Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Introduction and Overview
A. Introduction
As the nation's premier early childhood education program, Head Start is leading the way in developing and reporting on its accountability for services to approximately 800,000 children and their families each year. From initial planning in 1995 to the publication of this Head Start Performance Measures Second Progress Report, Head Start has made dramatic progress toward the development of an outcome-oriented accountability system. This approach combines the best attributes of scientific research with program-level reporting and monitoring and is based on a consensus-driven set of criteria for program accountability.
The Head Start Program Performance Measures Initiative is a response to a specific legislative mandate, strategic planning for Head Start, and broader public emphasis on accountability and the general movement toward results-oriented evaluation.
Specifically the Program Performance Measures were developed in accordance with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion, the mandate of Section 641A (b) of the Head Start Act (42 USC 9831 et seq.) as reauthorized in 1994 and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)(Public Law 103-62). Signed into law in July 1993, the GPRA requires all federally funded programs to improve their performance and accountability. Other efforts taking place at the Federal level include the Chief Financial Officers Act and the Vice President's National Performance Review, both of which added impetus to the development of the Head Start Program Performance Measures.
A central principle emerging from the work of the Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion in its December 1993 report, "Creating a 21st Century Head Start," was the need to ensure the quality of Head Start programs for children and families. As a major component of this principle, the Committee proposed a program performance measurement process that would:
-
Identify outcomes to be measured;
-
Select measures and data collection techniques; and
-
Analyze the information gathered.
The Head Start Act envisions measures that will be used to identify strengths and weaknesses in the Head Start program - both nationally and by region - and pinpoint areas requiring additional training and technical assistance to improve performance. The Act defines Program Performance Measures as "methods and procedures for measuring, annually and over longer periods, the quality and effectiveness of programs operated by Head Start agencies." The Act specifies that the measures be designed to appraise the various services provided by Head Start and be adaptable for use in Head Start agency self-assessments and peer reviews. To comply with the statutory language, "Program Performance Measure" as used in this report is defined as an indicator which can be used to determine the quality and effectiveness of Head Start.
In 1995, Head Start undertook a consensus-building process to develop the Head Start Program Performance Measures that drew on the opinions of Head Start program staff and parents, early childhood organization representatives, researchers, experts in the education, child development and early intervention fields, and Head Start Bureau officials. The report Charting Our Progress: Development of the Head Start Program Performance Measures, published in October 1995, summarized that process and outlined the genesis of the original 49 Head Start Program Performance Measures, data sources and data available at that time.
Conceptual Framework
In 1996-97, a conceptual framework for the Program Performance Measures was developed and the measures were revised and condensed. (The framework was presented in The First Progress Report on the Head Start Program Performance Measures which was released in May 1997.) The conceptual framework unifies and organizes the Program Performance Measures to display the linkages between process and outcome measures for Head Start children and families. (See Figure I.1 for the graphical representation of the framework.) The framework is based on the ultimate goal of Head Start, which is to promote the social competence of children. Social competence is the child's everyday effectiveness in dealing with his or her present environment and later responsibilities in school and life. For the five-year-old child coming to the end of the preschool period and entering school, an important life challenge and key test of the child’s social competence at this stage is whether he or she has acquired the skills, understandings, and behaviors that help insure successful functioning in this new environment, what is often called school readiness. Head Start has adopted the “whole child” view of school readiness that was recommended by the Goal One Technical Planning Group of the National Education Goals Panel (1991, 1993). This view sees school readiness as a multi-faceted phenomenon comprising five developmental domains that are important to the child’s readiness for school: physical well-being and motor development, social and emotional development, approaches to learning, language usage and emerging literacy, and cognition and general knowledge. Each of these domains is represented in the battery of measures that are being used to assess how well Head Start programs are performing. It takes into account the interrelatedness of cognitive, emotional, and social development; physical and mental health; and nutritional needs. Social competence is depicted at the top of the pyramid, with five objectives supporting it:
-
Objective 1. Enhance children's healthy growth and development
-
Objective 2. Strengthen families as the primary nurturers of their children
-
Objective 3. Provide children with educational, health and nutritional services
-
Objective 4. Link children and families to needed community services
-
Objective 5. Ensure well-managed programs that involve parents in decision-making.
