Exploration of the Status of Services for Immigrant Families in Early Childhood Education Programs

Exploration of the Status of Services for Immigrant Families in Early Childhood Education Programs

Colleen K. Vesely and Mark R. Ginsberg

Exploration of the Status of Services for Immigrant Families in Early Childhood Education Programs

Colleen K. Vesely Mark R. Ginsberg

National Association for the Education of Young Children Washington, DC

i

The Authors Colleen K. Vesely, PhD, is an assistant professor of education at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. She was a project consultant at NAEYC from February 2009 to December 2010.

Her research focuses on immigrant families and their interactions with major social institutions and systems, including early childhood care and education. cvesely@gmu.edu Mark R. Ginsberg, PhD, is the dean of the College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. From January 1999 to June 2010, he served as the executive director of NAEYC. mginsber@gmu.edu

Photo Credits Susan Woog Wagner: front cover, 1, 5, 8, 16, 18, 21, 24, 33, 38, 44, 49, 51, back cover Karen Yoho: 11, 29, 35, 43, 46, 52, 55, 56

Copyright 2011 by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

ISBN: 978-1-928896-75-3

National Association for the Education of Young Children

1313 L Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005-4101 202-232-8777 800-424-2460 www.naeyc.org

ii

Table of Contents Acknowledgments v Abstract v Introduction 1 Review of Literature 2 Global Migration Patterns 2 Immigrant Children and Their Families: Demographics 4 North America 4 Europe 4 Asia 5 Australia 6 Middle East 6 Africa 6 Contexts of Immigrant Children’s Lives 7 Resources 7 Challenges 8 Educational Trajectories for Children of Immigrants 10 Rates of ECE Utilization by Immigrant Families 12 ECE: Focusing on Quality at Multiple Levels 13 Economic Function of ECE 13 Educational Function of ECE 14 Social Function of ECE 16 Cultural, Familial, and Ecological Factors Related to ECE Use 17 Characteristics of ECE Programs Working with Immigrant Families 18 Ecocultural Theory and Full-Service ECE Programs for Immigrant Families 20 Summary 21 Methodology 21 Sample Recruitment and Field Sites 22 Data Collection 25 Data Management and Analyses 26 Data Quality 26 Findings 27 Principle 1: Improving Access to and Quality of ECE Programs for Immigrant Families 28 Principle 2: Building Relationships with Immigrant Children and Their Families 28 Principle 3: Supporting Parents’ Identity Development and Representation in the Community 36 Principle 4: Staff Dynamics, Development, and Well-Being 40

iii

Recommendations 47 Strengthening Quality and Increasing Access to ECE 47 Building Relationships with Parents and Families 49 Parents’ Identity Development and Community Representation 50 Staff Development and Well-Being 51 Conclusion 53 Appendices 59 Appendix A: Interview Protocols 59 Appendix B: Code Book 66 References 69 Tables Table 1: International Migrants in Major World Regions, and in More and Less Developed Countries 3 Table 2: The 10 Countries with the Most International Migrants as a Percentage of the Total Population 3 Table 3: Recommendations for ECE Programs Working with Immigrant Families 48 Figures Figure 1: Nonparental Care among US Native and Immigrant children 12 Figure 2: ECE among US Native and Immigrant Children One Year Prior to Kindergarten 13

iv

Acknowledgments The authors are very grateful to the Bernard van Leer Foundation for the generous funding that made this project possible. In addition, the authors thank Bernard van Leer project officer, Selim Iltus, for his support and guidance throughout this project. The authors thank members of the project advisory group—Jerlean Daniel, Jacqueline Hayden, Donald Hernandez, Sasa Milic, Zorica Trikic, Michel Vandenbroeck, and Hirokazu Yoshikawa--for their thoughtful contributions to this project and the resulting monograph. Finally, the authors extend thanks to the staff, teachers, and families at the 10 early childhood education programs included in this study for selflessly sharing their stories and experiences.

Abstract Immigrants make up at least 15 percent of the population in more than 50 countries (Matthews & Ewen 2006). In 2005, “One in every three international migrants lived in Europe and one in every four international migrants lived in North America” (UNPD 2005, 1). At age 3 and 4, children in immigrant families were less likely to be enrolled in preschool than their native-born counterparts (Hernandez, Denton, & Macartney 2007). Consequently, the goal of this study, which was conducted by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) with support from the Bernard van Leer Foundation, was to add to researchers’ and practitioners’ understanding of how early childhood education (ECE) programs are currently working with immigrant children and families.

Using qualitative case study methodology, including in-depth interviews with teachers, program staff, and parents as well as field observations in ECE programs in the United States and in Eastern Europe, analyses were conducted with respect to how high-quality programs work with immigrant families. Through qualitative analyses of the interview transcripts and field observation notes, four principles or themes emerged as particularly important for working with immigrant families: (1) improving quality of and access to ECE programs for immigrant families, (2) building relationships with immigrant parents and families, (3) supporting immigrant parents’ identity development and representation in their communities, and (4) fostering staff dynamics, development, and well-being. Each of these is explored individually in the report, in terms of dynamics as well as recommendations for ECE programs currently working with immigrant families.

v

vi

Exploration of the Status of Services for Immigrant Families in Early Childhood Education Programs

With globalization and increased participation in a global economy, international migration reached unprecedented levels during the last two decades (Suarez-Orozco 2003). Families with young children are leaving their countries of origin, immigrating to countries with different cultures, languages, and economic infrastructures. They immigrate for a variety of reasons, ranging from enhanced economic and educational opportunities to freedom from war and oppression. Transitions into new countries and cultures can be both positive and negative. They may mean relief from dangerous or economically challenging situations in immigrants’ countries of origin but they may also mean struggles in the new host culture related to learning a new language, finding employment, living without the physical and immediate support of kin networks, and generally integrating into a new society.

Family researchers in the United States and abroad note that early childhood education (ECE) programs should be considered a crucial aspect of immigrant families’ integration into and inclusion within new societies. Given this, it is necessary to think in a systematic way about how early childhood centers in the United States and abroad through working with immigrant parents and families can develop programs that effectively support immigrant children’s development and families’ integration into new societies. Thus, there is a need to develop an accurate picture of early childhood education service delivery around the world as it relates to immigrant families.

For the purposes of this project, immigrant families are defined as families in which at least one parent is foreign born and has migrated internationally for economic, political, or family reunification reasons. These parents may be documented or undocumented in the new host country; however, for many, their youngest children who are involved in ECE were born

1

in the new country. For this project, which explores the early childhood education services for immigrant families, we will consider the experiences of all children of foreign-born parents, including children born within the host country as well as children born in the country of origin. The experiences of immigrant families with young children (birth to age 8) tend to vary based on parents’ nativity, rather than children’s nativity. First generation (foreignborn children of immigrants including 1.5 generation, or foreign-born children of immigrants who were younger than age 12 upon arrival), and second generation (native-born children of immigrants) will be referred to as “children of immigrants” (Board of Children and Families et al. 1995; Capps & Fortuny 2006) throughout this project. Despite our focus on international migrants, it is possible that implications of this work may map onto work with families who are marginalized and who migrate within a particular country or political context.

Broadly, early childhood education refers to any education that children receive from birth to age 5, which may be home-based; family, friend or neighbor care (FFN); or center-based.

However, for this project we refer to ECE as center-based care that is regulated by the state or country in which it is situated. Further, the programs included in the case studies are those that meet a certain level of quality in their host countries. For example, in the United States, this baseline level of quality was achieving accreditation from the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). The programs visited in Eastern Europe were designated by local ECE experts as high-quality programs.

The first part of this monograph includes a review of the literature on immigrant families and early childhood education, designed to outline current international migration patterns throughout the world as they pertain to young children and their families; provide insight into the contexts of immigrant children’s and families’ lives, including their experiences with ECE services; highlight characteristics of ECE that may be most important for immigrant children and families; and provide a theoretical framework to assist in our understanding of immigrant children’s and families’ experiences in ECE settings. In the latter part of the monograph, we present findings for a qualitative study of ECE programs in the United States and Eastern Europe. The results of this study provide the foundation for a conceptual framework for “fullservice” ECE programs, guiding the multilevel recommendations we propose for policy, practice, and future research. Overall, this report moves us toward identifying and understanding the gaps in current ECE services for immigrant families, recognizing the most effective ways of working with immigrant families, and imparting this knowledge to the ECE field.

Review of Literature Global Migration Patterns Immigrants comprise at least 15 percent of the population in more than 50 countries (Matthews & Ewen 2006). In 2006, 191 million people or 3 percent of the world population lived outside of the country in which they were born—this figure doubled since 1975 (United Nations Population Division [UNPD] 2006). The majority of these individuals were in Europe (64 million), Asia (53 million), and North America (44 million) (UNPD 2005). In 2005, “One in every three international migrants lived in Europe and one in every four international migrants lived in North America” (UNPD 2005, 1). Between 1990 and 2005, North America experienced the highest growth in international migrants, at a rate of 3.2 percent per year,

2

Table 1. International Migrants in Major World Regions, and in More and Less Developed Countries Country/ Region

Estimated No. of International Migrants at MidYear 2005

International Migrants as a Percentage of the Population (2005)

Growth Rate of Migrants (2000–05)

Percentage of International Migrants in the World

Africa

17,068,882

1.9 percent

0.7 percent

9 percent

Asia

53,291,281

1.4 percent

1.2 percent

28 percent

Europe

64,115,850

8.8 percent

1.9 percent

33 percent

Latin America/ Caribbean

6,630,849

1.2 percent

1.1 percent

3.5 percent

North America

44,492,816

13.5 percent

1.9 percent

23 percent

Oceania*

5,033,887

15.2 percent

-0.1 percent

2.6 percent

More developed

115,396,521

9.5 percent

1.9 percent

60.5 percent

Less developed

75,237,044

1.4 percent

0.2 percent

39.5 percent

Source: United Nations Population Division, 2006, World Migrant Stock Database. http://esa.un.org/migration/ index.asp?panel=1 * According to UNPD, Oceania is comprised of Australia, New Zealand, Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia.

while all other regions of the world experienced a drop in the proportion of international migrants (UNPD 2005). See Table 1.

Net migration patterns reveal that between 1995 and 2000 North America (1.4 million immigrants each year) and Europe (0.8 million immigrants each year) received the most immigrants (Department of Social and Economic Affairs 2002). The United States (20.1 percent), Russia (6.3 percent), and Germany (5.3 percent) have the greatest percentage of their total population being comprised of immigrants (UNPD 2005). See Table 2 for more details.   Historically, transnational migration patterns were dominated by people moving from less to more economically advanced areas.

These patterns remain, with 1 in 10 people living in developed countries being an immigrant, compared to 1 in 70 in less developed areas being an immigrant (Department of Social and Economic Affairs 2002). See Table 1.

More specifically there are two broad catego-

Table 2. The 10 Countries with the Most International Migrants as a Percentage of the Total Population, 2005 Country or Area

Migrants as a Percent of the Total Population

1. United States of America

 20.1

2. Russian Federation

6.3

3. Germany

5.3

4. Ukraine

3.6

5. France

3.4

6. Saudi Arabia

3.4

7. Canada

3.2

8. India

3.0

9. United Kingdom

2.8

10. Spain

2.5

Source: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2006, International migration report 2006: A global assessment. www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2006_ MigrationRep/part_one.pdf

3

ries of reasons that individuals choose to migrate: economic and non-economic. Economic reasons include finding better employment and wages in a new country, while non-economic reasons include leaving one’s country of origin due to war or persecution, or to reunify with family who already migrated to the new country (Martin & Widgren 2002). Despite slight changes in the composition of immigrants over time to include more skilled and highly educated individuals, immigrants and their children tend to be poorer and less educated than native-born individuals in destination countries and, in turn, face greater risks and financial struggles than native-born families (Adams & Kirova 2007).

Immigrant Children and their Families: Demographics North America. More than a million immigrants arrive in the United States each year, with 75 percent of these foreigners hailing from Asia and Latin America. One third of US population growth between 1990 and 2000 was attributed to immigration (Martin & Midgley 2006).

Foreign-born individuals or immigrants comprise over 10 percent of the population in the United States; however if native-born children of immigrants are included, this figure reaches about 20 percent (US Census 2000 as cited by Foner 2003). Since 1970 the number of children under age 18 with at least one immigrant parent has tripled, growing from 6 percent to over 20 percent in the United States (Capps 2006). In turn, 23 percent of children, or 17.1 million children (Passel and Taylor 2010) in the United States are children of immigrants, with 91 percent of children of immigrants who are birth to age 5 being US citizens (Passel & Cohn 2009).

Immigrant children are the fastest growing segment of children in the United States (US Census 2000 as cited in Matthews & Ewen 2006).

In Canada the number of foreign-born naturalized citizens far exceeds the number of individuals of foreign nationalities because of the structure of Canadian naturalization policies.

The majority of immigrants enter Canada to reunite with family. Compared with the United States and European countries, the proportions of foreign- and native-born individuals represented in upper secondary and post-secondary education do not indicate educational disadvantage among immigrants in Canada (OECD 2006a).

Europe. In many European countries immigrant children comprise a large percentage of all children. According to a recent UNICEF report (2009) immigrant children are 10 percent of all children in Italy, 16 percent of children in the United Kingdom, 17 percent of children in France, 22 percent of children in the Netherlands, 26 percent of children in Germany, and 39 percent of children in Switzerland. The majority (63–87 percent) of these children have origins in low- and middle-income countries (UNICEF 2009). For example, as a result of a labor shortage, southern and eastern European, Moroccan, and Turkish workers were recruited to work as guest workers in Western Europe during the 1960s and 1970s. Approximately two million Turks worked in Western Europe during those years. Today, as the largest immigrant group in Europe, nearly 4 million Turks live in various Western European countries, with the majority living in Germany (Crul 2007; Martin & Zurcher 2008). Additionally, through “mobility partnership agreements” there are numerous African immigrants, mostly from Morocco, arriving to work in southern Europe (Martin & Zurcher 2008). In the Dutch cities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam, immigrant children are the majority of school-age children, and 12 percent of children ages birth to 5 are immigrants. Youth Health Centers are utilized to target immigrant families with specific needs early on and connect these families with

4

ECE services. Dutch policy aims to enroll at least 50 percent of immigrant children in ECE, with the goal of social integration (OECD 2006b).

In Brussels, 40 percent of school-age children are immigrants, and in England one third of all children in school speak English as their second language (Crul 2007). According to OECD’s Starting Strong II report (2006b), 11 percent of children in kindergarten in Austria are immigrants with mothers whose native language is not German. The majority of these children hail from the the former Yugoslavia. It is noted that there is not a plan for addressing the needs of immigrant children in Austria. However, in Denmark, where immigrant children comprise 10 percent of the children in ECE, local governments are now required to offer language programs for children age 3 and older. There are especially comprehensive programs in Copenhagen. In France, services for immigrant children, who comprise 6 percent of young children, target geographic areas with high percentages of immigrant children. Specifically, immigrant children in areas or zones comprised of at least 20 percent immigrant children receive increased services including preschool beginning at age 2. In Sweden, 14 percent of children in ECE are immigrants. Swedish policy makes available three hours of child care per day for immigrant children beginning at the age of 3 (see OECD 2006b for a full report).

In this report we include the experiences of the Roma people, known also as either Romani or colloquially—and pejoratively—as gypsies, as their experiences are in many ways similar to those of contemporary immigrants. The Roma people can be traced to the year 1000 with their ancestral roots in Northern India (Fraser 1992; Kenrick 1998). Their nomadic tradition began during that era in history when Muslims invaded the Roma territory in India and the group began fleeing. Today, Roma people are estimated to number up to 12 million persons living predominantly throughout Europe (Liegeois & Gheorghe 1995). The most significant clusters of Roma reside in Eastern Europe, where it is estimated that there are more than 8 million Roma. In particular, the largest numbers of Roma people in Eastern Europe live in Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, and Hungary. Throughout the report, when we use the term immigrant, Roma families are included in this term.

Asia. In addition to emigration from Asia to North America, there is substantial intraregion migration in Asia, which is generally characterized by the temporary nature of these moves. Taiwan receives the majority of migrants, including individuals from Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam who come to work in construction or as domestic workers. By 2007 Taiwan’s number of foreign workers reached an all-time high (Martin & Zurcher, 2008). On the other hand, the Philippines has the highest number of emigrants, with eight million Filipinos living abroad in other Asian countries as well as the Middle East and North America, compared to the 83 million who remain in the Philippines (Martin & Zurcher 2008). Unique from other regions of the world, many Asian countries do not provide immigrants with documentation to remain indefinitely in the host country, as they do not want to be countries comprised of high proportions of immigrants. This results in individuals migrating for work and leaving their children in their country of origin (Parrenas 2005).

5

Australia. Like Canada, due to the structure of naturalization policies, in Australia the number of foreign-born naturalized citizens far exceeds the number of individuals of foreign nationalities. At 33 percent, immigrant children comprise a large percentage of all children in Australia (UNICEF 2009). The majority of immigrants in Australia originally entered for employment reasons. Again, similar to Canada, there are limited disparities in education, compared with the United States and European countries, in terms of the proportion of foreign- and native-born individuals represented in upper secondary and post-secondary education (OECD 2006a).

