Quality dimensions of licensed, center-based daycare in the state of Montana
by Carrie Rae Leu
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Home Economics
Montana State University
© Copyright by Carrie Rae Leu (1991)
Abstract:
Research on child care continues to support the claim that the quality of child care programs has a
definite and lasting effect on children’s developmental outcomes. Embarking on a study of quality
variables in child daycare requires an investigation of early childhood staff. Structural dimensions
examined in this study included staff/child ratios, group size, staff education and training, and staff
stability. Contextual aspects investigated included type of child daycare setting, licensure, staff salaries,
staff benefits, and staff working conditions.
The purpose of this study was two-fold: (a) to identify characteristics of the child care staff within
licensed, center-based daycare programs in the state of Montana; and (b) to examine structural and
contextual aspects of quality on licensed, center-based daycare in the state of Montana. Both structural
and contextual aspects were investigated as they related to geographic districts within the state and
program auspice. Out of 145 licensed daycare programs in Montana, 90 participated in the survey
(62%).
Licensed, center-based daycare staff were predominantly white/Caucasian females over the age of 30,
and had worked at their current position for over two years. A majority of programs do not require staff
to have greater education and training than that required by the state regulatory agency for licensing
purposes. The greatest percentage of licensed, center-based staff are employed by private, not-for-profit
programs, earn low wages, and reflected a turnover rate of 31% during the preceding 12 months.
Five research questions guided the study, and Chi-square analysis yielded nonsignificant results due to
low cell size. Discriminant analysis identified variables for benefits and working conditions which
were differentiated among three auspice groups.
Implications of this study for state agencies, center-based daycare programs, and further research were
discussed. This research represents one of the first comprehensive studies of licensed, center-based
daycare programs within the state of Montana. QUALITY DIMENSIONS OF LICENSED, CENTER-BASED
DAYCARE IN THE STATE OF MONTANA
by
Carrie Rae Leu
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
of
Master of Science
in
Home Economics
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
December 1991
Ii
APPROVAL
of a thesis submitted by
Carrie Rae Leu
This thesis has been read by each member of the graduate committee and
has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format,
citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready for submission to the
College of Graduate Studies.
f//f/
ChairpersqpT Graduate Committee
Approved for the Major Department
Date
Head/Major Department
Approved for the College of Graduate Studies
23, /f f /
Date
Graduate Dean
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a
master's degree at Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall make
it available to borrowers under rules of the Library.
Brief quotations from this
thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknow­
ledgement of source is made.
Permission for extensive quotation from or reproduction of this thesis may
be granted by my major professor or, in her absence, by the Dean of Libraries
when, in the opinion of either, the proposed use of the material is for scholarly
purposes. Any copying or use of the material in this thesis for financial gain shall
not be allowed without my written permission.
Signature ( _
y } / } J (?
.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank:
My husband, Russ, and children, Lindsey, Ryan, Jennifer, and Melissa,
whose steadfast support, encouragement, and prayers enabled me to finish this
undertaking.
My graduate committee members, Dr. Sandra Osborne, Dr. Kaaren
Jacobson, and Billie Warford, for their valuable investment of expertise, time, and
inspiration.
Dr. Gary Conti of the Kellogg Center, for his invaluable knowledge of SPSS,
statistics, and research design.
Boyce Fowler and the staff of the Department of Family Services, lead
agency for child care in the state of Montana, for their contributions to the survey.
Special thanks are extended to the National Association for the Education
of Young Child and the Montana Association for the Education of Young Children
for their monetary contributions to this research endeavor.
Pastors Allen and Peggy Duda and the members of Bozeman Faith Fellow­
ship for their support in prayer and exhortation . . . for the vision is yet for an
appointed time, but at the end it shall speak and not lie: though it tarry, wait for
it; because it will surely come.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
A P P R O V A L ................................................................................
ii
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO U S E .................................................
ill
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
...........................................................................
Iv
..............................................................................
v
LIST OF T A B L E S ..........................................................................................
Vii
LIST OF F IG U R E S ..................................................................................... .
ix
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER:
1.
ORIENTATION OF THE STUDY ..............................................
Introduction .....................................................
Conceptual Fram ew ork..........
Nominal Definitions . . . . . . . .
to r-
1
1
2.
REVIEW O F T H E LITERATURE . . ..........................................
Microsystem....................................
Exosystem ................................................................................
A u s p ic e .....................................................................................
Conclusion................................................................................
11
11
15
18
19
3.
METHODS AND P R O C E D U R E S ..............................................
Research Q uestions.........................................
Population ...............................
Lim itations................................................................................
Survey Instrument...................................................
Procedure ................................................................................
Data Reduction and Transformation.....................................
Data A nalysis................
21
21
22
23
24
25
26
26
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
Page
4.
RESULTS ......................................
Main A nalysis............................................................
Research Questions 1 - 5 ............
Question I ....................................................................
Question 2 ....................................................................
Question 3 ..................
Question 4 .......................................
Question 5 ....................................................................
Further A n a lysis......................................................................
Discriminant A n a ly s is ........................................................
Additional Demographic Information................................
Summary of Findings .................
28
29
29
29
31
33
33
36
39
39
43
45
5.
D IS C U S S IO N ................................................................................
Findings . . . .■...................
Demographics ....................................................................
Structural Com ponents......................................................
Contextual C om ponents..........................................................
Stability' ...........................................................................
Other A n a lysis....................................................................
Lim itations................................................................................
Implications for Further Research ......................................
Implications for State Agencies . . . .................................
Implications for Center-Based DaycareP ro g ram s..............
45
47
47
48
49
50
51
53
54
55
57
R E F E R E N C E S ...............................................................................................
60
APPENDICES:
A.
SURVEY IN S T R U M E N T .............................................................
67
B.
COVER LETTER
.........................................................................
91
C.
REMINDER P O S T C A R D .............................................................
93
D.
FOLLOW-UP TELEPHONE CALL S C R IP T .............................
95
E.
PERMISSION LETTER FOR USE OF SURVEY .....................
97
F.
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FAMILYSERVICES
DISTRICT MAP ...........................................................................
99
Vll
LIST OF TABLES
Tabl®
1.
Page
Number of licensed, center-based daycare programs
by d is tric t.................................................................................
22
2.
Percentage distribution of staff by age .....................................
29
3.
Percentage distribution of staff by length of
employment ...................................................................................
30
4.
Percentage distribution of staff by education/
train in g............................. ........................................................
31
5.
Frequency distribution of children by age ................................
31
6.
Percentage distribution of staff by district ................................
32
7.
Percentage distribution of staff by auspice g ro u p ....................
32
8.
Percentage distribution of turnover by s t a f f .............................
36
9.
Percentage distribution of teacher and assistant
teacher turnover rates by s a la ry ..................
36
Percentage distribution of teacher/director and
director turnover rates by s a la ry ........ .......................................
37
10.
11.
Percentage distribution of staff turnover by
auspice g ro u p .....................................................................................
12.
Structure matrix of extended benefits for s t a f f .........................
13.
Structure matrix of educational stipend for s ta ff..........................
14.
Structure matrix of personnel policies for staff ..............................
37
40
41
41
viii
LIST OF TABLES-Continued
Table
Page
15.
Structure matrix of incentives for s ta ff.......................................
16.
Canonical discriminant functions for extended
42
benefits and educational stipend by auspice group ...............
42
Canonical discriminant functions for personnel
policies and incentives by auspice group .................................
43
18.
Percentage distribution of staff by g e n d e r.................................
44
19.
Percentage distribution of staff by ethnicity..............................
44
20.
Percentage distribution of staff turnover by district..................
45
21.
Frequency distribution of programs by d is tric t.........................
45
17.
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.
Mean low and high salary per hour by s ta ff...............................
34
2.
Highest mean salaries by district for teachers and
assistant te a c h e rs .........................................................................
35
Highest mean salaries by auspice group for
teachers and assistant te ach ers.................................................
38
Montana Department of Family Services district m a p ............
100
3.
4.
ABSTRACT
Research on child care continues to support the claim that the quality of
child care programs has a definite and lasting effect on children’s developmental
outcomes. Embarking on a study of quality variables in child daycare requires
an investigation of early childhood staff. Structural dimensions examined in this
study included staff/child ratios, group size, staff education and training, and staff
stability. Contextual aspects investigated included type of child daycare setting,
licensure, staff salaries, staff benefits, and staff working conditions.
The purpose of this study was two-fold: (a) to identify characteristics of the
child care staff within licensed, center-based daycare programs in the state of
Montana; and (b) to examine structural and contextual aspects of quality on
licensed, center-based daycare in the state of Montana. Both structural and
contextual aspects were investigated as they related to geographic districts within
the state and program auspice. Out of 145 licensed daycare programs in
Montana, 90 participated in the survey (62%).
Licensed, center-based daycare staff were predominantly white/Caucasian
females over the age of 30, and had worked at their current position for over two
years. A majority of programs do not require staff to have greater education and
training than that required by the state regulatory agency for licensing purposes.
The greatest percentage of licensed, center-based staff are employed by private,
not-for-profit programs, earn low wages, and reflected a turnover rate of 31%
during the preceding 12 months.
Five research questions guided the study, and Chi-square analysis yielded
nonsignificant results due to low cell size. Discriminant analysis identified
variables for benefits and working conditions which were differentiated among
three auspice groups.
Implications of this study for state agencies, center-based daycare pro­
grams, and further research were discussed. This research represents one of
the first comprehensive studies of licensed, center-based daycare programs
within the state of Montana.
1
CHAPTER 1
ORIENTATION OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The debate in the United States has shifted from the issue of whether or
not mothers of young children should work to the recognition that women are
employed and will continue to be employed (Galinsky, 1987). Two-thirds of all
preschool children and four out of five school-age children will have mothers in
the workforce by 1995 (Children’s Defense Fund, 1987); In addition, in 1987,
half of all married mothers in the workforce had infants younger than one year
(Children’s Defense Fund, 1987).
Research on child care continues to support the claim that the quality of
child care programs has a definite and lasting effect on children’s developmental
outcomes (Phillips, 1987).
The National Day Care Study (NDCS) (Roupp,
Travers, Glantz, & Coelen, 1979) was the first research conducted on a national
level to investigate the costs and effects of the regulatable characteristics of
daycare. Factors affecting program quality, regardless of type of setting (family
home, group home, or center-based), include group size, staff/child ratios, health
and safety issues, and training opportunities for staff (Roupp et al., 1979).
2
Research indicates that employed parents have a difficult time finding
quality care and, when under stress, they enroll their children in the lowest
quality child care facilities (Galinsky, 1987; Howes, Rodning, Galluzzo, & Myers,
1988).
In addition, the true cost of child care is not reflected in program cost, but
rather is obscured by the subsidies provided by early childhood staff through
inadequate compensation (Zinsser, 1985).
The National Child Care Staffing
Study (NCCSS) was the second national survey to examine the costs and
effects of quality daycare. Conducted in five major cities in the United States,
the study discovered that poor staff compensation is related to poor program
j
quality [Child Care Employee Project (CCER), 1989].
Furthermore, inadequate wages contribute to high levels of staff turnover
which adversely affect continuity of care (Whitebook, Howes, Phillips, &
Pemberton, 1989). Continuity of care is another important aspect of quality as
it relates to the relationship between child and caregiver (Cummings, 1980).
Contemporary research
delineating quality:
has identified two general approaches to
global assessments and specific child care dimensions
(Phillips, 1987). Global assessments involve criteria which measure the overall
quality of environments.
Rather than examining individual quality indicators,
global assessments place quality on a high/low continuum or utilize rating scales
to examine multiple aspects of program content.
For example, the Early
Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) (Harms & Clifford, 1980)
3
examines seven quality dimensions:
(a) personal care, (b) creative activities,
(c) language/reasoning, (d) fine/gross motor activities, (e) adult facilities/oppor­
tunities, (f) furnishings/display, and (g) social development.
Thus, global
assessments have helped researchers conclude that "better child care is better
for children . . . but [these assessments] do not identity which aspects of child
care are better" (Phillips, 1987, p. 5).
Specific child daycare dimensions allow researchers to identify program
aspects that relate directly to better care.
categories.
These dimensions fall into three
First, structural dimensions are defined as group size, staff/child
ratios, and caregiver education and training. These structural dimensions are
the same dimensions identified by the NDCS as being linked to child care quality
(Roupp et al., 1979). Typically, these dimensions are those which government
agencies choose to regulate.
"State regulation generally consists of setting
minimum standards for health, safety, and development of children.
States
usually base licensing requirements on easily measurable features, such as
group size and ratio of children to staff" (U.S. Department of Labor, 1988, p. 14).
The idea behind regulation is to ensure that a minimum level of care is provided
across child care settings. The regulatory system generally includes licensing
for center-based care and registration (a variation of licensing) for family home
or group home daycare. Oftentimes early childhood professionals have an idea
for quality which is higher than that set by regulatory agencies.
The result
can pit policy makers against the early childhood professional in deciding who
4
will establish the criteria defined as "good quality" within regulations (Morgan,
1985).
Second, contextual aspects of child daycare quality include the type of child
care setting and staff stability.
Typical categories of child care settings are
family home daycare, group home daycare, and center-based daycare. Stability
is directly related to child/caregiver relationships and therefore is an important
component of daycare quality (Ainslie & Anderson, 1984; Cummings, 1980;
King & MacKinnon, 1988).
In addition, for the purpose of this study, staff
salaries, staff benefits, and staff working conditions can be identified as con­
textual aspects because they affect the quality of the adult work environment
(Whitebook et al., 1989).
Third, dynamic aspects of daycare include those which capture children’s
daily experiences.
Dynamic aspects of daycare include the amount of close
interaction between children and teachers, maintaining order, the amount of time
a child spends in group activities versus independent/reflective play, and the
amount of verbal initiative used by children (Roupp et al., 1979). The dynamic
aspects of daycare are impacted by structural features and influence develop­
mental outcomes for children.
Embarking on a study of quality variables in daycare requires an investi­
gation of the early childhood staff. Attempts to access demographic information
as related to the child care workforce are fraught with problems (Phillips &
Whitebook, 1986). The public lacks accurate perceptions of who the child care
5
worker is as well as what the child care worker does. Major national statistical
agencies, such as the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the U.S. Department of
Labor, do not agree on the way to collect and report data, nor do they categorize
and define the child care workforce in the same manner (Phillips & Whitebook,
1986). If accurate, basic data on the early childhood workforce are going to be
collected to provide the public with correct perceptions about this group of
professionals, then the problem of definitions within the profession must be
resolved.
These definitions include differentiating among teachers, assistant
teachers, aides, and so forth. This study utilizes demographic characteristics to
provide an accurate picture of the early childhood staff working in Montana’s
licensed, center-based daycare programs.
Thus, a need exists to clarify who the daycare professional is and,
secondly, to examine a variety of factors that influence the quality of daycare.
The purpose of this study is two-fold: (a) to identify characteristics of the child
care staff within licensed, center-based daycare in the state of Montana; and
(b) to examine structural and contextual aspects of quality in licensed, centerbased daycare in the state of Montana. Structural variables under consideration
include staff/child ratios, group size, staff education/training, and stability.
Contextual variables include the type of setting and licensure as well as
macrosystem factors of staff salaries, staff benefits, and staff working conditions.
Both structural and contextual aspects are investigated as they relate to district
and auspice. Dynamic aspects of the daycare environment are not examined
within the context of this study.
6
Conceptual Framework
Ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) involves interaction between the
developing individual and the environment. The interaction is reciprocal and the
environment is composed of four structural levels: (a) the microsystem, (b) the
mesosystem, (c) the exosystem, and (d) the macrosystem.