Each of these objectives is critical to helping children of low-income families attain their full potential. They also represent key cornerstones of the Head Start program. Objectives 1 and 2 represent outcomes or results that the program is designed to produce. Achieving both of these objectives is critical to the ultimate success of Head Start. As parent involvement and family support are key tenets of Head Start, both child and family-oriented outcome measures are included here. Objectives 3, 4, and 5 comprise the lower tiers of the pyramid and contain the process measures that are key to the attainment of objectives 1 and 2 and the ultimate goal of enhancing children's social competence. An important aspect of the pyramid is the strong empirical connection between the provision of quality services (process measures) and improvements in child development (outcome measures).
Each Program Performance Measure has “Performance Indicators” that specify how the measure will be assessed. For example, the objective “Enhance children’s healthy growth and development” includes the Performance Measure “Head Start children demonstrate improved emergent literacy, numeracy, and language skills.” The Performance Indicator for this measure is the change in the Head Start children’s emergent literacy, numeracy and language skills over the Head Start year, measured by individual child assessments and parent and teacher reports of the child’s abilities. A more process-oriented measure is “Head Start assures children receive needed medical, dental and mental health services” which is under Objective 3: Provide children with educational, health, and nutritional services. The Performance Indicator for this measure is the number and percent of Head Start children who received needed medical services as reported by the programs themselves. In order to provide annual progress reports on the indicators supporting each of the objectives, data will be drawn from agency level sources, such as the Head Start Program Information Report (PIR) which is a program-level reporting system completed by each Head Start program annually, and program monitoring reports, as well as from the classroom, teacher, family and child level.
[D] |
| OBJECTIVE 1: ENHANCE CHILDREN’S GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT. |
| 1. Head Start children demonstrate improved emergent literacy, numeracy, and language skills. 2. Head Start children demonstrate improved general cognitive skills. 3. Head Start children demonstrate improved gross and fine motor skills. 4. Head Start children demonstrate improved positive attitudes toward learning. 5. Head Start children demonstrate improved social behavior and emotional well-being. 6. Head Start children demonstrate improved physical health. |
| OBJECTIVE 2: STRENGTHEN FAMILIES AS THE PRIMARY NURTURERS OF THEIR CHILDREN. |
| 7. Head Start parents demonstrate improved parenting skills. 8. Head Start parents improve their self-concept and emotional well-being. 9. Head Start parents make progress toward their educational, literacy, and employment goals. |
| OBJECTIVE 3: PROVIDE CHILDREN WITH EDUCATIONAL, HEALTH AND NUTRITIONAL SERVICES. |
| 10. Head Start programs provide developmentally appropriate educational environments. 11. Head Start staff interact with children in a skilled and sensitive manner. 12. Head Start programs support and respect children's cultures. 13. Head Start assures children receive needed medical, dental, and mental health services 14. Head Start children receive meals and snacks that meet their daily nutritional needs. 15. Head Start programs provide individualized services for children with disabilities. |
| OBJECTIVE 4: LINK CHILDREN AND FAMILIES TO NEEDED COMMUNITY SERVICES. |
| 16. Head Start parents link with social service agencies to obtain needed services. 17. Head Start parents link with educational agencies to obtain needed services. 18. Head Start parents link with health care services to obtain needed care. 19. Head Start parents secure child care in order to work, go to school, or gain employment training. |
| OBJECTIVE 5: ENSURE WELL-MANAGED PROGRAMS THAT INVOLVE PARENTS IN DECISION-MAKING. |
| 20. Head Start programs are well-managed. 21. Head Start parents are involved actively in decisions about program operations. 22. Head Start programs employ qualified staff. 23. Head Start programs support staff development and training. 24. Head Start programs comply with Head Start regulations. |
In addition to being categorized into this framework, the measures have been consolidated, numbered and indicators and data sources have been identified for each. The individual measures are presented in a matrix that lists the measure, performance indicator, data source and data for two years. The measures are listed in Table I.1. The Program Performance Measures Matrix is presented in Chapter 3 of this report.
