Conflicting Times: Multiculturalism, Individualism and Diversity

I appologize for this sloppy-copy draft, with it's messed up formatting, but offer the thought process here as another point of view on a controversial subject. The debate continues and broadens as the global family stretches.

Multiculturalism and Individualism: Creating a
Foundation for Recognition of Diversity in Pre-Kindergarten

Nancy Gray
Capella University
June 20, 2004



Abstract

The dichotomous relationship that frequently results when multiculturalism and individualism are viewed as separate when considering the foundational definition of diversity when determining curriculum choices is examined at the Pre-Kindergarten level of educational cultures. Positive and negative considerations and barriers related to teaching in an environment predominantly disposed toward an emphasis on multiculturalism or individualism are explored through a review of existing literature. Macro-multicultural programs that are based on generally globally diverse elements that emphasize group cooperation, collaboration and community while minimizing individualism are contrasted with micro-multicultural programs based on promoting an integration according to local community demographics as represented within the classroom. The micro-cultural program focuses attention first on diversity as it is represented in the classroom and the extended environment of the children. Next, higher lever thinking related to individual diversity as a natural occurrence for everything in and out of the classroom is encouraged. Once the concept of diversity is firmly developed and accepted as both natural, nonthreatening, and beneficial, diversity as related to groups in general, and finally as cultures, is introduced.

Table of Contents

Abstract 2

Table of Contents 3

Introduction 4

Multiculturalism or Individualism:
Dichotomy or Dichotomy? 8

Pre-Kindergarten: Putting the Pieces together 20

The Pre-Kindergarten Classroom Culture:
The New Family 21

Macro- Versus Micro-culturalism in the PreK Classroom:

The Natural Way of Learning 22

Conclusion 24

References 25

Multiculturalism and Individualism:

Creating a Foundation for Recognition of

Diversity in Pre-Kindergarten

The first step

In any multicultural transformative process

Is to examine

What issues, biases, prejudices, and assumptions

I carry into the classroom
And how these inform my curriculum.
In fact, I must constantly engage in a process of

Examining and critiquing my own perspective
Because this will also affect the way

I approach transformation.
(Gorski, 2004b)

Multicultural education is "at risk." A crisis of legitimacy threatens what Banks describes as an "idea, an educational reform movement, and a process (Banks, 1997). Emerging evidence suggests that the new light on the horizon of education, segregation based on religion, will continue development in the glare of media interest, pushing multicultural education as formerly conceived into the shadows. But as an African proverb reminds us, today is not yesterday. Nor is it tomorrow.

And, for today at least, multicultural education remains a favorite topic for research and discussion. The range of discussions is broad and diverse. Perhaps it is as diverse as people or everything else known in our universe, although indications are that in general the discussions have polarized into for, against, and who cares, rather than why, how and who will benefit from education that is multicultural. Perhaps the key to opening more minds to diversity in teaching and learning as natural, nonthreatening, and beneficial will be in changing the focus of educational idea, reform and process from multicultural to egalitarian. Perhaps then educators will focus less on the political, social and economic rights related to education and more on a purpose of education as a means to enable all to achieve at the highest levels possible to each.

For those still firmly embedded in a belief system that puts multicultural in the preeminent position, multicultural education is as Bank defines it akin to a trifecta. To win, one must correctly pick the first, second and third place finishers in a race. The idea, the educational reform movement and the process must win, place and show, albeit not necessarily in that order.

"Multiculturalism has largely failed," says student Ibrahim Hewitt. "We are not all the same. Why should we all be moulded to be the same? It is a very misguided approach. Integration should not be mentioned in a democracy." (Berliner, 2004)

Teachers and students in the mid-range "believe that racially integrated schooling is important." But, "when asked what effect racially diverse environments have on achievement, half of teachers and three-quarters of students responded that integrated classes have no impact on student learning."(Reid, 2004)

At the far end of the continuum of opinions, Locke says "multiculturalism is a grave threat to this country. Multiculturalism is a threat to education;" He too points out a recurring theme. "People are individuals; they are not interchangeable ciphers in an amorphous collective."(Locke, 1998)
In the following, Banks offers descriptions of what each of his three facets of multicultural education must attempt to do in order to succeed.
As an idea, multicultural education seeks to create equal educational opportunities for all students, including those from different racial, ethnic, and social-class groups. Multicultural education tries to create equal educational opportunities for all students by changing the total school environment so that it will reflect the diverse cultures and groups within a society and within the nation's classrooms. Multicultural education is a process because its goals are ideals that teachers and administrators should constantly strive to achieve. (Banks, 2004)

Unfortunately, as clear as the descriptions seem to be, closer examination reveals that the term "multicultural" is superfluous to the primary concept. Quality education as an idea, educational reform movement and process serves as well. The missing element from Banks definitions about multicultural education appears to be the individual.

Multicultural education as proposed by many of its proponents is oppositional. In a the existing culture of the United States, founded on diversity as evidenced through an Individualism that suggests the individual is a free agent, entitled to succeed or fail according to his or her own choices, a school culture emphasizing multicultural as a diversity of preference for curriculum development that displaces the responsibility of the individual, placing responsibility on a "group" divides more than it integrates.

The dichotomous relationship that frequently results when multiculturalism and individualism are viewed as separate when considering the foundational definition of diversity when determining curriculum choices at the Prekindergarten level is examined. Positive and negative considerations and barriers related to teaching in an environment predominantly disposed toward an emphasis on multiculturalism or individualism are explored through a review of existing literature. Macro-multicultural programs that are based on generally globally diverse elements that emphasize group cooperation, collaboration and community while minimizing individualism are contrasted with the possibility of micro-multicultural programs. The micro-programs are based on promoting an integration according to local community demographics as represented within the Pre-K classroom. Such a program focuses first on diversity as it is represented there, regardless of the demographic "mix" of students and faculty.

After thoroughly developing an understanding of the concept of diversity through every subject that arises naturally through teacher facilitated/student centered discussions and teacher-guided, curriculum specific, learning experiences the class proceeds to higher lever thinking related to diversity as a natural foundation for everything in and out of the classroom from the children's home culture to the emerging global culture of which they are a part. Finally, around the age of 4, when the children have acquired the capacity to "understand that they and others can have false beliefs" (Perner et al.,1992 in (Campbell & Christopher, 1999)the foundation of diversity as natural, beneficial, and desirable will be easier to apply to themselves and others, both as individuals and as groups, deemed somehow unlike them.

Multiculturalism or Individualism: Dichotomy or Dichotomy?

…it is very helpful to suggest that
diversity is not so much an end in itself
as it is a condition of our society
and a condition of the world in which we live.
Frank Wong

In Sedona, Arizona a red rock formation stands silhouetted against the sky. It is easy to believe the Native American peoples of the area who tell the tale that the formation that appears to be one red rock sculpture actually represents a man and a woman, standing back to back. According to legend the reason is that the man and woman learned doing so did not mean as generally suggested that they were in opposition, perhaps standing in hostility and resistance to one another, seeing things differently and unwilling or unable to look at anything in the same way. On the contrary, the man and woman stood that way because they learned by doing so they doubled their capacity to see their world in all directions. They were equal partners in spite of their differences, gaining from their willingness to work together while trusting the vision of each regardless of differences to benefit them as partners.

Multiculturalism and Individualism could be such equal partners. Even the word dichotomy, usually used to suggest opposition in its negative sense, is used in a biological sense as a dividing into two equal parts in a positive sense. Unfortunately, in their zeal to change society some proponents of multicultural education, prefer to stand arms firmly locked together in an impenetrable wall against everything this country was founded on as though nothing good is there. How would they know as long as they look in only one direction?

