Defining and Assessing Early

Childhood Program Quality

By DEBBY CRYER

ABSTRACT: In the United States, there is a definition of quality of

early care and education (ECE) programs that is widely accepted in
the early childhood profession. It emphasizes a child-centered ap-
proach to raising children, with caring adults who are kind and gen-
tle rather than restrictive and harsh and who protect childrens
health and safety, while providing a wealth of experiences that lead
to learning through play. According to the definition, individuality
and creativity are encouraged rather than conformity. This definition
is often criticized by those with differing perspectives, but in general,
it appears to be valid for those who value the aspects of development
that are associated with success in the current mainstream American
educational system and society. In this article, the content, rationale,
and criticisms of that definition of quality are presented. Methods
used in its assessment, and information regarding its validity, are
explained.

Debby Cryer, Ph.D., is an investigator at the Frank Porter Graham Child Develop-
ment Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and director of the child care
program at the center. She has studied and written about early childhood program
20 years, combining her interests as a practitioner with those of
quality during the past
a researcher, examining real-world issues and translating research findings into prac-

tice for early childhood staff, parents, and policymakers.

NOTE: The work reported herein was partially supported under the Educational Research
and Development Centers Program, PR/Award R307A60004, as administered by the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. However, the contents
do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the National Institute on Early Childhood
Development and Education, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, or the U.S.
Department of Education, and endorsement by the federal government should not be assumed.

39
40

DEFINING ECE QUALITY

an attempt to define the quality
IN of almost any service, it is obvious
Defining the quality of ECE set-
that subjective values will come into is a complex task, partly due to
play. Just what quality is can be con- tings
the complexity of the ECE system
troversial, depending on what aspect itself. The ECE classroom can be
of the service is being considered and
viewed as being embedded within
who is doing the defining. This is
various spheres of influence, includ-
certainly true when attempts are the center in which the classroom
made to define the quality of early ing
care and education (ECE) environ-
operates as well as the community,
at the local, state, and national lev-
ments, for both center-based class- els. The same can be said for family
rooms and family child care environ-
child care homes. The conditions
ments. The quality of ECE settings
under which a center or family child
can be defined from many perspec-
care provider operates include vari-
tives and can include a variety of in- ables that can influence what chil-
dicators. Any definition is likely to be dren
experience.
challenged by those with differing The actual child environment (for
priorities or perspectives. In other example, the classroom or family
words, ECE quality might be child care setting used for children)
viewed as being in the eye of the can be characterized
by both struc-
beholder. tural and process (or dynamic) qual-
Nevertheless, in the United ity features (Phillips and Howes
States, there is a widely accepted 1987). Process quality consists of
definition of ECE classroom quality. those aspects of an ECE setting that
This definition comes under fire children actually
experience in their
quite often and is adapted to meet programs, such as teacher-child and
different emphases with the passing child-child interactions; the types of
of time, but in general it appears to space, activities, and materials avail-
be relatively stable. In this article, I able to children; and how everyday
will discuss the definition of ECE personal care routines, such as
program quality that is currently meals, toileting, or rest, are handled.
widely accepted in the American Children directly experience these
early childhood profession. The processes, which are thought to have
rationale and content of this defini- an influence on their well-being and
tion, and methods used in its assess- developmental outcomes (Peisner-
ment, will be presented. In addition, Feinberg and Burchinal 1997;
attention will be given to common Whitebook, Howes, and Phillips
criticisms of the definition. This will 1990).
be followed by information on the Structural quality consists of
validity of the definition, including inputs to process-characteristics
the relation between ECE quality that create the framework for the
and childrens development and processes that children actually
between ECE process and structural experience. These characteristics are
quality. part of the setting used by children

and also the environment that sur-
rounds that setting, such as a center
or community. Examples of struc-
tural quality variables include mea-
sures of group size, adult-child
ratios, and the education and experi-
ence of the teachers or the director of
a program. Originally, structural
quality variables represented
aspects of ECE that are considered
amenable to regulation (Phillips and
Howes 1987). However, the defini-
tion has expanded to include vari-
ables, such as staff wages, teacher
turnover, or parent fees, which are
not particularly regulatable in the
mixed market system of child care
that presently exists in the United
States (Phillipsen et al. 1997).
It is possible to evaluate both the
structural and process quality of an
ECE system. For example, in the
article by Tietze and Cryer describ-
ing quality of European ECE in this
volume, much of the discussion
relates to the quality of the struc-
tures available to support classroom
quality, rather than to the more
proximal features of classroom qual-
ity that children experience. In this
article, my concern is with defining
and evaluating process quality-the
quality of what children experience
directly, either in child care centers
or in family child care homes. The
quality definition discussed here
does not include important, but more
distal, factors that will also affect
children but in a less direct way, such
as the availability or affordability of
programs to families, the effective-
ness of regulatory standards, or the
overall family policy of a nation. My
discussion focuses on those aspects of
ECE program quality that are
41
thought to most directly affect chil-
drens development in child care.
Defining early
childhood process quality
In definingECE process quality,
early childhood professionals have
depended heavily on practitioners
concepts of best practice and, when-
ever possible, on findings from child
development research. The defini-
tion is often thought of as a best bet
for positive child development in
areas that are associated with tradi-
tional success in later schooling as
well as in later life in the mainstream
U.S. democratic and capitalist soci-
ety. The definition emphasizes prac-
tices that are assumed to encourage
language; intellectual and physical
abilities; social competence, includ-
ing a balance of independence and
cooperation; as well as emotional
well-being. It is characterized by a
child-centered approach to raising
children, emphasizing childrens
play and interactions with materials
and peers as the primary means of
attaining developmental goals. It
requires a safe environment that
encourages good health. In this defi-
nition, the adults role is to act as a
facilitator of childrens enriched play
and to provide protection, positive
attention, access to information,
resources, support, and guidance. In
practice, this means that adults in
high-quality programs are very nice
to the children (but certainly not
totally permissive), rather than
being negative, harsh, restrictive,
punitive, or uninterested. They
introduce children to a wealth of safe
and healthful experiences to provide
vast opportunities for learning.
42

