ECFE IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE

Chapter 1: Concept & History

Chapter 1: The Concept and History of Early Childhood Family Education

Program Origin

In the mid-1970s, most state governments were not yet making policy connections between the care and education of young children from birth to age five and their performance in elementary school and beyond. Ahead of its time, the 1974 Minnesota Legislature began the piloting of Early Childhood Family Education with an appropriation of $230,000 for six local programs.
Today, the program is available statewide, serves over 310,000 parents and children annually, and is the largest and oldest program of its kind in the nation. The pilot legislation was spearheaded by Senator Jerome Hughes, then chairman of Minnesota’s Senate Education Committee. Senator Hughes has a doctoral degree in education administration and grounded the legislative intent for the Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE) programs in research linking the quality of children’s development from birth to kindergarten with later school success.

Oversight for the early pilot programs was entrusted to the Minnesota Council on Quality Education (CQE), established by the 1971 Minnesota Legislature to provide a source of state funds for research and development in public education. With a majority of gubernatorial appointees from each of the state’s congressional districts supplemented by representatives of designated educational organizations, CQE seemed to be an appropriate “home” for the fledgling pilot programs. Assisting CQE with this responsibility was a legislatively mandated Advisory Task Force for ECFE, which included a majority of parents of young children, plus representatives from the fields of health, education, and welfare. Staff for the Council and Task Force were located within the Minnesota Department of Education. In 1983, after initial development by CQE, responsibility for program administration was transferred to Community Education for statewide implementation. Further details on program development are provided in the History section of this chapter.

Concept

Early Childhood Family Education is designed for parents and their children ages birth to kindergarten enrollment. The programs recognize the home is a child’s first learning environment and parents are their children’s primary and most influential teachers. The mission of ECFE is to strengthen families and enhance the ability of all parents to provide the best possible environment for the healthy growth and development of their children. Since all parents need information and support to raise healthy children, participation is not restricted by income level or special need. ECFE does not provide child care or duplicate other available community services. ECFE staff identify and work closely with public and private community organizations to connect participating families with other resources they may need.

The goals of Minnesota’s Early Childhood Family Education programs are:

1. Parent-child relationships support the child’s development in:

• physical well-being and motor development,
• social and emotional development,
• approaches to learning (e.g., curiosity, persistence, attentiveness, reflection, interpretation, imagination, invention),
• language development and communications skills, and
• cognition and general knowledge.

2. Parents* understand the importance of what they do with their children and how it changes over time.
3. Parents have the knowledge and realistic expectations to anticipate and meet the developmental needs of their children.
4. Parents demonstrate sensitive and responsive care and interaction with their children.
5. Parents and children experience a smooth transition from early childhood programs and services into kindergarten and the larger school system.
6. Parents are involved in their children’s learning and education in the school-age years.
7. Families participate in formal and informal social networks in their communities that support effective parenting.
8. Families are knowledgeable about and appropriately use community resources.

• The word “parents” includes all individuals who function in a primary parenting role.

Implementation

Each ECFE program is administered through its local school district and designed with the assistance of an advisory council, composed of a majority of parents plus other community representatives. Licensed parent educators and early childhood teachers offer program activities in school buildings, homes, shopping centers, public libraries, health clinics, apartment buildings, homeless shelters, faith facilities, and other community sites. Parents and children participate together, typically for about two hours per week throughout the school year. Some school districts provide additional activities over the summer months. ECFE is voluntary, both for school districts to offer and for families to participate. Program offerings are available for a nominal cost on a sliding fee basis, with fees reduced or waived for those unable to pay.

Each program generally includes three central components for children and parents:

1. Parent and Family Education offers adults opportunities to share helpful ideas and alternative approaches to common parenting challenges with other parents of similar age children, often creating long-term friendships in the process. Licensed parent educators facilitate parent group discussion, while offering research-based information on child development, discipline, and practical strategies for parents to promote the healthy development of their children into capable adults. Activities include ongoing group discussions on topics selected by parents, workshops, field trips, speakers on specific topics, and information on and referrals to other community resources. In addition to age-specific groups, programs offer sessions for families with common concerns, such as single parents, teen parents, parents of children with disabilities, English language learners, and others.

2. Early Childhood Education enables children ages birth to kindergarten enrollment to participate with their peers in play and learning activities carefully planned and staffed by licensed early childhood teachers and trained paraprofessionals. Since young children learn by playing and interacting with the people and objects around them, special attention is paid to the activities, toys, and room arrangement in the early childhood classrooms. These are all designed to meet the social, emotional, physical, and intellectual needs of very young children. Early childhood education is held concurrently with center-based parent education sessions and offered for mixed-age groups or for children of specific ages, with sibling care provided.

3. Parent-Child Interaction allows parents to observe their children interacting with other children in the early childhood classroom, to observe other families with similar age children, and to participate with their children in enjoyable learning experiences. A portion of every session is usually planned for interaction between parents and children in the early childhood classroom, before or after parents join a discussion group with other parents. This parent-child interaction includes simple activities easily duplicated at home, as well as hard-to-set-up-and-clean-up activities. All activities are designed for learning and provide opportunities for parents and children to relax and have fun together.

Other program offerings may include early referral to screening and/or assessment for children’s health and developmental problems; special events for the entire family; home visits; and libraries of books, toys, and other learning materials. Program options are locally selected and based on community needs.

ECFE is a universal program. All parents with children aged birth to kindergarten enrollment living within a school district offering an ECFE program are eligible to participate. ECFE is not just for “income-eligible” families. This characteristic distinguishes Early Childhood Family Education from other family programs designed for “target” populations, such as Head Start. Although ECFE is designed to serve all families with children from birth to kindergarten enrollment, different families clearly have different resources and needs. Programs often design specific sessions for families, such as for parents of infants, immigrant families, fathers, single parents, teen parents, parents of children with special needs, and others. Each ECFE program identifies the demographics of eligible families in its service area and, using special outreach and program delivery strategies, attempts to reach a representative cross-section of those families.

Rationale

ECFE begins at birth because research demonstrates that the quality and quantity of children’s experiences during the years before formal school entrance are highly related to how children learn and perform in school and beyond. Brain research confirms that the first three years are a critical period in a child’s development, especially in the areas of language, social skills, and the roots of intelligence. An infant’s daily interactions with caregivers actually determine the structures of neural pathways in the brain. The challenges of caring for very young children are best met by informed parents who have friends, resources, and positive connections in their communities. These early years are also a time when most parents are receptive to information and support.

Parents are an integral focus of ECFE because research shows that early childhood programs involving both parents and children are more effective than programs focusing exclusively on children. Research also confirms that children whose parents are involved from early on in their education and learning are more successful in school. Changes in society underscore the need for a program such as ECFE. The high mobility of American families means adults are often far from family and friends during their parenting years. High divorce and remarriage rates create a growing number of single parent and stepparent families. Economic pressures result in more families in which both parents are employed and in more families of young children living in poverty. Currently, Minnesota is receiving a new wave of immigrant families from all over the world. These factors, combined with the general complexity of modern life, create intense stress on families of all income levels.

History

The Council on Quality Education (CQE) administered the grant-funded ECFE pilot programs from 1974 to 1983, carefully monitoring and evaluating their quality and short- term outcomes. During that time, the appropriation grew from $230,000 for six programs to $1.8 million for 36 programs. This growth during the pilot phase was difficult and hard-won. Parents hosted legislators in local programs, wrote letters, made telephone calls, and testified in legislative hearings about the importance of ECFE for Minnesota families. School superintendents also testified to legislators, while a survey of kindergarten teachers reported that children who participated in ECFE were better prepared for school and had more actively involved parents.

In 1978, pilot program staff worked with national evaluation expert Dr. Michael Q. Patton to develop the first version of the Quality Indicators for Early Childhood Family Education Programs to be used for program evaluation and planning. These quality indicators have been revised and expanded several times and are still in use today. Although CQE was unsuccessful in obtaining the funds it sought from a variety of sources for a comprehensive, longitudinal outcome evaluation, ECFE’s high quality implementation and potential for positive long-term outcomes were documented in a wide variety of formative evaluations. See Chapter 12 in this Guide for details on program evaluation. This evidence, combined with high levels of parent satisfaction and parent advocacy over the 10 year pilot period, proved to be convincing.

In 1983, the Minnesota Legislature transferred ECFE funds and administrative responsibility from CQE to Community Education and requested a study of potential funding formula options. After reviewing the findings of this extensive study, the 1984 Legislature adopted a funding formula for statewide implementation of ECFE based upon the birth to four-year-old population, a voluntary local levy, and corresponding supplementary state aid. Between 1984 and 1986, ECFE expanded from 29 to 253 school districts. Within 10 years of the shift from pilot status to state program, over 99 percent of school districts were choosing to offer ECFE. By 2000, more than 310,000 parents and children were participating in the program at a combined state and local cost of over $39 million. ECFE now involves more young children and their families than any other publicly sponsored early childhood program or service in Minnesota.

Between 1984 and 1990, a statewide regional inservice training network was established, two new parent education licenses were developed to complement the existing early childhood teaching licenses, and the first two editions of this Guide were written and distributed to all school districts. State ECFE curriculum and evaluation committees were formed and created a comprehensive resource guide and instruments and strategies for ongoing data collection. In 1987, an Evaluation Round Table featured nationally known researchers Drs. Irving Lazar, Douglas Powell, and Heather Weiss in an intensive evaluation discussion with ECFE program staff and administrators. The statewide School Readiness program for three and a half- to five-year-olds (initially named Learning Readiness and designed for four-year-olds), grounded in ECFE experience and philosophy, was established by the 1991 Legislature. The 1997 Legislature allocated a two-year appropriation for ECFE Infant Development Grants, which heightened emphasis on programming for infants and toddlers. All of these efforts continue today and are revised as needed. Although it has not kept pace with inflation, the per capita funding (based on 0-4 population) has gradually increased over the years, from $79.25 in 1986 to $120 in 2001.

Minnesota’s Early Childhood Family Education program has also garnered national attention over the past 25 years. ECFE has been recognized as a significant and well implemented state program by the Harvard Family Research Project, CBS Sunday Morning, the PBS program “To the Contrary,” the U.S. Department of Education, the Carnegie Corporation, the Cornell Empowerment Project, Vanderbilt University authors in the book Strengthening Families, the National Community Education Association, the Education Commission of the States, the United States General Accounting Office, the Civitan International Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and others. Government officials and private entities in other states frequently look to Minnesota’s ECFE program as a model for program and policy development in their own states and communities.

Demographics of ECFE Participants

The demographics of families who participate in ECFE are generally representative of all Minnesota families of children ages birth to kindergarten enrollment. During the 1999-2000 school year, employed parents constituted almost 60 percent of all participants, and families of color constituted over 14 percent of participants statewide and 45 percent in the metropolitan areas of Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth. Twenty-four percent of all families had household incomes of less than $30,000; 14 percent had incomes under $20,000; and over seven percent had incomes under $10,000. In the metropolitan areas, these statistics were 50 percent, 40 percent, and 27 percent respectively. Single parents constituted over 16 percent of all participating families and over 33 percent in the metropolitan areas. Almost half of all eligible children in Minnesota (ages birth to kindergarten enrollment), or 45 percent, participated in ECFE during 1999-2000.

Lessons Learned From the Growth and Development of ECFE in Minnesota

1. Begin slowly on a small scale and carefully evaluate the process before extending the program statewide.
2. Encourage creation of permissive legislation that emphasizes community-based programs with options for local implementation within clearly stated philosophy and guidelines.
3. Offer choices to parents in program delivery. Each local program should address the specific needs of families in its community.
4. Assume all families have strengths and work with them in an atmosphere of mutual respect and responsibility.
5. Make the program available to all families with young children to avoid the potential segregation, stigma, and labeling frequently associated with targeting populations.
6. Provide strong state coordination and leadership.
7. Create quality standards and encourage program self-assessment.
8. Continue state-level evaluation of program processes and outcomes.
9. Create or revise state teaching licenses and/or training programs appropriate for parent and early childhood educators.
10. Collaborate with other programs and resources in the community that serve families with young children.
11. Form strong relationships with school personnel and policymakers within the K-12 portion of the school system to provide a continuum of learning and parent involvement.

Parent Reactions to ECFE

Since parents are the primary consumers of program services, their comments about Early Childhood Family Education serve as the best illustration of the program concept. The consistency is clear when comparing the results of ECFE interviews conducted with 130 participating parents in 1977 and with 183 parents in 1991.

• Parents emphasized the importance of sharing views with other parents; establishment of mutual support groups; learning about child development and parenting skills; providing social interaction and stimulation for their child; integrating the child into the school; and having access to toys, books, new ideas, and health screening. (Patton, 1977, p. 48)
• After participating for one year in ECFE, parents reported five overall change themes:

1. Increased feelings of support from others, knowing they are “not alone” in their feelings and experiences and that other parents have the same problems and concerns;
2. an increased sense of confidence and self-esteem as a parent;
3. increased knowledge, awareness, and understanding about children and child development and the parental role in relation to child development;
4. (resulting in) changed perceptions and expectations for themselves as parents and for their children; and
5. changes in behavior. (Cooke, March 1992, p. 1)

References

Cooke, B. (March 1992). Changing times, changing families. Minnesota early childhood family education parent outcome interview study. Summary. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Education.

Hobbs, N., Dokecki, P., Hoover-Dempsey, K., Moroney, R., Shayne, M., & Weeks, K. (1984). Strengthening families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Patton, M. Q. (1977) An external review of early childhood and family education pilot programs. Minneapolis: Minnesota Center for Social Research.

Appendices

1A History of Minnesota Early Childhood Family Education: Program Development
1B Guiding Principles, Mission, and Goals of Minnesota Early Childhood Family
Education

Appendix 1A: History of ECFE

Fiscal Year

1973 - 1st ECFE bill introduced in Senate. Full-state; 1/10 per pupil unit from foundation formula. Did not pass.

1974 - 2nd ECFE bill in Senate — basically identical. Passed Senate; failed House. Compromise to draft Council on Quality Education (CQE) to pilot six programs with $230,000 passed in conference committee. Subsequent discussions with both education committee chairs to identify intent — pilot and report back; three year grant limit not contemplated.

1974 - Program size doubled by Senate; approved by conference committee; 12 local grants with $500,000. Little policy discussion; some parent testimony.

1977 - Conference committee approved increase to 22 sites at $854,000 per year as proposed by the State; House concern about policy issues evident and requirement included a study to be presented by January 15, 1979.

1979 - Policy study review during regular session; CQE recommendation to begin gradual expansion to 40 sites negotiated to 36, expecting federal monies to pay for the other four. Appropriation increased to $1.5 and $1.8 million in next biennium. CQE recommendation to start development of a formula to which proven programs could be shifted from grants was tabled; House conferees felt this needed more time for review. No action on Council request for $20,000 to begin long-term data collection effort. CQE staff began preparation of proposal for federal funding; declined on technicality (Dept. required that CQE staffer be named as principal investigator, although nationally known researcher had agreed to do work — State contracting requirement).

1981 - Staff revised 1979 policy study and presented to Legislature. Little discussion legislatively; preoccupation with growing revenue crisis. Document reiterated recommendation for shifting programs from grants to a formula, confining CQE's role to start-up assistance with new operations. Repeated recommendation for support for gathering of long-term data. Appropriation cut 24 percent for FY 82-83 biennium.

1982 - Secured passage in February of provision in Senate aids bill that would begin pilot conversion of experienced programs to variation of foundation aids formula; provision excised in Finance Committee. Evaluation tabled first half of year. Second half, CQE Evaluation Committee instructed preparation of long-range evaluation plan that would over-come funding and technical problems with longitudinal research, and energize other researchers without State funds. Preparation of plan initiated in December after several conceptualizing meetings, due in March, 1983. Council rendered formalizing effort at July seminar.
 
1983 - New legislation shifted funds and responsibility for ECFE programs to Community Education; changed funding basis from grants to per capita aid. $819,000 allocated to CQE for FY '84 transition grants, (equivalent to approximately 60% of previous year's funding) to be combined with Community Education per capita aid of $.25 in districts which had CQE Early Childhood Family Education programs. Other districts were encouraged to develop or expand ECFE programs but could use the per capita aid for any other community education programs. $.50 per capita aid allocated for FY '85 would be only state aid for ECFE. CQE, with assistance of State Board, mandated to report on review of funding formulas to Legislature by February 15, 1984.

1984 - Internal MDE work group studied funding options described in report to Legislature. Legislation, sponsored by Senator Hughes, passed in April, replaced the $.50 per capita aid in FY '86 with a variation of the foundation aid formula and provided supplemental aid for existing CQE programs in FY '85 (enabled 14 CQE programs to survive which otherwise might not). The new aid/levy formula commences with school year 1985-86. Formula is based upon $79.25 times 0-4 population with levy of .4 mill. CQE programs continue in 29 school districts; an estimated 41 additional districts adopt ECFE. Guide for Developing Early Childhood Family Education Programs disseminated to all school districts in Minnesota.

1985 - Districts could exercise ECFE levy authority for the first time in October; 253 levy. Regional in-service training network established. Teacher licensure task force recommends two new teacher licenses. Introductory course developed; proposed State Board of Education Rules are circulated for review and comment and Guide for Designing the Children's Learning Environment is disseminated to all districts. 1985 Legislature increases levy to .5 mill. Approximately 70 districts have programs in operation; many more involved in planning and outreach.