Overview of Report
This current document is the 1998 report on the Program Performance Measures process. It provides preliminary outcome data for measures contained in Objectives 1 and 2, as well as process data for Objectives 3, 4, and 5. The outcome data are from the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), a nationally representative sample of Head Start programs, classrooms, teachers, parents and children examining the quality and effects of Head Start.
The data in this report are drawn from the Spring 1997 FACES field test in which approximately 2,400 parents and children were studied in 40 Head Start programs. (More extensive technical reports on the FACES field test findings will be released later this year.) The field test was an opportunity to assess the feasibility of interviewing and assessing parents and children on a large scale using the selected instruments. Although it was a field test, it provided valuable information on the status of Head Start programs, children, and families which is partially reported in this document. FACES is continuing with Fall 1997 and Spring 1998 data collections on a nationally representative sample of 3,200 children and families in the same 40 programs, Figure I.2 presents the FACES study design. These phases will allow for a pre-post comparison, assessing the effects of Head Start by examining children and parents before their exposure to Head Start and determining their status at the end of the program. The Spring 1998 data collection will also examine a cohort of former Head Start children from the original field test sample who are completing kindergarten, to determine how they have performed in their first year of school. A Spring 1999 FACES data collection will examine results after kindergarten for the Fall 1997 Head Start cohort. Analyses of the Fall 1997-Spring 1998 comparisons will be available in 1999.
Additional efforts to improve the quality and effectiveness of Head Start are also underway. On January 1, 1998, revised Head Start Program Performance Standards were implemented. These regulations delineate the operations and quality of services to be offered by all Head Start programs. Concurrently, the Head Start program monitoring system is being revised to streamline the monitoring process and promote greater consistency and reliability in monitoring across HHS regions. The training and technical assistance system has also been recently redesigned to meet the needs and enhance program quality of Head Start grantees. All of these efforts are described in greater detail in Chapter 2 of this report. Data from the Head Start Monitoring and Tracking System (HSMTS) and the Program Information Report (PIR) also provide data for the measures. The findings from these data systems are contained in the Program Performance Measures Matrix in Chapter 3.
[D] |
B. FACES Provides Important New Information on Head Start
The Spring 1997 field test of the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) collected extensive information about the quality of the educational services provided by a nationally representative sample of Head Start programs; the abilities of Head Start children on a variety of child development measures; and the characteristics, life experiences, and involvement with Head Start of Head Start families.
Head Start Classroom Quality is Good
FACES revealed important, objective data about Head Start program quality. The quality of most Head Start classrooms is good. Of the 403 classrooms observed, the overall average Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) score was in the "good" range with 17 percent of the classrooms rated as good to excellent, and no classrooms scoring below the "minimal quality" rating. Additional data on class size, child:adult ratio, and teacher background support the conclusion that Head Start classroom quality is good. The average class size for the FACES Head Start classrooms was 13.6 children (children present at the time of observation). The average child:adult ratio was 5.6 children per adult. Over 68 percent of Head Start teachers have some college experience or a college degree. On average, Head Start teachers have been teaching for over 11 years with 7.5 of those years in Head Start.