Sonia Nieto is one of the major proponents of multicultural education, as she sees it. According to James A. Banks, Sonia Nieto is considered one of the leading theorists in multicultural education.(P. xi). (Nieto, 1999). She is introduced that way when she appears on panels, lectured, and other public venues. She begins her book on "creating multicultural learning communities" with the basic declaration that "Many children today live in circumstances so difficult that they would have been unthinkable even a decade or two ago." Few would dispute the assertion that children today live in difficult circumstances. However, she then qualifies the statement by continuing, "…conditions including abject poverty, disrupted families, homelessness, neglect, violence, and drug abuse," (P. xxi), none of which are circumstances new to today's children. History is replete with references to Lloyd Demause's "nightmare of childhood" (Demause), to Elizabeth Barrett Browning's "children weeping," and Alice Miller's "poisonous pedagogy" and "hidden cruelty" toward children. (Miller, 1981, 1984, 1990, 1991, 2002). The fact is "Thanks to researchers from Duke University and the Foundation for Child Development, there is now a Child Well-Being Index (C.W.I.), according to which kids were faring 5 percent better as of 2003 than they were in 1975. (Hulbert, 2004)

If Nieto is no more knowledgeable about multicultural education than the quote above indicates she is about children's circumstances today or decades ago, her credentials as a leading authority may be equally as questionable, possibly even "unthinkable" to others in this heavily debated field. Perhaps Nieto and others who choose to look in one direction could learn something important from the red rock formation.

Nieto develops her concept of multicultural education through a series of questions based on the "premise that context is always implicated in learning." P. 1 (Nieto, 1999)In her book(Nieto, 1999)the social and political context of education that Nieto constructs serves her as a straw man towards which she aims her vitriolic ammunition and upon whose supine remains she then heaps her scorn. When she quotes Paolo Freire, "Reading is re-writing what we are reading," (In Nieto, p. 14)she offers a clue about the source of her own perspective on the context within which she views multicultural learning. Postmodernists do say that the reader writes the text, but that is not quite the same thing as Nieto suggests.

The intensity of Nieto's disdain for what she labels "cultural capital," that economic privilege and advantage that she maintains automatically accrues to "students from socially and culturally dominant groups," those "intangibles as values, tastes, and behaviors and through cultural identities such as language, dialect, and ethnicity" p. 6 (Nieto, 1999)serves to blind the reader to the shallowness of her arguments. Left to her unquestioned position she spins securely bound in place as she weaves her dangerous web.

Culture, Nieto claims, influences learning. Substitute "learning environment" for the now inflammatory word "culture" and Nieto's arguments are similar to the "static thinking" she accuses "teachers" of developing as a result of their "aversion …to focusing on the cultural differences of their students." p. 9 (Nieto, 1999) Apparently she does not consider the influence of teachers' justified fear of failing to be "politically correct" on their "aversion…to focusing on the cultural differences of their students" in the classroom. She ignores their context, a context unfortunately resulting from unintended consequences of well-intentioned efforts to create "conditions...in schools that can help most students learn." (p.25) Culture, and most things related to it have become the most dangerous of "dirty words" within the educational environment!

Nieto also ignores consideration of the influence exerted on textbook and test publishers by both left and right wing ideologues, to be "politically correct." Multicultural committees at MacMillan/McGraw-Hill check for "relevancy, authenticity, stereotypes, and historical accuracy" and insure that all textbook programs are infused with multicultural material." (Jones, 2002)
In order to appease myriad such special interest groups that might deem some materials politically incorrect by someone, somewhere, sometime, suspect are vetted out of educational products. That artificially restricted context leaves little beside innocuous pap as content from which teachers are expected to teach and children to learn...anything… least of all anything interesting or remotely related to diversity or challenging multicultural information.

Literature, long believed the gateway to abstraction and difficult thinking is "dumbed down." Whereas children used to be challenged with works from the now denigrated whiteman's canon of Western literature, today Eighth graders get to teethe on "safe" writings such as "Hilda: The Hen Who Wouldn’t Give Up." (Hull, 2000). Why? Researchers find that "exposing children to literature that includes characters, settings, and events similar to their lived experiences produces positive academic, personal, and social results virtually identical to those generated by the Multicultural Literacy Program." P. 132 Gay To whom is Hilda the hen meaningful?

The president of Harcourt Brace expresses frustration at "pressure from a multitude of special-interest groups" so that "various sensibilities…can be accommodated" but they "give in to these demands." The results give children a "double dose of irrationality." And the lesson learned in this context? "The group's wishes are omnipotent," math is animated "by consensus" and history by "group agreement."(Hull, 2000).

For Neito "the ugly realities of racism and social class bias, among other forms of discrimination, and the ways in which these are manifested, are a taboo subject to discuss because they challenge the ideal that advancement and achievement are based on merit, not on social class status or racial privileges." P. 21 (Nieto, 1999)
Nieto's "Unearned privilege" certainly exists, but it is not as narrowly applied as she suggests. In fact, it is spreading across all boundaries. Recently, a former president of Princeton called for "preferences like those granted to minorities" for all students(even white ones!) as long as they are "low income." He said "such affirmative action…is necessary if the top colleges are to be 'engines of opportunity' rather than 'bastions of privilege.'" (Arenson, 2004)

Before now, "affirmative action" as seen by the poor white is as unearned a privilege as is being born to a rich stupid white man, or famous beautiful black woman, or favored Latino entertainer. Being created and born equal does not mean one is guaranteed equal measures of opportunity or success by whatever definition. In fact there seems to be no guarantee by any standard, least of all the bastion of privilege, or its opposite. (Eakin, 2004)Oprah, Powell, Rice do not share the same roots and yet they achieved success by most standards. Bill Clinton and his brother do. One can be born to every possible "unearned privilege" and yet fail to achieve anything considered of value. Likewise another can be born to poverty and considered "at risk" because of every identifiable characteristic. Neither condition assures a child of a certain future. Condoleeza Rice recently told a group of graduating students to beware of ever thinking that just because they deserve something, they will get it. And, she added, "Don't ever assume that just because you get something it means you deserve it."

Educators and theorists do all children a disservice to suggest otherwise. Those of the "in" group lead to believe that they have all the advantages struggle under expectations by themselves and others of achieving levels of success that may be beyond their capabilities. Self-guilt and low self-esteem result. The "out" group lead to believe that nothing they do will make a difference because they lack the advantages of others, struggles against low expectations by themselves and others. Feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, and eventually blame against those perceived responsible result. There are few winners for either "side" in this sad scenario.

Multicultural education, intended to improve life for some, misapplied threatens all. In attempts to "foster positive self esteem" [words from a resolution from the National Education Association] artificial means are used to inflate poor self-images. Unearned praise is substituted for encouragement to achieve, regardless of research that Alfred Adler's notion that "encouragement promotes the most healthy self-concepts and behavior patterns in children." (Carns & Carns, 1998).

One author,(Ghate, 2000),who views multiculturalism as potentially destructive, and individualism as the way to offer all students positive alternatives suggests:
Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself. It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success.

Seeing from the other side, Gorski, says "The underlying goal of multicultural education is to affect social change." Gorski explains that the direction "toward this goal" requires three things. First is the "transformation of self." Second is the "transformation of schools and schooling." And third is the "transformation of society."(Gorski, 2004a).

Whether intentionally or not, Ghate and Gorski appear to see only one direction. Like a horse with blinders on whose view is limited, restricted to one narrow goal… with one way to reach it. A horse so blinded has a rider, someone who sees more and holds the reins, prepared to make adjustments if necessary. Proponents of Multicultural education who wear blinders restricting vision of alternative directions that may reach the goal they see as the only one have to avoid anything that interferes with it. Suggest racism is not something that only applies to minorities, or groups of color, as for the white student who said "My circle of friends is so integrated -- Asian, African-Americans, Latino -- all the different colors of the rainbow." Unlike, she continued, "In seventh and eighth grade, race was more of a problem because people called me cracker and Saltine."