1986 - First year of program implementation under statewide funding formula; 253 districts have programs. Funding based upon $79.25 times 0-4 population, includes $6,534,000 levy and $6,170,700 state appropriation. Curriculum and evaluation committees are formed. Department of Education reports to Legislature on study of programs to meet the developmental needs of 4 and 5 year old children and on past evaluations of Early Childhood Family Education. 279 districts levy for ECFE.

1987 - Although 279 districts officially levied for ECFE, 300 school districts are involved in ECFE programming. State appropriation of $6,028,600 and levy of 9,028,881 equals $l5,887,920, formula based upon $79.25. Evaluation Round Table at Spring Hill with Irving Lazaar, Douglas Powell and Heather Weiss heightens evaluation focus. Harvard Family Research Project focuses on program as one of "pioneering" states. Curriculum committee compiles comprehensive resource guide. Long term data collection effort is established. Two new teacher licenses are adopted.

1988 - 310 school districts have ECFE programs. 290 districts levied $10,720,788; state aid equals $7,539,867 for total of $18,260,655; formula based upon $84.50 times 0-4 population. (Approximately 20 districts are providing programs with carryover funds from earlier years or other sources.) Minnesota program is featured on "CBS Sunday Morning" and in National Community Education Journal. Statewide promotional materials are developed by business-education partnership with advertising agency. Harvard Family Research Project (Mott grant) concentrates on 9 sites to study relationship of Community Education and ECFE. Program is featured at Education Commission of the States (ECS) Conference in St. Louis.

1989 - 326 school districts have ECFE programs. These districts levied $10,641,955; prorated state aid equals $8,124,400 for total of $19,766,355. 150,000 children and parents participated in program. Minnesota program is showcased at U.S. Department of Education Conference in Washington, D.C. and participates in National Colloquium on Early Childhood Policy at Annapolis. ECFE initiates "Early Childhood Vision Sharing" one day workshops which attract 800 participants statewide. Minnesota Legislature appropriates $25,000 for the biennium for program evaluation, authorizes hiring of second professional staff and increases funding to $85.45 and $87.75 for FY 90 and 91 respectively.

1990 - 340 school districts, encompassing 96% of the 0-4 population, implement ECFE programs. Funding includes $13,727,605 levy and $9,726,074 state aid for a total of 23,453,679. More than 175,000 parents and children participate. A forms manual and skill progression handbook are developed; the Guide for Developing Early Childhood Family Education Programs is revised and disseminated to all districts. Program is featured at National Parent Involvement in Education Conference at Charlotte, NC. The Legislature appropriates $450,000 for ten grants for expansion of ECFE to include Kindergarten to grade 3 children and their parents.

1991 - 365 school districts, encompassing more than 97% of the 0-4 population, implement ECFE. Funding includes $13,817,700 levy and $10,549,000 prorated state aid for a total of $24,366,700. More than 213,000 parents and children participate. Legislative support for the program is strong. Revenue is increased from $87.75 per 0-4 population to $96.50 for FY 92 and $101.25 for FY 93. Administration of Way to Grow initiative transferred from State Planning Agency to MDE. Legislature establishes Learning Readiness program with lead responsibility assigned to MDE. Both Way to Grow and Learning Readiness concepts based on ECFE experience and philosophy.

1992 - 384 school districts encompassing more than 98% of the 0-4 population implement ECFE. Funding includes $14,620,000 levy and $12,370,000 state aid for a total of $26,990,000. Legislature appropriates $1.60 per 0-4 population for ECFE home visiting/violence prevention training as part of comprehensive violence prevention initiative. Changing Times, Changing Families: Minnesota Early Childhood Family Education Parent Outcome Interview Study is completed and disseminated.

1993 - 380 school districts encompassing 99.6% of the 0-4 population levy to implement ECFE. Funding includes $17,529,000 in local levy and $13,633,000 in state aid for a total of $31,162,000. Legislature continues the ECFE home visiting/violence prevention effort with $1.60 per 0-4 population in state aid for FY 94 and new levy for FY 95. $10,000 is appropriated for each year of the biennium for evaluation of Early Childhood Family Education. The McKnight Foundation awards $150,000 for evaluation of program outcomes, with emphasis on identifying strategies that work best with low income, disadvantaged children within a universal access collaborative program model.

1994 - 379 school districts encompassing more than 99% of the 0-4 population levy to implement ECFE. Funding includes $17,642,000 in local levy and $14,544,000 in state aid for a total of $32,186,000. Home visiting revenue for 1994-95 and subsequent years is derived from a levy established for this purpose in 1993. Data is collected in fall of 1994 and spring of 1995 for McKnight Changing Times, Changing Families — Phase II evaluation study.

1995 - 369 school districts encompassing more than 99% of the 0-4 population levy to implement ECFE. Funding includes $18,194,300 in local levy and $14,267,900 in state aid for a total of $32,462,000.

1996 - 360 out of 362 school districts encompassing more than 99% of the 0-4 population levy for and implement ECFE. Funding includes $18,080,200 in local levy and $14,044,200 in state aid for a total of $32,124,400 statewide. Changing Times, Changing Families — Phase II: Immediate Outcomes of Lower-Income Participants in Minnesota’s Universal Access Early Childhood Family Education evaluation study funded by The McKnight Foundation is completed and disseminated at several state and national conferences. The study receives award for “best evaluation” from the American Evaluation Association (AEA) and is published in American Journal of Evaluation.

1997 - 350 school districts are offering the program to more than 99% of 0-4 population. The formula with maximum revenue at $101.25 per 0-4 population generates $18,197,600 in levy and $13,575,200 in state aid for a total of $32,492,800. The Legislature increased future program funding by 9.8% for FY 98, an additional 2.2% for FY 99, allocated $2,000,000 for ECFE Infant Development Grants and designated $100,000 of the ECFE aid for early childhood technology grants.

1998 - 350 out of 353 districts levy to implement ECFE programming with maximum revenue increased to $111.25 per 0-4 population. Funding includes $20,237,500 in local levy and $14,993,280 in prorated state aid (including special one-time aid related to 1997 formula change) for a total of $35,230,780 statewide. Early Childhood Family Education Infant Development grants awarded to 174 school districts and 21 programs receive early childhood technology grants. Legislature allocates $250,000 for ECFE-Head Start joint programming grants. As part of a simplification process, the levy for ECFE is lowered from .653% to .45% adjusted net tax capacity (ANTC) resulting in a funding ratio of approximately 50% state aid: 50% local levy.

1999 - 344 out of 347 school districts levy to implement ECFE programming with maximum revenue increased to $113.50 per 0-4 population. Funding includes $23,762,535.03 in local levy and $13,786,999.00 in prorated state aid for a total of $37,549,534.03 statewide.
The legislature appropriated an additional $2.46 in state aid per 0-4 population to bring the per capita total to $115.96 for FY 00. In addition, the revenue factor of $113.50 was increased in the funding formula to $120 per child for FY 02 and thereafter. The increase to $120 was initially intended to begin in 2001; however, a calculation error discovered during conference committee negotiations resulted in lack of funds in the committee budget to allocate for this purpose, leaving a gap in funding for 2001 unless corrected next year. The levy rate is changed to .5282% of adjusted tax capacity (ATC) and legislature mandates CFL to develop plan for integrating child care and early childhood education programs and services. Report due January 15, 2001 must include budget recommendations, proposed legislation and recommendations for financial incentives to programs providing cooperative services.

2000 - 343 out of 347 districts levy for ECFE. Formula sets maximum revenue per resident age 0-4 at $115.96, $113.50 from the formula supplemented with $2.46 additional state aid. Funding includes $18,346,349 in levy and $20,786,666 in state aid for a total of $39,133,015 statewide. Parents advocate strongly for correction of funding gap. Legislature votes to continue $2.46 in supplementary aid for one more year.

2001 - 338 out of 343 districts levy for ECFE. Formula sets maximum revenue per resident age 0-4 at $120. Funding includes $21,027,000 levy and $20,758,000 state aid for total revenue of $41,785,000 statewide. ECFE was one of three early childhood programs studied by the Office of the Legislative Auditor. The January 2001 report included a recommendation that school district ECFE fund balances be limited and closely monitored. In response, the Legislature established a reserve account limit of 25 percent and a process for reducing the excess through reallocation to other eligible ECFE programs.
The report on a plan for integrating child care and early childhood programs and services, as required in 1999 legislation, was presented in January. Despite substantial discussion, the proposed legislation and recommendations were not included in the final omnibus bill.

The Guide for Implementing Early Childhood Family Education Programs was revised for the third time and disseminated to all programs. Special workshops were held to discuss the Guide and present the newly developed Early Childhood Family Education Program Enhancement Process and disseminate the Early Childhood Family Education Program Enhancement Process Manual.

2002 - 338 of 343 districts levy for Early Childhood Family Education. Formula sets maximum revenue per resident age 0-4 at $120. Statewide revenue of $41,799,695 is comprised of $21,011,220 in levy authority and $20,788,475 in state aid entitlements.
A waiver application process is implemented for school districts anticipating ECFE reserve closing 6/30/2002 fund balances exceeding the new statutory limit of 25 percent of 2002 current revenue in cases of “extenuating circumstances.” The governor’s supplemental budget proposes cutting all but $500,000 in ECFE state aid and allowing each school district to levy to retain current funding level. No cuts are passed by the legislature and state aid for ECFE remains unchanged.

2003 - 336 of 343 districts levy (01-pay02 levy cycle) for Early Childhood Family Education. Formula sets maximum revenue per resident age 0-4 at $120. Statewide revenue of $42,062,901 (before penalty adjustments for excess fund balances) is comprised of $22,081,659 in levy and $19,981,242 in state aid entitlements. Aid and levy of districts with 2002 fund balances exceeding the statutory limit are reduced by a total of $1,650,879. Statutes call for the aid portion of these penalty adjustments to be reallocated to districts without excess reserves; however, the Governor instead uses the aid recovered to help reduce the state’s budget deficit. The excess fund balance penalty adjustments to aid entitlements are accompanied by pro-ration, reducing aid entitlements by an additional $124,297, to $19,102,326. Governor’s unallotments—additional cuts to balance the state’s budget—reduce FY03 aid payments by another $36,801.

Governor Pawlenty presents a 2004-2005 biennial budget plan to the legislature that proposes reductions in ECFE funding of $10.825 million (29.7% statewide) in the second year, FY 2005. The Governor’s new formula would set revenue at $120 times the estimated number of children age 0-4 from families eligible for the free or reduced price lunch program and $65 per capita for the balance of the district’s population age 0-4. Estimated reductions in revenue to individual districts range from 2% to 46%, depending on percentage of a district’s K-12 pupils eligible for free or reduced price lunch. The proposed budget also recommends repeal of the statute reallocating aid reductions taken from districts with excess fund balances to other ECFE programs.

The 2003 legislature maintains the ECFE formula but reduces the amount of revenue per resident age 0-4 from $120 in FY 2004 to $96 in FY 2005, a 20% reduction. The amount of total program revenue generated by local levy remains at $22.135 million. New language encourages programs to target services to families of children age birth to three if funding is insufficient to serve all children, and to refer parents to other public and private programs for four and five year old children. Teacher licensure language remains unchanged despite attempts by MCEA to reduce requirements. Legislation continues fund balance limit of 25%, eliminates reallocation of recovered state aid, thus returning aid reductions to the General Fund. Expanded coordination language requires districts to describe their coordination strategies.

2004 - Approximately 288,000 children and parents participated in Early Childhood Family Education.

335 of 343 districts certify a levy for ECFE (02-pay03 levy cycle). Formula sets maximum revenue per resident age 0-4 at $120. Statewide revenue of $42,226,440 (before penalty adjustments for excess fund balances) is comprised of $22,155,316 in levy and $20,071,124 in state aid entitlements. Aid and levy of districts with 2002 fund balances exceeding the statutory limit are reduced by a total of $618,226.

Parent Involvement in Kindergarten and Third Grade Education: What Former Participants in Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE) and Other Parents Report study released. Study funded by Minnesota Department of Education and consortium of 13 school district ECFE programs including Anoka-Hennepin, St. Paul, Eden Prairie, Forest Lake, Hopkins, Robbinsdale, Chisago Lakes, Hermantown-Proctor, Jackson County Central, Mankato, North Branch, Shakopee, and St. Francis and conducted by the University of Minnesota Center for Survey Research and evaluator Marsha Mueller.

A new UFARS object code is created (object 120 – Early Childhood/School Readiness/Adult Basic Education Administration/Supervision), to distinguish Early Childhood Family Education and School Readiness coordinator salaries from administrators’ salaries (coded in UFARS under object code 110 – Administration/Supervision), to monitor the 5% statutory limitation for 110 administrative costs.

2005 - Approximately 145,600 parents and approximately 125,900 children participated in a range of Early
Childhood Family Education activities.
338 of 343 districts certify a levy for ECFE (03-pay04 levy cycle). Formula sets maximum revenue per resident age 0-4 at $96. Statewide revenue of $33,695,000 (before penalty adjustments for excess fund balances) is comprised of $21,855,000 in levy and $11,840,000 in state aid entitlements. Penalty adjustments of districts with excess ECFE reserve fund balances reduce their FY 2005 revenue by $501,586.
The 2005 legislature increases the ECFE formula rate to $104 per resident age 0-4, effective for FY 2006 revenue.

2006 - Approximately 150,955 parents and approximately 132,479 children (duplicated counts) participated in Early Childhood Family Education activities.
Formula sets maximum revenue per resident age 0-4 at $104. Statewide revenue of $36,376,000 (before penalty adjustments for excess fund balances) is comprised of $21,765,000 in levy and $14,611,000 in state aid entitlements.
The phrase “and other relatives” is added to “parents” in Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 124D.13, subdivision 2, Program characteristics. For example, programs to educate parents and other relatives…

2007 - Approximately 145,394 parents and 128,917 children (duplicated counts) participated in Early Childhood Family Education activities.
Formula sets maximum revenue per resident age 0-4 at $112. Statewide revenue of $39,921,000 (before penalty adjustments for excess fund balances) is comprised of $21,957,000 in levy and $17,964,000 in state aid entitlements.
A purpose was included in the amendment to Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 124D.13, subdivision 1. “The purpose of the early childhood family education program is to provide parenting education to support children's learning and development.”
“Program characteristics” in Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 124D.13, subdivision 2, was changed to “Program requirements.”

2008 - During the 2007-2008 school year, 335 of 340 school districts offered ECFE. Approximately 145,246 parents and 126,367 children (duplicated counts) participated in Early Childhood Family Education activities.
Formula sets maximum revenue per resident age 0-4 at $120. Statewide revenue of $43,433,000 (before penalty adjustments for excess fund balances) is comprised of $21,993,000 in levy and $21,440,000 in state aid entitlements.

2009 - Approximately 162,580 parents and 127,832 children (duplicated counts) participated in Early Childhood Family Education activities.
Statewide revenue of $43,684,000 (before penalty adjustments for excess fund balances) is comprised of $30,202,000 in levy and $13,482,000 in state aid entitlements.
Early Childhood Family Education programs still have to report annual data, but the proposed biennial plan requirement is removed from the final bill. (Minnesota Statutes 2009, section 124D.13, subdivision 13)

2010 - Approximately 128,062 parents and 122,123 children (unduplicated counts) participated in Early Childhood Family Education activities.
Statewide revenue of $43,634,000 (before penalty adjustments for excess fund balances) is comprised of $21,738,000 in levy and $21,896,000 in state aid entitlements.

Appendix 1B: Mission, Goals & Guiding Principles

MISSION OF MINNESOTA EARLY CHILDHOOD FAMILY EDUCATION

The mission of Early Childhood Family Education is to strengthen families through the education and support of all parents* in providing the best possible environment for the healthy growth and development of their children.

GOALS OF MINNESOTA EARLY CHILDHOOD FAMILY EDUCATION

1. Parent-child relationships support the child’s development in:

• physical well being and motor development,
• social and emotional development,
• approaches to learning (e.g., curiosity, persistence, attentiveness, reflection, interpretation, imagination, invention),
• language development and communication skills, and
• cognition and general knowledge.

2. Parents* understand the importance of what they do with their children and how it changes over time.
3. Parents have the knowledge and realistic expectations to anticipate and meet the developmental needs of their children.
4. Parents demonstrate sensitive and responsive care and interaction with their children.
5. Parents and children experience a smooth transition from early childhood programs and services into kindergarten and the larger school system.
6. Parents are involved in their children’s learning and education in the school-age years.
7. Families participate in formal and informal social networks in their communities that support effective parenting.
8. Families are knowledgeable about and appropriately use community resources.
*The word “parents” includes all individuals who function in a primary parenting role.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

ABOUT FAMILIES, PARENTS, YOUNG CHILDREN AND COMMUNITIES FOR MINNESOTA EARLY CHILDHOOD FAMILY EDUCATION

ABOUT FAMILIES:

• The family provides the young child’s first and most significant learning environment. The foundations for healthy child development depend on the relationships and environment created by the family.
• In contemporary America, families have different social, emotional, intellectual, and physical needs.
• The community and society in which families live effect their capacity to raise children. When basic needs are unmet, a family’s ability to raise children is compromised.
• Positive social networks are important to family life.

