Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Volume 12 Number 2

©The Author(s) 2010

The Source of Child Care Center Preschool Learning and Program Standards: Implications for Potential Early Learning Challenge Fund Grantees

Debra J. Ackerman & Rachel A. Sansanelli

National Institute for Early Education Research

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Abstract

The proposed federal Early Learning Challenge Fund (ELCF) aims to improve the quality of early care and education programs by promoting the integration of more stringent program and early learning standards than are typically found in child care centers. ELCF grantees also must outline their plans for professional development and technical assistance to support these efforts. With the aim of informing potential ELCF grantees, this article reports the results of a statewide survey of 391 child care center directors focusing on the source of their preschool learning expectations and program standards. The majority of surveyed directors report that the state’s child care licensing standards are used. Additional directors report that the state’s prekindergarten program standards or early learning standards serve as their current source. However, other responses indicate that the terms “program standards” and “learning standards” themselves may not even be part of the current child care vocabulary. These results suggest that potential ELCF grantees might be better positioned to help child care centers incorporate stricter program and learning standards if they design varying levels of training and technical assistance based on the variety of child care quality “starting points.”

Introduction

In September 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation supporting the Early Learning Challenge Fund (ELCF) (H.R. 3221). If approved by the Senate, ELCF will award $8 billion in competitive grants based on states’ progress in improving the quality of programs serving young children through such mechanisms as integrating early learning standards and adopting more stringent program standards. Similar to their K-12 counterparts, early learning standards outline what 3- and 4-year-olds should know and be able to do after participating in preschool education programs. Many also are designed to improve the quality of children’s early education experiences. Coupled with program criteria for length of day, class size, teacher-child ratio, and curriculum, these two sets of standards aim to ensure that all prekindergartners receive an effective kindergarten readiness experience no matter where they are enrolled (Neuman & Roskos, 2005; Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2003a).

Making sure that all programs serving preschoolers can enhance children’s kindergarten readiness is critically important. The state-funded preschool education sector - referred to here as PreK - has experienced tremendous growth over the past decade, with most states using classrooms in public schools, Head Start programs, and child care centers (Barnett, Epstein, Friedman, Boyd, & Hustedt, 2008). Utilizing a “mixed auspice” approach enables states to take advantage of existing resources and facilitate parental choice. Yet, traditionally, these programs have had differing emphases on custodial care vs. early education (Ackerman, Barnett, Hawkinson, Brown, & McGonigle, 2009). Program standards for child care and PreK vary widely, as well, with child care centers generally being governed by less stringent requirements than those for PreK (National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies [NACCRRA], 2009). Furthermore, no state requires child care centers to follow early learning standards unless the center participates in the state’s PreK initiative and usage of such standards is mandatory (Scott-Little, Lesko, Martella, & Milburn, 2007).

Today, over 1.1 million children - the majority of whom are 4-year-olds - are enrolled in PreK programs in 38 states (Barnett et al., 2008). However, approximately 2.7 million preschoolers are enrolled in child care programs (NACCRRA, 2009). Given the gap between child care and PreK regulations and expectations, as well as the potential to compete for a relatively small number of ELCF quality improvement awards, knowledge about which program and early learning standards currently guide child care centers could inform the work of potential ELCF grantees. This paper reports on a preliminary study focusing on this issue. To begin, we highlight the standards-focused aspect of ELCF. We then provide a brief overview of the current learning and program standards aimed at the majority of PreK programs, as well as the differences in standards for child care centers. We follow with a description of the study and its results. The paper concludes with suggestions for policy makers who aim to promote higher standards in child care centers as part of their ELCF efforts.

ELCF and Standards for Programs Serving Preschoolers

ELCF is part of Title IV of what is known as the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 (H.R. 3221), which primarily focuses on college lending. Recognizing the need for child care and preschool education programs to coordinate efforts, the program will be administered jointly by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Education. The current House-approved bill gives states the opportunity to compete for $8 billion in grants based on their plans to both improve the quality of programs serving children ages birth-5 and increase the number of disadvantaged children being served. States also would be required to work toward implementing an early learning system (PreK Now, 2009).

As part of their ELCF proposals, states must demonstrate how they will build on current licensing requirements to improve the quality of Head Start programs, child care centers, and public and private preschool providers. This effort would include implementing stricter program standards for teacher-child ratios, group sizes, and teacher credentials. In addition, states must explain their plan for integrating early learning standards into the instructional and programmatic practices of programs serving young children. State stakeholders must outline the professional development and technical assistance that will be provided to programs as they work to improve their quality and implement these new standards, as well (PreK Now, 2009).

Early Learning Standards

While A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) highlighted over 25 years ago the need for K-12 learning standards, the focus on similar standards for preschool-age children is a more recent development (Barnett et al., 2008). The relatively young history of such standards is related to policy makers’ concurrent push in the last decade to increase access to publicly funded PreK programs. Putting such standards into place has been viewed by policy makers as a way to help ensure that individual programs have the capacity to produce the desired level of educational outcomes (Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2003b). Without such standards, teachers may rely on inappropriate beliefs about what young children should learn. This issue is particularly salient if teachers have not had specialized, college-level training in early childhood development and education. Even if teachers have participated in formal teacher preparation programs, the lack of clear expectations may result in the sense of being “adrift” in terms of what to teach (File & Powell, 2005).

The link between state PreK programs and the existence of an early learning standards document is not uniform. Twenty-four states providing PreK require all participating programs to follow their respective early learning standards. Twelve states with PreK offer these standards as “guidance” only. In two additional states, some PreK programs must follow the standards, but others are not required to do so (Barnett et al., 2008). The remaining states do not have publicly funded PreK programs but also have or appear to be on track for developing their own early learning standards (National Child Care Information and Technical Assistance Center [NCCIC], 2009).

States’ early learning standards are not uniform in terms of their content and depth. Yet they do share common features. For example, each state has early learning standards that are specific to preschoolers rather than being aimed at young children more generally. Most are aligned to the K-12 standards within their respective states. In addition, the majority of state early learning standards focus on five key developmental domains, or content areas (Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2003a). These domains were highlighted by the National Education Goals Panel (1995) as part of its kindergarten readiness work. Key early childhood stakeholders promoted an emphasis on the wider array of domains that are essential aspects of early learning and development, as well (e.g., NAEYC & NAECS/SDE, 2002).

The first domain addressed in most states’ early learning standards is physical and motor development, which includes children’s overall health and fine- and gross-motor abilities. Second is social and emotional development, or children’s ability to successfully interact with their peers and with adults. The next domain is approaches toward learning, which focuses on children’s initiative and persistence within the learning process. The fourth area is language development, which includes the oral and written forms of communication that underpin a child’s early literacy skills. The final category is cognition and general knowledge and includes early math, science, and social studies learning (Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2005, 2006).

Within the domains, some early learning standards documents have indicators to illustrate that a child has successfully acquired a particular skill. For example, in New Jersey’s Preschool Teaching and Learning Expectations: Standards of Quality (NJDOE, 2004), a math learning standard states that “children demonstrate an understanding of number and numerical operations” (p. 42). This benchmark is then clarified by nine examples, including “learns to say the counting numbers” and “discriminates numbers from other symbols in the environment” (p. 42). New Jersey’s early learning document also provides strategies for how teachers might assist children in reaching the standards. For example, another New Jersey math expectation is that “children [will] develop knowledge of spatial concepts, e.g. shapes and measurement” (p. 44). The state’s standards document then advises teachers to provide materials to help children develop their understanding of geometric concepts, such as “items to fill and empty, fit together and take apart, and arrange and shape.” They are also advised to “use positional words such as over, under, behind, in front of, and up to” (p. 44). By providing these suggestions, teachers have concrete examples of the types of activities that can help children master these skills.