She explained the change not as a result of multicultural education but because "Two weeks into freshman year, people stopped looking at race because there are so many different races at the high school." (Gordon, Chilson, & Randall, 2004) In other words, a natural change occurred when given an environment in which it could. A recent poll indicates "An overwhelming majority of public school teachers and students believe that racially integrated schooling is important." Ironically, given the insistence of its importance on the proponents of multicultural education and integration, "half of teachers and three-quarters of students responded that integrated classes have no impact on student learning.(Reid, 2004). Even Nieto mentions the "Catholic Effect" and disappointing results in various excellent multicultural education programs implemented throughout the country but fails to make the simple connection that maybe something is missing.

Nieto suggests "multicultural education has failed to have an immediate and direct connection to student learning because for the most part it has not broken out of a rather shallow 'holidays and heroes' mold." P. 163. She admits "Unraveling the mystery of how particular conditions and beliefs interact to support or thwart learning is difficult at best," but she does not consider the possibility that it has failed because essentially as an idea, educational reform and process it is flawed. If children are taught that the "system" is against them, that they are victims and must create change that seems beyond them, else nothing they do will succeed in bringing them the "fair fruits of their labors," where are their options? Why should they apply themselves?

Some theorists, researchers and educators suggest "school evaluation, competition, and social comparison make it difficult for many children to maintain the belief that they are competent academically. " Covington (1992) The "failure avoidance strategies developed by children may be attributed to efforts "to avoid appearing to lack ability…[including] procrastination, making excuses, avoiding challenging tasks, and perhaps most important, not trying." Covington & Omelich (1979) Others add: "Although trying is important for success (and is encouraged by both teachers and parents), if children try and fail, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that they lack ability. Therefore, if failure seems likely, some children will not try, precisely because trying and failing threatens their ability self-concepts." (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).

Not surprisingly findings suggest that "Rather than responding to a challenging task with greater effort, these students may try to avoid the task in order to maintain both their own sense of competence, and others' conclusions regarding their competence." (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).

Unfortunately, the solutions suggested for changing these behaviors involved "reducing the frequency and salience of competitive, social comparative, and evaluative practices, and focusing instead on effort, mastery, and improvement" as a means for "children to maintain their self-worth without having to resort to these failure-avoiding strategies." (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).

Again, there appears to be a blind spot evident in these popular Multicultural education proponent conclusions. These same children hear at home, in their neighborhoods, even in classrooms that the "system" is against them. They believe they can't succeed because of something over which they have no control. Unlike Edison who is said to have failed some 500 times or more before "inventing" the light bulb these children are said to be unwilling to risk even one more failure for no other reason than that they "failed" at something? Something seems illogical about that to anyone who has spent time with children learning to walk. Personal failure possibly isn't the source of the problem of children not applying themselves in school. But the emphasis on past and present injustices as unassailable barriers, without equal exposure to those who succeed when faced with the same situation might be.

Researchers insist "there is an urgent need for research that identifies relationships among emergent competencies and school adjustment for vulnerable populations of children." Age-appropriate competencies and significant contexts need to be distinguished. Activities to "build capacities across contexts to foster these competencies" need to be identified. (Cicchetti & Lynch, 1993). (Fantuzzo & McWayne, 2002) Once these are known, they need to be used in the environment at a stage of development where maximum benefits will result.

Pre-Kindergarten: Putting the Pieces Together

…despite research
linking good pre-K programs with later academic success,
early care and education in the United States
is essentially a nonsystem consisting of
a "patchwork of programs."
Shore

According to Boris Sidis, the problems of education are "fundamental." He mentions historically that the ancient Greeks knew that. Plato, he says, insisted on "education as the foundation of a new social, moral and intellectual life." And speaking through Socrates, Plato said:

Then you are aware that in every work the beginning is the most important part, especially in dealing with anything young and tender? For that is the time when any impression which one may desire to communicate is most readily stamped and taken."(Boris SidisJournal of Abnormal Psychology, 1919)

In the United States, the nineteen million children under the age of five could benefit from early education (Staresina, 2004). Longitudinal studies such as The High/Scope Perry Preschool project provide "comprehensive evaluations of the lasting impact of prekindergarten." (Staresina, 2004). Head Start, the "premiere" preschool public program, created in 1964 as "part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's anti-poverty agenda, provides economically deprived preschoolers with education, nutrition, health and social services" for nearly 900,000 children. (Staresina, 2004). Head Start longitudinal studies indicate that attendees achieve greater academic success and experience lower occurrences of criminal activity later. (Oden, et al, 2000 in Staresina, 2004).

However, evidence of the positive outcomes for children who have access to high quality Pre-Kindergarten programs has not resulted in the support necessary to ensure universal availability of such programs. Although forty-three states do fund them, there are disparities in the funding, teacher requirements,(Quality Counts,2002), wages paid, outcome standards, transportation available, language requirements, and so forth.

The Pre-Kindergarten Classroom Culture: The New Family

Historians have been traditionally committed to

explaining continuity and change over time
And ever since Plato it has been known that

child-hood is a key to this understanding;
The importance of parent-child relations for

social change was hardly discovered by Freud;
St. Augustine's cry, "Give me other mothers and

I will give you another world,"
Has been echoed by major thinkers

for fifteen centuries…

Lynch and Hanson (1998) tell us that "cultural understanding in one's first culture occurs early and is typically established by age 5" (p. 24). They go on to say, "children learn new cultural patterns more easily than adults" (p. 25). (Aldridge, Cohen, & Aman, 2000). The majority of young children today spend some part of the first five years in environments that are not their homes. Many do so from birth. Some of these children are in Pre-K programs, of one kind or another. If a "universal" early care and Pre-K program is developed that allows natural development of awareness of diversity within a curriculum that provides encouragement and reinforcement of developing relationships among the children and avoids introducing many of the negative concepts presently being taught in homes and neighborhoods, children may follow natural inclinations of curiosity and bonding.

Macro Versus Micro-culturalism in the Classroom:
The Natural Way of Learning

Content without context is pretext
Jesse Jackson

According to Graue and Walsh, "a context is a culturally and historically situated place and time, a specific here and now." They are relational. "Individuals, tools, resources, intentions and ideas in a particular setting, within a particular time." shape and are shaped by contexts. "Contexts are fluid and dynamic, constantly reconstituting themselves within activity (Graue and Walsh, 1998, pp. 9-11 in "Not the United Colors…) although many believe cultural and linguistic diversity influence young children's' social processes, little research has been done. However one study clearly indicates "The major factor influencing the children's peer group structures was language…. ("Not the United Colors of Benetton: language, culture, and peers.," 2003).

Although Nieto, speaking of multicultural education, says:
If we understand teaching as consisting primarily of social relationships and as a political commitment rather than a technical activity, then it is unquestionable that what educators need to pay most attention to are their own growth and transformation and the lives, realities, and dreams of their students." P. 131. On the other hand, Ayn Rand speaking of educating the individual says:

The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life — by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past — and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own effort.

Conclusion

When we recognize the constraints that children face,
We will be better able to figure out what to do

In order to help them move beyond boundaries,
And to create a peer culture

That broadens their sense of belonging and solidarity
With people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
("Not the United Colors of Benetton: language, culture, and peers.," 2003)

Fraser maintains "It is believed by many that the key to overcoming racial hatred and prejudice is education. It is not! Education is very important but it's not the key. The key is close personal friendships." In (Harvey & Allard, 2002).
If attitudes change only as behavior changes," (Harvey & Allard, 2002) and behavior changes most easily in the young, and close personal friendships do not happen as a result of education and learning about another's historical or present "culture" then perhaps the shortest way to effective multicultural education passes through a Pre-Kindergarten program that encourages getting to know each other as individuals, each with all the diversity and idiosyncrasies that come with humans being and becoming.