Middle East. In 2005 the Middle East was home to 19 million international migrants, an increase of 3 million since 2000. For the purposes of this report, based on the International Organization for Migration’s (OIM 2008) definition, the Middle East is comprised of the following areas/countries: Arab Mashrek (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Syria, Yemen), the Gulf Cooperation Council states (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates), and Israel (IOM 2008). Among Arab Mashrek countries Jordan experienced the highest rates of immigration with 2.2 million immigrants in 2005, the vast majority of whom are refugees, and Iraq experienced the lowest rates of immigration in this same time period (IOM 2008). However, the Occupied Palestinian Territories have the highest amount of immigrants at 45 percent of their population; this figure is 39 percent in Jordan. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states receive the third highest amount of immigrants, with only North America and Europe receiving higher numbers of immigrants.

Among the GCC states the majority of immigrants are temporary workers, and among these states, Qatar has the highest amount of international migrants as a percentage of the total population (IOM 2008). The amount of international migrants in Israel increased from 20 percent to 40 percent of the total population between 2000 and 2005. The majority of these immigrants were of Jewish descent, arriving from Ethiopia and the former Soviet Union. In addition to immigrants of Jewish descent, many temporary workers from Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia began coming to Israel in 2000 to support the country’s strong economy (IOM 2008).

Africa. Within the continent of Africa there has been substantial migration in the last 15 years in response to multiple civil wars as well as the movement of economic opportunities.

The most notable recent civil war was in Rwanda, where 2 million individuals fled the country for Zaire. In other parts of Africa, migration is related to economic reasons including families from Mali and Burkina Faso migrating to Cote d’Ivoire to work on cocoa and coffee plantations (Martin & Widgren 2002). Specifically, in these areas of Africa, child migrants from less affluent countries like Mali and Burkina Faso are put to work in “near-slave-like conditions” (Martin & Widgren 2002, 33). The International Labor Organization estimates that tens of thousands of children work in these types of conditions in Cote d’Ivoire alone. In the latter part of the 1990s, 3 million foreigners immigrated to South Africa to work in the mines, but as unemployment rose, natives blamed immigrants, leading to hostile conditions for foreign workers and their families (Martin & Widgren 2002). Most migrants in Africa are men looking for economic opportunities; however, it is becoming more common for women and children to also migrate, either to accompany their husbands or connect with extended family members (Meekers & Calves 1997, Crush 2006, both cited by Garcia, Pence, & Evans 2008). More recently there was increased migration among Africa’s most educated, who left for better economic opportunities in Europe, the Middle East, and North America (Garcia, Pence, & Evans 2008).

6

Contexts of Immigrant Children’s Lives It is necessary to have an understanding of the unique combination of ecological challenges experienced by immigrant families because as these risks accumulate, children’s development and academic outcomes are impacted negatively (EPPE 2004, as cited by OECD 2006b).

However, the cultural resources that immigrant families possess can provide a buffer against multiple risks. In addition, not all immigrant families embody these characteristics, which contributes to the variation in need among these families. Focusing on and developing immigrants’ resources, while at the same time addressing challenges like language, poverty and low parental education through ECE, may help mitigate negative developmental and academic outcomes among immigrant children. Specifically, research indicates that high-quality ECE reduces the negative impact of multiple risk factors, including improving pre-reading, literacy and numeracy skills, as well as socioemotional development (EPPE 2004, as cited by OECD 2006b).

Resources. Living in a two-parent household may buffer some of the risks experienced by immigrant children. Research indicates that children living in two-parent households tend to have greater academic success and higher emotional well-being than their peers living in single-parent homes. Additionally, children raised in two-parent households are usually more emotionally close to both parents, experience fewer stressful situations and a higher standard of living, as well as receive more effective parenting and co-parenting (Amato 2005). In the United States, compared to 80 percent of white, native-born children and 39 percent of black, native-born children, 82 percent of all children in immigrant families live with two parents (Hernandez 2009). In many European nations, except the Netherlands, children of immigrants are as likely, or more likely, to live in a two-parent family than their native-born counterparts (UNICEF 2009).

Immigrant parents with a strong work ethic model for their children the importance of hard work and dedication, which may contribute to children’s motivation to work hard in school.

Additionally, consistently seeking and harnessing employment opportunities may help lessen these families’ experiences with poverty. In 95 percent of US immigrant families fathers worked in the past year, compared to 95 percent among native-born parents. However, this figure varied among immigrant groups; Hmong (73 percent) and Iraqis (70 percent) exhibited the lowest engagement with work. In 62 percent of immigrant families the mother was also working last year, compared to 75 percent of mothers working in native-born families.

Additionally, in 19 percent of immigrant households, another adult worked; in native-born families this figure was 13 percent (Hernandez 2009).

Research indicates that being balanced bilingual, or equally proficient in two languages, is associated with positive, cognitive developmental outcomes, including “attention control and linguistic awareness” (Leseman 2007, 5). Immigrant children learn how to negotiate multiple cultural contexts—that of the host country as well as their culture of origin. These skills are especially important in a globalized economy. Among children in immigrant families in the United States, 75 percent are English fluent, and nearly 50 percent of all children of immigrants speak another language and speak English very well (Hernandez, Denton, & Macartney 2007).

The immigrant paradox refers to the phenomenon whereby immgrants who recently arrived in a new host country have better health outcomes than native-born individuals (AcevedoGarcia & Bates 2008). Generally, this paradox is discussed in relation to physical health outcomes; however, more recently this paradox has been witnessed in relation to social and

7

cognitive outcomes in children. Newly arrived children tend to perform better in certain social and cognitive areas than their later generation and native counterparts (Garcia-Coll & Marks, forthcoming). If the positive health, cognitive, and social outcomes are maintained, they can buffer immigrant children and families from some of the risks they may face.

In addition to arriving in the new host country somewhat healthier than their native-born counterparts, immigrants also come to the new country with strong optimism for a better life.

Research indicates that across racial-ethnic groups, immigrants share a sense of positive hope for their children to achieve upward mobility in the new culture (Kao & Tienda 1995). This optimism is a strength of immigrant families that can be capitalized on as immigrants face challenges in the new host culture.

Social capital, in a most general sense, refers to the benefits and resources that individuals, families, and groups receive from social relationships. Specifically, Coleman (1988) theorized about social capital or the relations among individuals as being beneficial to individuals, families, and ultimately societies. According to research based on Coleman’s (1988) conceptualization of this construct, social capital is particularly important for families who have fewer resources (Runyan et al. 1998) as well as children who are considered at risk (Furstenburg Jr., & Hughes 1995; Teachman, Paasch, & Carver 1996). For new immigrants who may experience greater isolation from majority culture families, these relationships with others from their culture of origin may provide important resources and buffer the stress of adjusting to a new culture (Kao 2004).

Challenges. Lack of documentation1 increases families’ risk of poverty and inability to receive government benefits to address their financial needs. Often undocumented parents have children who are citizens and who are in turn eligible for government benefits. Parents without documentation are often reluctant to have their children utilize these benefits because they fear being deported. Consequently, children of undocumented parents are less likely to be enrolled in government programs2 that might provide high-quality early childhood care (Yoshikawa 2011).

In the majority (55 percent) of immigrant families in the United States, children (birth to age 17) have at least one parent who is a citizen and one who is not, or live in a “mixedcitizenship-status” family (Hernandez 2009). Close to two-thirds (63 percent) of children with undocumented parents are American citizens (see Passel 2006; Passel & Cohn 2009; Yoshikawa 2011). Among young children (under age 6) of immigrants, 26 percent have one parent who is undocumented (Matthews & Ewen 2006). In Europe, among immigrant children from low- to middle-income countries (LMICs), 25 percent live in households with one parent who is a citizen of the new host country (UNICEF 2009).

The focus of the current project on all immigrants, documented and undocumented, was conceived well before the current debate on undocumented immigration in Arizona. The findings from this study speak to the experiences of ECE programs working with both documented and undocumented immigrants.

1

Children and parents’ documentation statuses are not considered when determining eligibility for Head Start and Early Head Start (Matthews 2010).

2

8

Slovakia, a country with many Roma families who could be considered broadly representative of the group in Eastern Europe, provides a statistical glimpse into the life circumstances of Roma people (Roma Education Fund 2007). However, due to the nomadic existence of Roma and the fact that many are “undocumented,” it is difficult to attain accurate demographic information.

Limited host language proficiency is another challenge. Research on immigrant families in Germany indicates that immigrant children have less knowledge of German language than their counterparts with native-born parents (Clauss & Nauck 2008, as cited by UNICEF 2008).

Simultaneous acquisition and sequential acquisition are two types of second language acquisition that young children from immigrant families experience. Simultaneous acquisition of language occurs when a child learns two languages from birth—neither language is dominant; while sequential acquisition is when a child learns his or her native language first, and then learns a second language after the first language is somewhat solidified (Tabors 2008).

Sequential acquisition occurs among most immigrant families in which both parents have limited proficiency in the dominant culture’s language. Often in these families, the second language is not learned until the child begins formal schooling.

In the United States, Crosnoe (2007) and Liang, Fuller and Singer (2000) found that even after controlling for family socioeconomic status, the odds of using center-based child care are lower for families who speak Spanish at home than their English-speaking counterparts.

Approximately 40 percent of immigrant children in the United States live in families where only English is spoken; 16 percent live in households where one parent is fluent in English and the other is an English language learner (ELL); and 44 percent of immigrant children live with two parents who are ELLs (Hernandez 2009). Living with two ELL parents is most common among Mexican (64 percent) and Somali (63 percent) immigrant children (Hernandez 2009). One quarter of all children in the United States have at least one parent who speaks a language other than English at home; this figure is 87 percent for Latino children with immigrant parents.

Poverty decreases the accessibility of high-quality early childhood education, in terms of affordability, particularly among undocumented families who do not have access to government-subsidized child care (Yoshikawa 2011). Immigrant families tend to experience greater levels of poverty, higher rates of unemployment and underemployment, and lower wages (Harwood et al. 2002). Approximately 20 percent of children in immigrant families in the United States live in official poverty, compared to 15 percent of children in native-born families.

Additionally, 47 percent of all children in immigrant families live below 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold (Hernandez 2009). Among ELL parents this figure is highest at 48 percent of children in black African immigrant families living in official poverty in the United States (Hernandez 2009). Immigrant children in Germany are two times more likely to live in poverty than children of native-born German parents (Clauss & Nauck 2008, as cited by UNICEF 2008).

Many Roma people today are characterized by the challenges associated with living in extreme poverty. In fact, they may be among the most impoverished groups in all of Europe.

As Rorke and Wilkens (2006, 7) recently pointed out, “The discrimination, squalor, ill health, illiteracy, and poverty so many Roma are living with today are the result of a legacy that dates back centuries.” Although significant challenges exist in nearly every sphere of life, the most salient challenges faced by Roma are in the areas of education, housing, healthcare, and employment. In addition, Roma also experience prejudice in many regions and specific communities. They frequently are marginalized and are often “left behind” with few opportunities for personal advancement or community empowerment.

9

Unemployment among immigrants is particularly high in Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland (OECD 2006a). Among specific immigrant groups in Europe, Turkish families in Germany experience the highest rates of unemployment (Martin & Zurcher 2008) and, in turn, poverty. In the United States, where the rates of unemployment among immigrants and native-born individuals are similar, underemployment is a greater issue. Despite exhibiting strong work ethic and the desire to be employed (Hernandez 2009), 23 percent of immigrant fathers are underemployed without full-time yearround employment. Among immigrant groups in the United States, Latinos have the greatest rate of incomes below the federal poverty level (FPL) (Ruiz de Velasco, Fix, & Clewell 2000).

In Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, between 33 and 40 percent of immigrant mothers who come from low- to middle-income countries of origin are employed outside the home; however, in Australia and Switzerland this figure is greater than 50 percent (UNICEF 2009).

Parental education has been associated with the use of high-quality, center-based care; with lower educated parents enrolling their children in center-based care less often than more highly educated parents. Studies in the United States among immigrant parents indicate an association between limited education and low English skills, and poor school outcomes for children (Capps et al. 2004). Specifically, research indicates that informal education at home, including literacy development through shared conversations, reading, and writing among family members, is far more limited within families where parents have less education. This type of informal education is linked to cognitive and linguistic developmental outcomes and in turn to later school achievement (Leseman 2009).

A high percentage of immigrants in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United States have lower levels of education than native-born individuals. Specifically, many immigrants in these countries do not have upper secondary education; these countries exhibit the greatest disparities in education between native- and foreign-born individuals (OECD 2006a). Similar disparity in the United States is reflected in the fact that 35 percent of ELL immigrant families in the United States have 0 to 8 years of schooling; this figure is 19 percent for all immigrant families (ELL and non-ELL). According to Hernandez (2009), 68 percent of all fathers of immigrant children in the United States are high school graduates. Among families from Mexico in which both parents are ELL, this figure drops to 31 percent, trailed by immigrant families with two ELL parents from Portugal (35 percent of fathers are high school graduates).

Traditionally, most Roma people have little formal education, which has been a hindrance for generations. It has been estimated that in some countries less than 10 percent of Roma have completed secondary education, with many Roma leaving school during the primary grades and very few going on to higher education. Roma often live in very segregated communities, in inadequate housing, and their expected life course is well below the country’s general population (Tanner 2004, 2005).

Educational Trajectories for Children of Immigrants Research from Europe indicates that children who speak a different language at home than the language of instruction at school tend to be at least one year behind peers who speak the same language in both settings (Christianson & Stanat 2007). Early childhood education programs for immigrant families that focus on language development and literacy skills can address these differences beginning early and continuing throughout children’s academic careers (Leseman 2009).

10

Disparities in educational trajectories and their relationship with language programs are highlighted in research conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which examined differences in immigrant and nonimmigrant students’ performance during adolescence across multiple countries. These differences were fewer in countries where established, supportive language programs existed (OECD 2006a). Specifically, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) aims to assess “how far students who are nearing the end of compulsory education have acquired some of the knowledge and skills essential for full participation in society” (OECD 2010). Consequently, in 17 countries, PISA provides academic data on children, including immigrant children, who are age 15. Given the impact of ECE on later academic outcomes, it is important to note the mixed results of the PISA. Across all 17 countries, immigrant children indicated having the same or higher levels of motivation to learn and positive attitudes toward school than their peers with native parents. Additionally, immigrant parents’ levels of motivation regarding education tended to be similar or higher than native-born parents’ values regarding education (Ng et al. 2009).

Despite these positive values on learning and education, as illustrated by PISA, across the majority of countries in this study, immigrant children performed lower in math, reading, and science than their peers whose parents were native born (OECD 2006a). However, the size of the gap between immigrant and native students varied in different host countries, with gaps being most narrow in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Macao-China, and wider in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland (OECD 2006a). These findings were partially explained by educational and socioeconomic, familial characteristics, and the child’s language proficiency; however, countries where there were well-established language programs tended to exhibit the narrowest gap between native and immigrant children. In countries like the United States, where the gap in mathematics between native and nonnative students was most closely related to language spoken at home, improving language programs for families may be particularly important to consider (OECD 2006a). The largest achievement gap between immigrant and native adolescents was in Germany. Putting this finding into context with data regarding young children, Clauss and Nauck (2008) found that immigrant children in Germany, compared with their age-mate peers with native-born parents, start school later and are less likely to be enrolled in preschool; obtain lower grades in primary and secondary school; and are four times more likely to repeat grades one, two, or three; and are two times as likely to experience social problems like bullying and teasing with their peers. Collectively, these findings indicate the disadvantage that follows immigrant

11

children in Germany throughout their educational career. Given these findings as well as the established link between quality early childhood education, language development, and later academic outcomes, this report speaks to the importance of ECE for immigrant families.

Rates of ECE Utilization by Immigrant Families According to Child Trends Databank (2005), 61 percent of all US children under age 6 were in some type of nonparental care. Among immigrant children under age 3, 40 percent (compared to 60 percent among children with native-born parents) were in nonparental care, with only 5 percent of all immigrant children under age 3 in center-based care (compared to 15 percent among native-born children) (Matthews & Ewen 2006). However, among immigrant children under age 3 with parents who both work outside the home, 67 percent (compared to 74 percent of native-born parents) were in nonparental care (Matthews & Ewen 2006). See Figure 1.

At ages 3 and 4, children in immigrant families were less likely to be enrolled in preschool than their native-white counterparts (Hernandez, Denton, & Macartney 2007). Additionally, immigrant children were only 16 percent of all children attending preschool, but they comprised 22 percent of children this age (Matthews & Ewen 2006). All immigrant children ages 3 to 5 were less likely than native-born children to be in nonparental care (57 percent versus 71 percent of children with native-born parents). Among immigrant children ages 3 to 5 with employed parents, 73 percent were in child care (compared to 82 percent of children of US-born parents), and of those in child care, they were more likely to be in center-based care than in any other type of care (Matthews & Ewen 2006). These findings can be extended to early childhood education based on research utilizing the nationally representative Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS-K) dataset. Magnuson, Lahaie, and Waldfogel (2006) found that among immigrant children in the ECLS-K, in the year prior to kindergarten, 46 percent attended preschool (63 percent among children of native-born parents), 12 percent attended Head Start (10 percent of children with native-born parents), and 29 percent were in the care of parents (16 percent of children with native-born parents). See Figure 2 for more details. In Belgium,

Figure 1. Nonparental Care among US Native and Immigrant Children 90% 80% 70%

Native children (< age 3)

60%

Immigrant children (< age 3) Native children (age 3–5) Immigrant children (age 3–5)

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

All children

Source: Matthews & Ewen 2006.