Program Standards

While the relationship between regulable child care program elements and classroom quality is not straightforward, research generally demonstrates that such structural inputs help set the stage for the type of interactions that support preschoolers’ learning (e.g., Vandell & Wolfe, 2000). Most states therefore also have specific PreK program standards to ensure that classroom practices and environments support children’s development in the domains highlighted above. These standards often represent an upgrade to the licensing standards that are in place for child care centers. For example, 15 states require all publicly funded PreK teachers to have attained a minimum of a bachelor’s degree. Some states require early childhood specific teacher certification, as well. Other states require PreK teachers in public school settings to have a bachelor’s degree and in participating child care centers to have an associate’s degree or Child Development Associate credential. In contrast, no state requires child care staff to have a college degree, much less specialized training in early childhood (Barnett et al., 2008).

The maximum group sizes and staff-child ratios in PreK also tend to be more stringent than those required by child care program standards. In New Jersey’s Abbott PreK program, the maximum class size is 15, with two adults per classroom. In contrast, child care classrooms serving preschoolers can enroll a maximum of 20 children, with one adult staff member being responsible for no more than twelve 4-year-olds or ten 3-year-olds. Many states also require their PreK programs to offer a meal, health screenings, and support for parents and English language learners. A few states require kindergarten transition activities, home visits, or accreditation by such professional bodies as the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (Barnett et al., 2008). Child care standards typically do not focus on these types of programmatic elements.

In sum, states have established new standards for specific preschool programs as part of their overall efforts to improve children’s kindergarten readiness. While the standards are not uniform in terms of content or which preschool programs must follow them, they generally focus on the gains that children should attain in five key developmental areas, as well as what program elements are necessary to support an educationally effective learning environment. The standards aimed at PreK programs tend to be more rigorous than those that apply to child care centers.

If states wish to compete for an ELCF award, they will need to outline plans for provider professional development and technical assistance as a means for incorporating higher quality standards. Given the traditional difference between child care and PreK standards and focus, it would be helpful to know which standards child care center directors currently rely on in their preschool classrooms. This article reports on a large-scale telephone survey of child care directors focusing on this issue. The results of the study follow a description of the methodology used.

Study Methodology

The study reported here was part of a larger research initiative taking place in New Jersey and was designed to assess the capacity of child care centers to participate in an expansion of the state’s full-day PreK program for 3- and 4-year-olds living in select school districts. The results are from a telephone survey of 391 child care directors in districts across the state that do not participate in the program but would need to do so if the expansion were to be funded.

The survey focused on directors because they tend to be the administrative leads for the daily operations of child care centers serving children who are not yet in kindergarten (Hewes, 2000). While the experiences that children have in their classrooms largely rest on teacher actions (Howes et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007), their classrooms are nested within the norms of child care centers (Bloom, 1991, 1999b). Center directors contribute to program quality and norms by establishing the standards and expectations for teachers and staff (Bloom, 1999a; Morgan, 2000). Child care quality can improve when directors receive administrative training (Bloom & Sheerer, 1992) and possess core administrative competencies (Brown & Manning, 2000). Directors also play a key role in getting their centers “up to speed” when participating in a publicly funded PreK program (Whitebook, Ryan, Kipnis, & Sakai, 2008).

Sample Recruitment

We recruited directors to participate in the survey through a three-step process. First, we used a statewide database of licensed settings to determine which child care centers were located in the districts of interest and served children ages 5 and under. This process gave us a total potential sample of 444. Second, we sent a database of these programs to the New Jersey Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NJACCRRA), who then added the names of each site’s respective director. Third, each director received a phone call from their local Child Care Resource and Referral Agency alerting them to the study, as well as a follow-up letter from the first author describing the study’s purpose and asking for their participation. The letter included a list entitled “Director Survey Topics,” which, as the name suggests, listed the survey topics, as well as the “how many” specifics that would need to be provided (e.g., number of preschoolers served; number of full-time teachers). Fifty-three child care center directors elected not to participate in the telephone survey, which gave us a final sample of 391 directors - an 88% response rate.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection occurred through a 6-minute structured telephone interview. The protocol was designed by the first author, colleagues from the National Institute for Early Education Research, and stakeholders from the New Jersey Department of Education and NJACCRRA. It contained 24 questions, with the majority requiring directors to provide a “yes,” “no,” or “how many” answer. These questions focused on director and center demographics and characteristics. Three additional questions asked about preschool learning expectations, program standards, and curriculum. We focus here on the learning expectations and program standards questions, as well as the director demographic data and center enrollment statistics. The remaining questions will be detailed in future reports.

After piloting the survey, the interviews were conducted by a professional data collection firm using a computer-aided telephone interview system. All participating directors were mailed a $10 gift card to a national bookstore chain upon completion.

To analyze the directors’ responses, we calculated means and overall percentages for each question. We also performed cross tabulations and chi-squared analyses to determine correlations and statistically significant differences between responses for related questions.

Results

In this section, we report the characteristics of the directors participating in the overall study, as well as their center enrollment demographics. We follow with the responses that we received to the questions about preschool program standards and learning expectations.

Director Demographics

In New Jersey, the minimum qualification to be a child care director in centers serving children ages birth to 5 is dependent on the total licensed capacity of a facility and when the director was hired (State of New Jersey Department of Children and Families, 2009). As a result, directors may have a little as 45 clock hours of administrative training or, conversely, possess a graduate degree.

Given this range, the survey asked directors to report whether they had a college degree, and if so, whether their highest degree was an associate’s (AA), bachelor’s (BA), master’s (MA), or doctorate (PhD or EdD). As can be seen in Table 1a, 18.4% of directors report that they do not have a college degree, and 7.7% say that they have attained an AA. Half of the directors report having a minimum of a BA. An additional 22.5% state they have an MA.

For the group of directors with any college degree, 46.5% report that their major was related to early childhood. However, this result varied by degree, with 79.3% of all directors with an AA having an early childhood focus versus 57.2% and 53.4% of BA and MA holders, respectively.

The survey also asked directors to indicate how many years they had served in this role at their center (see Table 1b). Their average experience is 8.3 years. Just over one-third have three years or less of director experience. An additional 31.8% have between 4 and 9 years of experience working in this capacity. The remaining third have worked as the director in their center for at least 10 years.

Table 1

Number of Children and Staff in Each Age Group

Directors were asked to report on whether they enroll infants/toddlers and/or preschoolers in their center. Of the 391 child care centers participating in the survey, 82.6% enroll infants and toddlers (N = 323), 97.2% (N = 380) enroll 3- and 4-year-olds, and 78.8% (N = 308) currently serve both age groups.

Directors were queried about how many infants/toddlers and preschoolers who were not yet in kindergarten were enrolled in their center. Overall, directors report enrollment of between 1 and 95 infants/toddlers and 2 to 150 preschoolers. Despite that large range, the majority of centers have much smaller average enrollments, with the mean number of infants/toddlers enrolled being 21.5 and the average number of preschoolers enrolled being 33.4. These center enrollment numbers are typical for the United States in that centers tend to serve a larger number of preschoolers than toddlers (Ackerman & Barnett, 2009).

An additional question asked directors about the number of staff in their infant/toddler and preschool rooms. Centers employ on average 5.6 infant/toddler and 4.6 preschool full-time teachers and assistants. When combined with the enrollment data, these averages suggest that most child care centers meet New Jersey’s child care licensing staff-child ratio regulations of 1 to 4 children under the age of 18 months, 1 to 6 toddlers between the ages of 18 and 30 months, and 1 to 10 or 12 preschoolers (State of New Jersey Department of Children and Families, 2009).

Source of Preschool Program Standards

The first purpose of the study was to determine which program standards are currently relied on in centers that enroll 3- and 4-year-olds. Therefore, the survey asked directors: “Are your preschool program standards, such as your group sizes and teacher credentials, based on any specific document or documents?” If directors responded, “Yes,” they were then asked: “What are your preschool program standards based on?”