ABOUT PARENTS:

• Raising young children is challenging.
• Parents need knowledge and skills to effectively raise their children.
• All parents have strengths for raising children.
• Parents of young children, regardless of life circumstance, can benefit from education and support in their role as parents.
• Parents are their children’s first and most important developmental influence.
  • Parents and children influence each other, and these influences change over time.
  • The quality of the parent-child relationship is crucial to a child’s development.
  • The quality of a parent’s self-esteem is strongly related to the quality of a child’s self-esteem.
• If parents are involved in their children’s early education and development, they are more likely to continue their involvement in subsequent years.

ABOUT YOUNG CHILDREN:

• The first five years of a child’s life are important years in their own right and are critical to future physical, intellectual, social and emotional development.
• A secure attachment between parent and child is essential to a child’s optimal development.
• Young children learn by interacting with the people and objects in their environment.
• Play is essential to the physical, intellectual, social and emotional development of young children.
• Early identification and treatment of children’s developmental delays and disabilities provide opportunity for such conditions to be addressed.
• Children whose parents are involved in their education are more likely to reach their potential in school.

ABOUT COMMUNITIES:

• Healthy families conserve and contribute to community resources and add to the quality of life for all.
• Child abuse and family violence rates are lower in communities with strong family support.
• Prevention and early intervention are more cost-effective than remediation of negative family outcomes.
• Schools are more effective in educating children when parents are involved.
• Communities have a responsibility to care about all children and families.

Chapter 2: Research Base for ECFE

Chapter 2: The Research Base for Early Childhood Family Education

by Roxanne Keen, Columbia Heights ECFE

Rationale

In 1994, the Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children identified several “starting points” for positively influencing children’s early growth and development. In introducing their first starting point of promoting responsible parenthood, they describe parenting as follows.

Perhaps nothing we humans do is more relentlessly demanding; nothing calls on a wider range of physical and emotional capacities. To parent a child entails at least two decades of sustained attention; many see it as a lifetime commitment. At the same time, if parents are to acquire the resources they need to support their children, they must work, usually outside the home. Balancing these responsibilities is never easy. For all these reasons, the challenges of parenthood are daunting, but its rewards go to the core of what it means to be human – intimacy, growth, learning, and love… . it is difficult to imagine an enterprise that has greater impact on public life – on the productivity of our citizenry, the vitality of our culture, and the strength of our public institutions. (Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1994, p. 25)

Based on this description of parenting, we could ask why policymakers would question the need to provide information and support to parents as they strive to raise healthy and competent children. Parents who attend parent education programs with their children say the programs enable them to parent more effectively and sensitively. Although parent testimonials are important, they are not sufficient evidence that parent education is a necessary and worthwhile investment of precious community resources. Approximately 30 years after the emergence of systematic examination of parent education’s theoretical foundations and actual programs, the resulting findings and ongoing development of more effective and reliable measurement methods have succeeding in placing parent education on a firmer empirical foundation. This chapter summarizes parent education research as it relates to the need for parent education, theories underlying program design and implementation, and evidence of program effectiveness.

Defining Terms

Because the field of parent education is so diverse, it is challenging to find a single definition of parent education. For purposes of this chapter, parent education will refer to “programs, support services, and resources offered to parents and caregivers that are designed to support them or increase their capacity and confidence in raising healthy children” (Carter, 1996, p. 6). Parent education includes a wide range of models with varying goals and strategies practiced in many different settings. Vehicles for providing parent education include handbooks and manuals; self-help and support groups; parent- child activities; parenting courses; home visits; popular books; magazines; and computer, television, and radio programming. Settings may include schools, homes, hospitals, health care facilities, child care centers, churches, family centers, universities, and mental health agencies (Wandersman, 1987). The goals of programs also vary dramatically, from improving health habits of pregnant women, preventing juvenile delinquency, and improving children’s school performance, to improving families’ economic situations.

Diverse goals stem, in part, from different approaches to providing parent education. Child-focused programs, often called early childhood or early intervention programs, have as their main goal to promote changes in children by working directly with them, while offering a parent education component for their parents. Parent-focused programs are often stand-alone programs that seek to create change in parents in order to positively affect their children’s development. Parent-child programs, such as Minnesota’s Early Childhood Family Education programs, combine these focuses to promote development of both parents and children. Family support programs are a more recent phenomenon and refer to programs that offer a wide range of services to support families, including parent education. Two-generational programs, in addition to offering a parent education component, offer services addressing many aspects of children’s and parents’ development. Services may include high quality child care, preventive health services, GED (General Equivalency Degree for adults without a high school diploma) education programs, and employment assistance. Although their emphases and approaches differ, all of these programs are considered parent education based on the definition stated earlier, because they support parents in the interest of healthy child development.

The Need for Parent Education

Why is parenting so important? The case can be made on many levels. First, a child is dependent upon its parents for the essential ingredients of life: food, clothing, shelter, health care, nurturance, and love. Second, parents shape a child’s attitude, confidence, and skills in engaging the world. How a child learns to balance freedom and responsibility, learns to solve problems, develops an eagerness for learning, a sense of self, and forms values are all dramatically shaped by parents. Thus, how well prepared parents are for this level of responsibility is of critical importance. (Carter, 1996, p. 9)

This intuitive rationale for parent education is supported by a growing body of empirical evidence that preparation for parents is helpful and needed.

A recent survey of 3,000 adults conducted by Zero to Three, Civitas Initiative, and the Brio Corporation (Lally, Lerner, & Lurie-Hurvitz, 2001) examined how well parents are prepared to positively influence their children’s development. The survey found significant information gaps among parents on important parenting issues including how children develop, how adults best support children’s development, realistic expectations of children, and the effectiveness of physical punishment. For example, 61 percent of adults surveyed said they approved of spanking as a “regular form of punishment” (p.50) for young children while research indicates it is detrimental to a child’s development. One of the key sponsors of the survey concluded that adults need more and better information about child development delivered in more accessible ways.

Beyond recognizing that parenting is, under any circumstances, a critical and demanding job, researchers in the parent education field have shown that today’s parents are carrying out this responsibility under conditions increasingly hostile to healthy family functioning. Regardless of their socioeconomic status, parents have always needed and sought support for the demands of parenting – from their own parents, extended family, other parents, and resources in the larger community. Increasingly, however, this support network for parents is being eroded by major demographic changes in our society, leaving families much more isolated than in the past. These changes include dramatic increases in family mobility, dual-career families, single parent families, and teen parents, often combined with gaps in health care coverage and fragmented, violence-ridden communities.

These changes are producing effects that point to an even greater need for parent support in today’s world. Nearly 75 percent of women with children under 18 work outside the home, including 54 percent of those with children under age five. In dual-employed and single parent families, parents have less time and energy for children. Parents report feeling “uncomfortable with the loss of family time, the overload and exhaustion that interfere with good parenting” (Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1994, p. 13). Parents who are working long hours and often weekends say they are very frustrated they cannot be with their children to maintain family life and teach their children how they want them to live (Kurz-Riemer, 1998).

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only 68 percent of American children lived with two parents in 1998, down from 88 percent in 1960. In 1998, almost a quarter of our nation’s children lived in single parent families. This dramatic increase in children living with only one parent is due to a higher rate of births to unmarried mothers, an increased divorce rate, and more separated parents. Children living with one parent are at increased risk for negative outcomes because single parent families tend to have fewer social, emotional, and financial resources (Bronfenbrenner & Neville, 1994; Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). The rise in single parent families, combined with changing economic and political forces, contributes to another disturbing trend – the increasing number of families living in poverty. According to the Children’s Defense Fund, nearly half of all Americans living in poverty are children (Carter, 1996), and the official poverty estimate in 1995 reports that almost 21 percent of all U.S. children (14 million) were poor (Lewit, Terman, & Behrman, 1997).

Poverty is one of the major stressors that put families and children at risk of negative outcomes. A recent review of parent education programs discusses this relationship.
Low income and other social stressors associated with poverty set in motion a series of processes that disrupt parents’ well-being, the tone of their marriage, and the quality of their relationships with their children. This cumulative disruption in many central aspects of family life increases the risk that boys and girls will develop … behavior problems at home and at school. (Cowan, Powell, & Cowan, 1998, p. 41)
Researchers have shown a correlation between family income and children's well-being. Poor children are more likely to experience poor health and even die in childhood, score lower on achievement tests in school, be retained a grade, drop out of school, have out- of-wedlock births, and experience violent crime (Betson & Michel, 1997).

Although poverty is associated with more stresses on families, there are signs that families at all socioeconomic levels are experiencing higher levels of strain and distress (Cowan, Powell, & Cowan, 1998). At the same time that supports for raising children are shrinking, many parents are finding parenting today more challenging and complex than ever before. They cite challenges such as the pressures on children to grow up faster, the earlier onset of sexual activity, and the need to help children understand serious social problems such as HIV-AIDS (Carter, 1996). Parents also report it is very difficult to shield their children from negative societal influences such as drugs, gangs, violence, and casual sex and violence in media and new technology (Kurz-Riemer, 1998).

Research explored later in this chapter reinforces two concepts related to the above challenges.

• Children's healthy development depends on consistent, interpersonal interactions between the child and one or more adults who have a strong, enduring emotional relationship with the child, usually the child's parents. The conditions under which American families at all economic levels are currently living make it much more difficult for these crucial relationships and interactions to take place (Bronfenbrenner & Neville, 1994).
• Parent education support and effective parenting both act as buffers, improving parents’ ability to cope with stressors and maintain more positive, satisfying relationships with their children (Cowan, Powell, & Cowan, 1998).

Considering these concepts, it is reasonable to conclude that all parents are likely to benefit from support and information.

Research Base for Parent Education

The rationale for parent education is drawn from two bodies of research: (a) the development and testing of theories in areas relevant to parent education such as human development, family functioning, and social relationships; and (b) evaluation of parent education programs that indicate program outcomes and the processes by which they are achieved. Whether articulated or not, parent education programs base their focus, goals, expected outcomes, and practices on assumptions about how people develop and what brings about change. At the same time, theories are continually being developed and revised based on program evaluation findings (Erickson & Kurz-Riemer, 1999). In this way, the two bodies inform each other and create an increasingly compelling case for parent education.

Research on Theories Underlying Parent Education

The evolution of the narrower, child-focused family programs of the 1960s into today’s broader family support programs that address multiple aspects of family life mirrors the evolution of the field's theoretical base. Theories underlying parent education programs increasingly emphasize the complex and multi-directional processes involved in healthy family functioning and child development as reflected in the following summary.

Social Relationship Theory. Family relationships are powerful influences on children’s development and their ability to be successful in the world (Carter, 1996). Building on important early research by Bowlby, Ainsworth, and Fraiberg, one of the ways this theory has been examined is through the study of attachment (Erickson, Kermacher, & Egeland, 1992). Focusing on the infant-parent and toddler-parent relationship, attachment is defined as a pattern of interaction that develops over time as the infant and caregiver interact. Secure attachment requires a sensitive and responsive caregiver that is able to interpret a child's cues and who responds appropriately.

Family programs based on attachment principles have shown that interventions with mothers generate measurable, positive effects on parents, children, and the quality of their interactions (Cowan, Powell, & Cowan, 1998). For example, The University of Minnesota's Parent-Child Interaction Project followed children from birth through adulthood, finding that a history of responsive care and secure attachment was associated with a number of developmental outcomes for both parents and children. Mothers participating in the program had lower depression and anxiety scores. Compared to non- participating mothers, they showed more ability to manage their daily lives and provide a stimulating and organized home environment for their children. Children who did not have secure attachments as infants or toddlers were more likely to be disobedient, aggressive, and/or socially withdrawn later in childhood, to have troublesome relationships with peers, and to be less motivated and persistent in their learning (Erickson & Egeland, 1999).

Two additional programs working with parent-child attachment (the Family Development Program at the University of California-Los Angeles and the Infant-Parent Psychotherapy Program at San Francisco General Hospital) identified similar and additional positive effects among many program participants. Parents showed increased empathy and interaction with their children, toddlers scored higher on measures of quality of partnership with their mothers, and toddlers who had entered the program with signs of insecure attachment showed more signs of secure attachment after one year in the program (Cowan, Powell, & Cowan, 1998).

Critical Period of Early Childhood. Children's healthy development is especially important and vulnerable during early childhood. Early theoretical work supporting this idea was carried out by researchers such as Bowlby, Watson, Piaget, and White (Karoly et al., 1998). A growing body of program effectiveness research is based on that foundation and shows that work with families while children are young has the potential to minimize and even alleviate later problems in the life of family members (Cowan, Powell, & Cowan, 1998). The attachment research cited above is one area of research showing that improvements in the environment in which young children are raised have significant and long-lasting effects on children’s performance and experience later in life.

Recent discoveries about how the human brain develops during the early years have added solid evidence to support the idea of an early critical period in human development. Advances in the fields of molecular biology and neuroscience over the last decade have allowed scientists to study how the brain develops and to measure the actual impact of the environment on brain function. Their research suggests these key findings:

• Extensive and extremely rapid brain development takes place in the first year of life. Images of the brain show that the brain of a one-year-old resembles that of a young adult in important structural ways (Chugani, 1997). Although brain cell formation is nearly complete when a baby is born, the formation of connections among those cells takes place largely during the first year of life (Huttenlocher & Dabholker, 1997).
• Brain development is very vulnerable to stimuli in the environment. Brain scan studies on animals have shown changes in the brain structure and function resulting from variations in early experience. Neurobiologists are close to confirming the finding in human infants (Shore, 1996). Maternal substance abuse and insufficient nutrition before birth are known to impede brain development, potentially causing neurological and behavior disorders (Rakic, Bourgeois, & Goldman-Rakic, 1994).
• Early stress has a negative impact on brain function. Researchers have shown that a stressful social environment activates hormones that negatively affect (possibly permanently) brain function, including learning and memory (Gunnar, 1996). Their findings provide further evidence for what has been shown in conventional studies as well – that children who experience stressful early environments are more likely than other children to develop cognitive, behavioral, and emotional difficulties (Perry, 1996).

Ecological Theory of Human Development. Human development is influenced by a combination of internal programmed growth patterns, inherited temperament, and environment. Interaction and influence between these domains occurs in many directions and on many levels. Early theories portraying development as a process taking place largely "within" a person have given way to what is often called the "ecological" view of development most commonly associated with Bronfenbrenner (Carter, 1996). According to this view, the forces influencing development are located in the child, in other family members and their relationships with the child and each other, and in family members’ interactions with individuals and institutions outside the family. These multi-level and multi-directional processes can be seen in this example.

A child is born; the couple reorganizes itself to accommodate the child; the child then accommodates herself, in part, to the parents’ expectations; the new three- person configuration stabilizes until one of its members changes again and a new process of reorganization is initiated, followed by a new period of stability, etc. (Weiss & Jacobs, 1988, pp. 479-480)

This description illustrates another element inherent in an ecological view of development. Throughout a child’s developmental years, parents are also in a process of development (Cowan, Powell, & Cowan, 1998). At the same time parents are having to develop effective parenting strategies to accommodate changes in children, they are also having to adapt to changes in their own lives, stemming either from changes in their child or other life events. Systematic studies have documented how parents’ difficulties adjusting to disequilibrating changes may negatively affect their children’s development. Fortunately, there is also considerable evidence demonstrating buffering effects of family programs that reduce or eliminate this occurrence. For example, the Becoming a Family Project at the University of California, Berkeley offered a parent support program for couples expecting their first child. Compared to a control group, the project found the following results among participating couples: greater general happiness with family roles and division of labor, higher marital satisfaction, and lower separation/divorce rates 18 months into parenthood – all aspects of parents’ lives that have been shown to influence children’s development (Cowan, Powell, & Cowan, 1998).

Social Support. The availability of social support to parents often buffers them from the effects of stressors that might otherwise strain the parent-child relationship and adversely affect children’s development (Cowan, Powell, & Cowan, 1998). Social support may include:

• emotional support (empathy, caring, concern, listening);
• instrumental or direct support (in-kind services, money, time, labor);
• informational support (advice, suggestions, information); or
• appraisal support (affirmation or feedback) (Cooke, 1988).

Sources of social support are generally divided into informal social support such as one’s own parents, relatives/kin, friends, spouse/partner, co-workers, other parents, etc. and formal support that includes professional helpers, social agencies, physicians, social groups, parent groups, etc.

Based on this theory, family program design has increasingly included the goal of helping families develop and mobilize their own social support systems. According to systematic studies, developmental problems are less likely to occur in children whose mothers receive direct help and emotional support from other adults living in the home or from nearby relatives, friends, neighbors, and/or staff members of family support and child care programs (Bronfenbrenner & Neville, 1994). In other cases, the presence of social support for pregnant women and mothers of infants has been linked to better infant birth weights and more positive maternal-child interaction (Cleary, 1988).

An evaluation study of Minnesota’s Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE) program provides a clear example of parents reporting positive changes in their family life resulting from perceptions of increased social support. Parents attributed to their participation in the program “increased feelings of support from others, knowing they are ‘not alone’ in their feelings and experiences and that other parents have the same problems and concerns”; and “changes in behavior based on increased feelings of support from others.” (Cooke, 1992, p. ix)

Research on the Effectiveness of Parent Education Programs

The second body of research providing the rationale for parent education is evaluation of the effectiveness of actual parent education programs. This section seeks to add to the evaluation research already discussed above by citing additional program evaluation research organized around dominant goals of parent education programs – school readiness and success, prevention of child abuse and neglect, juvenile delinquency prevention, health and family functioning, and life circumstances. Short-term and long- term effects on children, parents, families, and society converge in these domains. The section concludes with a discussion of the benefits parent education programs may provide to the larger society.