12

Children with two employed parents

45 percent of children Figure 2. ECE among US Native and Immigrant had immigrant parents, Children One Year Prior to Kindergarten with the majority hailing from Morocco, and in 70% government-funded child 60% care centers in Belgium, 50% Native children only 14 percent of chil40% Immigrant dren were racial ethnic 30% children 20% minorities (Vandenbroeck 10% et al. 2008, as cited by 0% UNICEF 2008). In Germany, Preschool Head Start Parental 72 percent of children of care immigrants were enrolled in ECE, compared to Source: Magnuson, Lahaie, & Waldfogel 2006.

84 percent of children with native-born parents (Clauss & Nauck 2008, as cited by UNICEF 2008). A similar trend was seen in the Netherlands with a lower percentage of children of immigrants in ECE than children with native-born parents (deValk et al. 2009).

ECE: Focusing on Quality at Multiple Levels Quality in ECE is generally considered to be the care and education practices that promote children’s developmental well-being (NICHD 2006). Recently, the definition of quality, particularly in relation to early childhood care, was broadened to consider the functions of child care in a society, including economic, educational, and social functions (see the work of Michel Vandenbroeck), with quality indicated by “finding the right balance” among these three functions (Hughes et al. 2008, 14). The economic function of child care is to provide care for children such that parents can be employed. The educational function of child care is to provide children with developmental opportunities necessary for cognitive and socioemotional development, important for later educational success. Finally, and generally least thought of and least researched, the social function of child care programs refers to the utilization of child care to integrate diverse, marginalized groups. We extend Vandenbroeck’s (2006) reconceptualization of quality in early childhood care to include early childhood education. This definition, which includes the social function of ECE, is particularly relevant for programs that serve immigrant families, as it considers early childhood environments as vehicles for integrating immigrant children and families into host societies.

Economic Function of ECE. From a historical perspective, countries moving toward more egalitarian representation of women in the workforce tend to also move toward nationalization or federal legislation increasing access to child care such that mothers are able to work outside the home (Vandenbroeck 2006). The availability of child care during work hours enables both mothers and fathers to be employed outside the home. These employment options contribute to the financial stability of families’ economies, as well as the economy outside the home, in terms of providing employment opportunities in the ECE field (Vandenbroeck 2006).

13

However, in countries like Belgium, investment in child care was historically focused on family child care rather than center-based care; this is because family care usually consists of undereducated individuals as care providers and in turn may be a less expensive option for parents.

Family care can be of lower quality than center-based, regulated child care (Vandenbroeck 2006). Thus, considerations regarding the economic functions of child care usually far outweigh that of the educational and social functions (Vandenbroeck 2006).

Educational Function of ECE. Much of the quality research on the educational function of ECE is related to developmentally appropriate practices or those evidence-based teaching and learning practices that support and scaffold children’s development (Copple & Bredekamp 2009). Quality ECE practices related to the educational function of ECE can be thought of as twofold, including structural and process-oriented practices (NICHD 2006).

Structural characteristics are those environmental aspects of programs usually regulated, including group size, child-care provider ratio, and education and training of the teacher or care provider (NICHD 2006). Aspects of quality are also witnessed through the day-to-day processes that occur in ECE settings, including how care providers and teachers interact with children as well as the types of activities in which children are engaged (NICHD 2006).

According to Copple and Bredekamp (2009), there are three areas of knowledge at the core of high quality and developmentally appropriate practices in ECE: (1) knowledge of child development and learning; (2) knowledge of each individual child in terms of their needs, likes, dislikes, strengths, and challenges; and (3) knowledge of the cultural and social contexts of children’s lives outside of the ECE program. To provide high-quality ECE, all practitioners who work in programs with young children need to possess these areas of knowledge. For practitioners who work with immigrant families, consistently developing the third area of knowledge—concerning the contexts of immigrant children’s lives—is imperative for delivering high-quality, effective ECE services to immigrant families.

Another important area related to quality, particularly in relation to immigrant families, is the cultural competence of early childhood educators. It is important that programs serving immigrant families not only understand the diverse and changing needs of the population being served but also reflect this diversity at every level of program administration. This includes having teachers and program directors who are from racial-ethnic backgrounds and speak the languages of the families being served; having preservice and in-service trainings available to staff for understanding how to work with diverse children and families; developing curriculum that is reflective of all students’ needs, values, and beliefs; and incorporating administrative changes to include cultural competence as an aspect of all staff members’ performance evaluations.

A range of quality levels related to educational function are exhibited by state-regulated ECE programs in the United States, with most programs being considered of fair or medium quality (Vandell & Pierce 2003). Despite a lack of federal consensus regarding what aspects of quality and functions of ECE should be endorsed and enforced, many programs voluntarily work toward and achieve accreditation through the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), a well-known indicator of program quality in the United States.

Additionally, 27 states are in some phase of developing quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS) (McDonald 2009). QRIS are voluntary, multi-tiered, incentive-based systems that encourage ECE programs to improve the quality by moving through the state regulation process as well as working toward and achieving NAEYC Accreditation. Given these initiatives

14

across the country, numerous states with QRIS are encouraging programs to achieve NAEYC Accreditation in addition to meeting basic state regulations (see www.naeyc.org/accreditation for more information on NAEYC’s promotion of quality ECE environments through accreditation; see also McDonald 2009).

Engaging in quality ECE is associated with positive cognitive (reading, math, and language skills) and socioemotional developmental outcomes for children. These positive outcomes are experienced by children in multiple countries. Based on findings from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD), which began in 1991 in the United States, children who were in higher-quality, nonmaternal child care during their first 4 to 5 years of life had greater cognitive and social skills than their age-mate peers who were in lower-quality nonmaternal care (NICHD 2006). Higher-quality care predicted school readiness, based on standardized reading and math scores at age 4½ (NICHD 2006). In Sweden a 1990’s study of 128 children in two cities examined the impact of early childhood education on later academic achievement. Researchers found that children who attended high-quality ECE were more likely to have higher academic achievement at age 13 than peers who did not attend high-quality ECE (UNICEF 2008). A study of 20,000 young children in France yielded results indicating that children who attended preschool experienced positive benefits that increased throughout the elementary school years (UNICEF 2008). Children in New Zealand who were enrolled in ECE outperformed their age-mate peers at age 12 on reading and math assessments (Competent Children Project 2004, as cited by UNICEF 2008). Research from the United Kingdom indicates that children who experienced ECE achieved greater strides in cognitive and social development—particularly children from disadvantaged backgrounds (Effective Provision of Pre-school Education 2004, as cited by UNICEF 2008).

In another US study utilizing data from the 1998 kindergarten cohort of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS-K), Magnuson and colleagues (2006) found that among immigrant children, preschool attendance was associated with greater reading and math skills in kindergarten.

Additionally, results from a study of universal prekindergarten (pre-K) in Oklahoma indicated better cognitive developmental outcomes for Latino children who attended pre-K than their ethnic-racial counterparts who did not attend preschool (Gormley 2008). Finally, results from NICHD’s SECCYD indicate that children’s socioemotional development was related to their participation in high-quality ECE. Specifically, children who were in high-quality care exhibited secure attachment, cooperation and compliance, while being less aggressive and disobedient (NICHD 2006). Despite these positive associations between high-quality ECE and cognitive as well as socioemotional development, NICHD (2006) found that the characteristics of the child’s family, including parental education and ethnic background, emerged as most predictive of child outcomes. Thus, according to these findings, it may be that regardless of the quality of the program, ethnicity and parental education trump any aspects of the ECE program. This provides a rationale for using ECE programs to increase parental education.

Multiple studies indicate the importance of high-quality ECE for language development.

According to Clauss and Nauck (as cited in UNICEF 2008), for immigrant children in Germany, attending preschool helped minimize the gap between them and children with native-born German parents, specifically in terms of language abilities and overall school success.

However, they also indicated that children who attended preschool with children of the same linguistic background were less skilled in the German language. Results from NICHD’s SECCYD indicate that the language utilized by the care provider or teacher was significantly

15

associated with language development, which is also supported by Magnuson, Lahaie, and Waldfogelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (2006) findings that preschool attendance was associated with a higher likelihood of passing an English-language proficiency screening during kindergarten among immigrant children. Gormley (2008) found in his study of Oklahoma universal pre-K that Latino children in high-quality pre-K showed greater increases in language development than Latino children in other forms of care.

Overall, research indicates that preschool may be even more beneficial for immigrant children (Gormley 2008) whose parents do not speak English at home (Magnuson, Lahaie, & Waldfogel 2006). These results are particularly important since less than half (40.6 percent) of immigrant children have two parents who are English fluent, approximately 15 percent of immigrant children have one parent who has at least one English fluent parent, and 43.6 percent of children live with parents who are not English fluent (Hernandez 2009).

Together these findings indicate that it is important for immigrant children to be in high-quality ECE to be exposed to the language skills of other providers, improving not only their language development but also school readiness and their ability to integrate into US society (Portes & Rumbaut 2001; Hernandez 2004).

â&#x20AC;&#x192; Social Function of ECE. The social function of child care is conceptualized at both the micro (interactions among children, parents, and teachers) and macro (composition and stability of diverse demographic groups) levels (Fukkink 2008). Specifically, ECE environments are considered a place where children can learn how to interact in a multicultural society through their experiences in culturally competent ECE programs.

In addition, child care providers can be integral in helping immigrant families integrate into the host culture through relationships that develop between parents and child care providers through both informal and formal opportunities for meetings and discussions (Fukkink 2008). However, research in the Netherlands indicates that the current contact with child care providers is not always perceived as satisfactory for immigrant parents (Fukkink & Van Ijzendorn 2004b, as cited by Fukkink 2008). â&#x20AC;&#x192; At the macro level, segregation of various cultural groups in relation to ECE is perpetuated through social policy as well as geographic destination and settlement patterns (Fukkink 2008). For example, in the Netherlands, certain preschools are available for children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, which often coincides with race and ethnicity, while children with working parents tend to attend different ECE programs. In the United States, Latino children tend to live in neighborhoods with families who have lower average median incomes and levels of education than their native-born, Anglo counterparts.

Additionally, contact between Anglos and Latinos is particularly low among neighborhoods with children and families, as compared to neighborhoods with childless adults. In other words, Latino immigrant children are fairly isolated in terms of race ethnicity, and they tend to have the greatest rates of exposure to other children and families with less-than-perfect English (Alba et al., in press). Capps (October 2008) and Yoshikawa (2011) note that Latino immigrant children and families in new destination rural and urban areas tend to be more

16

linguistically isolated, experience higher poverty rates, and are less likely to be educated.

Additionally, Alba and colleagues (in press) found that even as Latino incomes increase, their access to resources, including education and social services, does not increase at equivalent rates as Anglo families with similar income increases.

Cultural, Familial, and Ecological Factors Related to ECE Use Cultural characteristics that influence a preference for care by a family member are often cited as reasons that immigrant families utilize early childhood education at lower rates than their native counterparts. However, recent research focused on the United States indicates that these enrollment gaps may be most closely related to structural reasons (affordability, accessibility) rather than cultural factors (Hernandez, Denton, & Macartney 2007). In addition, recent work on social exclusion that moves beyond solely considering socioeconomics, and considers how immigrant families lack access to a variety of institutions and services, sheds light on the structural barriers that immigrant families face. One example of the kinds of barriers immigrant parents of young children may face is accessing public child care subsidies, which in the United States require proof of employment. Undocumented immigrants often feel as if they are unable to provide proof of formal employment due to the informal nature of their jobs (Yoshikawa 2011).

Research indicates that certain familial characteristics (maternal employment, marital status, income, language, and parental education) as well as neighborhood characteristics (National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics 2007) are associated with the likelihood of children’s participation in early childhood education (National Institute for Early Education Research, as cited by Matthews & Ewen 2006). Immigrant families in which parents are married are less likely to include an employed mother, decreasing the likelihood of ECE utilization. Among immigrant families in the United States, the likelihood of being married is greater than among native-born parents. Additionally, mothers in immigrant families tend to engage in work outside the home at lower rates than among native-born families (Hernandez 2009), leading to higher rates of poverty and an inability to afford ECE (Matthews & Ewen 2006). In other words, in immigrant families in which mothers do not work, ECE is not needed for care purposes and is not affordable enough for enrichment purposes. Parents’ language abilities influence their selection of ECE for their children; parents may not enroll their children if the ECE program has no bilingual teachers. Additionally, family structure in terms of the number of adults in the household predicts immigrant parents’ selection of ECE (Barata, Yuan, & Yoshikawa 2010). Recent work in the United States indicates that structural barriers related to families’ socioeconomic status account for the majority of the gap in terms of preschool enrollment among immigrants. Also, the National Task Force on Early Childhood Education of Hispanics (n.d.) has found in various Latino neighborhoods in California and Chicago a shortage of available ECE programs.

In 1999 the OECD Education Committee convened 12 countries (Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States) to review their early childhood education policies. Eight more countries (Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Korea, and Mexico) joined the review in 2001. Ultimately, 10 areas of policy were highlighted for consider-

17

ation among countries. Those most closely related to the needs of immigrant families (see OECD 2006b) include • attending to the social context of early childhood development; • reducing child poverty and exclusion through upstream fiscal, social, and labor policies and increasing resources within universal programs for children with diverse learning rights; • encouraging family and community involvement in early childhood services; and • improving professional education of ECE staff.

According to Eurydice Network (2009, 12), “All European countries have introduced accredited and subsidized early childhood education and care services.” However, among some of these countries (the Czech Republic, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, the United Kingdom, and Liechtenstein) there is limited publicly funded care for children under age 3. Additionally, in Belgium, poor ethnic-minority families tend to have less access to child care centers for a variety of reasons that illustrate aspects of social exclusion.

First, according to Vandenbroeck and colleagues (2008), child care providers usually gave preference to parents who were employed over parents in employment training programs— this selectivity tended to favor families with higher earnings and, in general, nonimmigrant, non–racial-ethnic families. Also, very few child care centers prioritized meeting the needs of families in “crisis” situations. “Most providers did not include income, family composition, and nationality into their access priorities” (Vandenbroeck et al. 2008, 8); rather, centers prioritized enrollment of children who had previously enrolled siblings and then used the registration list to determine admittance—with children whose parents subscribed to the wait list earliest (about 12 months prior) gaining admittance. Additionally, Vandenbroeck and colleagues (2008) found a link between early subscriptions to the waiting lists by parents with higher education, two-parent families, and non-ethnic-minority families and multiple early subscriptions by parents fluent in the dominant language.

Characteristics of ECE Programs Working with Immigrant Families Garcia and Jensen (2009, 7), in studying early educational opportunities for Latino children, point out, “Early edu­cational programs for Hispanic children ought to be explicit and strategic concerning the integration of language and culture. This means instruction, curricular content, and schooling practices are developed and evaluated to ac­count for their linguistic and sociocultural circumstances so as to leverage home resources and parental support, and to optimize student learning” (Shannon 1995; Reese et al. 2000; Goldenberg et al. 2001; Scheffner, Hammer, & Mi­diccio 2004; Genesee et al. 2006; Goldenberg, Rueda, & August 2006; National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics 2007).

There is limited research on the ECE experiences of immigrant families and how ECE programs work with immigrants. However, one of the most recent and comprehensive international studies of immigrant parents’ experiences with ECE is the “Children Crossing Borders”

18

project, which was conducted in five countries (England, France, Germany, Italy, and the United States) with funding from the Bernard van Leer foundation (Tobin 2009). This study focused specifically on parents’ and teachers’ ideas regarding ECE. Using a unique methodology in which short videos of ECE classrooms in each country were created and then used as discussion prompts for focus groups and interviews with parents, teachers, and staff, Tobin and colleagues (2009) found 1. Immigrant parents and ECE teachers differ in their ideas regarding language development, and on the amount of play versus “academic” activities emphasized in the classroom.

2. Parents are very interested and invested in their children’s ECE experiences and really welcome and look for opportunities to discuss their children’s progress with their teachers.

3. Teachers receive little guidance and preparation for working with immigrant children and families.

This study sheds light on some of the important issues concerning immigrant families and ECE that need to be explored.

In the majority of developed countries, ECE efforts strive to improve developmental and educational outcomes of children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds by focusing on developing necessary cognitive skills that are linked to later cognitive abilities, as well as focusing on socioemotional development. In geographic areas with increasing numbers of immigrant families, these efforts are even further targeted to meet the unique developmental needs of immigrant children and families. Specifically, in addition to cognitive and socioemotional competence, these programs focus heavily on language development so that immigrant children will successfully transition into elementary school (Leseman 2007).

In addition to Tobin and colleagues (2009) work, Leseman (2007) outlines multiple types of early childhood education programs for immigrant families, including child-focused and center-based; child-focused and home-based; parent/family-focused with home support; and family-focused, center-based, with home support. However, limited research exists on the success of these programs, particularly in a variety of cultural and political settings.

Child-focused, center-based programs are what most preschools and kindergartens would be considered, where children are in a structured environment outside their home, being taught by professionals educated in early childhood education. Child-focused, home-based ECE programs are those in which children are cared for within someone’s home by paraprofessionals and/or untrained child care workers. Family-focused programs with home support are arrangements that have components to support entire families in a variety of ways, within the center as well as within the families’ homes. The final arrangement consists of family-focused, center-based care coupled with home components. The most successful types of ECE not only support children in their learning but also focus on teaching parents so they can reinforce their children’s learning in their homes. Numerous research studies indicate child-focused, center-based care that also includes a parent component yields the most promising developmental outcomes such that the later benefits to children, families, and society far outweigh the initial financial costs needed to establish these high-quality ECE programs. Examples of these programs include the Early Head Start Project, the Perry Preschool Project in Michigan, the Yale Child Welfare Project in Connecticut, the Abecedarian Project in North Carolina, the Chicago Parent-Child Centers in Illinois, and the Turkish Early Enrichment Program in Turkey (Yoshikawa 1994; Leseman 2007).

