotional expression in child care centers varying in quality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 8. 295-307. 347

PAGE 363

I I I I I i I l l Honig, A. S. (1987). Choosing a Q.Uality child care center: Help for parents. New York: Teachers College Press. House Committee on Education and Labor. ( 1986). The chainnan's report on children in America: A strat;egy for the I OOth congress. (Volume I. Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 99th Congress, 2nd Session). Washington, DC: Author. Howes, C. ( I990). Keeping current in child care research. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Howes, C. ( 1983 ). Caregiver behavior in center and family day care. Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychology. 4. 99-107. Howes, C., & Marx, E. ( 1992). Raising questions about improving the quality of child care : Child care in the United States and France. Childhood Research Quarterly. 7. 347-366. Howes, C., & Olenick, M. ( 1986). Family and child care influences on toddlers' compliance. Child Development. 57. 202-216. Howes, C., & Rubenstein, J. (1985). Determinants of toddlers' experience in daycare: Age of entry and quality of setting. Child Care Quarterly. I :4. 140-151. Howes, C &Stewart, P. (1987). Child's play with adults, toys, and peers: An examination of family and child care influences. Developmental Psychology. 23(3). 423-430. Ignico, A. ( 1994). Early childhood physical education : Providing the foundation. Journal of Physical Education. Recreation and Dance. 9. 2830. Ignico, A. ( 1992a). EffectS of a competency-based instruction on kindergarten children's gross motor development. Physical Educator. 48. 188-I9l. 348

PAGE 364

Ignico, A ( 1992b). Physical education for Head Start children: A field-based study. Early Child Development and Care. 77. 77-82. Ignico, A ( 1990). A comparison of the fitness levels of children enrolled in daily and weekly physical education programs. Journal of Human Movement Studies. 18. 129-139. Jordan-Marsh, M. ( 1978). A study of practices of and beliefs about the delivery of comprehensive child development services through child day care programs in an educational and a mental health setting [Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles]. DAI. 39(5), 2820. JordeBloom, P. ( 1989). The Dlinois director's study. Repon submitted to the illinois Department of Children and Family Services. Evanston, Illinois: National College of Education. Jorde-Bloom, P. ( 1991). Child care centers as organizations: A soda! systems perspective. Child and Youth Care Forum. 20 (5), 313-333. Journal of Dental Education. ( 1994, January). Written statement of the America Association of Dental Schools to the Institute of Medicine committee on the future of dental education. Journal of Dental Education ..2.8.(1), 26-37. Katz, L. ( 1992, Winter). Early childhood programs: Multiple perspectives on quality. Childhood Education. 66-71. Katz, L. ( 1993). Five perspectives on quality in early childhood programs. Illinois: ERIC. Klecka, W.R. (1980). Discriminant analysis. California: Sage Publications. Kontos, S., & Fiene, R. ( 1987). Child care quality, compliance with regulations, and children's development: The Pennsylvania Study. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Quality in child care: What does research tell us? (pp. 5779). Washington, D.C.: NAEYC. 349

PAGE 365

I :I Kontos, S., & Stevens, R. (1985). High quality child care: does your center measure up? Young Children. 40. 5-9. Larkin, L. (1992). The preschool administrator: Perspectives in early childbood education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge. Manlove, E. ( 1994). Conflict and ambiguity over work roles: The impact on child care worker burnout. Early Education and Development. 5.Ll.h 41-55. Marotz, L., Cross, M., &Rush, J. (1993). Health. safety &nutrition for the young child (3rd ed.). New York: Delmar. IvlcCanney, K. ( 1984). Effect of quality day-care environment on children's language development. Developmental Psychology. 20. 244-260. McCanney, K., & Scarr, S., Phillips, D., Grajek, F., & Schwartz, J.C. ( 1982). Environmental differences among day care centers and effects on children's development. In E.F. Zigler and E.W. Gordon (Eds.), Day care: Scientific and social policy issues. Boston: Auburn House. McCrea, N. L. (1989, July 31-August4). An Australian consideration of program accreditation as a way of filling the gap from minimum to high quality standards. Paper presented at the 21st International Conference on Early Education and Development, Hong Kong. McKim, M. ( 1 993). Quality child care: what does it mean for individual infants, parents and caregivers? Early Childhood Development and Care. 88. 23-30. Medley, D. M., & Mitzel, H. E. ( 1963) Measuring classroom behavior by systematic observation. In N .L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 247-328). Chicago: Rand McNally. Miller, S. ( 1994, May/June). Program accreditation: What is it all about? Early Childhood News. 12-13. 25. 350

PAGE 366

Missouri Children's SelVices Commission. ( 1991). 2000 and beyond: A report on the status of Missouri children. Jefferson City, MO: Author. Missouri State Depanrnent of Elementary and Secondary Education. ( 1984). Standards & procedures for voluntary accreditation of early childhood education programs in Missouri. Jefferson City, MO: Author. Morgan, G. (1993). Competencies of child care center directors: Draft for disqiSsion. Background Materials for the 1993 Conference of the National Institute for Early Childhood Professional Development. Washington, D. C.: NAEYC. National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1991). Accreditation criteria & procedures of the national academy of early childhood programs. Washington, DC: Author. National Association for the Education of Young Children. ( 1994). Procedures for Academy validators. Unpublished manuscript. Washington, DC: Author. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1994). ERIC digest: Nutrition programs for children .. Urbana, Ill: ERIC Oearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. Owen, M. T., & Henderson, V. K ( 1989, April). Relations between child care qualities and child behavior at age four: Do parent -child interactions play a role? Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City, MO. Phillips, D., & Kiernan, M. ( 1988). Child care legislation: Common ground and controversy. Child Care Information Excbange. 62. 23-26. Rader, B. J. ( 1988). Accreditation: Benefits versus costs. Journal of Home Economics. 80(2), 33-36. Reckmeyer, M.C. (1990). Outstanding child care centers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska, Lincoln. 351

PAGE 367

Ruopp, R., Travers, J., Glantz, R., &Coelen. C. (1979). Children at the center: Final report of the National Day Care Staffing Study. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. Scarr, S., Eisenberg. M., &Deater-Deckard. K. (1994). Measurement of quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 9. 131-151. Sills, D. L. (Ed.). (1968). International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (Vols. 1, 3, 13). New York: Collier &Maanillian. Simmons, H. L. (1993). Accreditation and the community college: Challenges and opportunities. New Directions for Community Colleges. 21(3), 83-91. Slavenas, R. ( 1993). Evaluation practices of model early childhood programs. Early Child Development and Care. 89. 31-44. Southern Association on Children Under Six. ( 1990). Five position statements of the Southern Association on Children Under 6 (SACCUS): ( l) Employer sponsored child care: (2) Developmentally appropriate assessment: (3) Continuity of learning for four-to-seven-year-old children: (4) Quality child care: (5) Multicultural education. Arkansas: Author. U.S. Department of Education, (1993). Underwood, N., Wolff, D., Howse, J., Brosnahan, M., & Burke, D. (1990). The children's struggle. Maclean's. 103. 63-64. Yandell, D., &Powers, C. (1983). Daycare quality and children's free play activities. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 53. 293-300. Whitebrook, M., Phillips, D., & Howes, C. ( 1989). Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America. Executive summary, National child care staffing study. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project. 352

PAGE 368

i I Willer, B., Hofferth, S. L., Kisker, E. E., Divine-Hawkins, P., Farquhar, E., & Glantz, F. B. ( 1991 ). The demand and supply of child care in 1990. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Williams, L.R & Fromberg, D.P. (1992). Encyclopedia of early childhood education. New York: Garland Zellman, G.L., Johansen, AS., & Van Winkle, J. (1994). Examining the effects of accreditation on military child development center operations and outcomes. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Zoffer, H. J. ( 1987). Accreditation bends before the winds of change. Educational Record. 68 ( 1 ), 43-46. 353