We anticipated a total of 10 possible answers to this second “naming” question. The primary presumed answer was New Jersey’s child care licensing standards (State of New Jersey Department of Children and Families, 2009). The second presumed response was New Jersey’s Abbott Preschool Program Implementation Guidelines (NJDOE, 2003), which the state’s PreK programs (located in both public schools and contracting child care centers) are required to follow. Child care centers that do not participate in the PreK program are not required to implement these more stringent guidelines, but doing so is permissible, as centers would therefore meet and exceed licensing standards. We also anticipated that some directors might cite NAEYC's accreditation standards (NAEYC, 2008). In addition, there were categories for “other,” “don’t know,” and “refused to answer.” In all cases, the telephone surveyors were directed not to read the potential answers and instead simply ask directors to name which document or documents they might use.

While our anticipated categories did not include “I don’t understand the phrase ‘program standards’,” anecdotal information from the telephone surveyors, as well as the surveys that the first author monitored on the initial day of data collection, indicated that this category would have been useful. We did not keep track of how many times this occurred, but the telephone surveyors often needed to repeat the question, putting an emphasis on the phrase “such as group sizes and teachers credentials” to help define “program standards.” It also should be noted that the phrase “program standards” was included in the list of topics sent to all directors prior to the survey.

Eleven directors were not asked this question because they did not serve any 3- and 4-year-olds. Two additional directors asked to skip this question. Of the remaining 378 directors, 52.4% report that their program standards are based on New Jersey’s licensing regulations, 9% cite NAEYC standards, and 8.5% of directors state they use the Abbott Preschool Program Implementation Guidelines (see Table 2).

Table 2

The remaining directors answered this question in ways that could indicate lack of awareness of the phrase “program standards” or the documents child care centers need to use to be in compliance with current licensing standards. More specifically, 14.8% of directors indicate that their program standards are not based on a specific source. An additional 5.6% cite an individual teacher’s discretion. Just under 4% said that they did not know the source of their program standards. The directors in the final group cite the curriculum used or what we coded as “other.”

We examined whether a director’s college degree is related to reporting one of the “presumed” program standards responses (state licensing regulations, Abbott PreK guidelines, or NAEYC). As is displayed in Table 3, 73.6% and 74.4% of those having a BA or MA, respectively, cited any of the three presumed answers, in contrast to 60% with an AA and 58% with no degree. These differences are statistically significant (X2 = 8.07, df = 1, p < .005), such that directors having a BA or higher degree were more likely to cite the state licensing standards, the Abbott guidelines, or NAEYC as their source of preschool program standards. Those with an AA or lower degree were more likely to cite the nonpresumed answers of curriculum used, teacher discretion, or no specific source.

Table 3

In addition, 77% of directors with a major related to early childhood cited a presumed program standards answer (state licensing standards, Abbott guidelines, or NAEYC) versus 67.4% of directors that did not have an early childhood-related major. When comparing these differences using chi-squared analyses, the results indicate a nonsignificant trend within the data (X2 = 3.44, df = 1, p = .06).

Source of Preschool Learning Expectations

The second purpose of the study was to determine the source of any learning expectations in classrooms serving 3- and 4-year-old children. Therefore, an additional survey question asked directors: “Are your expectations for what preschoolers should learn after participating in your program based on anything specific?” Again, if directors answered, “yes,” they were asked the follow-on question, “What are your preschool learning expectations based on?”

We anticipated nine possible response categories for this question. Because New Jersey does not have a learning standards document specifically aimed at child care centers that do not participate in the state’s PreK program, there was no “presumed” answer. However, child care centers may voluntarily use New Jersey’s Preschool Teaching and Learning Expectations (NJDOE, 2004) for state-funded PreK classrooms, so this was our first anticipated response category. In addition, implementing a good curriculum can help preschoolers to develop the skills and knowledge benchmarks outlined in early learning standards documents (Frede & Ackerman, 2007). NAEYC also urges programs serving young children to use a high-quality curriculum that addresses the different developmental domains (NAEYC & NAECS/SDE, 2003). Therefore, the second category was the curriculum used. We also included categories for a district or town’s kindergarten readiness guidelines and NAEYC/developmentally appropriate practice (NAEYC, 2009). Our “nonpresumed” answers for this question included a teacher’s choice/discretion, “other,” and “don’t know.” Once again, the telephone surveyors were instructed not to prompt the directors with any of these answers but instead to ask them to name whichever source(s) they use.

Similar to the program standards question, anecdotal information from our data collectors, as well as the calls that the first author monitored during the initial round of data collection, indicated that the phrase “learning expectations” was a source of confusion for some participants. Although the question included the phrase “expectations for what preschoolers should learn after participating in your program” (and thus mirroring the title of New Jersey’s learning standards document), no concrete examples were provided. It is therefore possible that some directors may not have fully understood the meaning of the phrase.

Three-hundred seventy-eight directors answered this question, as well. However, in contrast to the program standards questions, a larger percentage (23.3% vs. 14.8%) say that their learning expectations are not based on anything specific (see Table 4). Almost 24% report that their preschooler’s learning expectations are aligned with the curriculum used, while 22% say any learning expectations are left up to their teachers’ discretion.

Table 4

Just under 12% report that their preschool learning expectations are based on New Jersey’s PreK Expectations. Nine and a half percent of directors cite NAEYC/developmentally appropriate practice, and 8.5% report use of their district’s kindergarten or readiness expectations.

As can be seen in Table 5, director degree trends positively with the likelihood that a director will give a presumed response (Preschool Teaching and Learning Expectations, NAEYC/developmentally appropriate practice, curriculum used, and a district’s kindergarten or readiness expectations) to the learning expectations question. Chi-square analyses show statistically significant differences (X2 = 14.84, df = 1, p < .001) in the relationship between director degree and citing one of the presumed responses, as well.

Table 5

These findings suggest that directors with a BA or higher were more likely to report that their center’s learning expectations for 3- and 4-year-olds are based on the Preschool Teaching and Learning Expectations, the curriculum used, NAEYC or developmentally appropriate practice guidelines, or the district’s kindergarten readiness expectations. Conversely, directors with an AA or lower degree were more likely to report that the expectations were based on teachers’ discretion or no specific source. There is no statistically significant difference in the relationship between directors’ degree majors and the reported basis for their preschool teaching and learning expectations.

Given that 23.3% of directors state that their preschool learning expectations are not based on any source, we examined whether this specific answer varied by director degree and major. Our results show that the higher the degree attained, the less likely that a director stated “no source.” More specifically, 38.2% of nondegreed directors, 30% of directors with an AA, 22.8% with a BA, and 11% of directors with an MA report that they do not have a preschool learning expectations source. However, having a college major related to early childhood does not appear to make it more or less likely for directors to essentially report “no source” for preschool learning expectations. This was the case for 19.1% of directors with an early childhood major and 20.8% of directors who did not have a similar major. The implications for potential ELCF grantees of these results, as well as those related to the program and early learning standards questions more generally, are discussed next.

Discussion

The purpose of this report was to share the results of survey questions asking child care center directors to name the sources of their respective center’s preschool program standards and learning expectations. Given the traditional gap in program standards and early learning expectations between child care and state-funded PreK and the opportunity to compete for federal ELCF dollars to improve early learning, such information has the potential to inform the work of ELCF applicants and grantees. Because child care centers will most likely need to implement program and early learning standards that are more stringent than currently required, we offer two implications for future ELCF applicants.

Triaged Training and Assistance

First, our study suggests both good and bad news regarding current level of standards knowledge and practice. On the positive side, 70% of directors cite New Jersey’s child care licensing standards, the state’s Preschool Program Implementation Guidelines for publicly funded PreK, or NAEYC/developmentally appropriate practice as the source of their program standards. Combined with the child enrollment and number of staff reported, these responses suggest that the majority of directors are already implementing the state’s licensing standards. Similarly, 53% of directors could name a source for their preschool learning expectations that “made sense” in terms of being aligned with one of our presumed answers.