References

Aldridge, J., Cohen, C., & Aman, R. (2000). 15 Misconceptions About Multicultural Education. Focus on Elementary, 12(3).
Arenson, K. W. (2004, April 8). Ex-Princeton chief urges admissions edge for poorer students. New York Times.
Banks, J. A. (2004). Multicultural Education: Goals and Dimensions. In J. A. Banks & C. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (Vol. 2004, pp. 3-24). New York: Macmillan.
Berliner, W. (2004, March 16). Education: Wise and wonderful?: Parents and the government alike are fans of faith schools - and of their results. But should schools, as the Archbishop of Canterbury wishes, also be churches? And does their growing popularity mean multicultural education has failed? The Guardian, p. 2.
Boris SidisJournal of Abnormal Psychology, 14, 333-348. (1919). Philistine and Genius. Badger.
Campbell, R. L., & Christopher, J. C. (1999, September 1, 1999). Self and values:
An interactivist foundation for moral development, from http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~campber/values.html
Carns, M. R., & Carns, A. W. (1998). A Review of the professional literature concerning the consistency of the definition and application of Adlerian encouragement. Journal of Individual Psychology, 54(1), 82-99.
Demause, L. Chapter I: The Evolution of Childhood. In Foundations of Psychohistory.
Eakin, E. (2004, February 14). What runs in the family isn't success. New York Times.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-133.
Fantuzzo, J., & McWayne, C. (2002). The relationship between peer-play interactions in the family context and dimensions of school readiness for low-income preschool children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 79-87.
Ghate, O. (2000). Say No to the “Self-Esteem” Pushers: The Problem of Low Self-Esteem Among Students Is Caused by the Very Approach Now Proposed as the Cure. Retrieved May 27, 2004, from http://education.aynrand.org/pushers.html
Gordon, J., Chilson, M., & Randall, L. (2004, January 18). Brown's children's children. New York Times.
Gorski, P. (2004a). The challenge of defining a single "Multicultural Education". Retrieved April 29, 2004, from http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/education/multi/define.html
Gorski, P. (2004b). Understanding curriculum transformation: A multi-cultural Q & A. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/education/multi/curriculum/concept.html
Harvey, C., & Allard, M. J. (2002). Understanding and Managing Diversity: Readings, Cases, and Exercises (Second ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Hulbert, A. (2004, April 11). The way we live now: Are the Kids All Right? New York Times.
Hull, G. (2000). Caution: Textbooks Are Hazardous to Your Child’s Mind In Math, History and Literature, Today’s Textbooks Actively Undermine a Child’s Capacity to Think. Retrieved May 27, 2004, from http://education.aynrand.org/textbook.html
Jones, L. (2002). Why Jamal still can't read. Ethnic News, 4(5), 52-55.
Miller, A. (1981). Prisoners of childhood. New York: Basic Books.
Miller, A. (1984). Thou shalt not be aware : Society's betrayal of the child (American ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux.
Miller, A. (1990). Banished knowledge : Facing childhood injuries (1st ed.). New York: Doubleday.
Miller, A. (1991). The untouched key : Tracing childhood trauma in creativity and destructiveness (1st Anchor Books ed.). New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.
Miller, A. (2002). For your own good : Hidden cruelty in child-rearing and the roots of violence (4th ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.
Not the United Colors of Benetton: language, culture, and peers. (2003). Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 17(2), 201-.
Reid, K. S. (2004). Survey probes views on race. Education Week, p. Education Week
American Education's Newspaper of Record.
Staresina, L. N. (2004). Educational Issues A-Z: Prekindergarten. Retrieved April 22, 2004, from http"//www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=114
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Head Start Bureau. (2003). Head Start Program Fact Sheet-Fiscal Year 2002.

Getting a Head Start on Child Abuse and Neglect

The following is a paper prepared for coursework in pursuit of a PhD in General Education from Capella University. The paper hasn't been published or peer reviewed. I offer it here for the purpose of adding to the dialogue on education that continues now, five years later.

Getting a Head Start: On Getting Even for Developmentally Abused and Neglected Children in a Developmentally Abused and Neglected Program

Nancy L. Gray
February 2003

Abstract

Head Start is investigated through an examination of the literature about Head Start, Child Development, and Child Abuse and Neglect as they interrelate. Head Start makes a "significant difference" to children in all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Territories by providing "high quality" comprehensive health, nutritional, educational, social and other services. An estimated 20% of the children who attend Head Start programs are abused and neglected by their primary caretakers. Children's development is negatively impacted by abuse and neglect. The literature indicates Head Start also experiences a form of "abuse and neglect" from the government agencies that serve as its caretakers. Head Start's development is less than its critics expect and demand. There may be a connection.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents 3
Introduction 4
Head Start 6
Child Development and Head Start. 8
Child Abuse, Neglect and Head Start. 9
Connections 12
Bibliography 17


Getting a Head Start: On Getting Even for Developmentally Abused and Neglected Children in a Developmentally Abused and Neglected Program

INTRODUCTION

Head Start, the federally funded national pre-school program, is an anomaly. Talk about getting a head start and the first thought that comes to the average person is about someone gaining an advantage over the competition. Mention getting a head start to Early Childhood educators, pediatricians and other service providers for children, and the subject quickly focuses on Project Head Start, a national program designed not to give an advantage, but to even the playing field for the 60% of those three-to-five-year-old children it reaches, that might otherwise be left out of the game altogether. Ask its critics, and Head Start becomes just another federal program that fails to deliver on its promises. Which is it?

Project Head Start, according to the "Creating A 21st Century Head Start Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion, is "…a symbol of hope for a better life for low-income children and their families." (1993 p2) A Head Start parent giving testimony before the Advisory Committee said "I learned to live again, not just survive. Head Start gave me and my children a chance to succeed, to be winners." (1993 p2) Unfortunately, the anomaly is that Head Start may be the most "successful social program of its time" but find itself, once again, in danger of an early demise through the efforts of critics and the government agencies responsible for its success.
Like the twenty percent of its children who are abused and neglected, Head Start bears the marks of the innocent victim of its environment. When times are good and money is plentiful, Head Start is everyone's darling blue-eyed political baby. When times are rough, Head Start takes a beating. When Head Start personnel have difficulty in "determining when a refusal for treatment may be considered child abuse or neglect," they can see "45CFR 1304.22(a)(5) for guidance." (The Administration for Children and Families, Head Start Bureau, 2003, p12). When Head Start is refused treatment in the form of adequate and necessary funding, neglected through reductions in auxiliary services needed to implement and maintain the quality of the program, or abused in the guise of "Standardized Testing" that won't provide "meaningful data," (Jacobson, 2003, p1). and threatened by abandonment by its federal parent, Health and Human Services, to be placed in the foster care of the states with their "cash-strapped governors" who will "slice off services to make federal money go farther," (Schemo, 2003) who will provide the guidance to determine if, in fact, it is being "helped," as suggested by its critics, or abused and neglected as suggested by its advocates? Who will be its arbiter?

Head Start isn't simply a pre-school program. It serves as a handicap to increase the chances for those children and their families who are struggling with the disability of impoverishment. Head Start is presently a program struggling with its own developmental problems. Just as low-income, disabled, or abused and neglected children need a program that views their "developmental milestones" flexibly, not attempting to force conformity where there are too many uncontrolled factors, but instead seeking "consistent results over time and across users,"(The Administration for Children and Families, Head Start Bureau, 2003, p 6) so too does the Head Start program deserve flexibility in meeting its "Program Performance Standards." Head Start "narrows the gap between disadvantaged students and all other children….improves social skills….leads to continued improvements…relative to other children during kindergarten." (Head Start FACES…, 2001, pi). Head Start does not create an even playing field, but its graduates are at least playing in the game.