Parent education is a relatively young field that has grappled with formidable challenges in evaluating its diverse and complex programs. The challenges stem primarily from the interconnected and multi-directional processes of family functioning and child development, multiple program goals, and imperfect measurement tools. Although this summary draws from systematic studies whose reliability and validity are generally accepted, it is important to recognize: (a) effects reported were not found in all program participants or in all programs referenced; (b) programs cited vary extensively in their underlying assumptions, goals, strategies, and evaluation methods; and (c) unless otherwise stated, effects indicate a correlational relationship, not a causal one. The common link among these programs is a shared mission of helping parents “increase their capacity and confidence in raising healthy children” (Carter, 1996).

The programs cited provided a wide array of services to families, typically some combination of center-based preschool classes and/or child care, prenatal and postnatal home visits, center-based parent groups, children's health screenings, case management, and information on and referral to community resources. Methods of assessing outcomes for participating family members generally include one or more of the following: intelligence and developmental assessment tools, interviews, reviews of school and public records, parent reports, teacher reports, observations, and health screening results.

The research presented in this section supports these important conclusions:

• When parents participate in parent education programs, their children’s behavior often changes in a positive direction (Cowan, Powell, & Cowan, 1998).
• Family programs that include a parenting component are often more effective than those that do not (Cowan, Powell, & Cowan, 1998; Gomby, Larner, Stevenson, Lewit, & Behrman, 1995).
• Programs that consider a wider range of child and parent outcomes and attempt to affect multiple aspects of individual and family life are generally more effective than more narrowly-focused programs (St. Pierre, Layzar, & Barnes, 1995; Cowan, Powell, & Cowan, 1998).

School Success and Peer Relationships. This category of effects is of particular importance because children’s negative early experience in school appears to set them on a negative trajectory (Cowan, Powell, & Cowan, 1998) and is correlated with problems later in life. Parent education programs that have documented success in achieving school performance and related goals are Arkansas’ Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY), the Perry Preschool Project, the Brookline Early Education Project (BEEP), and Missouri’s Parents as Teachers (PAT) Program. Collectively, systematic evaluations of these programs show positive outcomes for many participating children and parents compared to those in comparison groups. Some of these effects on children persist beyond preschool into elementary and secondary school and include:

• higher level of language development;
• higher cognitive abilities in math and reading;
• better attendance and grades in school;
• fewer assignments to special education or other remedial school services;
• less likelihood of being retained a grade;
• fewer classroom behavior problems;
• more time spent on homework;
• better social competencies related to school success (sharing, asserting rights appropriately, following directions, accepting limits, etc.);
• higher high school graduation rates; and
• less need for bilingual education services

(Pfannenstiel, Lambson, & Yarnell, 1996; Hauser-Cram & Shonkoff, 1988; Karoly et al., 1998).

The social-emotional skills listed above play a critical role in children’s ability to form friendships with other children, an important influence on a child’s development. Several studies have found that an inability to develop good peer relationships in early childhood may predict more serious problems in late adolescence and that parents play a critical role in helping their children develop the necessary skills. Study results show children are better at forming positive peer relationships when their parents: (a) teach them about appropriate social behavior, (b) provide opportunities for them to play with other children, and (c) promote high quality relationships with other family members (Cowan, Powell, & Cowan, 1998). Parents who participated in family programs more often show the following behaviors when compared with control groups. They:

• read and talk with their children more frequently,
• provide more appropriate play materials,
• interact with their children in more supportive and effective ways,
• feel more confident in their role as a parent,
• are more likely to be involved in their children’s education, and
• are more likely to view the school system more favorably

(Stief, 1993; Karoly et al., 1998; Gomby et al., 1995; Cooke, 1992).

Child Abuse and Neglect. Many parent education programs, such as Missouri’s PAT program (Pfannenstiel et al., 1996), have documented effects relating to lower rates of child abuse and neglect despite not designating this as a primary goal. Child abuse prevention is often a central goal of home visiting programs, and two recent reviews of home visiting program research (Brust, Heins, & Rheinberger, 1998; Gomby, Culross, & Behrman, 1999) reported successful outcomes. Compared to non-participating families in control groups, participating families:

• generated fewer substantiated reports of abuse,
• had more positive attitudes about parenting,
• used less harsh discipline methods,
• provided better home safety, and
• showed less domestic abuse and lower rates of children’s hospitalization or emergency room visits due to accidents.

Based on their investigations, researchers suggest that home visiting programs help identify families at risk for abuse or neglect and help reduce the risk of it occurring (Brust et al., 1998).

Juvenile Delinquency. A strong relationship between the preceding category and this one is illustrated by the findings of a recent study by the National Institute of Justice, finding childhood abuse raised the likelihood of future delinquency and adult criminality overall by 40 percent (Carter, 1996). A review of early childhood programs (Yoshikawa, 1995) indicates the following factors are regularly associated with juvenile delinquency: “a history of antisocial behavior in childhood, … perinatal difficulties, neurological and biological factors, low verbal ability, neighborhoods characterized by social disorganization and violence, parental criminality and substance abuse, inconsistent and/or harsh parenting practices, low socioeconomic status, and exposure to media violence” (p.53). Not surprisingly, Yoshikawa’s review shows the programs most effective in decreasing the risk of juvenile delinquency were those that addressed three broad categories of risk factors: (a) early cognitive development, (b) early parenting, and (c) life course variables.

According to the same review, the High/Scope Perry Preschool, the Yale Child Welfare Project, and the Houston Parent Child Development Center (PCDC), all conducted in the 1960s, are among programs that successfully addressed the important risk factors and demonstrate long-term effects related to delinquent or antisocial behavior. Longitudinal studies of these programs show that, compared with control groups, families participating in these programs generally show less antisocial behavior among children as rated by teachers and parents, less hostile and more considerate behavior as rated by teachers, and less severe and repeated involvement with the juvenile justice system into adulthood.

Family Health and Functioning. This category of effects relates to conditions that help parents create family environments conducive to children’s healthy development, from the mental and physical health of parents and other family members, to parenting attitudes and behaviors. Research cited in previous sections already supports the idea that the well-being of family members and the family as a whole significantly affects children’s development.

The Prenatal/Early Infancy Project is an example of a program that attempted to improve parents’ health with the assumption that it would, in turn, affect the health of their children. This nurse home visitation program, beginning prenatally and continuing through children’s second year, generated positive effects on children’s health and development and on the life-course development of their mothers. Compared to control groups, women in the program more often: (a) utilized health and human services, (b) improved their diets, and (c) had fewer kidney infections. Among participating adolescents and women who smoked cigarettes, there was a 75 percent reduction in pre-term deliveries, a significant improvement in the weight of their newborns, and a reduction in smoking among the cigarette smokers compared to non-participating mothers. Mothers receiving services also showed some positive differences in life-course development versus comparison group mothers, including fewer subsequent pregnancies and increased participation in the work force. Across all outcomes, effects were strongest among the women at greatest risk in the particular area (Olds, 1988).

Several program evaluations report effects on parent attitudes and behaviors that directly and indirectly affect children’s development. Programs such as the federally funded Parent Child Development Centers (PCDC) and Child and Family Resource Programs (CFRP), Missouri’s PAT program, Minnesota’s Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE) program, and the Yale Child Welfare Research Project have collectively found the following parental effects among program participants:

• a greater sense of control over one’s life,
• higher self esteem and coping,
• better problem solving,
• increased knowledge of child development,
• increased recognition of a parent’s role as the child’s teacher,
• better techniques to control children’s behavior, and
• less use of restrictive behavior and severe punishment.

Experience in a program offered at the Oregon Social Learning Center provides an example of parental changes influencing children’s outcomes. In addition to working directly with boys who showed seriously aggressive and antisocial behavior, the program also taught parents and gave them opportunities to practice strategies for providing consistent discipline and for encouraging more prosocial behavior in their children. Evaluation of the program found that when treatment was provided for the boys alone, it did not affect aggressive behavior, whereas boys receiving an identical treatment program, but whose parents received training, showed significant positive effects (Cowan, Powell, & Cowan, 1998).

Improved Life Circumstances. Positive program effects on life circumstances have been shown in both parents and children of families participating in family programs, particularly programs that provide high quality early childhood services for children and support for parents. Child-focused programs without parent education components have not been as successful in generating long-term effects (Yoshikawa, 1995). For parents these effects include fewer subsequent pregnancies, higher education levels completed, and greater economic self-sufficiency than comparison groups (Weiss & Jacobs, 1988). Investigators of the Yale Child Welfare Research Project found these effects among participating parents and suggest the program “enlarged parents’ personal aspirations, which then had positive consequences for adult development, family functioning and the quality of the parent-child relationship” (Weiss, 1988, p. 24). Longitudinal studies of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project show lasting benefits related to life circumstances of participating children. At age 27, children whose families participated in the program show higher monthly earnings, higher rates of home ownership, higher levels of education completed, less use of social services, and fewer arrests than comparison groups (Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikart, 1993).

Benefits to Larger Society. Benefits family programs provide to children and their families may be enough justification for the investment of public resources to fund these programs. However, some researchers have asked and investigated whether the benefits of family programs go beyond program participants to society at large, providing further justification for their public support. Two teams of investigators performed independent cost studies of early childhood/family support programs to examine whether “programs have the potential to save more money than they cost" (Karoly et al., 1998, p. 75). Recognizing the challenges of performing meaningful cost-savings analyses on multi- dimensional family programs and the limitations of current analysis frameworks, the investigators were still able to conclude that even very different programs “can generate significant savings to government that exceed their costs.” (Karoly et al., 1998, p. 100)

Both teams of investigators (Karoly et al., 1998; Schweinhart et al., 1993), working independently, found similar areas of savings for government:

• increased tax revenues;
• decreased welfare outlays;
• reduced costs for education, health, and other services; and
• lower criminal justice system costs.

Higher levels of employment and earnings among program participants also resulted in increased tax revenue. Because program participants used the social safety net less, the government paid less to recipients for programs such as Medicaid, Food Stamps, and general assistance as well as for special education services for their children, hospital emergency rooms, and homeless shelters. Criminal justice system costs were lower based on lower rates of arrest, adjudication, and incarceration for program participants. Benefits extend beyond government to members of society at large who, without the programs, might have been crime victims. They escape the associated tangible and intangible costs of property loss, medical expenses, lost income, pain, and suffering.

Conclusion

This chapter describes a promising and growing body of research on parent education. It is promising because of the increasing care with which programs are designed, implemented, and evaluated. It is growing because family program stakeholders are more and more often acting on their belief in the value of systematic program evaluation. As the research base develops in size and quality, meaningful findings are corroborated across programs and ultimately strengthened. This is encouraging to those involved in family programs because of acknowledged weaknesses in the literature during the field’s early history. Lacking adequate tools to assess and describe the complex web of family and community relationships programs sought to influence, early findings were often tentative and accompanied by cautions about their reliability and generalizability. Despite the obstacles, research on parent education continues to grow in sophistication and innovation, promising to continue illuminating what family education programs do and how they do it.

References

Betson, D. M., & Michael, R. T. (1997). Why so many children are poor. The Future of
Children, 7 (2), 25-39.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Neville, P. R. (1994). America’s children and families: An international perspective. In S. L. Kagan & B. Weissbourd (Eds.), Putting families first: America's family support movement and the challenge of change (pp. 3-27). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children, 7 (2), 55-71.

Brust, J., Heins, J., & Rheinberger, M. (1998). A review of the research on home visiting: A strategy for preventing child maltreatment. (Report prepared by the Research Subcommittee, Data and Research Committee, Health Care Coalition on Violence).

Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children. (1994). Starting points: Meeting the needs of our youngest children. (Report of the Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children). New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Carter, N. (1996). See how we grow: A report on the status of parenting education in the
U.S. Philadelphia, PA: The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Chugani, H. T. (1997). Neuroimaging of developmental non-linearity and developmental pathologies. In R. W. Thatcher, G. R. Lyon, J. Rumsey, & N. Krasnegor (Eds.), Developmental neuroimaging: Mapping the development of brain and behavior (pp. 187-
195). San Diego: Academic.

Cleary, P. D. (1988). Social support: Conceptualization and measurement. In
H. B. Weiss & F. H. Jacobs (Eds.), Evaluating family programs (pp. 195-216). New
York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Cooke, B. (1992). Changing times, changing families: Minnesota early childhood family education parent outcome interview study. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Education.

Cooke, B., Rossman, M. M., McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1988). Examining the definition and assessment of social support: A resource for individuals and families. Family Relations, 37, 211-216.

Cowan, P. A., Powell, D., & Cowan, C. P. (1998). Parenting interventions: A family systems perspective. In I. E. Sigel & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Volume 4: Child psychology in practice (5th ed., pp. 3-72). New York: John Wiley.

Erickson, M. F., & Egeland, B. (1999). The STEEP program: Linking theory and research to practice. Zero to Three, 20 (2), 11-16.

Erickson, M. F., Kormacher, J. & Egeland, B. R. (1992). Attachments past and present: Implications for therapeutic intervention with mother-infant dyads. In Development and Psychopathology (pp. 495-507). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Erickson, M. F., & Kurz-Riemer, K. (1999). Infants, toddlers, and families: A framework for support and intervention. New York: Guilford.

Gomby, D. S., Larner, M. B., Stevenson, C. S., Lewit, E. M., & Behrman, R. E. (1995). Long-term outcomes of early childhood programs: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children 5 (3), 6-24.

Gomby, D. S., Culross, P. L., & Behrman, R. R. (1999). Home visiting: Recent program evaluations – analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children 9 (1), 4-26.

Gunnar, M. R. (1996). Quality of care and the buffering of stress physiology: Its potential in protecting the developing human brain. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute of Child Development.

Hauser-Cram, P., & Shonkoff, J. (1988). Rethinking the assessment of child-focused outcomes. In H. B. Weiss & F. H. Jacobs (Eds.), Evaluating family programs (pp.73-94). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Huttenlocher, P. R., & Dabholkar, A. S. (1997). Regional differences in synaptogenesis in human cerebral cortex. The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 387 (2), 167-178.

Karoly, L. A., Greenwood, P. W., Everingham, S. S., Hoube, J., Kilburn, M. R., Rydell, C. P., Sanders, M., & Chiesa, J. (1998). Investing in our children: What we know and don't know about the costs and benefits of early childhood interventions. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Kurz-Riemer, K. (1998). Hopes & dreams, challenges & strengths: Minnesota parents talk about what their families value. St. Paul: Minnesota Association for the Education of Young Children.

Lally, J. R., Lerner, C., & Lurie-Hurvitz, E. (2001). National survey reveals gaps in the public’s and parents’ knowledge about early childhood development. Young Children, 56 (2), 49-53.

Lewit, E. M., Terman, J. D., & Behrman, R. E. (1997). Children and poverty: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 7 (2), 4-24.

Olds, D. (1988). Common design and methodological problems encountered in evaluating family support services: Illustrations from the prenatal/early infancy project. In H. B. Weiss & F. H. Jacobs (Eds.), Evaluating family programs (pp.239-265). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Perry, B. D. (1996). Incubated in terror: Neurodevelopmental factors in the “cycle of violence.” In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Children, youth, and violence: Searching for solutions. New York: Guilford.

Pfannenstiel, J., Lambson, T., & Yarnell, V. (1996). The parents as teachers program: Longitudinal follow-up to the second wave study. Overland Park, KS: Research and Training Associates.

Rakic, P., Bourgeois, J., & Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1994). Synaptic development of the cerebral cortex: Implications for learning, memory, and mental illness. In J. Van Pelt, M. A. Corner, H. B. M. Uylings, & P. H. Lopes da Silva (Eds.), The self-organizing brain: From growth cones to functional networks. Elsevier Science BV.

St. Pierre, R. G., Layzer, J. I., & Barnes, H. V. (1995). Two-generation programs: Design, cost and short-term effectiveness. The Future of Children 5 (3), 76-93.

Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V., & Weikart, D. P. (1993). Significant benefits: The high/scope perry preschool study through age 27. Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, No. 10. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.

Shore, B. (1996). Culture in mind: Cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Stief, E. (1993). The role of parent education in achieving school readiness (Report No. PS020032). Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 369 557)

Wandersman, L. P. (1987). New directions for parent education. In S. L. Kagan, D. R. Powell, B. Weissbourd, & E. F. Zigler (Eds.), America’s family support programs (pp.
207-227). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Weiss, H. B. (1988). Family support and education programs: Working through ecological theories of human development. In H. B. Weiss, & F. H. Jacobs (Eds.), Evaluating family programs (pp. 3-36). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Weiss, H. B. & Jacobs, F. H. (Eds.). (1988). Evaluating family programs. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Yoshikawa, H. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on social outcomes and delinquency. The Future of Children, 5 (3), 51-75.