Yet the phrase “program standards” itself initially was confusing to many directors. In addition, 30% of directors stated that no source guided their program standards or cited an inappropriate program standards source (e.g., teacher’s discretion, curriculum). The phrase “expectations for what preschoolers should learn” was confusing to the directors, as well. Only a small percentage of directors report using the state’s PreK learning standards. Furthermore, 23% of directors report that no specific source guides the preschool learning expectations in their respective centers.

These results suggest that despite the general emphasis on standards in the state PreK sector, the extent to which this focus has penetrated the child care field varies greatly. Therefore, if ELCF grantees wish to improve child care center directors’ current standards knowledge and practice levels, it may be useful to propose varying levels of training and technical assistance. The majority of directors may need short-term, informal training solely on higher program and learning standards than typically are required for child care centers, followed by technical assistance in implementing such standards. A smaller group may need more intensive, explanatory training on the concept of program standards or learning expectations themselves.

Given the statistically significant differences in responses provided by directors with a BA or higher and those with an AA or lower, it may be beneficial for ELCF efforts to include formal coursework that leads to a BA for directors, as well. Our results admittedly do not demonstrate an overwhelming advantage for an early childhood major as a sole means for improving directors’ reliance on higher standards. However, because of the low profit margins in child care (Blau, 2001), this result may have less to do with directors’ college major and more to do with their respective centers’ current inability to afford implementation of early learning standards and higher program standards. Our survey did not ask directors why they relied on their current source versus a more stringent source, and thus we urge caution when interpreting our findings as an argument against an early childhood major.

“Starting Point” Research

Outlining exactly what this triaged training, college coursework, and ongoing assistance should look like is beyond the scope of this paper. However, to be relevant to and effective for individual staff across a range of early care and education settings, their training and assistance should reflect their current standards knowledge and practice (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). This is especially critical given what is known about the difficulty of applying what has been learned through any training initiative if child care staff do not have an educational background that provides a foundation in child development or early childhood pedagogy (Catapano, 2005).

Thus, the second implication of this study’s results for potential ELCF grantees is the benefit of pre-proposal research of the very programs whose quality will need to be improved. Having a clear picture of the current program standards and learning expectations in use (or not) will help to inform the content of ELCF-supported training and technical assistance, as well as the needed level of intensity. Such research also can map the geographic locations where different levels of support are needed to ensure that the appropriate trainings and technical assistance are easily accessible. In addition, by conducting ongoing research, stakeholders can document the progress made within child care programs, as well as how training and technical assistance should be adjusted to continue to meet staff needs.

Limitations

Although this study suggests the need for varying levels of ELCF-supported training and technical assistance, as well as research to ascertain child care centers’ starting points to inform the development of that support, its limitations should be noted. Our sample of directors was drawn solely from one state with a high-quality, publicly funded PreK program and may not be generalizable to other regions. In addition, no attempt was made to ascertain exactly how much early childhood-specific knowledge each director possessed. We also note that the teachers with “no degree” may actually possess quite a few college credits but not enough credits to graduate.

Furthermore, although directors received prior notice that they would be asked about “program standards” and “expectations for what preschoolers should learn,” initially these phrases were confusing to many directors. Directors’ responses might have been different if the survey asked more straightforward questions such as, “Do you rely on New Jersey’s child care licensing regulations to guide your program standards for such things as class size and teacher credentials?” However, given the tendency for self-report survey participants to misreport in response to sensitive questions (Lavrakas, 2008), rephrasing the question in this way may not have provided useful data. Yet this issue leads to our last limitation: the entire survey relies on unconfirmed self-report. It is possible that directors’ actual sources, knowledge, or the observed practice in their respective centers differ from the answers they provided. We therefore urge caution when interpreting our results.

Conclusion

Despite these limitations, this study suggests that improving a state’s early learning initiatives as part of ELCF may require something more than a “one size fits all” plan. At present, child care centers will continue to play a key role in serving the custodial care needs of parents and enhancing children’s early education skills. The ELCF presents an opportunity to mitigate the traditional early care vs. education divide by promoting the integration of more stringent program and early learning standards than are typically found in child care centers. Basing a triaged ELCF training and technical assistance plan on rigorous research may help early care and education stakeholders realize that vision, and in turn, better serve this nation’s young children.

Acknowledgments

The original study this article is based on was funded by the New Jersey Department of Education and the Schumann Fund for New Jersey. Its design and implementation also benefited from the support of the New Jersey Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies and the National Institute for Early Education Research. The opinions expressed in the report are the authors' alone and do not necessarily represent those held by the study’s funders or supporters.

References

1- Ackerman, Debra J., & Barnett, W. Steven. (2009). Does preschool education policy impact infant/toddler care? New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.

2- Ackerman, Debra J.; Barnett, W. Steven; Hawkinson, Laura E.; Brown, Kirsty; & McGonigle, Elizabeth A. (2009). Providing preschool education for all four-year-olds: Lessons from six state journeys. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.

3- Barnett, W. Steven; Epstein, Dale J.; Friedman, Allison H.; Boyd, Judi Stevenson; & Hustedt, Jason T. (2008). The state of preschool 2008: State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.

4- Blau, David M. (2001). The child care problem: An economic analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

5- Bloom, Paula Jorde. (1991). Child care centers as organizations: A social systems perspective. Child and Youth Care Forum, 20(5), 313-333.

6- Bloom, Paula Jorde. (1999a). Building director competence: Credentialing and education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 20(2), 207-214.

7- Bloom, Paul Jorde. (1999b). Using climate assessment to improve the quality of work life in early childhood programs (pp. 115-146). In Stuart Reifel (Ed.), Advances in early education and day care: Vol. 10. Foundations, adult dynamics, teacher education and play. New York: JAI Press.

8- Bloom, Paula Jorde, & Sheerer, Marilyn. (1992). The effect of leadership training on child care program quality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(4), 579-594.

9- Bransford, John D.; Brown, Ann L.; & Cocking, Rodney R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

10- Brown, Nancy H., & Manning, James P. (2000). Core knowledge for directors. In Mary L. Culkin (Ed.), Managing quality in young children's programs: The leader's role (pp. 78-96). New York: Teachers College Press.

11- Catapano, Susan. (2005). Teacher professional development through children's project work. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(4), 261-267.

12- File, Nancy K.; & Powell, Douglas R. (2005). Without standards to guide: Teachers' construction of learning goals in public school pre-kindergarten. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.

13- Frede, Ellen, & Ackerman, Debra J. (2007). Preschool curriculum decision-making: Dimensions to consider. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.

14- Hewes, Dorothy W. (2000). Looking back: How the role of director has been understood, studied, and utilized in ECE programs, policy, and practice. In Mary L. Culkin (Ed.), Managing quality in young children's programs: The leader's role (pp. 23-39). New York: Teachers College Press.

15- Howes, Carollee; Burchinal, Margaret; Pianta, Robert; Bryant, Donna; Early, Diane; Clifford, Richard; & Barbarin, Oscar. (2008). Ready to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(1), 27-50.

16- H.R. 3221. (2009). Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act.

17- Lavrakas, Paul J. (Ed.). (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18- LoCasale-Crouch, Jennifer; Konold, Tim; Pianta, Robert; Howes, Carollee; Burchinal, Margaret; Bryant, Donna; et al. (2007). Observed classroom quality profiles in state-funded pre-kindergarten programs and associations with teacher, program, and classroom characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(1), 3-17.

19- Morgan, Gwen. (2000). The director as a key to quality. In Mary L. Culkin (Ed.), Managing quality in young children's programs: The leader's role (pp. 40-58). New York: Teachers College Press.

20- National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2008). Teacher-child ratios within group size (Assessed in criterion 10.B.12). Washington, DC: Author.