This paper considers three issues concerning Head Start. The first issue is Head Start as a program. The second issue is development as it relates to Head Start as a program, and the children it serves. The third issue is abuse and neglect as it relates to Head Start as a program, the children it serves, and perhaps, the future of both.

HEAD START

Project Head Start began in 1965, during an "optimistic period of American history, a time when many believed that government should take a proactive, extensive role in eradicating the negative effects of poverty on children's development." (Zigler/Styfco, 1993, p1) At that time, "much of the country's poverty" was located in "physically or culturally isolated enclave." Children represented half of the "nation's thirty million poor people." President Lyndon Johnson declared War on Poverty. Johnson was committed to "overcome a lot of hostility in our society against the poor…by going at the children," believing that "education and self-help programs…could succeed in transforming the lives of poor Americans." (Zigler/Styfco, 1993, p 3). Today, Head Start reaches nearly 60% of eligible low-income children between the ages three and five. It's newest addition, Early Head Start, reaches 3% of low-income children from six months to age three.

Head Start didn't begin with "especially unique" components. What Head Start did, that was new, was to combine components "to form a multifaceted intervention" with the intention to "develop ways to serve very young children." The basic program was designed to meet the "developmental needs of the poor children." The program would "optimize their competence in social and school settings" by providing "developmentally appropriate educational experiences, health screening and referral, mental health services, social services, nutrition education, and hot meals, and parent involvement." (Zigler/Styfco, 1993, p 5) Development of "motor, language, social, cognitive, perceptual, and emotional domains" was, and remains, a primary consideration. (The Administration for Children and Families, Head Start Bureau, 2003, p 6).

Head Start has five primary objectives. The first is to "enhance children's healthy growth and development. The second is to "strengthen families as the primary nurturers of their children." The third is to "provide children with educational, health and nutritional services." The fourth is to "link children and families to needed community services." And the fifth is to "ensure well-managed programs that involve parents in decision making." (Head Start FACES, 2002, p4)

In 1993, Health and Human Services announced the formation of an Advisory Committee to "review the program and make recommendations for improvements and expansion." The purpose was to make sure "the vision and potential of Head Start" are renewed, "the program strengthened," and the changing needs of children and families met. The committee's intent was to "develop a set of recommendations that could guide program planning," and ensure that the "powerful legacy of an earlier time continues to thrive into the next century." (Creating…1993, p 2). Among their findings: "Head Start must not be isolated from other providers; it must take its place as a partner in a community and state." (Creating…1993, p 3). Expecting it to do so, at this time when states are struggling with massive budget cuts and reduced services to the poor and their children, is tantamount to inviting the destruction of the one program proven to make a difference in the "school readiness" of low-income children.

CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND HEAD START

Head Start works with a "whole child" approach. Educational preparedness involves the "provision of academic and social experiences that are developmentally appropriate as well as health care and family support services." (Zigler/Styfco 1993, p113). Head Start is successful because its "program performance standards require the use of a developmentally appropriate curriculum keyed to each child's needs and to all areas of the child's development." At Head Start, "teachers facilitate, rather than direct learning." (Zigler/Styfco 1993, p98). Unfortunately, many Head Start programs are "marginal, staffed by people who are poorly paid and have little training." (Vander Zanden, 2003, p291). In spite of that, "seventy-five percent of Head Start classrooms were rated as good or better, nearly one-fifth as very good or excellent, and classroom was of 'inadequate quality'…ratings compare favorably with other studies of preschool and child care…average numbers from both class size and child adult ratios were far better than those required…for Education of Young Children (NAEYC) accreditation standards." (Head Start FACES…2001, piv).

One of Head Start's original planning committee members, Urie Bronfenbrenner, was in the initial stages of developing "his ecological approach to human development." In order to be effective, he said, an "intervention" must involve the "complex interrelationship among children, their families and communities."( Zigler/Styfco, 1993, p4). Young children are "just beginning to construct their personal universes," and experiencing many emotional responses of self and others, "for the first time," so emotional health and "overall mental health" were "central" to the program. Children were to be helped to "learn desirable ways of expressing feelings," and "regulating their emotions." (Vander Zanden, 2003, p290).

"Head Start children have larger gains in "vocabulary knowledge…early writing…and math skills….play became more complex, with children becoming move involved in interactive play with peers, a key indicator of social development," but are "still substantially below national norms at the end of the Head Start year" as critics are quick to note. Head Start children also "showed little progress in letter recognition or book and print concepts over the course of the program year…problem behaviors showed minimal or no change." (Head Start FACES…2001, pii)

Head Start "received the highest rating of any government program" in a 1999 report of the American Customer Satisfaction Index, ((Head Start FACES…2001, piv,) and is called "America's premiere early childhood program," by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Head Start seems to be what its name suggests: an advantage for the disadvantaged. Unfortunately, that promising title has been both a promise and a disconnect for many of its graduates. This politically popular program has experienced cycles of ups and downs. Sometimes vilified for its failures, especially during lean economic times, at other times erroneously glorified for its successes when politically expedient to do so, Head Start is about to face its greatest challenge. The abuse and neglect by the government agencies responsible for its care escalate as administration policies batter the hopes of millions for a Head Start for their children.

CHILD ABUSE, NEGLECT AND HEAD START

Child abuse and neglect are not easily or generally defined. Although the Federal Child Abuse and Treatment Act provides a "minimum set of acts or behaviors that define physical abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse," each state is "responsible for providing its own definitions of child abuse and neglect." (U.S. Depart…, 2/2002, p1). Head Start figures show that "About one fifth of children were reported to have been exposed to community or domestic violence in their lives." (Head Start FACES…, 2001, pii) and this exposure to violence is becoming another form of child abuse and neglect. In 2000, there were "approximately 879,000 children found to be victims of child maltreatment." (U.S. Depart…, 2002, p2) Many experts in the field believe the number represents only a small portion of actual victims. In general, child abuse and neglect are of four main types: "physical abuse, physical or emotional neglect, sexual abuse and emotional abuse."

Children in child abuse and neglect studies "frequently experience" multiple forms of abuse. As many as "90% of the subjects in one study" experienced more than one form of abuse and neglect." (Workshop…, 2002, p 2). Children who live in "grueling environments" cannot learn academic skills. In order to make a difference for these children, to give them an opportunity to benefit from education, they first need early preparation to overcome the negative consequences to their development. "Comprehensive services" are required for that. (Zigler/Styfco, 1993). The comprehensive services provided by Head Start has been shown to make a significant difference for children, including the abused and neglected, to move forward in their development.

Additionally, "Support from parents, the school environment, and peers all play a role in helping children overcome adversity in their world." (Workshop, 2002, p 13). Head Start programs provide all of these to low-income children. Resilience also makes a difference in how children are able to continue in negative situations with less distress and damage to their development. "Factors contributing to resilience include "A strong relationship with a positive, caring adult" is one factor that contributes to resilience. "Community safe havens" are another factor. But "certain characteristics of the child including intelligence, self-esteem, and access to resources" may prove to be the most enduring factors in contributing to a child's resilience. (Workshop, 2002, p7). Head Start provides an opportunity to develop all of them.

The "disadvantaged populations served by intervention programs" have changed over the years, but the children's basic needs remain essentially the same. "Poverty has become more pervasive…increases in…child and substance abuse have grown." (National Head Start Association, 1990, p 24). An estimated 20% of Head Start students have "serious family problems that significantly hinder their learning in school…child abuse and neglect are a problem…poor health and nutrition" are a cause for concern. (Zigler/Styfco, 1993, p 103). All of these issues impact a child's readiness to learn. Head Start improves that dramatically in many cases.