Chapter 3: Curriculum Philosophy & Development

Chapter 3: Curriculum Philosophy and Development

Approach to Curriculum

Staff of the Minnesota Department of Education receive frequent queries from educators in other states asking: “What curriculum do you use? How can we replicate the Minnesota model?” The answers to these questions are complex, because Early Childhood Family Education does not use a single curriculum, and the program cannot be replicated by simply purchasing and obtaining training in that curriculum. The rationale for this is ECFE’s philosophy that families provide a child’s first and most significant learning environment and there is no single “right way” to parent children. If there is no one way to be a parent, there is no single curriculum that will meet the diverse social, emotional, intellectual, and physical needs of contemporary families. From the first pilot programs to today, ECFE has relied upon educated and experienced parent educators and early childhood teachers to deliver high quality programming using a broad and reputable variety of books, parent and early childhood curricula, journal articles, research findings, Internet resources, etc.

Working with Adult Learners

Parents choose to come to ECFE programs; the programs are voluntary. Material presented must be interesting, relevant, and concrete if parents are to keep coming. Parents also need to be informed about the goals of the program and class sessions so that they know what to expect from program participation. Because parents generally want to do the best they can for their children, parents are highly motivated learners. They want specific information that is applicable to their situations and readily useful. When they come to ECFE programs, parents bring their previous experiences with education, work, relationships, and their own childhoods, together with the conscious and unconscious emotions accompanying these experiences. Parents all have their unique learning and personality styles which influence how they prefer to take in and process information. Each parent comes with skills and knowledge to share. The challenge for ECFE educators is to recognize and tap this expertise and experience, encourage parents to learn from one another, and support and enhance the hard work parents do in raising their children.

It’s unlikely that any packaged curriculum, followed to the letter, will be able to effectively address the diverse needs and strengths of any group of parents. Using packaged curriculum exactly as instructed often excludes the invaluable input of parents and parent educators in planning and evaluating family education programming. The greater the opportunity for parents to influence curriculum topics and methods, the greater their learning is likely to be. Although adult learners often prefer a more relaxed, informal learning setting than that of traditional schools, they do want enough structure to feel their time is well spent when they attend programming. Along with encouraging and utilizing input from parents, ongoing tasks for ECFE educators are to:

• stay knowledgeable about current child development theory and research;
• be familiar with current resources for parenting and child development;
• weave theory and research findings into the rationale for child development strategies;
• organize learning material into a reasonable sequence;
• identify and elaborate upon key concepts;
• ensure that information is practical, useful, and culturally competent;
• offer information in a variety of participatory and engaging ways; and
• encourage parents and children to build connections and relationships with their peers.

All this is quite a challenge, but helps to explain why a significant number of ECFE staff have been working as parent and early childhood educators since the mid to late 1970s. Working with groups of parents and children is seldom boring, and skillful educators kindle and keep alive the joy of learning for parents, children, and themselves.

The following values are central to working effectively with parents.

• Respect for parents’ ability to judge their needs and to know what they want to learn leads to a parent-centered curriculum in which parents take responsibility for planning and directing topics for their weekly discussion group. Staff also shows respect for a broad range of values, cultures, and belief systems and incorporate this variety into the content and style of their programs, curriculum, written material, and presentations.
• Family educators must trust the ability of parents to take responsibility and make good choices for their own families. Telling parents how to live their lives or solve their problems leads parents to doubt their own abilities and undermines their self-confidence. In the end, it is up to individual families to parent effectively. Even parents with a history of abuse or neglect need to be treated as persons capable of responsible action.
• An important part of acceptance is realizing there are no “good” parents or “bad” parents.

All parents struggle with the demanding job of raising children, and everyone makes mistakes. Effective parent educators accept parents as fellow human beings who want to do the best they can, sometimes do terrific things with their children, sometimes don’t, and sometimes face so many barriers they feel overwhelmed and helpless.

Building Cultural Competence
Note: Material in this cultural competency section is adapted from Erickson, M.F., & Kurz- Riemer, K. (1999). Infants, toddlers, and families: A framework for support and intervention. New York: Guilford, pp. 134-138.

Cultural competence is a critical element in creating respectful programming for families because parenting strategies and approaches are influenced by cultural values more than is commonly recognized. This is true for discipline, toilet learning, feeding, sleeping, attachment and separation, and many other topics commonly addressed in ECFE. Program staff must be open to hearing what individual parents have to say on these topics and be willing to negotiate or compromise on specific practices. The United States is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world. It is composed of many different cultures, each with its own values, beliefs, customs, and behaviors. Minnesota, like many other states, is rapidly becoming much more ethnically diverse than it has been in the past, and this trend is likely to continue. Yet historically, our major helping systems Β health, education, and social services Β were built on an Anglo-European cultural perspective. The majority of ECFE educators were acculturated and trained in this dominant perspective.

Today we realize that using a single cultural lens to focus on a multitude of cultures is clearly inadequate and can actually harm rather than help children and families. Lynch and Hanson (1998, p. 41) state, "A cardinal rule in working with all families is to make no assumptions about their concerns, priorities, and resources.” To idealize or vilify any single culture or group of cultures is also not helpful. As Dr. James Garbarino of Cornell University notes, "Each culture has something to teach, and each culture has something to learn" (1995, May). If the goal of ECFE is to strengthen families, staff need to be informed about the cultural context of parenting. A good way to begin is by reflecting on and refining one’s own cultural competence.

Cross, Bazron, Dennis, and Isaacs (1989) have identified five essential elements for individuals, agencies, or systems to become more culturally competent. The first three of these elements are more inner-focused on personal attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs, while the last two directly address the external roles of educators.

1. Recognize the importance and value of cultural diversity. The American Heritage dictionary defines culture as "socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought” and "these patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population” (1992, p. 454). It is obvious to thinking persons who have traveled to other parts of the world or spent time with people from other ethnic backgrounds that human cultures differ. Culturally competent persons realize that human cultures are not better or worse than one another, but different. This difference is interesting, valuable, and part of what brings texture and complexity to human existence. And although we must recognize and respect our differences, we must not lose sight of the fact that as humans, we are often more alike than different (Campinha-Bacote, 1995).
   
2. Acknowledge and continually assess our own cultural biases and values. Many Americans of Anglo or European extraction are unaware of their cultural roots. Researching our own racial and ethnic background is important and illuminating. Despite our society's glorification of individualism, we are largely creatures of culture with individual differences. Becoming more aware of how our attitudes, behaviors, and habits are affected by our cultural background is the precursor to becoming more aware of how other people's attitudes, behaviors, and habits may be different. Talking to older relatives and reading about our ethnic heritage in books such as Ethnicity and Family Therapy by McGoldrick, Giordano, and Pearce (1996) can be very helpful. Those of us fortunate enough to have had our family tree documented by a relative will have a head start in this process.
   

Questions to ask ourselves include:

• How do I respond when asked for my racial/ethnic heritage?
• If my family immigrated to this country, when, where, and why? Into what conditions did they arrive?
• Who are the significant "characters" in my family's history?
• How would I describe my attitudes towards family, work, time, independence, competition, material possessions, and gender roles?
• How are these attitudes similar to and different from those of my parents?

Answering these questions thoughtfully will tell us much about our own cultural influences. Discussing them with persons of similar and different ethnic heritage will illustrate that we all have a significant cultural contribution to our history, attitudes, and behaviors. It also is obvious that these influences differ widely by individual.

3. Be conscious of the dynamics of cultural interaction. A few terms are especially important here. One is ethnocentrism, defined as "belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic group" (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1992, p. 630). Extreme examples of this orientation are cultural genocide, such as the Holocaust of World War II, or the effects of 19th and 20th century immigration on the Native American populations of the United States. A second term is bias, used as a synonym for prejudice, which is defined as "an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand without knowledge or examination of the facts" (ibid, p. 1482). All of us have biases, whether we are aware of them or not. Cultural mistrust describes the sentiment of many people of one culture towards people from another culture. A final term is white privilege, which is the concept that Anglo-Europeans have more power throughout our society, often due simply to the color of their skin. Although white people are largely unaware of this power imbalance, most people of color are very conscious of it.

The concepts defined above are at the heart of the dynamics set into motion when cultures interact. Anglo-European people, people of color, and all members of the human race are actively part of these dynamics. For anyone to deny their existence is deceptive and unproductive. Culturally competent ECFE educators recognize these dynamics and continually work at minimizing their negative effects while expanding their own and others' awareness. They pay attention to how these issues may influence program attendance and participation, parenting, and other dynamics of social interaction.

4. Make ongoing efforts to expand cultural knowledge and resources. Culturally competent individuals and systems make a conscious effort to learn about other cultures. The arts provide many vehicles for this. The films, literature, dance, and theater of cultures other than our own can be simultaneously enjoyable and eye opening, as can cultivating a taste for a variety of ethnic foods. Having conversations and contact with people of disparate cultures may teach us that we have similarities and differences with everyone. Cultural diversity training is also becoming widely available in many parts of the state.

Although some of these ways of expanding cultural knowledge may be less accessible in rural areas or small towns, reading multi-cultural fiction, biographies, and poetry is always an option and may be especially instructive. Reference staff in public or college libraries can help in finding this reading material. To avoid stereotyping, it is important to remember that according to the theory of intra-ethnic variation, there is often more variation within a cultural group than across cultural groups (Campinha-Bacote, 1994).

In addition to expanding our cultural knowledge, it is important to enlarge our cultural resources. This means incorporating artifacts and tools of other cultures into our homes and workplaces.

• Early childhood educators can read multi-cultural children's books to the children, include ethnic dolls and clothing in the dress-up corner, and post photographs of children and families of many cultures throughout their classrooms.
• Parent educators can include ethnic child rearing books and magazines in the program library, hang the artwork of other cultures on the walls of the parent education room, and use video clips of a variety of ethnic families as discussion starters in parent groups.
• Parents can read multi-cultural picture books to their young children, provide dolls of different races, choose videos with positive images of other cultures, and encourage contacts with children of other races and religions.
• ECFE programs can arrange multi-cultural potluck dinners and storytelling sessions with their participants and sponsor field trips to ethnic events or exhibits.

5. Adapt to diversity. As Cross et al. (1989) put it, this means working toward a better fit between the needs of families served and services provided. This may mean arranging for an interpreter, offering multi-cultural experiences and anti- bias training to staff, printing notices in alternate languages, expanding our definition of family, recruiting and providing support services to staff persons of color, and adjusting the goals and style of ECFE programming. Energies will be far better spent if ongoing efforts are made to include members of various target populations in the planning and implementation of these adaptations.

Finally, it is critical to remember that cultural competence is a developmental process. Cross et al. (1989) discuss a continuum of six possibilities, ranging from (1) cultural destructiveness, (2) incapacity, (3) blindness, (4) pre-competence, (5) competence, to (6) proficiency. Despite where individuals or systems may fall on this continuum, there is always room for positive growth. Although this growth may sometimes be painful and require us to confront our ignorance or guilt, it is essential to our ongoing professional development. This growth can also be enlightening and liberating, opening our eyes to see much more clearly than we did before.

Curriculum Quality Indicators

Elsewhere in this Guide, there are several references to quality indicators for ECFE program implementation. (See Chapter 13 for a complete copy of the quality indicators.) A set of quality indicators specific to curriculum planning and implementation was initially developed by the state ECFE Curriculum Committee in 1997, and a current copy appears as Appendix 3A. The Curriculum Committee was established in the early 1990s to focus on strengthening and enhancing curriculum in ECFE programs statewide and advise on topic selection and direction for twice-yearly regional staff inservices. They have also produced an extensive resource guide for ECFE.

Curriculum Development

Since they do not use a single packaged curriculum, it is imperative for ECFE staff to establish a curriculum development system that works for their local program. Parent educators, early childhood teachers, and all staff should work together to organize curriculum resources. The goal is to minimize individual effort and maximize the quality and quantity of curriculum resources. For parent educators, central filing cabinets can hold files of lesson plans and curriculum resources organized alphabetically by topic, such as anger management, toilet learning, newborn care, etc. When staff persons come across a good article or other resource, they can copy it, respecting copyright issues; properly cite its source; and add it to the topic file. It is critical to agree that when individuals use a file, they will return it complete, in as good or better condition than they found it. Small to mid-sized programs may choose to use one central file location. Large programs may need to collect and store files regionally or by site location.

Curriculum organization is more of a challenge for early childhood teachers because they use so many “props” and materials for their work with infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Storage space is critical to hold these resources — again, by central location or site, depending upon program size. Some programs have developed a system of boxes, clearly labeled by theme, such as wild animals, winter, feelings, etc. which hold a file of printed resources as well as multi-sensory props such as posters, masks, dress-up clothing, puppets, music, and toys specific to that theme. Again, it’s critical to agree that when staff persons use a curriculum box, they will return it complete, in as good or better condition than they found it.

Developing a Parent Education Topic for the Day

As discussed earlier, parents must be involved in choosing the topics they wish to discuss. After a topic is chosen for a specific class, parent educators ask parents what they want to know about that topic. Based on this, they plan for the class. They develop the learning objectives for the topic, collect curriculum resources, and develop a lesson plan, which uses a wide variety of methods and styles. For example, if the topic for the day is anger, the learning objectives could be:

1. To teach that anger is a normal human emotion.
2. To distinguish between feelings and actions.
3. To clarify consequences of various ways parents and children deal with anger.

The class plan could include the following:

1. Read aloud a short excerpt from adult or children’s literature or play a recorded song about anger.
2. Ask a sampling of parents to state how they feel after listening to the reading or song.
3. Ask parents to think about and/or write down things that make them angry.
4. Ask parents to form pairs and discuss these things with the person next to them. To guide them, read and list questions on poster paper such as: Why do specific things make you angry? Why does one person get angry at something which doesn’t anger another person? Under what conditions are you most likely to become angry?
5. In the full group, brainstorm negative and positive ways of handling anger. Record these in two lists on poster paper or a chalkboard.
6. Discuss the consequences of these various responses and what happens to us physically and emotionally when we suppress anger.
7. Distribute a handout on “Dealing with Angry Feelings in Constructive Ways.”
8. Recommend further resources for those who want to dig deeper.

When planning a parent education session,

• actively involve parents in doing, reflecting, and discussing throughout the class;
• incorporate multi-sensory active learning methods such as music, art, movement, etc.;
• when using video, show short clips, rather than full videos to respect parents’ time and to avoid suppressing the group process;
• combine practical skill building ideas with a sound theoretical base;
• work individually, in pairs, in small groups, and in large groups to maximize participation of all group members;
• at the end of the session, summarize key points discussed and suggest use of these ideas at home in everyday parent-child and family interaction; and
• carryover discussion of key learnings from session to session.

Integrating Parent and Early Childhood Education

Although not all parent education topics lend themselves to related activities for parent- child interaction and early childhood education, when parent educators and early childhood teachers plan curriculum together, it enhances the learning process for parents and children. For example, as parents discuss the concepts of attachment and separation, the children’s classroom incorporates predictable routines and repetition of familiar activities to raise children’s comfort level. As parents discuss anger management, children work on recognizing and handling feelings through posters, readings, songs, and activities. As parents discuss toilet learning, children work on their eye-hand and fine motor coordination.

Another very effective way to integrate parent and early childhood education is to discuss the specifics of observation skills during parent group time, then offer parents opportunities to observe their children in the early childhood classroom. ECFE programs can facilitate opportunities for parents to practice observation skills in the following ways:

• During parent-child interaction, parents can observe how their children interact with play materials and with other children, teachers, and adults.
• Staff can videotape the children during early childhood education sessions and show the videotapes later in parent groups. This allows parents to be “bugs on the wall” and see how their children behave and function when they are not in their company.
• A one-way observation window can be installed in a wall of the early childhood classroom. This enables observers to watch activities in the children’s classroom while remaining invisible to the children and teachers in the classroom.

When processing these observation opportunities during parent group time, the parent educator guides the discussion to focus on indicators of strengths, personality, and learning styles of individual children. Developmental or behavioral issues of specific children are not appropriate topics for group discussion, but the parent educator follows up one-on-one with parents as needed. During parent-child interaction, early childhood teachers also respond individually to parents’ questions or concerns about children or the classroom activities.

In the End

Not every curriculum strategy will work well every time. It’s important to remember each group is unique, and each group session has a life of its own. While parent and early childhood educators have the responsibility to create an environment and structure for learning and sharing, they can only guide the process, not mold the participants. Educators can do an excellent job of sharing information and guiding group process, but not all group members will become engaged, learn, or keep attending. The responsibility for learning rests with each individual parent and child.

References

The American heritage dictionary of the English language. (3rd ed.). (1992). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Campinha-Bacote, J. (1994). The process of cultural competence in health care: A culturally competent model of care (2nd ed.). Wyoming, OH: Transcultural C.A.R.E. Associates.

Campinha-Bacote, J. (1995, November). Culturally competent services: What are they? Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Symposium of St. David's School for Child Development and Family Services, Minneapolis.

Cross, T. L., Bazron, B. J., Dennis, K. W., & Isaacs, M. R. (1989, March). Towards a culturally competent system of care: A monograph on effective services for minority children who are severely emotionally disturbed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center, CASSP Technical Assistance Center.
Erickson, M. F., & Kurz-Riemer, K. (1999). Infants, toddlers, and families: A framework for support and intervention. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 134-138.

Garbarino, J. (1995). Raising children in a socially toxic environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lynch, E. W., & Hanson, M. J. (1998). Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for working with young children and their families. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

McGoldrick, M., Giordano, J., & Pearce, J. K. (Eds.). (1996). Ethnicity and family therapy (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Appendices

3A Curriculum in Early Childhood Family Education: Philosophy and
Implementation

Appendix 3A: Curriculum in ECFE

Curriculum in Early Childhood Family Education: Philosophy and Implementation

2011

Introduction
Because Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE) is available to every family with young children, and every family has diverse needs, no single curriculum is appropriate. There is, however, a clear rationale for an intentional, systematic approach to curriculum. To meet the needs of children and families, each program needs to engage in a planned, coordinated curriculum process. Early childhood curriculum is discussed first, followed by parent education curriculum.

