Content uploaded by Sara Gable
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sara Gable on Aug 11, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Barriers 1
Running Head: BARRIERS
Barriers to Child Care Providers’ Professional Development
Sara Gable and Amy Halliburton
University of Missouri, Columbia
Submitted: June 7, 2002
This research was made possible by a grant from the Missouri Department of Health,
Bureau of Child Care (MDH-AOC8000299) to the first author. The authors extend their sincere
appreciation to Dr. Kathleen Anger, Paula MacFarling, and the staff of Horizon Research
Services for conducting the telephone interviews. Portions of this study were presented at the
biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development (April, 2001; Minneapolis,
MN). Address correspondence to Sara Gable, Human Development and Family Studies
Extension, 306 Gentry Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211-7700; e-mail:
gables@missouri.edu; phone: 573-882-4628.
Barriers 2
Abstract
The current study uses telephone interview data gathered from 647 randomly-selected
child care providers (92 center-based directors, 230 center-based providers, and 325 family child
care providers) to describe one state’s child care workforce and the individual beliefs, pragmatic
concerns, and current regulations that may operate as barriers to providers’ professional
development (e.g., training and education). Results indicate meaningful differences among the
three groups’ demographic characteristics (e.g., age, experience, educational attainment, and
personal income) and perceptions of the importance of pragmatic barriers, and variations in their
beliefs about the relationship between education and compensation. No significant differences
were noted in provider beliefs about preservice training; all groups equally agreed that training
and education are necessary prior to providing child care. Results are discussed in light of
current state child care regulations and how reported differences may function as barriers to
accessing professional development.
Key Words: professional development, training, barriers
Barriers 3
Barriers to Child Care Providers’ Professional Development
The positive relationship between child care provider educational preparation and the
quality of children’s experiences is routinely reported in child care research. Studies
consistently identify caregiver specialized training and education as one of the strongest
predictors of child care quality (Arnett, 1989; Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team,
1995; Howes, Whitebook & Phillips, 1992; Kontos, Howes, Shinn, & Galinsky, 1995; NICHD
Early Child Care Research Network, 1996, Vandell & Wolfe, 2000) and maintain that ongoing
training is necessary for continuous quality improvements (Munton, Mooney, & Rowland, 1996).
Consequently, because providers are the critical link between program quality and child
outcomes, snapshots of the child care workforce frequently serve as proxies for the supply of
quality child care.
Large-scale studies of the child care workforce reveal a vocation plagued by alarmingly
high rates of staff turnover. Annual turnover rates for individuals who change jobs within child
care and those who completely leave the field average approximately 30 percent (U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1998). A multi-site study of family child care providers indicated equally high
levels of turnover among relatives providing care (30%), unregulated home-based programs
(25%), and regulated home-based programs (8%) (Kontos et al., 1995). A recent estimate
reveals that approximately 18% of center-based staff and 17% of family child care providers
leave the field entirely every year (Whitebook, Sakai, Gerber, & Howes, 2001). The sad truth is
that child care employment offers low wages, few job benefits, and limited opportunity for
professional advancement (Whitebook, 1999). Moreover, the profession suffers from widely
variable state regulations that govern child care providers’ preparation and continuing education
Barriers 4
(e.g., Azer & Bowie, 2000; National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2001). Thus,
child care quality tends to remain low, due to workforce instability and substandard professional
development requirements.
To address these issues, efforts began in the early 1990's to conceptualize professional
preparation and career development systems for child care providers (Bredekamp, 1991;
Bredekamp & Willer, 1992; Johnson & McCracken, 1994). In 1991, the National Institute for
Early Childhood Professional Development set the goal that by the year 2001, “all programs for
young children will provide high-quality, developmentally appropriate care and education”
(Bredekamp, 1991, p. 35). More recently, the U.S. federal government and individual states
have raised standards for early childhood teacher preparation and education. For example, Head
Start reauthorization (October 27, 1998) mandates that at least 50% of center teachers have an
appropriate associate’s degree by the year 2003. Additionally, some states require entry-level
training for child care providers (e.g., Florida, South Carolina) and many have implemented
voluntary professional development systems (see Azer & Hanrahan, 1998 for state-by-state
descriptions). In principle, whether mandated or voluntary, these efforts are intended to improve
child care quality and establish a more stable workforce.
Due to the marked variations in state child care rules and regulations, professional
development systems are most often conceived and implemented at the state level. Observant
child care advocates recognize that these initiatives pose unique demands on individuals to
change their attitudes and behavior (e.g., recognize the significance of education and training
for quality programs, obtain more education and training; e.g., Andreasen, 1995) and urge state
planners to examine child care providers’ thoughts about education and training, their specific
Barriers 5
training needs, and the barriers and incentives to accessing professional development
opportunities. Considering the input of those most directly affected by workforce development
efforts is a wise strategy for garnering support from the target audience.
