Family Empowerment

One Outcome of Parental Participation in Cooperative Preschool Education

Katherine Dunlap

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Topic: Social Sciences
• eBook ISBN:
  9781317733515
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

First published in 2000. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.  Positive effects of preschool education on children have been well documented (Berrueta-Clement et al., 1984; Consortium for Longitudinal Studies, 1983, Deutsch, Jordan, & Deutsch, 1985; Lazar & Darlington, 1982). This study considers positive benefits for caregivers who participate in cooperative preschool education. Since not all caregivers are parents, the study includes grandparents who have custody of children, and kin with responsibility for kith.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction

Positive effects of preschool education on children have been well documented (Berrueta-Clement et al., 1984; Consortium for Longitudinal Studies, 1983, Deutsch, Jordan, & Deutsch, 1985; Lazar & Darlington, 1982). This study considers positive benefits for caregivers who participate in cooperative preschool education. Since not all caregivers are parents, the study includes grandparents who have custody of children, and kin with responsibility for kith.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Preschool education began in the United States during the middle of the twentieth century and flourished as the spearhead of the War on Poverty. The best-known program was Head Start, a national compensatory education project begun in 1965. However, many other disparate parent training programs also emerged. These were united by four assumptions: First, low-income families fail to prepare children for successful entry into school. Second, the early years constitute a critical period for cognitive growth. Third, negative family influences usually are not overcome by later schooling. Fourth, a “diffusion effect” transmits program gains to siblings.

Evaluation of academic preschools and the parent training model demonstrated significant and substantial long-term benefits for children; however, few studies examined changes in parents, and substantial ethical concerns were identified.

Informed by research on parent training programs, the family support movement emerged in the late 1970s. Family support programs provided emotional sustenance, information, and instrumental assistance to families within a context of empowerment. Although program focus varied considerably, common goals included enhancement of parents’ child-rearing capacities; empowerment of parents as advocates for change; and brokerage of resources.

Family support programs have been difficult to evaluate; however, mounting evidence suggests that they positively affect the cognitive and social development of economically disadvantaged children. Some argue that family support programs produce positive outcomes for adults, but this has not been clearly documented.

THE THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This study combined several research streams. First, it viewed empowerment as a process of adult development. Second, drawing heavily from the research and experience of John McKnight, it posited that lasting empowerment is situated within community. To this end, the study assumed that neither children nor parents can be “fixed” by plucking them from their environment for inoculation or enrichment. Instead, this study assumed that enduring change occurs only when people are empowered to alter the fabric of their own lives and communities as they see fit. Third, this study assumed that the process of empowerment involves acquisition of the cultural capital of the dominant class. Building on the research of French economist Pierre @@Bourdieu (1971, 1977) and his followers (Lareau, 1987, 1989; Ogbu, 1974, 1978, 1990; Lubeck, 1985), this study postulated that individuals can amass cultural capital and translate it into human capital without renouncing their own ethnic heritage.

FOCUS OF THE STUDY

The unanswered questions were how, when, where, why, and for whom family support programs work (Weissbourd, 1989). Weiss (1987) explained:

It is unfortunate that there is so little pertinent research about program and parent interactions, about staff and parent attitudes toward each other, and the like, that would help in identifying the crucial features and practices of nondeficit programs and in answering the question of whether these programs are in fact empowering. Overall, the field is now long on prescription and short on description and analysis of nondeficit partnership and multilateral program models. (p. 145)

According to Zigler and Weiss (1985), understanding how and why certain programs work for certain individuals is the most pressing need in this area. That is the focus of this exploratory investigation.

Guided by a review of the theoretical literature, empirical work, and the author’s extended observations, this study was based on the following presumptions: Through involvement with the family component of this preschool, caregivers acquire cultural capital. Over time, they translate cultural capital into human capital, or economic gain. This process, called empowerment, ultimately strengthens families and neighborhoods.

THE RESEARCH SETTING

In an ecological study such as this, environment is a critical element, for the setting possesses particular physical and material attributes which shape behavior; and each setting in turn is shaped by its particular history. This private, non-profit preschool, founded in 1986, serves one of the oldest public housing projects in a major southern city. It was established by and is housed in a small, racially-integrated Presbyterian church which has served the neighborhood since 1941. According to Weiss (1987), programs such as this “hold substantial promise for promoting adult development and strengthening families” (p. 154).

In order for their children to participate, caregivers must meet specified obligations, including attending semi-monthly meetings. The cooperative component automatically precluded participation by caregivers who were employed during the day.

Weiss (1988) separated family support programs into “flagships” and the “fleet.” She described flagships as the large, research-driven programs usually mounted by universities or government agencies. Fleet programs are grassroots efforts established under local auspices, often driven by the vision of a few community leaders.