Early Childhood
A valuable resource for early childhood professionals is the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). In the NAEYC’s Position Statement on Curriculum, Assessment and Program Evaluation, they state that:
Curriculum is more than a collection of enjoyable activities. Curriculum is a complex idea containing multiple components, such as goals, content, pedagogy, or instructional practices. Curriculum is influenced by many factors, including society’s values, content standards, accountability systems, research findings community expectations, culture and language, and individual children’s characteristics.(p. 6)

ECFE programs must provide structured learning activities for children that promote children’s development and positive interaction with peers. Early learning standards should be a main reference when developing, assessing or selecting curricula for ECFE classes. Among other benefits, early learning standards contribute to the process of curriculum alignment. In curriculum alignment, the official curriculum of the school district or program is matched to the early learning standards (Morrison, 2008).

For example, the primary purpose of the Early Childhood Indicators of Progress (ECIPs) is to:
…provide a framework for understanding and communicating a common set of developmentally appropriate expectations for young children within a context of shared responsibility and accountability for helping children meet these expectations. (p. 1)

Indeed, one of the five goals of the ECIPs is:
To provide teachers, caregivers and administrators in early childhood education and care programs and settings with a common conceptual framework and guidelines for planning curriculum, instruction and assessment of young children. (p. 1)

Since ECFE programs should emphasize programming for children ages birth to three, program coordinators, teachers and others involved in the curriculum process need to find age-appropriate learning standards, guidelines or goals. To this end, one valuable resource is the Early Childhood Indicators of Progress: Minnesota’s Early Learning Guidelines for Birth to 3. It should be noted that
The Early Learning Guidelines for Birth to 3 are not intended to be a curriculum or assessment tool. Instead, the guidelines and framework identify the desired learning outcomes that quality instruction and assessment need to address. (p. 3)

The Head Start Act serves as an example of putting these elements together. In Part 1304, curriculum means a written plan that includes:

1. The goals for children’s development and learning;
2. The experiences through which they will achieve these goals;
3. What staff and parents do to help children achieve these goals; and
4. The materials needed to support the implementation of the curriculum.

The curriculum is consistent with the Head Start Program Performance Standards and is based on sound child development principles about how children grow and learn.

For further information, reference Early Head Start Tip Sheet No. 10. Below are some important points from the document:

1. Improved curricula and lesson plans based on the child’s interests should guide Early Head Start programs.
2. The written curriculum plan defined in the Performance Standards provides a framework within which a local EHS program can articulate their beliefs about what infants and toddlers need to learn and how they learn those things.
3. Providing intentional and purposeful learning moments within the curriculum plan means using the knowledge of the child and his/her development to provide experiences and materials the child needs to ensure on-going development.

Planning, Implementation and Evaluation Tool (follows this document)

Over recent years, evidence has increased that the use of curricula has positive effects on young children’s development and learning. However, research supports the notion that, for the findings of positive results of curricula to be realized, “efficacious curricula must be implemented well by practitioners in the community” (Odom et al, 2010).

Purpose:

The attached instrument has been developed for the following purposes:

1. To inform program staff, parents and any other interested individuals about the philosophy of curriculum in Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE) and implications for implementation of the philosophy.
2. To guide ECFE staff in the cycle of planning, aligning, implementing, evaluating, and goal-setting for the purpose of program quality and improvement.
3. To be used as a companion to the “Quality Indicators for Early Childhood Family Education Programs” when curriculum is a particular focus in program planning and self-evaluation.

In this instrument, curriculum is an organized framework that delineates:

• the CONTENT (knowledge, perceptions, skills) children/parents are to learn/experience,
• the PROCESSES through which children/parents achieve the above goals,
• the STAFF’s role in helping children/parents achieve these goals, and
• the CONTEXT in which teaching and learning occur.

Goals:

The assumptions/belief statements on the attached chart state why ECFE programs do the things they do to achieve the goals of ECFE listed below:

Goals of Early Childhood Family Education:
1. Parent-child relationships support the child’s development in:
• physical well being and motor development,
• social and emotional development,
• approaches to learning (e.g., curiosity, persistence, attentiveness, reflection, interpretation, imagination, invention),
• language development and communication skills, and
• cognition and general knowledge.
2. Parents* understand the importance of what they do with their children and how it changes over time.
3. Parents have the knowledge and realistic expectations to anticipate and meet the developmental needs of their children.
4. Parents demonstrate sensitive and responsive care and interaction with their children.
5. Parents and children experience a smooth transition from early childhood programs and services into kindergarten and the larger school system.
6. Parents are involved in their children’s learning and education in the school-age years.
7. Families participate in formal and informal social networks in their communities that support effective parenting.
8. Families are knowledgeable about and appropriately use community resources.

• The word “parents” includes all individuals who function in a primary parenting role.

These goals, based on theory and research, allow for flexibility in local community implementation that includes input from parents as to their goals for themselves and their children. Curriculum, as defined above, reflects avenues through which these goals are accomplished.

How to Use Instrument

The “implications for practice” listed on the following chart correspond with each assumption/belief on the chart. These “implications for practice” offer some recommended ways for staff to act on the assumptions and beliefs in order to accomplish the ECFE goals listed previously.

This instrument was designed so that it can be used by ECFE program staff and others to assess the level at which programs are implementing curriculum activities that are likely to accomplish program goals.

Implementation can be assessed as to whether each implication for practice is to be achieved or has been achieved at one of the following five levels:

1. Need more information to respond
2. Needs to be done
3. Planning stage
4. Partially implemented
5. Implemented with ongoing reassessment

Suggested uses of this document include the following:

• Periodic curriculum planning and goal setting
• Curriculum reassessment after several years of operation
• Orientation of new and current staff to curriculum in ECFE
• Staff development and performance evaluation

Parent Education
ECFE programs rely on the Parent Education Core Curriculum Framework to guide their curriculum planning, implementation and evaluation. The Parent Education Core Curriculum Framework is not a prescribed curriculum, rather it “provides a framework that defines and places parameters around the core content – what we teach – in parent education” (p. 2). The framework is “based on the assumption that parent educators should have autonomy and exercise creativity in assessing the specific and unique needs and expectations of each parent and parent group with whom they work and in designing curriculum and selecting resources to best meet their needs and expectations” (p. abstract).
Goals:
The specific goals of the Parent Education Core Curriculum Framework are to provide a resource that:

1. Frames or defines the body of knowledge in the field of parent education.
2. Is applicable across the field of parent education with any type of parent education program, population, setting and delivery mode.
3. Is a planning tool for development and delivery of parent education curriculum and lesson plans.
4. Identifies the intended content and objectives of parent education, originally designed for Early Childhood Family Education and Even Start in Minnesota.
5. Provides guidance for parent goal setting in parent education.
6. Guides assessment of parent education outcomes and programs.
7. Promotes accountability in parent education programs and with individual parent educators.
8. Informs practice in parent education.

References and Resources

Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluation, 2003. National Association for the Education of Young Children. Accessed from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/CAPEexpand.pdf

Minnesota Early Childhood Indicators of Progress, available on the Minnesota Department of Education website.

Morrison, G. S. (2008). Fundamentals of Early Childhood Education, 5th edition. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

National Parenting Education Network, http://www.npen.org

Odom, S.L., Fleming, K., Diamond, K., Lieber, J., Hanson, M., Butera, G., Horn, E., Palmer, S. & Marquis, J. (2010). Examining different forms of implementation and in early childhood curriculum research, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 314-328.

Parent Education Core Curriculum Framework, 2011: A Comprehensive Guide to Planning Curriculum for Parent Education Programs. Accessed from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/ci/programs/fyc/docs/newDocs/Parent%20Curriculum%20Core.pdf

Updated 8/25/11

Chapter 4: Parent & Family Education

Chapter 4: Parent and Family Education

Working with Parents in Groups

Parent education is the heart of Early Childhood Family Education programs. Since parent and family education is an unfamiliar concept to many, it may be helpful to review basic assumptions for working with parents in group settings. The following are adapted from the classic Parents Learn Through Discussion: Principles and Practices of Parent Group Education by Aline B. Auerbach (1968).

1. Parents can learn. Learning can take place at any time in life, regardless of age.
2. Parents want to learn. They are especially interested in issues and relationships that affect the growth and development of their children.
3. Parents learn best what they are interested in learning. They must be involved from the beginning in selecting topics for discussion.
4. Learning is most significant when the subject matter is closely related to the parents' own immediate experiences. Questions, concerns, and responses should be linked to specific everyday interactions between parents and children.
5. Parents learn best when they are free to create their own response to a situation. Parents need to come to their own decisions without group pressure.
6. Parent group education is as much an emotional experience as it is an intellectual one. Group leaders must be prepared for emotional responses and ready to handle them when they occur. It's helpful for group leaders to be aware of their own feelings around specific issues.
7. Parents can learn from one another. What parents learn from and teach to each other is at the heart of the parent group process.
8. Parent group education provides the basis for parents to develop new ways of thinking and behaving. Behavior change is a slow process, however, and groups will need to meet over a period of time. Weekly or biweekly meetings for eight to twelve consecutive sessions may be a minimum in which to expect change.
9. Each parent learns in his or her own way. Each individual brings different skills, experience, and values into the group. Each will learn at a different rate, a different style, and a different depth.

Although a variety of parent education packaged programs are available, they vary in quality by both content and style. Regardless of how well designed a parent curriculum is, using it as a rigid recipe for parent groups will not be as effective as using a range of curricula, books, videotapes, etc. as resources and ingredients for dynamic and flexible parent group education. Chapter 3 discussed ECFE curriculum philosophy and development.

In this chapter and in Chapter 5, the Quality Indicators for Early Childhood Family Education Programs (revised 2001) will serve as the structure for discussing important elements of working with parents and children in ECFE programs. For more information on the development of and uses for the Quality Indicators, see Chapter 12. For a complete copy of all Quality Indicators documents, see Chapter 13.

Creating a Parent Group Environment

Locate a physical environment for parent groups that is neither too crowded nor too spacious for the number of participants. If at all possible, avoid cramming parent education areas into small storage rooms or setting up in the corner of a gymnasium. Although effective parent education can take place in these too small or too large areas, they are definitely not ideal. They also give parents the impression that the school and ECFE program do not particularly value their presence.

When arranging an environment for effective parent group discussion, parent educators should aim for each participant to feel welcome, comfortable, and relaxed. It’s certainly not necessary to consult an interior designer, but attention to the appearance and comfort of the room will tell parents that they are important. Successful retail operations such as restaurants and department stores understand this concept; so should ECFE programs. Consider softening overhead fluorescent lights with table or floor lamps, aim for a comfortable temperature and ventilation, ensure that the room and walls are clean and fresh, and provide comfortable chairs and surfaces on which to place cups. Always have hot and cold water, coffee, and tea available.

The physical environment reflects human diversity and is accessible to people with disabilities. Check with your school district for specifics on making facilities accessible. Whether or not a program’s local service area is culturally diverse, it is important to convey the message “All parents are welcome here.” By posting multi-ethnic pictures of families, children, and persons with disabilities, and including artifacts such as Hmong needlework, a Mexican blanket, or an African basket, parent educators demonstrate their interest and respect for many cultures and intent to work with a variety of families. When educators welcome parent offers of ethnic food for group snacks, this adds nutrition education and opportunities to taste new foods to the parent education setting.

Furnishings and seating are arranged to facilitate interaction and effective group dynamics. Staff establish and maintain a relaxed and informal atmosphere. Seating arrangements for parent groups should enable each participant to see the face of every other participant. For this purpose, a circular arrangement is best – either around a table or with chairs arranged in a circle. Avoid seating parents at a long rectangular table because they will be unable to see the faces of people seated on their side of the table. A circular arrangement also expresses the notion of parent educator as facilitator, as opposed to a long narrow table with the “expert” parent educator seated at the head. If a circle does not fit within the dimensions of the room used for parent education, a square or wide rectangular table can also work well for participatory discussions.

Resources

Resources used for parent education:

• are consistent with ECFE philosophy, mission, and goals;
• are multicultural, gender-fair, and sensitive to disability and socioeconomic status;
• accurately reflect current research in the fields of child development, parent-child relations, family relations, family systems theory, early childhood education, and/or parent and adult education; and
• are evaluated and adapted to match the needs of participants as their needs and demographics change.

Some programs provide resource libraries to enhance parenting, but this does not duplicate or replace encouraging families to use public libraries. Different communities will have different needs for resource libraries. In many communities, families may be better served if staff members sponsor field trips to the local public library and work closely with library staff to stock good parent education books and resources, as well as good picture books for children. If parents are encouraged to use their local public libraries on a regular basis, this practice will support their children’s learning and achievement far into the future.

Parent Educator Education and Experience

Staff are knowledgeable about child development, parent-child relations, family relations, family systems theory, early childhood education, and/or parent and adult education. Staff are knowledgeable about theories of adult learning and learning styles and use a variety of teaching strategies in their work with parents and children. Parent educators are solidly grounded in theory and practice and have a wide repertoire of teaching strategies beyond lecturing to encourage active parent participation. Staff involve parents in setting the agenda and guiding the learning process. Parents generate and select topics for parent group discussion. Staff solicit and use parental expertise and resources on specific topics. Parent and family educators are knowledgeable about child protection reporting requirements and ethical practice. (See Ethics Committee, 2000.)

Parent Educator Group Process Strategies

Successful group facilitators employ a broad repertoire of skills that are learned and refined with education, practice, and experience. These include active listening, restating, clarifying, linking, summarizing, questioning, interpreting, confronting, initiating, goal setting, evaluating, giving feedback, suggesting, protecting, self-disclosure, modeling, blocking, dealing with silence, supporting, empathizing, and terminating (Campbell, Kristensen, & Scott, 1997). Perhaps the most important element for a group facilitator is faith in the dynamic potential of effective group process, by which the total is truly more than the sum of its parts or individual members.

When leading parent groups, parent educators:

• link parents' specific experiences to general principles of child development and parent-child relations.
• offer information about developmental expectations and characteristics of various ages of children.
• encourage parents to examine their expectations of their own children in relation to developmentally appropriate expectations.
• encourage parents to identify and build on individual and family strengths.
• provide parents opportunities to examine their values, needs, and behaviors.
• encourage parents to set developmentally appropriate goals for themselves, their children, and their family life.
• encourage parents to develop problem solving skills and support parents in addressing individual and family challenges.
• facilitate understanding of the family-of-origin and its influence upon present family interactions.

When planning and carrying out parent education sessions, parent educators:

• set goals and plan strategies for each session based on the individual needs and interests of children and parents.
• clearly communicate thoughts and concepts.
• encourage parents to share experiences and concerns.
• structure discussions so parents learn from one another.

Staff are knowledgeable about group dynamics and group process techniques.

• Staff assist group members in setting expectations and guidelines for appropriate group and individual behavior.
• Discussions are flexible and allow opportunity for addressing immediate needs.
• Staff spend a significant portion of time actively listening to parents.
• Staff appropriately handle challenging group issues, including conflict between group members, uncomfortable topics, disagreement about parenting behavior, and emotional discussions.
• Staff balance the individual needs of parents with group needs.
• Staff clarify and summarize ideas expressed during discussions as needed, linking comments of individual participants.

When working with parents and families, staff:

• maintain appropriate boundaries with families.
• use informed judgment and are accepting and supportive of parents; distinctions are made between parents' specific behaviors and parents as persons.
• work to ensure a climate of mutual respect, trust, and responsibility.
• are sensitive to the multiple demands on parents' time and energy.
• encourage parents to interact and form support networks with other parents outside program settings.

Home Visits as an Option for Parent Education

To better serve all parents, Early Childhood Family Education programs can offer home visiting as one option for service delivery, preferably in combination with center-based programming and a comprehensive array of family support services. (See Early Childhood Family Education Home Visiting in Appendix 4A)

A high quality home visiting option means a program that:

• offers both short-term (outreach) and ongoing (educational) home visit options.
• provides regular supervision for home visitors that includes case management assistance, opportunities for professional development and skill building, evaluation, and support.
• provides staff training that clearly defines mandated reporting procedures and program policies.
• develops working relationships and a system for sharing information with other agencies/programs in the community working with mutual families.
• regularly evaluates home visiting services, assessing fidelity to program goals and utilization of services available.
• regularly recognizes small accomplishments achieved through home visiting services with staff and families.

Program staff working with families in the home setting:

• are knowledgeable about the specific purposes and goals of the program's home visiting services.
• communicate, coordinate, and/or collaborate with other home visiting services in the community.
• include the whole family – all members who are involved in caregiving and decision- making, either directly or indirectly.
• develop partnerships with families from a strength-based perspective.
• seek to understand the family's culture (beliefs, values, perspectives) by gathering information from the family, from outside resources, and from community representatives.
• meet families where they are, engaging parents through dialogue around dissonance between expectations and realities of parenthood, dissatisfaction with their current situation, difficulties faced in daily living, and desires for family life.
• are skillful in helping families discover their own solutions through effective questioning/reflective techniques.
• focus on supporting the parent-child relationship rather than directing services specifically to the parent or child.