19

Ecocultural Theory and Full-Service ECE Programs for Immigrant Families One way to understanding immigrant parents’ experiences with ECE programs is to focus on families’ daily routines and how cultural and ecological factors shape families’ experiences. Weisner (1997) asserts that both cultural factors, including shared beliefs and values, as well as ecological factors such as institutional and organizational resources, shape families’ experiences. These experiences are often reflected in families’ daily routines. Therefore, research focused on immigrant families and ECE programs should consider multiple aspects and levels of these families’ lives, including • the ecocultural context, which includes institutions, family structures, demographic and epidemiologic patterns that shape individuals’ access to resources and, in turn, development; • beliefs, values, and ideas held by parents related to child rearing; and • the everyday interactions or daily routines shaping families’ experiences (Weisner 1997).

Consequently, the present study focuses on the importance of ECE programs understanding not only the cultural backgrounds of immigrant children and families they work with but also the contextual or ecological factors that impact these families’ experiences.

Much like Dryfoos’s (1994) vision of full-service schools, particularly for populations at-risk, ECE programs may act as hubs for child and family life, especially among immigrant communities (Small 2009). The notion of a full-service program encompasses using schools as places where children, families, and communities can receive not only educational services but also other services related to health, employment, and other social service needs (Dryfoos 1994; Richardson 2009). The majority of discussions regarding full-service schools have focused on K–12 initiatives. However, given the unique characteristics of immigrant families as well as the importance of providing children with services earlier than age 5 when kindergarten begins, it seems that early childhood education as a multilayered system shaping both cultural and ecological factors is perfectly poised to provide the full-service support that may be most beneficial to immigrant families.

The ECE system includes multiple levels that are usually thought of as concentric, beginning with the micro and moving out toward the macro level including classroom level, center and organization level, community level, and policy level. Each layer is reflected in the NAEYC Accreditation Standards, which promote quality for children’s daily interactions in ECE programs and are focused on children and families, ECE programs in terms of teaching staff and administration, and the wider community partnerships that programs develop. Specifically, these standards include relationships, curriculum, teaching, assessment of child progress, health, teacher qualifications, families, community relationships, physical environment, and leadership and management (NAEYC 2008). All of these aspects of quality point not only to the importance of the programs themselves but also to the role of families as well as communities and policy. In addition, early childhood education programs, aside from hospitals, are often one of the first major institutions that immigrant families encounter. Thus, it seems that ECE programs, particularly in immigrant communities, may be considered the hub of families’ interactions and experiences that shape the ecological and cultural influences on their daily routines.

Consequently, in this study, we aim to highlight ECE programs serving immigrant communities as potential hubs for child and family life. Specifically, we assert that ECE programs can be places in immigrant communities where families, through daily interactions, learn

20

about and access resources in the community as well as feel that their cultural backgrounds and beliefs are honored and understood.

Summary Based on the review of the literature on immigrant families and early childhood education, it seems that two broad issues should be further explored. First, there are issues of access to high-quality early childhood education programs for immigrant families that need to be better understood. Second, we have very limited understanding about immigrant families’ experiences once they are enrolled in a highquality program. The present study aims to shed light on both of these areas; however, the second issue is the main focus of the report that follows.

Previous research indicates that model programs would be those that support children and parents and that fulfill all three functions—economic, educational, and social (as outlined

by Vandenbroeck 2006)—of early childhood education, while at the same time maintaining access and inclusion of immigrant families. In other words, these ECE systems act as central hubs in immigrant communities, shaping immigrant families’ daily routines. The study reported on in this paper provides insight into how early childhood education systems as a whole can work with immigrant children and families.

We aim to highlight this notion of ECE as a hub of activities for child and family life and demonstrate how comprehensive ECE programs are particularly important to immigrant children, families, and communities. In addition, we provide recommendations that focus attention on this issue at multiple levels, including the family and center levels as well as the community level and the level of policy and research.

Methodology The goal of this study was to gain greater insight into the ways that high-quality early childhood education programs are working with immigrant children (ages 3–5) and their families.

A large emphasis was on strategies, tools, and techniques that programs use to successfully engage immigrant children and parents in ECE so that practitioners can utilize some of this information to work effectively with immigrant families. Given the limited amount of research focused specifically on immigrant families and how ECE centers work with these families, this study utilized intense, qualitative case studies to begin to understand this phenomenon.

The primary focus of the qualitative case studies was an in-depth analysis of four ECE programs in the United States that are comprised primarily of immigrant children and families.

These programs were studied as a means to shed light on this important area of ECE. In addition, with the inventiveness and success of some programs in Eastern Europe that principally serve Roma communities and settlements, and the similar challenges faced by Roma people and undocumented immigrants in various countries around the world (although there are significant differences in experiences), a number of generally agreed high-quality programs were visited in Macedonia, Romania, and Serbia. Due to a number of logistical and linguistic constraints, these visits were much briefer than those to US sites. But despite the brevity of the

21

visits in Europe, they did help the research team compare immigrant experiences in the United States and Europe in an attempt to understand the essential elements of program quality.

Unlike quantitative methodologies, which are rooted in notions of positivism, qualitative methodologies provide data on the processes related to how and why certain phenomena occur. Case studies, generally consisting of in-depth interviews and field observations, are utilized frequently in the field of education to elucidate details of phenomena that we do not yet understand in great depth (Patton 2002). Abbreviated case studies of ECE programs in the United States and abroad, including in-depth interviews of teachers, staff, and parents, and classroom and program observations, provided rich insight into how early childhood education programs work with immigrant families.

Sample Recruitment and Field Sites Sites in the United States and Eastern Europe were recruited for this study based on a few inclusion criteria: • US sites were NAEYC accredited, ensuring a baseline of high-quality ECE practices among the programs observed, and non-US programs met the host countries’ standards of high quality.

• In both US and Roma programs, more than 50 percent of the enrolled families and children were immigrants or Roma.

• Due to travel/cost restrictions, the US sites were located in the Washington, DC, metro area and the non-US programs were located in Eastern Europe.

• The sites enrolled children ages 3–5.

To find centers in the United States, these criteria were given to NAEYC staff members who work closely with programs in the DC metro area, including suburban Virginia and Maryland. Five programs met these criteria and were initially contacted; four participated in the study and the fifth program did not respond. Three of the four US programs were funded

by Head Start, another indicator of high quality, as Head Start programs must meet a variety of requirements related to working with both children and their families. Program directors were first contacted via email or phone calls to determine their initial level of interest.

Following this first contact, meetings at each site were scheduled to provide more information on the project as well as to discuss the consent process and schedule dates for classroom observations. These meetings usually included the center directors as well as other staff members.

Programs visited in Europe were selected by senior staff of the participating nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) of the International Step-by-Step Association (ISSA), an organization promoting high-quality ECE in Europe and elsewhere. These “key informants” selected programs known both for their quality and for their emphasis on serving the Roma population. Three programs were visited in Macedonia—one in the capital of Skopje, a second program in a smaller city, and a third in a rural area. Two programs were visited in rural Romania, and one program was visited in Serbia in the mid-size city of Subotica. In addition, project staff talked at length with senior members of the NGO staffs as well as senior administrators and local officials involved with early care and education in the regions served by programs.

22

The four ECE programs in the United States represented significant diversity, particularly in terms of immigrants’ countries of origin. The centers in Virginia drew on large African communities, with refugee families from Sudan, Somalia, and Ethiopia, and nonrefugee families from Ghana and Morocco. In addition, these Virginia centers worked with many families from the Middle East. The programs in DC worked primarily with Central and South American families. Despite this ethnic diversity, there was limited diversity in terms of families’ socioeconomic background, as three of the centers utilized Head Start funding and the fourth targeted families based on financial need; thus the majority of families enrolled in these centers were low income. Additionally, all of the programs worked in some capacity with families who had children under age 3; however, since the focus of this study was on how programs work with immigrant families who have children ages 3–5, the younger children were not observed. (For future research, it may be important to consider how best to work with immigrant families who have children younger than 3.) In Europe, each of the programs visited primarily served Roma families with children age 3–5 and served few (if any) other ethnic groups.

The River Banks Program3 was founded in 1945 and is located in Northern Virginia, in a city just west of Washington, DC. It provides comprehensive services for children of all ages with the goals of preparing children for school and ensuring their success throughout their educational career from prekindergarten through high school. The ECE component of River Banks includes Virginia prekindergarten initiative classrooms as well as Early Head Start and Head Start programs. We observed and interviewed teachers and staff affiliated with the Head Start classrooms, as these included a high number of immigrant families.

For 43 years River Banks has been the delegate agency receiving Head Start funds to provide ECE programs to families with low income. Currently, there are 15 Head Start classrooms serving more than 270 children in multiple sites throughout the city. We conducted field work at one west side site, which includes three classrooms (approximately 50 children) in an elementary school. In the last five to seven years, the racial-ethnic demographics of the west side have shifted due to an influx of immigrants; the community has gone from being comprised of mostly African Americans and Latino families to the majority of families being from Africa (Egypt, Morocco, Ethiopia, Eritrea) and Middle Eastern countries (Pakistan and Afghanistan). The children and families enrolled in these three Head Start classrooms reflect these demographic shifts, with the majority being African or Middle Eastern, and a few Latin American and African American families. Eighty-five percent of the families fall below 100 percent of the federal poverty line.

The second field site, Growing Garden, was one of the original Head Start pilot sites during the mid-1960s. The program was first started by a group of women who wanted to provide high-quality child care to employed, low-income mothers. Initially housed in a local church, Growing Garden is currently in a building on the backside of the community center, with the land around it owned by the county parks and recreation department. During an expansion of the community center in the late 1990s, Growing Garden also expanded, creating space for center-based classrooms for Early Head Start. Today it includes both Head Start and Early Head Start programs working with approximately 200 children. The program initially worked with all African American families; however, over the last decade the demographics of the neighborhood, and in turn the center, shifted with an increase in immigrants from All the names of participants and programs involved in this study have been changed to protect the privacy of study participants and program staff.

3

23

Central America, Africa, and the Middle East.

Approximately 86 percent of the families at Growing Garden have incomes that fall below 100 percent of the federal poverty line. About 46 percent of the families are of Latino descent, and nearly all of these use Spanish as their primary language; while 14 percent of the families considered English to be their primary home language. For 22 percent of the families, various Middle Eastern and South Asian languages— including Arabic, Hebrew, Hindu, Urdu, and Bengali—are the primary home languages, and for 18 percent of the families, various African languages—including Swahili or Wolof—are their main home languages.

The third field site, La Casita del Saber (The Little House of Wisdom), was founded in 1986 by a group of low-income parents who were committed to their children receiving highquality, bilingual, multicultural early childhood education. A multisite program, La Casita was originally established in the Columbia Heights neighborhood of Washington, DC, and is comprised of programs for children, youth, and families, serving over 1,500 families. The majority of residents in Columbia Heights are African Americans; however, one third of the neighborhood is comprised of Latino families, the greatest concentration of Latinos in all of DC. With the rising cost of living, many of the poorest and most recent arrivals from Latin America are moving to less expensive areas in northeast Washington, DC, Maryland, and northern Virginia. Additionally, more African and Middle Eastern families are moving into the area. The families served by La Casita seem to reflect these demographic transitions. Within La Casita, we observed children and families in the universal prekindergarten pilot program, which is in its fifth year and is housed in five classrooms in a bilingual charter school. Specifically, we observed a classroom with 17 older children who were preparing for kindergarten in the fall.

The fourth field site was Time of Wonder, which is located in the western part of the Mount Pleasant neighborhood of Washington, DC. The neighborhood is fairly diverse in terms of social class as well as race-ethnicity. African American, Latino, and white European families from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds live in this area. Under a different name, Time of Wonder began in 1911 as a home for unwed mothers. In 1971 it was renovated—turning bedrooms into classrooms—to become a child care program for neighborhood families who were primarily Latino and Caucasian. During the mid-1980s, Time of Wonder received a Head Start grant to provide early childhood education, and it began enrolling more Latino and African American families. At the same time, DC began providing funding to supplement lowincome families—particularly those families who did not qualify for Head Start but could not afford high-quality ECE on their own.

Today Time of Wonder continues to serve neighborhood families, offering three types of slots—those federally funded through Head Start, subsidized by the DC government, and paid for privately by families. Seventy percent of the families are low-income, and approximately 70 percent are Latino. However, with more and more African immigrants moving into the Columbia Heights and Mount Pleasant neighborhoods, the diversity at Time of Wonder is beginning to reflect these demographic changes. We conducted observations in three classrooms, each with 15 children between ages 3 and 5.

24

Data Collection Upon meeting with the center directors, we asked to observe in classrooms with children ages 3 to 5. A total of eight classrooms in the four centers were observed, each for at least one full day, beginning just before the children arrived and finishing when they began leaving for home. During the observations the focus was on interactions between parents and children, children and children, teachers and children, and parents and teachers. In addition, we observed the various tools teachers utilized to work with English language learners, both children and parents, as well as the ways teachers incorporated culture and multiple languages into the classrooms. In addition, at one of the programs we went on a few home visits to observe interactions between the family service worker and parents. In-depth interviews were conducted with classroom teachers (n=11) and assistant teachers (n=2), as well as program directors (n=4), family service workers (n=4), and parents (n=3). Generally, the interviews focused on the following topic areas: interviewees’ backgrounds in terms of education and experience, diversity of the program staff, language of instruction, parent engagement, professional development, unique characteristics of immigrant children and families, and looking toward the future. The interview protocols used with directors, teachers, and family service workers were all slightly different; however, they all covered the aforementioned topic areas. Across all four centers in the United States, 24 individuals were interviewed, including three parents. The interviews with teachers occurred during children’s naptime, while interviews with center directors and family service workers were scheduled on days separate from the classroom observations. Two parents were interviewed in their homes, and a third was interviewed at the center. These interviews focused on similar topic areas but also included different, specific questions. See Appendix A for each protocol. All of the interviews, each ranging from 40 to 75 minutes, were digitally recorded.

Visits to programs in Serbia, Macedonia, and Romania were distinct from the more in-depth qualitative interviews and data gathering at the selected US centers. However, they provided an important opportunity to discuss with key personnel their perceptions, experiences and observations and to consider how these “qualitative data” compared with the US data. The visits, which were several hours long during a single day, included discussions with program directors or administrators, meetings with teachers and other instructional and program support staff, and classroom observations. A senior member of the ISSA NGO staff accompanied the investigator on all visits and served as host and translator. The visits focused on learning about the key elements of quality, as defined by program leaders and staff, and on observing pedagogic practices and family/community interactions.

Limitations of data collection. Some limitations to our data collection procedures in both the United States and Eastern Europe should be noted. First, the ECE experiences reflected in this study are those only of parents and staff engaged with an accredited, center-based ECE program. Immigrant parents not enrolled in an accredited ECE program were not included; therefore, the findings from this study may not directly apply to their experiences. Second, three of the four selected US programs are either fully or partially funded by Head Start; thus, the notions of high quality discussed throughout this report are a function of not only NAEYC Accreditation but also of the funding specifically focused on certain ECE aspects, including working with families. In other words, how these Head Start programs work in exemplary ways with immigrant children and families may be skewed toward what Head Start funding

25

guidelines dictate. Third, we did not include centers with low numbers of immigrants or low numbers of Roma families. Much of this was due to the fact that various immigrant groups in the Washington, DC, metro area tend to live in enclaves and thus the ECE centers that these immigrants attend enroll high percentages of immigrants. Consequently, this study does not shed light on the experiences of immigrants who are in ECE programs where there are fewer other immigrants. Fourth, the two principal investigators who generally collected the data from program staff and teachers as well as parents were both “outsiders” to the centers at the time of the study. This limited familiarity may have shaped how participants responded to the interview questions. Finally, only three immigrant parents were interviewed in this study; thus, limited statements can be made about immigrant parents’ experiences. However, in future related research we hope to further explore parents’ experiences.

Data Management and Analyses All of the interviews were fully transcribed by one of the lead investigators and three undergraduate family science students at the University of Maryland. Fifty percent of the transcriptions conducted by the undergraduate students were checked for accuracy. Field notes and transcribed interviews were loaded into Atlas/TI, a software program designed to assist qualitative researchers with data management. Data analyses were divided into three phases: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding (LaRossa 2005). Specifically, Atlas/TI was used to help manage the data during open coding in which each interview and field note was read and coded using sensitizing concepts (Van den Hoonard 1997) as well as concepts that emerged from the data (LaRossa 2005). The sensitizing concepts related to the research questions are relationships between families and programs, professional development, immigrant families’ unique characteristics, and languages of instruction. A constant comparison method was used throughout open coding, such that paragraphs of text or indicators were read and then compared with previous blocks of text to determine if each passage was an indicator of an existing category or if a new category needed to be created. This part of the analysis yielded 64 codes, with about 20 codes used most frequently. See Appendix B for the codes.

During axial coding, the second phase of analysis, each of the 20 salient categories or codes that emerged during open coding were examined by looking across cases to understand the various dimensions of each category (LaRossa 2005). For example, programs’ roles in linking families with various social services emerged as important; thus, during axial coding all the text for this code across every case was compiled using ATLAS.ti. Next, all the pieces of text related to this specific code were read to understand and code for the various dimensions programs linking families with services. Finally, during selective coding, the last phase of analysis for the study, the main “story underlying the analysis” (LaRossa 2005, 850) emerged, reflecting the potential of ECE programs to be central hubs in immigrant neighborhoods and to recognize the complexities of families’ lives in terms not only of culture but also in relation to contextual constraints, and in turn, provide comprehensive services to support immigrant children and families’ in their daily lives.

Data Quality Various methods of triangulation were employed to ensure data quality and, in turn, trustworthiness regarding the findings for this study. First, triangulation of data sources and methods was ensured by utilizing multiple data sources and methods, including field

26

observations of parents, children, and staff, as well as conducting in-depth interviews with teachers, staff, and parents. Second, triangulation of investigators was a part of this study, as both of the lead investigators continuously debriefed about the data being collected and about how the data were being analyzed and interpreted. Also, the undergraduate students who assisted in translating and transcribing the interviews were regularly asked for their interpretations of what was being captured in the field observations and interviews.

Together, these varied methods of triangulation increase the credibility, dependability, and confirmability of this study and, in turn, help to tell a more complete story about how ECE programs are working with immigrant families.

Findings Core elements of high-quality early childhood education programs include experienced program administrators and teachers who are well-trained in child development and children’s learning, have knowledge of each individual child, exhibit intentionality in interactions with children, and understand the social and cultural contexts of children’s lives outside of the ECE program (National Forum on Early Childhood Program Evaluation 2007; Copple & Bredekamp 2009). Moreover, high-quality ECE programs exhibit appropriate group sizes and ratios of teachers to children, as well as meet necessary safety measures. These general notions of quality are reflected in NAEYC’s 10 standards for accreditation of ECE programs in the United States: relationships (among teachers, families, children), curriculum, teaching, assessment of child progress, health, teachers (preparation and knowledge), knowing and understanding families, community relationships, physical environment, leadership and management (NAEYC 2008).

All of the aforementioned aspects of quality in ECE are necessary for successfully working with immigrant children and families. The programs in this study that work with a large percentage of immigrant families reflected all aspects of quality, based on NAEYC accreditation standards, as these standards are meant to work together to address multiple levels of the ECE system. However, during observations and interviews with staff and teachers, four criteria—more so than other criteria of quality—were emphasized and focused on for continuous improvement efforts: relationships, families, community relationships, and leadership and management. These criteria were reflected in a focus on the following four principles that emerged from the data and demonstrate support for the notion of ECE programs being “fullservice” programs at the center of immigrant communities and networks. These principles include (1) strengthening the quality of ECE and increasing the availability of high-quality ECE to immigrant families; (2) programs’ abilities to build relationships with and understand immigrant families; (3) immigrant parents’ identity development as well as representation and advocacy in the local community; and (4) ongoing ECE staff development and well-being.

These principles include both a focus on what happens prior to families’ ECE enrollment as well as immigrant families’ experiences once enrolled. Thus, the findings from this study speak to the importance of considering early childhood education from a systemic perspective in which children’s optimal development—particularly the development of immigrant children—is impacted by various levels of interactions among ECE programs, teachers, parents, and communities.

27

Principle 1: Improving Access to and Quality of ECE Programs for Immigrant Families The programs in this study were concerned not only with creating high-quality ECE environments for children enrolled in their centers but also with ensuring improved access for all immigrant families to their programs. Some of the programs made conscious efforts to be sure they were providing information to and reaching all of the immigrant families in their communities. They did this by going door to door to homes in the local neighborhood and providing parents with information, posting information at local clinics and social service agencies, and working with community agencies to provide families with information. In addition to informing immigrant parents about the importance of high-quality, center-based care, particularly for children ages 3 to 5, and the availability of this care within their particular programs, a couple of the centers offered home-based and community-based early childhood services for immigrant parents who were not yet ready to enroll their children in all-day, center-based care. For example, the River Banks program recently recruited immigrant parents in local parks and play groups to provide important information on child development and early childhood education in general. With these varied outreach efforts, it was not uncommon for the programs in this study to have a wait list as early as five months before the next academic year. Rather than having difficulty finding interested immigrant parents, the programs were challenged to find the space and funding to accommodate all interested families. In a parallel manner, in discussions with the leadership of ECE programs serving children from Roma families in Macedonia, Romania and Serbia, outreach was conducted with families and through trusted community organizations as well as through the personal testimony of individual Roma persons who were widely known and respected in the Roma settlements.

The ECE programs, including administrators, family service workers, and individual classroom teachers, consistently worked to improve the quality of ECE for children and families.

Administrators tried to increase program quality by offering new professional development opportunities as well as by encouraging teachers and assistant teachers to consider more education beyond certificates and associate degrees. Family service workers consistently tried to learn more about social services available to immigrant families in the local community, as well as tried to make sure that families who needed services were not denied. Many teachers not only participated in professional development workshops and college-level coursework focused on culture and diversity, but they also brainstormed among themselves about new ideas for working with immigrant children and their parents. In one US classroom, teachers wore buttons that stated “212 degrees,” and proudly explained that it is the final degree which makes a difference in terms of boiling. They clearly used this button’s idea of being one degree from success as a motivation to continue working to improve the quality of ECE for the children and families in their classrooms.

Principle 2: Building Relationships with Immigrant Children and Their Families A main focus of the ECE programs in this study was on building and maintaining relationships with the families. Most high-quality ECE centers place a strong emphasis on building relationships with children and parents. However, it seems as though in programs where there are a significant number of immigrant parents, the focus on these relationships may be of even greater consequence given the variation in cultures and experiences and the diverse needs of immigrant families. Staff and teachers at all of the programs included in this study—

28

both in the United States and Europe—discussed the particular importance of the program– parent relationship so that families feel comfortable in the programs and engage in their children’s education. Seeing this connection as key to families’ and children’s success, the programs often began focusing on this relationship from the moment the families contacted the programs. The school year began in August or September, but the programs’ relationship building with families often began months earlier, in February or March, with registration and enrollment. During these meetings as well as orientation, which were held before the school year began, ECE teachers and family service workers, particularly prominent in programs receiving Head Start funding, were able to learn more about the children’s and families’ experiences and cultures. Additionally, once the school year began, family service workers were in the classroom every day, meeting with children and families.

Not all programs employed family service workers specifically, but all of the programs in this study emphasized and demonstrated the importance of building relationships with families. Although this was not a program activity discussed explicitly during visits to programs in Roma settlements, program leaders indicated that their relationships with the families of children in the program were critical and that efforts were made to nurture and sustain close relationships with the families throughout the time that children became enrolled in the ECE programs. In fact, it was suggested to us that intentionality in the development of a relationship with the family begins as part of the intensive family/ community outreach with respect to the benefits of ECE and the availability of a program within Roma settlements.

Relationships with families were also reflected in the roles of staff members and the educational and experiential backgrounds of individuals hired. In every program there were staff members, whether directors, teachers, assistant teachers, or social/family service workers, whose roles heavily encompassed, if not solely focused on, building relationships with families. In programs with dedicated staff members focused on building relationships with families, these individuals were family service workers or social workers, and their main responsibilities were working with and supporting families in the programs as well as helping teachers connect with families. Thus, much of family service workers’ training and education was in social work, psychology, and/or human development and family studies rather than early childhood education pedagogy. Family service workers spent at least a couple hours in the ECE classrooms every day, greeting parents as well as working with teachers. These family service workers tried to help teachers and parents make strong connections between the children’s classroom and their home life. US programs that did not have dedicated family service workers had teachers, assistant teachers, and directors who fulfilled this role and heavily emphasized creating and sustaining relationships with families. For programs in the Roma settlements teachers, administrators and community outreach specialists worked together to know and understand the needs of children and their families. Some of these programs provided direct assistance to families with respect to nutrition, health, and housing, among other critical matters, in addition to their focus on the educational and development imperatives of the program.

29

A US program director summarized the role of staff in this endeavor: It is really all about building relationships. Shannon [family service worker] is a great example of that. She is so available and she gets to know [the families]. She spends that time face to face with them. And gets to know the kids. And then when she is at the office she is always talking to parents; she is always on the phone with them. She is always getting resources. They will stop by and see her. It’s another relationship for these parents: building that trust.

Alongside dedicated family service workers, teachers and other staff members worked tirelessly to build relationships with parents and make them feel as comfortable as possible on a daily basis, particularly in the few but very valuable moments of pickup and drop-off. One teacher described variation in working with parents and specifically noted that some parents were very forthcoming and forward about speaking with the teacher about their children, while others were a bit more reserved in creating a relationship with the teacher. Sometimes these reservations were due to language barriers, while other times some parents were just shy. This particular teacher emphasized the importance of taking the initiative to develop relationships, particularly with quieter parents.

In addition to working with families on a daily basis, each program planned events and activities prior to enrollment and throughout the school year to help build relationships.

Specifically, all of the US centers in this study scheduled home visits twice a year with their families, parent workshops every other month, and individual conferences two to four times per year. Among ECE programs in Roma settlements, home visits as well as programs and workshops for parents occurred on a regular basis. In many of the Roma programs visited, parent groups were often observed, and one center had a program for parents every day after school. These groups were well attended by Roma parents (given the high unemployment rate in Roma communities, parents had time available in their daily routines to attend).

In both the United States and Eastern Europe, these type of events created opportunities for families to get to know the programs and for staff and teachers to learn more about families.

For the staff and teachers in this study the home visits were the most valuable for learning about the various cultures of families. Some programs tried to have family service workers or other staff members of similar linguistic backgrounds as the families. For example, in one program a family service worker was a bilingual, bicultural Latina and she was assigned to work with classrooms that had the highest percentage of Spanish-speaking families. For ECE programs serving children in Roma settlements, it seemed crucial that among program staff there was significant representation from the Roma community itself and also that there was a trusting and respectful relationship among all program staff and the Roma people, including a deep understanding of their society, norms, and customs.

In US programs in this study, home visits generally occurred twice a year and were conducted by teachers, and in the Head Start-funded programs, family service workers also conducted home visits in the beginning and end of the academic year. In some programs the first home visits by the teachers were conducted before the school year began, in July or August; in other centers these initial visits occurred during the first four to eight weeks of school, in September or October. Visits were usually held in families’ homes; however, if parents preferred, meetings could occur wherever the parent was most comfortable or wherever was most convenient, whether this meant meeting at the school, a local coffee shop, or even the welfare office if the parent had a meeting there. Also, all family members were welcome to attend the home visits, so sometimes it was the mother and father and sometimes the parents, grandparents, aunts, or uncles.

30

Teachers’ home visits were separate from family service workers’ visits; their visits generally focused on the child in terms of their needs, likes, dislikes, and fears. Teachers also used home visits as an opportunity to talk with parents about the curriculum. They wanted to learn more about the child and the child to learn more about the teacher, so that the transition during the first week of school was most comfortable for the child. Throughout the school year, the teachers often referred to the information gathered on the child and family during these visits. One teacher described the process of teachers’ home visits at the River Banks Program and how these visits might happen for families’ with limited English proficiency: Sometimes it’s the mom and the child, or sometimes it’s the whole family—the siblings, everybody, aunts, uncles—whoever is in the home. We tell them that we’re there to find out something about their child so we can know better how to serve them in our program. This is just about your child— we just want to make him feel comfortable when he’s coming to school. We just want to know a little more about him. And the answers are generally short answers. One of the questions is, what are the child’s likes and dislikes, so I’ll ask them, “What does your child like to do? What are some things he doesn’t like to do? Is he afraid of anything?” And it’s simple answers . . . it’s not answers that require two, three, four paragraphs. We try to make it as simple as possible. Parents that don’t speak English as well usually have somebody at their house with them. And for the parents who don’t, someone’s here to help them through it. And usually they’ll say, “Somebody can help me with this.” Or we’ll say, “Can you get help with this?”

For the programs funded by Head Start, home visits that focused on parents’ goals for themselves and their families usually occurred during the second month of school. The family service workers were focused specifically on parents’ goals—many related to employment and financial stability as well as learning how to drive and enrolling in English classes.

These visits were also a time when family service workers could provide information on activities happening at the centers, answer questions, or suggest support families might seek. For example, a few families had questions about their access to health care, while others wondered how they might improve their own education and employment credentials.

Family services workers also made parents aware of which assistance programs they might be eligible for, including WIC (Women, Infants, and Children), SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), and energy assistance. Among Roma-serving programs, the ECE program also was a nexus for information about social services, family assistance, health care, and housing information, among other matters fundamental to the life of the family. In the US program without family service workers, these interactions concerning parents’ personal goals occurred during the teachers’ home visits, parent-teacher conferences, and informal conversations with teachers and staff before and after school or during special school programs. Among the Roma ECE programs, interactions with parents at the school and in the community were ongoing; consequently, conversations about personal goals were less formalized and occurred on a very regular basis.

At one of the US programs in this study, parents were able to retrieve their WIC vouchers at the program, which was more convenient than going to the local department of health and human services office. Despite this, many immigrants who were not citizens were concerned about accepting any government assistance, even if their children were US citizens and eligible for certain assistance, as they feared compromising their own eligibility for citizenship.

The effort that programs put into these relationships with families were felt and experienced by parents in a variety of ways, from support with housing and employment to helping with discipline of their children.

31

For all of the programs in this study, the processes of building strong, trusting relationships between programs and families included multiple characteristics, some of which were typical of any high-quality ECE program and some were particularly unique to working with immigrant families. These unique characteristics included (1) understanding families’ cultural backgrounds and (2) incorporating families’ languages and cultures into the classroom.

Understanding families’ cultural backgrounds was a main focus. Immigrant families in the US programs were from a variety of countries and regions of the world; consequently, parents’ beliefs as well as their interaction comfort with teachers and staff reflected this diversity.

Some parents indicated concerns that their children were not doing enough “academic” work, that they seemed to be “playing all the time,” because this is not what is emphasized for young children in their cultures of origin. Among ECE programs serving Roma families, which often also included an after-school component for older children (5–10), these issues rose to an even higher level of amplitude because all parents wanted to be certain that their children benefited educationally from the program. The cultural norms with respect to academic achievement among Roma people are relatively quite low, with a very small proportion of children reaching secondary (high) school before dropping out. Therefore, helping children and families place higher value on education, and supporting academics generally, is a major challenge and focus of family engagement work.

In both American and Eastern European programs, teachers and staff consistently worked to help immigrant parents understand the goals of early childhood education and the developmentally appropriate practices that support these goals. A staff member in a US program told of a parent from Nigeria, whose daughter had completed the Head Start program and entered kindergarten, returning to the program to ask the director to change the ECE program’s assessment of her child’s skills. She believed the assessment, which was given to the kindergarten teacher, should have indicated that the child “mastered” some of the skills that the program had rated as “emerging.” She was concerned that the assessment scores might cause the kindergarten teacher to think negatively of her child. The staff member who met with this mother carefully explained the use of assessments by kindergarten teachers and discussed the child’s progress based on evaluations conducted earlier in the ECE program.

Ultimately, the child’s assessment was not changed and the parent understood why. She could see the benefit of these reports of her daughter’s performance.

In addition to understanding beliefs about education, it was imperative that staff and teachers learned about other aspects of families’ cultures, particularly those beliefs related to acceptable ways of interacting so as not to offend any parents. The most common example of this concerned cross-gender variations in interactions. Specifically, male teachers learned through talking and meeting with Muslim mothers that they could not touch female Muslim women during their interactions, which included shaking hands and hugging. This was particularly challenging for men who came from cultures in which hugging is a traditional way of greeting. A female family service worker noticed that a Muslim mother who only spoke Arabic would remove her burqa if the translator was a woman, but not if the translator were a man. After discussing this cultural tradition, the family service worker suggested always having a female translator so the mother could remove her burqa and speak more freely. The mother happily agreed. In visits to the ECE programs in Roma settlements, we observed that teachers or other staff were typically male. These staff interacted with the fathers and older siblings of children in the program; they saw themselves as important

32

role models and resources on parenting, child development, education, and other issues.

Such discussions likely would not have been possible if these staff were female.

Programs utilized a variety of techniques to help staff and teachers learn about the cultural backgrounds of children.

Teachers and staff gathered a significant amount of information during home visits and meetings with parents at the beginning and end of the day, at workshops, and through fellow staff members’ cultural backgrounds. Staff and teachers indicated that the best way to learn was to simply be curious and ask questions. They said parents were always receptive and often seemed pleased that the program staff were interested in learning more about their cultural beliefs and traditions. Also, given the cultural diversity of staff members and teachers (several came from Central and South American countries as well as Africa, Asia, and the Middle East) at each US program, they often utilized one another as resources to better understand the culture of families. Finally, in addition to informally talking with parents and fellow staff and teachers about their cultural experiences and beliefs, programs formally arranged workshops for teachers and staff to learn more about cultural diversity. A staff member described a workshop being planned: We decided that we were going to have some parents come in and talk to us about their cultural background, their beliefs, their practices, their idea about what education is, what their role is in education, what the teacher’s role is in education—just straight from them. We can talk about some of our own misconceptions—what are some of your own prejudices, misconceptions, and things like that. So we’ve been back and forth, because first we were going to have the staff come in and introduce their own cultures. That’s not really where we are missing; what we are missing is with the parent, to understand the parent.

Understanding parents’ cultural beliefs and backgrounds contributed to programs’ abilities to create linguistically accessible and culturally competent classrooms in which parents and children from diverse backgrounds felt welcome and comfortable. The programs and classrooms in this study utilized a variety of techniques to reflect the languages and cultures of their families on a daily basis. For example, they assisted with translation, developed strategies for managing multiple languages in a program and within each classroom, created classrooms, and implemented curricula in ways that embraced various cultures and languages.

These programs seized every opportunity throughout the day to reflect the multiculturalism and multilingualism of their families.

Teachers and staff in both American and Eastern European programs used many tools and strategies in an attempt to remove language and communication barriers so that trusting relationships with parents and children were built. They discussed various techniques for working with both children and parents who were learning the language of the host culture.

33

Teachers said children often learned the host language very quickly, yet they were aware that the first few weeks for a child who does not understand the dominant language can be scary and unnerving. Thus, when possible, teachers who were of the same linguistic background were asked to translate for the child or work with the child in their own language. When this was not possible, teachers indicated that learning and using basic words in the child’s language, as well as using gestures and pictures, were helpful. In particular, one program used necklaces strung with laminated pictures to help the teacher and child communicate. For example, if a teacher thought a child might need to go to the bathroom, the teacher would point to the picture of a toilet on their necklace and ask, “Do you need to go to the bathroom?” Others strategized by pairing talkative English speakers with English language learners during various activities throughout the day. Teachers indicated that more social children had fewer challenges learning English than children who were shy. One pointed out, She is really social, so she immediately had a group of friends speaking English with her, so I think that helped a lot. The type of child she is, the type of personality she has sort of paves the way for her language development. I had another little boy [who] really didn’t speak [English] at all. He spoke Spanish, but he was also very shy. His parents didn’t speak [English] at all, so everything that he learned, he was really getting from school. A couple of kids starting now speak no English at all. It’s hard because socially they are having some trouble, so they are not immediately sought out. There are things that they can’t communicate so they grab toys. That makes their friends really upset, and we are trying to get them to understand that . . . to help them, if you know Spanish, please speak Spanish, because your friend speaks Spanish.

In addition to using classroom-level techniques and strategies, at the program level one center was piloting a dual-language program based on the book One Child, Two Languages (Tabors 2008) and research from the Dual Language Institute. The pilot program was based on the notion that if children have a secure foundation in their home language, then their language skills in English and their home language will ultimately be better than if they were solely immersed in English. That’s a concept included in the NAEYC position statement “Responding to Linguistic and Cultural Diversity Recommendations for Effective Early Childhood Education” (1993) as well as one of the primary purposes of the National Association of Bilingual Education (NABE). Interested in which techniques were better for dual language instruction among their children, the program implemented three pilot classrooms: a dual immersion classroom; a one-teacher, one-language classroom with Spanish and English; and a one-teacher, one-language classroom with Arabic and English. In the dual immersion classroom, half of the day was conducted in Spanish and the other half in English, with both teachers speaking Spanish and English. For each of the one-teacher, one-language classrooms, two teachers spoke only English for the entire day and one teacher spoke only Spanish (or Arabic) for the day. In these classrooms, half of the children spoke languages other than English; however, in each classroom there were similar numbers of children who were considered English language “models,” meaning that they spoke English upon enrollment or they had been in the program for at least a year and learned English. Teachers recorded their observations and experiences throughout the year, and the program will use these data to determine how future dual-language classrooms will be implemented.

When teachers experienced language challenges with parents, they developed strategies to combat these barriers so they could develop meaningful family relationships. Every US program visited was able to provide materials translated into Spanish and individuals who could translate for parent-teacher conferences and home visits, or during informal daily con-

34

versations as parents picked up and dropped off their children. More unique strategies to combat language barriers emerged in relation to parents who spoke languages not spoken by any teachers or staff in the programs. One of these strategies included working with parents to find a family friend who could translate for them. A second strategy involved a language phone line that teachers could call to have anything translated into nearly any language.

Sometimes the teachers used this tool with a parent on a third telephone line, while other times they used the language line separate from parents.

The physical appearance of classrooms in these programs reflected the multiculturalism and multilingualism of the families in subtle and useful ways. Each classroom visited had labels in English and at least one other language labeling various objects in the room; the second and third language used on the labels usually reflected the languages of origin of the families in the classroom. For example, in a US class with many Spanish-speaking families, as well as Arabicspeaking families, each item in the classroom was labeled in English, Spanish, Arabic written with authentic characters, and Arabic written with the Roman alphabet so teachers and others could pronounce the words correctly when utilizing them with the children. Similarly, in classrooms where there were children who were Arabic- and English-speaking, both the Roman alphabet and the Arabic alphabet were posted.

In a few classrooms, teachers hung either maps or pictures of flags with children’s pictures next to them, indicating their families’ countries of origin. In one classroom, flags of 12 countries hung next to children’s photos, indicating that there were children in this class from Somalia, Jordan, Bolivia, Guatemala, Philippines, Egypt, Morocco, Ethiopia, Sudan, Peru, Honduras, and Pakistan. Above was a sign that read, “Let learning take you around the world.” In many classrooms were pictures of the children with their families, some of whom were wearing traditional dress from their countries of origin. In programs serving Roma children, there also were many traditional symbols and cultural artifacts, including local pottery, decorations, and dramatic play props that reflected Roma culture. The expression of and respect for Roma cultural norms helped children and families alike feel respected, affirmed, and important. Locating programs well within the confines of the actual Roma settlements also showed respect and enhanced accessibility, allowing families who did not have available transportation to walk to the program site.

Teachers collected various cultural artifacts from parents or during their own travels to use either for classroom decoration or to incorporate into daily routines. In one classroom, above the coat closets, hung paintings brought back from a family’s recent visit to their home in Ghana. Various artifacts were utilized every day by children and teachers. For example, in one of the dramatic play areas were authentic dresses and shirts from Pakistan and India that parents had donated and the children regularly donned; in another classroom a box contained various instruments from around the world, which children enjoyed exploring. Every day a teacher spread a blanket from Chile to gather children together for story time. Many classrooms had books written in Spanish, music from various countries, and audiobooks in English and other languages. All programs served meals that reflected multiculturalism.

35

In addition to cultural artifacts, teachers incorporated family cultures through daily discussions and activities. For example, as one classroom explored a harvest theme, teachers and children discussed the various foodstuffs that different families grow and harvest. This naturally led to a discussion of the different dishes prepared and enjoyed by the families.

In studying transportation, specifically airports, the teacher led the children in a discussion about various places around the world and what it might be like to visit those cultures.

The children decided they wanted to visit an African country to see all the animals. They spent one day preparing for their make-believe trip, making passports and talking about what to pack. The following day they traveled through Africa, discussing the food and the people and learning that there are more than just animals in Africa. Months afterward, one child continuously asked the teacher if they could “go to the real Africa, not the classroom Africa.” Teachers’ own childhood experiences often reflected cultural diversity as well. For example, during a lesson on bread, a teacher shared that when she was a child in Africa, there were no wheat breads, tortillas, or round rolls—just long, white, crusty loaves of bread. In addition to teacher-led activities, parents were often invited into the classroom to discuss their cultures and/or other cultures they visited. They shared stories, books, or music, giving children “the opportunity to know we are all from different backgrounds,” as one teacher stated. Such activities also were important for—and frequently observed in— ECE programs serving Roma children.

Principle 3: Supporting Parents’ Identity Development and Representation in the Community The programs in this study were extremely committed to linking parents with services and helping families advocate for their own needs. Teachers and staff were conscious of the importance of working with families, guiding and encouraging parents to empower themselves rather than rely on others to do everything for the family. For example, in talking to some parents about transportation issues, one director asked, How are you going to work it out? How can we help you work it out? We can’t do it for you, but we can guide you and help you and offer you resources and walk you through the process of how to do it. We are not going to call for you and figure it out. You as the parent have to begin advocating for yourself.

The program support and empowerment related to parents’ livelihoods and their children’s education and well-being were reflected in formal structures like committees and home visits, which were well-developed within each program in the United States and Eastern Europe.

Programs encouraged parents to be a part of the parent policy council or other program governing bodies, family service workers worked to develop goals with the parents and support them in achieving these goals, and some sites that did not provide transportation instead consistently encouraged parents to learn how to drive. Given that three of the US programs in this study received at least some federal Head Start funding to provide ECE to low-income families, they were required to have an active parent policy council. These councils provided parents a forum in which they could contribute to their children’s education at the policy level in real and tangible ways, as well as develop and hone their own leadership skills.

Participating parents often remarked on how program policy was created in a real democratic process, giving them some ownership in the program. In one case a parent ultimately sat on the program’s board of directors, navigating this leadership opportunity with the support of the program.

36

As one father remarked to a staff member, I was just talking to him on Saturday, because we had a family fun day. He was saying he never thought he could be part of something like that [board of directors], that he went in last year like a fish out of water, and that this year when they had the annual board retreat he felt so much more comfortable and he was able to really talk to the other board members.

In Roma-serving programs, parents were an important part of the ongoing dialogue about program plans and elements. Although we did not observe a formal policy council or related structure, it was clear that program leaders engaged families in a form of “program democracy” in which parents were encouraged to help shape program policies and practices.

In addition to various committee opportunities, parents in the United States and Eastern Europe participated in home visits with program staff. During these visits, program staff would work to empower parents regarding their role as “the child’s first teacher.” Staff also discussed the parents’ goals and how they might achieve them. Goals ranged from getting a library card to finding employment to learning the language of the new host country to learning how to drive or take the bus. It was not uncommon for program staff to regularly check in with parents, both formally and informally, to see how they were doing with their goals and provide any necessary assistance. Generally, parents were encouraged to set their own goals, but staff sometimes worked with parents to develop goals and would specifically advise parents to consider developing certain skills. For example, they encouraged parents to learn English, learn how to drive a car, and increase their education to improve employment prospects. Given the families’ varied cultural backgrounds and traditionally assigned gender roles, for some programs this meant discussing with mothers and fathers loosening or somewhat relinquishing the gender roles. The following excerpt illustrates this issue: Some moms were teachers in their countries; they were nurses, secretaries. They do have an education background, they have completed the university, and they come here and they have to work our jobs. They are scared, you know, of learning English . . . but I keep encouraging them, “You need to get the documentation from your country, translate it so you can prove [you] work there.”

Some of them do go to [college] and they do accomplish it. Sometimes you have to encourage the mom, and we know that sometimes things are cultural, and we let them know, “Now you are here in the United States and you need to help your husband to work.” They just look at me and say, “Oh, that’s what I want to do, but [my husband] says I can’t do that because I am tied to the custom.” And there are some fathers that would like to see that, because if I come with her and I ask her, “What are your goals? What do you want to do?” she says “I want to learn how to drive” and I say [to her husband], “You don’t let her drive, what happens? How about if something happens to the baby and you are at work? But if she had a car and she knew how to drive, she could take that baby by herself to the emergency room.” That happened to one mom, and then she came on Friday and said, “I am going to get my test for my license,” and I said, “OK, so Daddy is going to stay at home taking care of the baby?” And she said, “Yeah, I told him not to take me, so my friend is going to take me to take the test. He makes me nervous.” So I said, “OK, so he is going to be babysitting now,” so he just laughed.

In addition to empowering parents, the programs in this study worked very hard to engage parents in their children’s education and to involve them in the actual program, such as volunteering in the classroom or attending any of the various parenting workshops offered by the programs. Like many ECE programs, the US programs in this study faced challenges getting parents involved. Usually the barriers to involvement were related to the parents’ hectic employment schedules or their lack of transportation, or even more generally to the

37

complicated nature of immigrant family and community life. However, programs continued to make efforts to create events in which parents were interested and able to attend.

Despite challenges and barriers, teachers regularly tried to involve parents in very informal ways, including inviting parents to stay for breakfast when they brought their children to school, encouraging them to stay longer at pickup in the afternoon, asking them to read a story to the children, and inviting them to come on field trips with the class. Additionally, some teachers would invite parents to stay for lunch and afternoon activities following the field trips. Some parents, particularly those who worked in the evening or during the night shift, would come into the centers during the day to help with lunch or translate for other parents.

On a daily basis, other teachers used techniques that transcended language and communication barriers. For example, a US Caucasian teacher who spoke only English used her photography skills as a way of connecting with Spanish-speaking parents. She documented many activities that children engaged in throughout the day and used the photographs to help her communicate with parents. It is common for teachers to take pictures of children, but this particular teacher’s use of photographs to open lines of communication with parents was unique. She described her experience: When [parents] see the photographs, I don’t have to say anything; they know what’s going on. And it’s a way for the children to remember a certain [activity] like a snapshot of their day. Because a lot of times, if the parent [asks] the cliched “What did you do today?,” the [child will] say, “I don’t know” or just talk about what they ate.

In programs serving Roma children there frequently were sessions for parents to talk with each other about parenting practices, issues related to their own literacy, community and world events, and other topics of interest and concern to parents and other family members.

The program is a “community center” as well as an ECE center.

In many ways ECE programs acted as social service centers for immigrant parents, helping them navigate and advocate for themselves among various systems in the United States.

Three of the US programs had family service workers, and one explained her role: “The teachers play a part with the children, and I am there for the family with the child but with the parents as well. So if there is anything they may need, any referrals, I am their contact person.” Regardless of whether or not programs had dedicated family service workers, all of the programs in this study worked non-stop to assist parents in identifying their needs and seeking and receiving services. Parents needed assistance with a variety of challenges, including employment, housing, mental health issues especially in relation to documentation, transportation, utility bills, and health care issues. Often parents felt more comfortable asking

38

someone at the ECE program for assistance rather than going to a local social welfare agency.

One mother, originally from Ethiopia, told a US program that she was treated so poorly at the department of social services that she would never return. Thus, when she needed help with paying her utility bill, the program helped her navigate the local social services agencies to apply for assistance. Other parents utilized the ECE program to find employment and English classes. As one parent explained, She [Shannon] always was trying to help me. She was so helpful. She put [my husband] on the waiting list for English classes too. I told her my husband really needed it, and she said there is [a] program that they are going to start—English on the computer—and they come to your house or they meet by phone or by Internet.

One program staff member noted that parents lately had sought housing assistance more often than in years past, and she attributed this to the housing crisis and economic recession that began in 2008. Some families wanted more information regarding homeownership, while others were interested in applying for Section 8 housing vouchers. Another staff member in the United States told of going with a mother, who was living in a two-bedroom apartment with her five children, to the city’s redevelopment and housing authority and helping her complete the housing application. It was not until a couple years later that the staff member received a phone call from the mother. “Miss Shannon, I got housing!” She had found a fourbedroom apartment for her family.

For parents at some programs, transportation emerged as a significant challenge. Many mothers did not have their driver’s licenses and/or did not have a car; for some, this was due to lack of driving experience while for others this was due to their documentation status. Travelling by city bus to and from the programs could take up to an hour each way, and travelling with more than one child, which many mothers had to do, was also very difficult.

Some parents were empowered to earn their driver’s licenses and would then transport their own children as well as other children whose mothers’ did not drive. One mother, who had a driver’s license but could not afford a car, paid another mother $150 per month to drive her child to and from school each day. Another mother asked the teacher for help in arranging a carpool, and she ultimately rode to school with her child and another mother and child.

Unfortunately, at the center that provided bus transportation, there were fewer daily interactions between parents and teachers/staff, because parents did not have to talk with teachers and other parents to figure out transportation.

Finally, programs assisted immigrant families with physical and mental health care needs.

For example, ECE programs required that children receive certain immunizations and complete certain health exams prior to entering school. With guidance by family service workers and teachers, many parents ensured children’s immunization and medical records were in order not only for the ECE program but also for when the child entered public school. Each year, family service workers and parents discussed medical exams and the accompanying paperwork. Some programs offered on-site vision testing and/or visits from a dentist a few times throughout the year. In addition to assistance with meeting children’s physical health care needs, there were mental health services that families could access. Due to fears of stigma and apprehension about immigration status, most parents were initially reluctant to consider seeking mental health services. However, when teachers or staff noticed parents struggling with any number of issues, including parenthood in general or immigration status, they would discuss the services available and try to assuage fears. One teacher suggested that the term “mental health” should be used less because of the stigma attached to it. A

39

director shared the story of a mother who was detained for a month by immigration officials and her family’s need for mental health services during the ordeal: A lot of our parents are not documented . . . and we’ve had a couple of parents who were arrested.

For a while [authorities] would do raids on restaurants. We had one mom with two boys [who was arrested] . . . and then [social services] ended up having to take the children. The children had a really rough time, so we brought in a mental health consultant to work with the family. When Mom did come home, we brought them in to work with her because she’s one of our more vocal Latina parents. She’s much more vocal and comfortable because she’s had so many kids come through our program, so she knows us. But they all had a really hard time adjusting to the point that if everyone is going home and [the] mom hasn’t come yet, the child is going to have a meltdown . . . “I’m waiting for my mom; my mom’s not here, my mom’s not here.” It’s hard for her to be away from [her] children. She didn’t know where they were, who had them. They had her in detention for about a month. Sad thing about what happened to this mom was that she actually had to pay the lawyer $600 dollars to get her papers, and he just left with [the money].

These issues were particularly important for the programs visited in Eastern Europe that worked with Roma children and families. Each program observed provided both “traditional” ECE services, yet also offered assistance with housing, nutrition, parent education, dental and medical health care, and other needs. In fact, many of the programs, much like the US programs studied, were “full service” in that they were comprehensive service centers with a focus on both the child and the family, with deep linkages to other community systems.