There are various versions of the Whatever the setting, family child
definition of ECE quality, but in gen- in a center, the same com-
care or care
eral all share the same major tenets, ponents of quality are addressed.

differing only in the details. The core This is because it is believed that
elements that are recognized as be- children need the same basics for
ing necessary for childrens positive positive development, whether they
development are are at home, in family child care, or in
center-based programs. For example,
-
safe care, with diligent adult su- the National Association for the Edu-
pervision that is appropriate for cation of Young Children (NAEYC)
childrens ages and abilities; has developed quality criteria for
safe toys; safe equipment; and center-based early childhood pro-
safe furnishings; grams (NAEYC 1984, 1991a, 1998a).
- healthful care, where children There are also quality criteria for
have opportunities for activity, family child care (Family Child Care
rest, developing self-help skills
Quality Criteria Project 1995; Modi-
in cleanliness, and having theirgliani and Bromer 1997). These crite-
nutritional needs met; ria were developed with input from
-

developmentally appropriate many constituents in the respective

stimulation, where children professions. Although the family
have choices of opportunities child care home and center-based
for play and learning in a vari- ECE settings might appear to be very
ety of areas such as language; different, when the two quality defi-
creativity through art, music, nitions are closely examined, there is
and dramatic play; fine and significant overlap, and the themes
gross motor skills; numeracy; of these core elements are found in
and nature or science; both, with only some of the details
-positive interactions with differing. Whatever the setting, it is
adults, where children can believed that children require the
trust, learn from, and enjoy the same kinds of basic inputs for devel-
adults who care for and educate opmental success, although there is
them; room for some flexibility in the de-

-promoting individual emo- tails.

tional growth, encouraging chil- Interestingly, the quality ele-
dren to operate independently, ments previously listed appear to
cooperatively, securely, and cross international borders. The
competently; and points represented in NAEYCs
-promoting positive relation- accreditation criteria (1984, 1991a,
ships with other children, al- 1998a) overlap substantially with
lowing children to interact with the view of quality presented in the
their peers, with the environ- European Unions ECE quality defi-
mental supports and adult nition (Belageur, Mestres, and Penn
guidance required to help inter- 1992) as well as with the view of qual-
actions go smoothly. ity presented in the World Health