Staff persons recognize the ecological context of their work with parents and children. Home visitors:

• understand programmatic and personal boundaries for relationships with family members and are skilled in assertive limit setting.
• make referrals to outside resources when families require expertise beyond that of the individual home visitor or beyond the goals of the program.
• expand the family's support network and connections to the community.
• address immediate, practical family needs either directly or indirectly, beyond a narrow definition of early childhood or parent education.
• are flexible and adjust their agenda to address family crises.
• incorporate materials found in the home and turn routine family experiences into learning activities.

Distinguishing Education from Therapy in Parent Groups

For over a century, a central issue in the field of parent and family education has been the tension between education and therapy. Education has often been defined as dealing with cognition and knowledge, with therapy addressing emotions and feelings. An experienced educator, however, recognizes that human feelings and attitudes are intertwined with knowledge and behavior in a complex system in which each element affects all other elements. Anyone who is a parent or has worked closely with parents realizes that the education/therapy dichotomy is especially false in parent education. Raising children is as much an emotional experience as an intellectual one, dependent as it is upon the fluid state of a parent’s past experiences in family of origin; emotional and mental health; physical health; and access to resources such as food, clothing, housing, child care, health care, parenting information, and emotional support.

In response to this tension, Dr. William Doherty (1995) from the University of Minnesota proposed a Levels of Family Involvement model, which argues that a continuum approach better captures the relationship between education and therapy in parent education. He identifies the five levels of this continuum as follows:

Level One: Minimal Emphasis on Family describes programs or activities in which parents or other family members are included only for practical or legal reasons. Parents are expected to cooperate with and support the professionals. This level is below the minimum level necessary for ECFE programming.

Level Two: Information and Advice involve activities with family members around information about child development, parenting, and family life. Because they often do not include affective or experiential elements, guest speaker events and one-time workshops are good examples of Level Two activities.

Level Three: Feelings and Support include and expand on Level Two activities by eliciting the feelings and experiences of parents related to the normal stresses of family life as part of the educational process. Level Three is the optimal level of intensity for most ongoing ECFE programming in parent and family education.

Level Four: Brief Focused Intervention includes and expands on Levels Two and Three by including an assessment and a planned effort to help a parent address a difficult parenting or family-related problem. This level is best suited for work with families in high-risk situations and requires training beyond that normally provided for parent educators. It is the exception rather than the rule in parent education and typically would involve a skilled, experienced parent educator working in close, time-limited consultation with a mental health professional.

Level Five: Family Therapy uses therapeutically trained professionals to treat serious psychological and family problems and is outside the boundaries of parent and family education.

For a detailed discussion of the Levels of Family Involvement for Parent and Family Educators, see the Manual for Implementing Levels 3 and 4 Family Involvement in Early Childhood Family Education in Appendix 4C.

References

Auerbach, A. B. (1968). Parents learn through discussion: Principles and practices of parent group education. Huntington, NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing.

Campbell, D., Kristensen, N., & Scott, M. (1997). Levels of family involvement for parent and family educators: Manual for implementing levels 3 and 4 family involvement in
early childhood family education. Roseville, MN: Minnesota Department of Children, Families & Learning.

Doherty, W. J. (1995). Boundaries between parent and family education and family therapy: The levels of family involvement model. Family Relations, 44, 353-358.

Ethics Committee of the Parent and Family Section. (2000). Ethical thinking and practice for parent and family educators. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Council on Family Relations. (Call 651-407-0950 or see their website at http://www.mcfr.net to obtain a copy.)

Quality indicators for early childhood family education programs: An instrument to assist early childhood family education (ECFE) programs in program planning and self- evaluation. (2001). Roseville: Minnesota Department of Children, Families & Learning.

Appendices

4A Early Childhood Family Education Home Visiting
4B Levels of Family Involvement for Parent and Family Educators: Manual for Implementing Levels 3 and 4 Family Involvement in Early Childhood Family Education.

Appendix 4A: ECFE Home Visiting

Early Childhood Family Education Home Visiting

2010-11 Fact Sheet

Brief History

Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE) initially received funding from the 1992 Minnesota Legislature for home visiting as part of the Omnibus Crime Bill. Since FY 1994, school districts have been authorized to levy $1.60 times their birth to four populations specifically for continuation of this effort. The concept of home visiting as part of Early Childhood Family Education programming did not begin with the 1992 legislation. Home visiting has been a strategy used by ECFE staff for reaching and serving families with young children since the pilot programs began in 1975.

Early Childhood Family Education Annual Reports show that over 17,000 home visits were conducted during the 2009-2010 school year by ECFE staff. Many of these were done in conjunction with other agencies. Over 6,500 one-time, in- person newborn infant contacts were made.

Home Visiting Statutes
Minnesota Statutes, 124D.13, Subdivision 4, states that a district that levies for home visiting under section 124D.135, subdivision 6, shall use this revenue to include as part of the early childhood family education programs a parent education component that is designed to reach isolated or at-risk families.

The home visiting program must use:
(1) an established risk assessment tool to determine the family's level of risk;
(2) establish clear objectives and protocols for home visits;
(3) encourage families to make a transition from home visits to site-based parenting programs;
(4) provide program services that are community-based, accessible, and culturally relevant; and
(5) foster collaboration among existing agencies and community-based organizations that serve young children and their families.
Home visitors should reflect the demographic composition of the community to the extent possible.

How is the additional funding for Early Childhood Family Education home visiting being used?

Early Childhood Family Education programs have placed increased emphasis on home visiting as an important strategy for reaching families experiencing multiple stresses.

Examples of families who are receiving home visiting because of the additional funding include the following:

• Families without access to reliable transportation
• Families with several preschool children
• Families with children and/or parents having special medical, physical, or developmental concerns
• Families referred to ECFE by other programs and agencies
• Pregnant mothers on bed rest
• First-time parents
• Parents lacking group skills who are not yet comfortable in group settings
• Families whose schedules or life circumstances make it difficult to participate in center-based classes or other opportunities
• Parents who have special concerns that they prefer to discuss privately
• Family childcare providers, with parents in attendance

Important: Beginning in FY 2005, home visiting levy expenditures were required to be coded to UFARS Finance Dimension 328.

Updated 8/30/11

Appendix 4B: Levels of Family Involvement

Chapter 5: EC Education & Parent-Child Interaction

Chapter 5: Early Childhood Education and Parent-Child Interaction

How Early Childhood Family Education is Unique

Although Minnesota’s Early Childhood Family Education program is the oldest and largest parent education state program in the country, there are other parent education programs in other states. Minnesota is unique in providing high quality educational programming for children from birth to kindergarten enrollment concurrent with its parent education programming. Children typically attend with their parents for about two hours weekly for six weeks to a school year or longer. Licensed early childhood teachers design and implement the children’s learning
activities, assisted by paraprofessionals and volunteers.

Parents often say they come to ECFE for their children, but stay for themselves. In other words, the early childhood education component initially attracts them, while the parent education component keeps them coming. For some families, often isolated by geography or circumstances, the attraction is the opportunity for their children to play with and learn from similarly-aged children in a well-designed and well-staffed children’s classroom. Since research documents that infants, toddlers, and preschoolers learn by playing and interacting with the people and objects around them, staff pay special attention to the activities, toys, and room arrangement in the early childhood education classroom.

The early childhood education time typically takes place while parents meet in a nearby room to discuss the pleasures and pressures of raising children. Parents of babies and small toddlers often stay together with their children in the children’s room until the children are comfortable with separating for the parent discussion time. Children appreciate new learning and school readiness activities without pressure, enjoy the company of other children, and absorb some of the basics
of social behavior in group settings.

For other parents, particularly those whose children are in group child care while they are at work or school, the initial attraction is the parent-child interaction time. Parent-child interaction time is an opportunity for parents and children to spend high quality time together in the children’s room engaged in a variety of activities designed and set up by the early childhood teacher. Designed for child learning, the activities are for parents and children to enjoy together without the distractions of chores, telephones, televisions, or computers. Some are simple ideas that families can duplicate at home. Other activities are more complicated and appreciated by parents who don’t have to come up with the ideas, find the materials, or clean up afterwards. Parent-child interaction is generally offered during each parent-child session, either before or after parent group discussion.

In this chapter as in Chapter 4, the Quality Indicators for Early Childhood Family Education Programs (revised 2001) will serve as the structure for discussing important elements of working with parents and children in ECFE programs. For more information on the development of and uses for the Quality Indicators, see Chapter 12. For a complete copy of the Quality Indicators documents, see Chapter 13.

Creating an Environment for Early Childhood Education and Parent-Child Interaction

When creating an environment for early childhood education and parent-child interaction, the early childhood teacher and other ECFE staff ensure that the environment:

• is child-centered and personalized for parents and children.
• is physically attractive.
• reflects cultural and ethnic diversity.
• is accessible to people with disabilities.
• has adequate space to carry out child, parent-child, and parent activities.
• offers many ideas and features easily replicated in family homes.
• meets or exceeds minimum state requirements for children's health and safety.
• keeps instructions posted and supplies accessible for diapering children, sanitizing toys, and cleaning surfaces.
• is arranged in learning centers that:
  • allow children to make choices,
  • encourage cooperative social interaction,
  • capitalize on children's individual interests,
  • are appropriate for a wide range of developmental capabilities,
  • allow for movement and exploration,
  • enhance all developmental areas, and
  • enhance the development of competence and self-help skills.

Learning materials and equipment for children are appropriate to the developmental level, needs, and interests of the children involved. They are:

• at children's eye level and readily accessible to children for self-selection,
• age appropriate,
• durable and easy to clean,
• multi-sensory,
• adaptable for children with disabilities, and
• available for group and individual use.

Early Childhood Resources

The curriculum encourages both child- and parent-initiated learning. Resources used in the early childhood curriculum:

• are consistent with ECFE philosophy, mission, and goals.
• are multicultural, gender-fair, and sensitive to disability and socio-economic status.
• accurately reflect current research in the fields of child development, parent-child relations, family relations, family systems theory, early childhood education, and/or parent and adult education.
• are developmentally appropriate for the intended group of children.
• address all developmental areas.

Early Childhood Educator Education and Experience

Staff are knowledgeable about child development, parent-child relations, family relations, family systems theory, early childhood education, and/or parent and adult education. Since ECFE early childhood teachers also work on a regular basis with parents in the parent-child interaction component, staff are knowledgeable about theories of adult learning and learning styles. They
use a variety of teaching strategies in their work with parents and children. Early childhood teachers are also knowledgeable about child protection reporting requirements and ethical practice. (See Feeney & Freeman, 1999.)

Mixed-age versus Age-specific Classes

ECFE classes can be designed and offered in a wide variety of ways. Major categories include:

• age-specific classes for parents and their infants, or toddlers, or preschoolers with sibling care offered in a different area or room;
• mixed-age classes for parents and their children from birth to kindergarten enrollment;
• affinity classes for single parents, stepfamilies, Spanish-speaking families, etc. and their children of mixed ages; or
• topical classes such as Divorce and Children, Disciplining with Love and Limits, Media Literacy for Parents of Young Children, etc. for families of children from birth to kindergarten enrollment.

There are advantages to age-specific classes, e.g., families of infants. The range of children’s development is narrower so children will be more similar developmentally. Issues of concern to parents of infants, such as feeding, sleeping, and diapering, can be addressed. Parents won’t feel their issues are trivialized by comments such as “Babies are easy – just wait until they’re three.” The sibling care offered during age-specific classes is of high quality similar to the early education programming offered for the targeted age children. Mixed-age classes also have advantages. It is easier to achieve a sufficient class size. Parents of younger children learn from parents of older children. Parents hear about a wide range of developmental issues, with previews of things to come, and siblings are often together in the same classroom. It’s important to note mixed-age classrooms require extra safety precautions, as activities for three- and four- year-olds may use very small toys, pieces, or items that can be hazardous for infants and toddlers.

Early Childhood Education Strategies

Early childhood teachers in ECFE use developmentally appropriate practices as outlined in the revised publication Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Because ECFE classes typically meet for about two hours weekly, staff use predictable, yet flexible classroom routines that promote children’s comfort and familiarity and ease transitions from one activity to the next.

Children who attend ECFE range in age from birth to kindergarten enrollment. Staff are sensitive to and plan activities for children of all ages represented when providing mixed-age classes and interact effectively with children both individually and in groups. Staff plan and conduct circle time activities that enrich children's experience in multi-sensory ways. Circle time activities typically take place while parents are still present for parent-child interaction so parents can learn some of the simple songs, fingerplays, and other activities used by the early childhood teachers. Early childhood teachers may have a second circle time for older children after parents have left for their group time. This circle time may focus on weather or calendar activities, memory
games, reading picture books, storytelling, etc.

Effective early childhood teachers plan activities that provide concrete, experiential learning; emphasize the learning process rather than the product; and promote imagination and creativity. They set goals for each session based on the individual needs and interests of children and parents. Early childhood educators:

• use a variety of teaching strategies and adapt them to the learning styles of particular children and parents.
• present activities in multi-sensory ways.
• help children verbalize their thoughts, feelings, and actions.
• act as resource persons, helping children use and expand upon activities and solve problems.
• function as facilitators rather than directors of child- or parent-initiated activity.

Staff verbal and non-verbal communication with children is respectful, contributes to language development, and serves as a model for parents. Staff model verbalizations of children's thoughts, feelings, and actions as a way of clarifying children's needs and behaviors.

In the realm of behavior guidance, staff:

• reinforce appropriate parental expectations concerning what children of various ages can be expected to do.
• reinforce appropriate parental expectations for individual children.
• use positive guidance techniques to enhance children's self-respect and provide role modeling for parents.
• encourage growth in children's self-discipline.

When they interact with parents, early childhood staff:

• interpret the meaning and value of activities to parents.
• encourage parents to be involved with and enjoy their children by engaging in activities together.
• encourage parents to be sensitive observers of their children, responding appropriately to children's cues and signals.
• communicate respect for parents as prime educators of their children.
• talk with parents about their interaction with their children.
• offer home visits as an option for early childhood education and parent-child interaction.

Parent-Child Interaction

Parent-child interaction is an essential part of Early Childhood Family Education programming. While most sessions combine parent-child time with parent discussion and early childhood classes, sometimes entire class sessions are devoted to parent-child activities. Parent-child interaction enhances family life by providing an uncluttered time during the day or evening when parents and their children can enjoy just being together.
It is a time for sharing activities without the stress of getting meals prepared, homes cleaned, or deadlines met, without the worry of messing up the house or spending money on costly art supplies, and without the daily interruptions of home life. It is also an opportunity for family members to enjoy new or familiar activities and for parents to learn new ways to promote the growth and development of their children. Added benefits of parent-child interaction are the frequent one-on-one conversations between a parent and teacher or parent and another parent. These casual conversations can be excellent opportunities for teaching and learning and for building relationships.

Parent-child interaction is an excellent time for parents to build observation and listening skills. They can strengthen their attention and sensitivity to their children’s cues by following their child’s lead. The foundation of language and brain development is the interplay between very young children’s signals such as crying, body language, and facial expression and the responses to these signals from parents and caregivers. Children who learn someone responds appropriately to their nonverbal signals for food, comfort, or play will learn they can communicate effectively and will be motivated to communicate more. As well as promoting healthy language and brain development, parents who respond sensitively to their children build the base for a healthy and trusting attachment that lasts a lifetime.

Early childhood educators often set up a variety of art, music, and science activities to teach developmental concepts around a particular theme such as autumn leaves or basic colors. They also integrate learning objectives such as social skills throughout their curriculum. Families may choose to do the planned activities or simply explore other areas of the room such as the easel, sensory table, or housekeeping corner. Parents are not pressured to follow the activities of the day's curriculum. Since this is parents' special time with their children, parents are encouraged to follow their child’s interests and enjoy this time together.

Parent-child activity time is an effective way to handle separation issues. For children with high separation anxiety, for infants, or for the first few sessions of a new class series, programming can be planned so that the parent-child activities last the entire time or evolve into a parent discussion held in the same room. In this case, children’s staff are present while parents are in discussion even though the parents are in the same room. This allows parents to focus more completely on parent discussion without worrying about safety issues. If the separation issues are milder, parent-child interaction can provide a pleasant period for children to warm up to the group, early childhood classroom, and teachers before parents leave for discussion time.

Parent-child interaction is usually scheduled at the beginning or end of each class session for 30 to 60 minutes, depending on the age of the child. In infant and toddler classes, parents may need to spend more time with the child and less or no time being separated. These parent-child times might last for an hour, leaving only thirty to sixty minutes devoted to parent discussion. In most classes for children ages three through five, one
half-hour of parent-child time tends to be enough. Children are often then ready to move on to their own activities and willing to let their parents go. Parents are also ready to leave for some adult time.

The parent educator and early childhood educator work as a team throughout parent-child interaction. Staff members model positive reinforcement and encouragement of both parents and children. They demonstrate how materials can be used in a wide variety of ways, pointing out examples of different levels of development in children and consequent use of the materials. Staff may prepare simple signs at various activities describing their learning value for children. Periodic parent newsletters can include information on classroom activities, such as words to songs and fingerplays, titles and authors of stories read, and recipes for play dough or cooking projects. Throughout parent-child interaction time, staff share the teaching role with parents, working together as partners.