Programs serving Roma families also served as a resource about many other needs. Specific services were provided—for example, pediatric health services such as inoculations and wellness physicals.

Principle 4: Staff Dynamics, Development, and Well-being An important part of the findings from this study were programs’ foci on staff recruitment, retention, and development, particularly in relation to working with families from diverse backgrounds. The staff and teachers in all of the programs in the United States and Eastern Europe, and in many cases individual classrooms within these programs, reflected the diversity of the families in terms of language, culture, and life experiences. The arrangement, and cultural and educational backgrounds, as well as the size of staff, in many cases were ideal. These programs were selected because of the exemplary ways in which they worked with immigrant children and families. We recognize that not all programs have the resources to staff their centers in the ways described below. However, as ECE programs in the United States and abroad strive for high quality and better ways of working with immigrant children and families, the program experiences reflected in this study provide insight into how to move toward improving quality and effectiveness of services for immigrant families.

All of the classrooms in this study included more than one teacher, and sometimes there were as many as three teachers as well a floater. Generally, all of these teachers were from varied racial ethnic backgrounds. For example, in one classroom in the United States the teacher was African American and the assistant teacher was Pakistani; in another classroom there was an African American teacher, a Caucasian assistant teacher, and a floater teacher from the Middle East who spoke Arabic and came into the classroom periodically throughout the day. In all of the programs in Eastern Europe, staff either were Roma or

40

known by and trusted by Roma families. In one program, the lead teacher was not Roma but had lived in an area near the Roma settlement for more than 20 years, and was well known in the community. She had “community credibility.” In another program, a community-wide effort to bring Roma persons into the programs as teacher assistants was instrumental in forging positive relationships with families. This initiative, spearheaded by a Roma-focused community NGO, was designed to recruit and train Roma for work in ECE settings, which helped create greater comfort for families of the children. Increasing the diversity and cultural competence of staff at each of the programs in the United States and Eastern Europe was intentional, based on the notion that parents may feel more comfortable and able to speak with someone who is either of their same cultural background or who explicitly understands their families’ cultural backgrounds.

In some of the US programs with multiple sites, staff and teachers were assigned to teach at a certain site based on the demographics of families entering the program. Given the arrival of new immigrants and the shifting demographics of certain areas in the DC metro area, some teachers and staff members were moved to different classrooms or even different sites annually. In one program, The philosophy is that the demographics of the staff should match the demographics of children as closely as possible whenever possible. So that is why our staff can’t be tied to their classroom and where they are assigned to. For instance this year we moved our staff around because of the demographics. We really need people like Mrs. Hernandez (a Spanish-speaking teacher). We knew we needed someone over here in the classrooms that spoke Spanish. Because a lot of these kids spoke Spanish. We have to distribute our assistants and our teachers so that in every site at least, and hopefully in classrooms where there are quite a few children that speak Spanish or other languages, [we have] staff there that speaks Spanish or Arabic—whatever needs to be spoken. That is the philosophy.

Given this movement, teachers in these programs needed to possess a tremendous amount of flexibility in terms of potentially working in different sites and with different teachers every year. Programs stressed the importance of teachers being “portable,” having the ability to work with anyone, and being motivated to learn something new from each other. In addition to moving lead teachers, in some programs they would assign assistant teachers with certain cultural backgrounds and language abilities to float between classrooms to provide language support.

The programs in this study were able to maintain such diverse staffs by “growing their own,” recruiting and training parents to work as volunteers or training persons from the community to eventually become employed by the programs. Because of the challenges of finding diverse, well-educated individuals to teach, all of the centers had fairly well-developed structures to provide parents with the necessary scaffolding, including information on classes and financial support, to become teachers or, in some cases, family service workers if they were interested. A director said, I would love to be able to hire a master’s degree-level Sudanese teacher or to be able to hire a bachelor’s-level Latina teacher . . . Part of it is the people who have the cultural and educational qualifications, we can’t really afford them, or they already have jobs and teaching is not something they are interested in. So I hope our ability to attract and to cultivate and develop staff like that continuously improves.

For many teachers and assistant teachers in the United States, their ECE careers began with volunteering in their children’s classrooms. In addition, the programs offered substitute training, which usually lasted three days and included discussions on classroom proce-

41

dures, behavioral interventions, and child abuse and neglect. It was an opportunity to teach parents who would like to be in the classroom, as well as to assess the participants’ ability to speak and comprehend English effectively. Substitute training provided parents with the tools to not only substitute teach within the program but also to act as a floater covering for teachers during their lunch breaks. Generally, programs encouraged parents to get their Child Development Associate (CDA) credential so they could be hired as assistant teachers. Once hired full time, individuals would be financially supported by the program to earn their associate and bachelor’s degree. In addition to offering training, it was not uncommon for programs to help parents who had degrees from their countries of origin to file papers to determine its equivalence in the United States so they could teach here. However, this process often took up to one year, so in the meantime many of these parents also earned a CDA. In Eastern Europe, support and resources were provided to encourage interested individuals from Roma settlements who had the perquisite knowledge, skills, and abilities to enter ECE training programs. Interested individuals often entered apprentice-type roles in which they would work side by side with more experienced lead teachers to learn effective teaching and classroom management skills.

With teachers and staff members from so many varied backgrounds, the relationships among teachers and staff at each of these programs were dynamic. In many ways teachers and staff, particularly those from different backgrounds, tended to rely on one another to learn more about different cultures and languages, which ultimately helped navigate and build relationships with parents and children. Across all sites in the United States, teachers and staff utilized each other for translation in speaking with parents and children or for creating materials for families. (Translation was not necessary among Roma ECE programs since all the Roma parents and children spoke the dominant languages used by the programs.) In addition to supporting each other with linguistic challenges, staff and teachers also taught one another about cultural norms and appropriate behaviors in different cultures. In particular, at some programs, female Muslim staff and teachers spent time informally guiding male teachers in working with Muslim families. The male teachers learned that in greeting Muslim women, they needed to refrain from shaking hands, hugging, or touching in any way. This understanding impacted relationships between teachers and staff, as well as their relationships with families. A female teacher explained, I am a Muslim, and, you know, the Muslim men touching female is very difficult. So I know the beginning was difficult for Juan because he likes hugs, he likes kiss[es]—and I don’t like that. So in the beginning, I had to stop him, remind him, remind him, remind him. But now he [is] used to it. I think the first year it was [difficult]. I say, “You know what, I’m sorry; I want to be very nice with you, but there can be no touching allowed. And not a man hugging and kissing another female, unless it’s your wife or your sister—that’s it.” He said, “Oh, OK,” but he kind of forgot the next day. And later on we have one training about communication. We talk about it a little, but I think every time is a reminder for him, because if he [forgets] . . . I cannot be all the time [asking him to stop]. You know, because he likes to touch, he likes to kiss, he likes to hug—and our culture is not kissing and hugging. If I see two children kissing, I say “No. Stop it, stop it!” I remember Juan was asking me, “What are you worrying about? No, no, it’s nothing.” “You know what, I know that it’s nothing but you forgot where I come from.” And one day one parent came to our classroom—she was Muslim—[and] Juan comes like this [makes a hugging gesture]. I said, “I told you!” [laughing] And sometimes it’s hard, I don’t know, it’s hard. But also when the Spanish parents come, they want to give you a handshake and they are going to hug you, even if they are men. But sometimes I just explain to them, “I’m going to accept the first time and then explain to you.”

42

Teachers and staff helped one another with translation. During a classroom observation, an English-speaking teacher was working with an Arabic-speaking child on the English names for colors, but she did not know the Arabic words to help the child make the connection. She noticed an Arabic-speaking teacher passing by the classroom, so she stopped her and asked her how to say the word purple in Arabic. Also, a few of the programs in this study organized formal professional development programs to discuss cultural beliefs; teachers and staff from various cultures gained insight into working effectively with children and families as well as colleagues.

Despite the positive aspects of such relationships among diverse teachers and staff and the learning that occurs as a result of these relationships, some individuals noted the challenges of collaboration. A lead teacher mentioned issues she had working with an assistant teacher from a different cultural and linguistic background, whom she needed to rely on for translation and to lead aspects of the children’s day. This teacher indicated that in conferences with parents, important pieces of information were being lost in translation, and thus her ability to connect and share was often compromised. She also said that rather than working with children in Spanish during the school day, the assistant teacher consistently would try to work with the children in English. Ultimately, this relationship ended with the assistant teacher being transferred to another classroom. Some other staff and teachers indicated limited cultural competence and some stereotyping were present in some programs. (In contrast, the most successful Roma-serving programs embedded cultural competence within the “culture” of the program.) One US teacher said, There is actually a lot of racism here, and it’s interesting that it will be from Spanish-speaking teachers that come from different countries and they will sort of generalize [that] people from all Asian countries are the same, which is kind of berserk because we are like “Hello!” if someone thinks this about you . . . like someone from El Salvador is not the same as someone from Cuba. There are even generalizations like a teacher says, “All Ethiopians are really loud”—you know, statements like that sort. That’s weird because this is such a diverse school and you’d think that coming in contact with a bunch of people after 10 years, 20 years, you would realize “Oh, people are different.”

The interactions and relationships between teachers and family service workers were particularly noteworthy. They worked together to build strong relationships with parents. Aside from calling and visiting parents in their homes, family service workers spent time in the classroom on a daily basis checking in with both parents and teachers. In some programs this connection between teachers and family service workers was formalized through the use of technology. Specifically, one program utilized a database in which teachers and staff, including family service workers, would keep current records and notes on children and families.

This database could be accessed by teachers and staff at any point while working with a parent and/or a child.

43

A final area that emerged in this study and needs to be explored in greater depth involves staff and teachers’ health and well-being. During our classroom observations and interviews, we noticed that teachers or staff were often ill, usually with head colds and chest coughs. They avoided working directly with children, yet felt compelled to come to work.

Physical illness was less apparent among teachers than just pure exhaustion. During the interviews and observations, the demanding nature of teachers’ schedules became clear. For example, one teacher’s day began and ended with a commute of an hour and a half. Even her one-hour lunch break often was shortened because tasks needed to be completed in the classroom. Sometimes, to have a few moments away, she would take a few minutes to go to her car and eat. One day we observed her eat both breakfast and lunch in her car. Teachers’ schedules, which sometimes included heavy administrative and professional development requirements with limited time to accomplish the tasks, coupled with the demands of their lives at home, often led to exhaustion. For some, the program’s ability to accommodate personal cultural and religious needs seemed to help. A Muslim teacher recalled having to save her prayers until she got home from work, cooked dinner for her family of six, and took care of other household chores. She said she got to bed every night after midnight and was very tired the next morning. But, she added, By asking my Muslim friends here, [I learned] that you can go to a private place and pray there on your break or when you have time. And it helped me a lot this year, these last two years, because since I found out I go with my rug, pray, and go back to my classroom. It’s very helpful.

This level of religious accommodation was not observed in all programs, despite there being devout Muslim staff in most of the programs observed.

Many of the teachers and staff members often seemed emotionally exhausted or suffering from burn-out. Among ECE professionals burnout is becoming more commonplace and may be an even greater risk for programs with high percentages of immigrant families and their diverse needs. Working with these families seemed to lead to greater satisfaction but also greater physical and emotional stress.

Teachers and staff participated in a variety of professional development activities designed to be particularly helpful to individuals working with immigrant parents and children. The programs wanted to move beyond traditional foci on diversity and develop more meaningful ways of incorporating culture into the classroom. According to one teacher, diversity in the classroom means more than just providing dolls of different races. She explained, You [might] have a parent bring you a piece of material from their home country and you make that the background to your bulletin board, or at naptime you’re playing Indian music for all the children to nap to—just adding those things in. Because there is so much in early care education that we [gain] culturally. Cultural diversity [used to mean] that you had a black doll, white doll, and an Asian doll or that you labeled your classroom in English and Spanish, and that you served tacos once a month. We have to get beyond that, and that’s where we are going now, having books and music and different pictures. When we came, we bought posters of children in all different shades and colors, and we [thought] “Why are we buying these when we have these kids right here?” [Now we] take pictures of our children and put them up because that’s . . . cultural diversity.

44

In some programs professional development activities were determined by asking teachers and staff what they were interested in learning more about, while in other programs this process was more formalized by using self-assessment tools to determine potential areas for improvement. For example, one program’s self-assessment indicated that 91 children began the school year not speaking English and, by the end of the school year, there were still six children who were unable to speak English. The program used this as an indication for a potential area of improvement for teachers and hired a consultant from Creative Curriculum to come work with staff on implementing the curriculum with English language learners.

During this training the consultant worked one day just with the teachers and spent the rest of the week in individual classrooms showing teachers how to use the curriculum with English language learners. Another professional development effort at a US program included training on a system to support families with social service needs. A family service worker said learning how to link parents with resources was vital to her job.

We had a training last year on 211 where all you do is dial 211 and say, “I have a parent in my zone that needs assistance with electricity,” and they will pull up on their screen any resources in the community. We’ve done many trainings. But I think the one that works for me, and what I do mostly, is how to get resources to families.

In other programs, when staff and teachers wanted to learn more about different cultures and religions, the programs provided professional development related to these areas. One organized a diversity training and used the staff and teachers’ diverse backgrounds as the foundation for the discussion rather than generalizing the broad experience of racial-ethnic groups. At another program, where diversity training focused specifically on communication, initial meetings separated teachers and staff into two groups based on language. Despite plans to have the groups ultimately convene together, some teachers believed the entire training should have targeted everyone together, utilizing translators if necessary. Finally, at nearly all of the programs, English language instruction was available for teachers and staff who were not native English speakers.

Many teachers and staff expressed a desire to gain greater cultural competency—to learn even more about the experiences of immigrant families and individuals from different cultures. Some teachers mentioned the need for understanding more about anthropology and what happens from a theoretical perspective when multiple cultures meet, as they believed this could improve their interactions with parents from diverse backgrounds. Other teachers discussed the importance of learning more about culture by having multiple-day workshops that included teachers, staff, and parents. One described something joint with the parents and staff, and maybe not a one-day thing, like if there were some way we can do a two- or three-day thing where we come together with the staff and the parents of different cultures and talk [in] a large group, then break up into small groups, and focus on different subjects.

I think one [workshop] I would like to see is maybe discipline, teaching techniques. What do parents expect? What do parents do at home to support us? Or what can we do that supports what you do at home? Or vice versa, because they can learn from other parents and we will learn from them . . . [and] not necessarily the parents in our classroom, but across the board. You know something large, then breaking into small groups. And not [with] all the Hispanics together, or all this group together—you know, break up into small groups, as even as possible in terms of cultural representation, even if you have to do something as simple as just counting off. That’s what I would like to see: parents and staff workshops together. I think it would help with the child and the parents. The parents can learn more about us, and we can learn more about them, for the common cause, the child.

45

In addition, teachers and staff indicated a desire for language classes for English-speaking staff and teachers. Many wanted to learn Spanish or Arabic, but the only language opportunities offered by their ECE program were English lessons for nonEnglish speakers. Here are a teacher’s suggestions: Maybe have the basics of language. Like we say we know Spanish so everybody knows how to say buenos dias, como esta—things that will make you feel welcome, but also another language. I don’t know another language. I would like to be able to write something in Arabic for my parents, like a little thought letting them know I am thinking about [them] and have a nice day. Something like that in another language—in French. Like the other day I needed to look for the word welcome in many languages—something like that, things that are simple words and how to write them. I think that will be nice. I think that [I] should include vocabulary words, expressions, so that people know that at least I am interested.

Just like you go traveling and you tell your friends you want to know some words, so you are always there with your little book. It helps you understand how difficult it might be for [parents] with their English.

A staff colleague added, I think we could be doing a lot more, but probably a good place to start is by having Spanish classes for the staff, because ultimately it is our job to figure out what parents need, what parents want, how we can make this better for them.

Finally, many teachers also expressed interest in receiving further training in behavior management. They were concerned that they did not always know how to handle children with challenging behaviors.

The findings from this study reflect the work of only a handful of high-quality, programs in the United States and in Eastern Europe, yet they provide insight into the steps that other programs can take to improve quality and effectiveness in working with immigrant children and families. The findings indicate that ECE programs must first establish a baseline level of quality and access, then consider what else is necessary to work successfully with immigrant children and parents. From the programs examined in this research, it seems that to best support immigrant children, building relationships between programs and families is necessary. Programs’ relationships with families involve understanding parents’ cultural beliefs and incorporating these beliefs and families’ languages into the classrooms, two aspects emphasized not only in NAEYC Accreditation standards of quality but also in developmentally appropriate practices (Copple & Bredekamp 2009). Second, considering immigrant parents’

46

identity development, links to the local community, their goals and needs, and their abilities to navigate the host society are essential. Other than employment, ECE programs are one of families’ first institutional ties to the new host society. Many immigrant parents rely on their children’s ECE program for advice on and assistance with navigating the new host society in terms of services for children and families. In addition to empowering parents to engage in their children’s education and learning, programs should encourage them to develop their own identity and skills. This was a large focus of all the programs in this study, and it was reflected in their work with families outside of the classroom; they consistently worked with parents to foster children’s and families’ success. Finally, there was a focus on staff dynamics, which include cultural backgrounds, health and well-being, and the need for professional development related to working with immigrant families.

The findings from this study suggest a series of recommendations for building relationships with immigrant children and their families, assisting parents in navigating the host society, and empowering parents to be fully engaged in their children’s education and learning. Staff diversity, dynamics, and development are also addressed.