Child abuse and neglect are expensive. Not only do child abuse and neglect have "detrimental effects" on the physical, psychological, cognitive and behavioral development of children, including "physical injuries, brain damage, chronic low self-esteem, problems with bonding and forming relationships, developmental delays, learning disorders, and aggressive behavior" but they are also "linked with long-term negative societal consequences." (U.S. Dept…, 1999, p1). The costs are both direct and indirect. The "investments in prevention" lead to "payback curves" that "extend over a long period of time." Some studies indicate a possible return on investment of as much as 1600% for every dollar spent on child abuse and neglect prevention. (U.S. Dept…, 1999 pp 3-6). Head Start represents an investment with an even greater return for dollars spent, not necessarily in dollars, but in lives changed for the better.

CONNECTIONS

"The original planners had a vision of what every Head Start family should receive. Over twenty-five years later this vision is largely unfulfilled, and the addition of more children will only delay its realization. It much wiser to serve fewer children well than to serve more children poorly, for the literature makes clear that only high-quality programs can produce meaningful benefits." (Zigler/Styfco, 1993, p32)

A connection among Head Start programs, child development and child abuse and neglect is evident even in this partial review of the literature relating to each. But what of the initial suggestion that the Head Start program, its development and any form of "abuse and neglect" may share a similar connection? A brief review of recent occurrences will indicate a viable connection is there.

Head Start is still a developing program. During Head Start's nearly thirty-five year development, its own research has lead to many advances in child development interventions, policies and other important early childhood education and related subjects. Any developmental process has stages. Head Start is no different. And just as an organism's development is impacted by environmental factors, so, too, is Head Start's development impacted by changing funding levels, increasing demands placed on its limited resources, attacks on its infrastructure, including losses of formerly available public school space in which to run its programs, and a drain on its qualified teachers to hastily created state funded preschool with funding to pay much higher salaries. Other situations that have occurred through its developmental period could be construed as evidence of intent to create a "failure to thrive" environment for its graduates, by failing to provided adequate transition services and adequately fund follow up programs, such as Project Follow Through, which results in the loss of gains made by the children while in the Head Start program. Today as the need for the program grows, the "neglect and abuse" continue against the developing program in greater degree than ever.

In April 2002, President Bush, announced an Early Childhood Initiative to improve early education for children that included new steps to further strengthen the Head Start program." (HHS Fact Sheet, 2002). As this paper is compiled, President Bush and his administrations are making decisions that may result in the demise of Head Start. Standardized testing for every four-year-old preschooler is projected for implementation in the fall of 2003. Early childhood educators and experts worry "that federal officials are going too far in their drive to hold local programs accountable for children's performance." Not the least of their concerns is the fear that teachers will begin "teaching to the test," with-the-three year olds, rather than continuing the original, and highly effective Head Start goal to focus on "children's social and emotional development. (Jacobson, 2003).

In addition to the risks associated with the Standardized Testing program, funding is again creating problems in 2003 for Head Start. Because the Bush administration failed to pass the 2003 budget in a timely manner, officials have been running "countless federal programs, from early childhood education to welfare, from setting priorities because they do not know how much money they will get." (Stolberg, 2003).

The Bush 2004, $2.23 trillion budget remains enmeshed in controversy. Bush's budget "reflects his "most urgent national priorities: 'Winning the war against terrorism, securing the homeland and generating long-term economic growth." The budget has "record deficits" and will "speed up billions of dollars in income tax cuts, provide huge increases for the Pentagon and offer a modest jump in spending for NASA." Cuts include, spending on "programs for juvenile delinquency, " money for "public housing…aid to rural schools…and government financed child care." These programs, like Head Start, have all been shown to increase low-income children's opportunities for succeeding.

The news that worries Head Start supporters more than funding cuts, is the Bush administration proposal that "Head Start would become a block grant program." Administration officials, who "dispute the view that Head Start is a success," say that this would "allow states to coordinate Head Start better with their own preschool programs." They "describe the proposal as a logical extension of President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act" (Schemo, 2003) while failing to mention that NCLP appropriations have not been funded.
Critics of the Administration's proposal, including Sarah Green, president of the National Head Start Association, contend "turning Head Start into a block grant program could be the first step toward dismantling it, as governors slice off services to make federal money go further." One example is in Florida where the voters passed a referendum that Governor Jeb Bush "must provide preschool for all children by 2005." The voters gave no clear direction to "how the cash-strapped state would pay for it." New York is another example of a state that might "slice" the Head Start money into pieces. Governor Pataki's "latest budget eliminates universal preschool, and cuts back preschool for poor children." (Schemo, 2003).

The Head Start program is successful "in giving poor children an advantage when they reach school." Some critics fail to note that the "ultimate goal of Head Start…is to promote the social competence of children." (Head Start FACES…2002). Numerous studies demonstrate that the comprehensive approach of Head Start, reaches the whole child and the family. Although "more research is needed on how interventions for parents affect the development of their children," (Workshop…, 2002, 26) Head Start has clearly shown that helping parents, helps children.

When the Bush "administration officials" say of Head Start, "the fairest way to look at data that's been done is to say it's clear children do show some improvement, but they still lag quite significantly behind more advantaged peers when they enter kindergarten" (Schemo, 2003) is politically motivated rhetoric designed to obfuscate the facts. Saying "some improvement" is dismissive of how much improvement actually occurs, especially for the majority of children who "enter Head Start with literacy skills below the national norms," (Head Start FACES… 2002, p14). "Gains in cognitive skills" as well as "on early writing and math tasks," were in fact larger "among children who were initially in the bottom quarter…" (Head Start FACES… p 20).
The statement that children "still lag quite significantly behind" suggests a greater disparity than exists, and fails to account for the fact that the average children in kindergarten also lag behind their "advantaged peers." Children fortunate enough to attend top quality programs can be expected to show the greatest improvements but that is not sufficient reason to eliminate the only program that does make a difference for low-income children. Although Head Start "narrows the skills gap…it does not close the gap."

Quality is an issue for Head Start programs, and when funding is inadequate to proved the best materials and teachers, programs naturally suffer reduction in quality. And "observed quality of Head Start classrooms has been linked with child outcomes." (Head Start FACES…, 2001). In spite of that, no Head Start was found to be of "inadequate" quality. Head Start quality is "better than other center-based preschool programs." (Head Start FACES…p 94).Parent volunteers, community assistance, determination of the teachers make a difference. There is no logical justification to use these known, but correctable disadvantages as an excuse to weaken the Head Start program even more than inadequate funding already does. Part of Head Start's mission is to prepare low-income children to enter Kindergarten, "ready to learn," and they are.
Head Start is "America's premiere early childhood program, providing comprehensive developmental services for America's low-income, preschool children." (HHS Fact Sheet, 2002). If that alone does not make Head Start worth keeping, let the administration provide whatever funding is needed to make any improvements needed so that each and every Head Start program is in fact a head start, or at least an even start, for America's low-income children as they begin their educational race to succeed.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Includes projected resources for future research including books, articles, studies, web materials.

Abe, J. A., & Izard, C. E. (1999). A Longitudinal study of emotion expression and personality relations in early development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 566-577.

Adamson, L. (1996). Communication development during infancy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Administration for Children & Families; Administration on Children, Youth & Families; Commissioner's Office of Research & Evaluation and the Head Start Bureau. (2001). Head Start FACES: Longitudinal Findings on Program Performance. Third Progress Report. January 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. (1995). Head Start Bureau, Charting our progress: Development of the Head Start Program Performance Measures. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. (1997). Head Start Bureau, First progress report on the Head Start Program Performance Measures. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. (1998). Head Start Bureau, Head Start Program Performance Measures: Second progress report. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

Adolf, K. E. (2000). Specificity of learning: Why infants fall over a veritable cliff. Psychological Science, 11, 290-295.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1992). A consideration of social referencing in the context of attachment theory and research. In S, Feinman (Ed.), Social Referencing and the social construction of reality in infancy. New York: Plenum.