21- National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (Position Statement). Washington, DC: Author.

22- National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE). (2002). Early learning standards: Creating the conditions for success. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/executive_summary.pdf

23- National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE). (2003). Where we stand on curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February 26, 2010, from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/pscape.pdf

24- National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies (NACCRRA). (2009). Unequal opportunities for preschoolers: Differing standards for licensed child care centers and state-funded prekindergarten programs. Washington, DC: Author.

25- National Child Care Information and Technical Assistance Center (NCCIC). (2009). State early learning guidelines on the web. Retrieved February 12, 2010, from http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/goodstart/elgwebsites.html

26- National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author.

27- National Education Goals Panel; Goal 1 Technical Planning Group; Kagan, Sharon Lynn; Moore, Evelyn; & Bredekamp, Sue (Eds.). (1995). Reconsidering children’s early development and learning: Toward common views and vocabulary. Washington, DC: Author.

28- Neuman, Susan B., & Roskos, Kathleen. (2005). The state of state pre-kindergarten standards. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20(2), 125-145.

29- New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE). (2003). Abbott preschool program implementation guidelines. Trenton, NJ: Author.

30- New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE). (2004). Preschool teaching and learning expectations: Standards of quality. Trenton, NJ: Author.

31- PreK Now. (2009). Memorandum: Early Learning Challenge Fund - as approved by the House of Representatives. Washington, DC: Author.

32- Scott-Little, Catherine; Kagan, Sharon Lynn; & Frelow, Victoria Stebbins. (2003a). Creating the conditions for success with early learning standards: Results from a national study of state-level standards for children’s learning prior to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 5(2). Retrieved December 13, 2004, from http://ecrp.illinois.edu/v5n2/little.html

33- Scott-Little, Catherine; Kagan, Sharon Lynn; & Frelow, Victoria Stebbins. (2003b). Standards for preschool children’s learning and development: Who has standards, how were they developed, and how are they used? Greensboro, NC: SERVE.

34- Scott-Little, Catherine; Kagan, Sharon Lynn; & Frelow, Victoria Stebbins. (2005). Inside the content: The breadth and depth of early learning standards. Greensboro, NC: SERVE.

35- Scott-Little, Catherine; Kagan, Sharon Lynn; & Frelow, Victoria Stebbins. (2006). Conceptualization of readiness and the content of early learning standards: The intersection of policy and research? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(3), 153-173.

36- Scott-Little, Catherine; Lesko, Jim; Martella, Jana; & Millburn, Penny. (2007). Early learning standards: Results from a national survey to document trends in state-level policies and practices. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 9(1). Retrieved July 14, 2009, from http://ecrp.illinois.edu/v9n1/little.html

37- State of New Jersey Department of Children and Families. (2009). Manual of requirements for child care centers. Trenton, NJ: Author.

38- Vandell, Deborah Lowe, & Wolfe, Barbara. (2000). Child care quality: Does it matter and does it need to be improved? Madison: Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin.

39- Whitebook, Marcy; Ryan, Sharon; Kipnis, Fran; & Sakai, Laura. (2008). Partnering for preschool: A study of center directors in New Jersey’s mixed-delivery Abbott program. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment.

Author Information

Debra J. Ackerman, PhD, is Associate Director for Research at the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER). Her work focuses on policy issues related to preschool education and the professional development of the early education workforce.

Debra J. Ackerman

National Institute for Early Education Research

120 Albany Street, Tower 1, Suite 500

New Brunswick, NJ 08901

Telephone: 732-932-4350

Email: dackerman@nieer.org

Rachel Sansanelli, MA, is a Research Project Coordinator at NIEER. Her current work focuses on trends in state-funded preschool across the United States and the effects of select programs on children's cognitive and social-emotional outcomes.

Rachel A. Sansanelli

National Institute for Early Education Research

120 Albany Street, Tower 1, Suite 500

New Brunswick, NJ 08901

Telephone: 732-932-4350

Email: rsansanelli@nieer.org

Volume 12 Number 1

©The Author(s) 2010

Pathways to Bilingualism: Young Children’s Home Experiences Learning English and Spanish

M. Victoria Rodríguez

Lehman College, City University of New York

Abstract

Nowadays, more and more young children in the United States have the experience of speaking a language other than English at home, and many parents choose to educate their children bilingually. This study explored the home-language experiences, in English and Spanish, of three young Latino girls ages 15 months, 16 months, and 30 months, respectively, when the study began. They were observed at home between 40 and 70 hours for 30 months. Three questions guided the study: (1) What languages are used at home and for what purposes? (2) Who addresses the participant children in English and Spanish? and (3) How do the participants express themselves in English and Spanish? The data suggest that the three participants received input in English and Spanish based on the bilingual characteristics of the families. However, as they grew older and their proficiency in English improved, the input in Spanish diminished, as well as their ability to speak Spanish. At the end of the study, the three participants understood English and Spanish, one spoke English and Spanish when prompted, one spoke only in English, and another one spoke in both languages without being prompted. This study suggests that raising children bilingually may require support of the minority language outside the home, with collaboration among the schools, the families, and the community.

Introduction

Despite being a nation made up of immigrants coming from many different countries and speaking many different languages, American society has not supported or encouraged bilingualism (Crawford, 1999). However, early childhood organizations such as the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the Office of Head Start have long advocated for early childhood programs and teachers that respect, value, and support young children’s native languages (NAEYC, 1995). Recently, the Office of Head Start (2008) in the Dual Language Report pointed out that educating young children whose primary language is not English requires embedding the connection among language, culture, and learning needs into all aspects of a Head Start program (p. 6). The report concludes that Head Start programs should promote the native language of the young child because “ultimately, effective program support for promoting dual language acquisition in children will result in more children eager to learn in Head Start as well as more children being prepared to begin school ready and eager to continue learning - an investment well worth making” (p. 4).

Many mainstream families, in general, and immigrant families, in particular, agree with this position and express strong interest in raising their children bilingually for a variety of reasons. Many families believe that children who are bilingual will be able to communicate with parents and other family members who do not speak English; they will benefit from the cognitive, academic, and social advantages of being bilingual; and they will also have improved employment prospects. In addition, families expect that by raising their children bilingually, they can maintain the family’s heritage language and culture (Bialystok, 2001; King & Mackey, 2007; Yoshida, 2008).

Research on bilingual development in early childhood addresses (1) the language development of children in two or more languages and its relation to their cognitive and sociocultural development (Bialystok, 2001; Yoshida, 2008) and (2) the role of the home, the community, and society in educating children bilingually. Given the importance of the social context in language development, more research is needed to uncover the diverse linguistic input that young children receive from the various social networks that they are in contact with, for example, the immediate and extended family, friends, neighbors, and caregivers (Hamers & Blanc, 1995). The purpose of this study was to explore the different ways in which three young girls learned English and Spanish during their early childhood years.

The study was guided by Vygotsky's theory of human development, which highlights the essential role of social interactions in culturally specific contexts in the development of language (Vygotsky, 1978). Language socialization research across cultures conducted by Schieffelin and Ochs (1986) confirmed long ago the importance of interactions in socializing young children into language - and through a specific language into a culture. More recently, neuroscience research using the tools of modern technology revealed the strategies that babies use to learn language(s), which include pattern perception, computational skills, and social interaction, which “plays a more significant role in early language learning than previously thought, at least in natural language-learning situations” (Kuhl & Rivera-Gaxiola, 2008, p. 518). In fact, babies learned words and phonemes in a foreign language only when exposed to the language through book reading and play with native speakers, but they did not learn the language when exposed to the same sounds and words through television or audio-only tutors.

Methodology

This study addressed the following questions: (1) What languages are used at home and for what purposes? (2) Who addresses the participant children in English and Spanish? and (3) How do the participants express themselves in English and Spanish?