Organizations Child Care Facility
Schedule (World Health Organiza-
tion 1990). In addition, parents of
children in U.S. ECE programs value
similar aspects of quality. Mitchell,
Cooperstein, and Larner (1992)
report that parents views of quality
are centered around ensuring their
childrens health and safety and posi-
tive interactions with the teacher.
Browne Miller (1990) reports that
parents see staff warmth, a good edu-
cational program, social activities,
and physical activities as being
important aspects of quality. Cryer
and Burchinal (1997) report that
parents of infants, toddlers, and pre-
schoolers indicate that issues related
to health, safety, and adult-child
interactions were the most impor-
tant in terms of quality for their chil-
dren and that curriculum aspects of
care were also very important. Of
course, in terms of structural quality,
parents also indicate the high impor-
tance of accessibility and affordabil-
ity in child care, which represents
their very realistic concerns. But this
does not detract from parents desire
for positive experiences for their chil-
dren while in child care.
Criticisms of the mainstream
quality definition are abundant.
They range from arguments about
the inappropriateness of one small
detail in the definition to much
broader complaints. A good example
of the range of criticisms is seen in
the responses to NAEYCs version of
the widely accepted definition of
quality early childhood programs. A
major component of NAEYCs defini-
tion of quality known as &dquo;develop-
mentally appropriate practice&dquo; (Bre-
dekamp 1987) has been attacked on
43
many fronts. It has been viewed as
being far less relevant for programs
serving minority cultures than for
the white middle class. Powell (1994)
notes that its emphasis on a child-
centered teaching approach is in con-
trast to the more didactic teaching
that is preferred by many lower-
income, ethnic-minority parents.
Williams (1994) explains that the
child-centered approach, where the
child is encouraged to develop as an
individual, would also not apply well
to many Native American children,
where the development of the indi-
vidual is not as important as the rela-
tionship of the individual to the
group and where knowledge is not
seen to be individually constructed
but socially constructed. Others
judge the definition as inadequate in
terms of meeting the needs of chil-
dren with disabilities, who often
require more exacting teaching
strategies than do typically develop-
ing children (Atwater et al. 1994).
Despite such criticisms, when the
arguments are carefully examined,
they are usually found to be focused
on relatively small components of the
larger construct, not on the core ele-
ments. Thus the definition can some-
times be adapted to incorporate
changes, but the core, as a whole,
does not really change radically. In
fact, the concept of developmentally
appropriate practice has recently
been revised (Bredekamp 1997) to
incorporate input from various seg-
ments of the profession. The defini-
tion, however, still maintains its
basic identity. It is likely that dis-
agreements about the content of the
definition will continue, and ongoing
efforts will be required to update the
44
definition in response to input from
various critics.
In some cases, the mainstream
quality definition is rejected, with no
sign of a possible compromise in
viewpoint. Moss (1994) argues that
early childhood program quality is a
relative concept, not an objective
reality, and that definitions change
over time, according to values,
beliefs, needs, and other require-
ments of the various stakeholders
involved. Thus quality must be con-
tinually redefined, and only through
a process of definition will any result
be accepted by the constituents for
whom it was created. This relativis-
tic approach questions the validity of
the mainstream process quality defi-
nition and, at the extreme, whether
there can ever be agreement on any
one definition. Perhaps this perspec-
tive can be best understood in terms
of how the religious Right in the
United States seems to view the
mainstream definition of ECE qual-
ity child care. Here we see values
that appear to be in substantial con-
flict with those of the early childhood
profession. The religious Right
emphasizes &dquo;spare the rod, spoil the
child&dquo; and ensuring that young chil-
dren learn religious information
rather than the more authoritative,
developmental approach that is rep-
resented in the mainstream defini-
tion. An adaptation of the U.S. main-
stream definition to incorporate
these values would not be very possi-
ble, although it is still likely that in
the end, a definition of quality devel-
oped by the religious Right might
still overlap with the mainstream
definition in some areas, such as
health or safety.
With all the differing perspectives
on what is and is not early childhood
program quality, it becomes espe-
cially important to examine relation-
ships between child outcomes and
the practices that are used in raising
children in out-of-home care set-
tings. Perhaps the real question is
not, What is quality? but rather,
What outcomes are produced under
this definition of quality? Depending
on the desired outcomes, the answer
to the question What is quality? will
then become apparent.
For example, if the definer of ECE
process quality wants to ensure that
children learn to communicate well,
there might be several alternatives
for what a quality definition might
include to encourage that outcome.
From the point of view of U.S. main-
stream ECE quality, children would
need to be in an environment where
conversations take place frequently,
where childrens talk is encouraged,
and where there are many things to
talk about. It is thought to be
unlikely that children would learn to
communicate well when the environ-
ment does not provide these opportu-
nities. (This definition is supported
by research findings.) However,
there are other perspectives about
how to bring about good child com-
munication. For example, a more
didactic approach is sometimes
thought to be effective (although not
supported by research findings),
where children practice talking and
listening under more structured con-
ditions such as those where memory
drills and recitation tasks are
emphasized and where natural child
conversations are restricted. Of
course, it cannot be forgotten that
 45

there will be some for whom learning The overlap in all instruments
to communicate well is not an impor- assessing process quality is over-
tant consideration in raising chil- whelming, and demonstrates the
dren. But any definition of ECE pro- widespread agreement on an ECE
cess quality is only an assumption quality definition in the United
until it has been tested for validity States. However, the instruments
(that is, do children learn to commu- vary in scope and differ in the details.
nicate better under these condi- The content and format of the most
tions ?). If relationships between the widely used global assessments, as
definition and the desired outcomes well as two examples of instruments
are found, then the definition that assess the quality of far more
becomes valid for those who value specific aspects of process quality,
that outcome. will be described in this article. Some
instruments evaluate ECE quality
ASSESSING ECE
for all children in a group, while oth-
PROCESS QUALITY ers attempt to evaluate the quality

experienced by an individual child.

In order to validate any definition
of ECE process quality, the definition
must first be operationalized so that
the extent to which it is being imple-
mented in practice can be measured.
Various measures for the specifica-
tion and evaluation of the main-
stream definition of ECE process
quality have been developed in the
past 20 years. Each represents a ver-
sion of process quality that is
assumed to produce specific child
outcomes. Some have been used in
research, while many were designed
to evaluate and improve program
quality. All the procedures discussed
here require direct observation of
children and adults in ECE settings
during times of child activity. In
addition, a staff interview or review
of documents to collect information
on unobserved requirements may be
needed to supplement observations.
Global process quality assessments
are used to document the overall
physical and learning quality of an
ECE environment, as opposed to
more specific assessments of quality.
All of the instruments discussed here
have been tested to ensure statistical
reliability. For example, all have
acceptable interrater reliability,
indicating that the measures have
been designed to produce similar
scores when used by different
observers.
One series of environment rating
scales has been highlighted in the
larger child care quality studies of
the decade (Helburn 1995; Galinsky
et al. 1994; Scarr, Eisenberg, and
Deater-Deckard 1994; Whitebook,
Howes, and Phillips 1990). These
scales comprehensively assess the
quality of ECE experienced by
preschool-age children (Early Child-
hood Environment Rating Scale
[ECERS] ) (Harms and Clifford
1980), infants and toddlers
(Infant/Toddler Environment Rating
Scale [ITERS] ) (Harms, Cryer, and
Clifford 1990), and children in family
child care (Family Day Care Rating
Scale [FDCRS] ) (Harms and Clifford
1989). The scales measure quality as
experienced by all children in a
46

specific group. The ECERS

original 1994). Like the scales by Harms and
has recently been revised colleagues described earlier, the pro-
(ECERS-R) (Harms, Clifford, and fileassesses quality experienced for

