Poster #74 - Early Childhood Accreditation Analysis

• In Event: Poster Session 03

Abstract

Early childhood (EC) accreditation has historically been an accepted measure of regulatable standards of the environment (structure quality) and human interactions (process quality) (Cassidy et al., 2005; McDonald, 2009). Although both types of quality are necessary in programs, structural characteristics are thought to lead to quality of the processes in an EC classroom (Zellman et al., 2008). However, research analyzing accreditation organizations and processes is scarce and outdated (Bredekamp & Apple, 1986; Mangano, 1999). The purpose of this study was to conduct an in-depth analysis of national EC accreditation organizations to identify what is expected of early childhood education programs to get accredited in the United States.
This study leveraged publicly available data from the Office of Child Care in the Administration for Children and Families, which publishes a list of prominent accrediting organizations: Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), American Montessori Society (AMS), APPLE Accreditation by the Florida Association for Child Care Management (FACCM), Council on Accreditation (COA), National Accreditation Commission (NAC), National Association for the Education for Young Children (NAEYC), National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC), and National Early Childhood Program Accreditation (NECPA) (See Table 1). A deductive content analysis was conducted for structural and process quality. Structural quality was defined as a characteristic of the environment separate from human interaction and process quality was defined as an interaction between individuals including between children, between children and adults, and between adults (Cassidy et al., 2005).
Results indicated that for all the accrediting organizations, the majority of indicators assessed structural quality. Indeed, four of the eight organizations had more than half of their indicators in each content area assessing structural quality (see Figure 1). For some organizations, less than 10% of their indicators were process related. For example, ACSI had 7 of their 95 indicators coded as process quality. Structural quality indicators were most common in content areas assessing the physical environment and program leadership and management. All accrediting organizations assessed process quality to a lesser extent than structural quality. However, some organizations assessed process quality for more than half of the indicators in a single content area. Content areas most likely to assess process quality were focused on relationships with children, relationships among teachers, and specific teaching strategies to use during interactions with young children.
Our results indicated that the structural quality of a program remains the primary measure for accreditation (Winterbottom & Pianta, 2015). Unfortunately, previous research has identified that teacher-child interactions are a better indicator of children’s school readiness than structural quality (Mashburn et al., 2008). Accreditation organizations may need to include more process quality indicators overall and throughout the content areas. Structure and process quality are intertwined (Cassidy et al., 2005) suggesting that accreditation areas should contain both types of quality indicators. Our results indicated that some organizations assessed content areas such as the environment, administration, and community collaboration solely in terms of structure. In conclusion, although accreditation is indicative of quality in EC programs, the type of quality being assessed is primarily structural.

Authors

• Erin E Hamel, University of Georgia
  Presenting Author

• Lei Huang, University of Georgia