Three families were recruited who expressed interest in raising their children bilingually and had children between 15 months and 3 years of age. The researcher knew one of the families from a previous study and met the other two families through a friend and in a doctor’s office.

Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Data collection involved participant observation, audiotapings, informal conversations, and interviews with all family members. For the purpose of this paper, only the fieldwork notes, audiotapings of the focus children, and informal conversation with the family members were analyzed. The home visits were scheduled after calling the family to decide on a convenient time for the family and the researcher. At the beginning of the study, two of the participants only spoke a few words each, and most observations were audiotaped and complemented by the researcher’s notes.

The data analysis was performed in three phases. The first phase involved typing the field notes and the transcripts of all recorded tapes made during participant observation. Next, data were highlighted for each participant using the research questions as the initial categories, namely: (1) input provided in English and in Spanish, (2) the source of the input, and (3) participants' expressive language in English and Spanish. Subsequent readings of the notes and transcripts led to preparing charts to record all the data related to each of the categories for each of the participants. In the third phase, the focus shifted to analyzing the data in order “to make sense of what is going on” (Wolcott, 1994, p. 10). This analysis involved identifying patterns of interactions between the family members and each participant, similarities and differences in patterns of interactions among participants (with particular attention to changes occurring over time), and “key factors and relationships among them” (p. 10) that contributed to the understanding of the data.

Participant Families and Children’s Characteristics

At the beginning of the study, the three participants - Josefina Cortés, Kayla Jiménez, and Thais Velázquez (pseudonyms chosen by the families) - were 16 months old, 15 months old, and 30 months old, respectively. Josefina lived with her mother, father, and her 11-year-old brother. Josefina’s parents were born in the Dominican Republic and immigrated to the United States when they were in their teens. Josefina and her brother were born in New York City. Josefina’s mother was fluent in Spanish and understood and spoke some English; her brother and father were bilingual. Mr. Cortés holds a bachelor’s degree, but his work is not connected to the degree. Mrs. Cortés has a high school diploma and works as a home attendant. Josefina was observed at home for about 40 hours over a period of 30 months. At the beginning of the study, for about 6 months, I observed Josefina in the morning, when she was at home with her mother. For the last 2 years of the study, I observed her in the afternoon or on Sunday mornings when all the family members were at home, and occasionally I observed her with other family members, like Josefina’s maternal grandfather, aunts, uncles, and cousins.

Kayla’s family included her mother and father and her 4-year-old sister. Kayla’s mother was born in New York City from Dominican and Puerto Rican parents. Her father was born on a Caribbean island and immigrated to the United States when he was a teenager. Kayla’s mother and sister spoke both English and Spanish; the father spoke English. Mr. and Mrs. Jiménez hold bachelor’s degrees and worked in education. Since Kayla was 10 months old, she had spent about 8 hours a day, 4 days a week, with her great-grandmother, who talked to her in Spanish, although she understood and spoke some English. During the last 10 months of the study, the family lived with the great-grandmother. Kayla was observed in the morning and early afternoon for about 50 hours over a period of 30 months, mostly but not exclusively in her great-grandmother’s home and in her great-grandmother’s presence. Occasionally, Kayla’s mother, sister, and father were also at home, as well as cousins, grandparents, and aunts.

Thais lived with her mother and two teenage brothers. Mrs. Velázquez was born in the Dominican Republic and immigrated to New York City when she was 18. Mrs. Velázquez finished the 11th grade. She worked as part of the welfare program. Mrs. Velázquez's three children were born in New York City. Thais’s mother spoke Spanish and understood some English. Thais’s brothers were fluent in English and Spanish. Thais was observed at home once a month over several months, totaling about 70 hours. I observed Thais in the early afternoon when her mother and sometimes her brothers were home. On a few occasions, other family members, such as the maternal grandmother and cousins, and family friends were present.

Language Used at Home - with Each of the Participant Children and by Each of the Children

Each family expressed interest in educating the youngest members of the family bilingually. Also, in all families, the oldest siblings and at least one member of the family were bilingual. But the language of everyday conversation at home was dictated by the native language of the parents. In addition, attending or not attending child care before or at 3 years of age had an impact on the focus children’s language development in two languages.

Josefina Cortés’s Language Input

In the Cortés’s home, Josefina’s input at home was mostly in Spanish until she was about 3 years of age. Conversation at home between the three members of the family and the researcher was always in Spanish, and according to the parents, it reflected what was going on at home on a daily basis even when the immediate family was with other family members, who were also Spanish speakers, on weekends. Josefina watched TV in Spanish with her mother - for example, a soap opera that Mrs. Cortés watched when she had time in the evening. Also, during Josefina’s first two years, she spent time each year in the Dominican Republic (about a month) with her Spanish-speaking family. Since the age of 2 until 2½ years, she attended, for about 5 hours a day, a family child care program where she was addressed in Spanish.

During this time, Josefina also received input in English at home. At age 16 months and until she was 2 years of age, she watched approximately 3 hours of TV cartoons in English, often alone and at times with her family. English was also used at home to teach Josefina numbers, letters, greetings (hello, bye bye), and manners (thank you). Some words in English such as Pampers, yummy, yes, hi, oh man, and I love you were often used when the conversation was in Spanish. At 2½ years of age, Josefina attended a different child care program for at least 8 hours a day, and, at her mother’s request, she was addressed in English. Also, when Josefina initiated conversations in English, which started at age 3 years 4 months, the tendency was for her father, at times, and especially her brother, to respond in the same language.

Josefina Cortés’s Use of Two Languages

Josefina’s use of each language went from initiating her interactions exclusively in Spanish to using English almost exclusively, even when she was addressed in Spanish. At 16 months, Josefina spoke a few words in Spanish: papi (dad), mami (mom), pipí, (pee), Etete (name that she gave to her brother), and in English: hi and hello. She also tried to talk by saying ei, ei, and then when anybody in the room paid attention to her, she would make unintelligible noises with the intonation of asking a question or making a statement. She was also able to repeat words in English (e.g., oh man, thank you, yummy, Pampers) and Spanish (mimí for dormir (sleep), mua, mua for un beso (a kiss), and qué lindo! (how nice), but she did not use these words on her own.

At 2 years of age, she had added several words to her vocabulary in Spanish - hola (hello), jugo (juice), io for sucio (dirty), chichí (baby), pan (bread), sopa (soup), vamos (let’s go), mimí for dormir (sleep), leche (milk), and qué lindo! (how nice). She now called her brother Tete and used a sentence in Spanish - "Qué te cae!" [sic] (You are going to fall down) - and would tell her father, “Papa bye, bye.” She also used English, for some numbers, and she could say oh man, thank you, Pampers, and I love you. Until Josefina was 3 years and 4 months of age, she continued adding vocabulary in Spanish and English, but she initiated the conversation in Spanish and used some sentences in English such as “What is this?”; “Open your mouth”; “Oh my God!”; “Give me”; “I did it”; and “Let’s go”; and she sang some songs like “Happy Birthday.”

The shift to initiating interactions more often in English than in Spanish was clear when I arrived for one of my last visits. Josefina’s mother was not yet at home, and Josefina said to me at the door, “Mommy is coming soon.” Mr. Cortés noticed this change and told me with surprise, “Ella habla más inglés por el day care, porque allí todo es en inglés. Aquí su madre le habla en español y yo también pero éste (por su hijo) no.” (She speaks more English because in the day care, everything is in English. Here [at home] her mother talks to her in Spanish and me too, but her brother does not speak to her in Spanish.) Josefina's next phase was to answer in English questions asked of her in Spanish or to continue a conversation in English that was initiated in Spanish. Josefina’s father described the new situation and told me, “Su mamá y yo que le hablamos en español pero ella contesta en inglés. Josefina no quiere hablar español y yo le digo que se lo voy a decir a Victoria.” (Josefina’s mother and I talk to her in Spanish, but she answers in English. Josefina does not want to speak Spanish, and I tell her that I am going to tell Victoria [the researcher].)