A number of studies have been conducted to better understand providers’ perspectives on
education and training. Results indicate that their beliefs and perceptions may operate at several
levels. For instance, individual beliefs about the role of education for quality child care can
influence one’s motivation for pursuing additional training and professional development
(Dombro & Modigliani, 1995; Gable & Hansen, 2001; Pence & Goelman, 1991). Similarly,
pragmatic barriers typically exist that reduce access to professional development activities (e.g.,
inconvenient scheduling, prohibitive costs, personal child care needs), leaving providers unable
to attend (Bailey & Osborne, 1994). Additionally, if state training and education requirements
vary for different provider groups (e.g., center-based and family-based, teachers and
administrators), the intent of professional development efforts--to strengthen the workforce and
improve child care quality--may not be realized to the fullest extent (e.g., Eheart & Leavitt,
1986). Acknowledging each of these potential barriers is crucial for designing successful
initiatives; addressing only one aspect of the problem may be cost ineffective and produce
unintended consequences (e.g., more informal, unregulated care arrangements, higher levels of
turnover, increased costs to families).
In summary, with these ideas in mind, the current study seeks: a) to describe one state’s
child care workforce, their beliefs about preservice training, education and compensation, and the
pragmatic barriers to accessing professional development; and b) to compare the findings among
center-based directors, providers, and family child care providers in an effort to uncover potential
Barriers 6
barriers due to current regulations. What makes this study unique is that it includes center-based
and family child care providers; large scale studies of child care providers do not typically
consider both groups within a given state in their design (e.g., Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes
Study Team, 1995; Kontos et al., 1995; Whitebook, Howes, & Phillips, 1989;
Whitebook, Phillips, & Howes, 1993). Thus, comparing center-based staff and family
child care providers’ beliefs and perceptions will illuminate professional development system
potential for these subgroups while simultaneously acknowledging the “diversity” in the child
care workforce (Bredekamp, 1991; Bredekamp & Willer, 1992).
Method
Participants
Potential participants were identified from randomly-ordered lists of Missouri’s licensed
child care facilities and contacted by phone to determine study eligibility and interest. The goal
of the sampling procedures was to recruit 80 child care practitioners in each of the state’s 10
Service Delivery Areas for a total of 800 participants. Exclusionary criteria were applied with
the goal of recruiting a sample who worked full-day, full-year, almost exclusively with children
birth through age five, and who were required, by law, to annually obtain 12 clock hours of
training under these conditions.
Child care programs were excluded when 1) the program was a Head Start program; 2)
the program was exclusively a before/after school child care program; 3) the program did not
offer child care full-day and full-year; or 4) the program was a “group day care home” [all 203
group homes (5% of the original population) were excluded because of their small number].
Barriers 7
After confirming program participation criteria, individuals were randomly selected to determine
eligibility for the telephone interview. Eligible participants 1) worked more than 30 hours per
week; and 2) had been providing child care for more than one year. To qualify as a child care
center director, individuals had to spend at least 50% of their work time in administrative duties.
The original list of 4292 licensed child care facilities included 1569 child care centers
(36%), 2520 homes (59%), and 203 group homes (5%); after removing ineligible programs, 3460
programs remained (976 centers and 2484 homes). To recruit potential participants, 2,611
(75%) licensed child care centers and homes were contacted by telephone. Thirty-six percent of
the programs contacted did not participate for the following reasons: 9% no answer, 11%
answering machine, 9% refusal, 2% ineligible, 1% terminated calls, and, 4% disconnected
numbers. A total of 4,975 calls were made (including repeat calls and follow-ups); the average
length of a telephone survey was 47 minutes. In total, 830 telephone surveys were conducted
with 106 center directors, 304 center teachers, and 420 family child care providers. This study
examines 647 cases with complete data (92 center directors, 230 center teachers, and 325 family
child care providers). To guarantee that the sample in question did not differ from the original
830 individuals interviewed, comparisons were made between the two groups and the results
indicated no significant differences in participant age, gender, race, child care experience,
relevant education, or annual income from child care.