Cryer 1998) to represent new find- all children in a group. There is a

ings from research and to address family day care version of the profile
issues related to meeting the needs of that has been used extensively as the
children with disabilities and chil- observation instrument to assess
dren from diverse families. The revi- accreditation requirements of the
sion represents the constantly National Family Day Care Associa-
changing details in ECE quality defi- tion. The profile consists of a
nitions but maintains the same basic presence-absence checklist of about
principles found in the original 150 items, arranged in components
ECERS. for administration, preschool, infant,
Each scale provides a score of over- and school-age. Subscales for the
all global process quality and con- preschool, infant, and school-age
sists of about 30-40 items organized groups include safety and health,
into categories that vary somewhat learning environment, scheduling,
depending on which scale is being curriculum, interacting, and indi-
used. Each scale includes items on vidualizing. These vary somewhat
personal care routines, furnishings depending on the age group that is
and display for children, language being evaluated. For example, a
experiences, learning activities, nutrition subscale is included for
social development, interactions, groups of infants but not for the older
and adult needs. It should be noted groups. Subscales for the adminis-
that, in most research, the calcula- tration component include physical
tion of a process quality score does facilities, food service, program man-
not include items in the adult needs agement, personnel, and program
subscale, since these are considered development. Besides observation
indicators of structural rather than and an interview with the teacher,
process quality. In all three instru- reviewing certain documents to score
ments, items are presented as a some items is required. Ideally, an
seven-point scale with quality observation should take place to
descriptors anchoring four points: include a variety of typical classroom
1 (inadequate), 3 (minimal), 5 (good), events (such as meals, learning
and 7 (excellent). Scoring is based activities, outdoor play, and so on). A
primarily on what is observed during total score is calculated by summing
a period of two or three hours when the number of yes responses.
the children are most actively The NAEYC Accreditation Instru-
involved, usually during the ments (NAEYC 1985, 1991b, 1998b)
morning. were developed to be used in the self-
The Assessment Profile for Early study process that programs undergo
Childhood Programs (Abbott-Shim when applying for accreditation. The
and Sibley 1987) has also been used instruments are also used by valida-
in a major research study (Scarr, tors who confirm the information
Eisenberg, and Deater-Deckard presented by a program that has

completed the self-study. The instru-
ments are based completely on the
NAEYC Accreditation Criteria,
which were operationalized for
assessment purposes. The instru-
ments have been revised twice to rep-
resent changes in the criteria based
on input from various constituents in
the profession. The complete self-
study assessment includes both
structural and process measures.
The process quality items are found
in the Early Childhood Classroom
Observation section of the materials.
This observation consists of 71 items
grouped in the following sections:
interactions between teachers and
children; curriculum; physical envi-
ronment ; health and safety; and
nutrition. Items are scored on a
3-point scale, with 3 indicating that
the requirement has been fully met.
Observations are meant to take place
when children are actively involved,
for a period of at least one hour in a
classroom. Scores for each item are
considered individually, so no total
score is calculated. However, it is
possible to sum all scores for a total
classroom score.
A more recently developed mea-
sure of ECE quality, the Observa-
tional Record of the Caregiving Envi-
ronment (ORCE) (NICHD 1996), was
developed for use in a major study of
infant care and development. The
ORCE measures quality of ECE as
experienced by a single child, and it
can be applied in different types of
settings because it focuses on the
caregivers behaviors with a specific
child rather than on what happens in care such as feeding or toileting,
a classroom or other ECE setting. It without any verbal interaction), to
was developed for use with infants. minimal, then simple, elaborative,
47
The ORCE requires both frequency
counts and qualitative ratings of
caregiver behaviors from trained
observers. Items requiring frequency
counts of care behaviors include
more positive behaviors such as
sharing positive interactions with
the child (such as laughing, smiling,
or cooing together), providing posi-
tive physical contact, or doing activi-
ties such as reading or playing a
social game. Neutral behaviors are
also counted, such as providing
physical care to the child. More nega-
tive interactions, such as speaking
negatively to the child or restricting
the child, are counted as well. Quali-
tative ratings are made on aspects of
care such as how sensitive or respon-
sive the caregiver is to the child or
how intrusive the caregiver is.
More specific definitions of pro-
cess quality have been operational-
ized, often to assess the nature of
teacher interactions with children.
The Caregiver Interaction Scale
(CIS) (Arnett 1989) yields four
scores: sensitivity (warm, attentive,
and engaged); harshness (critical,
threatens children, and punitive);
detachment (low levels of interac-
tion, interest, and supervision); and
permissiveness. The Teacher
Involvement Scale (TIS) (Howes and
Stewart 1987) allows an observer to
code the nature of a teachers
involvement with a child every 20
seconds whenever a teacher is within
three feet of the target child. The six
scale points range from ignore, to
routine (touches the child for routine
48
and finally intense (engaging a child
in conversation or actively playing
with the child).
RESULTS FROM RESEARCH
USING PROCESS QUALITY
ASSESSMENT MEASURES
Research during the last 20 years
(for example, Helburn 1995; Galin-
sky et al. 1994; Roupp et al. 1979;
Whitebook, Howes, and Phillips
1990) has examined variations in
child care quality, according to the
mainstream ECE quality definition.
The focus of the research has been to
determine the status of ECE pro-
gram quality in the United States, to
examine the relations between struc-
tural quality and process quality,
and to present the implications of
varying quality in terms of childrens
well-being. Most of the research has
defined childrens positive outcomes
in terms of the developmental areas
that are associated with future
school success, with the assumption
that school success will lead to
greater chances for adult success in
the majority society. This research
has provided validity for the main-
stream definition of process quality
while discovering the status of chil-
drens developmental outcomes in
ECE programs in the United States.
Relationship between
process quality definitions
and child outcomes
The validity of a process quality
definition is best found in its rela-
tionship to the outcomes desired for
children. When defining &dquo;process
quality,&dquo; the definition can be only an
assumption about what is good for
children until it has been securely
tied to the outcomes one would
expect it to produce. There have been
many studies, both large and small,
that examine the extent to which a
relationship exists between the
widely held ECE process quality defi-
nition and childrens development
outcomes. An in-depth summary of
findings that relate quality to out-
comes will be found in Burchinal
(this volume). Here I briefly describe
findings that demonstrate the valid-
ity of the process quality definition
that has been discussed in this
article.
The National Child Care Staffing
Study (Whitebook, Howes, and Phil-
lips 1990), in which the ECERS,
ITERS, CIS, and TIS were used, indi-
cates a relation between aspects of
quality and positive child develop-
ment outcomes. Results from this
study linked better levels of develop-
ment to higher-quality care and
teachers positive behaviors. For
example, children were found to
spend more time in purposeful play
rather than aimless wandering when
teachers were more responsive and
had more intense interactions with
children. In addition, children had
higher language development scores
when they had teachers who took
part in better teacher-child interac-
tions and provided more appropriate
caregiving (102). The Cost, Quality
and Child Outcomes in Child Care
Centers study (Peisner-Feinberg and
Burchinal 1997) found that the qual-
ity of center-based care was related
to preschool childrens concurrent
development across all domains

studied, including receptive lan-
guage, pre-academic skills, class-
room behaviors, attitudes toward
child care, and perceptions of compe-
tence. All of these are considered
important for later success in school.
These analyses adjusted for family
factors and included children from
diverse family backgrounds. In addi-
tion, the results provided evidence
that children who might be consid-
ered at risk for school failure, espe-
cially children from less advantaged
backgrounds, were more susceptible
to the effects of child care quality,
while no children were protected
from the effects of low-quality care by
more advantaged family back-
grounds. The NICHD Early Child
Care Research Network (1996) stud-
ied children during the first three
years of life and found that higher
child care quality was related to bet-
ter mother-child relationships, fewer
reports of childrens behavior prob-
lems, higher cognitive and language
outcomes, and better readiness for
school.
These findings are supported by
numerous smaller studies, which are
described in various reviews of the
literature (such as Doherty 1991).
Generally, the literature indicates
that higher-quality child care set-
tings result in higher scores on mea-
sures of language and social develop-
ment for the children enrolled in
those settings, even allowing for fam-
ily characteristics. In a recent study
(Burchinal et al. 1996), it was found
that even when controlling for the
quality of infants home learning
environments, the development of
infants was significantly related to
the quality of their child care as
49
measured using the ITERS. The TIS
has been found to predict child devel-
opmental outcomes (Howes and
Stewart 1987; Whitebook, Howes,
and Phillips 1990). Specifically, it
has been found to differentiate
between children who behave as if
they were securely attached to their
caregivers and children who behave
as if they were insecurely attached
(Howes and Hamilton 1992). This is
considered important because it has
been found that children who are
securely attached to their caregivers
are more likely to demonstrate social
competence with peers (Howes,
Matheson, and Hamilton 1994).
Higher scores on the CIS have been
related to more positive child care
teachers involvement with children
and to better childrens language
development and attachment secu-
rity (Whitebook, Howes, and Phillips
1990).
Results for family child care set-
tings are similar to those found for
center-based care. The Study of Chil-
dren in Family Child Care and Rela-
tive Care (Galinsky et al. 1994) found
that homes were positively related to
various better child care outcomes
where providers were more sensi-
tive, where they were responsive to
the needs of children, and where the
homes were rated as good or ade-
quate on the FDCRS.
Information on the long-term
effects of child care of varying quality
is more limited due to the complicat-
ing factor that children are in multi-
ple child care settings over time.
There are indications, however, that
social gains in child care carry into
the school years (Zaslow 1991).
50

Status of U.S. child quality

care are similar to those found in other
studies using these instruments in
Access to higher-quality child care
other states, where average quality
obviously makes a significant contri- levels were also
bution to the positive development of rarely found in the
children. But the same studies previ- good range (Scarr, Eisenberg, and
Deater-Deckard 1994; Whitebook,
ously reported also show that this
access is rarely available to most
Howes, and Phillips 1990).
One assumption in the early child-
children in child care. In attempting
hood field has been that higher pro-
to determine the status of U.S. child
cess quality is more likely to be found
care in terms of process quality, find-
in nonprofit, rather than for-profit,
ings have shown that good care is child care programs. This assump-
rarely found. In addition, there is tion
was supported by findings from
great variation in the quality found,
with a few programs providing very Whitebook, Howes, and Phillips
1990. However, the relationship
good ECE while many others provide
ECE of much lower quality. The between sector and process quality is

Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes actually more complicated than

study (Cost, Quality and Child Out- originally shown. Helburn and col-
comes 1995), for example, used com- leagues (1995) found no differences
bined scores from the ECERS, in process quality scores between
ITERS, CIS, and TIS to measure for-profit and nonprofit programs in
global process quality in child care California, Connecticut, and Colo-
centers in four states (California, rado, but in North Carolina, where
Connecticut, Colorado, and North child care regulations were less
Carolina) and concluded that care stringent, for-profit centers did pro-
provided in most centers in the vide lower quality than nonprofit
United States is of mediocre quality, programs did. Further analyses
with infant and toddler care being of showed that nonprofit programs
the poorest quality. Mediocre care is tended to provide higher quality
the condition that most older pre- than for-profit programs did, except
schoolers in child care experience for nonprofit centers run by churches
and is defined as care in which chil- (excluded from the Whitebook,
drens basic needs for health and Howes, and Phillips analyses), which
safety are met, some warmth and provide quality similar to that found
support is provided by adults, and in the for-profit sector.
some learning experiences are pro- Family child care study results
vided. Poor care, which character- tend to be similar to those found for
ized almost half of the infant and tod- center-based care. The most recent
dler rooms, included problems in major study be completed in the
to
basic sanitary conditions related to context of family child care (Galinsky
diapering and feeding; safety-related et al. 1994) used the FDCRS, CIS,
problems; lack of warm, supportive and TIS to assess process quality. In
relationships with adults; and lack of this study, it was found that few
materials required for physical and homes (9 percent) had high scores
intellectual growth. These findings (less than &dquo;good&dquo;) on the FDCRS, the

majority (56 percent) fell into the
adequate or custodial range, and a
substantial number were scored as
being of low quality (35 percent).
The relation between
structural and process quality
Research has also examined
which structural features have the
strongest association with process
quality. The practical intent of this
research has been to help policymak-
ers and practitioners know where to
focus quality improvement efforts.
Results have been reasonably consis-
tent across various studies but not
overwhelmingly strong. Higher lev-
els of teacher education, fewer chil-
dren per teacher, and better teacher
wages have been significant predic-
tors of process quality (for example,
Phillipsen et al. 1997; Whitebook,
Howes, and Phillips 1990). Thus it
comes as no surprise that centers in
states where regulation is more
stringent regarding ratios and
teacher education have, on average,
better process quality scores (Hel-
burn 1995). The positive effect of
regulation is also clear when examin-
ing its relation to family child care
process quality. Galinsky and col-
leagues (1994) found that providers
who are regulated by their states are
more sensitive to children and offer
more responsive care than nonregu-
lated family child care providers or
relatives of the children. In addition,
while only 13 percent of regulated
family child care homes were found
to be inadequate when assessed
using the FDCRS, 50 percent of non-
regulated homes and 69 percent of
relative care environments were in
the inadequate range.
51
Although the associations
between structural and process qual-
ity are still not fully understood,
research continues to clarify the rela-
tionship. For example, it has been
recently shown that the effects of the
many structural features of ECE pro-
grams are highly interwoven and
that no one structural variable
strongly accounts for differences in
process quality. Cryer and colleagues
(1998) have shown that when exam-
ining the variance in process quality
accounted for by any specific struc-
tural variable, much of its power of
association is actually shared with
other variables. For example, in
these analyses, wages appeared to be
one of the stronger predictors of pro-
cess quality in the United States, but
further examination of the influence
of this variable showed that wages
actually accounted for 4 percent of
the unique and 15 percent of the com-
mon variance in ECERS scores. In
other words, most of the association
between wages and process quality
was shared with other structural
variables and was not unique only to
wages. Blau (1997) also showed that
results of past analyses can be ques-
tioned and that there is no strong
obvious answer for policymakers
when considering how to create regu-
lation that will improve ECE quality.
Thus it is most likely that to improve
process quality, many structures
must be considered simultaneously
rather than just a few. For example,
highly qualified or well-paid teach-
ers can do only so much to provide
high-quality programs for children if
they do not have appropriate space,
materials, equipment, and adminis-
trative support. Obviously, a broad
52
range of structural supports must be
provided if we wish to increase the
availability of higher ECE process
quality in the United States.
SUMMARY
It is true that the quality of ECE
programs can be considered to be in
the eye of the beholder. The priorities
of those who define quality will deter-
mine any quality definition. How-
ever, for process quality definitions
to have validity, it must be shown
that they are associated with the out-
comes that are desired for children.
In the United States and even
beyond, the early childhood profes-
sion has come to a significant consen-
sus in establishing what is required
for high-quality programs. The pri-
orities in this definition of quality
include safe and healthful care,
developmentally appropriate stimu-
lation, positive interactions with
adults, encouragement of individual
emotional growth, and promotion of
positive relationships with other
children. The various versions of this
definition may differ in the details,
but few would argue that these pri-
orities are not necessary for the posi-
tive development of young children.
The validity of the definition has
been proven in many studies. When
higher process quality is provided,
all children gain in the development
of skills and abilities that are associ-
ated with success in school and later
life in the democratic, industrialized
society of the United States.
It is distressing to note that in the
United States, the quality experi-
enced by children varies radically.
High numbers of children receive
poor to mediocre care and education,
which is related to poorer child devel-
opment outcomes, while only a few
receive ECE that actively encour-
ages success in our society. There is
great diversity in the quality of pro-
grams to which families have access,
providing unequal opportunity for
children to have the same chances to
come to school ready to learn.
For those who do not accept the
current, widely accepted definition of
ECE quality, either because of small
differences in the details or because
of their relativistic perspective, it is
important that they create alterna-
tive measures of quality that are
proven to be valid. Parents, practi-
tioners, policymakers, and other
interested constituents need to
understand how the implementation
of a definition will affect childrens
development, both at present and in
the long term. Of course, this will
require careful research, but
assumptions about child-rearing
practices are insufficient. Those who
raise young children need to fully
understand the strengths and draw-
backs to any practices they use to
optimize childrens prospects for the
future.
References
Abbott-Shim, Martha and Annette
Sibley. 1987. Assessment Profile for
Early Childhood Programs. Atlanta,
GA: Quality Assist.
Arnett, J. 1989. Caregivers in Day-Care
Centers: Does Training Matter? Jour-
nal of Applied Developmental Psychol-
ogy 10:541-52.
Atwater, J. B., J. J. Carta, I. S. Schwartz,
and S. R. McConnell. 1994. Blending
Developmentally Appropriate Prac-

tice and Early Childhood Special Edu-
cation : Redefining Best Practice to
Meet the Needs of All Children. In Di-
versity and Developmentally Appro-
priate Practices: Challenges for Early
Childhood Education, ed. B. L. Mal-
lory and R. S. New. New York: Teach-
ers College Press.
Belageur, I., J. Mestres, and H. Penn.
1992. Die Frage der Qualität in Kin-
derbetreuungseinrichtungen (Diskus-
sionspapier) (Quality of child care cen-
ters [A discussion paper]. Kommission
der Europäischen Gemeinschaften.
Blau, David M. 1997. The Production of
Quality in Child Care Centers. Jour-
nal of Human Resources 32(2):354-87.
Bredekamp, S. 1987. Developmentally
Appropriate Practice in Early Child-
hood Programs Serving Children from
Birth Through Age 8. Washington,
DC: National Association for the Edu-
cation of Young Children.
—. 1997. Developmentally Appropri-
ate Practice in Early Childhood Pro-
grams Serving Children from Birth
Through Age 8. Washington, DC: Na-
tional Association for the Education of
Young Children.
Browne Miller, A.1990. The Day Care Di-
lemma : Critical Concerns for Ameri-
can Families. New York: Plenum.
Burchinal, Margaret R., Joanne E. Rob-
erts, Laura A. Nabors, and Donna M.
Bryant. 1996. Quality of Center Care
and Infant Cognitive and Language
Development. Child Development
67:606-20.
Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study
Team. 1995. Cost, Quality and Child
Outcomes in Child Care Centers: Pub-
lic Report. Denver: University of Colo-
rado, Department of Economics, Cen-
ter for Research in Economic and
Social Policy.
Cryer, Debby and Margaret Burchinal.
1997. Parents as Child Care Consum-
ers. Early Childhood Research Quar-
terly 12:35-58.
53
Cryer, Debby, Wolfgang Tietze, Marga-
ret Burchinal, Teresa Leal, and Jesús
Palacios. 1998. Predicting Process
Quality from Structural Quality in
Preschool Programs: A Cross-Country
Comparison. University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill. Manuscript.
Doherty, Gillian. 1991. Quality Matters
in Child Care. Huntsville, ON: Jes-
mond.
Family Child Care Quality Criteria Pro-
ject. 1995. Quality Criteria for Family
Child Care. Washington, DC: Na-
tional Association for Family Child
Care.
Galinsky, Ellen, Carollee Howes, Susan
Kontos, and Marybeth Shinn. 1994.
The Study of Children in Family Child
Care and Relative Care: Highlights of
Findings. New York: Families and
Work Institute.
Harms, Thelma and Richard M. Clifford.
1980. Early Childhood Environment
Rating Scale. New York: Teachers
College Press.
—.1989. Family Day Care Rating
Scale. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Harms, Thelma, Richard M. Clifford, and
Debby Cryer. 1998. Early Childhood
Environment Rating Scale: Revised
Edition. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Harms, Thelma, Debby Cryer, and Rich-
ard M. Clifford. 1990. Infant/ Toddler
Environment Rating Scale. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Helburn, Suzanne, John R. Morris, Mary L.
Culkin, Sharon Lynn Kagan, and
Jean Rustici. 1995. Within Sector
Comparisons and the Impact of Gov-
ernment Spending. In Cost, Quality
and Child Outcomes in Child Care
Centers: Technical Report, ed. S. Hel-
burn. Denver: University of Colorado,
Department of Economics, Center for
Research in Economic and Social
Policy.
54
Helburn, Suzanne W. ed. 1995. Cost,
Quality and Child Outcomes in Child
Care Centers: Technical Report. Den-
ver : University of Colorado, Depart-
ment of Economics, Center for Re-
search in Economic and Social Policy.
Howes, Carollee and Claire Hamilton.
1992. Childrens Relationships with
Caregivers: Mothers and Child Care
Teachers. Child Development 63:859-
66.
Howes, Carollee, C. Matheson, and
Claire Hamilton. 1994. Maternal,
Teacher and Child Care History Cor-
relates of Childrens Relationships
with Peers. Child Development
65:264-73.
Howes, Carollee and P. Stewart. 1987.
Childs Play with Adults, Toys and
Peers: An Examination of Family and
Child Care Influences. Developmental
Psychology 23:423-30.
Mitchell, A., E. Cooperstein, and M. Lar-
ner. 1992. Child Care Choices, Con-
sumer Education, and Low-Income
Families. New York: National Center
for Children in Poverty.
Modigliani, Kathy and Juliet Bromer.
1997. Quality Standards for NAFCC
Accreditation: Pilot Study Draft. Bos-
ton : Wheelock College, Family Child
Care Study.
Moss, Peter. 1994. Defining Quality: Val-
ues, Stakeholders and Processes. In
Valuing Quality in Early Childhood
Services: New Approaches to Defining
Quality, ed. Peter Moss and Alan
Pence. London: Paul Chapman.
National Association for the Education of
Young Children (NAEYC). 1984. Ac-
creditation Criteria and Procedures of
the National Association for the Edu-
cation of Young Children. Washing-
ton, DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
—. 1985. Guide to Accreditation by
the National Association for the Edu-
cation of Young Children. Washing-
ton, DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
—. Accreditation Criteria and
1991a.
Procedures of the National Association
for the Education of Young Children.
Washington, DC: National Associa-
tion for the Education of Young Chil-
dren.
—. 1991b. Guide to Accreditation by
the National Association for the Edu-
cation of Young Children. Washing-
ton, DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
—. 1998a. Criteria and
Accreditation
Procedures ofthe National Association
for the Education of Young Children.
Washington, DC: National Associa-
tion for the Education of Young Chil-
dren.
—. 1998b. Guide to Accreditation by
the National Association for the Edu-
cation of Young Children. Washing-
ton, DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Net-
work. 1996. Characteristics of Infant
Child Care: Factors Contributing to
Positive Caregiving. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly 11:269-306.
Peisner-Feinberg, Ellen S. and Margaret
R. Burchinal. 1997. Relations Be-
tween Preschool Childrens Child-
Care Experiences and Concurrent De-
velopment : The Cost, Quality and
Outcomes Study. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly 43(3):451-77.
Phillips, Deborah A. and Carollee Howes.
1987. Indicators of Quality in Child
Care: Review of Research. In Quality
in Child Care: What Does Research
Tell Us? ed. D. Phillips. Washington,
DC: National Association for the Edu-
cation of Young Children.
Phillipsen, Leslie, Margaret R. Burchi-
nal, Carollee Howes, and Debby
Cryer. 1997. The Prediction of Process
Quality from Structural Features of
Child Care. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly 12:281-303.