The microsystem consists of the daycare setting or program type, agency
regulation via licensure, staff/child ratios, and group size. Bronfenbrenner (1977)
described the microsystem as "the factors of time, place, physical features,
activity, participants, and roles" (p. 515). The exosystem includes primary social
structures influencing the developing person, "such as the economy, the mass
media, the legislature, education, health care, housing, technology, and others"
(Vender Ven1 1988, p. 150).
The macrosystem is comprised of values and
beliefs which govern the way institutions are organized. Treatment of children
and caregivers is reflective of the cultural value placed on children and the adults
who care for them (Belsky, Steinberg, & Walker, 1982).
Because of the reciprocal nature of the interaction between, the developing
person and the environment, daycare, for the purpose of this study, is viewed
as a work environment for adults as well as a learning environment for children.
In daycare, caregiver well-being is linked to children’s experiences; for example,
paid planning time and paid breaks for staff increase teacher effectiveness in the
classroom (Whitebook et al., 1989).
Thus, the daily learning experiences of
7
children are influenced by the value and sense of caring shown to the staff by
providing good work environments. All ecological levels are viewed in terms of
how structure influences experience and how the experiences influence devel­
opment.
The microsystem, the daycare setting itself, is affected by program type as
well as licensure. The environment within family home daycare differs from that
of group home daycare as well as center-based care. Research shows marked
differences among program types (Clarke-Stewart & Gruber, 1984) and the
influence of licensing or lack of licensing on program environments (Morgan,
1985). In addition, the social structures impacting the setting are influenced by
staff/child ratios and group sizes (Belsky, 1984). The exosystem, reflecting, in
part, the economic issues of the daycare workplace, includes staff salaries,
stability of staff, benefits, and working conditions.
Nominal Definitions
(1)
Quality — Positive interactions among staff and children within the daycare
setting (Bredekamp, 1987).
(2)
Profile — Demographic characteristics of licensed, center-based daycare
staff.
(3)
Child daycare — Care provided to a child away from home during the day
(one-word spelling adopted from the National Campaign for Child Daycare
for Working Families, 1980).
8
(4)
Family home daycare — A child care program serving three to six children
[Montana Department of Family Services (DFS)1 1988b].
(5)
Group home daycare — A child care program serving seven to twelve
children, registered by the State of Montana DFS (Montana DFS1 1988c).
(6)
Center-based daycare — Child care program serving 13 or more children
on a full-day basis, licensed by the State of Montana DFS (Montana DFS,
1988a).
(7)
Auspice —
Private/not-for-profit,
private/for-profit (synonymous with
proprietary), or public/not-for-profit program status.
(8)
District — Geographic areas defined by the State of Montana DFS.
(9)
Adult work environment — Aspects of the work settings which influence
staff in their daily contacts with children and other adults and include
wages, benefits, and working conditions (Whitebook et al., 1989).
(10) Working conditions — Conditions included in the organizational climate of
a program which enhance professional growth collegiality or sense of
value, such as release time to attend conferences/workshops, written job
descriptions, paid breaks, paid planning time, periodic merit increases in
wages, and compensation for overtime (Jorde-Bloom, 1988).
(11) Stability — Length of time in a center (Ainslie & Anderson, 1984), repre­
sents continuity of care (Cummings, 1980), and is assessed through
turnover rates using the following formula: number of staff who have left
divided by number of staff positions (Whitebook & Granger, 1989).
9
(12) Staff — All teachers, assistant teachers, teacher/directors, and directors
present in the licensed, center-based daycare facility.
These four staff
groups are individually defined as follows:
(a) Teachers — Persons in charge of a group of children, often with
responsibilities; includes head or lead teachers (synonymous with
caregiver).
(b) Assistant teachers — Persons working under the supervision of a
teacher who help with the care and education of children (synonymous
with aide).
(c) Teacher/directors — Persons with both teaching and administrative
duties.
(d) Directors — Persons who have primary responsibility for administration
of the program (CCEP, 1988).
(13) Staff benefits — Benefits provided to staff which include sick leave, paid
holidays, health and dental coverage, life insurance, pension plans, and so
forth (CCEP, 1988).
(14) Microsystem — The daycare setting and environment; limited in this study
to center-based care and licensing by the State of Montana DPS.
(15) Exosystem — The social structures that influence the daycare setting;
limited in this study to staff/child ratios, group size, staff education/training,
and stability.
10
(16) Macrosystem — The cultural values and beliefs influencing the treatment
of children and the adults who care for them; limited in this study to staff
salaries, benefits, and working conditions.
11
-CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
A literature review was conducted to examine structural and contextual
aspects of licensed, center-based daycare in the state of Montana as they relate
to quality. The literature was reviewed using Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological
framework. Variables in this study are limited to the levels of microsystems and
exosystems.
Specific areas under investigation were:
(1)
Microsystem — Daycare setting (type of program), licensure, staff/child
ratios, and group size.
(2)
Exosvstem — Economic aspects such as staff salary levels and their
impact on staff stability as well as work environments and benefits in
licensed center-based daycare.
(3)
Auspice — Program sponsorship and its impact on the structural and
contextual aspects of daycare.
Microsystem
The ability to provide quality daycare environments to enhance the
development of children and the adults who care for them depends upon an
12
understanding of what comprises quality.
Quality within the microsystem is
influenced by the type of program and agency regulation. High quality centerbased programs have classroom and outdoor space of sufficient size and design
to meet the needs of children. In addition, better quality centers offer opportuni­
ties for social, emotional, physical, and cognitive interaction among peers and
numerous adults (McCartney, Scarr, Phillips, Grajek, & Schwarz, 1982).
Licensure establishes a minimum level of quality when program size
dictates either registration (family home and group home daycare in Montana)
or licensing to ensure monitoring of structural aspects of daycare features
(Morgan, 1985; U.S. Department of Labor, 1988).
Montana requires that
programs serving the needs of 13 or more young children full time on a regular
basis must be licensed.
Staff/child ratios and group size comprise the social structures influencing
the daycare setting.
Low staff/child ratios have long been accepted as an
indicator of high program quality (Federal Register, 1980; Roupp et al., 1979).
Staff/child ratios and group size were first examined in connection with federally
subsidized child care in the form of the Federal Interagency Day Care Require­
ments (FIDCR). "Originally established in 1968, the FIDCR were designed to
promote development of and prevent harm to children in federally supported
care" (Roupp et al., 1979, p. 4). The FIDCR required staff/child ratios of 1:4 for
six-week-old to three-year-old children, 1:5 for three-year-olds, and 1:7 for fourand five-year-olds. In addition, group sizes were 15 for three-year-olds and 20
13
for four- and five-year-olds (Roupp et al., 1979). These ratios were far more
stringent than any implemented by states at that time. The FIDCR were never
fully implemented and were rescinded by the federal government in 1980
(Federal Register, 1980).
The National Day Care Study (NDCS) was undertaken, in part, to examine
and collect statistically valid data on staff/child ratios and group size. Further­
more, the NDCS was designed to "investigate the costs and effects associated
with variations of regulatable characteristics of center day care" (Roupp et al.,
1979, p. iv).
Specifically, the NDCS investigated staff/child ratios, group size, and
caregiver education and training and their impact on program quality. Interest­
ingly, the study found that staff/child ratios had less impact on NDCS measures
of quality than group size, yet had a stronger impact on program costs. Nearly
all NDCS sites indicated a strong, positive association between group size and
better care and developmental outcomes (Roupp et al., 1979).
Moreover,
caregiver education and training had moderate influence on quality measures.
The NDCS was the first national study to offer evidence that regulation of centerbased daycare affects the quality of care provided to young children.
McCartney et al. (1982) examined the effects of quality daycare experience
on children in nonmaternal care in Bermuda.
Quality was highly associated
with the overall experience of the program director and lowest rates of care­
giver turnover.
Staff/child ratios were less influential in social competence
14
development but higher in language development of young children. Caregiver
turnover also had a greater negative impact on children’s social development but
more positive influence on language development.
Thus, the structural components of the daycare setting — staff/child ratios
and caregiver education and experience — have varied influence over the
degree of program quality.
Other aspects of the Bermuda study impacting
program quality fall into the dynamic aspects of daycare and do not directly
apply to the scope of this study.
In more recent studies, staff/child ratios have been found to have less
effect on the quality of experiences for preschoolers but have a greater effect on
the quality of experiences for infants and toddlers (Howes & Rubenstein, 1985).
Howes and Rubenstein found that the staff/child ratio predicted the quality of
interactions between caregivers and children, especially when the ratio was 1:3.
Specifically, "children and adults engaged in more touching and laughing
behaviors" (Howes & Rubenstein, 1985, p. 148).
Thus, children in smaller
groups had higher scores on talk and play scales.
Francis and Self (1982) studied imitative responsiveness of young children
in daycare and home settings and found that lower staff/child ratios promoted an
increase in initiative behaviors of young children.
In addition, low staff/child
ratios enhanced peer interactions, particularly among three-year-olds (Field,
1980). Small group size for children ages three to five had the greatest impact
on children’s experiences (Belsky et al., 1982).
15
The National Child Care Staffing Study conducted in 1988-89 (Whitebook
et al., 1989) reported similar findings in terms of the structural components of
staff/child ratios, group size, and caregiver education and training. Conducted
in five major cities across the United States, the study, in part, compared
structural components of existing programs to those guidelines initially
recommended in the FlOCR. Center-based daycare programs meeting FIDCR
guidelines had more sensitive, less harsh teachers who provided appropriate
care. The result was a nurturing child daycare environment.
Exosvstem
Exosystem quality, comprised of economic aspects as they relate to staff
salary levels, stability and its interaction with salaries, the work environment, and
benefits in licensed, center-based daycare, is indicative of the economic realities
of the working environments of child care professionals.
Low pay, limited
benefits, and poor working conditions are reflective of a devalued view of child
care practitioners. In essence, daycare staff currently subsidize the true cost of
child care by continuing to accept abysmally low wages (Modigliani, 1986;
Whitebook et al., 1989; Zinsser, 1986).
The most important predictor of the quality of care children receive among
all the adult work environment variables is staff wages (CCER, 1989). Lower
wages are related to higher turnover rates which have a detrimental effect on the
experiences and developmental outcomes of children. Oftentimes, benefits and
16
working conditions supplement salaries, but the child care professional does not
receive an adequate supplement to low salaries (Jorde-Bloom, 1988; Kontos &
Stremmel, 1988). Modigliani (1988), citing 12 reasons for low wages, stated that
"the inequitable wages of women, the devaluation of children in this culture, and
the subsequent minimization of the skill involved in working with children" (p. 15)
are the main reasons for child care workers’ low pay.
Stability is an important component of high quality care for young children
b'ecause it is directly related to child/teacher interactions.
Cummings (1980)
defined stability as the length of time a child and caregiver have been together
in a daycare setting and asserted that young children demonstrate preferences
for stable caregivers.
"Caregiver stability is of some importance to child-
caregiver relationships; that is, in the ecologically more valid environment of the
day-care center, children evidenced a preference for stable caregivers"
(Cummings, 1980, p. 36).
Whitebook and Granger (1989) predicted that
instability, depicted in turnover rates, will continue to plague the daycare
practitioner as long as salaries, benefits, and working conditions remain
inequitable and non-reflective of education, experience, and training.
The
National Child Care Staffing Study (CCER, 1989) found a 41% turnover rate
across all participating centers.
In two studies conducted by Pettygrove, Whitebook, and Weir (1984),
information was gathered pertaining to compensation received by child care
workers. A seven-year span existed between the two studies of different child
17
care worker populations, yet wages decreased over the time span. In addition,
the findings confirmed the disparity between the education/experience of the
daycare practitioner and the wages and benefits received.
Several studies (Modigliani, 1988; National Association for the Education
of Young Children, 1985; Pettygrove etal., 1984; Whitebook etal., 1989; Wilier,
1987) found that daycare practitioners are overwhelmingly female, receive
varying salaries depending on work settings, have some postsecondary educa­
tion, lack the most basic employee benefits such as health insurance coverage,
and leave caregiving jobs in large numbers.
Belsky et al. (1982) used an ecological model to examine the effects of
daycare on the individual child. Their discussion reported that type of daycare
program and variations within type comprised the microsystem. In their analysis
of the exosystem, Belsky et al. viewed the adult work environment as that
pertaining to the parent. In contrast, the focus of this study is an examination
of the adult work environment for the daycare staff.
Thus, issues such as absenteeism, employee productivity, and flexible work
hours are examined as they relate to the work environment of parents with
children in daycare. These researchers also examined the mesosystem, dealing
with communication patterns between parents and daycare staff, and the
macrosystem. At the level of the macrosystem, "quality care is dependent on
the maintenance of respect for the child rearer" (Belsky et al., 1982, p. 111).
While Belsky et al. discussed a lack of respect for parents choosing to remain
18
at home to rear their children, the low salaries, high turnover rates, and little or
no benefits and poor working conditions suggest little respect for staff employed
in licensed, center-based daycare programs.
Auspice
Auspice was found to be a strong predictor of quality daycare (CCEP,
1989). Auspice is divided into three basic groups for the purpose of this study:
(a) private/not-for-profit, (b) private/for-profit, and (c) public/not-for-profit. Auspice
denotes program sponsorship with private/not-for-profits usually owned by non­
profit corporations.
Public/not-for-profit programs are those typically found
associated with universities, colleges, or other public entities including Head
Start (Kagen & Newton, 1989). Private/for-profit programs are ones that may be
represented by chains, franchises, or individuals (Osborne, 1986).
In the past, proprietary centers were found to provide only minimal quality.
Generally, only those items mandated by licensing requirements were provided.
With respect to staff/child ratios and staff benefits, staff typically did not receive
paid breaks and were subject to sudden layoffs when enrollment levels declined
(Kagan & Glennon, 1982). Not-for-profit centers generally had better staff/child
ratios, and neither form of sponsorship differed relative to group size.
Staff tend to have more experience and higher education/training levels in
not-for-profit centers (Whitebook et al., 1989). Not-for-profit centers typically pay
higher wages and have lower turnover.
19
Furthermore, proprietary center owners and managers formed the National
Association of Child Care Management, an organization established to lobby
against government regulation (Kagan & Glennon, 1982).
Finally, for-profit
centers participate in surveys designed to obtain data on staff working conditions
at a lower rate than not-for-profit centers (Modigliani et al., .1986; Riley & Rogers,
1989; Whitebook et al., 1989).
Conclusion
The microsystem and exosystem provide an ecological framework within
which to examine both structural and contextual components of center-based
daycare in determining quality.
The structural components comprising the
microsystem include licensure, staff/child ratios, group size, and caregiver
education and training. Licensure provides a minimum standard below which
states generally do not allow daycare programs to fall.
In Montana, licensed
centers are those caring for 13 or more children on a regular basis. Group size
has been found to be the most important factor impacting developmental
outcomes for young children, with staff/child ratios having less of an impact on
quality measures. Caregiver education and training has a moderate impact on
program quality and developmental outcomes for children.
Contextual components of the exosystem impacting center-based daycare
programs include staff salary levels, stability and its interaction with salaries, the
work environment, and staff benefits. Stability is an important component of high
20
quality care and is influenced by staff wage levels, a predictor of quality of care
for young children. High turnover rates negatively impact continuity of care for
young children. Even benefits and work environment incentives typically used
to supplement low salaries are not sufficient to significantly reduce high turnover
rates. In addition, the salaries currently received by daycare practitioners are not
reflective of the education, experience, and training held by daycare staff.
Auspice is identified as program sponsorship, i.e., private/for-profit, private/
not-for-profit, and public/not-for-profit. Studies indicate that a strong relationship
exists between daycare quality and program sponsorship.
Private/for-profit
programs typically meet only minimum standards in terms of quality measures.
Conversely, staff in not-for-profit center-based programs receive higher wages,
have higher education/more training, and lower turnover rates.