FACES also identified the strengths and weaknesses of the Head Start classrooms. Head Start classrooms received high scores for: 1) Many provisions and planning for children with disabilities; 2) A wide variety of furniture and emphasis on routines such as meals and snacks, toileting and personal grooming; 3) Good supervision of children's outdoor activities; 4) High level of parent involvement in the program; 5) A "calm but busy" classroom atmosphere; and 6) A balanced daily schedule of classroom activities. FACES also identified areas where Head Start classrooms needed improvement, including: 1) Insufficient multi-cultural awareness; 2) Little space for a child to be alone; 3) Displays in the classroom often not the children's own work; 4) Few areas available for the staff to relax or meet with parents; 5) Lack of enough softness or cozy areas in classrooms; and 6) Dramatic play areas primarily focused on housekeeping and did not encourage play related to work or transportation roles. With regard to language, Head Start classrooms were strong in receptive language activities (such as the availability of books and story-telling) and informal use of language in the classroom. However, they needed improvement in activities to stimulate thinking and reasoning and providing sufficient activities and materials to stimulate the child's expressive language skills (such as encouraging children to express their own ideas).
Analyses also revealed how quality varied across programs, centers, and classes on the ECERS measure of program quality. Head Start programs in the South showed lower levels of quality on this measure (although still above the minimal level). Programs serving higher concentrations of minority families also had lower quality ratings on the ECERS.
Head Start Children Are Ready for School
FACES provided large-scale, cross-sectional data on how well Head Start is fulfilling its objective of enhancing child growth and development, as well as on the link between program quality and children's development. The Head Start children studied reflected both the larger Head Start population and the sampling stratification strategy for this study. The FACES Sample was stratified by three characteristics: region of the country in which the program was located (Northeast, Midwest, South, or West); location in an urban or rural area; and whether the program served a predominately minority population. Almost half of the children were four years old in the Spring of 1997, about one-third were five years old, and 13 percent were three years old. Almost equal proportions of boys and girls were included. Almost three-quarters of the children were in their first year of Head Start. About one-third of the children were African-American and nearly one-third were White, 25 percent were Hispanic, 2 percent American Indian, and 1 percent Asian. Families reported that over 17 percent of the children had some kind of physical or emotional disability with speech/language impairments being the most prevalent type.
FACES found that the typical child completing Head Start has knowledge and skills in early literacy and numeracy as well as skills that signify a readiness to learn more in kindergarten. For example, a "typical" 4-year-old completing Head Start could: 1) Tell his/her full name and age; 2) Identify ten basic colors by name; 3) Show the meaning of basic shape and action words; 4) Count four objects and solve simple addition and subtraction problems; 5) Use a pencil to copy a circle or letters like "Z" and "E"; 6) Correctly repeat a series of 4 spoken digits; 7) Show the front cover of a story book and open it to start reading; and 8) Answer simple factual questions about a story that is read to them.
The children also had a variety of social skills important for kindergarten. According to their teachers, the majority of 4-year-old Head Start children “very often”: 1) Used free time in acceptable ways; 2) Helped in putting work materials away; 3) Followed the teacher’s directions; 4) Joined in activities without being told; 5) Followed rules in playing games; and 6) Waited their turns in games.
There were also a number of things that typical soon-to-be graduates of Head Start could not yet do. Among these were: 1) Tell their home addresses; 2) Identify most letters of the alphabet; 3) Show the meaning of less basic shape and action words; 4) Copy more complex geometric figures, like a star or parallelogram; and 5) Know to move from left to right and top to bottom when reading English text. Also less than half of these children showed the following social skills “very often”: 1) Accepting classmates’ ideas for play; 2) Inviting others to join in activities; 3) Giving compliments to classmates; and 4) Not getting upset when teased by other children.
There were four tasks in the FACES Child Assessment for which national norms data were available: the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III; and, from the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised, the Letter-Word Identification, Applied Problems, and Dictation Tasks. The median scores of FACES children were within the average range of the national distribution of scores on these tasks (almost 90) while the upper fourth of Head Start children scored at the national mean (100 with a standard deviation of 15). National norms are based on samples of children at all income levels. Comparisons with earlier research studies of low-income children suggest that the Head Start children in FACES were performing above the levels that would be expected for children from low-income families who have not attended center-based programs.