This preschool represented a ship of the fleet. It served one of the poorest segments of society, in a substandard facility, with minimal financial investment. However, it appeared to be effective. Because it was a ship of the fleet, it offered a significant opportunity for identification of the salient characteristics essential for replication or expansion of an affordable program.

As Rappaport (1981) explained, “Most professional advice is drawn from a very limited set of personal or professional experiences in settings designed and controlled by professionals for others. Researchers can learn much if they are willing to observe the process of empowerment when it is taking place, even if that is in settings such as churches which are typically ignored” (p. 19). Zigler and Weiss (1985) also advocated for programs that benefit not only the child but also the family and community.

The evolution of the caregivers’ program at this preschool paralleled national developments as an indigenous worker transformed parent training into family support. The next family coordinator took the program one step further. Rather than viewing empowerment as a by-product, she identified empowerment as a program goal. Similar actions have not yet been reported by other programs.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION

The goal of the investigation was twofold: first, to contribute to the knowledge base by generating information about the process of empowerment; and, second, to promote replication by identifying salient characteristics of an effective family empowerment program.

The Methodology

This naturalistic inquiry was based on two types of analysis: participant observation of the caregivers in the current cohort, and case studies of caregivers who completed the program from one to five years ago. The project presumed that caregivers acquired cultural capital through involvement in the cooperative component of the preschool. Caregivers translated cultural capital into human capital; and this process, called empowerment, benefited caregivers, their families, and their neighborhood.

The naturalistic method was chosen for its utility. As Weiss (1987) explained:

Qualitative assessments, including intensive interviews and ethnographic observations about program processes, are useful in at least four ways: they can reveal unanticipated positive and negative consequences of the intervention; they help capture practical knowledge; they address the question of whether the program was implemented as designed; and they can help explain the pattern of quantitative program outcomes. (p. 153)

Social Significance

Marian Wright Edelman (1989), president of the Children’s Defense Fund, eloquently proclaimed, “If it is to save itself, America must save its children” (p. 27). This is a worthy mandate, but helping children is not the direct focus of this project. Children cannot mature and prosper if dissevered from their families and communities. In order to save children, we must redeem the fabric of society in which they grow and are nurtured. This study contributes to that endeavor.

Edward Zigler (1978), the founder, administrator, and evaluator of Head Start, similarly concluded that long-term effects of early intervention depend, at least to a great extent, on “the degree to which parents are involved in the training of their children” (p. 73). Bronfenbrenner (1979) supported this approach when he speculated, “The impact of day care and preschool on the nation’s families and on the society at large may have a more profound consequence than any direct effects for the development of human beings in modern industrialized societies” (p. 165).

Overview of Contents

The first section presents a historical overview and examines the current context for early childhood intervention. Chapter 2 reviews the history of preschool education in the United States from its earliest beginnings through the period of rapid proliferation in which parent training programs emerged. This section examines the three causal theories that dominated the intellectual field during that time—genetic inheritance, cultural deprivation, and economic difference. Chapter 3 examines research findings that impelled the transformation of parent training programs into the parent support movement. This chapter includes a discussion of the ecological approach, the role of community, and the process of empowerment. The fourth chapter reviews current conditions in the United States and examines the sociology and function of education as proposed by Pierre Bourdieu (1971, 1979).

These chapters are followed by a section on methodology. In Chapter 5, the research question is posed. Chapter 6 explicates the methodology, and Chapter 7 analyzes the setting in which the research took place. Chapter 8 describes the participants, and Chapter 9 discusses entry and data collection.

Data are presented in the third section. Chapter 10 describes salient features which attracted caregivers to the preschool; the family program; roles of staff and board members; and programmatic barriers to empowerment. Chapter 11 presents caregivers’ reports of changes in parenting skills and family relationships. In Chapter 12, the roles of cultural and human capital are explored and the process of empowerment is delineated; further, each concept is illustrated by a case summary. Neighborhood impact is the subject of Chapter 13. Finally, conclusions and recommendations for further study are included in Chapter 14.

CHAPTER 2
Parent Training

This chapter reviews the history of preschool education in the United States from its earliest beginnings through the period of rapid proliferation in which parent training programs emerged. Three causal theories are presented and evaluated: genetic inheritance, cultural deprivation, and economic difference. The chapter concludes with a consideration of ethical issues which tainted early parent training programs.

EARLIEST ENDEAVORS

The first kindergarten, transplanted from Germany, opened in a private home in Watertown, Wisconsin, in 1855. Kindergartens proliferated under religious and philanthropic patronage, for this was a period of national awakening to social problems. “The tides of immigration brought to American shores peoples difficult to assimilate and slow to accept American ideals and standards of living. Slums were in process of formation. They became sources of disease, crime, delinquency and industrial disorders” (Braun & Edwards, 1972, p. 74).