References

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Feeney, S., & Freeman, N. K. (1999). Ethics and the early childhood educator: Using the NAEYC Code. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. (To order a copy, call 800-424-2460, ext. 2001.)

Quality indicators for early childhood family education programs: An instrument to assist early childhood family education (ECFE) programs in program planning and self- evaluation. (2001). Roseville: Minnesota Department of Children, Families & Learning.

Chapter 6: Community Linkages for Families

Chapter 6: Community Linkages for Families

Rationale

Early Childhood Family Education is not meant to be all things to all people. No one program could ever meet that goal. Because families have needs beyond the scope of the program, ECFE staff must make it their business to know what other resources are available to families in their communities. Effective ECFE programs can be called family resource and referral programs for parents of young children. In addition to offering parent education, early childhood education, parent-child interaction, and other resource components, ECFE programs are a place for families to get information about the issues of daily living, from housing, clothing, and food to medical care, mental health, and crisis intervention. This does not mean that ECFE staff are experts in these areas. It does mean they know the names and contact information for a variety of human service practitioners and agencies in their community and make this information readily available to families. Ideally, they will also know which of these are the most “family-friendly” and will work with ECFE to create a smooth system for referrals from and to other resources for families. To better serve families, ECFE programs can also consider creating linkages with some or all of these organizations, according to the needs of their participants.

Advantages of Linkages

The central goal of building community linkages is creating more comprehensive and efficient approaches to serving families of young children. There are additional advantages. When community programs and agencies cooperate, coordinate, and collaborate with each other, this:

• minimizes the likelihood of duplicating resources or services,
• builds on families prior and current experiences,
• supports and promotes efforts of all family resource programs,
• maximizes resources,
• enhances credibility,
• reduces some costs to individual programs, and
• enables programs to reach new, sometimes hard-to-reach participants.

It is especially critical for ECFE programs to integrate their work with that of other school district staff, especially elementary principals and kindergarten through grade three teachers. This will facilitate the often-challenging transition of parents and children from the prekindergarten years to elementary school. ECFE staff can also support early elementary teachers as they expand their developmentally appropriate teaching practices in kindergarten through grade three.

Pre-Planning Linkages
Some questions to ask when considering linkages are:

1. Which programs or agencies in your community have similar or complementary goals and philosophy to your program?
2. Who in your community already works with special populations such as teen parents, immigrant families, welfare-to work participants, single parents, fathers, adoptive parents, and people who have not graduated from high school?
3. Of these organizations, with which does your program already have connections?
4. With which would you like to make connections?
5. What have you done and/or could you do to encourage connections with these organizations?
6. What could families gain from this linkage?
7. What could each organization offer?
8. What could each organization receive?
9. What requirements and/or funding restrictions does each organization have in working with families?

Linkage Categories

The continuum of linkage efforts is commonly categorized as cooperation, coordination, and collaboration.

• Cooperation implies staff of separate programs are aware of and knowledgeable about each other’s resources and services and refer families to them as needed. For example, ECFE staff are aware that Head Start is planning a major workshop in the near future so they refer families to the workshop and avoid scheduling a conflicting activity on that day.
• In coordination, staff build on cooperation and interact with other programs to enhance others efforts. For example, an ECFE staff person is an active member of the local Interagency Early Intervention Committee, which plans how best to serve children with developmental delays. This ECFE staff person invites other committee members to attend an upcoming ECFE regional inservice training on a relevant topic.

In collaboration, in addition to cooperating and coordinating, staff of separate programs actually work together to create a new or enhanced resource for families. For example, ECFE staff decide with child care center staff to jointly offer parent education groups to employed parents once per week at the end of the standard workday. ECFE provides a parent educator and organizes a light supper, and the child care center provides space for the parent group and extended day care for the children of participating families.

Each of these three types of linkages is valuable and important. To maximize any linkage efforts, ECFE staff should approach other organizations with an open mind, guard against competitive feelings, expect that building trust takes time, anticipate setbacks, and work hard at ongoing, effective communication. Of the three linkage categories, collaboration requires the most time and work. It also raises the most issues, which include ownership, governance, supervision, balance of effort and cost, accountability, flexibility, trust, and conflict resolution. If organizations are open to planning a collaboration, it is advisable to put collaborative agreements in writing and to include the following elements:

• Who will be responsible for leadership of this collaborative venture?
• What authority will each organization exercise?
• Which responsibilities will each organization fulfill to plan, implement, and evaluate the collaboration?
• What specific resources will each organization contribute? Include staff time, money, and in-kind contributions such as space, meeting refreshments, participant transportation, publicity, etc.
• If applicable, what important policies, procedures, and operations must be changed in each organization to support the collaboration and how will these changes be implemented?
• How will differences and issues be negotiated among the member organizations?
• Which key people must sign this agreement and how will their support be secured?

(Adapted from Winer & Ray, 1994, pp. 163-164)

Linkage Evaluation

It’s important to continually monitor and adjust linkage efforts. And since they are the most time-intensive of linkages, all collaborations must be evaluated regularly. Questions to ask on an ongoing basis should address both linkage process and outcomes.

Process Questions:

1. Are goals clear and concise?
2. What measurements can be used to see if goals are achieved?
3. Is communication among organizations direct and clear?
4. Are regular meetings planned with all partners involved? Are agendas clear?

Outcome Questions:

1. Is the effort effective? Are we achieving our objectives, benefiting the community, and meeting our own self-interests?
2. Is the effort adequate? Are we using sufficient and appropriate resources to achieve results?
3. Is the effort efficient? Have we invested an appropriate amount of time, money, and energy to achieve desired results and build relationships?
4. What lessons have we learned? Should we continue this collaboration? If so, what changes may be helpful?
5. What other linkages may be useful? (Adapted from Winer & Ray, 1994, p. 109)

Linkage Possibilities for ECFE with Other Organizations (listed in alphabetical order) Also see Collaborations page

Adult Basic Education

• Combine ECFE and Adult Basic Education (ABE) to offer a family literacy program for adults and their children, ages birth to kindergarten. Offer GED (General Equivalency Degree for those without a high school diploma), diploma, and English Language Learner (ELL) instruction; parent-child activities; and parent discussion in an integrated curriculum.

Battered Women's Shelters

• Offer focused weekly parent-child activities for families at the shelter.
• Offer weekly parent education session at the shelter (with or without parent-child activities). Topics could include discipline, self-care, children's response to change, etc.
• Promote ECFE classes to families. Encourage shelter to provide transportation for families to ECFE programs.
• Encourage families to attend ECFE special events or open playtime sessions.
• Make individual contacts, including telephone calls, to shelter families.

Cable Television

• Advertise events on cable.
• Show ECFE videos, including state informational ECFE video.
• Videotape some special ECFE events.
• Have a special monthly program with ECFE staff demonstrating activities families can do at home.

Child Care Programs (Home and Center) and Preschools

• Jointly offer classes, e.g., jointly plan, fund, and conduct a traveling science museum trunk show on bears or dinosaurs.
• Jointly offer special events, e.g., to celebrate the Week of the Young Child, offer a family sock hop.
• Offer a class after hours following an ECFE format or a special topic night for parents.
• ECFE staff act as consultants to child care staff regarding children with challenging behaviors.
• Provide cross-staff training. ECFE staff have been extensively involved in training for people working with the Infant Toddler Training Intensive (ITTI) and diversity issues.
• Act as a resource to child care providers through on-site visits.
• Act as a mentor site for people training for the child care profession.
• Assist parents in accessing child care funds when attending family literacy programs or adolescent parent programs to help to cover program costs.
• ECFE staff serve on child care councils and boards.

Colleges and Universities

• Offer ECFE as an observation site for student practicums.
• ECFE program serves as a site for pilot projects.
• Mutually assist in developing programs and speak in classes.
• Mutually access staff for trainings and inservices.
• Apply research in parenting groups.

Crisis Nursery (temporary shelter and services for children of families in crisis)

• Share brochures and refer clients to ECFE.
• Jointly offer a class for participants who have used or are using services provided by Crisis Nursery. Provide dinner with a parent-child time, a parent group, and early childhood class.
• Several ECFE programs share responsibility for having a parent educator on site as parents prepare to leave with their children.

Early Childhood Screening

• Use ECFE space and staff to help conduct screenings.
• Advertise screening dates in ECFE program brochures.
• Advertise ECFE/School Readiness classes and events at screening sessions.

Early Childhood Special Education

• Integrate ECFE, School Readiness, and Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) classes.
• Offer a parent-child class for parents with developmental delays. Families participate in a parent-child playtime and a parent discussion group.
• Offer transportation
• Offer an evening class for parents with special needs children. Following a parent-child playtime, a parent discussion group focuses on the joys and challenges of parenting a child with special needs. An ECSE teacher works in the classroom with ECFE staff.
• Jointly offer and attend staff development training sessions.
• Attend joint staff meetings to plan curriculum for integrated classes.
• Share toys and resources in the classroom.
• ECFE staff participate in activities or serve on boards for organizations that focus on special needs children, e.g., Interagency Early Intervention Committee (IEIC), Courage Center, PACER, etc.
• By ECFE staff and parent request, special education staff do classroom observations of children while they are attending ECFE classes to help identify potential developmental problems.

Employers

• Offer parent education classes and seminars at work places during lunch hours.
• Jointly sponsor Job Fairs in communities with high unemployment.

Food/Clothing Shelves

• Hold periodic or ongoing food drives to support local food shelves.
• Coordinate with other district/school programs to open a mini food shelf for families using your program site.
• Encourage families and staff to donate children's clothing for families. Sort clothing by size and season to make it user friendly.

Head Start

• ECFE parent educator facilitates a weekly Head Start parent discussion group at the Head Start site.
• Parents enrolled in the Birth to Three Head Start Program are invited to attend a parent-child class at the Head Start site. ECFE provides a parent educator to facilitate parent discussion.
• Head Start contracts with Community Education to provide a Head Start classroom. One ECFE teacher and one Head Start teacher co-teach the class. Children can stay for child care after hours if it is offered in the same building.
• Families enrolled in Head Start are invited to dinner followed by parent-child activities and parent discussion. The discussion focuses on children's books and topics related to the books and encourages families to read and talk together.

Hospitals

• Hospitals distribute ECFE brochures to expectant and new parents.
• Jointly sponsor baby showers and other special events to provide expectant and new parents with information, resources, and opportunities to create informal support networks.
• ECFE hosts a monthly reunion at area hospitals for all families with newborns that includes sharing and support; parenting tips; resources for new families; ideas for songs, fingerplays, and homemade toys; CPR/ First Aid; etc.
• Several ECFE programs jointly fund a staff person to visit new parents in the hospital to deliver “baby packets” with program information and gifts such as bibs or blankets made by community volunteers.
• ECFE staff from several area school districts, in cooperation with hospital staff, offer a parent education component as part of the childbirth preparation classes.
• ECFE provides a weekly, free support group at the hospital for new parents and their babies, birth to four months. Families may come anytime during the ongoing group series. A lactation consultant is available for medical concerns and information.
• ECFE staff provide activities for hospitalized children and share information on parenting and child development with family members.

Mental Health Clinics

• Hire a consultant from the clinic to meet with ECFE staff on an ongoing basis in order to address the complex needs of families who are attending ECFE classes.
• Offer a joint class with clinicians and an ECFE staff member for parents who are dealing with mental health issues for themselves or their children.

Nature Centers

• Advertise nature center classes for young children.
• Take field trips to nature center.
• Use nature centers for staff inservice site.
• Nature center offers special programs for families at ECFE/School Readiness sites.
• Nature center staff offer training sessions for teachers.

Prisons

• Provide parent education classes for incarcerated mothers or fathers.

Public Health

• Public health staff serve on teen parent advisory boards.
• WIC clinics make referrals to ECFE.
• ECFE offers classes and consultation at WIC sites.
• Jointly plan and attend home visits.
• Public health staff conduct inservices for ECFE staff on health issues.
• Public health staff speak to parent groups on health issues related to young children, e.g., nutrition, car seat safety, etc.
• Jointly teach classes for public health clients on parent-child topics at rental housing complexes.

Public Library

• Jointly offer a class such as "Story Time Magic” to highlight children's books.
• Coordinate the parenting topic with a picture book. For example, read the book Good Night Moon and discuss bedtime issues.
• Go to the library for a field trip. Arrange story time with the children's librarian, a tour of the library for families, and an opportunity for parents to sign up for a library card.
• Advertise ECFE classes on the library bulletin board.
• Invite a children's librarian to the ECFE program to read a story and talk about the library’s services

Public Schools (Elementary, Middle, Junior, Senior High Schools)

• Offer a program to parents with children entering kindergarten. Parents and children have a short interaction time, followed by a classroom/parent discussion component. A kindergarten teacher from the school discusses curriculum and routine. The purpose is to provide a sneak preview to help the entire family prepare for the kindergarten experience.
• Title I assists with early literacy activities in the ECFE classroom.
• Use school district specialists for staff inservices, e.g., gifted and talented, staff development, psychologists, etc.
• Take part in district-wide training sessions on topics such as crisis prevention, brain development, the Work Sampling System, peer coaching, etc.
• Children ages 3-5 years with articulation, fluency, and voice disorders attend a weekly class with their parents. Parents and children work with a speech pathologist and ECFE teacher in individual and group sessions.
• Use older students to present puppet shows or read to children for "Read Across America" day.
• Use junior and senior high volunteers in early childhood classrooms.
• Students observe ECFE classes as part of class projects. ECFE staff work with secondary education family life staff to offer joint programming for child development and parenting information.
• ECFE provides instructor for parent education classes for teen parents at alternative high school.
• Students make activity packets for families. Art students paint murals on walls and design program logos.

Senior Citizens/Foster Grandparents

• Serve as classroom assistants.
• Make items for families and program, e.g., bibs, quilts, etc.
• Use expertise to teach in family literacy classes.
• Read to children.
• Teach children games.

Social Services

• ECFE and the county Child Protection unit offer a class designed for families with a child currently living at home but at risk of being removed, for families with a child currently living in foster care but with plans underway to reunify, or for families recently reunified.
• Act as a host site for the Parents Forever program (court mandated parent education program for divorcing parents).
• Through a county collaborative, help fund a family support worker to assist families with children ages 0-5.
• Social service staff serve on teen parent advisory board and act as a resource to teens.
• Serve as a host site for the Children's Safety Center. This is an environment for planned visits between children and parents who have temporarily or permanently lost custody of their children due to abuse or neglect. The program provides opportunities for parents and children to develop or maintain relationships in a safe, supervised environment conducive to positive parent-child interaction. Parents meet with staff before and after each visit for information on parenting, child development, etc.

Teen Parents

• Offer a class for teen parents who attend high school and have their children enrolled in a school district child care center. Parents are automatically enrolled in a weekly ECFE class. The class is an opportunity for the parents to interact with their children in an early childhood classroom. Twice per month, the parents have a discussion group and attend class without their children. The teen parents receive partial high school credit for participating in the program.
• Teen mothers and fathers meet for one hour each week during the school day to discuss issues involved in parenting. Meeting time is arranged by the high school. ECFE staff lead parent discussion sessions.

University of Minnesota and University of Minnesota Extension Service

• Speakers from the University of Minnesota share research information on family budgeting, nutrition, brain development, and other topics in staff inservices and parent groups.
• Several ECFE programs plan with Minnesota Extension to offer parent classes for the entire county to reach a broader audience. For example, arrange for a current popular speaker to present at a central county location, and have the programs

fund the event collaboratively. The agencies and programs advertise at each of their sites for the event. Offer child care at a local ECFE site.

Vocational/Technical Colleges

• Offer ECFE as an observation site for student practicums.
• Staff person from area college offers career counseling to family literacy students.
• Take family literacy students on a tour of local colleges.
• ECFE staff serve on curriculum boards.

Youth Organizations

• Participate on boards/advisory councils of local youth boards to share program information and to promote collaboration.
• Jointly staff parent-child activities at local apartment complexes.
• Plan a summer picnic at a local park for families. Include activities to promote parent-child involvement.
• Promote developmental assets for young children and youth in a weekly column in the local newspaper.

YWCA/YMCA

• Offer single parent classes with the Y providing child care and ECFE doing parent education.

Other potential linkage partners include child guidance clinics, PTAs/PTOs, ministerial associations, volunteer service organizations such as Kiwanis or Rotary, community action councils, neighborhood organizations, city and county parks and recreation departments, and the Family Support Network (formerly Parents Anonymous).

Lessons Learned From Doing Linkages

1. Balance planning with doing.
2. Perspectives are different.
3. Interagency agreements NOW avoid problems LATER.
4. Assign clear responsibility for tasks, deadlines, etc.
5. It's easy to avoid responsibility in a collaborative.
6. Acknowledge and deal with problems.
7. One person can sabotage efforts.
8. You never get everything you want.
9. You must be willing to give up power.
10. Not every linkage works.
11. Keep it simple.
12. Be persistent.

(Developed by Jane Ellison and Deb Campbell, Sauk Rapids/Rice ECFE)

References

Winer, M., & Ray, K. (1994). Collaboration handbook: Creating, sustaining, and enjoying the journey. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

Fenichel, E. (Ed.). (2001). Creating welcoming library environments for infants, toddlers, and their families. Zero to Three: Bulletin of Zero to Three, National Center for Infants, Toddlers, and Families, 21 (3).

Appendices

6A Results of Survey on Involvement of Child Care Providers in Early Childhood
Family Education