When she was 3 years 8 months old, I was reading aloud a story in Spanish about a little mouse. I asked her questions about the pictures, and she spontaneously volunteered some comments. This is the conversation in Spanish:

R: ¿Dónde tiene los dientes ella? (Where are her teeth?)

J: En la mouth. (In her mouth.)

R: ¿Dónde está el rabito? (Where is her tail?)

J: Right there.

While I am reading, she says on her own “got eyes.”

R: Sí tiene ojos ahí, sí y ¿qué más tiene? (Yes, she has eyes there, and what else does she have?)

She says something that I can’t hear.

R: Sí tiene una boca y ¿qué más tiene? (Yes, she has a mouth there, and what else does she have?)

J: Mouth.

R: ¿Qué es eso? (What is that?)

J: Mouth.

R: Esa es la nariz. (That is the nose.)

I continue reading in Spanish, and Josefina volunteers “is a house.”

At the beginning of the study, Josefina, age 16 months, initiated interactions and expressed her wants and needs using one-word utterances in Spanish. She also used some words in English. At the end of the study, at age 3 years 10 months, Josefina understood English and Spanish. But she initiated interactions more often in English than in Spanish, and she would usually respond in English to questions or conversations initiated in Spanish. She also stated some letters, shapes, and most colors in English and some numbers in English and in Spanish, and she sang songs such as “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star,” the “ABC Song,” and “The Wheels on the Bus.”

Kayla Jiménez’s Language Input

For Kayla, the main linguistic input at home was in English. Kayla’s mother, father, and older sister were fluent in English, and English was the language of daily interaction and communication. However, Kayla also received daily input in Spanish. Kayla was cared for by her great-grandmother, who, especially at the beginning of the study, always addressed Kayla in Spanish. Conversation between Kayla’s great-grandmother and the researcher, by the way, was always in Spanish - the language her great-grandmother was more comfortable with. Also during the visits, the TV set in the living room was always on Spanish-language channels. When Kayla wanted to watch TV, she would ask her great-grandmother to turn on the TV in her bedroom, and she would watch cartoons in English. But she watched her favorite cartoon Dora the Explorer in Spanish every Saturday. Also Kayla’s mother and sister addressed her sometimes in Spanish. For example, Mrs. Jiménez stated that she always reprimanded and comforted her daughters in Spanish. Kayla’s sister was more reluctant to talk to her in Spanish because she did not understand why she had to talk to her sister in Spanish if Kayla spoke English. But she would address her great-grandmother in Spanish, especially if the great-grandmother did not understand her in English. In addition, at age 3, Kayla started attending child care where, at her mother’s request, one of the caregivers taught her the numbers, colors, and shapes in Spanish.

The input in Spanish provided by Kayla’s great-grandmother somewhat decreased as Kayla started using more English than Spanish. She had a tendency to use the words that she knew in English to make sure that Kayla understood her. Yet, most of the input that Kayla received in Spanish was from her great-grandmother. I made an effort to try to talk to Kayla in Spanish, but it was difficult to always answer in Spanish when Kayla expressed her wants and needs always in English.

Kayla Jiménez’s Use of Language

During the first 7 months that I observed Kayla, when she was between 15 and 22 months of age, she used words in English and Spanish - but more in Spanish than in English. Words in Spanish included ela or bela for abuela (grandmother), mama (mommy), linda (beautiful), aquí (here), nada (nothing), mimí for dormir (sleep), agua (water), más (more). In English, she said daddy, nice, jush for juice, eat, no more, and my friend. After 22 months of age, Kayla started using two-word sentences in English, and her English improved in terms of the use of new words and longer sentences. At age 22 months until age 30 months, she continued using a few words in Spanish such as bela or buela for abuela (grandmother), titi (auntie), pan (bread), de nada (you’re welcome). After 30 months of age, Kayla did not use words in Spanish while the researcher was visiting. By that time, she systematically continued a conversation in English that was initiated in Spanish. At age 3 years 4 months, Kayla understood English and Spanish but basically spoke English and a few words in Spanish. Kayla’s mom compared Kayla’s proficiency in Spanish with her sister’s and stated that, when Kayla was addressed in Spanish, she would always answer in English. Her sister, however, would answer in the language in which she was addressed, Spanish included, especially if she knew that her interlocutor did not speak English.

Thais Velázquez’s Language Input

At the onset of the study, Spanish was the language used in Thais’s home to communicate; Mrs. Velázquez spoke only Spanish, and her older children were fluent in it, too. The TV set in Mrs. Velázquez bedroom, where Thais slept and spent many hours, was always on Spanish-language channels. Thais’s siblings talked to each other more often in English than in Spanish; music and TV in their bedroom was always in English, but they always addressed their sister in Spanish until Thais turned 3½. Thais was also in contact with other family members such as uncles, aunts, and cousins, as well as friends who always addressed her in Spanish.

Thais also received input in English. From the time she was 2 until she was 3½, she was cared for by her mother. Thais watched Barney, her favorite TV show, in English every morning. She was observed watching Barney videos over and over again. She also enjoyed the cartoons Tom and Jerry, Scooby-doo, and occasionally Power Rangers and Sponge Bob Square Pants.

When Thais was about 3½ years old, her mother started working and tried to enroll her in a prekindergarten class. Thais was not admitted because no spaces were available, and she was cared for by several babysitters who addressed her in Spanish and by a family friend. The friend’s three grandchildren - a 4-year-old girl and twin 8-year-old boys - addressed her in English. Thais spoke Spanish with the babysitter but played in English with the children, especially the 4-year-old girl. She also watched cartoons, Dora the Explorer, and Franklin.

Also, Thais’s older brother told the researcher that he had started talking to her in English and Spanish to get her ready for school because, according to him, “Now most parents talk to their kids in English so if she [Thais] goes to school only speaking Spanish she is like an outcast.”

Thais Velázquez’s Use of Language

At the beginning of the study when Thais was 2 years 6 months, she always expressed her wants and needs in Spanish. She tried very hard to involve the researcher and her brothers in playing ball and in hide and seek, her favorite games. She screamed “Dame la bola” (Give me the ball) when she was not getting the ball as fast as she wanted and encouraged the player to send it back to her saying pújalo instead of empújala (push it). She showed her toys with pride - “Mira lo que yo tengo” (Look at what I have) and was eager to show that she could ride the tricycle saying “¿Tú quieres que yo monte mi bicicleta?” (Do you want me to ride my bicycle?). She watched soap operas in Spanish and asked questions about the show such as “¿Verdad que Tony Montán está muerto?” (Is it truth that Tony Montan died?) or stated, “Acabó Juan José” (Juan José is over) meaning that the soap opera was over. Thais also showed interest in shows in English and asked her brother to change the channel to Scooby-doo saying, “Yo quiero Scooby-doo” (I want Scooby-doo). She also was observed at 2 years 8 months saying thank you when she was given something.

At 3 years of age, Thais was really confident in her ability to speak Spanish to the point that she tried to correct the researcher. I asked her, “¿Tu no tienes calor así vestida?” (Aren’t you warm dressed like that?) And she told me, “Eso no se llama vestido se llama falda” (That is not called a dress, that is called skirt.) She did not know that vestida means dressed and heard vestido (dress) instead. Between 3 years and 3 years and 6 months, Thais continued speaking mostly Spanish, and according to her mother, she was not really talkative until she was 3 years of age. She spoke Spanish well except for some words like bochando for abrochando (to button up), bibirón for biberón (baby’s bottle), estógamo instead of estómago (stomach), and she made mistakes such as “Mami me poní chancletas” instead of “Mamá me puse chancletas” (Mom, I put on my slippers) and dicio instead of dijo (he/she said).

