Poster #6 - Links Among Early Childhood Education Factors and Parent Engagement Practices in Two Contexts

• In Event: 3-001 - Poster Session 2 during Breakfast

Abstract

Early Care and Education (ECE) settings play a critical role in promoting positive developmental outcomes for young children, and these effects are strengthened when families are engaged in these settings. Parent engagement in ECE settings situates parents and ECE providers as partners in children’s learning and development (Sheridan et al., 2011), and may promote home learning activities. Most research on parent engagement focuses on Head Start, with little understanding of the links between ECE engagement practices, family engagement, and parent engagement in home learning across the income spectrum.

This paper will address the following research questions: (1) How do ECE center characteristics, child and family characteristics, and ECE Engagement practices predict concurrent levels of family engagement in preschool settings? (2) How are ECE engagement practices and parent engagement in ECE settings related to parent engagement in home learning? (3) Do these associations vary by household income? See Figure 1.

We drew a subsample from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) comprising children attending center-based ECE during the pre-school assessment (N = 2,606). ECE teachers and directors reported center structural and process characteristics (e.g., program type, accept subsidies, ratios), and teachers reported their own characteristics. ECE Engagement Practices were modeled as a latent construct, indicated by 4 parent-reported items (e.g., provider sends home learning materials). Parent-ECE Engagement was comprised of parent reports of 5 items (e.g., attend meeting, class event). Parent-Child Home Learning Engagement consisted of parents’ reports of engagement in activities (e.g., reading) and observed quality of cognitive stimulation. Parents reported several demographic and child characteristics, including family income as a percentage of the federal poverty line (FPL).

We conducted preliminary analyses on research question 1, testing a structural equation model that demonstrated acceptable fit [RMSEA = .012 (.007-.017), CFI = .982, WRMR = .817]. In this model, we looked only at family income that fell above or below 185% of the FPL, as this threshold is used to determine if families qualify for a range of services. See Table 1 for statistically significant predictors. Findings suggest ECE engagement strategies have a moderately strong association with family engagement in ECE. Future analyses will explore research questions 2 and 3 to understand how engagement is associated with home learning, and if these links are stronger or weaker by family income, measured as 100%, 185% and 200% of the FPL. The findings will have implications for research and policy.

Authors

• Katherine Paschall, Child Trends
  Presenting Author

• Ann Mastergeorge, Texas Tech University

• Melissa Barnett, University of Arizona

• Christina Cutshaw, University of Arizona