Albus, K. E., & Dozier, M. (1999). Indiscriminate friendliness and terror of strangers in infancy: Contributions from the study of infants in foster care. Infant Mental Health Journal, 20(1), 20-41.

Alexander, L.L., & Entwisle, D.R. (1988). Achievement in the first 2 years of school: Patterns and processes. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 53. (2, Serial No. 218).

Arnet, J. (1989). Caregivers in day-care centers: Does training matter? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10. 541-552.

America's Children: Key national indicators of child well-being 1998. (1998). ChildStats.gov. Retrieved August 32, 1998, from the World Wide Web: http://www.childstats.gov/ac1998/ac98.htm.

Baldwin, D. A., & Markman, E, M. (1989). Establishing word-object relations: A first step. Child Development, 60, 381-398.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1989a). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist. 44, 1175-1184.

Bandura, A. (1989b). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25, 729-735.

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193-209.

Barnes, H.V., Guevera, M.D., Garcia, G., Levin, M., & Connell, D.B. (1999). How do Head Start staff characteristics relate to parent involvement and satisfaction? Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.

Baumrind, D. (1994) The social context of child maltreatment. Family Relations, 43, 360-368.

Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45, 405-414.

Baumwell, L., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Bornstein, M. H. (1997). Maternal verbal sensitivity and child language comprehension, Infant Behavior and Development, 20, 247.

Beard, R. M. (1969). An outline of Piaget's developmental psychology for students and teachers. New York: New American Library.

Belsky, J. (1990). Parental and nonparental child care and children's socioemotional development: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 885-903.

Belsky, J. (1993). Etiology of child maltreatment: A developmental-ecological analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 413-434.

Belsky, J. (1996a) Infant attachment, security, and affective-cognitive information processing at age 3. Psychological Science, 7, 111-114.

Belsky, J. (1996b). Parent, infant, and social-contextual antecedents of father-son attachment security. Developmental Psychology, 32, 905-913.

Belsky, J., & Eggebeen, D. (1991). Early and extensive maternal employment and young children's socioemotional development: Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 1083-1110.

Belsky, J., & Rovine, M. (1987). Temperament and attachment security in the strange situation: An empirical rapprochement. Child Development, 58, 787-795.

Belsky, J., & Rovine, M. (1993). Non-maternal care in the first year of life and the security of infant-parent attachment. In R. Pierce (Ed.), Lifespan development: A diversity reader. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

Balky, J., Youngblade, Rovine, M., & Volling, B. (1991). Patterns of marital change and parent-child interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 487-498.

Berk, L. E., & Winsler, A. (1995) Scaffolding children's learning: Vygotsky and early childhood education. NAEYC research into practice series, vol. 7. Washington, DD: National Book Association for Young Children.

Berkowitz, L. (1993) Aggression: Its causes, consequences and control. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Berrick, J. D., & Gilbert, N. (1991). With the best of intentions: The child sexual abuse prevention movement. New York: Guilford Press.

Besharov, D. J. (1990). Recognizing Child abuse: A guide for the concerned. New York: Free Press.

Bigler, R., Jones, L. C., & Lobliner, D.B. (1997). Social categorization and the formation of intergroup attitudes in children. Child Development, 68, 530-543.

Biller, H. B. (1993). Fathers and families: Paternal factors in child development. Westport, CT: Auburn House.

Bjorklund, D. F., & Green, B.L. (1992). The adaptive nature of cognitive immaturity. American Psychologist, 47, 46-54.

Blagg, N. (1991). Can we teach intelligence? A comprehensive evaluation of Fuerstein's instrumental enrichment program. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Blakely, K. S. (1994) Parents' conceptions of social dangers to children in the urban environment. Children's Environment, II, 16-25.

Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215.

Bolland, J. M., McCallum, D. M., Lian, B., Baily, C. J., & Rowan, P. (2001). Hopelessness and violence among inner-city youths. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 5(4), 237-244.

Bornstein, M. H., & O'Reilly, A. W. (Eds.). (1993). The role of play in the development of thought. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routledge.

Brain facts: A parent's guide to early brain development, (1999). I Am Your Child. Retrieved February 4, 1999, from the World Wide Web: http://iamyourchild.org/docs/bf-0.html.

Brain, G. B. (1979). Head Start, a retrospective view: The founders. Section 2: The early planners. In E. Zigler & J. Valentine, (Eds.) Head Start: A legacy of the War on Poverty, New York: Free Press. 72-134.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986, February). Alienation the four worlds of childhood. Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 430-436.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1997). Systems vs. associations: Its not either/or. Families in Society, 78, 124.

Bronstein, R. E. (1992). The dependent personality: Developmental, social, and clinical perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 3-23.

Brownlee, S. (1996). The biology of soul murder: Fear can harm a child's brain. Is it reversible: U. S. News and World Report, 12(19), 71-74.

Building their futures: How early Head Start programs are enhancing the lives of infants and toddlers in low-income families: Summary report. (2001). Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project. Commissioner's Office of Research and Evaluation and the Head Start Bureau. Administration on Children, Youth & Families. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Bullock, M., & Lutenhaus, P. (1988). The development of volitional behavior in the toddler years. Child Development, 59, 664-674.

Bumiller, E. (2003). Bush's $2.2 Trillion Budget Proposes Record Deficits. The New York Times. Retrieved from World Wide Web, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/politics/04BUDG.html?tntemail0, 2/6/2003.

Burhaus, K. K. & Dweck, C. S. (1995). Helplessness in early childhood. Child Development, 66, 1717-1738.

Bussey, K. (1992). Lying and truthfulness: Children's definitions, standards, and evaluative reactions. Child Development, 63, 129-137.

Campbell, J. J., Lamb, M. E., & Hwang, C. P. (2000). Early child care experiences and children's social competencies between 1.5 and 15 years of age. Applied Developmental Science: Special Issue: The Effects of Quality Care on Child Development, 4(3), 166-175.

Candland, D. K.(1993). Feral children and clever animals" Reflections on human nature. New York: Oxford University Press.

Carlson, M. J., & Corcoran, M. E. (2001). Family structure and children's behavioral and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 779-792.

Carr, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Maxwell, S. E. (1991). Motivational components of underachievement. Developmental Psychology, 27, 108-118.

Case, A., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Bem, D. J. (1987). Moving against the world: Life-course patterns of explosive children. Developmental Psychology, 23, 308-313.

Caspi, A., Elder, G. H., Jr. & Bem, D. J. (1988). Moving away from the world: Life-course patterns of shy children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 824-831.

Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. J. (1994). The insecure/ambivalent pattern of attachment: Theory and research. Child Development, 65, 971-991.

Chafel, J. A. 1992. Funding Head Start: What are the issues? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62, 9-21.

Chance, P., & Fischman, J. (1987, May). The magic of childhood. Psychology Today, 21, 48-58.

Chapman, M. (1988). Contextuality and directionality of cognitive development. Human Development, 31, 92-106.

Chess, S., & Thomas, A. (1996). Temperament: Theory and Practice. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Child poverty fact sheet (June 2001). (2001) National Center for Children in Poverty. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York. Retrieved December 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://cpmcnetcolumbia.edu/dept/nccp/ycpf.html.

Collins, R. C. (1990) Head Start salaries: 1989-90 staff salary survey. Alexandria, VA: National Head Start Association.

Comer, J. P. (1980). School Power. New York: Free Press.

Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study Team. (1995). Cost, quality and child outcomes in child care centers, public report, second edition. Denver: Economics Department, University of Colorado at Denver.

Creating A 21st Century Head Start Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion, December 1993. (1993). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Washington, DC. Retrieved from the World Wide Web 2/1/2003. http://www.bmcc.org/Headstart/21Century/index.html.