Program Quality is Linked to Child Performance
FACES found considerable variation in the average assessment performance of children from different Head Start programs. Detailed analyses revealed that much of the variation in average assessment performance was due to family background differences in the child population of various programs. However, a significant part of the variation seemed to be attributable to differences across programs in the quality of the average classroom environment. For example, children were more likely to score higher on assessment measures when they had sensitive teachers who encouraged independence. The children also scored higher if their classrooms had a varied and appropriate daily schedule, were well-equipped with learning resources, and provided richer language learning opportunities. Children who attended two years of Head Start performed better than children attending only one year.
Head Start Families Are Involved Despite Challenges
The Head Start families that were studied in 40 communities across the country had many things in common, such as their low income levels, parenting of young children, and involvement in the Head Start program. However, they also differed in many ways that affected their interaction with Head Start and the characteristics and experiences, which their children brought to the program. The majority of Head Start parents were under 30 years old, almost equally likely to be single parents as married, lived in households of 4 or 5 people, had nearly 3 children, and had at least a high school degree or GED. Although at least one family member was working in nearly 80 percent of the households, the families had low incomes with a median of $13,200 per year. Over 80 percent of the families received some form of assistance such as food stamps, welfare, or Medicaid. Almost a quarter of the families spoke a primary language other than English and almost 20 percent of the primary caregivers were born outside the U.S.
Most of the families lived in single-family households and had not moved in the last year. Many Head Start families lived in neighborhoods where crime was frequent, with nearly a third having witnessed violent or non-violent crime in the past year.
The majority of Head Start families are highly representative of the working poor in the United States. As such, they face the typical challenges of families with very limited resources and opportunities. In addition, a significant minority of Head Start parents and children are facing major challenges in their lives. Fathers of the Head Start child were not present in 54 percent of the households. Over 8 percent of the families had more than 5 children. The primary caregiver had less than a high school education in 29 percent of the families. The household income was less than $500 a month in 12 percent of the families, and about 21 percent of the households contained no employed adult. Nearly 8 percent of the families had been homeless at some point since the child's birth and about 4 percent of the children had been victims of crime or domestic violence.
Nevertheless, parents were actively involved in daily interactions with their children. Over 90 percent took the children on errands, played with them with toys or games, involved them in household chores, and talked with them about what happened in Head Start. Between 70 and 90 percent taught them letters, numbers or songs. About two-thirds of the families read to the children three or more times a week, although daily reading to children occurred in only 33 percent of the families. Head Start families were satisfied with the Head Start services they received, with more than 90 percent reporting that they felt welcome and supported by the teacher and that their children were respected and accepted by the teacher. Between 85 and 90 percent of parents were very satisfied with the safety of the program, program services for children and Head Start’s promotion of child growth and development.
Parent involvement is a cornerstone of Head Start and the survey found that the vast majority of Head Start parents (80 percent) had participated at least once in a Head Start activity that year. Over 40 percent had participated more than three times in such activities as volunteering in the classroom. However, about one-fifth of the parents had not participated in key Head Start activities such as parent-teacher conferences. Barriers to participation for all families included work schedules, child care needs, lack of transportation, and school or training schedules. Parents who were less likely to participate included parents who had not graduated from high school, employed parents and single parents, suggesting that Head Start should make greater efforts to reach these parents. However, parents participation was equal across English-speaking and primarily non-English speaking families, suggesting that Head Start programs are accommodating these language needs.
Sequence of Remainder of Report
This summary is drawn from the more extensive discussions of FACES findings presented in Chapter 1 which follows. Chapter 1 presents findings addressing the Objectives of the Head Start Program Performance Measures Conceptual Framework. Chapter 1 Section 1 provides information about Objective 3: Provide Children with Educational, Health and Nutritional Services, specifically the quality of the Head Start educational program. Chapter 1 Section 2 addresses Objective 1: Enhance Children's Growth and Development through the presentation of data on the children's performance on the assessment measures and the relationship of performance to classroom quality. Chapter 1 Section 3 presents findings about Objective 2: Strengthen Families as the Primary Nurturers of Their Children by describing Head Start families and their involvement in and satisfaction with Head Start.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |