A SURVEY OF PARENTAL DECISION-MAKING REGARDING PRESCHOOL

PROGRAMS FOR FOUR-YEAR-OWC CHILDREN

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

FASTER OF SCIENCE

By

Melinda T. Vargo, B. A.

Denton, Texas

August, 1976

Vargo, Melinda Thompson, A e .of Parental Decision-

Making Regarding Preschool Progms forFour-Year-ld Children,

Master of Science, August, 1976, 146 pp., 28 tables, 4

illustrations, bibliography, 43 titles.

The study was an investigation of parental decision-

making regarding preschool programs for their children. Data

indicated that parents investigated a preschool program

beyond a conversation with the preschool director and that

non-educational aspects of preschool programs were important

considerations in the selection of a preschool program by

parents. Parents educational preferences tended to coincide

with the educational programs of the preschools they selected,

although parents indicated favorable opinions of more

educational variables than any of the preschools surveyed

offered. Levels of education attained by mothers appeared

to have little effect on educational preferences, and

parents whose first child was attending preschool had edu-

cational preferences similar to those of parents whose older

children had attended preschool.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageLIST OF TABLES . . . . . , , , . , . . , , . . , . . . v

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . a. . , *0,*,! , .,....+! ,viii

Chapter

I, INTRODUCTION . . , # . , . . . . , , , . . .

Background InformationSignificance of the StudyResearch Methodology4pothesesScope and LimitationsOrganization

II. LITERATURE AND RELATE RESEARCH . . . . . . Ir

Criteria for ProfessionalsCriteria for ParentsInformation from Parents

III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .,.0 . .. . . . . , 29

Selection of the PopulationInstruments for Soliciting DataThe Pilot Procedure--School E

Data Accumulat ion--Schools A, B, C and DCompilation of the Data

IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE RESEARCHDATAh.si . .,, ,, , , ,, 48Hypothesis IHypothesis IIHypothesis IIIHypothesis IVHypothesis V

iii

Chapter Page

V. SUMMARY, OBSERVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONSFOR FUTURE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Summary of the MethodologySummary of the DataRecommendations for Future Research

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I. Rate ef Parent Questionnaire Returns . . . . . 45II. How Parents Found Out About Preschools . . . . 49

III. Sources of Information Regarding PreschoolPrograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

IV. Variables Receiving Lowest Mean Responses . . . 67

V. Variables Ranked11-30 ."... . . . . . . . . 69

VI. Variables Receiving Highest Mean Responses . . 73

VII. Variables Offered by the Five Preschools . . . 75

VIII. Variables Offered by None of the FivePreschools . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

IX. Comparison of Similar Mean Responses forPreschools With and Without theVariable(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

X. Comparison of Different Mean Responses for

Preschools With and Without theVariable(s) ... 0. . . . . .* . .#. ... 81

XI. Comparison of Mean Responses for VariablesWith Lower Mean Responses For PreechoolsWithout the Variable(s). . . . . . . . . . 83

XII. Educational Variables with Low Mean Responsesfrom Educational Groups of Mothers . . , . 88

XIII. Educational Variables with High Mean Responsesfrom Educational Groups of Mothers . . . . 91

V

XIV. Comparison of Mean Responses for Variables withLower Mean Responses from Parents Who HaveNot Had Formal Training in Education orChild Development .e . . . .. . . . . . ", .93

XV. Comparison of Mean Responses for Variables withLower Mean Responses from Parents Who HaveHad Formal Training in Education or ChildDevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

XVI. Differences in Mean Responses for Variableswith Lower Mean Responses from ParentsWhose First Child Is Attending Preschool . . 98

XVII. Differences in Mean Responses for Variableswith Lower Mean Responses from ParentsWhose Older Children Have AttendedPreschool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

XVIII. Crosstabulation of Reasonable Tuition byResponses from Each School . . . . . . . . . 120

XIX. Crosstabulation of Transportation byResponses from Each School . . . . . . . . . 121

XX. Crosstabulation of Day Care by Responses fromEach School and an Indication of SchoolsWhich Provide It ... . ... 122

XXI. Crosstabulation of Preschool's Proximity toHome or Work by Responses from Each School. . 123

XXII. Crosstabulation of Neighborhood ChildrenAttending by Responses from Each School . . . 124

XXIII. Crosetabulation of Health Services by Responsesfrom Each School and an Indication ofWhich Schools Provide Them ... . . . .**. 125

XXIV. Crosstabulation of Christian Atmosphere byResponses from Each School and an Indicationof Which Schools Provide It . . . . . . . . . 126

vi

XXV. Variables Ranked from Lowest to Highest Mean:Responsew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

XXVI. Mean Responses for Educational Groups ofMothers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * 133

XXVII. Mean Responses for Parents Who Have Had andHave Not Had Formal Training in Educationor ChildDevelopment . ..... .. 0. 136

XXVIII. Mean Responses for Parents Whose First ChildIs Attending Preschool and for ParentsWhose Older Children Have Attended . . 0 *139

Vii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1. Cover Letter to Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

2. Parent Questionnaire . . . . . . .. . . . . 111

3. Preschool Director's Questionnaire . . . . . . 115

4. Folo wup Letter . . . .f. . . . ...f. . .f . 118

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The study was an investigation of parental decision-

making regarding preschool programs for their children. The

main areas of inquiry were the processes parents followed in

selecting preschool programs, the parents' educational objec-

tives for their children, and how closely parental educational

preferences coincided with the educational programs of the

selected preschool programs. In order to understand the

status of early childhood education and the choices facing

parents, some background information is appropriate.

Background Information

Interest in early childhood education in the United

States was stimulated by two major events. The first was

the 1954 Supreme Court decision, fl yp'u. flj Boa4 e i scaua

Tof fr"fl which promised equal opportunity in education to

all children, regardless of race. The second event was the

launching of Sputnik by Russia in 1957. Americans equated

being second in space with being second in education

(4, p. 1; 7, p. 25). Until that time, most early childhood

1

2

programs were based upon the theories of Comenius, Pestalozzi,

Froebel, Dewey, and later Gesell and Freud (1, p. 12). In

1950, Frank and Frank (6, p. 43) described preschools as

essentially play groups, stating, ". . .they are not intended

to teach academic skills. They provide experiences . . . for

developing physically and emotionally,. . . There are no set

goals' or objectives." This concept of early childhood

education evolved throughout the first half of the Twentieth

Century and seemed to be generally accepted in the United

States until the late 1950's and early 1960's.

Around 1960 a plethora of studies was conducted by

psychologists and educators concerning cognitive development

and developmental psychology in young children. Many of

their studies were aimed at disadvantaged children and their

failures in public schools. Bruner, Bloom, Hunt, Deutsch,

and Skinner were some of the earliest and most prolific

experimenters and theorists (3; 4, pp. 2-3; 5). Interest

in the works of Freud, Montessori, and Piaget increased and

apparently influenced the studies of other researchers and

writers. From these theoretical bases a number of preschool

and infant programs were developed and evaluated. They

ranged in orientation from the Becker-Engelmann (and later

Bereiter) Academic Preschool to the Educational Development

3

Center Open Education Model, based upon the British Infant

School (#, pp. 30-33). Many of the most successful programs,

as determined by various tools of evaluation, were used as

models for Bead Start programs and later for Project Follow-

Through (9, 1l). Bead Start, which was established in 1965,

was the single most significant development in early childhood

education in the United States in this century.

The experimentations of the past two decades have con-

tributed to widely diverse approaches to early childhood

education. The concensus seems to be that by the age of four

years, most children are ready for experiences outside the

family which provide opportunities for enhancing social, cog-

nitive, physical, and emotional development. There is no

consensus, however, regarding the specific learning theory or

program best suited to meet the needs of specific groups of

children, much less of all children. Much of the dispute

concerning approaches to learning seems to depend upon the

philosophic orientation of the evaluator and whether he con-

siders the goals of early childhood education to be training

for the academic challenges of public schools, development

of ego strength and social skills, facilitation of motor skills

and body awareness, or a combination of these goals (for

instance, 7, 8, 11, 12).

Ia

Significance of the Study

The comments, arguments, and studies of experts in the

fields of child development, education, and psychology appear

in professional journals and publications, for the most part,

rather than in media accessible to parents. Most parents have

not formally studied child development or psychology (10, p. 6).

They may lack the time, inclination, or resources to learn

about valid research in these areas. The study was designed

to find out if, for example, they have been influenced by

articles in popular magazines which advocate early reading

and early mathematics-quantifiable skills (7, p. 153)--to

the exclusion of other areas of development or if, in reaction

to the recent emphasis on cognitive development, they espouse

the traditional views of preschool as an agent for sociali-

zation (11, pp. 16-19).

In 1972, 41.6 percent of the children in the United

States aged three through five years were enrolled in pre-

school programs, including day care centers with organized

educational programs (2). Of this number, 70 percent of the

prekindergarten children were enrolled in non-public programs.

The increase in the number of preschool programs and in the

number of young children attending them has made parental

5

decision-making an area of importance in early childhood

education.

Hopefully, the results of the study will shed light,

not only on parental educational values, but also on the

effectiveness of scientists, educators, and researchers in

informing the public about child development, psychology,

and educational innovations. The results will also indicate

how effectively parents who participated in the study evaluated

the preschool programs they selected and how effectively the

preschool directors communicated with their clients. Finally,

the results may cause some parents to clarify, and possibly

reconsider, their priorities for the early educational

experiences of their children.

Research Methodology

Subjects for the study were parents of four-year-old

children enrolled in five preschools in north Texas, The

preschools were selected to provide diverse educational

programs, non-educational services, tuition costs, and

ownership.

Questionnaires were sent to the parents of the 199

children enrolled in the selected preschools in the spring

of 1976. The questionnaires elicited information concerning

6

1) how the parents learned about and evaluated the preschool

program they selected before enrolling their children, 2) what

non-educational services were important to them, 3) what their

educational objectives for their children were, their own

levels of educational attainment, and 5) whether or not they

had children who had previously attended preschool programs.

Questionnaires completed by the five preschool directors

elicited parallel information regarding the educational

objectives, program format, and non-educational services of

each preschool.

Hypotheses

Data from the questinnnatres were used to examine the

following hypotheses:

I. Parents investigate a preschool program beyond a

conversation with the preschool director.

II. Non-educational services play an important role in

the selection of a preschool program by parents.

III. Similarities exist between the educational

preferences of the parents and the educational program of

the preschool they have selected.

IV. Parents who have attained similar levels of

education have similar educational preferences for their

children.

7

V. Parents whose first child is attending a preschool

have educational preferences similar to the educational

preferences of parents whose older children have attended

preschools.

Scope and Limitations

Children of the parents participating in the study

attended tuition-supported preschool programs. No Head

Start or other federally- or state-supported preschools were

included in the study. Also, all parents lived in middle-

class suburbs, so parents in urban and rural areas were

excluded from the study.

Because all of the children whose parents were surveyed

were enrolled in preschool programs, it was assumed that the

parents felt that some sort of play and/or educational

experience was appropriate for them at the age of four years.

Only educational objectives of the parents for their four-

year-olds were examined, so long-range educational and

vocational goals of the parents for their children were

excluded from the study. Also, child-rearing practices out-

side of preschool education were excluded from the study.

Data were obtained only from those parents who completed

and returned the questionnaires. No reasons were given by

8

those who did not respond. Hence, data is limited to those

parents who had the time, interest, and willingness to par-

ticipate in the study.

No attempt was made to assess parental objectives,

both educational and non-educational, at various times during

the preschool year. Empirical data were developed at a single

period toward the end of the preschool year. Quite possibly

parental preferences changed during the course of the year.

Organization

A review of research related to parental decision-

making is presented in Chapter II. Complete research

methodology used in the study is detailed in Chapter III.

The presentation and analysis of data compiled from the

questionnaires is included in Chapter IV. A summary of the

results of the study, observations, and subsequent recommen-

dations for future research is contained in Chapter V.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRA PEY

1. Almy, Millie, L T e 9hiIdhood Eductor fl Work,New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975.

2, Barker, Linda A., "Preprimary Enrollment, October,1972," National Center for Educational Statistics,U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,Office of Education, Washington, D.C., U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1973. ED 089 830.

3. Butler, Annie L., Current Resear b i .J Chilhood:at o . An-ioes L r k Ram

Ianrr. Washington, D.C., American Association ofElementary-Kindergarten-Nursery Educators, 1970.

4. Chow, Stanley, Pat Elmore, and Vicki Ertle, j.j Child-bgg Eduatio4, Putting Research into EducationalPractice Report Number 37, U.S. Department of Health,Education and Welfare/National Institute of Education,Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.

5. Cooke, Sharon and Thomas Cooke, "Implications of ChildDevelopment Theories for Pre-school Programming,"Education, 94 (November/December, 1973), 112-115.

6. Frank, Lawrence K. and Mary Hughes Frank, two RlyXajgx Clt$ a| gjn S New York, The Viking Press, 1950.

7. tymes, James L., Jr., rTeachai fgg Child g4 flfl, 2nded., Columbus, Ohio, Charles E. Merrill PublishingCompany, 1974.

8. Kohlberg, Lawrence and Rochelle Mayer, "Development asthe Aim of Education," Harvard Edu tioal Rew,42 (November, 1972), 449-496.

9. Maccoby, Eleanor E. and Miriam Zellner, Ezperi ents inPIa.n Educatton, Asects of Project ollow-Throuh,New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1970.

9

10

10. National Association of Elementary School Principals,Ih2 Wrakil trom .Hne.to kol.,Afan$1b foprarets QWhose. Iis tering Q;1 Washington,

D. C., National School Public Relations Association,1972.

11. Pines, Maya, Revp ution J Learninp, !The X z rm4ri th to ,ix New York, Harper and Row, Publishers,1966.

12. Prescott, Elizabeth, "Approaches to Quality in EarlyChildhood Programs," hildhood Eduation, 50(January, 1974), 125-131.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE AND RELATED RESEARCH

Selection requires a judgmental decision based upon a

set of standards or criteria which reflect the values of the

decision-maker. In early childhood education, the first

decisions are made by program developers. Once their programs

are established, potential clients (parents of eligible young

children) must decide which programs best meet their criteria

for the most suitable early education experience for each of

their children. Research and resulting sets of criteria

available to educational professionals are numerous and

increasing each year. Guidelines for parents, too, are

increasing but are not nearly as abundant, Information

directed to and made available for parents of young children,

as well as research regarding parental attitudes and satis-

faction with preschool options, are scarce but are given

greater emphasis here due to the nature of the study.

Criteria for Professionals

Much of the research in child development and psychol-

ogy is used to provide professional educators with criteria

11

12

for developing sound preschool programs. Caldwell (7) estab-

lished the need for and importance of just such sound programs

as she traced the history of early childhood education and

research. She concluded that staff training and commitment

and thorough, longitudinal evaluation are essential for the

development of practical, effective preschool programs.

Kohlberg and Mayer (17) discussed more extensively the

evolution of Western educational theories with their under-

lying psychological bases, epistemologies, ethical values,

and educational objectives. Their conclusion is that the

developmental-philosophical criteria, based upon cognitive-

developmental theory, "are the best ones for defining educa-

tionally important behavior changes"(17, p.4 67). Cooke and

Cooke (8) explored cognitive, developmental, and behavioral

theories of child development. They concurred with Kohlberg

and Mayer and stated that programs based upon child develop-

ment theories "could produce more satisfying results than

those which are arbitrarily founded on tradition, intuition,

and personal opinion" ( 17, p. 115).

Auerbach and Hutchinson (2) based their criteria for

effective early childhood programs on the facilitation of

the creative act, as defined by Koestler. The creative act

13

involves the bringing together of habits and experience in a

new manner and can occur physically, emotionally, socially,

or intellectually. Auerbach and Hutchinson considered that

different children might require different kinds of environ-

ments in which to maximize their creativity but that certain

conditions limit creativity in any setting. Limiting condi-

tions include emphasis on product rather than process,

insistence on verbalization (all experiences cannot be satis-

factorily verbalized, leading to frustration for the child),

excessive use of large group and teacher-directed activities,

and reward systems for motivation. Facilitating conditions

include freedom of movement in the classroom (of children and

materials), adequate free choice activity periods for a child

to acquire new skills and to try variations of them, and

individualization of instruction. These conditions can occur

in structured environments suitable for learning disabled or

handicapped children or in strict environments sometimes

suitable for culturally deprived children.

Iymes (15, 16) lists some of the changes in American

society which have spurred interest in and demand for early

childhood programs (i.e. greater educational and job oppor-

tunities for women, family mobility, and suburbanization of

neighborhoods) and indicates research which supports the fact

that good group experiences can be highly beneficial for

young children. He bases his criteria for sound preschool

programming on the characteristics and needs of the children

to be served, competent and adequate staffing, small classes,

work in freely-chosen small groups, first-hand experiences,

opportunity and equipment for ample gross motor activities

and encouragement for self-expression (play). He includes

practical suggestions for program developers and teachers.

Eight specific goals for preschool programs were

established by Biber, Shapiro, and Wickens (6). They are

1. to serve the child's need to make an impact onthe environment through direct physical contactand maneuver,

2. to promote the potential for ordering experiencethrough cognitive strategies,

3. to advance the child's functioning knowledge ofhis environment,

4. to support the play mode of incorporating experience,5. to help the child internalize impulse control,6. to meet the child's need to cope with conflicts

intrinsic to this stage of development,7. to facilitate the development of an image of self

as a unique and competent person, and8. to help the child establish mutually supporting

patterns of interaction.

Each goal is accompanied by activities and suggestions for

curricula designed to attain it.

More general goals applying to all aspects of various

kinds of early childhood programs were formulated by

15

representatives of professional organizations of educators of

young children (1). Criteria fundamental to attaining their

goals are:

1. the home is recognized as the base for the child,2. responsible sponsorship for the program is assured,3. the staff is educationally qualified, experienced,

and adequate in number,4. the unique responsibilities Ot the family, the staff,

and the community are defined,5. licensing and accreditation require supervision to

ensure quality of program, adequate preparation ofpersonnel and comprehensive health and safetystandards of the facilities,

6. a quality program includes health, education andwelfare components,

7. findings of research studies are utilized inplanning, organizing and directing the program, and

8. funds are made available to cover essential services.

More extensive explanations and specific requirements were

developed for facilities, staff, and educational programs.

Other individuals and organizations have delineated

criteria for overall program development, for specific types

of early childhood programs (5, 21), for specific areas of

development (2, 25), and for specific groups of children (18,

19). The bulk of this information is written for and dissem-

inated to professional educators.

Criteria for Parents

Realizing that few guidelines were available to parents

for assessing preschool programs, Curtis (9) compiled a com-

prehensive set of criteria and suggestions for implementing

16

them in an evaluation of any given program, Curtis gives

specific behaviors to observe in teachers and children,

questions to ask, and a list of equipment and materials that

should be available. She suggests that the class be neither

chaotic nor rigid in atmosphere and that the room be neither

overly messy nor unnaturally tidy. Examples and explanations

augment her suggestions. Curtis also detail, curricula

appropriate for the preschool level without excluding a

variety of program formats that might be suitable for various

types of children.

German (13) adapted Curtis' criteria to day care. Be

also incorporated Bulls' work from the University of Texas

Child Development Laboratory and Nursery School. He includes

checklists for health care, food, equipment, and teacher and

child behaviors. His booklet was written for the client in

terms familiar to laymen~

Feldmesser and McCready (11) compiled a more general

guideline for researching schools at various levels. They

claim that most information on educational evaluation is

written for professionals and is too technical for parents.

Using six sources for educational evaluation, they found

that the most frequently mentioned criterion for effective

education was instruction adapted to the individual child,

17

followed by physical plant features, pupil-teacher ratio, class

size, atmosphere, standards of performance set for students,

and levels of student achievement as indicated by test scores.

Although these criteria were meant primarily for elementary

schools, they could be adapted, for the most part, to pre-

schools.

Criteria developed by Prescott (20) for early childhood

education are based on the assumptions that different children

have different needs and are at different stages of development

at a given time. In order to judge the quality of a program

and its suitability for a particular child, a three-stage

evaluation should be made. In the first stage, class activ-

ities are placed in these categories: teacher-directed group

activities, teacher-directed individual activities, free

play (using all the equipment and materials in the room),

free choice (using a variety of materials and equipment

provided by the teacher), and official transitions (e.g.

moving indoors or outdoors, preparing for snacks and/or

changing activities as a group). An open or closed structure

for the program can be determined from the length of time

spent in each type of activity. Either structure has advan-

tages and disadvantages for different kinds of children. The

second stage of evaluation involves a list of equipment and

18

materials important to a quality preschool program regardless

of the type of structure. The third stage looks at activity

settings for a closed structure and spatial arrangements for

an open structure. Prescott's criteria were developed from

extensive observations of "non-thrivers" in various types of

preschool programs. "Ron-thrivers" are children who are in

a program which does not meet their needs. Prescott's

criteria for evaluation are meant to prevent children from

becoming "non-thrivers" when they are enrolled in preschool

programs.

Information flows from researcher to educator and, to a

lesser degree, from educator to parent. The reverse flow,

from parent to educator, occurs even less frequently.

Information from Parents

Zamoff and Lyle (26, p. 351) contend s that "lack of

information about community preferences and needs for day

care in this country is a great obstacle to the development

of public policies about this increasingly public issue."

Elsewhere in the study they suggest that the following

kinds of information are essential to day care planning:

1. Who are the target populations for day care andwhere are they located?

2. Which children are currently served by what typesof day care?

19

3. Do parents have strong preferences between custo-dial service and programs with the developmentalcomponents?

k. What specific services do parents prefer?5. What kinds of day care currently exist?6. Why do parents fot want to use certain types of

day care?7. On what basis do parents assess the adequacy of

the day care they do use?

Their survey indicates that parents at all socio-economic

levels perceived quality day care as being beneficial for

their children. Also, the mothers not working full-time

indicated that they would probably seek full-time employment

if satisfactory day care were available. Educational compo-

nents and competent staffing were considered of primary

importance to all groups of parents, but their lists of

services and components, potentially endless for ideal day

care, were curtailed by the amounts of money they were able

and willing to pay. Although the study concerns day care,

educational programs are inherent to many day care programs

and are apparently desired by parents.

Three studies partially answered one or more of the

questions posed by Zamoff and Lyle. The first, conducted

in 1972 by Barker (4), was a survey to determine the degree

to which preschool education was accepted by parents and

which children benefited from it. The subjects were children

aged three through five years who were enrolled in preschool

20

(including kindergarten and day care centers with organized

educational programs). Of the nation's population of young

children, 15.5 percent of the three-year-olds, 33.5 percent

of the four-year-olds, and 76.1 percent of the five-year-olds

were enrolled in preschool programs, the highest percentages

ever enrolled. Of the three- and four-year-olds, over 80

percent were enrolled in non-public school programs, while

less than 20 percent of the five-year-olds were enrolled.

Enrollment rates were highest in metropolitan areas outside

of central cities and lowest in rural areas. In general,

children most likely to be enrolled in preschool programs

came from families with an income greater than $10,000

(50.9 percent) where the head of the household had four or

more years of college and a white collar job.

The second study, completed in 1973 by Datta (10, p. 4),

presents the conclusion that

parents who can afford them often choose the moreexpensive early childhood education programs overcustodial services if day care is needed. Evenwhere mothers are not working, many affluent parentssend their children to play groups and nurseryschools for educational and social benefits and,perhaps, for a few hours relief from the heavy demandsof child care. Many more children of middle-classparents than of lower income parents are enrolled inearly childhood education programs at every age level,and have been for the past decade.

21

Thus Datta concurs with Barker, that the majority of children

enrolled in preschool programs are from middle-class families.

The third study, conducted by Sibbison (22) in 1972,

attempts to determine why some parents might not choose to

enroll their child in early childhood education programs,

particularly day care centers, for children under six years

of age. Focusing on maternal role perceptions and expectations,

Sibbison derived three generalizations. First, about two-

thirds of the mothers, when asked for general opinions about

the use of child care service, referred to their own roles

in the home or how they perceived the role of a "good" mother.

They indicated concern that the use of child care services

might threaten their own position in the family. Second,

most of the remaining one-third of the mothers indicated a

positive attitude toward part-time child care as being bene-

ficial to the child. Their attitude tended to be negative

toward full-time care. Third, few mothers indicated the more

pragmatic aspects of child care (e.g. hot meals, convenient

hours, adequate transportation, etc.) to be important in the

utilization of the services. Conclusions were that womente

perceptions of the role of a "good" mother in the home

hampered acceptance of bhild care services for young children,

and that use of the services tended to result from economic

22

or emotional necessity rather than for any benefits the child

might derive from the program.

Drawing specific conclusions from these three studies

can be hazardous. Barker and Datta seem to agree that

children enrolled in preschool programs tended to come from

middle-class homes. Sibbison's study deals primarily with

day care and faits. to consider the adequacy or appropriate-

ness of the programs offered. Such a consideration might have

decreased the sharp contrast between her findings and those

of Zamoff and Lyle. Furthermore, the economic status of the

one-third of the mothers who favored part-time child care as

being beneficial to their children might have placed them in

the middle-class majority of preschool users observed by

Barker and Datta. None of these three studies examine, parent

criteria for quality in preschool or day care operations.

One study which sought just such information was con-

ducted by Frost and Schneider (12). They compared parents'

preferences for day care services with the major types of

day care available using ten completed surveys. They found

that parental expectations could be influenced by what they

thought was realistically available. Parents might not

expect some of the features they considered most important

if they felt their ideals were unrealistic. Also, "the

factors which lead parents to choose a particular form of care

may be quite different from the features which become important

to them after they become accustomed to it"(la, p.3k). Of all

the day care options, middle-class parents tended to prefer

commercial day care centers. Educational and developmental

programs were appreciated, provided they were not highly

structured. In fact, middle-class parents preferred social

experiences to academic work for their children. Character-

istics and services desired most frequently by the parents

in the ten surveys were

1. qualified staff (mentioned as one of the two orthree most important concerns by parents of allsocio-economic levels in all ten surveys),

2. good quality care (cleanliness, no overcrowding),3. safety (a minimum requirement),4. nutrition (many would pay extra for a hot meal),5. discipline (one-third expected behavior training),6. social experience,7. educational experience,8. convenience (hours and transportation),9. health care (not mentioned frequently), and

10. parent participation programs (in one survey,participation in policy decisions and in another,parent education programs).

Once again, although the study concerns day care facilities,

much of the same kinds of information could be applied to

preschool programs.

Handler and Fredlund (14) state that there is a growing

emphasis on client involvement in agency decision-making, but

there is no systematic means to investigate attitudes, expec-

tations, and perceptions of client groups. Using day care

centers as the agencies, they compared the differences between

highly satisfied and not highly satisfied clients of the day

care centers. Of 100 parents, sixty-nine were highly satis-

fied and thirty-one were not. The two groups were similar

in race, level of the mother's occupation, family income, and

type of center used (private, non-profit and proprietary or

non-user supported). The not highly satisfied mothers tended

to have achieved higher levels of education. Also, not

highly satisfied parents tended to give child related reasons

for using day care centers (e.g. enrichment, socialization,

or help for special problems). Highly satisfied parents

tended to give parent related reasons (e.g. parent works,

studies, or needs more free time). Parents were asked to

rank five goals, 1) information (letters, numbers, colors,

etc.), 2) training in socialization, 3) good care (meeting

standards of care and safety), 4) therapy, and 5) stimulation

(creativity and curiosity). Differences are not statisti-

cally significant, however, not highly satisfied parents

tended to rank information and stimulation as being more

important than satisfied parents, who emphasized socialization

and good care. In general, not satisfied parents tended to

have greater expectations of the day care center and tended

to initiate efforts to see that their criteria were met.

Perhaps the most definitive effort yet to provide

valid information about parental attitudes and expectations

is being undertaken by Bailey and Ellis (3). They developed

a questionnaire to provide parental input into an educational

needs analysis model for professional educational needs

assessors. Although the questionnaire has not been fully

tested, its eventual use could supply a great deal of infor-

wation from parents to educators in local communities and to

researchers in early childhood education. t Far too often

parental attitudes and desires have been considered only

when a program is already in trouble rather than during the

design stage"(3,p. 9). Hopefully a flow of information from

parents before that time will help alleviate the problems

of Handler's and Fredlund' s not highly satisfied parents

and of Prescott' s non-thrivers. Educators can be helped to

realize their role in providing "service to the parents

rather than expert' translation of middle-class social

wisdom into universal child-rearing practices" (23, p. 135).

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRA PH!

1. American Association of University Women, Associationfor Childhood Education International, NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children,National Committee for the Day Care of Children,Inc., National Committee for Support of PublicSchools, National Congress of Parents and Teachers,National Education Association, and Department ofElementary-Kindergarten-Nursery Education, N .E.A.,"Daytime Programs for Children," "pg s ~iag,nIl (September, 1967), 345-347.

2. Auerbach, Aaron 0. and Pauline Tutchinson, "TheBisociative Act as an Assessment Instrument for theNursery School,a" Internationj j rnal of ErOildhood, (1972), 77-83.

3. Bailey, John E., III, and David B. Ellis, "Developmentof an Instrument to Measure Educational SituationalVariables and Preschool Competencies Desired byParents, " Nova University, 1974. ED 109 219.

4. Barker, Linda A,, "Preprimary Enrollment, October,1972," National Center for Educational Statistics,Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office,1973. ED 089 830.

5. Benedek, Elissa P. and Rochelle Salguero, "A SummerDay Treatment Program," Jzrnal j Chd. a ,12 (October, 1973), 724-737.

6. Biber, Barbara, Edna Shapiro, and D. Wickens, ojinCoitive Growth .A Deve opmenta1-Interaction Pointat i, v Washington, D. C., National Association forthe Education of Young Children, 1971.

7. Caldwell, Bettye N., "The Rationale for Early Inter-vention," Exceptional Children. 36 (Summer, 1970)717-726.

26

27

8. Cooke, Sharon and Thomas Cooke, "Implications of ChildDevelopment Theories for Pre-school Programing, "Educatio , 94 (November/December, 1973), 112-115.

9. Curtis, Jean, A parents ' Qas t sery Schools-New York, Random House, 1971.

10. Datta, Lois-ellin, "Parent Involvement in Early Child-hood Education," paper presented at the Centre forEducational Research Innovation Conference on EarlyChildhood Education, Paris, France, October, 1973.ED 088 587.

11. Feldmesser, Robert A. and Esther McCready, "Informationfor Parents on School Evaluation; Tests, Measurements,and Evaluations Report Number 42," Princeton, NewJersey, National Education Institute, Department ofHealth, Education and Welfare, 1974. ED 099 432.

12. Frost, Judith and Howard Schneider, "Types of Day Careand Parents' Preferences," Fia regfl: P VII,Minneapolis, Minnesota, Institute for Interdiscipli-nary Studies, Office of Economic Opportunity, December,1971. ED 068 195.

13. German, Bob, ChoosinC A 42p ? gr np, Austin,Texas, The Office of Early Childhood Development,Texas Department of Community Affairs, 1973.

I Handler, Ellen and Janet Fredlund, "Differences BetweenHighly Satisfied and Not Highly Satisfied Clients ofDay Care Centers," University of Illinois, Urbana,Illinois, The Jane Addams Graduate School of SocialWork, 1971. ED 068 165.

15. Iymes, James L., Jr., "'Childhood' in Early ChildhoodEducation," To Into Practice, XII (April, 1973),72-76.

16. , -ujhng the nhild Ja r !ix,2nd ed., Columbus, Ohio, Charles E. Merrill PublishingCompany, 1974.

28

17. Kohlberg, Lawrence and Rochelle Meyers, "Development asthe Aim of Education," wrvd Educ aiol Review, 42(November, 1972), 449-496. ~

18. Long, John and others, "A Tribal American Preschool, "u of ri nIianEducatio, 13 (October,

1973), 7-13.

19. Northcott, Winifred H., "UNISTAPS: A Family-OrientedInfant/Preschool Program for Hearing-Impaired Childrenand Their Parents," Pea bo Ja Educati. , 51(April, 1974), 192-196.

20. Prescott, Elizabeth, "Approaches to Quality in EarlyChildhood Programs," Childhood ducato,. 50 (January,1974), 125-131.

21. Rothman, Sheila M., "Liberating Day Care: A ModestProposal," Phi D , 55 (October, 1973), 132-135.

22. Sibbison, Virginia Bayes, "The Influence of MaternalRole Perception on Attitudes Toward and Utilizationof Early Child Care Services," Pennsylvania StateUniversity, Institute for Human Development, December,1972. ED 089 868.

23. Weikart, David P., "Learning Through Parents: Lessonsfor Teachers,," hidhood u tion, 48 (December,1971), 135-137.

24. Wolfgang, Charles and others, "An Exploration of theRelationship Between the Cognitive Area of Readingand Selected Developmental Aspects of Children'sPlay," P hlo S schools, 11 (1974), 338-342.

25. Zamoff, Richard B., "Healthy, That's Me--Evaluating theUse of Health-Education Materials for PreschoolChildren," Qhild Welfre, 54 (January, 1975), 41-46.

26. and Jerolyn Lyle, ew l91d.AZ. C enter, Washington, D. C., The Urban

Institute, 1973.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research about attitudes and opinions requires several

components, a population to be surveyed, an instrument for

soliciting data, a procedure for data compilation, and an

analysis of the data. This chapter includes the first three

components, which deal with research methodology. An

analysis of the data follows in Chapter IV.

Selection of the Population

The study was conducted in a large, middle-class

suburb, in north Texas, in the spring of 1976. In order to

establish a population of parents of four-year-old children

enrolled in preschool programs, a number of preschool directors

listed in a guide to local early childhood educational facil-

ities (1) were interviewed in a brief, preliminary telephone

survey. Data obtained during the survey included tuition

costs, facility sponsorship (franchised, privately-owned,

church-owned, or others), size of four-year-old enrollment,

non-educational services offered (including day care),

29

30

general information regarding the educational program, and

the willingness of each director to participate in the study.

Based on the telephone interviews, five preschools were

selected to participate in the study. They were chosen to

represent as great a variety of programs and services, tuition

costs, sponsorships, and enrollment sites as possible. One

preschool, which is church-sponsored as two of the schools

are, and offers day care as the other two schools do, was

selected to test the questionnaire and research procedures.

The enrollment in the test school of thirty-nine children

was considered an adequate size for the test. The number of

preschools selected was arbitrary but was selected to provide

a larger parent population, hopefully with some diverse

characteristics.

Once the five preschools were selected, appointments

were made with the directors for personal interviews. The

Preschool Director' s Questionnaire, a sample letter to, the

parents, and a Parent Questionnaire were given to each

director at the time of the personal interview. The purposes

and nature of the study and the uses of the data were also

explained. The governing board or owner of each preschool

approved the letter and questionnaires and gave consent for

participation in the study.

31

Limitations g fte.Selection 2 frgjhools

Diversity among the preschools selected to participate

in the study was limited by several factors. First, given

the nature of the community, there was a scarcity of preschool

programs sponsored by local, state, or federal agencies.

Therefore, none of the preschool programs came under, for

instance, Bead Start regulations. This fact also precluded

the selection of publicly-funded preschools operating on a

tuition-free or sliding-scale basis.

Second, at the other extreme, three privately-owned

schools, operating preschool programs in conjunction with

primary school programs, were contacted during the telephone

interviews. These schools tended to have relatively high

tuition costs and a wide variety of educational and non-

educational options in their programs. All three directors

expressed a willingness to participate in the study them-

selves but felt that implicit in their contracts with their

parents was the potection of the parents' right to privacy.

One school had participated in a study a few years earlier,

and many of the parents had criticized the director for

involving them in research. Therefore, the study does not

include high-tuition private schools offering educational

programs beyond kindergarten, exclusive of day care.

32

jaac istics of the Selegted flnskools

Although the five preschools were selected with variety

as an objective, all share some similar characteristics, All

five preschools charge tuition. All have defined curricula

for their educational programs. All five preschools have

single-age rather than multi-aged grouping. Finally, all

five preschools require some form of in-service training or

workshops for their teachers.

jogfl A.-- School A is church-sponsored. It offers

educational programs for three- and fourtyear-olds and a

Mother's Day Out program for infants through four-year olds

one day per week. The four-year-old educational classes

meet Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 9:00 a.m. until

12:00 noon. The enrollment is forty-two, and there are three

regular teachers and a music teacher. The average pupil to

teacher ratio is 14:1. The educational curriculum is deter-

mined by the teachers and the director. The preschool does

not require, but does encourage, personal interviews before

enrollment. There are no screening procedures. The preschool

employs a non-directive, developmental approach to education

based upon the Christian tradition that God loves each

individual, and each individual is a worthy and contributing

member of the group.

33

School B.-- School B is one of a chain of four privately-

owned schools in north Texas. It offers full-day care for

infants through four-year-olds and after-school care for

children from elementary school. Mornings for infants through

four-year-olds are devoted to educational programs. The four-

year-old enrollment is sixty-five, with four of the children

attending only mornings. One teacher and three aides are

employed, making the child to adult ratio approximately 16:1.

The educational curriculum is determined by the Executive

Director ftor the tour-school chain. Personal interviews are

not required prior to enrollment, and there are no screening

procedures. The program is based upon the theories of Piaget,

with Montessori equipment in use, and the philosophy that

each child requires individual attention and love.

School Q.--. School 0 is church-sponsored. It is

comprised of a four-year-old preschool, kindergarten, and

primary grades. Two four-year-old classes meet thee days

per week and one meets two days per week from 9:00 a.m. until

12:00 noon. The four-year-old enrollment is forty-eight

children. Two regular teachers and a Spanish and a music

teacher are employed. The average pupil to teacher ratio is

16:1. The educational curriculum is determined by the

34

teachers and the director. Personal interviews prior to

enrollment are not required but are encouraged. There are

no screening procedures. To develop each child's self-image

and respect for others and to encourage self-discipline and

joy in learning are the goals of the program.

School fD.-- School D is a member of a national chain

of day care centers and preschools. Full-day care is pro-

vided for toddlers through four-year-olds, and after-school

care is provided for school-age children. The morning

program consists of an educational component. Twenty-five

four-year-olds are enrolled, and two regular teachers are

employed, making a pupil to teacher ratio of approximately

13:1. The educational curriculum is determined by the

chain's home office and by the teachers and the director.

Personal interviews before enrollment are required, and

there are screening procedures. The goal of the preschool

is to provide an atmosphere which nurtures each child's

growth while stimulating in him an eagerness to learn.

Shgl ..-- School E is church-sponsored. Full-day

care is offered for preschool-age children, and after-school

care is offered for school-age children. Classes are also

offered for primary grades. The mornings for preschool

35

children are devoted to an educational program. The four-year-

old enrollment is thirty-nine children. Two teachers are

employed for the morning program, making the pupil to teacher

ratio 20:1. The director determines the curriculum with the

consent of the church board. Parents must come to the school

to review class structure, and teachers will visit in the

home prior to enrollment. A simple maturity level test is

given if parents wish to enroll their child in the four-year-

old program at an age younger than is prescribed by the public

school cut-off date. The goal for the program is to give

each child the individual attention that will be second only

to the love and attention he should receive at home and to

provide a Christian atmosphere for a learning experience.

The Parent Population

The parents of a total of 199 four-year-old children

were surveyed. The families lived in a large, middle-class,

suburban area in north Texas. A minimum of demographic infor-

mation was sought on the parent questionnaire, so a broad

range of characteristics for the parent population is not

available. Because all of the parents had four-year-old

children enrolled in preschool programs, it is assumed that

36

they believed that some type of educational and/or group

experience was beneficial at the age.

Instruments for Soliciting Data

Two questionnaires were developed for the purposes Of

the study. One was for parents, and one was for preschool

directors. Research by Bailey and Ellis (2) was helpful in

the development of the questionnaires. Other sources were

considered for educational criteria and objectives (3

through 11 and 13 through 16). The use of questionnaires as

instruments for obtaining information rather than, for

instance, personal interviews, has both advantages and

limitations.

Advantages of uestionnaires

Questionnaires can be completed at the convenience of

the subject without the difficulties involved in scheduling

convenient appointments for personal interviews. Also,

considering the size of the population surveyed, personal

interviews with each family would have consumed an extra-

ordinary amount of time. In addition, questionnaires

eliminate bias inherent in personal interviews, for example

the appearance or mannerisms of the interviewer or his

methods of asking questions. Further, all respondents

37

receive the same information in the same manner. None are

given additional information, unsolicited or in response to

questions, that others are not given. Finally, in the

study, the anonymity guaranteed by the Parent Questionnaire

allowed for candid responses which might not have been

forthcoming in personal interviews.

Li&t jip of Quetionzires

In an attempt to keep as many variables constant as

possible, yet to give the respondents an opportunity to

express a range of opinions, the Parent Questionnaire was

lengthy, three pages; and detailed, a possible ninety-six

responses. To some parents, the questionnaire may have

appeared tedious or intimidating. Even with these provisions,

the nature of the Parent Questionnaire required a limited

number of responses to each question, preventing deep

analysis of the reasoning behind responses given by parents.

A few parents felt the need to clarify their answers and

added marginal notes, which, in almost all cases, were

amplifications of answers encompassed within the scope of

the questionnaire. Although the majority of the questions

was stated in objective, layman's terms (referring to

materials, behaviors, or people), misinterpretation or

38

misreading is a possible limitation in the use of question-

naires. Finally, response rate is critical. An unknown bias

may be caused by those who did not respond.

Dj.Aren Questionnaire

The questionnaire for parents, presented in Appendix

A, was designed to elicit information pertinent to an

examination of the five hypotheses presented in Chapter 1.

Part I of the questionnaire requested information

regarding how the parents learned about the preschool their

child attended.

Part II asked how the parents investigated the sub-

stance of the preschool program.

Part III asked if the parents visited the preschool

before enrolling their child.

Part IV asked the parents to rate eight possible

non-educational aspects of the preschool program which were

important in their decision to enroll their child. The

rating scale was --- very important, 2-- important, 3--

neutral, 4-- not important, and 5-- definitely not important

or not applicable.

Part V requested parents to rate sixty-six variables

which might be included in a preschool program. The rating

39

scale was 1--should be required in a preschool program,

2--beneficial but not essential in a preschool program,

3--neutral, 4--not important in a preschool program, and

5--definitely should not be included in a preschool program.

The specific variables pertained to the following general

areas: staffing and class size, school communications with

parents, parent participation, testing, social development,

emotional development, cognitive development, physical

development, special educational experiences, community

involvement, teacher- and child-directed activities, and

facilities, equipment, and materials.

Part VI requested personal information: the level of

education attained by the parents, whether or not they had

had training in education or child development, whether of

not the child currently enrolled was their first child to

attend preschool, and who completed the questionnaire. The

occupations, income, religion, race, and age of the parents

and the size of the family were outside the scope of the

study. Also excluded from the study were the long-range

educational and vocational goals the parents had for their

child and their child-rearing attitudes and practices apart

from the early childhood educational experience.

The Preschogljijtors iiuettijnai e

Each preschool director completed a two-page question-

naire, presented in Appendix A. The questionnaire requested

the name of the preschool, the name of the director, and the

name of the sponsor or owner. Other questions pertained to

advertising, tuition fees, enrollment, staffing, and curricu-

lum. The questionnaire also asked if personal interviews

were required before enrollment and if the preschool used any

screening procedures. The remainder of the questionnaire

consisted of a checklist of the same variables and non-

educational services rated by parents. The directors indi-

cated those variables which were included in their programs.

The eter to Parents

A letter, presented in Appendix A, was written to

accompany the Parent Questionnaire. The letter introduced

the researcher, indicated the nature and purpose of the

study and the use of the data, guaranteed anonymity for the

respondents, and noted endorsement of the research effort

by the preschool director.

The Pilot Procedure -- School E

School E was selected for the pilot survey. After a

sample questionnaire packet was approved by the director and

the governing board of the preschool, a packet was prepared

for and mailed to each of thirty-six families in mid-February,

1976. The packet included the letter to parents, the Parent

Questionnaire, and a stamped, addressed envelope for returning

the questionnaire.

The primary purposes of the pilot survey were to

determine inadequacies in the questionnaire, as indicated

by the number and kinds of "other" answers given; ambiguities,

as indicated by marginal comments or failure to answer

certain questions; the rate of response; and the length of

time required for questionnaires to be returned. Also,

barring major alterations in questionnaire design, the data

obtained from the pilot survey was to be included with the

data obtained from Schools A, B, C, and D.

Ten days after the initial mailing of the questionnaires,

returns had ceased. A post-card was sent to all families,

thanking those who had participated in the study, and

requesting that those who had not returned their question-

naires do so as quickly as possible.

Results of the Pilot Survey

Of the thirty-six questionnaires sent to parents at

School R, a total of twenty-five (69.4 percent) were

returned. Twenty-one (58.3 percent) were returned before

parents received the follow-up post card, and four (11.1

percent) were returned later, as indicated in Table I. The

final questionnaire to be returned was received five weeks

after the initial mailing. All returned questionnaires were

complete and usable.

In order to determine inadequacies in the questionnaire,

"other" responses were compiled and categorized. In Parts

I, II, and V, "other" responses did not constitute a great

enough percentage of the total responses to indicate changes

in the questionnaire.

In Part IV, five "other" responses were given indicating

"a Christian atmosphere" as being a "very important" or

"important" non-educational aspect of the preschool program.

These responses represented 62.5 percent of all "other"

responses given for School E in Part IV and 20 percent of

the total possible "other" responses in Part IV. Therefore,

"Christian atmosphere" was added to the final version of the

questionnaire.

Questions in Parts III and VI were answered by all

respondents, and no changes were indicated.

The marginal notes which were included on some of the

returns were not of sufficient number to indicate that any

43

revisions were necessary for clarity. Because only one variable

was added to the final version of the questionnaire, the

results of the pilot survey were compiled with the results

of Schools A, B, C, and D.

Data Accumulation --Schools A, B, C, and D

Sample questionnaire packets and Preschool Director's

Questionnaires were approved by the directors and owners or

governing boards of Schools A, B, C, and D. A major change

in methodology was required when School 0 declined to release

the names or addresses of the children enrolled in their

four-year-old program or of their parents. The director did

specify that the questionnaire packets could be sent home with

the children. In order to keep survey procedures as uniform

as possible, arrangements were made for the packets to be

sent home with the children in Schools A, B, and D also. All

directors agreed to encourage parents to complete and return

the questionnaires. The quality and degree of their encourage-

ment or of encouragement by teachers are unknown factors. The

rate of response, presented for the five preschools in Table I,

was generally insensitive to the method of distribution with

the exception of School D, where the lack of parental response

was forewarned. (Directors of preschools with characteristics

similar to those of School D, interviewed in the initial phone

survey, also forewarned lack of parental response.)

Due to the various meeting days of the four-year-old

classes at each school, distribution of the questionnaire

packets took place over a seven-day period in mid-March,

1976. Packets were identical to those used for School E.

Signatures of the researcher on each questionnaire were

color-coded to allow classification of returns according to

school.

At the end of two weeks, the number of daily returns

had ceased. Follow-up letters were sent with the children

to parents of Schools A, B, and C. The response from School D

was so low (33.3 percent) that questionnaires were distributed

through the children a second time. Accompanying letters

explained the low response rate, thanked the parents who had

participated, and encouraged those who had not responded to

do so as quickly as possible.

A final date for the acceptance of returns was estab-

lished late in April, 1976, approximately six weeks after the

original distribution. The total number of Parent Question-

naire returns was 128 (6*.3 percent).

45

TABLE I

RATE OF PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS

H00

0c()

- -- - -- - U

43

CD00

00

S4H

m '

0 0

v aU)H

0)

0A4U)

(1

C)

A 40 27 (67.5%) 4 (10%) 31 (77.5%)B 65 38 (58.4%) 2 (3.0%) 40 (61.5%)C 40 25 (62.5%) 0 (0.0%) 25 (62.5%)D 18 6 (33.3%) 1 (5.5%) 7 (38.8%)E 36 21 (58.3%) 4 (11.I%) 25 (69.4%)

All 199 117 (59.8%) 11 (5.5%) 128 (64.3%)

Compilation of Data

A computer program (12) was used to compile frequencies

and cross-tabulations. An analysis of the data is presented

in Chapter IV.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Arlington Pre-School Association, A Guie UrlgtoneSchool Educational Facilties, Arlington, Texas,

197'+.

2. Bailey, John 3., III, and David B. Ellis, "Developmentof an Instrument to Measure Educational SituationalVariables and Preschool Competencies Desired byParents, " Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,1974. ED 109 219.

3. Bereiter, Carl, "A Nonpsychological Approach to EarlyCompensatory Education," 3 Q13ass, a nde,0.W_ oial D ogent. edited by Martin Deutsch,Irwin Katz, and Arthur R. Jensen, New York, HoltRinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1968.

4. Biber, Barbara, Edna Shapiro and D. Wickens, Prom tCogitive Growt . A De Vglnp nta eration I.pgQ.of YA!, Washington, D. C., National Association forthe Education of Young Children, 1971.

5. Caldwell, Bettye M., "What is the Optimal LearningEnvironment for the Young Child?" American Jural ofOr ho eychi tr. 37 (January, 1967), 8-21.

6. Curtis, Jean, A ar-ents' Guife, tg. u2 jschols,New York, Random House, 1971.

7. Handler, Ellen and Janet Fredlund, "Differences Betweenighly Satisfied and Not Highly Satisfied Clients of

Day Care Centers," University of Illinois, Urbana,Illinois, The Jane Addams Graduate School of SocialWork, 1971. ED 068 165.

8. Rymes, James L., T heg hi . Under x, and ed.,Columbus, Ohio, Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company,197H.

46

9. Samii, Constance and Rheta DeVries, "Piaget-BasedCurricula for Early Childhood Education, The Mamii-Devries Approach," Pre-symposium paper presented atthe biennial meeting of the Society for Research inChild Development, Philadelphia, Pa., Apr. 1, 1973.PD 080 192.

10. Landreth, Catherine, fruc ol jng u a Teaqhing,New York, Harper and Row, Publishers, 1972.

11. Myers, Leta, Virginia Elliott, Jan Harrell, and MaryJane Hotstetter, "The Family and Community Day CareInterview," Pennsylvania State University, TheInstitute for the Study of Human Development, June,1972. ED 089 866.

12. Nie, Norman H. and others, Statesatial j), a i, theSocial ceces, 2nd ed., New York, McGraw-Hill BookCompany, 1975.

13. Prescott, Elizabeth, "Approaches to Quality in EarlyChildhood Programs," gChij4$ Edflion, 50 (January,197k), 125-131.

14. Rambusch, Nancy McCormick, Learning How to, ; a.: AnAercs AP rOA h jq )S nt ssor1. Baltimore, Maryland,Helicon Press, 1962.

15. Sprigle, Herbert and others, "A Fresh Approach to EarlyChildhood Education and a Study of Its Effectiveness,"Jacksonville, Florida, Learning to Learn, Inc., n.d.SI 019 117.

16. Zamoff, Richard B. and Jerolyn Lyle, g Needs. jfl 5i1S.Care.enter, Washington, D. C., The Urban

Institute, 1973.

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

OF THE RESEARCH DATA

Information from completed Parent Questionnaires and

Preschool Director's Questionnaires was compiled and organized

to provide a basis for the examination of the five hypotheses.

Hypothesis I

Hypothesis I states that parents investigate a preschool

program beyond a conversation with the preschool director. A

conversation with the director was chosen as the minimum

contact the parent might have with the preschool prior to

enrolling his child because, in all cases examined in the

study, that was the quickest and easiest means of obtaining

registration forms.

How. frirata !aiaa4 Out, flgutjthe Presehools

Three areas of inquiry on the Parent Questionnaire were

devoted to an examination of Hypothesis I. First, parents

were asked how they found out about the preschool. As

indicated in Table II, the greatest percentage of parents

k8

(45.6 percent) were told about the preschool by friends. The

next largest percentage (22.8 percent) found out about the

preschool from advertisements (in the Yellow Pages of the

telephone directory or in local newspapers). All five

TABIE II

HOW PARENTS FOUND OUT ABOUT TEE PRESCHOOL

Sources of Number of PercentageInformation Responses

Relatives 7 5.5%Friends 58 45.6Advertisements 29 22.8Affiliations 17 13.5Other 16 12.6

Total 127 100. %

preschools in the study have at least one-line listings in

the Yellow Pages of the local telephone directory. Schools

B, D, and E advertise in local newspapers. The third largest

percentage (13.4 percent) of the parents found out about the

preschool through affiliations with the church or organisation

sponsoring the program. "Other" answers were given by 12.6

percent of the respondents. The majority of these parents

indicated that they saw the sign posted in front of the

50

building, which all five preschools have. Several parents saw

one new school as it was being built. One parent was referred

to a preschool by the Health Department. Finally, 5.5 percent

of the parents found out about the preschool from relatives.

In general, word-of-mouth communication seems to be the

most effective, Perhaps parents are more willing to listen

to friends whose opinions they trust rather than impersonal

advertisements or even church affiliations. Generally stated,

friends tend to be selected as people with like interests and

opinions.

One possible explanation for the low response to infor-

mation received from relatives is that in our mobile society,

particularly in suburban areas such as the one in which the

study was conducted, people may be living apart from family

members who could give advice. Another reason may be that

family members do not always agree on such matters as child-

rearing.

How Parents Invest tgated tE Progr m

A second area of inquiry was concerned with how parents

investigated the substance of the preschool program they

eventually selected. (See Table III.) Respondents indicated

as many as three of a possible eight sources of information

51

TABLE III

SOURCES OF INFORMATION REGARDINGPRESCHOOL PROGRAM

0E)

0U)

RelativesFriendsAdvertisements

Affiliations

Directors

TeachersVisit to aclass insession

Other

0a

0

0

8

4597

9626

19

8

H,04J

q40.

60

040

0

0m0D

0a030

6.3%35.2

7.0

5.575.020.3

14.8

6.3

2

91

2

386

0

6

tooW00

,40

0

0 0

00

A40

3.1%14.1

1.5

3.1

59.49.J4

0.0

9.4

043

0

5Wp

101k

00)000P.

1.6$

7.0

0.8

1.6

29.64.7

0.0

4.7

Total * * 64 100.0% 50.0%

* Because 50 percent of the respondents gave two or threeresponses, the total number of responses will equal more thanthe total number of respondents, and the percentage total willequal more than 100 percent.

.uii. JiM - Jt .IIJULSJ.* .i.U L i IlL UflU JL .1IIL11 siii

- ___1-_- U L J .111I1 JL 1L*D*L

iu .i.n1*u auu..

52

regarding the contents of the preschool program. Of the 128

questionnaires returned, 64 (50 percent) indicated only one

source of information, Of these 6k, one parent checked the

"other" response and admitted to no knowledge of the program

content. One other parent checked "other* and said knowledge

of the program content resulted from the child's attending

the preschool classes. Two sources of information regarding

program content were indicated by 35 respondents (27.3 percent).

Three sources of information, the maximum allowed on the

questionnaire, were indicated by 28 respondents (21.9 percent).

So fully 50 percent of the parents did not research the pre-

school program beyond a single source of information, and two

of these parents did not obtain any information about program

content at all prior to enrolling their children.

The most frequently tapped source of information about

program content was the preschool director, as anticipated by

the formation of hypothesis I. Thirty-eight of the 64

respondents (59.4 percent) indicating a single source of

information used the director as that source, far surpassing

any of the alternatives. Of the total 128 respondents, 96

(75 percent) used the director as a source of information

regarding the preschool program. Since one of the functions

of a preschool director is to represent the preschool to ,the

53

public and to be in charge of registration, the frequent usage

of directors as a source of information is not particularly

surprising. What was not anticipated was the relatively lower

frequency of reliance on the director by the single-source

parents. Although they relied most heavily on the director,

some turned to other sources of information about program

content.

The second most frequently tapped source of information

regarding program content was friends. Forty-five (32.2

percent) of the total number of respondents used friends as

a source. Of that number, 9 (14 percent of the single-source

respondents) used fiends as their only source of information.

Friends are a logical source. As stated earlier, they are

often selected on the basis of common interests and opinions,

They could speak from a parent's point of view rather than

as someone working for the preschool, thereby perhaps offering

a more objective opinion. But as sources for information

regarding preschool program content, they were not considered

as valuable as preschool directors by the parents in the

study.

Teachers were the third most frequently used sources of

information for the total number of respondents (26, 20.3

54

percent) and for the single-source respondents (6, 9.4 per-

cent). Again, teachers are logical sources of information

regarding preschool program content, but, being in the class-

room during most of the hours they are at the school, they are

not as accessible as directors or friends.

Relatives, advertisements, and church affiliation were

not frequently tapped sources of information. None of the

single-source respondents derived their information from a

visit to a class in session, but 19 (14.8 percent) of all

respondents claimed a visit as one source of information.

The reasons for a lack of information from relatives mentioned

earlier apply here as well. Advertisements, even relatively

large ones, do not give particularly complete, detailed

descriptions of program content. Church affiliation may have

little relationship to parental educational objectives or

non-educational service requirements. A visit to class in

session may give an idea of the methods of the teacher, the

atmosphere, and the equipment and materials used, but it

may give a very narrow view of curriculum and non-educational

services.

Six of the 8 "other" responses indicated various single

sources of information.

55

Visits to thelschools

A total of 107 respondents (83.6 percent) visited the

preschool in which they enrolled their children prior to

enrollment. At the very least, most parents saw the facilities

before their children began attending classes.

Sugmary. g the j

Once parents learned about a preschool, primarily from

friends, 50 percent sought more than one source of information

regarding the program contents. Only 29.6 percent of all

respondents relied solely on the director for information,

and 83.6 percent visited the preschool before enrolling their

child. These figures indicate that hypothesis I, that parents

investigate a preschool program beyond a conversation with the

director, is supported by the data.

Hypothesis II

Hypothesis II states that non-educational services play

an important role in the selection of a preschool program by

parents. Parents were asked to evaluate eight possible non-

educational variables which may have been important in their

decision to enroll their child. The rating scale for each

variable was I--very important, 2--important, 3--neutral,

k--not important, and 5--definitely not important or not

applicable, The results are included in Appendix B.

56

Reasoe*tie !iion

For 73 percent of the parents, reasonable tuition was

very important or important in the decision to enroll their

child. Only 7.1 percent of the respondents felt that tuition

was not an important consideration. Tuitions for the preschools

were comparable. Educational programs alone ranged from $20.00

per month for a two-day per week program to $30.00 per month

for a five-day per week program. All-day child care, including

a morning educational program, ranged from $90-100 per month.

The figures indicated that tuition is a major consideration

for most parents.

'ranportatin

None of the five preschools provided transportation to

and from home, and, as might be expected, 78.7 percent of the

parents considered it not important or not applicable. How-

ever, Schools B, D, and E, which also provide day care for

older children, do provide transportation to and from public

schools for before- and after-school care. The 17 parents

from Schools B, D, and E who considered transportation an

important consideration in their decision to enroll their

child may have older children participating in the day care

program and could want their children to be together. Or,

57

some of these parents may be anticipating future years when

their preschool child would be attending public school but

would feel more comfortable in the Same day care center. In

either case, transportation as an important consideration may

reflect a desire for continuity for their children. In

general, transportation was not an important consideration

for most parents.

Of the five preschools in the study, Schools B, D, and

E provide all-day care, and School A provides a Mother's Day

Out program from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. one day per week.

For parents from Schools B, D, and B, 80.6 percent felt that

day care was a very important or important consideration in

their decision to enroll their children. As might be

expected, parents whose children attended School C regarded

day care as not important or not applicable in their

decisions.

All of the respondents from School D considered day care

important in their decision to enroll their children. Thirty-

four respondents from School B (85 percent) and 17 from

School S (68 percent) regarded day care as important. For

School B parents, day care appeared to be a crucial

58

consideration. Only 4 parents (10 percent) felt it was not

important. However, for School parents, 5 (20 percent) felt

it was not important. For these parents, other educational

or non-educational variables may have had greater influence

on their selection of a preschool program. Some of these

parents may not have their child enrolled in the day care

components of these programs.

Three parents whose children attended School A (9.7

percent) regarded day care as an important factor in their

decision to enroll their child. The great majority of parents

who felt that it was not important in their decision may not

have enrolled their children in the Mother's Day Out program

or may have felt that the educational program or non-educational

services offered by School A outweighed peripheral advantages

of that program.

k9r4i1&z a H Lii

Seventy-four (58.3 percent) of all respondents con-

sidered the proximity of the selected preschool tottheir

home or work an important factor in their decision to enroll

their child. Forty-one (32.3 percent) were neutral or felt

that it was not important. Twelve (9.4 percent) indicated

that proximity was definitely not a consideration. While

59

proximity did influence many parents, some were willing to

be inconvenienced for the sake of other non-educational

services or educational considerations which were more

important to them. A minority did not consider proximity

in their decision to enroll their child at all.

keitbborhood 9hi]4re

One hundred two (80.2 percent) of the respondents

considered carpooling conveniences resulting from neighbor-

hood children attending the preschool not important or

definitely not important. Fifteen parents (11.8 percent)

were neutral, and only 10 parents (7.9 percent) felt that

it was very important or important. Some of these 10 parents

may not have been able to provide transportation for their

children without cooperation from other parents, so con-

venience may have been a necessity for them. It is interesting

to note that almost 60 percent of the parents wanted their

children to attend a preschool near their home or work

while only 7.9 percent sought a preschool with possible

carpooling as a major consideration. Rather than relying

upon cooperation in carpooling from other parents, most

parents seemed to ignore the distance factor or to select

among preschools close to their home or work.

6o

n fl Servies

Schools C and I) provide some type of health services

and screening for potential health problems. Schools A, B,

and B do not. Yet of the parents from Schools C and D, 11

(34t percent) felt that health services were important or

very important in their decision to enroll their child while

47 parents (50 percent) from Schools A, B, and E felt that

health services were an important consideration.. The larger

percentage of parents who considered this variable in their

decision to enroll their child came from schools not offering

the service. Perhaps health screening was confused by some

of these parents with the developmental testing done by

School A or by the policies formulated by Schools B and B

for dispensing prescription medications and for isolating

children who become ill during the day. Or some, perhaps,

were expressing the desire that such a service be offered.

In all, 67 (53.6 percent) parents were neutral or did not

consider health services to be an important consideration in

their decision to enroll their child. Only 25 parents from

Schools A., B, and E (20 percent) recognized health services

as not being applicable to their situation.

Christian Atmosphere

The non-educational variable, "a Christian atmosphere,,"

was incorporated in the questionnaire after parents from

School B had participated in the study. Therefore, the

results from School B are discussed separately. In all, 82

respondents from Schools A, B, C, and P (79.6 percent) indi-

cated that a Christian atmosphere was an important or very

important consideration in the selection of a preschool

program for their child.

Schools A and C are church-sponsored and regard pro-

viding a Christian atmosphere as part of their educational

philosophy. School C is a parochial school, and children

attend chapel each class day. Twenty-four parents from

School C (96 percent) considered a Christian atmosphere to

be important or very important. School A does not incor-

porate Bible lessons or chapel in their program, but Christian

attitudes on the part of the teachers serve as models for the

children. Twenty-six of the parents from School A (83.9

percent) regarded a Christian atmosphere as an important or

very important factor in their decision to enroll their

child. No parents from either school felt that a Christian

atmosphere was definitely not important or not applicable.

62

The figures are not surprising considering the sponsorship

for each school.

For Schools B and D, neither of which is church-

sponsored, 32 of the parents (69.6 percent) considered a

Christian atmosphere to be an important factor in their

decision to enroll their child. Neither preschool incorporates

a Christian atmosphere in its philosophy, but these parents

may have seen in the preschools conditions which met with

their own concepts of a Christian atmosphere. Nine parents

from these two schools (19.6 percent) felt that a Christian

atmosphere was not important or did not apply to their

circumstances.

School E, which is church-sponsored and which does

incorporate a Christian atmosphere in its philosophy, had

five parents (20 percent) who included a Christian atmos-

phere as an "other" response. It is very likely that more

parents from School S would have considered it an important

factor in their decision to enroll their child had it been

included in their version of the Parent Questionnaire,

"9fe," br nses

Twenty-four respondents (18.8 percent) listed non-

educational factors which were important or very important

63

to them in their selection of a preschool program. The most

frequently mentioned factor, referring to teacher attitudes

and individual attention, was listed by fifteen respondents

(62.5 percent of "other" responses). The size and condition

of the physical plant were listed by four respondents (16.7

pereent). The remaining "other" responses were widely

divergent,

For all parents from all preschools, tuition was an

important or very important factor in their decision to enroll

their child by 73 percent. For parents whose children were

enrolled in pre schools providing day care, day care was an

important or very important consideration (80.6 percent).

For parents in Schools A, B, C, and D, a Christian atmosphere

was important or very important (79.6 percent). (That

variable was not included on the questionnaire for School E.)

For all parents from all preschools, proximity of the preschool

to home or work was important in more than half the cases

(58.3 percent). Only attendance by neighborhood children, of

the eight non-educational variables listed on the questionnaire,

was considered not important by the majority of parents.

Responses to health services were fairly evenly distributed,

although none of the preschools offered that service. The

figures indicate that hypothesis II, that non-educational

services play an important role in the selection of a pre-

school program by parents, is supported by the data.

Hypothesis III

Hypothesis III states that similarities

exist between the educational preferences of the parents and

the educational program of the preschool they have selected.

Parents were asked to rate sixty-six variables (including

"other") on a scale: I--should be required in a preschool

program, 2--beneficial but not essential in a preschool

program, 3--neutral, k--not important in a preschool program,

and 5--definitely should not be included in a preschool

program. To facilitate ranking the variables by parental

preference, an averaging system was employed. Each response

was given a value to correspond with the numbers on the

rating scale (e.g. one point for a 1 response, two points for

a 2 response, and so on). The points were accumulated and

divided by the total number of responses for each of the

sixty-five variables (excluding "other" responses, which are

discussed separately) to obtain a mean response (referred to

hereafter as MR). The MR is thus an average of all responses

65

for each variable. The variables were then ranked from the

most positive (lowest MR) to the most negative (highest N).

The list of variables, their rank order, and their Rs

appear in Appendix C. MRs range from 1.008 (a very positive

response) to 3.81 (a negative response). In general, the MRs

tend to be positive. Twenty-nine of the sixty-five MRs

(44.6 percent) are below 1.5, indicating that most parents

believed that these variables should be required in a pre-

school program and that few parents, if any, felt that they

were not important or should be excluded. Twenty-six variables

(40 percent) received ERs of 1.5 to 2.5, reflecting a general

opinion that these variables are beneficial to a preschool

program. Only nine variables (13.9 percent) received MRs of

2.5 to 3.5, indicating generally neutral or negative opinions

by parents. In some cases, the neutral MR is the result of

fairly evenly distributed negative and positive answers on the

individual questionnaires. Only one variable received a MR

greater that, 3.5. In general, parents rejected this variable

as not being important to or as not belonging in a preschool

program. Fully 84,6 percent of the variables received MRs

indicating a positive attitude toward them on the part of

parents. Only 15.4 percent received generally neutral or

negative responses. Parents tended to indicate acceptance

66

of a wide range of teaching goals, materials, and subjects for

their four-year-old children. Observations can be made, but

differences between MRs for variables ranked next to each

other are slight, sometimes within .002.

ka Rejpses frl tkbe 7ToParent oulatign

Trg variab l hs th . lovest .. ,;ag response .--Table IV

lists the ten most highly ranked variables. Parents heavily

favored social skills, including cooperation, learning to work

and play with other children, learning how other people feel,

and self-control. In fact, only two of the 128 respondents

considered cooperation beneficial. The remainder felt that

it should be required in a preschool program. Learning to

feel good about himself, ranked first with cooperation,

received the same response. Feeling good about himself was

the only variable included on the questionnaire which related

directly to ego-development or self-image, and parents indi-

cated strong concern in this area. Parents also valued skills

that would aid a child in succeeding in a school setting,

including learning to obey the teacher and learning to follow

directions. Interestingly, learning to answer the teacher's

questions was slightly less highly valued by parents, giving

67

TABLE IV

VARIABLES RECEIVING LOWEST blEAN RESPONSES

Rank Orderby LowestMean

Response

1.5

1.53

555

7

8

910

Variable

Learning to feel goodabout himself

Learning to cooperateLearning to play with

othersObey the teacherFollow directionsRecognize colors, shapes,numbers and letters

Equipped outdoor playarea

Learning how otherpeople feel

Self-controlDisplay areas for

children' s work

MeanResponse

1.008

1.0081.055

1.0791.0791.079

1.093

I .09i1

1.110

1.117

PercentageResponsesRated I

97.7 %'

97.793.0

92.992.192.1

91,4

92.1

92.190.6

it a lower ranking than following directions. All three

variables relate to teacher-directed activities, although

answering questions implies attention focussed on the indi-

vidual child and his verbal response. In regard to facilities,parents highly valued equipped outdoor play areas and display

areas in the classroom for work done by the children. The

only acquisition of knowledge highly valued by all respondents

-MIN

WON

68

is learning to recognize colors, shapes, numbers, and letters,

which are traditionally included in preschool programs.

V riables rQnked ll-3Q.--Ninety percent or more of the

respondents thought that the variables in this group were

beneficial to a preschool program or that they should be

required (except for bathroom facilities adjacent to the class-

room, to which 88.8 percent of the respondents indicated

favorable responses). Variables in this group are listed in

Table V. Emphasis in this group of variables was on curriculum

and materials, including field trips, special visitors to

class, learning about community helpers, physical education,

group teaching for stories and lessons, music and musical

instruments or rhythm instruments, show and tell, crayons or

paints for art lessons, and a general emphasis on reality,

as opposed to fantasy. Parents wanted their children to learn

to behave with manners, to be able to work or play alone, to

solve problems, and to answer the teacher's questions, In

order to find out how and what their children were doing in

class, parents favored art papers or worksheets for the

children to bring home as well as parent-teacher conferences.

Parents also favored small class sizes and college training

for the teachers. Regarding facilities, an indoor play area'

69

TABLE V

VARIABLES RANKED 11-30

Rank Order Mean Percentageby Mean Variable Response ResponsesResponse

Rated 1 or 2

Indoor play area forrainy days

Behave with mannersParent-teacher con-ferences

learning to play aloneAnswer teacher' s

questionsArt papers and work-

sheets to bring homeSmall class sizeLearning to solve

problemsField tripsAn emphasis on real

lifeGroup teaching to in-

crease attention spanSpecial visitors to classLearning about communityhelpers

Physical educationMusicShow and tellCrayons for art lessonsBathroom facilities ad-

jacent to the class-room

Musical instrumentsCollege training for

teachers

S aodI. *4170

1.1881.195

1.1971.197

1.228

1.2811.288

1.3051.315

1323

1.3391.386

1.3981.3981.k061.491.448

1.k921.56

98.496.9

94 .596.1

97.6

95.3

94.4

96.193.7

94.4

96.192.9

92.295.394.592.988.8

90.696.1

11

1213

14 .514.5

16

1718

1920

21

2223

24.524.5262728

2930

-

9#j.*4 6

70

for rainy days was highly valued, and a bathroom adjacent to

the classroom was considered beneficial.

It is interesting to note the lack of emphasis on

facilities and equipment in this group of variables. Greater

concern is shown for curriculum content and learning and

social skills. Furthermore, the 0 for an emphasis on real

life (1.315) contrasts sharply with the MR for an emphasis on

fantasy (2.476), although the two are not mutually exclusive.

Finally, parents favor personal feedback from the preschools

in terms of the children's papers (MR 1.228) and conferences

(M 1.195) as opposed to letters to parents (M 2.078) or

progress charts (M 2.087) or, particularly, report cards

(MR 3.41). Children' s papers and parent-teacher conferences

inspire dialogue between parents and children or teachers

rather than providing one-way communication.

variables Vied 2_.- --Variables in this group had

MRs ranging from 1.58-2.5, generally positive, but with more

widely scattered questionnaire responses. Classroom activities

and subject areas in this group included free choice art

activities; frequent, regularly scheduled free choice activity

periods; special clay or play dough activities; frequent

periods of teaching the entire class; school programs; dance

71

or movement activities; art lessons; short free choice

activities to break up learning periods; studies of community

ethnic groups; basic science ideas; basic arithmetic; simple

reading; religious education; and foreign language. The

emphasis in this group of variables is on specific skills and

subjects which many parents might consider beneficial to but

not required in a preschool program or which might draw

slightly more negative responses than those in the previous

group. For instance, learning about community helpers is

ranked twenty-third (M 1.386). "Should be required" responses

equalled 69.3 percent, "beneficial" responses equalled 23.6

percent, "neutral" equalled 6.3 percent, and "not important"

equalled 0.8 percent. "Should not be included" responses were

not given for this variable. Responses clearly tended to be

favorable. However, simple arithmetic is ranked fiftieth,

(MR 2.281). The Mt is still favorable, but it is less so than

for community helpers, In the case of arithmetic, 32.8

percent of the respondents indicated it should be required in

a preschool program, 35.2 percent said it is beneficial, 11.7

percent were neutral, 11.7 percent said it is not important,

and 8.6 percent said that simple arithmetic definitely should

not be included in a preschool program. Some of the variables

72

in this group drew enough clearly negative responses that

this factor must be noted.

Variables included in this group outside of specific

classroom activities and skills include developmental testing,

extrinsic reward systems (i.e. charts and stars), an emphasis

on fantasy, learning to compete, letters to parents regarding

the childts progress, parent education meetings, and classroom

aides. Variables relating to facilities and equipment include

grass, live animals in the classroom, carpeting, and a place

where the child can be alone yet observed by the teacher.

These variables also received generally favorable responses

with some clearly negative responses. Competition, for

instance, received 1. percent "should not be included"

responses.

Te variables receiviqg jjte highef gpa reslponses.e-

Variables included in this group, listed in Table VI, received

MRs of 2.622-3.81. The variable most clearly rejected by the

majority of parents is long periods of free choice activities.

It is possible that parents were indicating a preference for

direction to their children's learning rather than to a type

of custodial care that some parents may feel is implied by

the variable. Long periods of free choice activities

73

TABLE VI

VARIABLES RECEIVING HIGHEST MEAN RESPONSES

Rank Variable MeanOrder Response

65 Long periods of free choice activities 3.8164 Report cards 3.4163 Clay always available 3.1462 IQ tests 3.0361 Crayons always available 2.866o Parent participation in the classroom 2.7759 Soft furniture in the classroom 2.6858 Water play 2.6457 Sand 2.6356 Grouping according to ability 2.622

received by far the largest percentage of "should not be

included" responses (45.3 percent).

Other variables in this group include testing for IQ,

grouping according to ability, and report cards. Although

these factors are standard in many elementary schools, many

parents in the study felt that they were less appropriate for

four-year-olds. Such traditional preschool materials as

sand, water for water play, soft furniture, crayons or paints

and clay or play dough always available were also given largely

neutral or negative responses. Parent participation in the

classroom on a regular basis also received largely neutral

responses (40.6 percent). Since over 50 percent of the

respondents had their children enrolled in day care centers

and presumably were employed, perhaps they considered parti-

cipation during non-working hours possible.

"9the" s for vrl2Aes.--Nineteen "other"

responses (14.8 percent of the total possible) were given.

Six (31.6 percent of "other" responses) referred to positive

forms of discipline. Two (10.5 percent), referring to

nutrition, were from parents whose children were enrolled in

day care centers. The remaining "other" responses varied

but included one "should not be included" response to strict

regimentation.

o.arison of P rental Preferences wth

PreJflol Prorms

Variables offered ] 2all preschools.--Variables incorpo-

rated in each of the preschool programs, as indicated on the

Preschool Director's Questionnaires, were compared with the

results of the survey of the total parent population. All

five preschools offered 26 (40 percent) of the 65 variables,

including the 14 most highly ranked variables, and all of

these received MRs of 2.0 or less except one, as indicated

in Table VII. The exception is paints or crayons available

75

TABLE VII

VARIABLES OFFERED BY THE FIVE PRESCHOOLS

Variable MeanResponse

Learning to feel good about himself 1.008Learning to cooperate 1.008Learning to play with others 1.055Obey the teacher 1.079Follow directions 1.079Recognize shapes, colors, numbers,

and letters 1.079Equipped outdoor play area 1.093Learning how other people feel 1.094Self-control 1.110Display area for children's work 1.117Indoor play area for rainy days 1.148Behave with manners 1.188Parent-teacher conferences 1.195Learning to play alone 1.197Learning to solve problems 1.288Field trips 1.305An emphasis on real life 1.315Group teaching 1.323Community helpers 1.386Music 1.398Musical instruments 1.492School programs for parents 1.77Basic science ideas 2.0Crayons or paints always available 2.86Clay or play dough always available 3.14

at all times, which received an MR from parents of 2.86, largely

neutral. State licensing standards require that age-appropriate

materials must be available to children (1). To many direc-

tors, age-appropriate materials include paints, crayons, play

dough, clay, and rhythm instruments. In these cases, parent

opinion would have less impact than state standards, even if

parents clearly disapproved. In conforming to state licensing

requirements and in planning their individual programs, all

preschools in the study met parental objectives and expecta-

tions with regard to d0 percent of the variables presented in

the questionnaire. Importantly, of the 30 variables most

highly valued by at least 90 percent of the participating

parents, 22 were offered by all five preschools. The

remaining eight variables were offered by most of the pre-

schools.

Variables offered . none of the fiveools.--

Five of the variables listed on the questionnaire were not

offered by any of the preschools participating in the study,

as indicated in Table VIII. Only one of the five variables

received a MR of less than 2.5, parent education or discussion

meeting, which received an MR of 2.047. The parents indicated

an interest in learning about child-rearing and in having

the opportunity to ask questions and to discuss problems.

On the other hand, parent participation in the classroom on

a regular basis received largely neutral responses and a MR

of 2.77. So while the parents were interested in discussion

77

groups, they did not feel their presence was required in the

classroom.

TABLE VIII

VARIABLES OFFERED BY NONE OF THE FIVE PRESCHOOLS

Variable MeanResponse

Parent education meetings 2.047Soft furniture in the classroom 2.68Parent participation in the classroom 2.77IQ tests 3.03Long periods of free choice activities 3.81

The remaining three variables not offered by any of the

participating preschools were soft furniture in the classroom

(MR 2.68), standardized IQ tests (MR 3.04), and long periods

of free choice activities (MR 3.81). No conflict between

parental objectives and preschool objectives is indicated

here as none of these variables was particularly highly valued

by the majority of parents.

Variables offered some of the fiv reschools.--In

order to examine the efficiency with which parents selected

preschool programs for their children, comparisons were made

78

between MRs of parents from preschools which offer the variable

(referred to hereafter as N) with MRs of parents from pre-

schools which do not offer the variable (referred to hereafter

as NO). The assumption is that the MR of PW would be lower

than the NB of PWO, as PW0 would not be expected to value as

highly a variable not offered by the preschool program they

have selected. Similar MRs were considered to be those with

a difference of less than .5, or one-half an answer on the

rating scale. Of the thirty-four variables offered by some

of the preschools, fifteen (44.1 percent) received similar MRs,

twelve (35.3 percent) received different MRs, and seven (20.6

percent) received lower MRs from PW0 than from W.

variables with similar mean xspns.--Two considerations

are important in examining these variables, which are listed

in Table IX. First, all but two of these variables received

total MRs of less than 2.5, which is a generally positive

response. Second, none was included in the ten most highly

ranked variables, which received at least 90 percent "should

be required" responses. So while the majority of PW and PW0

indicated that these variables were highly valued, they were

not among the variables required by participating parents.

To NO, although these variables are important, other aspects

79

TABLE IX

COMPARISON OF SIMILAR MEAN RESPONSES FOR PRESCHOOLSWITH AND WITHOUT THE VARIABLE(S)

Variable MR * MR MRW PWO1 ***

Art Papers or worksheets 1.228 1.197 1.268Small class sizes 1.281 1.175 1.385Special visitors to class 1.339 1.291 1.542Physical education 1.398 1.264 1.571College training for teachers 1.56 1.485 1.875Free choice art activities 1.58 1.379 1.72Short periods of free choice

activities 1.617 1.493 1.772Teaching to whole class 1.734 1.667 1.789Dance or movement 1.781 1.689 2.16Art lessons 1.84 1.844 1.844Developmental testing 1.906 1.889 1.923Grass 1.96 1.875 2.175Letters to parents about childas

progress 2.078 1.844 2.168Area where child can be alone but

observed by the teacher 2.3 2.069 2.28Sand 2.63 2.516 2.667Report cards 3.41 3.188 3.49

* Mean response from total population.

* ,Mean response from parents whose children attend apreschool which incorporates the variable in its educationalprogram.

Mean response from parents whose children attend apreschool which does not incorporate the variable in itseducational program.

80

of the program might have been more important or, perhaps,

the parents were unaware of the deficiencies.

Sand was met with largely neutral responses from both

groups. Report cards were regarded more negatively by NO,

as might be expected, but neither group indicated special

interest in seeing report cards in a preschool program. N

may not have realized that the preschools they selected used

report cards as a means of communicating with parents. Or

perhaps they valued other aspects of the programs they

selected more than they rejected the use of report cards.

Dance or movement is not included in the program f or

School E because of the influence of the sponsoring church.

However, most parents from School E indicated that they felt

that this area of learning was important in a preschool

program. These parents did not know about the contents of

the program in this regard or felt that other aspects of

the program were more important than the exclusion of dance

or movement.

Variables with different mean responses.--Eleven

variables are in this group, as indicated in Table X. Each

received a lower MR from N than from WO, as would be

expected. The differences in MRs ranged from .547 to 1.052.

81

TABLE X

COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT MEAN RESPONSES FOR PRESCHOOLSWITH AND WITHOUT THE VARIABLE(S)

VariableMR MR Differ-V eMR* N** NO ence

Teacher aides 2.27 1.55 2.602 1.052Foreign language 2.367 1.944 2.911 .967Live animals in the classroom 2.11 1.941 2.8 .859Simple arithmetic 2.047 1.766 2.580 .814Simple reading 2.203 1.702 2.494 .792Progress charts 2.087 1.951 2.667 .716Bathroom facilities adjacent

to the classroom 1.448 1.31 2.0 .7Study of ethnic groups 1.976 1.843 2.52 .68Religious education 2.367 2.0 2.603 .603Emphasis on fantasy 2.476 2.221 2.82 .599Carpeting 2.48 2.373 2.92 .547

* Mean response from the total population.

Mean response from parents whose children attend apreschool which incorporates the variable in its educationalprogram.

*** Mean response from parents whose children attend apreschool which does not incorporate the variable in itseducational program.

The highest differences were for teacher aides (employed only

by School B, which has the highest pupil:teacher ratio) and

foreign language (offered by Schools B, C, and D). Variables

in this group may reflect some of the factors influencing

parental decision-making. However, none of the MRS, even for

PO, was 3.0 or above, so none of the variables was clearly

82

rejected by either group of parents. This fact is especially

interesting with regard to religious education, which was not

rejected even by the majority of parents whose children attend

preschools not associated with churches. Perhaps they and the

parents from School A, which does not have formal religious

lessons, valued the Christian attitudes they felt were

imparted by the programs and personnel of the preschools

they selected.

Subject areas included in this group were reading,

arithmetic, ethnic studies, and foreign language. School E

incorporated none of these subjects in their program.

Schools B and D incorporated all of them. Parents who

would want to avoid pushing their children into subjects

they might consider areas of formal study might select a

preschool on the basis that these are not taught in the

program. Conversely, parents who feel that their children

are ready for and would benefit from these subjects might

deliberately seek preschools who offer them.

Variables with lower mean responses from PWO than from

PW.--The NRs in this group, listed in Table XI, were contrary

to what might be expected, but because the differences did

not exceed .5, they could not be considered conclusive in any

83

TABLE XI

COMPARISON OF MEAN RESPONSES FOR VARIABLES WITHLOWER MEAN RESPONSES FOR PRESCHOOLS

WITHOUT THE VARIABLE(S)

MRVariable MR MR PW

* PW** **

Answer teacher's questions 1.197 1.230 1.125Crayons or paints for art

activities 1.409 1.463 1.319Clay for art activities 1.67 1.906 1.596Short periods of free choice

activities to break upperiods of learning 1.87 1,966 1.675

Learning to compete 2.19 2.222 2.169Grouping according to

ability 2.622 2o673 2.59Water play 2.64 2.839 2.478

* Mean response from total population.

* Mean response from parents whose children attend apreschool which incorporates the variable in its educationalprogram.

4 Mean response from parents whose children attend apreschool which does not incorporate the variable in itseducational program.

way. However, due to the positive nature of most of the MRs,

indications are that some parents were missing activities they

would have liked for their children, whether they were aware

of it or not. Communication between parents and directors or

teachers is important here so that parents know why certain

activities are included in or excluded from the preschool

program.

Special note should be made of the responses to water

play. Schools A and B, which do not have water play, had a

MR of 2.478, while Schools C, D, and E, which do, had a MR

of 2.830. However, School B is the only school with a

swimming pool and swimming lessons. Parents from School B

gave a MR of 1.947 to water play, which may reflect a positive

attitude toward the pool and swimming lessons as opposed to

the more traditional forms of preschool water play. Parents

from School A gave a MR of 3.129, which is lower than the

2.839 for the preschools which do offer water play.

Pta Sumuary

Parents from all preschools in the study tended to give

positive responses for most of the variables listed on the

questionnaire. Negative responses to long periods of free

choice activities may reflect rejection by parents of any

type of custodial care for their children. Also, some

educational practices which are standard for older children,

such as giving out report cards and testing for IQ, received

85

negative responses from parents for their four-year-old

children.

Variables included in all five preschool programs out-

numbered variables offered by none of the preschools and

tended to be highly valued by parents. Variables included in

none of the preschool programs received largely neutral or

negative responses from parents. Variables included in only

some of the programs, for the most part, received at least

comparable MRs from P1 and WO or lower MRs from PW, as might

be expected. Those variables receiving materially lower MRs

from PW, such as reading and arithmetic, may have been factors

influencing parental decision-making regarding preschool

programs. However, differences in MRs for variables receiving

lower MRs from PWO were not material.

In general, the data supports hypothesis III, that

similarities exist between the educational preferences of

the parents and the educational program of the preschool

they have selected.

Hypothesis IV

Hypothesis IV states that parents who have attained

similar levels of education have similar educational

preferences for their children. Questionnaire

86

responses indicated that questionnaires were completed by

106 mothers (82.8 percent of the respondents), 7 fathers

(5.5 percent), and 15 parent couples (11.7 percent). There-

fore data concerning levels of education and educational

preferences were computed for mothers on the assumption that

their influence on questionnaire responses greatly exceeded

that of fathers. MRs for each variable for each level of

education attained by mothers were computed and compared.

Only one mother attained no more than a junior high school

diploma, so her responses were omitted in order to maintain

balance in average comparisons.

Another aspect of educational background for all

respondents, though particularly for mothers, was whether

or not they had had any formal training in education or

child development. MRs for those with formal training and

for those without were computed and compared.

Effects ~f Levels of Education

on Educational Ob ectives

Thirty-six mothers (28 percent) completed high school

(referred to hereafter as ES), sixty (48 percent) attended

college (referred to hereafter as C), twenty-two (17 percent)

earned college degrees (referred to hereafter as CD), and

nine (7 percent) completed some graduate work (referred tohereafter as G). The small number of mothers who attended

graduate schools should be noted as identical responses aremore likely to occur in a small group than in larger groups.

In order to compare preferences, variables receiving

less than 1.5 and greater than 2.5 1Rs were compiled and

compared.

Variables eceiving Mean responses les

Thirty-four variables received MRs less than 1.5 from one ormore of the educational groups, as indicated in Table XII.IT had twenty-five variables in this range, C had-twenty-eight, CD had twentyfrive, and G had all thirty-four, Thenumber of highly valued variables is comparable among groups

except for G, who may have reached agreement on more variablesdue to the small size of the group. However, it is interesting

to note that G rated more variables more highly than any of

the other groups.

Twenty-two variables (33.8 percent of all variables)

received MRs less than 1.5 from all groups.

Four variables received less than 1.5 from three of thegroups, with G being the only group to rate all four that

highly. In each case, the group not rating the variable

87

88

TABLE XII

VARIABLES WITH LOW MEAN RESPONSES FROMEDUCATIONAL GROUPS OF MOThERS

Mean ResponseVariable jSa Cb CDC Gd

Feel good about self * ***CooperatePlay with others * * * *Obey teacherFollow directions * * *Recognize colors, shapes, letters**Outd oor play areaLearn how others feel * * *Self-c ontrol * *Display areas for work * * *Indoor play area ***Behave with manners * * * *Parent-teacher conferencesPlay alone *Answer teacher's questionsArt papers or worksheets * * * *Small class sizesField trips *Emphasis on real lifeRequire group attentionCommunity helpers *Music * *Special visitors to class 1.514 * * *Solve problems * * 1.545 *Show and tell * * 1.5 *Physical education * 1.5 * *Crayons for art activities 1.528 * 1.545 *Free choice art activities 1.778 * 1.727 *Short periods free choice activities 2.0 1.533 * *Bathroom facilities adjacent 1.514 * 1.727 *Movement or dance 2.028 1.783 1.545 *Clay for special art lessons 1.771 1.695 1.5 *Musical instruments 1.583 1.5 1.5 *College training for teachers 1.629 1.533 1.682 *

89

TABLE XII--Continued

* Mean response less than 1.5.

a Mothers who have a high school diploma.

b Mothers who have attended college.

C Mothers who have earned a college degree,

d Mothers who have complete some graduate work.

as high gave it no greater MR than 1.545. Thus differences

in MRs were not material.

Four variables received MRs less than 1.5 from two of

the four groups. Crayon or paints for art projects received

no more than 1.545 from the other two groups. Free choice

art activities received 1.7 from the other two groups. Short

periods of free choice activities received 1.533 from C but

a 2 from HS, a substantial difference in MRs from the groups

rating the variable high.

Four variables received MRs less than 1.5 only from G.

Three of these variables received no MR greater than 1.771

from the other three groups, However, dance or movement

received 2.028 from ES, a substantial difference from the MR

from G.

90

Thus, although there is a high degree of agreement among

the four educational groups on highly valued variables, Gs

tended to give lower Mis to more variables and ES tended to

give slightly higher MRs than C or CD.

rables efll ;mepan ao es ea r t iha i.--Seventeen variables received MRs greater than 2.5 from one or

more of the four educational groups, as indicated in Table

XIII. ES had nine variables in this group, C had eleven, CD

had sixteen, and 0 had eleven. The number of low-rated vari-

ables is comparable among the groups except for CD, who were

neutral or negative to all seventeen variables except sand.

Six variables received MRs greater than 2.5 from all

four educational groups. They tended to be the same variables

which received high MRs from the total population. Long

periods of free choice activities earned the highest MR from

each of the four groups.

Four variables received greater than 2.5 from three of

the four groups. Two variables received 2. or greater from

the remaining educational groups. For grouping according to

ability, ES gave 2.083, and for emphasis on fantasy, ES gave

2.306. Differences in MRs are not substantial, but ES tended

to give lower MRs than the other groups.

91

TABLE XIII

VARIABLES WITH HIGH MEAN RESPONSES FROMEDUCATIONAL GROUPS OF MOTHERS

Variable Mean Responsea b CD0 Gd

Long periods of free choiceReport cardsClay always available ** *IQ testsCrayons always available * * * *Parent participation in the class * * *Grouping according to ability 2.083Emphasis on fantasy 2.306Sand * * 2.409 *Water play * * * 2.444Learning to compete 1.694 2.263 * *Teacher aides 1.944 2.317 *Carpeting * 2.407 * 2.111Soft furniture in the classroom 2.333 * * 2.444Arithmetic 2.083 2.317 * 2.111Reading 1.889 2.267 * 2.333Religious education 2.083 2.483 * 2.222

* Mean response greater than 2.5.

a Mothers who have a high school diploma.

Mothers who have attended college.

c Mothers who have earned a college degree,

d Mothers who have completed some graduate work.

Four variables received greater than 2.5 MRs from two of

the four groups. Highest MRs from the remaining groups once

again given by HS, who gave 1.694 to learning to compete and

92

1.944 to aides in the classroom. Differences in MRs for ES

are material for these variables.

CD gave MRs greater than 2.5 to three additional

variables. MRs from C and G were within .5 for each variable.

13 gave lower MRs to each variable, including 1.889 to reading.

The differences in MRs for S and CD were material.

Summary _of the... data.--Differences in MRs among educa-

tional groups were not substantial enough for the lowest MRs

or the highest MRs to support hypothesis IV, that parents (in

this case, mothers) who have attained similar levels of

education have similar educational preferences for their

children. However, for the most part, E3 tended to give

fewer very low or very high MRs than C, CD, or G.

Effects of Formal Training on

Educational Qb4jectives

Of the 128 questionnaire respondents, eighty-four indi-

cated that they had had no formal training in education or

child development (referred to hereafter as NFT), forty-two

indicated that they had had formal training (referred to here-

after as FT), and two did not respond. MRs were computed and

compared for FT and NFT. NFT gave lower MRs to twenty-six

variables (Table XIV), FT gave lower MRs to thirty-eight

93

TABLE XIV

COMPARISON OF MEAN RESPONSES FOR VARIABLESWITH LOWER MEAN RESPONSES FROM PARENTS

WHO HAVE NOT HAD FORMAL TRAINING INEDUCATION OR CHILD DEVELOPMENT

Variable MR MR Differ-NFT* FT** nce

Report cards 3.310 3.929 .619IQ tests 2.655 3.1k3 .488Parent participation in the classroom 2.627 3.095 .468Teacher aides 2.155 2.548 .393Learning to compete 2.085 2.429 .344Grouping according to ability 2.5+2 2.857 .315Progress charts 2.0 2.238 .238Letters to parents on childts progress 2.012 2.238 .226Reading 2.119 2.310 .191Art papers or worksheets to bring home 1.169 1.3104 .141Parent education meetings 2.012 2.143 .131Teaching the whole class 1.679 1.810 .131

*Mean response from parents who have nottraining in education or child development.

had formal

**Mean response from parents who have had formal trainingin education or child development.

variables (Table XV), and both groups had identical MRs for

one variable .

Four variables received MRs with a difference of .5 or

more. Three of them were given lower MRs by FT: sand, grass,

and ethnic studies. Sand received 2.286 from FT (fairly

positive) and 2.819 (neutral) from NFT. Grass and ethnic

TABLE XV

EDUCATIONAL VARIABLES WITH LOWER MEAN RESPONSES FROMPARENTS WHO HAVE HAD FORMAL TRAINING IN EDUCATION

OR CHILD DEVELOPMENT THAN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVENOT HAD FORMAL TRAINING

MR MRVariable FT NFT Differ-

* ** ence

Area where child can be alone 1.829 2.265 .436Carpeting 2.238 2.602 .364Live animals in the classroom 1.881 2.2 1 .360Water play 2.405 2.765 .360College training for teachers 1.357 1.675 .318Short periods of free choice activities 1.390 1.702 .312Emphasis on fantasy 2.3 2.595 .295Physical education 1.214 1.46 .262Art lessons 1.667 1.905 .238Music 1.238 1.476 .238Science 1.833 2.071 .238

Mean response from parents who have hadin education or child development .

formal training

* Mean response from parents who have not had formaltraining in education or child development.

studies received 1.595 (positive) from FT and 2.131 and 2.133

(fairly positive) respectively from NFT. MRs for sand, indi-

cating two different attitudes, may reflect respect given

this free-form material by people trained in child development

that may not have occurred to those who are not. Also, FT

gave much greater emphasis to grass and ethnic studies, two

95

unrelated variables which might not traditionally be considered

important in a preschool program, FT was the only one of all

groups created for the purposes of the study to give such

importance to grass. Perhaps its usefulness for the active

play of young children, important for all areas of development,

was recognized by FT. Also, the importance of young children

learning about other cultures and the people living in their

community seemed to be recognized more by FT than by NFT.

Report cards showed the greatest difference in MRs. FT

gave a MR of 3.929, and NFT gave a MR of 3.31, with a differ-

ence of .619. People trained in child development showed less

regard for report cards than NFT did.

An examination of variables with the greatest differences

in MRs reveals that FT tended to be more positive about more

variables than NFT. Furthermore, variables given lower MRs

by NFT tended to be variables less highly rated by both

groups but given slightly higher MRs by FT than by NFT. Vari-

ables receiving lower MRs by FT were generally more highly

rated by both groups but given slightly lower MRs by FT than

by NFT. These variables tend to deal more with curriculum and

materials (i.e. art lessons, science, music, carpets, animals,

water, fantasy, and physical education) as opposed to the first

96

group of variables, which deal more with aspects not directly

related to classroom activities (i.e. IQ testing, parent

participation, aides, progress charts, letters to parents,

and parent discussion meetings).

8ummr o tA.--Clear differences in MRs between FT

and NFT are not substantial enough to form definite conclusions.

However, observations are that FT expect more from preschool

programs and tend to give more higher and lower MRs than NFT.

Perhaps training in child development and education gives one

the opportunities to develop more definite opinions, pro and

con, regarding various aspects of early childhood education.

Thus, although levels of educational attainment seem to have

little effect on parental educational objectives for their

children, a clearer convergence of thinking is demonstrated

by parents who have had formal training in education or child

development.

Hypothesis V

Hypothesis V states that parents whose first child is

attending a preschool have educational preferences similar to

the educational preferences of parents whose older children

have attended preschools. Of the 128 participants in the

97

study, forty-eight had older children who had attended pre-

school programs (hereafter referred to as 00), and eighty had

children enrolled in preschool programs for the first time

(hereafter referred to as 'C). MRs were calculated and com-

pared for both groups. The criterion used for earlier

discussions, that a .5 difference in MRs indicated a substan-

tial difference, was applied. Only one variable, studies of

ethnic groups in the community, showed a substantial difference

in MRs. The MR for FC was 1.775, and the MR for 00 was 2.139

(a difference of .544). FC gave 51.3 percent "should be

required" responses compared to 29.2 percent for 00. Also,

FC gave 1.3 percent "not important" responses compared to

16.7 percent for 00. These were the major areas of difference

in distribution between the two groups.

Forty of the sixty-five variables were given lower MRs

by FC, as indicated in Table XTI, while twenty-five were

given lower MRs by 00, as indicated in Table XVII. FC tended

to expect more in preschool programs for their children than

00 did. Differences in MRs for variables given lower MRs by

FC tended to be greater than for those given lower MRs by 00,

although not materially so. Neither group of variables showed

98

any trend according to subject areas, activities, or facilities

and materials.

TABLE XstI

DIFFERENCES IN MEAN RESPONSES FOR VARIABLES WITHLOWER MEAN RESPONSES FROM PARENTS WHOSE

FIRST CHILD IS ATTENDING PRESCHOOL

Variable MR MR Differ-FC * OC** ence

Study of ethnic groups 1.775 2.319 .544Long periods of free choice activities 3.638 4.104 .466Religious education 2.213 2.625 .412Letters to parents about child' sprogress 1.925 2.333 .408

Parent participation in the classroom 2.633 3.0 .367Emphasis on fantasy 2.342 2.702 .360Area where child can be alone 1.987 2.319 .332Crayons always available 2.747 3.064 .317Foreign language 2.263 2.542 .279Physical education 1.3 1.563 .263

* Mean response from parents whose first child is attendingpreschool.

* * Mean response from parents whose older children haveattended preschool.

In general, the minor differences in MRs between FC and

C indicate that the data support hypothesis V, that parents

whose first child is attending a preschool have educational

preferences similar to the educational preferences of parents

whose older children have attended preschools.

99

TABLE XVII

DIFFERENCES IN MEAN RESPONSES FOR VARIABLES WITHLOWER MEAN RESPONSES FROM PARENTS WHOSE

OLDER CHILDREN HAVE ATTENDED PRESCHOOL

Variable Differ-00* FC** ence

IQ tests 2.833 3.163 .33Grouping according to ability 2.583 2.646 .269Bathroom facilities adjacent to room 1.298 1.538 .24Learning to compete 2.043 2.278 .235Developmental testing 1.792 1.975 .183Science 1.896 1.063 .167Learning to solve pro4ems 1.191 1.346 .155Parent-teacher conferences 1.104 1.25 .146Show and tell 1.333 1.45 .117Animals in the classroom 2.042 2.152 .110

* Mean response from parents whose older children haveatended presooot.

** Mean response from parents whose first child isattending preschool.

Ml "L , .L r~

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. M Standard Gr| Centers, Austin, TexasTexas Department of Public Welfare, September, 1971

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, OBSERVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The study concerns parental decision-making regarding

preschool programs for their children. The main areas of

inquiry were the processes parents followed in selecting

preschool programs, the parents' educational preferences for

their children, and how closely parental educational pref-

erences coincided with the educational programs of the

selected preschool programs.

Research regarding early childhood development and

education has continued throughout this century, with parti-

cular emphasis being given to the study of young children in

the past two decades. However, the results of research

appear in professional journals and publications and often

are not available to parents. Further, there is a definite

lack of research regarding parental attitudes toward different

types of early childhood programs and parental educational

objectives for their young children.

101

102

Summary of the Methodology

Questionnaires were sent to the parents of children

enrolled in the four-year-old programs of five preschools

in a large, middle-class suburb in north Texas. The question-

naires elicited information in five general areas: 1) how

the parents learned about and evaluated the preschool program

before enrolling their children, 2) what non-educational

services were important to them, 3) what their educational

preferences were for their children, 4) what their own

levels of educational attainment were, and 5) whether or not

they had children who had previously attended preschool

programs. Of the 199 questionnaires distributed, 63.8% were

returned.

Questionnaires completed by the five preschool directors

elicited parallel information regarding the non-educational

services, the educational objectives, and program format of

each preschool.

Summary of the Data

Data from returned questionnaires were compiled and

analyzed to provide the bases for observations regarding

the following five hypotheses:

103

I. Parents investigate a preschool program beyond a

conversation with the preschool director.

II. Non-educational services play an important role in

the selection of a preschool program by parents.

III. Similarities exist between the educational pref-

erences of the parents and the educational programs of the

preschool they have selected.

IV. Parents who have attained similar levels of

education have similar educational preferences for their

children.

V. Parents whose first child is attending a preschool

have educational preferences similar to the educational

objectives of parents whose older children have attended

preschools.

Sypothesis IThe most frequently indicated source for initial infor-

mation about a preschool was friends. In-.their investigations

of the contents of a preschool program, half of the parents

tapped two or more sources of information, with the single

most frequently indicated source of information being the pre-

school director. Furthermore, most respondents visited the

preschool before enrolling their child. Hypothesis I, that

104

parents investigate a preschool program beyond a conversation

with the director, is supported by the data.

Thesis II

Reasonable tuition was considered to be the most

important non-educational variable by most respondents. A

Christian atmosphere was also important, as was day care for

parents whose children were enrolled in preschools which

offered day care. Hypothesis II, that non-educational

services play an important role in the selection of a pre-

school program by parents, is supported by the data.

Ebpothesis ll

The mean responses from respondents indicated a posi-

tive attitude toward the majority of variables listed on the

questionnaire. The twenty-six variables which were offered in

all five programs tended to be variables valued highly by

parents. The five variables listed on the questionnaire

which were not offered by any of the five preschools tended

to be regarded with neutral or negative attitudes by most

parents.

Thirty-four variables listed on the questionnaire were

offered by one to four of the preschools. For the most part,

105

mean response of parents whose children attended preschools

offering each variable were not materially different from the

mean responses of parents whose children attended preschools

not offering the variable. For the eleven variables with

material differences in mean responses, parents from preschools

offering the variable gave the more positive response. Thus,

hypothesis III, that similarities exist between the educa-

tional preferences of parents and the educational programs

of the preschool they have selected, is supported by the

data.

Hypothesis IV

In order to study hypothesis IV, mothers were divided

into the following groups: high school graduates, those who

had attended college, college graduates, and those who had

completed some graduate work. Twenty-two of the sixty-five

variables received very positive mean responses from all four

groups. Mothers who had completed some graduate work tended

to give more positive mean responses. High school graduates

tended to give fewer decidedly positive and negative responses

to more variables than any other group. However, differences

in mean responses among the four groups were not substantial

enough for the data to support hypothesis IV, that parents

106

who have attained similar levels of education have similar

educational preferences for their children.

Mean responses for respondents who had had formal

training in education or child development were not substan-

tially different from mean responses for parents who had not

had formal training. However, respondents who had had formal

training tended to expect more from preschool programs and

tended to give more decidedly positive or negative responses

than those who had not. Thus, while levels of education

attained seemed to have little effect on parental educational

objectives, formal training in child development or education

revealed a greater convergence in thinking.

tQ,5the is V

Mean responses to variables for parents whose first

child was attending preschool were not materially different

from mean responses for parents whose older children had

attended preschool. Thus the data supports hypothesis V,

that parents whose first child is attending preschool have

educational preferences similar to the educational preferences

of parents whose older children have attended preschool.

107

Recommendations for Future Research

Research regarding parental educational objectives for

young children is very scarce. Researchers have studied

child development and education but have studied parental

attitudes and expectations relatively infrequently. Further

research in this area is needed to provide information to

program planners and directors for assessing the suitability

of their educational programs and non-educational services

to the parent population they are serving.

Specific areas of research might include comparisons

of non-educational services and educational variables valued

by parents of different socio-economic groups. Information

could be obtained to make decisions regarding preschool

programs serving homogeneous or heterogeneous groups of

families. Also, comparisons of educational objectives of

parents of different ethnic groups could provide data

necessary to determine how these objectives reflect the

cultures from which the children come and how well an educa-

tional program may be suited to the population it serves.

Longitudinal research could indicate if and how

parental objectives change from time of enrollment to the

end of the school year or as the children proceed from a

108

three- to a four- to a five-year-old class, The curriculum

of a preschool may cause a parent to modify his opinions

regarding educational objectives rather than his educational

objectives influencing his selection of a preschool program.

Research pertaining to the educational objectives of

parents whose children are enrolled in preschools with

widely divergent programs could reveal the similarities and

differences in thinking of the various parent groups. An

area of inquiry could be whether or not these parents want

their children to learn different skills or if they are

primarily interested in the teaching methods. Another area

of inquiry could be whether parents select preschool programs

which provide the educational variables they value or which

do not incorporate educational variables or teaching methods

which they might consider harmful to their child.

With the increase in the number of children enrolled

in preschool programs and day care centers, information from

parents is becoming more important to ensure the development

and maintenance of sound preschool programs. Research on

many levels, including the individual preschool, is needed.

APPENDIX A

109

110

FIGURE 1

COVER LETTER TO PARENTS

Date

Dear Parent,

I am a graduate student in Early Childhood Education at

North Texas State University. (Director's name), Director of

(Preschoolss name), has given me permission to send the

enclosed questionnaire to all parents of four-year-old children

enrolled in the school. The information obtained from the

questionnaire is essential for completion of my waster's

thesis, which concerns how parents select a preschool and

what you expect from the program for your child. All question-

naires will be anonymous, and your frankness will be appreciated.

I want to know what you think is important for your child. A

copy of the summary of the results will be furnished to

(Director's name) for you to read.

When you have completed the questionnaire, please use

the enclosed envelope to return it to me. Do not use your

return address. The questionnaire will take about thirty

minutes to complete.

I appreciate very much your time, cooperation, and

promptness.Sincerely,

Researcher't nameResearcher's address

111

FIGURE 2

PARENT QUEST IONNA IRE

I. How did you first ifind out about the preschool yourchild attends? (Please check one.)1 From relatives.2. From friends.3. From advertisements (newspapers, phone book,

etc.).4. Through an affiliation with the church or civic

organization which sponsors the school.5. Other. (Please specify.)

II. How didofferedthree.)

4.

8.

you find out about the contents of the programby the preschool? (Please check no more than

From relatives.From friends.From advertisements.Through the church or civic organization.Discussion with the preschool director.Discussion with the preschool teacher.Visit to a class in session before enrollingyouth child.Other. (Please specify.)

III. Did you visit the preschool (not necessarily in session)before enrolling your child? Yes No

IV. Which non-educational aspects of the preschool's programwere important in your decision to enroll your child?(Please circle one number for each statement.)

I - very important4 - not important

2 - important 3 - neutral5 - definitely not important or not

applicable

12345 The tuition is reasonable.12345 The preschool provides transportation.12345 The preschool provides day care.12345 The preschool is close to home or work so transportation

is easy.12345 Neighborhood children attend the preschool so a carpool

is available.

112FIGURE 2, Continued

12345 The preschool provides health services to screen poten-tial health problems (i.e. vision, hearing).

12345 The preschool provides a Christian atmosphere.12345 Other. (Please specify.)

V. On the following pages are a list of possibilities for apreschool program collected from the writings of manyexperts in the field of early childhood education. Theexperts do not agree as to what should be included in orexcluded from a particular program. (Please circle onenumber for each statement.)

1 - Should be required in a preschool program.2 - Beneficial but not essential in a preschool program.3 - Neutral.4 - Not important in a preschool program.5 - Definitely should not be included in a preschool

program.

12345 College training for preschool teachers.12345 Small class sizes.12345 Parent-teacher conferences to discuss the childts

progress.12345 Report cards (checklist or grade types).12345 Letters to parents to inform you of your child's

progress.12345 Charts or stars in the classroom to reward children for

good work or behavior12345 Teacher aides even for very small classes.12345 Parent participation in the classroom on a regular basis.12345 Parent education meetings or informal gatherings to

discuss children's growth and activities.12345 Standardized testing to determine IQ scores.12345 Standardized testing to determine developmental levels

in coordination, emotional maturity, language develop-ment, etc.

12345 Grouping according to ability.12345 Art papers or worksheets for your child to bring home so

you can see what he is doing.12345 School programs so you can see your child perform.

12345 Learning to cooperate.12345 Learning to compete.12345 Learning to feel good about himself.

113FIGURE 2, Continued

12345 Learning how the other person feels.12345 Learning to obey the teacher.12345 Learning self-control.12345 Learning how to play or work with other children.12345 Learning how to play or work alone.12345 Learning how to answer the teacher's questions.12345 Learning how to solve problems.12345 Learning how to behave with good manners.12345 Learning how to follow directions.

12345 Recognizing colors, shapes, numbers, and letters.12345 Reading on a simple level.12345 Simple arithmetic (i.e. adding and subtracting).12345 Basic science ideas.12345 Music.12345 Foreign language .12345 Dance and/or movement.12345 Art lessons.12345 Physical education (not necessarily game rules).12345 Religious education.12345 Show and tell.12345 Free choice art activities.12345 Studies about other ethnic groups in the community.12345 Community helpers (i.e. mailmen, firemen, policemen).12345 Special visitors to class.12345 Field trips.

12345 Long periods when children choose their own activities.12345 Short but regular times when children choose their own

activities.12345 Short periods when children choose their own activities

to break up the learning periods.12345 Requiring group attention for lessons, story time, etc.,

to increase the children's attention span.12345 Frequent periods of teaching to whole class so all the

children learn the same information.12345 Emphasis on real life activities and ideas.12345 Emphasis on fantasy and make-believe.

12345 Carpeting.12345 Bathroom facilities adjacent to the classroom.12345 Clay or play dough available at all times.12345 Clay or play dough available for special times,12345 Sand.

FIGURE 2, Continued

12345 Water play.12345 Crayons or paints available at all times.12345 Crayons or paints available for art lessons.12345 Musical or rhythm instruments.12345 Display areas for the children's work.12345 Live animals in the classroom.12345 An area where a child can be alone yet observable by

the teacher,12345 An equipped outdoor play area.12345 An indoor area for active play for rainy days.12345 Grass.12345 A sofa or other soft piece of furniture in the room.12345 Other. (Please specify.)

VI. Personal Information

1. Is this your first child in a preschool program?Yes No

2. How many years of schooling have you completed?Junior High Some College GraduateHigh School College Degree Work

motherfatherguardianother

3. Have you had any formal training in education orchild development? Yes No

4. Who filled out this questionnaire? (you may checkmore than one.)

MotherFatherGuardian

-Other (Please specify.)

Thank you very much for your time and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Researcher's nameResearcher' s address

114

115

FIGURE 3

PRESCHOOL DIRECTOR'S QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Name of School

2. Director

3. School Sponsor

4. How do you advertise?

5. TuitionM.|||

6. Days and hours children attend

7. Four-year old enrollment

8. Number of teachers for four-year oldsNumber of aides

9. Teacher training and experience

Aide training and experience

10. In-service training, workshops or conferences with teachersand/or aides

11. What are the philosophies or developmental theories uponwhich your program is based?

12. Who determines the curriculum?

116

FIGURE 3, Continued

13. Do you require a personal interview before accepting achild?

14. Do you have any screening procedures?

15. Which of the following are part of your program? (Pleasecheck.)College training for teachersSmall class sizesParent-teacher conferences to discuss the child' s progressReport cards (checklist or grade type)Letters home to parents regarding the child's progressCharts or stars in the classroom to reward children forgood work or behavior

_fHealth servicesParent participation in the classroom on a regular basis

.~Parent education meetings or informal gatherings to discusschildren's growth and activities

standardized testing to determine IQ scoresStandardized testing to determine developmental levelsGrouping according to abilityArt papers or worksheets for the child to bring home eachday to show parents what he is doingSchool programs so parents can see their child perform

Learning to cooperateLearning to compete

. earning to feel good about himselfLearning how the other person feelsLearning to obey the teacher

NNjearning self-controlLearning how to work or play with other childrenlearning how to work or play aloneLearning how to answer the teacher's questionsLearning how to solve problemsLearning how to behave with good mannersLearning how to follow directions

Recognizing colors, shapes, numbers and letters~~Reading on a simple level.._ Simple arithmetic (i.e. adding and subtracting),,,,Basic science ideas

117

FIGURE 3, Continued

MusicForeign languageDance and/or movementArt lessonsPhysical education (not necessarily game rules)Religious education

'~Show and tellFree choice art activitiesStudies about other ethnic groups in the communityCommunity helpers (i.e. postmen> firemen, policemen)Special visitors to classField trips - about how many per year?

Long periods of free choice activitiesFrequent periods of free choice activities regularlyscheduledShort periods of free choice activities to break uplearning periodsRequiring group attention for lessons, story time, etc.,to increase attention spanFrequent periods of teaching to whole group so that allchildren get the same informationEmphasis on real life activities and ideasEmphasis on fantasy and pretend

CarpetingBathroom facilities adjacent to the roomClay or play dough available at all timesSpecial clay or play dough activitiesSand

Water playCrayons or paints available at all timesCrayons or paints available for art lessonsMusical or rhythm instrumentsDisplay areas for the children's workLive animals in the roomAn area where a child can be alone yet observable by theteacher

. An equipped outdoor play areaAn indoor area for active play for rainy daysGrass_. A sofa or other piece of soft furniture in the roomOther

118

FIGURE 4

FOaLOW-UP LETTER

Date

Dear Parents,

I would like to thank all of you who have taken the

time and effort to complete the questionnaire. The informa-

tion I have received reflects a great deal of thought and

consideration. Many of your comments were helpful and

interesting.

If you have not yet returned the questionnaire, I

would appreciate your doing so as soon as possible. I hope

the information obtained from the study will be of use to

you. If you have any questions, or if you have misplaced

the questionnaire, please contact me or (Director's name).

Sincerely,

Researcher's nameResearcher' s address

APPENDIX B

119

H000 H N'~

1 00

O

[/1

0

CO

CO

H

H

E

E-e

CO

0

40H

CO0

0o

r)AV% Cr)C?) O

2 9

o

~1~~~wip"

0-He

0 00 4

0 P r4 0

0-ca ca

430 430 ()0 - 00EEcr E P

0\

120

43

4)0

A4 "040

4300 P4

1 "-)

0

$4400

4(n0

4r40Sa

9 es

43

0 043

4 043

043

0434? 4

;4)

H

H

9qH

0P4

0

to

0a)

V

0)

'K

SO00CO 0 cr0 0r 4 0 C

Ln

CO cfO-)0 CO

C 9

r4- -r

" "0Hnt O H

At (\ C)

* O 4 \H4 C 2e - -

Ca 0CQ rCO C

H CH -

*.1#4

H4

H00C)

-O

S0

to

i4 00 0

Co M

i i

m

0

0

0

10

0H

V)

0

6

I

*4

0

0

0~

0

00

0

4

$k4

N4

0

0

0

CO0

H-9 0

D) LC\ 0 tt H- l-mb I

l.0

4:4 P A W a 0 0

0 0)0 4HOHMO-1P-

O0

121

S*

C C C C a,* * * 9 9

0 0 0 0 0-

H -

H400

C)aI

rmm

H r-H

o a\ LC 0 -

C

co C) c

" . . *a

r4 @1 0 C0r ,H

o C O rI

* '0 a '. o 'o a

-, Co Co C)'0

H

.

43

4

0

430

re

*0

ri

43

1 d

0

*, IrHI

2

$4043

00

1.01

a2

4-3

0%$4

4

40

4-

0-434

00

0

j

0z

43

0

00fr

00)OP

00a 0

0

0

-,

<~4

W C.C,

tI)H

80

OH

4;

0

{

i

a

G

I

0s

09

0%

co9

00 r4 0 0---

H0H00O0 C\

o 0 0 -f0 0 0 Cn) 0

0 C\ "0 H ""H

0

cr~ C

0

9

0H

H p f

I I ~

0w

cr~

r0 r-0 )0 4)

E-4 ZE00P

122

9\

0H4

H40

v)

0u

r400

0

t

H

-N is , p -ol 1 1 1 1 - - --- -.

r

I

(Y) CQ

I

0

4

4

to0

0

00

'0 R 0

r9~

H

123

0s

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

to0

0

0

oo

>- 0iC.

H

Eo C

0

ow

(00

0

H

C.)

.1

a

0

*t0R

0O

P4

0

N- "0Q

C\2Hu

9

0('2

9-i

r- I-(C) H-(V u1CM

ms- I i-_._

0 r0

03 40 0 4)

ri o Z -o E-4 A4H o

cOa Z A4)04) e

4)

0

19

4)0

"

00540

0

(C) (Y) ON C) 0

a a ! +

H 0 CH 0 ~

C) r- 4 CC

a " a a aH H

co co o

cc;* H LC Qa C':I 0H -:

0 0 0 0 - H-

H

4'

r-I(Y) 0

S9'

.i

0

'0

04

H a

o y

w a

.9- p5400 r-4-)4)

05p4 r

ip'd

H

H400

0U)

f

t{

F

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

CO0

0 0 0 0 H- r1

co"

0

0 C'2 0\ Q\ O 0

% 0 01 0

r--O H CD 01

r -i Cf 0 " -

4 r\- C U r ca iN. * 0 * *r- 4 0 0r00H H4 HCO O

r4 0 0 O0

4-l 0\ Al 01" H 0 LCr

H

-;

0

0

0

H

E-;

I

4

to0 0

0 4) 44Ir 40000

43

0

r40

430

U)*

0

0

0

p4

z

0

0

0

HH

0 CO 0 0 C0+0C 0 0

0 H i

r~ 1

Hi43

p'

-r4

00

R 4we

$40

40

430

!>4i'dr'$4

H-i-r

a

0

R #I

H00

V)

H4

i

4

0

OI

00CJ)

0

0

I&

000e 0

000

00 0

0

H4 H 0

0

fr

0

0

c)

0 H

Crr

0

QC.

aA-

0

04

00

4

Nz

A40

000

00

*2

0

0A0

0

0o043

C)

Ii

0.00

125

43

0P4

40

a)

000

0

i t . a.f

C- --lk C %D 0 r-

* * * * .Hc

4 4

U N t-4r-4 c

-4 co CO\ 00 0\ 00 Co

f f "

r-r

* 9 0O

-- W1

~- -

H

vi0

004

0 00 4~ 0 ~ E4H0H

0 0o43 43

0000 oEpE

HIoft

43

Ir-i

A

0

' 0

c0

H. p

43p

434

p..

-11111]1L

0 0 o0 4)a

0)fr

0

0)

0

C40

02

>40

0 4c'H

40

HO

EHQE4

0

COl

PONt N-wNO A0

"

0

r1 0

0

Co

0

0

0

0 *. 0 H 0

~09

H

mO9

0

0 0

0*9

0

d 0 H- 0

LCN

"O

-- r

c H r O f 0"

At. HoHU0%0c

! C

C ** CO rH4 t*- C y) r4 Htr At

Hn HCO # r-

9E9

r 0 AC**

41)to

4) 00 4)

Hd HC)

+0 4 0E4 4E

"0%

0

0o

0

4.

".R

o"

0

4)0)

0P404)

0

rk

.10

4OO

o3 f

Up o

~43

W4)

i u

oe

0+)

H4a4)

126

0

004)

adas-

4)

0\

IC

4.--*

LA~ 7

0rV

0

p4

4)0

4-40

4)co0+

H00C0

WO

It- - - FI

I

(d W Q 0 0

90

0 0 0 0 L(

I - t--m

re

4-34

4

So

U

04

0-e

o ;I

0

ra ,w

) .#

4.44

04)

0 b

U o

ri (D 0

H :+

SA+).OiOCI)

004)0 a4,

9

q4+

I

APPENDIX C

127

128

sOqos

0\

co043)

p,,

*H-i

0

U)

0n

r- r'4 4 -

Co CO LC\\0CI CI " ON ONO00000

r-4 H r-i 4 r-

02D C OO O O0O0

t0\r-\H

t O OD 00 02N0 9' 0

0 0 + 0 a 9 0 . 0

* 0 0 0\

"* 0 f9 *9

0" "0 *0 f 9

~oOcnn

43

0

00

toH

0a0

4-4

Aa

0r4

4

Ito

ra

Sa

4 104-

lot4 0 00 - r

O O

A t

Q 0 b

0 HOr4 m0 0o

o 00HP4POr-L 0

o P.04e606 W 0W

00000ra-434343-43

a aa 0totoooEl ElCH

0!0.9"

* 0 0 "

* "0 "0

HHHH-4rHHHH r- r

4 44 4<4<<

Co

0 0* *0

onN

* 9

r-4 r-4

00oco0

90

C)

0\

H

CD

0

H

co0h

0

0D C* 0 0 "

0 r^-4 0 0m' *'0'

co (1) m t -

"- w - i " -i*\ 0\ 0\ 0

0P4

043

40H

0%

0aP40000CaEl

C

Crr-1 r-4 r-4

0 - N 0

c cOD CO

0f C

0 o

HO 4o CO aP.P 0 o:

4 .S44 a 4 0

At (D :

l c

04 0 0 P400 Cj. P40V 0 E

4360 H

H-4i P.P4 0 PCd OH 0-i 0c 0r;&Mo.9

r) L CoLflL t-C0 te0

H-i

U)0

43

Ca

00

P404

4El0P4

0%

Sioco

Pon0 w4

44 <44

COrlOC ) t r-ICQODco~0 .

r4HHH4

OD

0 *C

00)

00

OD CO0 .r04r OH

* 40 0

-') H-c ufl-

tIN

0

0 .

CO\0O"ot

M 0

P4 434 040 43

4- o e

r-i eCo 0 e043 4H ) 0

cdt

0 0.+r 0 04-Q4)0 CO N

P.O Pv4 4 C 000 0 0. r-I

C r .E 9 0'r4'r-43r-W

Cto P.E

r-4 CrQ r n.-w,;-"'rHHHH

0

Aa

0

$p0,4P.0H00

to

0

'0 t "0)r- r-Ir-4

0r-a

0,o

H

0

00

c/)

t H

ocir4H4

. f01w09"9"0

6

* 0

01(0* 6

OeVx W

* 6

020\

* " + 0

"* 0 090.

Yooc'4

0

C I4

4-3

0u 4.

0J2:3 0 r0HO : 0 4

*r1 aW OH

00f 0 0

on $ H10 H

ft

et

0\04

4

co

ON

0

0

o

0

01c

HH

02HaH

4

o

P,

0

64

4,

0co

0

C)

tko0c

43

104)

$4

0

0

Ha

co

0

4)a)C)cc

0

0

a0H

$o

43

coca

HHH

A

0

0

H HHf, H

H r 4 ra

01101*. 6

HH H

HO 0" " "

* S !

H

0

HH rHH

0 r-

HH#

r-,

t 4

O;4

SA Ap' r'c

kt :

"

L

44 Lt\L(4

44\ 4

4C U*# 9 09

c Co.* c. .. .

" . o

1D Oc O

H.00

e 9 0m 9

H

*0 0 0+E 0

o00fS000ax

Cn o 6020

r4

n

co

'0

H

0

0\

02

0o

6

0

4,6

a 0

04000044 40H0 )4-

U) V4HO 0

4 t i 4 43HO04 0H4, 44Qr 4o-)r1-ri G) 4-

o -i4Qat

O $ C-r r4 4 00 A

o.- o Ra rz

0 0

r NH$4 W C:3 o

0 0 0 i o4J 0$4-4 40

Hmt o OHrG,

to Or @ r0H.

('2 Y 020010

0\01

H01

0

0

"

010

01'0

* 0 .9 9a 04

* - -0

L

to0

ON

'

CDre

t

129

0 ,..,

4 H

.1" -. . ."

h0

'QfMQft f

ci;

0 0

co

0

to* "

0

" "

" 9

* r

to* "

No

04

43

a

4-3

0c

* 9 9010t (Y

toH01

o-o

CO 0

440

HHH

0100

44 4

0

$4 rom4

00

0

C.. 4

$40444

$

eg~

O

40

4-4

43

r- 1

c4

ao

r400H)P0Q4w

o;1 r-

H.'0

H

.

..

130

0a

00Q0r!

d

4)0dr

4

H e

r-i eO

4eO

Q4)

0PJ 0

4H

04

0

0

0qC0

00g

O.

*4

#4*

* * 4

coH

Co . .

0

C0 4

" 4

S C "" t 0

OD0* 0 0

"* 0 "

* 00

w w

0

w .

N \

I 4 C4

0 0

C(

O .

4 0

" a

tr i "

'o

* 0

* .

r4 0

0 0Y

C 0#eN

A~4

00

eNo N

44)G)4

4r o 4

,efr eNe

0N Q 00 0

44300 aoa UQ P4

. .

. .

. "

Co e" "

0 \" **- 0

Co 0H H

H 0

So

r0

'0 '

S0

to

H043

U)

43

0

ta430 O0430043m

CH m(V) (Y- 4

A 'H

* 0 *h *A 0 0

*CC . " .0

* .G . 0 . 0

Co -~4 (C

0 m0 0 0

C .- AlC \ - D

HH

C)o U' co* 0 0C0 0

to fr

Ne

o r-i

0 ,H0 e N

o# H 0O- r o -1 a e0 -)N d o 0

0 9 4- 4443r00 ov fr@ A

043 00 $ OHO 'CC 0.>ei N 0

0 ,,4 4o30 O

ca 0 a. *r0tia 0 0o,000 - -r4,d0Io1 ro 4-rP , 400

43 0 eN0 4) 4 tow$ 0o #)E4 0) 4 PA 4 CoM)0

0totO43 00n I

oN ~ 00 %M e NAeN

44-4tnin Wtcfnnnn

0 om co Q1 H H 0 t N 00U P4L0 " -t. : L41 %ZH 1QeN 0,0 t LO

00a

0

fa

a

H0

0-4

004)e

00000

Q Q)

~C (Y)

* 0 0 0 0 0 O

00

" *" " " " * R

H * *r-QO

H 0 O0M O

LCaorA0 Co\

0 (Y ) 0 0 2 0 0 0(Yr4-

H- H HHr-4nr

0 " 0 " " " 0L . 0 . 0 .0 .- CYe r-i cg (Ye(' f-e )

w\ m O H eq H

* 0e 0q 9 0q

0

0

C

0)c

)

U,

Hto40>

U0

0

re-eN43

0

0NU0

0

0ni.

131

43

0 " r40 Cf r

-0 0 -M; H.\ 0O H4 4 3

4. 2 . . .~O~ . . .

4* CD t-co\o r 0

O " O ()Co* 0 r-i * * # .

* * . 0Q H \ 4 " 0 0 " Cr) 0

r- r- r- r-4 W "t4 -.

H HH HC 0 4L . 0 . . . .

. 0

OH 0 t ,-- C) LCt(V) 0QC2r) f

)0 t4) (? r f 1 t- y

0 co~' 02 L\c~44Y) 7 0 1 - C l) LC OO 0C$4 '0

434) C r (4 4 C wH i[- I HQ) H'0 4)

0O D ONc oCO4 cH 4\

rC) caQ rtiC C O CO C'2 H )Pr r- 9r 9 9 1r- r -1

H02 4\ \0 - C\ 020 cYr

4443O

CQ 4) 4) 4) "4

Co . \ H \ AO\ 0\4)

d40 0

r-1 q H440 0 a

Er4 f O) I C.C -

>co r-4a3' -i e0 4) C ,H

4 .) -r P -4 ) P

4-H0 430-W 04) 14H co 43 0H .0 .q 3

0 0

) '43 COV4 0q430 Pl

43 3 430 0304 4)0 0 0 0 $0 td co A 04) r-4 )t04) 0w-r-,$4 P 0 00 ~tOO 43 43 0

A+00)ri4 .40 4

4 4r3 +0 043 004434 o0s 0 oob 4) .H . ' 4) 4 a0 -4 r Ha A 1o *

cepO 9 R3 o (0 O r- 4 -r4) U c .r1 A01 W ) H ,C) % a r+ O

1 I *

11 "H

APPENDIX D

132

133

3 cc 0\ mczo 0 4flVL-Vr0\0\HO OQOOOOQ

s N s . . . . . .

HHHHH HHHH H -4 r-4

0.

H Hr- r-40 r- 0 0 5 0 0 0

HHHHHHHHH

co coH t CoHH H-

0 . .H r-HH4

. . .".#."H r--M r-4

H r-4 (Y)lCQOO r-4(YlCQ

. . . 0 .0 0

H""HHHHHH ..

Coco0

r

0

rH

\ -( ( o ,,0 (X)

S r-I r-4 r-4

r-4HH-iH-i.

CUCUCU

0

(nCU n0fCU o

" "l " "O. . . r- .

Co0 VoCfCDl0C#r440 0 CU OH -\\O tH4-vA *5 5 5 . 0 0 0 .0 S S "0 .5 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 5 5 5

H H LCL(\L(\ L afl tO O Co\0WCD O MO cc 0 (flC

# "' r r rat r r - !""-r r-i c r r- - 1.4

CoCU

5 0

HH-i

0 iLf\Co#2t4 VtC cY\r00\ H -L CW\CQ r 0\\O L\ mNOCHHr-4r-4

Sr- r-4 r-4 r-r-i -

!-""-'" - r- 4 -fr-4 -r"" r -!".{r-4 r- 4 r-4

43H HO H HH

10

Co

p4

P0

c0

I-I

'cS

0

P4o

00

02

4

0

p.42

0

Co0

0U00

Vi

0

44

0

04

U

Vi040004343

i0P.'

to

0

P4

0a43o

-r'

0\ tc tnicU CO 4rHecflH- CU C2 C# CY) 1O4 C

0 . . . . 5 . . . .

HHHHHHHHHH -ir- rir- eI -

0 0

a 0

ao

Ot t'

.. o

43 r-

m P4 a

.0

0 0 a

4o 0

co 4-)

m 44 P

00 .0 4

r4 -r4

02 P4V.4 -4 ?0 024 0 -e 0>

0-20 'rO A

SAf0

0

,-a t

0 0

44 0

,H . o40 0002 fr

ri 0 3

0't0 00 #0 00

H 02Sri

co o4 r4{, K

043(1o 0oV 04i C)

to>

0r4'r4

P5co 0 r

P0p.051,

H

43

H

0

-4

44H 0

I ) 0 20 0 V.'

4-) -P o ta oo.0 01

AAA 4 00ow H)r- -> t r4 M P.- F

04-) l A r-4 co

0 0 00000 00 i

0 3VtiP. 0 N c t '1q co

o 4~R P.-i U A04% 0

0 0 0HM-0 00OOH00000 A44V-.

ar-lr-74%Wr-rnq

tototOoooN'dt0 P. a

0r -00 -r - r 4 0 00i fr-ann a p . ' -I0V

A AAo -R0 tH AO4 e a 0' r i P.O

0 0000 o H -2' $

0d H

a0

00

dto00

0 04 OVoCfl#44 IntIn

0 . . . . . 0

HHH HHH H4r4

H-H-i

.H0

r-4r4

0H-4

C2t Nr

N

o04

4-3P4HVE.4P

C

0m

Za).4

r--

1D ca L

0 . 0 * . 0

H HHHHH" f

C O4 0'I(0\mOjU-N H4 OQN U-4 4 I' In In4 U- N

r 4? -I

00

#H000

ar

r- 4

4-)4 4 0

00W190 00 b0

cO -OH004)

4o -40

V) 0 0uO -04H

o O 4

0004) OH 04

r-4 H4

NG#Nr4

014O N04'k

cn# NO05

* "* 0 0 o SW4 C C4O

4 O~otnc'c40 HcnO i rcnl

. 1Ci H .L.\H* 0 0 0e 0l *

UnAWLl\ %~(\a 0HHH .

O

N

cncH

0-4 0HHHel

r-4 %., CO OH000U--0\O OVN

0 0 0 . 0

HHHNH -

-z m

0) 4P HU .ri oH :>

06 H

to WRe 9o 0004-4

A aAr 011140

H P,

Cl t 4-)

P4

0 O 0

o 0oH r rM5

00Ud0-4%-. AP. beoi e4A

000A A0M VH

H>fru$HHl or-0

04)0 SiSi 4)04e o>5454en

% 0- O4.24 SO

4)54

i

0

0

t30540Ri

40O

H r- r'

00

CN

cotnc

. .0-H

Ot010-* 0'D

H

" 0 4". . r

M O 00H.

0rcoco*t 0- 4

HHHcto

A44

0

,0

O !

0

400reH

-ri

go

0 QH e

0 o4)0riSio%Cnk

tiOO

$454HH

04.)

H

Hq o

4-40

tsSSH

rne

000Si

0cro

0 0

U-40

0

COC%\kO

r- 4 0

HHH

w "

\SOr-1 ON 0. . 0

HQ2N og

000

4)

0 r44) Oo

4 04

H 00,H g O

0 4)

Pot i 0

0 0 4)

14 o(

0 00-4

0 0

'00 #;,a 0*;;4) ri s02 rip

134

01

HI

4 LCW- N40 4Nc01 In S-~CC)

0 0 f ! s "

-i

0

H

H4)00ci'0

coU--HO H

004H-4 H-

C 4 r-I

r-4 r-I

r4CQ4N cN C

N M

HCQ

c oae-C* 0 0-

HC. ,

O00

ir-i

0

N v

0 u

e

0

4 00

goHH

00g4)0

O H

er-Si

M e

"v 0

.N

004

4)AH

004)

Ha

00rI40W0

VVXC C'CX\O tNCO 04014Cc01014 4k0V0 0k4

a . 9 * a a a .*S 04 0404 C\4 04\

a a

0404! LIH LCo44

004010un44

C

1 H

""i"1I.. r-4 HC\

(202 N0?

m o-4 coC O H

100110H

H- 10 010

2O ONH('24 10t'

0 (2 (2 02

0.24 1\4\0XCON\

C V 04 0 0 04 0 0 0

CD

0404

IN ") C r-4 0o 0101X OkO\O 01

9 9 0r9 0 (9 aCV 04 04204 ('2 04 (20

0

SI

R3 co

"0)

0r

0 o0 o H

V 0a

C Q oHor-; 4)t

0 0b toP40 HO$4 SI

0 $O II o42: oS to

friPA

$4

S0ro (1

1 ,

~co\ "

co c

. .

('202

014 H H

0 r

S " "H

*Q a 90

"1 "1 "1

('2O

f0O 04Lo cko )O

Cc COXO 101010co m C) 9

C -C 10010

10\C\C O\i0X*2 9 9 0 0" " " . "0

co >0 c-o - -r o

o O er-4 4->

0

0)

0 0 4)c4)0 42 0 H

00 0H 0

$4 0 >

004 >43 0 0

0J4) 04

H 0 raP 0

0 'r44)H

WP4O O MASH A - frOO

4)4)$4a

SI$4Oo $440 -rf r )fr oCM$400 OAS00 $40'HO

Q)5 0h40 r r

135

bo0

0

C)'0

0

E

ta4

0

0

S

a

SI0

$40

bo

SI4)0

0cr

a0

0VH00

SI

O01

SI II

H

4- H cc t CV

H-- \204 0 '2

O

Fu0d

04)

t,04

0

FA0

a)

rI0

4

SI

4

0

4)0

a

00

V

00

0

0

00

4U

0

00

40SI4)

$4 4o$ 0

H 0

O$-4 0SI $4iA -I

H000SIHSI$4l P-O P

136

TABE XXVII

MEAN RESPONSES FOR PARENTS WHO HAVE HADAND HAVE NOT HAD FORMAL TRAINING IN

CHILD DEVELOPMENT OR EDUCATION

MR*Variable FT NFT

Studies of ethnic groups in the communityGrassSandArea where child can be alone but observedCarpetsAnimals in the classroomWater playCollege training for teachersShort, regular periods of free choiceactivities

Emphasis on fantasyPhysical educat ionArt lessonsMusicScienceFree choice activities to break up

periods of learningFree choice art activitiesSmall class sizesDance or movementLearning about community helpersMusical or rhythm instrumentsCrayons or paints available at all timesClay or play dough for special activitiesEmphasis on real lifeField tripsIndoor play areaForeign languageParent-teacher conferencesEquipped outdoor play areaSpecial visitors to classClay or play dough available at all timesLearning to play with othersSoft furniture in the classroomRequire group attention for lessons

1.5951.5952.2861.8292.2381.8812.4051.357

1.392.31.2141.6671.2381.833

1.6191.4291.1431.6431.262

1.3812.811.5711.2141.2141.0482.2861.1191.0241.2863.0481.0242.6191.31

2.1332.1312.8192.2652.6022.2412.7651,675

1.7022.5951.4761.9051.4762.071

1.8551.6551.3571.8451.4581.562.9881.7441.3731.3731.192.4171.2261.1311.3613.1311.0842.6791.341

Differ-ences

in MR

.538

.536

.533

.436

.364

.360.360.318

.312.295.262.238.238.238

.236.226.214.202.196.179.178.173.159.159.142.131.107.107.075.083.06.06.031

137

TABLE XXVII--ontinued

ME MRVariable FT NFT

Self-control 1.095Recognize colors, shapes, numbers, letters 1.048Display area for children's work 1.143Show and tell 1.405Learning to answer teacher's questions 1.191Religious education 2,.37Learning to cooperate 1.024Learning to feel good about himself 1.024Crayons or paint for art activities 1.429Learning manners 1.214Learning how others feel 1.119Simple arithmetic 2.262Long periods of free choice activities 3.857Learning to play alone 1.238Learning to obey the teacher 1.119Learning to follow directions 1.119Developmental testing 1"952Learning to solve problems 1.341Bathroom facilities adjacent to classroom 1.524School programs for parents 1.833Frequent periods of teaching whole class 1.81Parent education meetings 2.143Art papers or worksheets 1.31Simple reading 2.31Letters to parents about child's progress 2.238Progress charts 2.238Grouping according to ability 2.857Learning to compete 2.429Teacher aides 2.548Parent participation in the class ona regular basis 3.095

IQ tests 3.143Report cards 3.929

1.121.0721.1551.4171.1932.3571.0121.012

1.3981.1811.0842.2263.811* 1811.061.061.8931.2681.4071.7111.6792.012

1.1692.1192.0122.02.5422.0852.155

2.6272.6553.31

Differ-encesinMR.025.024.012.012.002.0.012.012.031.033.035.036.047.057.059.059*059.073.117.122.131.131.141.191.226.238.315.344.393

.468

.488

.619.61* Mean responses for parents who have had formal training

in child development or education.

** Mean responses for parents who have not had formaltraining in child development or education.

APPENDIX E

138

139

TABLE XXVIII

MEAN RESPONSES FOR PARENTS WHOSE FIRST CHILDIS ATTENDING PRESCHOOL AND FOR PARENTSWHOSE OLDER CHILDREN HAVE ATTENDED

MR .MR Differ-Variable iC 00 ences

* * in SCR

Studies of ethnic groups in the community 1.775 2.319 .544Long periods of free choice activities 3.638 4.104 .466Religious education 2.213 2.625 .412Letters to parents about child's progress 1.925 2.333 .408Parent participation in the class on aregular basis 2.633 3.0 .367

Emphasis on fantasy 2.342 2.702 .36Area where child can be alone but observed 1.987 2.319 .332Crayons or paint always available 2.747 3.064 .317Foreign language 2.263 2.542 .279Physical education 1.3 1.563 .263Parent education meetings 1.95 2.208 .258Art lessons 1.75 2.0 .25Free choice activities to break up

periods of learning 1.785 2.021 .236Dance or movement 1.7 1.917 .217Simple arithmetic 2.2 2.417 .217Soft furniture in the classroom 2.538 2.708 .17School programs for parents 1.713 1.872 .159Short, regular periods of free choice

activities 1.563 1.708 .145Learning about community helpers 1.338 1.468 .13Teacher aides 2.225 2.354 .129Frequent periods of teaching whole class 1.688 1.813 .125Simple reading 2.163 2.271 .108Free choice art activities 1.55 1.646 .096Clay or play dough available at all times 3.113 3.208 .095Learning how others feel 1.063 1.149 .086Field trips 1.288 1.362 .074Water play 2.615 2.681 .066Indoor play area 1.125 1.188 .063Clay or play dough for special activities 1.658 1.702 .044Learning to feel good about himself 1.0 1.043 .043Music 1.388 1.417 .029

140

TABLE XXVIII--Continued

MR MR Differ-Variable FC 00 ences

in MR

Learning to play with others 1.038 1.064 .026Learning to play alone 1.188 1.213 .025Equipped outdoor play area 1.088 1.104 .016Learning to follow directions 1.075 1.085 .01Learning manners 1.188 1.191 .003Report cards 3.413 3.416 .003Special visitors to class 1.338 1.34 .002Art papers or worksheets 1.228 1.229 .001Learning to answer teacher's questions 1.2 1.191 .009Learning to cooperate 1.025 1.0 .025Recognize colors, shapes, numbers,

letters 1.089 1.063 .026Carpets 2.494 2.458 .036Emphasis on real life 1.329 1.292 .037Self-control 1.125 1.085 .04College training for teachers 1.563 1.521 .042Sand 2.646 2.604 .042Display areas for children's works 1.138 1.083 .055Learning to obey teacher 1.1 1.043 .057Grouping according to ability 2.646 2.583 .063Progress charts 2.114 2.042 .072Grass 2.0 1.917 .083Small class size 1.313 1.229 .084Musical or rhythm instruments 1.525 1.438 .087Crayons or paint for art lessons 1.443 1.354 .089Animals in the classroom 2.152 2.042 .11Show and tell 1.45 1.333 .117Parent-teacher conferences 1.25 1.104 .145Learning how to solve problems 1.346 1.191 .155Basic science 2.063 1.896 .167Developmental testing 1.975 1.792 .183Learning to compete 2.278 2.043 .235Bathroom facilities adjacent to the

classroom 1.538 1.298 .24Require group attention for lessons 1.436 1.167 .269IQ tests 3.163 2.833 .33

TABLE XXVIII--Continued

* Mean responses for parents whose first child isattending preschool,

** Mean response for parents whose older children haveattended preschool.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Almy, Millie, , E arly i1d ood Educator at work, New York,McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975.

Arlington Preschool Association, A to Arlington PreSchool canal Facilities, Arlington, Texas, 1974.

Bereiter, Carl, "A Nonpsychological Approach to EarlyCompensatory Education, " Soc al, lss, . , andP.hological Development, edited by Martin Deutsch,Irwin Kate, and Arthur Jensen, New York, Holt, Rinehart,and Winston, Inc., 1968.

Biber, Barbara, Edna Shapiro, and D. Wickens, fPr~otin9o itive Groh A Develo~men -Interactn fnof yiew, Washington, D. C., National Association forthe Education of Young Children, 1971.

Butler, Annie L., Current Research in Brly ChildhoodEducation: A pilation nA n a is for P am

1 ere, Washington, L. C., American Association ofElementary-Kindergarten-Nursery Educators, 1970.

Chow, Stanley, Pat Elmore, and Vicki Ertle, t e C hoodEdu tiorn, Putting Research Into Educational PracticeReport Number 37, U. S. Department of Health, Educationand Welfare/National Institute of Education, Washington,D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972.

Curtis, Jean, A P ntts'Go. urser, Schools, New York,Random House, 1971.

Frank, Lawrence K. and Mary Hughes Frank, H to e Y~ourCQ d _in Schpol. New York, The Viking Press, 1950.

German, Bob, howC a Child Ca r Cen , Austin, Texas,The Office of Early Childhood Development, TexasDepartment of Community Affairs, 1973.

142

143

Hymes, James L., Jr., Teaching the Chid Ude , 2nd ed.,Columbus, Ohio, Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company,1974.

Landreth, Catherine, school Learning eand Teaching, New York,Harper and Row, Publishers, 1972.

Maccoby, Eleanor E. and Mirian Zellner, Experiments inPrimary rEducation, Aspect of froject Follow-ThouhNew York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1970.

National Association of Elementary School Principals, ourdet - toSc.. , A Handbook for Pares

hises Enin owln:o Washington, D. C.,National School Public Relations Association, 1972.

Nie, Norman H. and others, statistical Package for' theSocial Sciences, 2nd ed., New York, McGraw-Hill BookCompany, 1975.

Pines, Maya, Revolution in Learning,.; Years om Birthto Si, New York, Harper and Row, Publishers, 1966,

Rambusch, Nancy McCormick, Learning How 1 Lem: AnAmerican Approach t o jnessori, Baltimore, Maryland,HFlicon Press, 1962.

Zamoff, Richard B. and Jerolyn Iole, Kg Needs Wht Kndf, _Cr enter?, Washington, D. C., The Urban

Institute, 1973.

Articles

American Association of University Women, Association forChildhood Education International, National Associationfor the Education of Young Children, National Committeefor the Day Care of Children, Inc., National Committeefor Support of Public Schools, National Congress ofParents and Teachers, National Education Association,and Department of Elementary-Kindergarten-NurseryEducation, N. E. A.., "Daytime Programs for Children,"

SChildren, XXII (September, 1967), 345-347.

144

Auerbach, Aaron G. and Pauline Hutchinson, "The BisociativeAct as an Assessment Instrument for the Nursery School,"International Journalf Early Childhood, 4 (1972),77-83.

Benedek, Elissa P. and Rochelle Salguero, "A Summer DayTreatment Program," Jurnal of Child Psychit 12(October, 1973), 724-737.

Caldwell, Bettye M., "What is the Optimal Learning Environ-ment for the Young Child?," American Journl ofOrthopsvchiatr. 37 (Jaruary, 1967), 8-21.%

"The Rationale for Early Intervention,"Excdioa 3Children 6 (Summer, 1970), 717-726.

Cooke, Sharon and Thomas Cooke, "Implications of ChildDevelopment Theories for Pre-school Programming,"Edjuc n 94 (November/pecember, 1973), 112-115.

Hymes, James L., Jr., "'Childhood' in Early ChildhoodEducation.," Therv In Pract , XII (April, 1973),72-76.

Kohlberg, Lawrence and Rochelle Meyers, "Development asthe Aim of Education," rvard Eucational Review 42(November, 1972), 449-496.

Long, John and others, "A Tribal American Preschool,"Journal of American Ind4n d duation, 51 (April, 1974),192-196,

Northcott, Winifred H., "UNIST4PS: A Family-OrientedInfant/Preschool Program for Hearing-Impaired Childrenand Their Parents," bd Jgarnal of cation, 51(April, 1974), 192-196.

Prescott, Elizabeth, "Approaches to Quality in Early Child-hood Programs," Childhood Education. 50 (January,1974), 125-131.

Rothman, Sheila M., "Liberating Day Care: A Modest Proposal,"Phi De ta kapj$, 55 (October, 1973), 132-135.

145

Weikart, David P., "Learning Through Parents: Lessons forTeachers, " hildho Edcation., 48 (December, 1971),135-137.

Wolfgang, Charles A. and others, "An Exploration of theRelationship Between the Cognitive Area of Readingand Selected Developmental Aspects of Childrents Play,"

o ,at).QhQis, 11 (1974), 338-342.

Zamoff, Richard B., "Healthy, That's Me--Evaluating the Useof Health-Education Materials for Preschool Children,"PA14 W Ufare, 54 (January, 1975), 41-46.

Reports

Barker, Linda A., "Preprimary Enrollment, October, 1972,1"National Center for Educational Statistics, Washington,D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1973. tED 089 830.

Feldmesser, Robert A. and Esther McCready, "Information forParents on School Evaluation:" Tsts, Measurements,g Evaluations Report Number a, Princeton, NewJersey, National Education Institute, Department ofHealth, Education and Welfare, 1974. ED 099 432.

Frost, Judith and Howard Schneider, "Types of Day Care andParental Preferences," Fl% Report: Part VII,Minneapolis, Minnesota, Institute for Interdiscipli-nary Studies, Office of Economic Opportunity, December,1971. ED 068 195.

Government Document

Minimum Standards for Day Care Centers, Austin, Texas, TexasDepartment of Public Welfare, September, 1971.

Unpublished Materials

Bailey, John E., III, and David B. Ellis, "Development ofan Instrument to Measure Educational SituationalVariables and Preschool Competencies Desired byParents," Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,1974. ED 109 219.

Datta, Lois-elfin, "Parent Involvement in Early ChildhoodEducation," paper presented at the Centre for Educa-tional Research Innovation Conference on EarlyChildhood Education, Paris, France, October, 1973.ED 088 587.

Handler, Ellen and Janet Fredlund, "Differences BetweenHighly Satisfied and Not Highly Satisfied Clients ofDay Care Centers," University of Illinois, Urbana,Illinois, The Jane Addams Graduate School of SocialWork, 1971. ED 068 165.

Kamii, Constance and Rheta DeVries, "Piaget-Based Curriculafor Early Childhood Education, The Kamii-DeVriesApproach," Pre-symposium paper presented at thebiennial meeting of the Society for Research in ChildDevelopment, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 1,1973. ED 080 192.

Myers, Leta, Virginia Elliott, Jan Harrell, and Mary JaneHotstetter, "The Family and Community Day Care Inter-view," Pennsylvania State University, The Institutefor the Study of Human Development, June, 1972.

Sibbison, Virginia Hayes, "The Influence of Maternal RolePerception on Attitudes Toward and Utilization of EarlyChild Care Services," Pennsylvania State University,Institute for the Study of Human Development, December,1972. ED 089 868.

Sprigle, Herbert and others, "A Fresh Approach to EarlyChildhood Education and a Study of Its Effectiveness, "Jacksonville, Florida, Learning to Learn, Inc., n. d.ED 019 117.