Dunn, Lloyd M., & Dunn, Leota M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Third Edition. Examiner's manual and norms booklet. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Elliot, S.N., Gresham, F.M., Freeman, R., & McClosky, G. (1998). Teacher and observer ratings of children's social skills: Validation of the Social Skills Rating Scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 6. 152-161.

Goal One Technical Planning Group. (1991). Reconsidering children's early development and learning: Toward shared beliefs and vocabulary. Draft report to the National Education Goals Panel. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.

Harms, T., Clifford, R.M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early childhood environment rating scale. New York: Teacher's College Press.

Haskins, R. (1989). Beyond metaphor: The efficacy of early childhood education. American Psychologist, 44(2). 274-282.

Hauser-Cram, P., D. E., Pierson, D. K. Walker, & T. Tivnan. (1991). Early Education in Public Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

HHS Fact Sheet. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from the World Wide Web, 1/23/2003. http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/factsheets/fact20020426b.htm.

Head Start FACES: Longitudinal Findings on Program Performance, Third Progress Report. (2001) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Horacek, H., Ramey. C. Campbell, F. Hoffman, R. & Fletcher, R. (1987). Predicting school failure and assessing early intervention with high-risk children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26. 758-63.

Howes, C. (1980). Peer play scale as an index of complexity of peer interaction. Developmental Psychology, 16. 371-372.

Howes, C. (1985). Sharing fantasy: Social pretend play in toddlers. Child Development, 56(5), 1253-1258.

Howes, C. (1987). Social competence with peers in young children: Developmental sequences. Developmental Review, 7, 252-272.

Howes, C., & Matheson, C. (1992). Sequences in the development of competent play with peers: Social and pretend play. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 961-974.

Howes, C. & Rodning, C. (1992). Attachment security and social pretend play negotiations: Illustrative study #5. In C. Howes, O. Hunger and C.C. Matheson (Eds.), The collaborative construction of pretend: Social pretend play functions. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Howes, C., & Stewart, P. (1987). Child's play with adults, toys, and peers: An examination of family and child-care influences. Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 423-430.

Howes, C., & Unger, O.A., & Seidner, L.B., (1989). Social pretend play in toddlers: Parallels with social play and with solitary pretend. Child Development, 60(1), 77-84.

Hubbell, R., Plantz, M., Condelli, L.& B. Barrett. (1987). The transition of Head Start children into public school. Final report. Vol. 1. Alexandria, VA: CSR.

Jacobson, L. (2003). White House Plan for Head Start Draws Critics. Education Week, 1/15/2003, vol.22, Issue 18, 20-22. Retrieved from the World Wide Web, 1/27/2003. http://library.capella.edu:2165/delivery.asp?tb=1&_ug=dbs+1+1n+en-us+sid+E2DCE112-4…

Jordan, T. J., Grallo, R, Deuthsch, M. & C. P. Deutsch. (1985). Long-term effects of early enrichment: A 20-year perspective on persistence and change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 395-415.

Kagan, S. L. (1991a). Moving from here to there: Rethinking continuity and transitions in early care and education. In B. Spdek & O. Saracho, (Eds.) Yearbook in early childhood education, 2. New York: Teacher's College Press.

Kagan, S. L. (1991b). United we stand: Collaboration in child care and early education services. New York: Teacher's College Press.

Layzer, j, Goodson, B., & Moss, M. (1993). Final report, volume 1: Life in preschool. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, Inc.

McKey; R., Condelli, L. Ganson, H., Barrett, B., McConkey, C. & Plantz, M. (1985) The impact of Heads Start on children, families and communities: Final report of the Head Start Evaluation, Synthesis and Utilization Project (DHHS Publication NO. OHDS 85-31193). Washington D C: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Head Start Association. (1990). Head Start: The nation's pride, a nation's challenge. Report of the Silver Ribbon Panel. Alexandria, VA: Author.

O'Brien, R.W., D'Elio, M.A., Connell, D.B., Hailery, L., & Swartz, J.P. (1999). The impact of Head Start fathers on the lives of their children. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.

Parker, F. L., Piotrkowski, & Peay, L. (1987). Head Start as a social support for mothers: The psychological benefits of involvement. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57. 220-233.

Powell, D. R. (1989). Families and early childhood programs. Research monographs of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, 3.

Ralph, J. (1989). Improving education for the disadvantaged: Do we know whom to help? Phi Delta Kappan. (Jan). 395-401.

Raver, C. C. & Zigler, E. (1991). Three steps forward, two steps back. Head Start and the measurement of social competence. Young Children, 46(4). 3-8.

Scarr, S., Eisenberg, M., & Deater-Deckard, K. (1994). Measurement of quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 131-151.

Schemo, D.J. (2203). Head Start Plan Worries Supporters. The New York Times. Retrieved from the World Wide Web, 2/12/2003. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/12/education/12Head.html?tntemail0.

Schorr, L. B. (1988). Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage. New York: Doubleday.

Schweinhart, L.J., McNair, S., Barenes, H., & Larner, M. (1993). Observing young children in action to assess their development: The High/Scope Child Observation Record Study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 445-455.

Shonkoff, J.P., & Phillips, D.A. (eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Seitz, V., Apfel, Rosenbaum, L., & E. Zigler. (1983). Long-term effects of Projects Head Start and Follow Through: The New Haven project. In Consortium for Longitudinal Studies, eds. As the twig is bent: Lasting effects of preschool programs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 299-332.

Snow, C.E., Tabors, P.O., Nicholson, P.A., & Kurland, B.F. (1995). SHELL: Oral language and early literacy skills in kindergarten and first-grade children. Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 10(1), 37-48.

Stolberg, C.S. (2003) As Bush Plans 2004 Budget, Parties Haggle Over 2003's. The New York Times. Retrieved from the World Wide Web 1/22/2003. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/22/national/22SPEN.html?tntemail0.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1980). Head Start in the 1980's. Review and recommendations. Washington DC.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999) Prevention Pays: The Costs of Not Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect. The Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved December 29, 2002, from http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/canstats.cfm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2002). National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) Summary of Key Findings from Calendar Year 2000. Children's Bureau Administration on Children, Youth and Families. National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. Retrieved December 29, 2002, from http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/canstats.cfm.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Revised 2/2002). What is Child Maltreatment. The Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved December 29, 2002, from http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/canstats.cfm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Revised 3/2002). You Have the Power to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect. The Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved December 29, 2002, from http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/canstats.cfm

U.S. House of Representatives. (1990a). Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1990. May 9. (Report No. 101-480).

U.S. House of Representatives. (1990b) Opportunities for success: cost effective programs for children update, 1990, Dec. 21. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (Report No. 101-1000).

Vaden-Kiernan, M., E'Elio, M.A., & Sprague, K. (1999). The FACES embedded case study: Documenting the methodology and early findings. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.

Valentine, J. (1979). Program development in Head Start: A multifaceted approach to meeting the needs of families and children. In E. Ziegler & J. Valentine, (Eds.) Project Head Start: A legacy of the War on Poverty, New York: Free Press. 349-365.

Vander Sandmen, James W. (2003). Human Development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

White, K. R., Bush, D. W. & G.C. Casto. (1985). Learning from previous reviews of intervention. Journal of Special Education, 19, 417-428.

Whitebook, M., Howes, C., D. & Phillips, D. (1989). Who Cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America: Final report of the National Child Care Staffing Study. Berkeley, CA: Child Care Employee Project.

Workshop on Children Exposed to Violence: Current Status, Gaps and Research Priorities. (2002). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Zigler, E. (1976). Head Start: Not a program but an evolving concept. In J. D. Andrews, ed., Early Childhood Education: It's an art! It's a science! Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. 1-14.

Zigler, E & S. Muenchow. (1992) Head Start: The inside story of America's most successful educational experiment. New York: Basic Books.

Zigler, E. & J. Valentine, (Eds.) (1979) Project Head Start: A legacy of the War on Poverty Poverty. New York: Free Press.