From 3 years 6 months to 4 years of age, Thais was a fluent speaker of Spanish with the typical mispronunciation of certain words, “Yo tengo una bahía” instead of “Yo tengo una herida” (I have a wound) and grammatical errors such as “Anoche tu vas a venir” (Last night you will come) instead of “Mañana tu vas a venir” (You will come tomorrow).

She was also aware that she spoke Spanish and of the phonological differences between the Spanish that the researcher spoke and the Spanish that she spoke. For example the researcher said to her that Dora, the main character in Dora the Explorer, spoke Spanish, and Thais said, “Yo también” (Me too). Thais was having lunch and said that the food had sasón (seasoning); the researcher said sazón (using a th pronunciation for the z), and Thais said no, sasón.

During this time, she added several words to her vocabulary in English. She often used please, sleep, closet, I am sorry, yellow, you're welcome, bye bye, and ice cream, which she pronounced ice quis. She also sang two songs: “Happy Birthday” and “I Love You.”

At 4 years of age, Thais used sentences such as “What are you doing?”; “You can’t see me I can’t see you”; “Stop talking to me, funny”; “What hand is the ball in?”; “Look, look I fly.” She continued playing hide and seek but in English.

It was difficult for the researcher to evaluate Thais’s proficiency in English because she always interacted in Spanish. However, by the time that Thais was 4 years 6 months old, according to her mother, “Thais ahora habla en español y en inglés” (Thais now speaks Spanish and English). Also Thais passed the English test administered by the New York City Department of Education and was placed in a monolingual English kindergarten class at age 5. Thais’s mother told me that Thais spoke English when she was enrolled in kindergarten because of her interaction with the babysitter’s grandchildren more than for what she had learned with her brothers. This experience contributed to her ability to pass the English test of the New York City Department of Education.

Discussion

This study revealed some strategies used to promote bilingualism in the homes of young children, how these strategies were implemented, and the kind of exposure to two languages that these children had when they attended school. However, the results cannot be generalized to all young Latino children being educated bilingually because of the small number of participants and how they were selected and because the participants were all female and the youngest in their families.

Each family had a different pattern of language use at home, dictated, in part, by the linguistic characteristics of each of the members of the family, especially the mother and father. During the first two years of life, Josefina and Thais were addressed in Spanish almost exclusively because that was the language that the parents spoke the most competently. In contrast, although Kayla’s mother and sister were bilingual, she received most of her input in English because her father did not speak Spanish. However, during the first two years of life, Josefina and Thais received some input in English and Kayla received some input in Spanish. Josefina and Thais were exposed to English through watching cartoons on TV and also through speaking with their siblings, who spoke English. Kayla’s exposure to Spanish came through her great-grandmother, who took care of her and spoke mostly Spanish to her.

The data, however, suggest that as the three participants grew older and their proficiency in English improved, the input provided to two of the participants in Spanish diminished and so did the opportunity to become balanced bilinguals. At the end of the study, the three participants understood English and Spanish. Josefina spoke English and Spanish only when prompted, Kayla spoke only English, and Thais was fluent in both languages.

The results of this study suggest that in order to raise bilingual children, families need to make sure that the children receive adequate exposure to each of the languages. Speaking the minority language at home may not be enough, not only because when children start going to school or to child care the time at home decreases, but also because once children learn English, they are more motivated to speak the majority language than the minority language. Therefore, in order to raise children bilingually, the minority language may have to be supported outside the home, for example, in the community and in the schools (Genesee, 2008).

The ideal learning situation would be to enroll the child in a dual-language program. The lack of early childhood bilingual programs underscores the cultural and political climate of our country regarding bilingualism and may explain, in part, the academic difficulties of school-age English language learners who are not given the support and time to learn two languages (Gándara & Rumberger, 2009; Garcίa & Scribner, 2009). Bilingualism in early childhood, however, can be supported in programs that, as recommended by the NAEYC (1995), respect and value minority languages and cultures. Early childhood programs can show that they respect and value the native language of young children by implementing a number of strategies:

Addressing the negative attitudes that personnel may have about minority languages, given society's misunderstandings regarding bilingualism.

Informing parents and teachers about the advantages of bilingualism and the challenges of becoming bilingual.

Encouraging parents, siblings, and extended family to speak the native language at home.

Providing materials such as books, music, and videos in the different languages.

Hiring personnel who speak English and the minority languages represented in the center.

Using the minority languages not only to translate when parents do not speak English but also in the classroom.

Providing parents and teachers with knowledge about first- and second-language acquisition and the time most children need to attain academic proficiency in English.

Making teachers and parents aware of what research has shown regarding how proficiency in one’s native language supports English language learning.

Parents who express interest in their children being bilingual may not be aware of the challenges that the children face in order to maintain two languages. This study suggests that parents need to be made aware of the challenges that they face if they want their children to be proficient in two languages, as well as ways of addressing the challenges at home, in school, and in the community (Rodríguez, 2008).

References

1- Bialystok, Ellen. (2001). Bilingualism in development. Language, literacy, and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

2- Crawford, James. (1999). Heritage languages: Tapping a “hidden” resource. Retrieved February 9, 2010, from http://www.elladvocates.org/heritage/Crawford_Heritage_Languages.pdf

3- Gándara, Patricia, & Rumberger, Russell W. (2009). Immigration, language, and education: How does language policy structure opportunity? Teachers College Record, 111(3), 750-782.

4- Garcίa, Eugene E., & Scribner, Kent P. (2009). Latino prek-3 education: A critical foundation. In Francisco A. Villarruel, Gustavo Calvo, Josefina M. Grau, Margarita Azmitia, Natasha J. Cabrera, & T. Jaime Chahin (Eds.), Handbook of U.S. Latino psychology: Developmental and community-based perspectives (pp. 267-289). Los Angeles: Sage.

5- Genesee, Fred. (2008). Early dual language learning. Zero to Three, 29(1), 17-23.

6- Hamers, Josiane F., & Blanc, Michel H. (1995). Bilinguality and bilingualism. New York: Cambridge University Press.

7- King, Kendall, & Mackey, Alison. (2007). The bilingual edge: Why, when, and how to teach your child a second language. New York: Harper Collins.

8- Kuhl, Patricia, & Rivera-Gaxiola, Maritza (2008). Neural substrates of language acquisition. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 31, 511-534. Retrieved February 9, 2010, from http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.neuro.30.051606.094321

9- National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1995). Many languages, many cultures: Respecting and responding to diversity. Washington, DC: Author.

10- Office of Head Start. (2008, February). Dual language learning: What does it take? Dual language report. Retrieved February 9, 2010, from http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/ecdh/eecd/Individualization/Learning %20in%20Two%20Languages/DLANA_final_2009%5B1%5D.pdf

11- Rodríguez, M. Victoria. (2008). How to support bilingualism in early childhood. Texas Child Care Quarterly, 32(3), 24-29.

12- Schieffelin, Bambi B., & Ochs, Elinor (Eds.). (1986). Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge University Press.

13- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

14- Wolcott, Harry F. (1994). Writing up qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15- Yoshida, Hanako. (2008). The cognitive consequences of early bilingualism. Zero to Three, 29(2), 26-30.

Author Information

M.Victoria Rodríguez, Ed.D., is an associate professor in the Departments of Early Childhood and Childhood Education, as well as Counseling, Literacy, Leadership, and Special Education at Lehman College, the City University of New York (CUNY). She received her doctoral degree in education, with a specialization in early childhood special education and bilingual education from Teachers College, Columbia University. Her research interests include home language and literacy experiences of Dominican/Latino children with and without disabilities, and how to incorporate their home experiences into the school curriculum. She is also interested in the professional lives of Latino paraprofessionals as well as preservice and inservice teacher attitudes toward inclusion.

M. Victoria Rodríguez

Lehman College

City University of New York

250 Bedford Park Boulevard West

Bronx, NY 10468-1589

Email: maria.rodriguez@lehman.cuny.edu