21
CHAPTER 3
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The descriptive method was chosen as the overall design for this research
study.
In keeping with the descriptive study design, this study assessed
demographic information collected through a survey questionnaire. Given the
exploratory nature of the research, formulated research questions rather than
hypotheses guided the investigation. Based on the review of literature and the
population selected, several research questions were formulated.
Research Questions
(1)
What are the demographic characteristics of center staff? What are the
ages of the staff? How long have the staff worked in the field? Is their
education/training more than the minimum required by state regulation?
(2)
What are the structural and contextual characteristics of center-based
programs? What is the number of children being served?
What is the
number of staff employed? What is the number of for-profit businesses?
What is the number of not-for-profit enterprises? What are the staff/child
ratios and group sizes?
(3)
What are the salary levels, benefits provided, and types of working
conditions?
22
(4)
What is the overall stability of center staff?
(5)
Is there a relationship between: turnover rates and salary levels, auspice
and salary, auspice and turnover, auspice and benefits, or auspice and
working conditions?
Population
The population for this study was comprised of 145 licensed daycare
centers in eight districts within the state of Montana. District configuration for
child care licensing is determined by boundaries established by the Montana
Department of Family Services. District sizes vary within the state and are listed
in Table 1.
Table 1. Number of licensed, center-based daycare programs by district.*
Districts (N=8)
Number
Location
Number of Centers
per District
(N=145)
8
Missoula
43
1
Billings
34
4
Great Falls
23
5
Helena/Bozeman
19
7
Kalispell
10
2
Butte
7
6
Miles City
7
3
Glasgow
2
*Refer to map (Appendix F).
23
The size of the population (N=145) lends itself to the acquisition of
information about the entire population, not just a representative sample.
Therefore, the survey attempted to gather data from every member of the
population (Gay, 1987).
Limitations
The quality dimensions explored in this study were limited to center-based
programs. Licensed, center-based daycare programs were selected to serve as
the population because mandatory state licensing makes them readily identifiable
and ensures a large number of staff from which to compile the demographic
characteristics.
As a result, even though registered group daycare homes
technically have "staff" in that they must have two providers for every seven to
twelve children, these programs were not included in this survey. In addition,
Montana does not regulate early childhood programs which label themselves
"preschools" within the state; therefore, the quality dimensions investigated within
the boundaries of this study were not applicable to preschool programs and their
staff.
;
The survey questionnaire was completed by directors, owners, teacher/
directors, and others for each center.
Thus, responses do not represent
information that might have been included had other center staff completed the
survey. The survey instrument was designed to document salaries, benefits,
working conditions, and stability, but not in an exhaustive manner. A survey of
24
each individual staff member at each center could be difficult and cumbersome
given the number of people to identify, contact, and follow-up.
Finally, participation was self-selected, and any findings must be reviewed
with that in mind. Participants may have several reasons for being reluctant to
cooperate with a survey of this type. Directors may resent the interruption of
their routine and the time needed to complete the survey. Also, some of the
survey items may be viewed as invasive or threatening to program operation or
the director’s managerial skills (Miller, 1986).
Lack of prior experience or a
distrust of and lack of knowledge about the. research process may cause
reluctance to participate.
Survey Instrument
The Child Care Staff Salary and Working Conditions Survey (CCSSWCS)
was developed by the Child Care Employee Project (CCEP) of Oakland,
California (CCEP, 1989).
The purpose of the instrument was to identify key
issues including child care staff salaries, staff benefits, staff working conditions,
and stability, as well as group size and staff/child ratios.
In addition, the
instrument lends itself to discovery of auspice and other categorical information
desired by users. (A copy of the survey instrument is presented in Appendix A.)
In the spring of 1989, the CCEP analyzed data collected in three states
(Hawaii, Colorado, and Illinois) as well as data from seven regional/community
surveys using the CCSSWCS;
Items included on the survey allow access to
25
information similar to the National Child Care Staffing Study so that indirect
comparisons can be made. Direct comparisons are not possible when sampling
techniques vary (CCEP, 1989).
Thirty-eight items relate to stability factors for teachers, assistant teachers,
and directors.
These stability factors include 13 subscale items on working
conditions, 24 subscale items on retention and recruitment of staff, 11 subscale
items on benefits, and 18 subscale items on salaries.
Group size factors and staff/child ratio factors are derived from five sub­
scale items. Other items examine demographics of staff including number of staff
on payroll, age, gender, ethnicity, and education/experience/training required
beyond licensing.
Procedure
All licensed daycare centers in. Montana (N=145) were invited to participate
in this research. A list of all licensed daycare facilities was obtained from the
Montana Department of Family Services (DFS). Licensed facilities were divided
into eight DFS districts within the state (see Table 1).
A formal request soliciting participation in the study was included in the
survey cover letter (Appendix B). One week after the cover letter and survey
were sent, a follow-up postcard reminder was mailed (Appendix C).
A final
follow-up telephone call was made to urge those who had not yet sent in their
sun/eys to do so (Appendix D).
A response rate of 60% was considered
26
sufficient for descriptive purposes. Several salary surveys conducted on both
the national and state levels have reported response rates less than or close to
70% (CCER, 1989).
Data Reduction and Transformation
The data gathered by the survey were entered and stored on disk utilizing
the Database III computer software program. Using the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences— Personal Computer (SPSS-PC), frequency checks were
run on the data to detect gross inconsistencies. To ensure accuracy, 10% of the
cases were randomly selected for verification of data.
A code sheet was
developed for use with the SPSS-PC.
Data Analysis
Data collected for this study were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Frequency tables and percentages were used to describe the variables. Cross­
tabulation analysis using contingency tables investigated sets of relationships
between two or more variables (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975).
Chi-square is a statistical process used to summarize the statistical
independence of the variables. Used to compare group frequencies, chi-square
involves comparing observed outcomes to expected outcomes (Ferguson &
Takane, 1989). Expected frequencies were obtained by multiplying appropriate
row and column marginal totals and dividing by the total number of observations
27
(Hopkins & Glass, 1978). An underlying assumption in the use of this statistic
is that variables are measured at the nominal level (Huck, Cormier, & Bounds,
1974).
Variables under consideration for statistical independence were staff
salaries, staff benefits, staff working conditions, stability (assessed through
turnover rates), auspice, and district. For purposes of analysis, the variables of
salaries and turnover rates were placed in categories.
Salary categories
included the highest hourly wage any staff member earns and the lowest hourly
wage any staff member earns. The highest and lowest hourly wages were then
categorized by amount based on the data received. Turnover rates would be
determined as high or low in comparison to the NCCSS turnover rates for
each staff category. Although the nature of this study was exploratory, the data
were tested at the .05 level of significance but reported at a level between .10
and .05.
The continuous nature of the data collected on salaries allowed for
assessment of the relative magnitude of variations using a one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) procedure. The concept underlying the ANOVA procedure
is that the total variance of values is attributed to the variance between groups
and the variance within groups (Adams & Schvaneveldt, 1985). Thus, the one­
way ANOVA was used to compare staff salaries by auspice and district.
Statistically significant differences were further investigated using either the
Neuman-Keuls or Scheffe Post Hoc comparison tests.
28
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Several research questions guided the focus of this study.
First, demo­
graphic profiles were developed on center-based daycare staff. These profiles
included age, length of employment in center-based programs, and the level of
education/training of staff when compared to state regulation requirements.
Second, structural and contextual characteristics were examined by
assessing the total number of children served in each program, the number of
staff employed in each program, the determination of program auspice, and the
request for information on staff/child ratios and group sizes.
Third, an examination was made of salary levels, staff benefits, and
working conditions.
Salary levels ranged from highest hourly wage paid to
lowest hourly wage paid for each staff category.
Benefits provided by the
center-based program included sick leave, paid holidays, paid vacations, and an
assortment of insurance coverage packages.
Working conditions included a
variety of items such as paid break time, paid planning time, written job
descriptions, written contracts, and yearly cost-of-living increases in wages.
Fourth, stability was investigated through information supplied about the
number of staff who had left during the 12 months prior to the study.
29
Last, the relationship between turnover rates and salaries was explored.
In addition, an investigation was completed to determine if a relationship existed
between auspice and salaries, auspice and turnover rates, auspice and benefits,
or auspice and working conditions.
Main Analysis
Research Questions 1-5
Question 1. What are the demographic characteristics of center
staff? What are the ages of the staff? How long have
the staff worked in the field? Is their education/training
more than the minimum required by state regulation?
The survey data revealed that the majority of teachers are over 30 years
of age, while a majority of assistant teachers are under the age of 25 (Table 2).
Age categories were established by CCEP (1989) and taken directly from the
survey questionnaire.
The survey instrument did not ask age questions of
teacher/directors or directors.
Table 2. Percentage distribution of staff by age.
AGE (YEARS)
< 25
(N=286)
25-29
(N=IOO)
30-39
(N=173)
40-49
(N=92)
50+
(N=51)
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
Teachers
22
113
16
69
31
131
17
70
10
42
100
425
Assist, teachers
62
173
11
31
15
42
8
22
3
9
100
277
STAFF
TOTAL
Categories for length of employment were taken directly from the survey
instrument and tabulated for all staff members (Table 3). Half of all teachers
30
have been employed for two years or longer. Over half of all assistant teachers
have been employed for less than one year.
In comparison, over half of all
teacher/directors and directors have been employed three years or longer.
Table 3. Percentage distribution of staff by length of employment.
LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT
< 6 mo
(N=149)
STAFF
6 mo - I yr
(N=174)
1-2 yrs
(N=132)
2-3 yrs
(N=IIO)
3-5 yrs
(N=102)
5+ yrs
(N=153)
TOTAL
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
Teachers
17
64
16
62
16
62
15
56
16
62
20
76
100
382
Assist, teachers
24
65
34
92
20
54
11
30
8
22
3
10
100
273
Teacher/directors
10
8
9
7
12
9
14
11
12
9
44
33
100
77
Directors
16
12
3
3
9
7
17
13
10
8
44
34
100
77
Educational requirements for staff varied by position. The survey asked if
any education, experience, or credential beyond licensing regulations is required
for teachers, assistant teachers, teacher/directors, or directors.
Categories
available for respondents varied among all staff. Categories for teachers were
limited to: (a) no; (b) yes, for head teachers only; or (c) yes, for all teachers.
Categories for assistant teachers were limited to:
(a) no; and (b) yes, for all
assistant teachers. Categories for teacher/directors and directors were limited
to: (a) no, and (b) yes. (Refer to Table 4.)
Data gathered for education/training were tabulated based on the number
of programs responding, not the number of staff.
Thus, the total possible
number of respondents is 90, representing the total number of programs
returning surveys.
31
Table 4. Percentage distribution of staff by education/training.
EDUCATION/TRAINING REQUIRED BEYOND LICENSING
Yes
Yes
(teacher/directors
and directors
only)
No
(head teachers
only)
(all teachers)
Teachers
41
20
32
83
Assist, teachers
57
—
23
72
Teacher/directors
34
-
--
28
57
Directors
27
—
—
32
53
STAFF
Yes
N*
*N = the number of programs, not the number of staff.
Question 2. What are the structural and contextual characteristics of
center-based programs? Whatis the number of children
being served? What is the number of staff employed?
What is the number of for-profit businesses? What is
the number of not-for-profit enterprises? What are the
staff/child ratios and group sizes?
A total of 4,274 children were being served in licensed, center-based
daycare programs at the time of the survey. The greatest number of children
were between two and one-half and four years of age (Table 5). Age groupings
were taken directly from the survey instrument.
Table 5. Frequency distribution of children by age.*
No. of children
INFANTS
TODDLERS
PRESCHOOL
KINDERGARTEN
6 wks-12 mos
(N=30)
13-30 mos
(N=53)
2^-4 yrs
(N=81)
5 yrs
(N=77)
5+ yrs
(N=63)
149
414
1885
768
1058
*N = the number of programs out of 90 responding.
32
The programs responding to the survey were comprised of 421 teachers,
277 assistant teachers, 77 teacher/directors, and 89 directors. Although Billings
is the second largest district in terms of total number of centers (Table 1), it has
the largest number of teachers, teacher/directors, and directors. Missoula has
the greatest number of assistant teachers (Table 6).
Table 6. Percentage distribution of staff by district.
DISTRICT
AM
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
(N= 2 7 6 )
(N =46)
(N =6)
(N = 1 2 3 )
(N = 1 2 3 )
(N =20)
(N = 8 0 )
(N = 1 9 0 )
TOTAL
(N = 1 4 5 )
%
N
%
T each ers
37
154
Assist, teach ers
20
Teacher/directors
Directors
STAFF
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
2
10
I
4
14
60
15
64
3
11
12
50
16
68
100
421
56
11
31
4
I
15
41
14
39
I
5
7
19
31
85
100
277
34
26
4
3
I
I
9
7
16
12
I
I
9
7
26
20
100
77
45
40
2
2 -
-
17
15
9
8
3
3
4
4
19
17
100
89
Table 7. Percentage distribution of staff by auspice group.
AUSPICE GROUP
Private/
Not-for-Profit
(N=468)
STAFF*
Private/
For-Profit
(N=148)
%
N
%
N
Teachers
58
237
23
96
Assist, teachers
57
153
9
Teacher/directors
60
44
Directors
40
34
Public/
Not-for-Profit
(N=223)
%
TOTAL
(N=839)
N
%
N
19
79
100
412
24
34
92
100
269
21
15
19
14
100
73
15
13
45
38
100
85
♦Missing staff: teachers = 9, assistant teachers = 8, teacher/directors = 4, directors = 4.
The greatest percentage of center-based staff are employed by private/notfor-profit programs (Table 7). Of the 90 participating programs, 49 were private,
33
not-for-profit; 19 were private, for-profit; 20 were public, not-for-profit; and 4 did
not respond.
Very few programs responded to the survey questions concerning staff/
child ratios and group size. Of those responding, staff/child ratios appeared to
be within requirements of state regulations. Categories for determining staff/child
ratios and group size were developed by CCEP (1989) and differed from
Montana’s regulations.
Question 3. What are the salary levels, benefits provided, and types
of working conditions?
Salary levels varied by staff position, with teacher/directors and directors
paid at a higher level than teachers and assistant teachers. Figure 1 graphically
presents the mean low and high salary per hour received by staff. Salary levels
were also examined by district. Figure 2 presents the highest mean salary by
district for teachers and assistant teachers.
Because benefits and working conditions were further investigated using
multiple discriminant analysis, the results are included in the discussion of
research question 5.
Question 4. What is the overall stability of center staff?
Stability of center staff was examined by using turnover rates. Rates were
established by determining the number of staff who have left within the past 12
months of program operation compared to the number of total staff in the state
(Table 8).
A
O
A
O
A
$5
-
◄o
AT
T
T/D
D
O
=
=
=
=
Assistant Teachers
Teachers
Teachers/Directors
Directors
AT
T
T/D
D
A
N = 72
N = 82
N = 45
N = 47
A
=High
O
N = 71
N = 77
N = 41
N = 42
O
= Low
Figure 1. M ean low and high salary per hour by staff.
I 6.28
Districts
14.95
J 5.70
I■
::
14.86
] 4.00
I 5.7»
5.00
Assist. Teachers
= 4.41
Teachers
= 5.41
5.50
Salary per hour
Figure 2. Highest mean salaries by district for teachers and assistant teachers
36
Table 8. Percentage distribution of turnover by staff*
STAFF
TEAC HERS
Turnover rates
A SS IS TA N T
TEACHER/
TEA C HERS
D IR EC TO R S
D IR EC T O R S
TO TAL
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
54
145
33
88
7
19
6
17
100
269
"Note: Turnover rate for all staff is 31% (269/864).
Question 5. Is there a relationship between: turnover rates and
salary levels, auspice and salary, auspice and turnover,
auspice and benefits, or auspice and working condi­
tions?
Turnover rates and salary levels were investigated for all staff. Salaries of
teachers and assistant teachers in relation to turnover rates were examined
separately (Table 9) from salaries of teacher/directors and directors in relation
to turnover rates (Table 10). The total turnover rate represents those teachers
and assistant teachers leaving in the last 12 months compared to all teachers
and assistant teachers in the state. Figure 3 presents the highest mean salaries
by auspice group for teachers and assistant teachers.
Table 9. Percentage distribution of teacher and assistant teacher turnover rates
by salary.
SALARY
Low tc $3.99 $4.00-4.99 $5.00-5.99
STAFF
$6.00-8.99
Total N
Total turn­
over rate
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
Teachers
14
20
41
59
28
41
17
25
100
145
34
421
Assist. Teachers
31
27
50
44
15
13
5
4
100
88
32
277
37
Table 10. Percentage distribution of teacher/director and director turnover rates
by salary.
SALARY
L o w tc $ 3 .9 9
$ 4 .0 0 ■4.99
$ 5 .0 0 -5 .9 9
$ 6 .0 0 -8 .9 9
$ 9 .0 0 +
Total N
Total turn­
over rate
STAFF
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
Teacher/directors
11
2
15
3
26
5
37
7
11
2
100
19
25
77
Directors
24
4
28
5
12
2
24
4
12
2
100
17
19
89
Turnover rates of staff by auspice group were inconclusive. They do not
reflect any significant findings due to small cell sizes (Table 11). Auspice groups
available for selection by respondents may not have been clearly explained in
the survey instrument.
Data were utilized despite the small cell sizes.
Percentages presented in Table 11 are derived from the total number of staff for
each auspice group taken from Table 7.
Table 11. Percentage distribution of staff turnover by auspice group.
A U S P IC E G R O U P
Private/
Not-for-Profit
STAFF
Private/
For-Profit
Public/
Not-for-Profit
%
N
%
N
%
N
Total N
Teachers
38
89
26
25
29
23
137
Assistant teachers
35
54
21
5
40
37
96
Teacher/directors
30
13
—
--
43
6
19
1
1
I
3
1
3
67
255
Directors
Total Number
157
8
31
g
A ss ist Teachers GM = 4.40
□
Teachers
GM = 5.44
5.57
5.47
Salary
per hour
Private
Not-for-profit
N = 39
N = 43
Private
For-profit
N = 12
N = 15
Public
Not-for-profit
N = 17
N = 20
Figure 3. Highest mean salaries by auspice group for teachers and assistant teachers.
39
Further Analysis
Discriminant Analysis
Discriminant analysis is a statistical method used to examine the
differences between two or more groups at the same time (Huck et al., 1974).
While:typically used to predict group membership (Huck et al., 1974), discrim­
inant analysis in this study was used to describe which variables distinguish
among groups (Klecka, 1980). The groups or categories for this analysis are
the three types of auspice:
(a) private/not-for-profit, (b) private/for-profit, and
(c) public/not-for-profit. Ratherthan examining simple frequency distributions for
benefits and working conditions, descriptive discriminant analysis was used to
identify which variables for benefits and working conditions could be contributing
to a discrimination among the three different auspice categories.
A stepwise selection process identifies and eliminates the weakest
variables contributing to the discrimination (Klecka, 1980).
The descriptive
discriminant functions were evaluated at group means for each auspice.
A
Wilk’s lambda test is used to determine if a difference exists between group
means. A small Wilk’s lambda and a large corresponding F value indicate a
variable is contributing to the discriminating function (Klecka, 1980). For most
of the variables for benefits and working conditions, there was no difference
among auspice groups.
Standardized discriminant coefficients establish which variables are
contributing to the three auspice groups (Klecka, 1980). The SPSS computer
40
program generates a structure matrix which contains the coefficients indicating
the variables which load or highly contribute to the discriminant function (see
Tables 12-15). Variables with coefficients .30 or higher are used to name the
function.
Function 1 for benefits was labeled "extended benefits." Benefit variables
loading on this function were paid maternity/paternity leave and paid sick leave
(for teachers only), and life insurance, dental coverage, and pension plan (for
teachers and assistant teachers) (Table 12).
Table 12. Structure matrix of extended benefits for staff.
EXTENDED BENEFITS
CORRELATIONS
Paid maternity/paternity leave (teachers)
.45196
Life insurance (teachers)
.39680
Life insurance (assistant teachers)
.37942
Pension plan provided (assistant teachers)
.35433
Sick leave provided (teachers)
.34456
Dental coverage provided (teachers)
.32453
Pension plan provided (teachers)
.30259
Dental coverage provided (assistant teachers)
.30180
Function 2 was labeled "educational stipend." Only one benefit variable
loaded on this function: educational stipend for workshops, conferences, and so
on. The educational stipend loaded for both teachers and assistant teachers
(Table 13).
41
Table 13. Structure matrix of educational stipend for staff.
EDUCATIONAL STIPEND
CORRELATIONS
Stipend for workshops, conferences, etc.
(assistant teachers)
.44392
Stipend for workshops, conferences, etc.
(teachers)
.43191
Function 1 for working conditions was labeled "personnel policies" and
included the working conditions variables of written job descriptions, formal
grievance procedures, and written contracts.
All loaded for teachers and
assistant teachers except written contracts.
Written contracts loaded for
assistant teachers only (Table 14).
The correlation for the written contract
variable for teachers was .27045, and therefore below the .3 parameter for
accepted loading.
Table 14. Structure matrix of personnel policies for staff.
PERSONNEL POLICIES
CORRELATIONS
Written job descriptions (assistant teachers)
.57172
Written job descriptions (teachers)
.53843
Formal grievance procedures (assistant teachers)
.51541
Formal grievance procedures (teachers)
.51020
Written contract (assistant teachers)
.31184
Function 2 was labeled "incentives" and included variables of paid planning
time and periodic merit increases in wages. Planning time loaded for teachers
42
only and merit wage increases loaded for both teachers and assistant teachers
(Table 15).
Table 15. Structure matrix of incentives for staff.
INCENTIVES
CORRELATIONS
Paid planning time (teachers)
.61908
Periodic merit increases in wages (teachers)
.54105
Periodic merit increases in wages (assistant teachers)
.49333
Finally, the SPSS package computes canonical coefficients which measure
the degree of association between the discriminant functions and the groups.
A low discriminant function coefficient indicates a greater association between
the function and the group (Huck et al., 1974).
Public/not-for-profit programs
have a high degree of association between maternity/paternity leave, sick leave,
life insurance, pension plans, and dental coverage (Table 16). Private/for-profit
programs have the lowest degree of association with the extended benefits
function.
Table 16. Canonical discriminant functions for extended benefits and educa­
tional stipend by auspice group.
AUSPICE GROUP
Function
Extended benefits
Educational stipend
Private/
Not-for-Profit
Private/
For-Profit
.09633
.91391
-1.09459
-.50433
.73972
.48244
Public/
Not-for-Profit
43
The same order for association exists with the educational stipend benefit.
A higher association exists for private/not-for-profit programs, and private/forprofit programs have the lowest association.
The present study attempted to discover if an association between auspice
and working conditions existed.
Private/not-for-profit programs have a high
degree of association with personnel policies, and private/for-profit programs
have a low association with the personnel policies function (Table 17). However,
private/for-profit programs have the highest association with incentives, and
public/not-for-profit programs have the lowest association with the incentives
function.
Table 17. Canonical discriminant functions for personnel policies and incentives
by auspice group.
AUSPICE GROUP
Private/
Not-for-Profit
Private/
For-Profit
Personnel policies
-.62162
1.48845
.04678
Incentives
-.19437
-.22292
.66853
Function
Public/
Not-for-Profit
Additional Demographic Information
Other descriptive data collected which are of interest concern staff
distributions in the areas of gender, ethnicity, and district. In addition, turnover
rates were computed by district, as were the number of programs by district.
44
The majority of licensed, center-based daycare staff in Montana are female
(Table 18) and white/Caucasian (Table 19). The survey did not ask for gender
or ethnicity information from teacher/directors or directors.
Table 18. Percentage distribution of staff by gender.
GENDER (N=706)
Female (N=670)
STAFF
Total
Male (N=36)
%
N
%
N
%
N
Teachers
96
405
4
16
100
421
Assistant teachers
93
257
4
20
100
277
Table 19. Percentage distribution of staff by ethnicity.
ETHNICITY (N=90)
White/
Caucasian
Black
STAFF
Asian/
Pacific Isi.
Hispanic
Native
American
Other
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
Teachers
.5
2
86
361
.5
2
2.4
10
2.4
10
1.2
5
Assist, teachers
.7
2
95
265
.7
2
1.1
3
5.1
14
.4
I
In examining staff turnover rates by district (Table 20), percentages were
determined by comparing rates to total staff in each district. Total staff in each
district are presented in Table 6.
Table 21 shows the distribution of programs responding to the survey by
district.
45
Table 20. Percentage distribution of staff turnover by district.
DISTRICT
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
STAFF TURNOVER
%
Teachers
27 41
40
4
75
3
18 11
42 27
55
Assistant teachers
36 20
16
5
I
I
37 15
46 18
60
Teacher/directors
31
8
53
I
I
I
8
3
Directors
N
%
N
%
N
%
—
7
N
%
—
17
N
2
%
#7
N
%
N
%
N
6
22
11
46
31
3
42
8
36
31
57
4
15
3
25
I
—
—
--
—
#8
I
Table 21. Frequency distribution of programs by district.
DISTRICT
No. of programs
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
Total
22
5
1
13
11
3
8
27
90
Summary of Findings
The majority of licensed, center-based daycare staff in Montana are white
females and work in private/not-for-profit programs. The majority of teachers,
teacher/directors, and directors have been employed at their current jobs for two
years or more.
The highest salaries are not paid in the largest districts. Public/not-for-profit
programs pay higher staff salaries than both private/not-for-profit and private/forprofit programs. This study found that staff earning lower salaries are less stable
than staff earning higher salaries.
46
An association does exist between auspice and benefits and working
conditions.
Private/for-profit programs have the highest association with
incentives for staff.
However, private/for-profit programs have the lowest
associations with other discriminating variables among benefits and working
conditions.
47
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The results of this survey revealed that licensed, center-based daycare
programs are staffed predominantly by females over the age of 25 who have
been with their current programs for two years or more. Staff tend to have more
education/training than required by the state regulating agency and work
primarily in private/not-for-profit programs. In addition, not-for-profit programs
(which comprise the greatest segment of the study participants) offer the
greatest benefits, the best working conditions, and highest salaries compared to
for-profit programs.
Findings
Demographics
The results of this survey indicated that the majority of licensed, centerbased daycare staff are female, white/Caucasian, and over the age of 25.
Assistant teachers are predominantly less than 25 years of age and have been
employed less than one year in their current program. The majority of licensed,
center-based daycare programs are located in districts with large urban areas.
Montana is a geographically remote state and the researcher expected to find
most licensed centers to be located in larger urban areas.
48
Structural Components
Structural components which comprise the microsystem include licensing,
staff/child ratios, group size, and .staff education/training.
Most licensed, center-based daycare programs in the state serve children
two and one-half years of age or older. Older children require fewer staff. Thus,
the state-regulated ratio is 1:8 for two- to four-year-olds and 1:10 for four- to sixyear-olds (Montana DFS, 1988a). A higher staff/child ratio allows fewer dollars
to be spent on staff wages.
Data on staff/child ratios and group sizes proved unusable.
Responses
were few and not clearly labeled due in part to the survey design. Questions on
staff/child ratios and group size were based on data provided earlier in the
survey on ages of children served. Age categories did not correspond to those
established by the Department of Family Services for regulation of child care in
Montana. Montana regulation identifies infants as children under the age of two.
However, the survey identifies infants as children under the age of one. The
lack of clarity in question structure contributed greatly to the lack of consistency
in data provided by respondents.
A greater percentage of assistant teachers and teacher/directors are
required to have education, experience, or credentialing beyond state licensing
requirements (refer to Table 4). Montana regulations for center-based programs
require assistant teachers to be at least 16 years of age, and have "sufficient
language skills, good mental and physical health, and one day of on-the-job
49
orientation" (Montana DFS11988a, p, 6). State regulations require directors who
also function as teachers to meet the requirements of both staff positions.
Clearly, those requirements quoted above for assistant teachers can be
described as minimal.
Teacher/directors may be required by participating
programs to have more education, experience, or credentialing in areas of
administration.
Contextual Components
Contextual components in the exosystem impacting center-based daycare
programs include staff salary levels, stability, the interaction of salaries and
stability, working conditions, and benefits.
While no data were available
concerning how salary levels related to education/training levels, there was no
overlap in salaries among staff (refer to Figure 1). Interestingly, clear, distinct
lines exist among staff salaries.
Apparently even the highest paid assistant
teacher does not earn as high an hourly wage as the lowest paid teacher. The
same pattern emerged for all other staff. The lowest mean salary for teachers
was still higher than the highest mean salary for assistant teachers. In addition,
the grand mean salary for teachers was $1.00 higher than the grand mean for
assistant teachers (Figure 2).
The three districts paying the highest salaries are not the three largest
districts in terms of number of licensed, center-based programs. One explana­
tion for this finding may be that in larger, urban areas such as Billings, Missoula,
or Great Falls, more individuals compete for the same jobs, thereby driving down
the wage.
50
Chi-square analysis was a planned analysis of relationships among
salaries, benefits, and working conditions.
Chi-square analysis did not yield
significant results due to low response which produced small cell size. The
researcher elected not to run ANOVAs due to low response rates and lack of
homogeneity which would produce inaccurate results.
Stability. The overall turnover rate for all center-based staff was 31 % (refer
to Table 8). This is slightly lower than the national turnover rate of 41 % (CCEP,
1989). However, turnover rates varied by staffing position and exceeded 50%
for teachers, assistant teachers, and directors earning less than $5.00 per hour
(see Table 9).
Lowest turnover rates were recorded for directors, but the
number of directors responding makes the rate suspect.
Not all directors
responding to the question on salary information also responded to questions on
turnover. Thus, an accurate assessment of turnover rates for directors is not
possible.
While turnover rates by auspice were telling, results were inconclusive due
to the small cell size for identified auspice groups. Rates were higher in not-forprofit programs than for-profit programs (see Table 11).
The turnover rate
should be higher for private, not-for-profit groups since there were over twice as
many of these programs participating in the survey as private, for-profit
programs. While the turnover rates for public, not-for-profit programs appear
much higher than private, not-for-profit programs, the former auspice group has
a greater number of staff than the latter group.
51
Other Analysis
Discriminant analysis was used to examine which variables for benefits and
working conditions were most contributory to the discrimination among auspice
groups. Variables loaded according to function. Benefit functions were labeled
"extended benefits" and "educational stipend."
Working conditions functions
were labeled "personnel policies" and "incentives."
Extended benefits loading to functions included variables of life insurance,
dental coverage, pension plans, and maternity/paternity and sick leave. Extended
benefits loading for both teachers and assistant teachers included life insurance,
dental coverage, and pension plans. One explanation as to why both teachers
and assistant teachers may be receiving these benefits is that they are found in
a "package" for staff of any business, corporation, or agency. Thus, a program
purchasing life insurance benefits for teachers must also include assistant
teachers, as all staff are covered in the package life insurance plan. In addition,
these benefits were highly associated with public/not-for-profit programs such as
colleges or Head Start programs which may have large enough staffing to
provide additional benefits to staff (refer to Table 16).
Many benefit policies
require large numbers of staff in order to receive policy provisions. In addition,
larger programs may have greater funding bases to afford better policies or
policies with a wider scope of benefits.
Included in the extended benefits function were paid maternity/paternity
leave and sick leave provided to teachers only. Maternity/paternity leave would
be expected in a field dominated by female workers, and both maternity/paternity
52
leave and sick leave might not be offered to assistant teachers due to the
possible part-time nature of the position or a motive to attract more skilled
teachers.
The practice of hiring more part-time workers allows programs to
establish personnel policies which provide fewer benefits to part-time staff.
The educational stipend loaded slightly higher for assistant teachers than
teachers (see Table 13).
Program directors might be endeavoring to provide
professional development opportunities to less skilled staff, such as assistant
teachers, in an effort to upgrade staff quality through attendance at workshops,
conferences, etc.
This benefit of educational stipend had a high degree of
association with private/not-for-profit programs (refer to Table 16).
The personnel policies function for working conditions was comprised of
written job descriptions, formal grievance procedures, and written contracts.
With the exception of written contracts, which loaded for assistant teachers only,
the variables loaded for both teachers and assistant teachers. In each instance,
the variable correlations for assistant teachers were higher than those for
teachers (see Table 14),
Private/not-for-profit programs had the highest
association, and thus are more likely to offer their teaching staff written job
descriptions, formal, grievance procedures, and written contracts. The typical
corporate structure of not-for-profit programs may explain the greater likelihood
of providing such personnel policies.
Working conditions labeled "incentives" included variables of paid planning
time for teachers and periodic merit increases in wages for both teachers and
assistant teachers (see Table 15).
Assistant teachers generally would not
53
receive paid planning time since most assistant teachers typically are not
responsible for planning daily activities. Neither of the terms "periodic" or "merit"
were defined by the survey for respondents. Yearly cost of living increases was
a survey variable in addition to periodic merit wage increases. Thus, it is not
clear why wage increases occurred or for what reason they were earned by staff.
The incentives function loaded for private/for-profit programs (refer to Table 17).
The researcher did not expect periodic merit wage increases to be highly
associated with for-profit programs. Private/for-profit programs paid the lowest
wages among the three auspice groups; therefore, the reason behind the
association with merit wage increases remains obscure and may be due to the
confusing language of the survey instrument.
Limitations
Only 63% of all licensed, center-based daycare programs in Montana
responded to the survey. Because respondents self-selected to participate, the
findings may not accurately reflect staff demographics or auspice of all programs
in the state.
The timing of data collection may have been problematic for some
programs.
The survey was conducted during June 1990.
The decision to
conduct the survey in June was based on the premise that respondents would
have fewer program pressures in June as compared to those pressures
associated with fall. Fall is often a busy time of new enrollments, new staff, and
54
parent interviews which might contribute to hectic schedules for respondents.
Several programs licensed by the State of Montana do not operate year-round;
they were already closed for the summer and thus did not respond. Follow-up
telephone calls were initiated to prompt data collection. The calls revealed which
programs had already closed and which programs were no longer in operation.
The survey instrument posed some limitations to the success of the results
ofthe investigation. The Child Care Staff Salary and Working Conditions Survey
(CCER, 1989) was chosen due to its widespread use in other states to glean
information on salaries, benefits, working conditions, turnover rates, and
demographic information on licensed, center-based daycare staff. However, the
ranges used to identify the number of children served, as well as staff/child ratios
and group sizes, failed to correspond with those established by Montana’s
daycare regulatory agency, the Department of Family Services. Because ofthe
inconsistency of age range criteria, data provided by respondents on staff/child
ratios and group sizes were unusable. This factor was a major weakness of the
study.
Implications for Further Research
Several opportunities for further research have emerged from this study.
A change in design would allow researchers to gather additional information
about why staff leave current jobs and what changes in career choice are made.
Using a naturalistic design would facilitate a more in-depth look at staffing in
55
licensed, center-based programs.
By utilizing an interviewing technique, an
accurate assessment of program auspice would be possible to verify the number
of not-for-profit and for-profit programs.
In addition, the dynamic aspects of the daycare environment, including the
daily experiences of children, could yield important information about the quality
of daycare programs within the state.
Observational techniques as well as
environmental assessment instruments are available to researchers to gain data
on the dynamic aspects of daycare.
Implications for State Agencies
Montana daycare regulations were last revised in 1982 and are in need of
updating. State requirements for the education, experience, or credentialing of
staff are minimal and should be rewritten to reflect staff qualifications based on
accurate perceptions of staff responsibilities. Qualifications for directors are less
stringent than those for primary caregivers (defined as teachers in the current
study) and do not reflect such duties as budgeting, fund raising, or supervision
of other staff.
The Department of Family Services needs to play an active role in conduct­
ing a comprehensive study of licensed, center-based daycare programs that
examines the quality of the environment as well as the quality of the staff caring
for young children.
It is important that the Department’s personnel clearly
understand quality issues if they are to accurately review and provide leadership
56
in the revision of policies including staff/child ratios or group size standards. The
Department of Family Services must recognize how changes in either staff/child
ratios or group sizes might impact developmental outcomes for children. Results
from such research should eventually impact requirements for family and group
home daycare programs as well.
Clearly, research abounds to substantiate the impact of quality daycare on
children’s development.
It may be desirable for the State of Montana to go
beyond the current regulations which establish only a minimum of quality below
which children’s basic health and safety should not be compromised. However,
a priority at this time might be for the State to designate funds to adequately
monitor compliance with current regulations. Personnel selected for monitoring
regulations should be educated and trained in early childhood development and
have skills necessary to determine program quality.
The Department of Family Services needs to be aware of the economic
impact of regulations on salaries, benefits, working conditions, and turnover rates
for staff in center-based care. The National Day Care Study (Roupp et al., 1979)
found that group size had a less deleterious effect on program costs than staff/
child ratios and enhanced quality by increasing interactions between teachers
and the children they care for.
In addition, researchers have identified child care quality as a function of
specific training in early childhood development, not the number of years of
education. The Department of Family Services can enhance program quality by
57
improving teacher, teacher/director, and director qualifications to reflect the
importance of training in the early childhood development area.
By requiring
staff with elementary education degrees or training to comply with a regulation
for training in the early childhood development area, the downward extension of
kindergarten and primary grade academics could be avoided.
One way to
provide such training is through funds provided to resource and referral
agencies. These agencies provide technical assistance and training to child care
providers before and after compliance with state regulations.
Finally, the State of Montana needs to set goals and objectives to establish
a comprehensive approach to the daycare delivery system. Paramount to this
approach is the need for a collaborative effort.
The Department of Family
Services needs to enlist the services of providers, professional organizations
whose memberships include early childhood professionals, community agencies
involved in direct or indirect services to children, and legislators well-versed in
developmental issues of young children. While compromises will undoubtedly
be needed, every effort must be made to design a comprehensive regulatory
model which has as its foundation the vision of providing what is best for the
growth and development of young children.
Implications for Center-Based
Daycare Programs
There are no easy solutions to the problems facing program directors of
licensed, center-based daycare facilities.
While recognizing that stability of
58
staff and salaries are connected and related to program quality, daycare
administrators still face problems of staff recruitment and retention. The quality
of a program is related to the quality of its staff. Several suggestions are offered
to help identify and prioritize an administrative approach to difficulties of staffing
a program.
First, program administrators must clearly understand the pervasiveness
of difficulties associated with recruiting and retaining staff. Low salaries in the
daycare field may cause qualified staff to seek jobs outside their career choice
where salaries are higher. In addition, low salaries, lack of benefits such as sick
leave and annual paid vacations, a lack of adequate working conditions such as
paid breaks, and yearly cpst-of-living increases in wages make retaining qualified
staff difficult. Program administrators must educate the parents of the children
they serve (the consumers of services) as to the seriousness of the issues. One
of the most important strengths of programs such as Head Start is the degree
of parent involvement.
Keeping parents abreast of issues surrounding rising
costs, salary levels, and demographic information on who teaches in early
childhood programs can help dispel the myth that "anyone can do child care."
Educating parents is educating potential voters.
Informed parents may
become allies in the struggle to accurately inform legislators of the issues
involved and their impact on young children. All politicians kiss babies. Parents
need to realistically perceive the meanings behind such gestures and then
require politicians to put funds where their lips are.
59
Second, as funds are available, program administrators should provide
training opportunities for staff. These may range from in-service opportunities
to training provided through resource and referral agencies to local, state, and
regional workshops and conferences. Various levels of provision can be given,
such as reimbursing all or a portion of travel expenses and hiring substitute staff
while regular personnel are receiving supplemental training. Regardless of the
depth of the provision, some effort should be made to communicate to staff that
their professional growth is an important aspect of their employment. Keeping
staff apprised of budgeting constraints and educating them about various
aspects of funding assures them that they are partners in decision making
aspects of the program.
Finally, staying informed on a local, state, and national level about trends
and issues relating to the daycare industry is critical to the development of
strategies. Administrators and staff need to learn methods for identifying and
promoting issues with policy makers, working with the media, approaches for
varied audiences to inform and educate, and promoting collaborative efforts with
other agencies, programs, and communities involved in meeting the needs of
young children. A collaboration model which focuses on coordination of services
to young children is mandatory in a time when the health of the daycare industry
is in jeopardy. Programs of different auspice must work together, focusing on
their similarities rather than their differences.
60
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Adams, G.R., & Schvaneveldt, J.D. (1985). Understanding research methods.
New York: Longman.
Ainslie, R.C., & Anderson, C.W. (1984). Day care children’s relationships to
their mothers and caregivers: An inquiry into the conditions for the
development of attachment. In R.C. Ainslie (Ed.), The child and the day
care setting: Quality variations and development. New York: Praeger.
Belsky, J. (1984). Two waves of day care research: Developmental effects and
conditions of quality. In R.C. Ainslie (Ed.), The child and the dav care
setting: Quality variations and development. New York: Praeger.
Belsky, J., Steinberg, L.D., & Walker, A. (1982). The ecology of day care. In
M. Lamb (Ed.), Childrearing in non-traditional families. Hillsdale, NJ:
Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Benson, C. (1985). Who cares for kids: A report on child care providers.
Washington, DC: National Commission on Working Women.
Bredekamp, S. (1987). Accreditation criteria and procedures of the National
Academy of Early Childhood Programs. Washington, DC: National Associ­
ation for the Education of Young Children.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Towards an experimental ecology of human
development. American Psychologist. 32(1), 513-531.
Child Care Employee Project. (1988). Child care staff salary and working
conditions survey. Berkeley, CA: Author.
Child Care Employee Project. (1989). The national child care staffing study:
Who cares? Child care teachers and the gualitv of care in America:
Executive summary. Oakland, CA: Author.
Children’s Defense Fund. (1987). Child care: The time is now. Washington,
DC: Author.
62
Clarke-Stewart, K.A., & Gruber, C P . (1984). Day care forms and features. In
R.C. Ainslie (Ed.), The child and the day care setting: Quality variations
and development. New York: Praeger.
Cummings, E.M. (1980), Caregiver stability and day care.
Psychology. 16(1), 31-37.
Developmental
Federal Register. (1980, March 19). Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, Office of the Secretary, HEW Day Care Regulations, Part V,
45(55), 17870-17885.
Ferguson, G A ., & Takane, 0 . (1989). Statistical analysis in psychology and
education. New York: McGraw Hill.
Field, T.M. (1980). Preschool play: Effects of teacher/child ratios and organiza­
tion of classroom space. Child Study Journal. 10(3), 191-205.
Francis, P.L., & Self, P A . (1982). Imitative responsiveness of young children
in day-care and home settings: The importance of the child-to-caregiver
ratios. Child Study Journal. 12(21. 119-126.
Galinsky, E. (1987, September). The cost of not providing Quality early
childhood programs. Paper presented at the meeting of the Montana
Association for the Education of Young Children, Billings, Montana.
Gay, LR . (1987). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and
application. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Co.
Harms, T., & Clifford, R.M. (1980). Early childhood environment rating scale.
New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Hopkins, K.D., & Glass, G.V. (1978). Basic statistics for the behavioral
sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Howes, C., Rodning, C., Galluzzo, D.C., & Myers, L (1988). Attachment and
child care: Relationships with mother and caregiver. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly. 3(3). 155-167.
Howes, C„ & Rubenstein, J.L (1985). Determinants of toddlers’ experiences
in day care: Age of entry and quality of setting. Child Care Quarterly,
14(2), 140-151.
Huck, S.W., Cormeir, W.H., & Bounds, W.G., Jr. (1974). Reading statistics and
research. New York: Harper & Row.
63
Jorde-Bloom, P. (1988). A great place to work: Improving conditions for staff
in young children's programs. Washington, DC: National Association for
the Education of Young Children.
Kagan, S .L, & GIennonl T (1982). Considering proprietary child care. In E.F.
Zigler & E.W. Gordon (Eds.), Day care: Scientific and social policy issues.
Boston: Auburn House.
Kagan, S .L, & Newton, J.W. (1989). For-profit and nonprofit childcare:
Similarities and differences. Young Children, 45(1), 4-10.
King, D., & MacKinnon, C.E. (1988). Making difficult choices easier: A review
of research on day care and children’s development. Family Relations. 37.
392-398.
KIecka1W. (1980). Discriminant analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Kontos, S., & Stremmel, A.J. (1988). Caregivers’ perceptions of working
conditions in a child care environment.
Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 3(1), 77-90.
McCartney, K., Scan, S., Phillips, D., Grajek, S., & Schwarz, J.C. (1982).
Environmental differences among day care centers and their effects on
children’s development. In E.F. Zigler & E.W. Gordon (Eds.), Day care:
Scientific and social policy issues. Boston: Auburn House.
Miller, B.C. (1986).
Publications.
Family research methods.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Modigliani, K. (1986). But who will take care of the children? Child care,
women, and devalued labor. Journal of Education, 168(3). 46-69.
Modigliani, K. (1988). Twelve reasons for the low wages in child care. Young
Children. 43(3). 14-15.
Modigliani, K., Kell, B., Valenstein, T., McDaniels, M., Norton, C., Manchester,
B., Weber, N., & Wheeler, J. (1986). Child care staff working conditions
project. Ann Arbor, Ml: Washtenaw County Association for the Education
of Young Children.
Montana Department of Family Services. (1988a).
child day care centers. Helena, MT: Author.
Licensing regulations for
64
Montana Department of Family Services. (1988b).
family day care homes. . Helena, MT: Author.
Licensing regulations for
Montana Department of Family Services. (1988c).
group day care homes. Helena, MT: Author.
Licensing regulations for
Montana Education Association. (1987). Women in the work force. Helena,
MT: Author.
Morgan, G. (1985). The government perspective on quality. In LU. Schweinhart
& D.P. Weikart (Eds.), Quality in early childhood programs: Four perspec­
tives. Ypsilanti, Ml: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1985). In whose
hands? A demographic fact sheet on child care providers. Washington,
DC: Author.
National Campaign for Child Daycare for Working Families. (1980). Platform
statement (P.O. Box 28607). Washington, DC: Author.
Nie, N.H., Hull, C.H., Jenkins, J.G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D.H. (1975).
SPSS: Statistical package for the social sciences. New York: McGraw Hill.
The 1989 summary of child care center salaries, benefits, and working
conditions. (1989). Child Care Employee News. 8f4V 1-7.
Norusis, M.J. (1988). SPSS/PC+ vol. 2.0 base manual. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
Osborne, S.S. (1986). Directors of for-profit child care centers: Do background
characteristics predict success?
Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Pettygrove, W., Whitebook, M., & Weir, M. (1984). Beyond babysitting:
Changing the treatment and image of child caregivers. Young Children.
39(5), 14-21.
Phillips, D.
(1987).
Quality in child care: What does research tell us?
Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Phillips, D., & Whitebook, M. (1986). Who are child care workers: A search for
answers. Young Children. 41(4). 14-20.
65
Riley, D., & Rogers, K. (1989). Pay, benefits, and job satisfactions of Wiscon­
sin child care providers and early childhood teachers, 1988. Madison, W l:
University of Wisconsin, Extension Service.
Roupp, R.R., Travers, J., Glantz, F., & Coelen, C. (1979). Children at the
center: Final report of the National Day Care Study. Cambridge, MA: ABT
Books.
U.S. Department of Labor. (1988). Child care: A workforce issue. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Government Accounting Office. (1990, January). Early childhood educa­
tion: What are the costs of high quality programs? HRD-90-43BR.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Vander Ven, K. (1988). Pathways to professional effectiveness for early
childhood educators. In B. Spodek, O.N. Saracho, & D .L Peters (Eds.),
Professionalism and the early childhood practitioner. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Whitebook, M., & Granger, R.C. (1989). Mommy, who’s going to be my teacher
today? Assessing teacher turnover. Young Children, 44(4), 11-14.
Whitebook, M., Howes, C., Phillips, D., & Pemberton, C. (1989). Who cares?
Child care teachers and the quality of care in America. Young Children.
45(1), 41-45.
Wilier, B. (1987). Quality or affordability: Trade-offs for early childhood
programs? Young Children, 42(6), 41-43.
Zinsser, C. (1986). Day care’s unfair burden: How low wages subsidize a
public service. New York: Center for Public Advocacy Research.
APPENDICES
67
APPENDIX A
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
68
C H IL D
W HAT W E 'R E
*
CARE S T A F F
A S K IN G
P le a s e
check
S A L A R Y A N D W O R K IN G
YO U T O
re a d
m o re
and
SURVEY
DO:
fo llo w
th a n
C O N D IT IO N S
one
a ll
d ir e c tio n s
answ er
to
a
c a r e fu lly .
q u e s tio n
Never
u n le s s
th e
in s tr u c ­
t io n s t e l l y o u t o c h e c k m o re th a n o n e .
A lth o u g h t h i s s u r v e y
a p p e a rs lo n g , i t ta k e s le s s th a n 3 0 m in u te s t o c o m p le te .
*
P le a s e d o NOT w r i t e y o u r n am e a n y w h e r e o n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
We h a v e g iv e n e a c h q u e s t io n n a ir e a n u m b e r t o h e lp u s k e e p
tra c k
need
h e ld
jo b .
*
P le a s e
you to
best
fe e l
*
o f
I f
w h ic h
c e n te rs
have
re tu rn e d
th e ir
fo rm s
and
w h ic h
r e m in d e r s , b u t a l l t h e in f o r m a t io n yo u p r o v id e w i l l be
in s t r i c t c o n fid e n c e , in c lu d in g t h a t d e s c r ib in g y o u r ow n
t r y to
s k ip ).
a n s w e r e v e r y q u e s tio n
I f y o u 'r e n o t s u r e o f
e s tim a te .
I f you th in k
f r e e t o add e x p la n a to r y
th e re
a re
any
q u e s tio n s
(e x c e p t th o s e t h a t w e a s k
th e a n s w e r,
g iv e us y o u r
an an sw er
n o te s .
you
p re fe r
m ig h t b e
not
to
m is le a d in g ,
a n s w e r,
p le a s e
o m it th o s e a n d a n s w e r th e r e s t .
G iv e n t h e im p o r t a n c e o f t h i s
s u r v e y t o t h e c h i l d c a r e c o m m u n ity , w e w i l l a p p r e c i a t e y o u r
a n s w e r in g m o s t, i f n o t a l l , o f t h e q u e s t io n s .
*
P le a s e f i l l o u t t h e q u e s t io n n a ir e a n d m a il
e n c lo s e d e n v e lo p e a s s o o n a s p o s s i b l e .
*
B e lo w
a re
s u rv e y .
d e fin itio n s
P le a s e
re a d
o f
We
title s
we h ave
Then,
i f
in
used
you
th e
in
th e
have
any
a t th e
t r y to
c la r ify
w hat
is
c a ll,
fre e
c a ll
c o lle c t.
to
M ean
by
m e a n t.
D iffe r e n t
TEACHER r e f e r s t o
s t a f f s u p e r v is o r y
A S S IS T A N T
te a c h e r
jo b
c a r e fu lly .
back
q u e s tio n s a b o u t t h i s d e f i n i t i o n , p le a s e c a l l us
n u m b er in d ic a te d on o u r c o v e r l e t t e r ,
and w e 'll
I f
(B e
w h ic h d e s c r ib e y o u r jo b
p e o p le y o u s u p e r v is e .)
W hat
th e
th e m
i t
Job
w ith
to
c a re
T E A C H E R —D I R E C T O R r e f e r s
d u tie s .
to
D IR E C T O R r e f e r s t o p e r s o n s
s t r a t io n o f th e p ro g ra m .
We a p p r e c i a t e
in
your
in v o lv e s
to
T itle s :
p e rs o n s
For
th e
w o r k in g
o f
w ith
a
b o th
w ho h a v e p r im a r y
c o o p e r a tio n
C o p y r ig h t
in
to
to ll
th o s e
th o s e
q u e s tio n s
p u rp o s e s
o f
th is
u n d er th e
g ro u p
o f
CARE
P .0 .
Box
B e r k e le y ,
te a c h in g
r e s p o n s ib ility
im p o r ta n t
(4 1 5 )
94705
6 5 3 -9 8 8 9
o f a
and a d m in is tr a tiv e
re s e a rc h
PRO JECT
5603
CA
s u rv e y :
s u p e r v is io n
1988
EM PLOYEE
th is
about
c h ild r e n .
ID #
C H IL D
fe e l
q u e s tio n s
o f a g ro u p o f c h ild r e n , o ft e n w ith
in c lu d in g h e a d o r le a d te a c h e r s .
& e d u c a tio n
p e rs o n s
a
c o m p le te
a d d itio n
p e rs o n s in c h a rg e
r e s p o n s ib ilitie s ;
TEACHER r e fe r s
w ho h e lp
th is
s u re
CAT
fo r
a d m in i­
p r o je c t.
69
THE POLLCWIHG QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT TEACHERS. REMEMBER BY TEACHERS
WE MEAN A PERSON IN CHARGE OF A GROUP OF CHILDREN, OTTTH WITH STAFF
SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES.
I .
How m a n y t e a c h e r s
a re
_________ TEACHERS
on
your
p a y r o ll?
[ ] NONE — — ►
PLEASE SKIP TO QUESTION 12
s-e
2.
We are interested in the length of time different teachers have
been working in your program. For each space below, indicate the
number of teachers who have been employed for that time period.
less than six months
3.
»-u
at least six months but less than a year
u-i«
at least I year but less than 2 years
1 5 -1 7
at least 2 years but less than 3 years
n -2 0
at least 3 years but less than 5 years
2 1 -2 3
more than 5 years
2 4 -2 6
How many teachers, if any, have left your program in the last 12
months?
_________ TEACHERS
[ ] NONE — — ►
PLEASE SKIP TO QUESTION 6
27-29
4.
Of those who have left in the last 12 months, how many fall into
each of the following categories?
IF NONE IN A CATEGORY, WRITE "0".
fired or dismissed for inadequate performance
30-32
laid off because of low enrollment
33-35
laid off for reason other than low enrollment
36-38
voluntary (employee terminated of own accord)
I U none Zerft v o lu n t c u d ly , SKIP TO QUESTION 6 )
39-41
70
There are many reasons teachers have for leaving child care
programs voluntarily. For each reason listed below, please
indicate whether or not it was a reason for teacher(s) leaving
your program in the last 12 months.
A.
A c c e p te d
a
jo b
in
a n o th e r
c h ild h o o d
e d u c a tio n
B.
A c c e p te d
jo b
C.
A m a jo r
A m in o r
Not
re a s o n
re a s o n
re a s o n
a
e a r ly
p ro g ra m
.........................
C 3
C 3
c 3
42
s c h o o l.
C 3
C 3
c 3
43
A c c e p te d a jo b u n r e la t e d t o e a r l y
c h i l d h o o d s e r v i c e s .............................................................
C 3
C 3
c 3
44
D.
D is a tis fie d
C 3
C 3
c 3
45
E.
D is s a tis f ie d
b e n e f i t s .........................
[
3
[
3
C 3
46
F.
D is s a t is f ie d w ith p ro g ra m p o lic ie s and
p r o c e d u r e s .....................................................................................
[
3
C 3
C 3
47
G.
D is s a tis f ie d
C 3
C 3
C 3
48
H.
Job
[
3
C 3
C 3
49
I.
C o n flic t
C 3
C 3
C 3
50
J .
I l l
[
C 3
[
3
51
K.
M a te r n ity /p a te r n ity
L.
F a m ily
M.
to o
a
in
w ith
w ith
w ith
an
th e
p a y ...........................................
th e
th e
s tre s s fu l
w ith
e le m e n ta r y
w o r k in g
c o n d itio n s
.............................................................
c o w o rk e rs
...........................................
h e a l t h .....................................................................................
.....................................
C 3
[
3
[
3
52
...............................................................................
C 3
[
3
[
3
53
P r o b le m s w i t h ow n f a m i l y ' s c h i l d c a r e
a rra n g e m e n ts ( e . g . to o c o s t ly , t r a n s ­
p o r t a t i o n , e t c . ) ...................................................................
[
3
C 3
[
3
54
N.
O th e r
[
3
C 3
55
0.
R e tu rn t o
e d u c a tio n
s c h o o l i n e a r l y c h ild h o o d
.....................................................................................
C 3
C 3
56
P.
R e tu rn
school
C 3
C 3
57
Q.
R e tu rn t o s c h o o l in f i e l d u n r e la te d t o
e a r l y c h ild h o o d
...................................................................
C 3
58
C 3
to
in
Additional comments:
e le m e n ta r y
e d u c a tio n
C 3
I
r e a s o n s .................................................
I
p e rs o n a l
I—
m ove
le a v e
3
I—
5.
C 3
71
6.
T h in k in g
about
h o w lo n g w a s
w as h ir e d ?
th e
i t
la s t
tim e
fro m
th e
th a n
a
w eek
l
r
2
you
tim e
tr ie d
th e
to
f i l l
te a c h e r
le ft
a
te a c h e r
and
a
vacancy,
r e p la c e m e n t
CHECK ONE ANSWER:
[
]
.
.
.
[
le s s
]
.
.
.
o
w eeks
C ] ...
3 or 4 weeks
[ ] . . . more than a month
7.
Do y o u r e q u ir e
i s r e q u ir e d b y
[ ]
8.
No
a n y e d u c a tio n , e x p e r ie n c e
lic e n s in g r e g u la tio n s f o r
--- ►
]
Yes
fo r
head
[
]
Yes
fo r
a ll
w hat
do
yes,
you
w hat
PLEASE SKIP TO QUESTION 9
[
I f
o r c r e d e n tia l beyond
y o u r te a c h e rs ?
te a c h e rs
o n ly
te a c h e rs
r e q u ir e ?
61
9.
t h e number o f t e a c h e r s
IF NONE IN A CATEGORY WRITE " 0 " .
In d ic a te
in
your
p ro g ra m
who a r e :
m a le
fe m a le
62-64
72
10.
In d ic a te
th e
num ber o f
te a c h e rs
in
your
p ro g ra m
w ho
a re :
IF WONE IN A CATEGORY, WRITE "0".
_________ B l a c k
65-67
_________ W h i t e / C a u c a s i a n
68-70
_________ A s i a n / P a c i f i c
71-73
Is la n d e r
_________ H i s p a n i c
74-76
_________ A m e r i c a n
In d ic a n /A la s k a n
In d ia n
77-79
_________ O t h e r
11.
In d ic a te
th e
num ber o f
te a c h e rs
in
your
o f
age
p ro g ra m
w ho
a re :
IF NONE IN A CATEGORY, WRITE " 0 " .
_________ u n d e r
20
y e a rs
2-4
_________ b e t w e e n
2 0 -2 4
y e a rs
o ld
5-7
_________ b e t w e e n
2 5 -2 9
y e a rs
o ld
8-10
_________ b e t w e e n
3 0 -3 9
y e a rs
o ld
11-13
_________ b e t w e e n
4 0 -4 9
y e a rs
o ld
14-16
_________ o v e r
y e a rs
o ld
50
17-19
THE PMJLOWIMS QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT ASSISTANT TEACHERS. REMEMBER BY
ASSISTANT TEACHERS WE MEAN A PERSON WORKING UNDER THE SUPERVISION OP A
TEACHER.
12.
How m a n y
a s s is ta n t
te a c h e rs
________ ASSISTANT TEACHERS
a re
on
your
[ ] NONE —
p a y r o ll?
SKIP TO QUESTION 23
2 0 -2 2
73
13.
14.
We are interested in the length of time different assistant
teachers have been working in your program. For each space below,
indicate the number of assistant teachers who have been employed
for that time period. IF NONE IN A CATEGORY, IVRITE " 0 " .
less than six months
2 3 -2 5
at least six months but less than a year
26 - 2 «
at least I year but less than 2 years
29-31
at least 2 years but less than 3 years
32 -3 «
at least 3 years but less than 5 years
35-37
more than 5 years
39-40
How many assistant teachers, if any, have left your program in the
last 12 months?
_______ ASSISTANT TEACHERS
[ ] NONE — — >►
SKIP TO QUESTION 17
41-43
15.
Of those who have left in the last 12 months, how many fall into
each of the following categories? IF NONE IN A CATEGORY, WRITE " 0 " .
______ fired or dismissed for inadequate performance
44-46
______ laid off because of low enrollment
47-49
______ laid off for reason other than low enrollment
50-52
______ voluntary (employee terminated of own accord)
U i n o n e I e i t o o lu n t o A U y , S K IP TO QUESTION 17)
53-55
(GO TO NEXT P A G E ------►
)
74
16.
There are many reasons assistant teachers have for leaving child
care programs voluntarily. For each reason listed below, please
indicate whether or not it was a reason for assistant teacher(s)
leaving your program in the last 12 months.
A m a jo r
re a s o n
A.
A c c e p te d
a
jo b
in
a n o th e r
c h ild h o o d
e d u c a tio n
B.
A c c e p te d
a
jo b
in
C.
A c c e p te d
a
jo b
u n r e la te d
c h ild h o o d
an
A m in o r
re a s o n
Not a
re a s o n
e a r ly
p ro g ra m
..........................
C
]
C
]
[
]
56
C
]
C
]
C
]
57
C
]
C
]
C
]
58
p a y ...........................................
[
]
C
]
C
]
59
e le m e n ta r y
to
s c h o o l.
e a r ly
s e r v i c e s .............................................................
D.
D is a tis fie d
E.
D is s a tis f ie d
b e n e f i t s .........................
C
]
C
]
C
]
60
F.
D is s a t is f ie d w it h p ro g ra m p o l i c i e s and
p r o c e d u r e s .....................................................................................
[
]
[
]
C 3
61
D is s a tis fie d
C
]
C
]
C 3
62
[
]
[
]
[
3
63
...........................................
[
]
[
]
C 3
64
h e a l t h .....................................................................................
C
]
[
]
[
3
65
.....................................
C
]
C
]
C 3
66
G.
w ith
th e
w ith
w ith
th e
th e
w o r k in g
c o n d itio n s
H.
Job
I.
C o n flic t
J .
I l l
K.
M a te r n ity /p a te r n ity
L.
F a m ily
...............................................................................
C
]
[
]
C 3
67
M.
P r o b le m s w i t h ow n f a m i l y ' s c h i l d c a r e
a rra n g e m e n ts ( e . g . to o c o s t ly , t r a n s ­
p o r t a t i o n , e t c . ) ...................................................................
C
]
[
]
[
3
68
N.
O th e r
r e a s o n s .................................................
[
]
C ]
[
3
69
O.
R e tu rn t o
e d u c a tio n
s c h o o l i n e a r l y c h ild h o o d
.....................................................................................
[
]
C ]
C 3
70
P.
R e tu rn
school
C ]
[
]
[
3
71
Q.
R e tu rn t o s c h o o l in f i e l d u n r e la te d t o
e a r l y c h i l d h o o d ...................................................................
C ]
[
]
[
3
72
to o
s tre s s fu l
w ith
m ove
p e rs o n a l
to
.............................................................
c o w o rk e rs
in
Additional comments
le a v e
e le m e n ta r y
e d u c a tio n
75
17.
T h in k in g a b o u t th e l a s t t im e yo u t r i e d
v a c a n c y , h o w lo n g w a s i t fr o m t h e t i m e
r e p la c e m e n t w as h ir e d ?
to f i l l an a s s is ta n t
th e te a c h e r l e f t and
te a c h e r
a
CHECK OUE ANSWER.
[
]
.
.
.
le s s
[ ]
th a n
. . .
I
[
18.
Do yo u
is
19.
r e q u ir e
r e q u ir e d
[
]
No
[
]
Yes
I f
yes,
w hat
by
a
any
o r
]
.
.
fo r
a ll
you
2 w eeks
.
3
o
r
4
[
]
.
.
e d u c a tio n ,
lic e n s in g
-------- PLEASE
do
w eek
w eeks
.
m o re
th a n
e x p e r ie n c e
r e g u la tio n s
fo r
o r
a
m o n th
c r e d e n tia l
your
a s s is ta n t
73
beyond
w hat
te a c h e rs ?
SKIP TO QUESTION 20
a s s is ta n t
te a c h e rs
r e q u ir e ?
75
20.
t h e number o f a s s i s t a n
IF NONE IN A CATEGORY WRITE " 0 " .
In d ic a te
t
te a c h e rs
in
y o u r p ro g ra m
who a re :
m a le
fe m a le
76-78
8
76
21.
In d ic a te
th e
num ber o f
a s s is ta n t
IF NONE IN A C A T E G O R Y ,
te a c h e rs
in
your
p ro g ra m
w ho
a re :
WRITE " 0 " .
B la c k
2-4
W h ite /C a u c a s ia n
5-7
A s ia n /P a c ific
Is la n d e r
8-10
H is p a n ic
A m e r ic a n
11-13
In d ic a n /A la s k a n
In d ia n
14-16
O th e r
22.
In d ic a te
th e
num ber o f
a s s is t a n t
te a c h e rs
in
your
p ro g ra m
w ho
a re :
IF NONE IN A CATEGORY, WRITE " 0 " .
under 20 years of age
1 7 -1 9
between 20-24 years old
2 0 -2 2
between 25-29 years old
2 3 -2 5
between 30-39 years old
2 6 -2 8
between 40-49 years old
2 9 -3 1
over 50 years old
3 2 -3 4
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT TEACHER-DIRECTORS. REMEMBER BY
TEACHER-DIRECTORS WB MEAN A PERSON WITH BOTH TEACHING AND ADMINISTRATIVE
RESPONSIBILITIES .
23.
How m a n y
te a c h e r -d ir e c to r s
TEACHER-VlRECTORS
a re
on
your
p a y r o ll?
[ ] NONE —
PLEASE S K IP TO QUESTION 31
35-37
77
24.
25.
We are interested in the length of time different teacher-directors
have been working in your program. For each space below, indicate
the number of teacher-directors who have been employed for that
time period. IF NONE IN A CATEGORY WRITE "0".
less than six months
38-40
at least six months but less than a year
41-43
at least I year but less than 2 years
44-46
at least 2 years but less than 3 years
47-49
at least 3 years but less than 5 years
50-52
more than 5 years
53-55
How many teacher-directors, if any, have left your program in the
last 12 months?
_____ TEACHERS-OIRECTORS
26.
[ ] NONE ----►
S K IP TO QUESTION 28
56-58
Of those who have left in the last 12 months, how many fall into
each of the following categories? IF NONE IN A CATEGORY, WRITE " 0 " .
______ fired or dismissed for inadequate performance
59-61
______ laid off because of low enrollment
62-64
______ laid off for reason other than low enrollment
65-67
______ voluntary (employee terminated of own accord)
(1(5 none. I e i t v o l u n t a r i l y , SKIP TO QUESTION 28)
68-70
78
27.
There are many reasons teacher-directors have for leaving child
care programs voluntarily. For each reason listed below, please
indicate whether or not it was a reason for teacher-director(s)
leaving your program in the last 12 months.
A major
reason
A minor
reason
Accepted a job in another early
childhood education program ........
C ]
[ 3
C 3
2
B.
Accepted a job in an elementary school.
C ]
C 3 •
[
3
3
C.
Accepted a job unrelated to early
childhood services....................
C ]
C 3
C 3
4
D.
Disatisfied with the pay..............
C ]
[
C 3
5
E.
Dissatisfied with the benefits........
C ]
C 3
[
3
6
F.
Dissatisfied with program policies and
procedures............................
C ]
[
3
C 3
7
G.
Dissatisfied with the working conditions C ]
[
3
C 3
8
H.
Job too stressful ....................
[ I
[ I
[ 3
9
I.
Conflict with coworkers ..............
[ ]
C 3
C 3
10
J.
Ill health............................
C ]
C 3
C 3
11
K.
Maternity/paternity leave ............
[ ]
C 3
C 3
12
L.
Family move ..........................
C ]
[
C 3
13
M.
Problems with own family's child care
arrangements (e.g. too costly, trans­
portation, etc.)......................
[ ]
C 3
[
3
14
N.
Other personal reasons................
[ ]
C 3
[ 3
15
O.
Return to school in early childhood
education ............................
[ ]
[ 3
C 3
16
A.
3
3
Not a
reason
P.
Return to school in elementary education C ]
C 3
C 3
17
Q.
Return to school in field unrelated to
early childhood ......................
C 3
C 3
18
Additional comments:
C 3
79
28.
T h in k in g
vacancy,
and
a
a b o u t th e l a s t tim e you t r i e d
h o w lo n g w as i t fro m t h e t im e
r e p la c e m e n t
to f i l l a te a c h e r -d ir e c to r
th e te a c h e r -d ir e c to r l e f t
w as h ir e d ?
CHECK ONE ANSWER.
[
]
.
.
.
[ ]
le s s
th a n
. . .
[
29.
30.
Do
you
is
r e q u ir e d
r e q u ir e
[
]
No
C
]
Yes
I f
yes,
w hat
by
any
a
I
or
]
.
2 w eeks
.
you
.
3 o r
[
]
.
e d u c a tio n ,
lic e n s in g
-------- PLEASE
do
w eek
4
.
w eeks
.
m o re
e x p e r ie n c e
r e g u la tio n s
fo r
th a n
or
a
c r e d e n tia l
your
n
m o n th
beyond
w hat
te a c h e r -d ir e c to r s ?
SKIP TO QUESTION 3 1
r e q u ir e ?
21
THB FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT DIRECTORS. REMEMBER BY DIRECTOR
NB MEAN A PERSON WHO HAS PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADMINISTRATION
OF THE PROGRAM.
31.
How m an y
d ir e c to r s
V l RECTORS
a re
on
your
p a y r o ll?
I ] NONE —
PLEASE SKIP TO QUESTION 39
22-24
80
32.
We are interested in the length of time different directors have
been working in your program. For each space below, indicate
the number of directors who have been employed for that time
period. IF WOWE IW A CATEGORY, WRITE "0".
less than six months
at least six months but less than a year
2 8 -3 0
at least I year but less than 2 years
31-33
at least
2
years but less than
3
years
34-36
at least
3
years but less than
5
years
37-39
more than 5 years
33.
How many directors, if any, have left your program in the last 12
months?
DIRECTORS
34.
40-42
[ ] WOWE — — ►
PLEASE SKIP TO QUESTIObI 36
43-45
Of those who have left in the last 12 months, how many fall into
each of the following categories?
fired or dismissed for inadequate performance
46-48
laid off because of low enrollment
49-51
laid off for reason other than low enrollment
52-54
voluntary (employee terminated of own accord)
55-57
81
35.
There are many reasons directors have for leaving child care
programs voluntarily. For each reason listed below, please
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
A c c e p te d a jo b i n a n o th e r e a r l y
c h ild h o o d e d u c a tio n o ro o ra m
. . . .
A c c e p te d
a
jo b
in
an
D is a tis fie d
w ith
D is s a tis fie d
th e
w ith
D is s a tis f ie d
I.
C o n flic t
to o
w ith
s tre s s fu l
w ith
th e
w o r k in g
M a te r n ity /p a te r n ity
L.
F a m ily
.
.
.
m ove
P r o b le m s
own
f a m ily 's
0
.
[
3
59
]
[
3
[
3
60
[
]
[
3
[
3
61
[
]
[
3
[
3
62
[
]
[
3
[
3
63
[
]
[
3
[
3
64
[
]
[
I
[
3
65
[
]
[
3
[
3
66
[
]
[
3
[
3
67
[
3
C 3
[
3
68
[
3
C 3
[
3
69
[
3
C 3
[
3
70
[
3
C 3
[
3
71
[
3
[
3
[
3
72
[
3
[
3
[
3
73
C 3
[
3
[
3
74
.
..............................
c a re
a rra n g e m e n ts ( e . g . to o c o s t ly , t r a n s ­
p o r t a t i o n , e t c . ) .................................................
O th e r
p e rs o n a l
r e a s o n s .....................................
R e tu rn t o
e d u c a tio n
s c h o o l i n e a r l y c h ild h o o d
.............................................................
R e tu rn
school
to
in
e le m e n ta r y
e d u c a tio n
R e tu rn t o s c h o o l in f i e l d
u n r e la te d
e a r l y c h ild h o o d
.....................................
Additional comments:
[
C 3
c o n d itio n s
c h ild
C ]
3
and
.................................................
w ith
[
58
h e a l t h .......................................................
le a v e
C ]
a
C 3
b e n e f i t s .........................
c o w o rk e rs
K.
P.
■
..................................
I l l
.
re a s o n
p a y .......................................
th e
J.
0
Not
re a s o n
s c h o o l.
D is s a t is f ie d w ith p ro g ra m p o lic ie s
p r o c e d u r e s .................................................
Job
N.
A m in o r
re a s o n
A c c e p te d a jo b u n r e la t e d t o e a r l y
c h i l d h o o d s e r v i c e s ...........................................
H.
M.
e le m e n ta r y
A m a jo r
to
82
36.
T h in k in g
about
h o w lo n g w a s
w as h ir e d ?
th e
i t
la s t
tim e
fro m
th e
th a n
a
tim e
you
th e
tr ie d
to
d ir e c to r
f i l l
le ft
a
d ir e c to r
and
a
vacancy,
r e p la c e m e n t
CHECH OHE ANSWER.
[
]
.
.
.
le s s
[]
...
w eek
I or 2 weeks
[ ] . . . 3 o r 4
weeks
[ ] . . . more than a month
37.
Do
you
is
r e q u ir e d
[
]
C
]
r e q u ir e
by
any
e d u c a tio n ,
lic e n s in g
e x p e r ie n c e
r e g u la tio n s
fo r
o r
c r e d e n tia l
your
beyond
w hat
d ir e c to r s ?
PLEASE S K I P TO QUESTION 39
No — — ►
Yes
7«
38.
I f
yes,
w hat
do
you
r e q u ir e ?
(GO TO NEXT PAGE ——►
)
83
39.
W o r k in g
C o n d itio n s
Below is a list of working conditions that are sometimes
provided to teaching staff. For each one, please indicate in
the first column whether or not you offer it to teachers at
your center. In the second column, please indicate whether
or not you offer it to assistant teachers.
P r o v id e d f o r
T e a c h e rs
A.
B.
C.
D.
P a id
P a id
P a id
[ 3 yes
b re a k s
l u n c h ...................................................................
p r e p a r a tio n /p la n n in g
Paym ent
s ta ff
fo r
a tte n d a n c e
tim e .
.
C 3 yes
[ 3 yes
P r o v id e d f o r
A s s is ta n t T e a c h e rs
C 3 n°2
C 3 yes
C 3 n°3
C 3 yes
C 3
C 3 yes
n°4
[ 3 no
15
C 3 no
16
[ 3 no
17
a t
m e e t i n g s .......................................................
C 3 yes
C 3 no s
C 3 yes
[ 3 no
18
E.
Paym ent
fo r
o n -s ite
in s e r v ic e
a tte n d a n c e
a t
tr a in in g .
.
.
.
[ 3 yes
C 3 no*
[ 3 yes
[
3
no
19
F .
P a id
r e le a s e
tr a in in g ,
tim e
fo r
w o rk s h o p s ,
o ff-s ite
e t c .........................
[
3 yes
[ 3 no 7
C 3 yes
[ 3 no
20
G.
W r itte n
jo b
d e s c r ip tio n
.........................
C 3 yes
[ 3 no
[ 3 yes
C 3 no
21
8
H.
I.
F o rm a l
g r ie v a n c e
W r itte n
p ro c e d u re .
.
.
.
c o n t r a c t .................................................
C 3 yes
[ 3 yes
[ 3 no
9
C 3 no
[ 3 yes
[ 3 no
22
C 3 yes
[ 3 no
10
J.
W r itte n
s a la r y
s c h e d u le
.........................
[ 3 yes
[ 3 no
23
C 3 yes
C 3 no
24
ii
K.
Y e a r ly
in
cost
o f
liv in g
in c r e a s e
w a g e s .........................................................................
C 3 yes
[
3 no
[
3 yes
[
3 no
25
12
L.
P e r io d ic
m e r it
in c r e a s e s
in
w ages
[
3 yes
[
3 no
C 3 yes
[
3 no
26
13
M.
C o m p e n s a tio n
( e ith e r
or
fo r
tim e
o ff)
fin a n c ia l
o v e r tim e
.
.
.
.
[
3 yes
[
3 no
14
[
3 yes
C 3 no
27
84
40.
B e n e fits
B e lo w
is
a
lis t
o f
b e n e fits
th a t
a re
s o m e tim e s
p r o v id e d
to
te a c h in g
s ta ff.
F o r e a c h o n e p le a s e i n d i c a t e i n t h e f i r s t c o lu m n w h e t h e r o r
n o t you o f f e r i t to te a c h e rs a t y o u r c e n te r .
I n t h e s e c o n d c o lu m n ,
p le a s e i n d i c a t e w h e th e r o r n o t y o u o f f e r i t
to a s s is t a n t te a c h e rs .
We understand that many centers offer increased benefits for
length of employment.
If that is the case, please provide an
estimate of the average benefit you offer.
Provided for
Teachers
A.
R educed
p a re n t
c h ild
c a re
fe e
Provided for
Assistant Teachers
fo r
e m p l o y e e s ...............................
C ] yes
28
B.
E d u c a tio n a l
s tip e n d
to
[ ] no
39
cover
. .[ ] yes
[ ] no
[ ] yes
29
. . C ] yes
[ ] no
[ ] no
40
[ ] yes
30
[ ] no
41
I
C ] yes
31
42
C ] yes
32
T
33
I
p a id
44
How many days do
you offer?
days per year.
34-35
Annual
C ] no
T
How many days do
you offer?
days per year.
G.
[ ] no
43
C ] yes
I
[ 3 no
45-46
C 3 yes
v a c a tio n s
+
[ 3 no
T
How many days do
you offer?
days per year.
37-38
How many days do
you offer?
days per year.
48-49
85
B e n e fits
(c o n t.)
P r o v id e d
fo r
P r o v id e d f o r
A s s is ta n t T e a c h e rs
T e a c h e rs
H.
H e a lth
c o v e r a g e ................................................. [
]
yes
[
]
no
C
I
Available but unpaid
]
no
[
3
yes
[
3
no
C 3
yes
C 3
no
•
[
3
yes
C 3
no
C 3
yes
C 3
no
F u l l y p a i d for e m p l o y e e
only
.
C 3
yes
C 3
no
[
3
yes
[
3
no
P a r t i a l l y p a i d for e m p l o y e e
only
.
[
3
yes
[
3
no
51
C 3
yes
[
3
no
59
[
3 yes
[
] no
[
yes
[
3 no
D e n ta l
.
c o v e ra g e
Available but unpaid
F u l l y p a i d for e m p l o y e e
and d e p e n d e n t s
3
T
.
C 3
yes
[
3
no
C 3
yes
[
3
no
.
C 3
yes
[
3
no
C 3
yes
C 3
no
F u l l y p a i d for e m p l o y e e
only
.
C 3
yes
[
3
no
C 3
yes
C 3
no
P a r t i a l l y p a i d for e m p l o y e e
only
.
[
3
yes
[
3
no
C 3
yes
C 3
no
C 3 yes
[
3 no
L ife
in s u r a n c e
C 3 yes
A v a i l a b l e but u n p a i d
.
F ully p a i d for e m p l o y e e
and d e p e n d e n t s
[
I
T
K.
[
T
T
J .
yes
.
F u lly p a i d for e m p l o y e e
and dependents
I .
]
50
3 no
62
C 3
yes
C 3 no
C 3
yes
[
3 no
3 no
C 3
yes
[
3 no
3 no
. [
3
yes
[
F ully p a i d for e m p l o y e e
only
. [
3
yes
C 3 no
[
3
yes
[
P a r t i a l l y p a i d for empl o y e e
only
. [
3
yes
[
3 no
[
3
yes
C 3 no
P e n s io n
55
[
P la n .
3 yes
[
I
3 no
63
[
56
3 yes
[
I
3 no
64
T
Available but unpaid
F ully p a i d for e m p l o y e e
and d e p e n d e n t s
.
.
F ully p a i d for e m p l o y e e
only
P a r t i a l l y paid for e m p l o y e e
only
A d d itio n a l
c o m m e n ts
on
b e n e fits :
.
.
. [
.
•
.
.
3 yes
C 3 no
C 3 yes
[
3 no
C 3 yes
[
3 no
C 3 yes
[
3 no
. [
3 yes
[
3 no
C 3 yes
[
3 no
. [
3 yes
C 3 no
3 yes
[
3 no
57
[
6
86
S a la r ie s
(T o
p a y p e r io d b y
41.
e s t im a t e a n h o u r ly w a g e , d iv id e g ro s s e a r n in g s
t h e n u m b e r o f h o u rs w o rk e d d u r in g t h a t t im e )
Do a l l te a c h e r s
q u a lific a t io n s ?
C ]
r e c e iv e
th e
sam e
s ta r tin g
Yes
I
I
s a la r y
C ]
is
w age
fo r
t
th e
s ta r tin g
a ll
h o u r ly
W hat
te a c h e rs ?
is
ra n g e
hour
th e
sam e
C
]
I
th e
s ta r tin g
h o u r ly
W hat
te a c h e rs ?
is
ra n g e
9_________
Do a l l t e a c h e r - d ir e c t o r s r e c e iv e
r e g a r d le s s o f q u a lif ic a t io n s ?
Yes
I
I
th e
$
t
s ta r tin g
h o u r ly
a s s is t a n t te a c h e rs ?
o $ ____________ p e r h o u r
14-18
sam e
C
19-23
s ta r tin g
]
t
W hat
w age
th e
fo r
14-18
]
s a la r y
t
w age f o r a l l a s s is t a n t
$ ____________ p e r h o u r
[
hour
No
t
43.
$ ____________ p e r
0-12
s ta r tin g
I
is
h o u r ly
3-7
Yes
W hat
s ta r tin g
te a c h e rs ?
?____________ t o
Do a l l a s s is t a n t te a c h e r s r e c e iv e
r e g a r d le s s o f q u a lif ic a t io n s ?
]
th e
fo r
3-7
[
o f
I
I
$ ____________ p e r
42.
r e g a r d le s s
each
No
I
W hat
fo r
s a la r y
NO
I
I
24
t
is th e s ta r tin g
h o u r ly
f o r a l l te a c h e r -d ir e c to r s ?
per
hour
W hat
ra n g e
is
th e
fo r
9
25-29
s ta r tin g
to
25-29
h o u r ly
te a c h e r -d ir e c to r s ?
$
per
hour
30-34
87
44.
Do all directors receive the same starting salary regardless
of qualifications?
t ]
Yes
[
]
NO
i
i
35
I
I
t
T
What is the starting hourly
wage for directors?
$________ per hour
What is the starting hourly
range for directors?
$______ t o _______ per hour
36-40
41-45
Please answer questions 45 6 46 even if the highest and lowest
wages are the same.
45.
W h a t hourly wage d o e s
c u r r e n t ly e a rn ?
th e
A.
Teacher
B.
A s s is ta n t
Teacher
.
C.
T e a c h e r -D ir e c to r .
.
D.
D i r e c t o r ..................................... $
.....................................
W hat h o u r ly w age d oes
c u r r e n t ly e a rn ?
h ig h e s t
in
each
c a te g o ry
per
hour
46-50
.
$
per
hour
51-55
.
$
per
hour
56-60
per
hour
61-65
th e
lo w e s t
Teacher
B.
A s s is ta n t
C.
T e a c h e r -D ir e c to r .
D.
D i r e c t o r ........................................... $
...........................................
. . .
.
p e rs o n
$
A.
Teacher
p a id
.
.
p a id
p e rs o n
in
each
c a te g o ry
$
per
hour
2-6
$
per
hour
7-11
?
per
hour
12-16
per
hour
17-21
88
47.
How
s e v e re
a re
th e
fo llo w in g
p r o b le m s
in
your
c e n te r?
CHECK ONE BOX FOR EACH PROBLEM.
T h is
T h is
m a jo r
is
a
is
p r o b le m
p r o b le m
not
a
but
T h is i s a
m in o r p r o b le m
m a jo r
T h is is n o t
a p r o b le m
R e ta in in g
s ta ff
C ]
C ]
C ]
[
3
F in d in g
C ]
C ]
C 3
[
3
C ]
C ]
[
3
[
3
[
]
C ]
[
3
C 3
[
]
[
C 3
C 3
s u b s titu te s
F illin g
te a c h in g
v a c a n c ie s
F in d in g
tr a in e d
s ta ff
S e c u r in g
tr a in in g
]
re s o u rc e s
48.
T h in k in g
about
th e
la s t
tim e
you
tr ie d
to
f e e l t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e r e p la c e m e n t
s t a f f yo u h ir e d o n e t o tw o y e a rs a g o ?
f i l l
a
vacancy,
c o m p a re d
to
how
th o s e
d id
o f
you
th e
PLEASE CHECK ONE ANSWER FOR EACH CATEGORY OF STAFF.
M uch m o re
q u a lifie d
About
th e
Sam e
Som ew hat
le s s
M uch
le s s
q u a lifie d
q u a lifie d
C 3
C 3
A.
Teacher
C 3
[
B.
A s s is ta n t
C 3
C 3
[
3
[
3
[
[
3
[
3
3
T e a c h e r /A id e
C.
T e a c h e r -D ir e c to r
[
D.
D ir e c to r
[ ]
3
3
C 3
C 3
C 3
30
Do
te a c h e rs
in
your
c e n te r
w o rk
under
a
c o lle c tiv e
b a r g a in in g
a g re e m e n t?
C H E C K OWE.
C
]
Yes
[
Do a s s is t a n t te a c h e r s
a g re e m e n t?
C H E C K OWE.
[
]
D oes
th e
Yes
your
c e n te r
]
]
]
Yes
Yes
[
]
c e n te r
in
fo r
[
,,
w o rk
under
a
c o lle c tiv e
b a r q a in in q
y
No
p a r tic ip a te
A s s o c ia t io n
A re
you
a c c r e d ite d
lic e n s in g ?
[
No
your
[
N a t io n a l
[
in
]
th e
th e
]
C e n te r
A c c r e d ita tio n
E d u c a tio n
o f
Young
P r o je c t
o f
C h ild r e n ?
No
by
NAEYC
in
a d d itio n
to
yo u r
s ta te
No
How m any c h ild r e n d o e s y o u r c e n t e r c u r r e n t ly s e r v e i n e a c h o f
th e
fo llo w in g
age
g ro u p s ?
W R IT E
"0"
IF
NO C H IL D R E N
OF A
P A R T IC U L A R A G E G R O U P A R E S E R V E D .
A
_____________
In fa n ts
B.
_____________
T o d d le r s
C.
_____________
P r e s c h o o le r s /2
D-
_____________
E .
_____________
W hat
is
th e
6
"0"
IF
13
to
to
30
12
m o n th s
35-37
m o n th s
y e a r
K in d e r g a r te n e r s /5
y e a r
o ld s
44-46
S chool
y e a rs
o ld
47-49
a v e ra g e
NO
1 /2
A g e /o v e r
weekly
fo r
C H IL D R E N
5
-
38-40
4
S 9 s t — i f — s u b s id iz e d )
W R IT E
w eeks
f u ll
each
tim e
o f
p a re n t
th e
p e r
w eek
fo r
In fa n ts
p e r
w eek
fo r
Young
p e r
w eek
fo r
P r e s c h o o le r s /2
p e r
w eek
fo r
p e r
w eek
fo r
41-43
fe e
fo r
fo llo w in g
O F A P A R T IC U L A R
6
o ld s
AGE GROUP ARE
w eeks
T o d d le r s
e q u iv a le n t
age
to
12
to
m o n th s
30
2-4
m o n th s
o ld s
s-7
y e a r
K in d e r g a r te n e r s /5
y e a r
o ld s
ii-n
School
y e a r
o ld s
14-16
5
-
SERVED.
4
A g e /o v e r
1 /2
12
g ro u p s .
e -io
90
54.
A re y o u r s t a f f /c h ild
r a t i o s m o re s t r i n g e n t
th a n r e q u ir e d b y s t a t e s ta n d a r d s ?
C
]
Yes
C
]
(m o re
a d u lts
per
c h ild r e n )
No
17
W hat
a re
th e
r a tio s
fo r
each
g ro u p
s e rv e d ?
A 18-20
U 2 1 -2 3
C 2 4 -2 6
D 27 -2 9
E 30-32
55.
Do
you
have
r e q u ir e d
[
]
by
a
s m a lle r
s ta te
num ber
[
Yes
W hat
is
th e
g ro u p
o f
c h ild r e n
p e r
g ro u p
th a n
s ta n d a rd s ?
s iz e
fo r
]
No
each
33
age
o f
c h ild r e n
s e rv e d ?
A 3 4 -3 5
0 3 6 -3 7
C 38 -3 9
0 4 0 -4 1
E 4 2 -4 3
56.
W h ic h
o f
th e
fo llo w in g
b e s t
d e s c r ib e s
yo u r
p ro g ra m ?
CHECK
ONE.
[
]
A .
P r iv a te ,
[
]
B.
P r iv a te ,
[
57.
] c.
P o s itio n
P u b lic ,
o f
n o t-fo r -p r o fit
fo r
p r o fit
b u s in e s s
n o t-fo r -p r o fit
p e rs o n
f illin g
o u t
s u rv e y :
_____ O w n e r
_____ D i r e c t o r
_____ O w n e r / D i r e c t o r
_____ T e a c h e r / D i r e c t o r
_____ O t h e r ,
p le a s e
s p e c ify :
____________________________________________________
TH A N K YOU FO R YO U R T IM E
AND EFFO RT
48
91
APPENDIX B
COVER LETTER
92
f a k CAiU
?ro\ect'
15 June 1990
Dear Center Director:
I am writing to request your participation in a salary and
benefit survey to obtain comprehensive, up-to-date information on
child care workers in center-based care in the state of Montana.
This information is critical at this time because of the upcoming
legislative session in January of 1991.
It is our intention to
convey survey findings to Montana legislators during the upcoming
session. This survey has been endorsed by the Montana Child Care
Association and the Montana Association for the Education of
Young Children working in cooperation with the Montana State
University Early Childhood Project.
All centers licensed as of May I, 1990 in Montana are invited
to participate in the survey and your response is extremely
important.
My goal is to have 100% of the centers respond.
Please be assured that your program's name will not be used; all
information you provide with be kept confidential.
I ask you not
to place your program’s name or address on the survey form itself
or on the return envelope.
If you are willing to participate in this survey,
I ask that you
complete the enclosed survey and return them to me in the
stamped,
self-addressed envelope provided.
Completion of the
survey will only take you about 15 minutes.
Please return your
survey by July I, 1990.
The results of this survey will be
participants expressing an interest.
made
available
to
all
Thank you in advance for your assistance in this survey.
If you
have any questions about how to complete the survey, call me at
994-3241.
I will return your call if I am not available.
Graduate Student, Early Childhood Project
MonMnant working Mpttfiar tar voung chiUrtn
93
APPENDIX C
REMINDER POSTCARD
94
ISarly Childhood ProJeot
Herrlok Hall
Montana State University
Boeeoem, Montana 59717
Am erica the Beautiful
USA
June 25, 1990
Dear Center Director:
Last week you should have received a survey questionnaire
about child care staff salaries and benefits as part of our statewide
survey.
I f you have already completed and returned the survey, I
sincerely thank you. I f not, please take the time to do so today.
Y our response will help guarantee the accuracy of the survey which
will be helpful in presenting to the Montana Legislature a request for
increased funding for child care programs.
I f you did not receive the survey or it has been misplaced,
please call me today at 994-3241, and I will mail you another. Thank
you again for your participation.
Sincerely,
Carrie R. Leu, Graduate Student
Early Childhood Project
95
APPENDIX D
FOLLOW-UP TELEPHONE CALL SCRIPT
96
FOLLOW-UP TELEPHONE CALL SCRIPT
July 5, 1990
Good morning (afternoon). My name is Carrie Leu. I am calling from the Early
Childhood Project at Montana State University. May I speak with the program
director, please?
(Repeat if director doesn’t answer.)
My name is Carrie Leu, and I recently sent you a survey questionnaire about
child care salaries and benefits. Did you receive such a survey in the mail?
(YES.). Good.
returned it.
I am calling to find out if you have completed the survey and
(YES.) Great! Thank you so much for participating in our survey.
******
My name is Carrie Leu, and I recently sent you a survey questionnaire about
child care salaries and benefits. Did you receive such a survey in the mail?
(NO.) I would like to mail you another copy. Is your correct address_____ _?
I will get this survey in the mail to you today. Thank you for your willingness to
participate.
(YES.) Good.
returned it.
I am calling to find out if you have completed the survey and
(NO.) I would like to urge you to complete the form and mail it to me. It is
important to hear from as many programs as possible. The survey results are
expected to have a major impact on legislative budget decisions. Thank you for
your time and participation.
97
APPENDIX E
PERMISSION LETTER FOR USE OF SURVEY
98
6536 Telegraph Avenue
Suite A-201
Oakland, California
94609-1114
415.653.9889
FAX 415.653.8385
June 5, 1990
Carrie Leu
Early Childhood Program
Herrick Hall
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
Dear Carrie:
As we have discussed, I am granting you formal permission to use the Child
Care Employee Project Child Care Staff Wages and Working Conditions
Survey for your research endeavor.
I would appreciate receiving a copy of your final report.
Sincerely,
Marcy Whitebook
Executive Director
MW /ml
Child Care
Employee
Protect
99
APPENDIX F
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES
DISTRICT MAP
CutBank
Helena
100
Hamilton
Anaconda
Butta
Dillon
Figure 4. Montana Department of Family Services district map.