As presented in Table 1, thirty percent of the participants were age 34 or younger, 30%
were between 35 and 44 years, and 33% were older than 45. Eight men participated in the study
and represent 1% of the sample. Ten percent of the sample were African-American, 87% were
Caucasian, and the remaining participants (2.4%) represented other non-Caucasian minority
Barriers 8
groups (e.g., Asian, Hispanic). Participants averaged approximately 11 years of experience in
child care (SD = 8.46; range: 1 to 46 years). Child care relevant education was originally
classified in one of eight categories (none, high school child development classes, Child
Development Associate, 12 or fewer college credits, 13 or more college credits, 2-year degree,
4-year degree, and graduate-level degree). Thirty-four percent (n=221) of the sample reported
either no child care relevant education or some high school child development classes; 36%
(n=234) of the sample indicated either a Child Development Associate degree or some college
credits; and, almost 30% (n=192) of the sample had completed college-level degrees. For their
child care employment, 19.5% of the sample earned less than $10,000 annually, 39.3% reported
annual earnings between $10,000 and $20,000, 25% earned between $20,000 and $30,000, and
13% indicated earning more than $30,000 per year.
The Telephone Survey
The 50-question telephone survey was based on a content analysis of eight focus group
discussions with randomly-selected center-based directors, providers, and family child care
providers (described in detail in Gable & Hansen, 2001). In general, the survey was designed to
query providers about individual demographic characteristics, beliefs about preservice, education
and compensation, training availability, specific training needs, and barriers and incentives to
accessing training. The current study examines a portion of the survey data and focuses on
provider demographics, beliefs, and barriers to accessing training.
Beliefs. Two items were used to gauge participant beliefs about the necessity of
preservice training and the association between education and compensation (“Training and
education are necessary before a person starts to care for children.” “Child care providers
Barriers 9
who have more training and education should receive better pay than those with less training
and education.”). For each item, respondents indicated their extent of agreement with a 4-point
Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = agree; 4 = strongly agree.
Barriers. Six items were used to assess the pragmatic reasons why individuals may not
attend training (i.e., the barriers to accessing training). The subject of these questions was based
directly on themes gleaned from the focus group discussions and includes: 1) the cost of
classes; 2) the quality of instruction; 3) not being compensated to attend; 4) the training location
(i.e., distance); 5) inconvenient scheduling; and 6) limited notice of the training opportunity.
Participants used a 4-point Likert scale to report the importance of each barrier; 1 = not
important; 2 = slightly important; 3 = moderately important; and 4 = very important.
Results
The primary goals of the current study are descriptive in nature. Thus, data analyses will
first describe Missouri’s licensed and regulated child care workforce, their beliefs about
preservice training, education and compensation, and the pragmatic barriers to accessing
professional development. Additionally, to indirectly examine the role of current regulations,
the findings will be tested for differences among center-based directors and providers, and family
child care providers. Collectively, the results will offer valuable insight to Missouri’s evolving
professional development system.
Participant Demographics
Comparison by role. Child care center directors’ and providers’, and family child care
providers’ demographic characteristics were compared and, as shown in Table 2, the three groups
differed on a number of variables. For instance, chi-square tests revealed that participant age
Barriers 10
varied among the groups (X2 (8) = 87.6; p < .001). In the current sample, center providers are
more frequently younger than center directors and family child care providers; specifically, over
50% of the center providers are under age 34, compared to 34% of center directors and 26% of
family child care providers.
Child care experience also differed for the three groups (F (2,644) = 25.18; p < .001).
Center directors averaged a little over 13 years in the field, compared to 12.5 years for family
child care providers and nearly eight years for center providers. When child care experience is
divided into thirds (i.e., low, medium, and high experience), based on the distribution of the
entire sample, the groups again varied (X2 (4) =50.4; p < .001); center providers were mostly
concentrated in the “least experience” category (46.5% had between 1 and 4.5 years in child
care).
Child care relevant education and annual income also showed significant differences
among the three groups (X2 (4) = 103.3; p < .001; X2 (6) = 112.4; p < .001, respectively).
Although child care center directors had the highest levels of education (61% reported earning a
college degree), they did not earn the highest income. In fact, nearly 50% of family child care
providers reported no relevant training or only high school child development classes and this
group reported earning the most annual income (53% reported more than $20,000 annually,
compared to 45% of center directors). Center providers were evenly represented across the
categories of relevant education, however, 82% of center providers reported earning less than
$20,000 annually.
Beliefs about Preservice, Education and Compensation
Description. Participant beliefs about the necessity of preservice training and links
Barriers 11
between education and compensation are presented in Table 3. In general, the figures show that
all three groups of providers agree with the concepts stated. That is, the sample’s average scores
fell between agree and strongly agree, indicating that participants believe child care providers
need some training and education prior to caring for children (M = 3.37, SD = 0.83) and that
higher levels of training and education should be associated with more compensation (M = 3.25,
SD = 0.89).
Comparison by role. To better understand how participant beliefs may differ depending
on role, ANOVA was used with Bonferroni follow-up tests. Table 3 compares center directors’,
center providers’, and family child care providers’ scores for the two items. The findings show
no differences in beliefs about the necessity of preservice training and education; all groups
agreed equally that this type of preparation should be required. However, the three groups
differed significantly in their agreement that higher levels of training and education should result
in more compensation (F (2,644) = 37.23; p < .001). Although center director and provider
ratings were quite similar (Ms = 3.62 and 3.50, respectively), family child care provider scores
were significantly lower than both of the center groups (M = 2.97).
Barriers to Accessing Training
Description. Table 4 presents participant reports of the importance of barriers to
attending training workshops in their area. Of the 6 potential barriers, “inconvenient
scheduling” received the highest importance rating from the full group as a reason for not
attending training (M = 3.22, SD = 1.03) and “not compensated to attend” was rated as the lowest
in importance (M = 1.78, SD = 1.12).
Comparison by role. To better understand how these barriers are experienced by
Barriers 12
center-based directors, providers, and family child care providers, ANOVAs were computed for
each barrier with Bonferroni follow-up tests. As shown in Table 4, results indicate significant
differences by role for two of the six barriers. Specifically, center directors reported higher
importance ratings for “inconvenient scheduling” than center providers (F (2,644) = 5.63; p <
.01; Ms = 3.47 and 3.06, respectively). Additionally, the importance of “limited notice of
opportunity” was rated higher by center-based providers than by family child care providers (F
(2,644) = 5.63; p < .01; Ms = 3.00 and 2.68, respectively). The importance of the four other
barriers--cost of classes, quality of instruction, not compensated to attend, and distance to
training--was rated equally by the three groups.
Discussion
Using data gathered as part of a statewide assessment of child care providers’ training
needs, the current study described the demographic characteristics of one state’s child care
workforce and examined barriers to child care providers’ professional development. Barriers
were conceived at several levels, including individual beliefs, pragmatic concerns, and the
potential contribution of current regulations, with the ultimate goal of informing Missouri’s
evolving early childhood professional development initiative. The study is somewhat unique
because it includes both center-based staff and family child care providers. Although some
young children are cared for by fathers or relatives while their mothers are working (Casper,
1997; Galinsky, Howes, Kontos, & Shinn, 1994; Glass, 1998; NICHD Early Child Care Research
Network, 1996), the majority of children attend center-based or family child care programs
(Capizzano, Adams, & Sonenstein, 2000). Moreover, child care represents a vocation with high
demand for skilled workers and marked increases in the projected employment rate (Bureau of
Barriers 13
Labor Statistics, 2000). Thus, improving child care providers’ knowledge and skill, and
increasing workforce stability is a priority in most states.
Missouri’s Child Care Workforce
The demographic characteristics of Missouri’s child care workforce are not unlike those
described in other large scale descriptive studies (e.g., Kontos et al., 1995; Whitebook et al.,
1989; 1993; 2001). Child care providers are mostly women who represent many age cohorts,
have a wide range of relevant education and child care experience, and are typically poorly
compensated. Comparing center-based staff and family child care providers revealed
differences in age, education, experience, and income, which, in turn, raises questions about
selection effects (e.g., what distinguishes individuals who pursue center-based careers versus
those who pursue family child care) and the match between subgroup workforce characteristics
and professional development system components. Some of these differences may be associated
with current child care regulations and will be addressed later.
Beliefs
How might individual beliefs about training, education, and compensation act as a barrier
(or an incentive) to professional development? Two findings from the current study are
especially relevant for Missouri’s evolving system. First, most participants in the study,
regardless of role, agreed that education and training are necessary before a person starts to care
for children. Such a widely-shared belief may represent a consensus-based entry point for child
care professional development systems and operate as an incentive to pursuing these
opportunities. Ironically, however, a national summary of preservice requirements indicates that
31 states require no preservice training for center-based teachers or small family child care
Barriers 14
homes and 17 states require no preservice training or specialized education for center directors
(Azer & Bowie, 2000)! Mitchell and Morgan (2000) posit that our preparation and education
standards are exceedingly low for entry level child care workers and that “raising the bar for
academic preparation and providing assistance to meet the new requirements might attract public
support in some states” (p. 31). Although we have limited understanding of the exact “dose” of
preparation and education required for quality caregiving (e.g., Eheart & Leavitt, 1986),
establishing entry-level qualifications that are either too high or too low may produce unintended
consequences, such as greater amounts of unregulated care. Thus, caution is warranted when
making such decisions.
The second finding of note revealed differences in providers’ beliefs about education and
compensation. Specifically, when compared to their family child care counterparts, center-based
staff more strongly believed that higher levels of education warrant higher levels of
compensation. This finding may be explained by the greater educational achievement among
center-based staff. Or, it may be the result of selection of child care providers into the center or
the home setting. Past research indicates that parents’ child care arrangements are non-random
(Gable & Cole, 2000; NICHD, 1997; Singer, Fuller, Keiley, & Wolf, 1998); parents tend to view
child care centers as more educational and family child care homes as more relationship-oriented.
A priori beliefs about what children need to succeed, be it educational opportunities or secure
relationships, may guide individuals into either center-based or family child care programs. In
truth, children need both a stimulating learning environment and supportive relationships with
caregivers, and being prepared to provide these opportunities requires specialized training and
ongoing professional development experiences, regardless of setting.
Barriers 15
Barriers
Pragmatic issues can also reduce access to professional development opportunities. Our
findings indicate that for all provider groups distance to training is an important barrier to
obtaining relevant educational experiences. Missouri is a large state, with few population
centers that are not close in proximity. Addressing this barrier and guaranteeing valuable
training opportunities statewide requires coordination, technology, and funding. The National
Head Start Associations’ Heads up! Reading program, which is delivered via satellite, represents
a viable option for bringing high-quality, research-based training to remote areas.
The low importance of “not compensated to attend” may reflect Missouri’s current
regulations that require 12 clock hours of training annually, or one hour per month. If training
requirements were to notably increase, this barrier may be more salient. For instance, if states
were to mandate child care workers to complete the Child Development Associate (CDA)
credential, they may also need to provide corresponding support services (e.g., release time from
work, substitutes, materials/textbooks) to ensure providers’ success (see Cassidy, Bell,
Pugh-Hoese, & Russell, 1995 for an example).
When barriers were compared among groups, the scheduling of professional development
opportunities received the highest rating from center-based directors. This may reflect a
difference in the type of training that center administrators seek and the time of day when such
opportunities are offered. Missouri requires child care center directors to have some
college-level course work prior to taking administrative positions, which may translate into a
need (or desire) for higher-level training, such as college courses or multi-session continuing
education workshops. Another difference surfaced among the 3 groups; center-based providers’
Barriers 16
reported “limited notice” as a more important impediment to accessing professional development
than the other two groups. The current practice in the state is to publicize training opportunities
to all licensed child care facilities, not necessarily to individual child care providers. This
strategy works well for center-based directors and family child care providers because they
directly receive notices of professional development opportunities. However, center-based
providers must rely on the information being passed along in a timely manner, a practice that
likely varies among child care centers. An interesting aspect of professional development
systems is the extent to which they represent a provider-focused approach to improving child
care quality, rather than a facility-focused approach (e.g., Gormley, 2000). Although the
distribution of training notices to individual providers rather than to licensed facilities is a very
small piece of the puzzle, it does reflect a shift in thinking of where to target limited resources.
Potential Implications of Missouri’s Child Care Regulations
State child care regulations are a critical facet of the child care ecology; anyone using
other state professional development systems as boilerplates for their own efforts must attend to
potential differences in regulatory practices. Research shows that stricter state regulations
support higher quality child care in centers (CQCO Study Team, 1995; NICHD, 1999) and in
family child care programs (Kontos et al., 1995) and, that high quality family child care providers
tend to be licensed (Pence & Goelman, 1991). Findings from the current study implicitly
suggest that some regulations may inadvertently undermine the goal of motivating child care
providers to pursue more training and education.
For instance, in Missouri, as in many states (Azer & Bowie, 2000), regulations mandate
more education for center directors than for all other child care providers. Center directors in
Barriers 17
our study reported less annual income than family child care providers, although they are more
formally prepared for their jobs. A recent study of turnover in Illinois and California noted the
disparities in educational requirements and compensation for similar jobs and attributed these
findings to funding problems and state-to-state variability in child care regulations (Center for
Early Childhood Leadership, 2001). Incentive programs that provide wage enhancements or
bonuses for continued employment and ongoing professional development are clearly needed to
stabilize and improve the child care workforce. Unless such strategies are established for
guaranteeing compensation commensurate with education and employment stability, professional
development systems may not entice center directors to seek more education than the absolute
minimum.
Another potential regulatory barrier in Missouri allows family child care programs to
serve related children without counting them as a part of the maximum group size of 10.
Missouri child care licensing lore includes stories of individual family child care providers who
provide full-day/full-year services for 18 children, all within the boundaries of the law. For state
planners, the predicament is one of increasing child care quality without compromising
providers’ revenue base. Nonetheless, quality is compromised when home-based programs
serve more children than is recommended by national organizations such as the American
Academy of Pediatrics and the National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Changing existing child care regulations to improve program quality is tricky business.
Gormley (1991; 1999) cautions that all proposals be carefully evaluated. Whereas some
modifications may require financial investments (e.g., yard fencing, special ground cover under
playground equipment), others, such as modest increases in provider training requirements, are
Barriers 18
less costly and intrusive (Gormley, 1991), and in the long run may produce greater gains in
overall program quality.
Limitations of Current Study
The results presented must be interpreted with caution because of a number of
methodological shortcomings with the study’s design. For instance, the data were gathered
exclusively by telephone, leaving one to question the validity and reliability of participant
reports. Similarly, although the study focused on child care providers, their demographic
characteristics, and beliefs about training, education and compensation, and barriers to accessing
professional development, the self-report approach yields no indication of the quality of child
care services actually provided. Additionally, although little research directly examines provider
beliefs about preservice requirements and the association between education and compensation,
one-item measures present their own methodological problems. Nonetheless, the ever-changing
landscape of child care in the United States warrants consideration of such findings because they
yield valuable information for designing and implementing professional development systems.
Recommendations
In closing, the current study offers several recommendations for Missouri’s professional
development initiative. Some solutions are straightforward whereas others are more complex.
For instance, the participants interviewed all indicated that training and education are necessary
before a person starts to care for children; this belief could be used as the entry-point for the
state’s professional development system. Similarly, addressing the pragmatic barriers may
require utilizing distance education and implementing new methods of publicizing training
Barriers 19
opportunities (i.e., directly to providers rather than licensed facilities). Some of the more
complex issues involve altering provider beliefs and revising existing regulations. However,
until higher standards for provider preparation and continuing education are required and
appropriately rewarded, child care providers will be unmotivated to pursue additional
professional development opportunities, and, in turn, will not recognize the links between their
own education and the quality of services they provide. States would be wise to proceed on all
fronts and help providers understand the importance of education and training, create
professional development systems that are accessible to all, and implement reasonable rules and
regulations that maintain an adequate supply of quality programs.
Barriers 20
References
Andreasen, A. R. (1995). Marketing social change: Changing behavior to promote
health, social development, and the environment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Arnett, J.L. (1989). Caregivers in day care centers: Does training matter? Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 541-552.
Azer, S. L. & Bowie, P. (2000).
Training requirements in child
care licensing regulations: 2000
. Boston, MA: The Center for Career
Development in Early Care and Education.
Azer, S. L. & Hanrahan, C. (1998).
Early care and education
career development initiatives in 1998
. Boston, MA: The Center for
Career Development in Early Care and Education.
Bailey, S. & Osborne, S. (1994). Provider perspectives on the
content and delivery of training for family day care. Child and Youth Care
Forum, 23(5), 329-338.
Bredekamp, S. & Willer, B. (1992). Of ladders and lattices, cores
and cones: Conceptualizing an early childhood professional development
system. Young Children, 47, 47-50.
Bredekamp, S. (1991). A vision for early childhood professional
development. Young Children, 47, 35-37.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2000).
Occupational outlook
handbook: Preschool teachers and child care workers
. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Labor.
Barriers 21
Capizzano, J., Adams, G., & Sonenstein, F. (2000).
Child care
arrangements for children under five: Variation across states
. Washington,
DC: The Urban Institute (Series B, No. B-7).
Casper, L. M. (1997). My daddy takes care of me! Fathers as care providers.
Current Population Reports. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Economics and
Statistics Administration.
Cassidy, D.J., Bell, M.J., Pugh-Hoese, S., & Russell, S. (1995). The effect of education
on child care teachers’ beliefs and classroom quality: Year one evaluation of the TEACH early
childhood associate degree scholarship program. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10,
171-183.
Barriers 22
Center for Early Childhood Leadership. (Fall, 2001). A tale of two states: Turnover in
Illinois and California. Chicago, IL: National-Louis University.
Cost, Quality, & Child Outcomes Study Team. (1995). Cost, Quality, and Child
Outcomes in Child Care Centers, Public Report (2nd Edition). Denver: Economics
Department, University of Colorado at Denver.
Dombro, A. L. & Modigliani, K. (1995). Family child care providers speak about
training, trainers, accreditation, and professionalism: Findings from a survey of
Family-to-family graduates. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute.
Eheart, B. K. & Leavitt, R. L. (1986). Training day care home providers: Implications
for policy and research. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, 119-132.
Gable, S. & Cole, K. (2000). Parents’ child care arrangements and
their ecological correlates. Early Education and Development, 11,
549-572.
Gable, S. & Hansen, J. (2001). Child care provider perspectives on
the role of education and training for quality caregiving. Early Child
Development and Care, 166, 39-52.
Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S., & Shinn, M. (1994). The study of children in
family child care and relative care. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute.
Glass, J. (1998). Gender liberation, economic squeeze, or fear of
strangers: Why fathers provide infant care in dual-earner families.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 821-834.
Gormley, W. T. (2000). Early childhood education and care
regulation: A comparative perspective. International Journal of
Educational Research, 33, 55-74.
Gormley, W. T. (1999). Regulating child care quality. The
Barriers 23
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 563,
116-129.
Gormley, W. T. (1991). State regulations and the availability of
child-care services. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10,
78-95.
Howes, C., Whitebook, M., & Phillips, D. (1992). Teacher characteristics and effective
teaching in child care: Findings from the National Child Care Staffing Study. Child and Youth
Care Forum, 21, 399-414.
Johnson, J. & McCracken, J. B. (1994). The early childhood career lattice:
Perspectives on professional development. Washington, DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
Kontos, S., Howes, C., Shinn, M., & Galinsky, E. (1995). Quality in family child care
and relative care. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Mitchell, A. & Morgan, G. (2000). New perspectives on compensation strategies.
Boston, MA: The Center for Career Development in Early Care and
Education.
Munton, A. G., Mooney, A., & Rowland, L. (1996). Helping providers to improve
quality of day-care provision: Theories of education and learning. Early Child Development and
Care, 118, 15-25.
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2001). Getting to positive
outcomes for children in child care: A summary of two workshops. Board on Children, Youth,
and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1999). Child outcomes when child care
center classes meet recommended standards for quality. American Journal of Public Health, 89,
1072-1077.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1996). Characteristics
of infant child care: Factors contributing to positive caregiving. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 269-306.
Barriers 24
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1997). Familial
factors associated with the characteristics of non-maternal care for infants.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 389-408.
Pence, A. R. & Goelman, H. (1991). The relationship of regulation,
training, and motivation to quality of care in family day care. Child and
Youth Care Forum, 20(2), 83-101.
Shonkoff, J. P. & Phillips, D. A. (2000).
From neurons to
neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development
. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Singer, J.D., Fuller, B., Keiley, M.K., & Wolf, A. (1998). Early
child-care selection: Variation by geographic location, maternal
characteristics, and family structure. Developmental Psychology, 34,
1129-1144.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1998). Occupational Projections and Training Data.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
Vandell, D. L. & Wolfe, B. (2000). Child care quality: Does it matter and does it need
to be improved? University of Wisconsin - Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty (SR
#78).
Whitebook, M. (1999). Child care workers: High demand, low wages. The Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 563, 146-161.
Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1989).
Who cares?
Child care teachers and the quality of care in America.
Oakland, CA:
Child Care Employee Project.
Barriers 25
Whitebook, M., Phillips, D., & Howes, C. (1993).
The National
Child Care Staffing Study Revisited: Four years in the Life of
Center-Based Child Care.
Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Study.
Whitebook, M., Sakai, L., Gerber, E., & Howes, C. (2001).
Then
and now: Changes in child care staffing, 1994 - 2000
. Washington, DC:
Center for the Child Care Workforce.
Barriers 26
Table 1
Participant Demographics (n=647)
Frequency (%)
Age
Less than 25 years 79 (12.2%)
25 - 34 years 160 (24.7%)
35 to 44 years 193 (29.8%)
45 to 54 years 148 (22.9%)
55 years of older 67 (10.4%)
Gender
Male 8 (1.2%)
Female 639 (98.8%)
Race
African-American 67 (10.4%)
Caucasian 564 (87.2%)
Other (e.g., Hispanic, Asian) 16 (2.4%)
Child Care Experience
Average Years (SD) and Range 10.94 (8.46) 1 - 46
Child Care Education
None 112 (17.3%)
HS Child Dev Classes 109 (16.8%)
Child Dev Associate 22 (3.4%)
12 or fewer credit hours 93 (14.4%)
13 or more credit hours 119 (18.4%)
2-Year College degree 66 (10.2%)
4-Year College degree 88 (13.6%)
Graduate credit or degree 38 (5.9%)
Barriers 27
Table 1 (continued)
Frequency (%)
Child Care Education
*Collapsed into 3 categories
None and HS Child Dev Classes 221 (34.2%)
C.A. and some credit hours 234 (36.2%)
2-year, 4-year, and grad degree 192 (29.6%)
Annual Child Care Income
Less than $ 10,000 126 (19.5%)
$ 10,000 - $ 20,000 254 (39.3%)
$ 20,000 - $ 30,000 162 (25.0%)
$ 30,000 or more 84 (13.0%)
No answer 21 (3.2%)
Barriers 28
Table 2
Participant Demographics by Setting and Role (n=647)
Center Directors (n=92) Center Teachers (n=230) Home Teachers (n=325)
Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Test (df)
Age X2 (8)
87.6 ***
Less than 25 years 6 (6.5) 62 (27.0) 11 (3.4)
25 - 34 years 25 (27.2) 62 (27.0) 73 (22.5)
35 to 44 years 29 (31.5) 58 (25.2) 106 (32.6)
45 to 54 years 24 (26.1) 36 (15.7) 88 (27.1)
55 years of older 8 (8.7) 12 (5.2) 47 (14.5)
Race n.s.
African-American and
Other Minorities 5 (5.4) 31 (13.5) 47 (14.5)
Caucasian 87 (94.6) 199 (86.5) 278 (85.5)
Child Care Experience
Average Years (SD) 13.08 (8.4) 7.88 (6.8) 12.49 (8.9) F (2,644)
25.18***
1>2; 2<3
X2 (4)
1 - 4.5 years 15 (16.3) 107 (46.5) 82 (25.2) 50.4***
5 - 14.5 years 41 (44.6) 85 (37.0) 122 (37.5)
15 or more years 36 (39.1) 38 (16.5) 121 (37.2)
Barriers 29
Table 2 (continued)
Participant Demographics by Setting and Role (n=647)
Center Directors (n=92) Center Teachers (n=230) Home Teachers (n=325)
Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Test (df)
Child Care Education X2 (4)
*Collapsed into 3 categories 103.3***
None and HS Child Dev Classes 4 (4.3) 59 (25.7) 158 (48.6)
C.A. and some credit hours 32 (34.8) 87 (37.8) 115 (35.4)
2-year, 4-year, and grad degree 56 (60.9) 84 (36.5) 52 (16.0)
Annual Child Care Income (n=626) X2 (6)
112.4***
Less than $ 10,000 13 (14.1) 84 (36.5) 29 (8.9)
$ 10,000 - $ 20,000 33 (35.9) 105 (45.7) 116 (35.7)
$ 20,000 - $ 30,000 29 (31.5) 24 (10.4) 109 (33.5)
$ 30,000 or more 13 (14.1) 9 (3.9) 62 (19.1)
*** p < .001
Barriers 30
Table 3
Beliefs about Preservice, Education, and Compensation (n=647)
Total a. Ctr Dir b. Ctr Tea c. Hme Tea
(n=647) (n=92) (n=230) (n=325)
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F (2,644) Bonferroni
Preservice Training
and Education Required?
3.37 (0.83) 3.36 (0.83) 3.39 (0.83) 3.35 (0.84) n.s.
Should Training & Education Be
Associated with Higher Compensation?
3.25 (0.89) 3.62 (0.71) 3.50 (0.73) 2.97 (0.95) 37.23*** a > c; b > c
Preservice/Education/Compensation scale: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree.
* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
Barriers 31
Table 4
The Importance of Barriers to Accessing Training (n=647)
Total a. Ctr Dir b. Ctr Tea c. Hme Tea
(n=647) (n=92) (n=230) (n=325)
Barriers M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F (2,644) Bonferroni
Cost of Classes 2.53 (1.23) 2.76 (1.21) 2.53 (1.20) 2.47 (1.25) n.s.
Quality of Instruction 2.45 (1.29) 2.47 (1.29) 2.36 (1.24) 2.50 (1.32) n.s.
Not Compensated to Attend 1.78 (1.12) 1.85 (1.10) 1.90 (1.14) 1.68 (1.10) n.s.
Distance to Training 3.08 (1.13) 2.99 (1.19) 3.00 (1.13) 3.15 (1.12) n.s.
Inconvenient Scheduling 3.22 (1.03) 3.47 (0.91) 3.06 (1.04) 3.37 (1.05) 5.63** a > b
Limited Notice of Opportunity 2.84 (1.22) 2.98 (1.25) 3.00 (1.13) 2.68 (1.26) 5.63** b > c
Importance Scale: 1 = Not important; 2 = Slightly important; 3 = Moderately important; and 4 = Very important.
* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