Preschool education became the great hope for regeneration of society; and young women, trained in normal schools, entered the work with “rare enthusiasm and consecration to the cause. No neighborhood was too criminal, no family too degenerate, no child too bad” (p. 75). The kindergarten teacher taught in the morning and spent afternoons finding work for the unemployed and medical care for the ill. According to Braun and Edwards, family assistance may well have been the most important contribution of pioneer kindergartens.

In the early 1900s, Maria Montessori established Casa di Bambini, a school for deprived children in a slum dwelling in Rome, Italy. Humanitarian Margaret McMillan founded a similar “open air” nursery in the slums of England. Both these experimental schools achieved considerable success, although their influence on American education was minor until the 1960s (Consortium for Longitudinal Studies, 1983).

The first parent cooperative preschool was established in 1915 at the University of Chicago by a group of faculty spouses. Called the Chicago Cooperative Nursery School, it fostered children’s total development; however, the pupils were primarily from middle- and upper-class homes. After the establishment of the Chicago school, a number of other colleges began laboratory schools that were important in expanding knowledge about children’s development. By the 1930s, early childhood education had attained professional status in the United States (Gordon & Browne, 1985).

During the Second World War the Kaiser Child Care Centers opened in Portland, Oregon, to serve the children of women needed in war-related industry. This was the world’s largest and most comprehensive child care agency; however, it closed after the war ended because women were no longer needed in the labor pool.

There were few additional gains in early childhood education until 1957, when Sputnik I, the first Soviet satellite, was launched. This event inspired a re-evaluation of the educational system (Weinberg, 1979). The publication of J. M. Hunt’s Intelligence and Experience in 1961 challenged stereotypes about fixed intelligence (Paget & Bracken, 1983). This was followed by the civil rights movement, which focused attention on the plight of the poor after decades of benign neglect (Halpern, 1988). Under the leadership of President Lyndon B. Johnson, poverty as a political issue was rediscovered, and the War on Poverty was engaged (Bromley, 1972). Policymakers and educators passionately embraced cognitively-oriented preschool programs for poor children (Consortium for Longitudinal Studies, 1983).

ACADEMIC PRESCHOOLS

The spearhead of the War on Poverty was Head Start, a national compensatory education project begun in 1965. Initially, Head Start provided summer programs for economically disadvantaged four- and five-year-old children. The goal of Head Start was to “forestall the developmental deficiencies characteristic of disadvantaged children” through early intervention (Karnes, Teska, Hodgins, & Badger, 1970, p. 925). Intervention was presumed to impart immediate benefits so that “class differences would be eliminated by the time of school entry” (Zigler & Berman, 1983, p. 895).

When it was established, Head Start represented a radical departure from the prevailing ethos. Most childcare professionals and middle-class parents considered group day care an unacceptable alternative to home care for children younger than age three (Caldwell & Smith, 1970; Foster, Berger, & McLean, 1981).

Although Head Start was the largest and most visible program, it was not the only early intervention project established during this period. Many, such as the Perry Preschool Project, the Verbal Interaction Project, and the Mothers Training Program, were established as demonstration or model projects; and research reports proliferated in a fertile political environment. Henniger (1979) compiled a bibliography of over 1300 titles produced from 1970 to 1978, and published in periodicals ranging from popular works such as Ebony and Parents Magazine to more academic journals spanning education, psychology, psychiatry, counseling, child welfare, community psychology, pediatrics, and law.

CAUSAL THEORIES

The long-term goal of these programs was to eliminate social problems associated with poverty. To accomplish this ambitious goal, programs sought explanations for the root causes of poverty and inequality. Three distinct causal theories reigned: genetic inheritance, environmental deprivation, and economic difference. These explanations, although originally focused on the children of the poor, were extended to parents and caregivers by association.

Genetic Explanations

There is overwhelming empirical evidence that in the United States, African American children generally score lower than whites on standardized measures of intelligence or IQ tests (Bronfenbrenner, 1975; Ogbu, 1978; Scarr & Weinberg, 1976). The most controversial explanation for this phenomenon was provided by Arthur Jensen (1969) in his famous discourse on inheritance of intelligence. Referring to Head Start, Jensen began his treatise with the pronouncement, “Compensatory education has been tried, and it apparently has failed” (p. 2). He refuted the argument that IQ differences result from environmental differences and culturally biased tests; and, a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Part I: A History of Preschool Programs for Parents
• Part II: Methodology of the Investigation
• Part III: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
• Appendices
• Bibliography
• Index