Powell, D. R. 1994. Parents, Pluralism,
and the NAEYC Statement on Devel-
opmentally Appropriate Practice. In
Diversity and Developmentally Appro-
priate Practices: Challenges for Early
Childhood Education, ed. B. L. Mal-
lory and R. S. New. New York: Teach-
ers College Press.
Roupp, R., J. Travers, F. Glantz, and C.
Coelen. 1979. Children at the Center:
Final Results of the National Day Care
Study. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books.
Scarr, Sandra, M. Eisenberg, and K.
Deater-Deckard. 1994. Measurement
of Quality in Child Care Centers.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly
9:131-51.
Whitebook, Marcy, Carollee Howes, and
Deborah Phillips. 1990. Who Cares?
Child Care Teachers and the Quality
55
of Care in America: Final Report.
Washington, DC: Center for the Child
Care Workforce.
Williams, L. R. 1994. Developmentally
Appropriate Practice and Cultural
Values: A Case in Point. In Diversity
and Developmentally Appropriate
Practices: Challenges for Early Child-
hood Education, ed. B. L. Mallory and
R. S. New. New York: Teachers Col-
lege Press.
World Health Organization. Division of
Mental Health. 1990. WHO Child
Care Facility Schedule with Users
Manual. Geneva: World Health Orga-
nization, Division of Mental Health.
Zaslow, M. 1991. Variation in Child Care
Quality and Its Implications for
Children. Journal of Social Issues
47:125-38.