Recommendations A series of recommendations emerged from this research report. They reflect the four principles discussed in relation to the findings presented earlier in this report. Our recommendations cut across multiple levels of influence on early childhood education, including classroom, program, community, and policy levels of impact, and are directed to ECE practitioners, researchers, and policy makers. See Table 3 on the next page for a summary of recommendations.

Strengthening Quality and Increasing Access to ECE Strengthening the quality of early childhood education for immigrant families and considering these families’ access to high-quality ECE programs are critical areas of focus. To improve quality, we recommend that practitioners—teachers, assistant teachers, and care providers—who work with immigrant children on a daily basis understand the components of high-quality ECE and, specifically, what developmentally appropriate practices encompass.

Teachers and care providers should regularly consider how activities may be improved or changed to be made developmentally appropriate for children. Teachers and practitioners should consistently utilize formal and informal professional development opportunities, read books on high-quality ECE, and regularly talk with teachers with varied experiences working with immigrant populations to increase the quality of their interactions with immigrant children and families. Finally, teachers and practitioners can indirectly address access and outreach through positive, developmentally appropriate interactions with the children. Such experiences may prompt parents to recommend the ECE program to friends and neighbors who may also be immigrants.

In addition to families passing on their positive impressions to others, programs can improve access by focusing on outreach to the local community through play groups, door-to-door recruitment campaigns in the surrounding neighborhoods, and other efforts.

However, it is important that centers be prepared to meet the ECE needs of their communities

47

D. Policy

C. Community

B. Program

A. Classroom

Table 3. Recommendations for ECE Programs Working with Immigrant Families

48

Principle 1: Strengthening quality of and increasing access to ECE

Principle 2: Building relationships with parents and families

Principle 3: Parents’ identity development and community representation

Principle 4: Ongoing staff development and well-being

● Teachers and care providers of immigrant children understand what high-quality ECE and DAP are ● Teachers of immigrant children consistently consider how their classroom quality may be improved ● Teachers of immigrant children utilize current resources to improve quality

● Teachers’ and family service workers’ have daily interactions with individual parents ● Teachers incorporate artifacts provided by families’ into the classroom décor and curriculum

● Parents and family are encouraged to observe and/ or help in classroom ● Staff meet with parents about goals for themselves and their children ● Teachers and staff take time to learn about parents’ everyday lives, including employment, economic situation, assets and constraints, social networks, and political participation

● In-classroom mentoring and coaching using a master teacher ● Co-teaching among teachers of diverse backgrounds

● Outreach and education of parents of young children ● Teachers across all classrooms in a program are convened to discuss best developmentally appropriate practices for working with immigrant families.

● Program has family service workers on staff ● Home visits are conducted by both teachers and family service workers ● Materials for families are translated ● Staff diversity in terms of understanding the linguistic and cultural needs of parents.

● Provide a structure whereby teachers and staff can come to understand each family’s unique situation (e.g., through home visits, regular conferences focusing on the whole family)

● Program provides all staff/ teachers with adequate time away from children for reflection ● Teachers receive trainings on various issues, including race, implementing curriculum with ELL children, second-language acquisition utilizing the local social welfare system, understanding what different documentation statuses mean for immigrant families ● Provide language, communications skills, and cultural competence training for staff

● High-quality programs (center- or home-based) available in all communities ● Programs and local public schools develop relationships ● Partner with immigrantserving organizations to enroll families in programs

● Programs are centrally located in immigrant neighborhoods ● Individuals from the neighborhood are hired and trained to work in the program ● Teachers are encouraged to participate in community activities (e.g., cultural festivals)

● Programs create links with or house other community programs (health care, social services) to provide services to immigrant families

● Other community programs collaborate with ECE programs to teach staff how to find local services for families ● Local universities and colleges collaborate with ECE programs on pre- and in-services, as well as ongoing evaluative research of programs

● Increase funding for building and accrediting ECE centers and improving quality of existing centers

● Centers receive increased funding for hiring family service workers ● Family and parent component is required

● Programs facilitate immigrant families’ participation in advocacy activities ● Increase funding to programs to focus on providing parents with services, including adult education ● Policy to support links between ECE and community

● Increase funding to individual ECE programs, colleges and universities to provide in-service and preservice training to programs working with immigrant families

● Funding is designated by state and local governments to conduct outreach regarding ECE to immigrant communities

such that long waiting lists do not develop. To improve quality within programs there should be a consistent program-level focus on discussing and learning about developmentally appropriate practices through the creation of a learning community of teachers and practitioners within each center. These learning communities may be extended to early childhood workers who are not a part of the center staff or teachers, but who are a part of the community who care for young, immigrant children in the neighborhood. Specifically, programs should consider providing educational outreach to in-home care providers who are a part of the immigrant community but not part of a formal, center-based ECE program.

Additionally, there needs to be an increase in high-quality, center-based and/or home-based ECE options, particularly in communities with large immigrant populations. Research indicates that high-quality ECE is particularly important to immigrant children as they transition into kindergarten and move through elementary school (Magnuson, Lahaie, & Waldfogel 2006). When such programs are not available, immigrant children begin kindergarten behind their peers, with the gap continuing to widen as they move through elementary school. Once programs are established in communities with large immigrant populations, it is necessary to cultivate the relationships between the programs and the public elementary schools into which the children will be ultimately transitioning. This connection helps ensure a smooth transition for parents and children and provides receiving elementary school teachers with valuable information on the families. In addition to creating relationships with the elementary schools, ECE programs can partner with other immigrantserving community organizations to better meet the needs of the enrolled families and recruit new immigrant families into high-quality ECE settings. Finally, from a policy standpoint, some of the aforementioned recommendations need to be financially supported, with specific funds earmarked for communities with high immigrant populations who have limited access to high-quality, affordable ECE programs.

Building Relationships with Parents and Families One of the most significant findings that emerged from the present research was the importance of ECE programs building relationships with immigrant families through culturally competent practices. To establish good rapport and working relationships, teachers and other ECE staff members must have daily or weekly interactions with immigrant parents. During these interactions parents and teachers are able to learn more about one another; teachers can understand more about families’ cultures and parents can learn more about teachers’ expectations. Families not only provide teachers with information and stories regarding their cultures and experiences, but sometimes they give teachers artifacts from their countries of origin that can be displayed and utilized in the classrooms. This provides a very natural way for teachers to incorporate families’ cultures into their classrooms.

At a program level a key component to building relationships with families is ensuring there are staff members who are responsible for working closely with families to help them secure the resources they need for their own success and, in turn, their children’s success. This may

49

be a dedicated role, such as a family service worker, or in smaller programs this can be an important component of the lead and assistant teachers’ responsibilities. In programs where there are designated staff members devoted to building relationships with families, they must work closely with classroom teachers, since they provide parents with one more contact from which to gather information. Generally, when staff members in this project focused on building relationships with families, they tended to focus on the families’ needs, goals, and accomplishments; other times, they focused specifically on what was happening with the child. In programs fortunate enough to have family service workers, there was a heavy emphasis in home visits on teachers getting to know the children in terms of their likes and dislikes, while the family service workers focused on parents’ goals for themselves and their families. In these programs, home visits were conducted two times per year, once at the beginning of the year and once at the end of the school year. Some programs did not have family service workers or staff members who were solely designated to build family relationships—which is the case in many programs. Despite this, the results of this study indicate that building these relationships with families is critical—who fulfills this role, whether it is a family service worker, a teacher, an assistant teacher, a director, or even a parent volunteer, is less important than having this role fulfilled. In addition to conducting home visits, translating materials and/ or having teachers and staff members available to translate for families from diverse backgrounds is recommended, as this contributes to building relationships with families. By having materials translated and/or having linguistic and cultural translators available for parents, not only can parents better understand what is happening in their children’s classroom, but they also can feel validated and know their input and experiences matter.

At a community level, building relationships between ECE programs and immigrant families can be shaped by creating ECE programs within the neighborhoods that currently do not have high-quality programs and that are home to a high population of immigrants. This not only provides easier opportunities to recruit these families into the programs but also fosters programs’ abilities to hire teachers and staff members from within the immigrant community in the neighborhood being served. In addition, being situated in the neighborhoods of families enables programs to participate in community cultural events, allowing children to witness on a daily basis the connection between their ECE programs and their families and communities. Finally, at the policy level, a requirement that programs have a family or parent component should be considered, not only as part of NAEYC Accreditation but also for state-level licensing. Consequently, earmarked funding for hiring additional program staff to ensure building relationships with families is a priority for effectively working with immigrant families.

Parents’ Identity Development and Community Representation For many immigrant parents, as evidenced in the findings from this study, ECE programs are places not only where children are cared for and learn throughout the day but also, for many immigrant parents, they are organizations that facilitate parents’ own development.

This is particularly true in terms of immigrant parents’ identity development. Specifically, ECE programs can support parents in learning more about themselves and their life goals, whether these goals directly or indirectly impact their children. Through this process of identity development, parents, in interaction with ECE staff members, also learn to advocate for themselves and have a voice in the local community. These processes of identity develop-

50

ment and advocating for oneself in the local community can be facilitated

by ECE programs at many levels.

First, at the classroom level, teachers can consistently encourage parents to assist and/or observe in the classroom, which leads to parents’ increased confidence in working with their children in developmentally appropriate ways. In many cases these classroom experiences lead immigrant parents to recognize their own talents, skills, and interests and pursue careers in early childhood education. After family service workers conduct home visits and discuss with parents their parenting, employment, and personal goals, a follow-up on these goals throughout the school year helps parents continue to move forward in their identity development. Interactions with ECE teachers and staff assist parents not only in figuring out who they are beyond their roles as parents but also empower immigrant parents to advocate and have larger voices and roles in the local community. In addition, teachers and staff are better able to understand immigrant parents’ everyday experiences in terms of employment, economic situations, assets and constraints, social networks and support, and political participation. This connection can generally be forged by programs creating structures that promote daily interactions between teachers and parents, by requiring home visits throughout the school year, and by working with the local communities to coordinate events in which the communities, parents, and ECE programs can participate.

By understanding immigrant experiences and development as parents, ECE programs can provide families with wraparound support, similar to the model of the full-service school (Dryfoos 1994; Dryfoos, Quinn, & Barkin 2005). To do this, programs should create links within local community organizations housing programs that parents of young children often utilize. Some of these links might be related to health care, employment assistance, and nutrition assistance. Finally, from a policy perspective, immigrant families’ representation in their communities and their access to community resources should be supported by increased funding. Additionally, policies need to be developed at the program, community, state, and federal levels that facilitate connections between ECE and other community programs and social services that support immigrant parents.

Staff Development and Well-being For ECE staff and teachers, ongoing professional development is imperative, and for teachers and staff who work with immigrant families, this professional development should focus specifically on work with immigrant children and parents. Professional development should be conducted both within and outside of the ECE classrooms and programs. Specifically,

51

teachers who have less experience and expertise working with immigrant parents and children should share classrooms and teaching responsibilities with, and be mentored by, a more senior, master teacher with significant ECE experience with immigrant families. Also, pairing teachers from different ethnic backgrounds with one another is recommended, as these teaching relationships increase teachers’ opportunities to learn more about other cultures, including those of the families they serve. In addition, ECE teachers who work with immigrant children and families should receive group training and coursework focused on topics such as race, cultural competence, and implementation of ECE and curricula with ELL children. Family service workers as well as teachers would benefit from trainings more heavily focused on accessing community resources and social services, so they can teach immigrant parents how to navigate those systems. Also, in this project, many teachers expressed interest in language training so they could communicate in a basic way with parents who do not speak the host country’s dominant language. Some of the aforementioned trainings and courses could be done in collaboration with local colleges and universities. Specifically, these academic institutions could develop trainings focused on working with immigrant families, and ultimately these colleges and universities could evaluate the effectiveness of these specific trainings and workshops.

Finally, colleges and universities should begin to focus attention in preservice curricula on immigrant parents and children and how ECE teachers and staff can best work with these diverse families with unique needs.

Teachers of young children and other staff in early childhood programs also need to be attentive to issues regarding their own health and wellness. Teaching, as a profession, is challenging in many respects, including the impact that it has on one’s personal life. For example, the time intensiveness of teaching, together with the necessary emphasis on the problems faced by children, can prompt teachers to experience behavior patterns often associated with occupational burnout (Freudenberger 1974). Traditionally defined as “emotional exhaustion,” burnout in teaching frequently is associated with fatigue, cynicism, detachment, and sense of ineffectiveness or lack of accomplishment (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter 1997). Teachers in early childhood programs that serve children of immigrants may be particularly susceptible to burnout, since many children, and the families themselves, are likely to be experiencing a wide array of life stressors. An accompanying result of enriched family engagement in programs serving these children is the attachment that teachers form with the families and their

52

consequent involvement in their lives and with their challenges. This phenomenon likely is amplified for teachers in these programs in comparison to other early childhood teachers, and it may result in increased risk for occupational burnout.

We do not want to suggest that all teachers who work in early childhood programs serving the children of immigrants will experience this phenomenon. However, we do infer that burnout risk may be relatively high for teachers and program staff. As a result, it is critical that program administrators recognize this risk and provide opportunities for staff to discuss their experiences with families and their personal reactions to their work. Such opportunities promote staff health and wellness. For example, recognizing the difficulty of this work and celebrating the successes of staff are small yet important ways that programs can express appreciation. In addition, it could be very useful to consider forming an internal “professional learning community” of staff to work together within the school community to address specific issues that emerge while affirming best practices with children and their families. In some cases, it also could be useful to engage the services of a consultant to help staff meet the challenges posed by the context of their work and the personal impact of their work. In summary, recognizing the personal impact of the work of teachers and staff is an important dimension of good early childhood practice and can be useful in preventing the risk of occupational burnout and its behavioral implications.

Conclusion This qualitative research project provides significant insight into the experiences of early childhood programs working with immigrant children and families. In addition, it illustrates the experiences of immigrant families in the United States and abroad, demonstrating how ECE programs may be considered the hub for child and family life, particularly among immigrant families with young children. Through qualitative, interview- and observation-based research in multiple, accredited, high-quality early childhood programs in the United States and Eastern Europe, many vital elements to working with immigrant children and families emerged. The findings from this study illustrate how ECE is a multilayered system that shapes both cultural and ecological factors in immigrant families’ daily lives. Consequently, it is wellsuited to provide the full-service support (Dryfoos 1994; Richardson 2009) that may be most beneficial to immigrant families. Specifically, our findings touch on four important areas or principles when considering ECE and immigrant families: 1. Quality and access of ECE programs for immigrant families 2. Building relationships with immigrant parents and families 3. Supporting immigrant parents’ identity development and representation in the community 4. Staff dynamics, development, and well-being Each of these reflects a potential area of focus and awareness for all early childhood education programs working with immigrant children and families.

One of the most fundamental aspects of working with immigrant children and families in early childhood programs is ensuring access to high-quality early childhood education programs. Research indicates that ECE quality matters; children who experience high-quality early care and education have more positive cognitive and socioemotional developmental

53

outcomes, not only in preschool but also into elementary school and beyond, than do their counterparts who do not attend quality ECE programs. However, in the United States and in Europe, young immigrant children are significantly less likely than their native counterparts to be enrolled in ECE programs. Many immigrant families live in impoverished areas in which there are very few early childhood programs. And generally, programs of high quality that work with immigrant families are virtually impossible to find.

Access to high-quality ECE also is an important area of improvement that communities and policy makers should address. From an ecological perspective, it is necessary to consider how ECE programs fit into the fabric of an entire community and how these programs provide not only a physical space for developmentally appropriate activities and interactions for young children but also give support to parents on concerns such as employment and health.

This notion resonated throughout this research, particularly in terms of the diverse ways that parents utilized ECE programs for things far beyond developmentally appropriate care and education for their children; for example, programs helped parents apply for WIC and food stamps, Section 8 housing, new jobs, and driver’s licenses. Funding for social programs in low-income communities with high numbers of immigrant children and families should be earmarked for creating early childhood programs to meet the diverse, dynamics needs of this population. In addition to making funding available, community agencies should collaborate to determine how ECE programs can best meet the varied needs of immigrant children and families, while the actual programs or ECE experts within these programs determine how best to work with immigrant children in developmentally appropriate ways.

A second area that emerged from this research as important when working with immigrant children and families was building relationships with immigrant children and families. Based on the experiences of the programs in this study, it seems that developing relationships with immigrant parents and communities was of the utmost importance. Thus, ECE programs should focus at both the classroom and program levels on two areas in relation to working with immigrant families: understanding families’ cultural backgrounds and incorporating families’ languages and cultures into the classroom. To this end, many programs can put in place specific activities to support the development of these relationships. Also, some programs may consider assigning specific staff members to roles that are solely dedicated to maintaining relationships with families. Often, the development of these relationships can begin the moment that parents inquire about the program, and definitely by the time they begin registering their children for ECE. A few of the programs in this study had specific staff members who focused exclusively on developing relationships with families, while other centers, particularly those with fewer resources, placed this responsibility on the teachers and assistant teachers. Either way, an emphasis on getting to know parents and families was essential to effectively working with immigrant families. Certain activities nurtured these relationships with immigrant parents, especially home visits in which teachers and/or staff members learned more about the child as well as the family. Programs found that parents, in the comfort of their own homes, seemed less intimidated and more open; the visitors could observe aspects of family culture that were not apparent in the classroom. Teachers and staff were often invited to share meals, view family photographs, and given cultural artifacts like blankets, pictures, and traditional clothes to use in the classroom. In addition to home visits, teachers and staff maintained relationships with parents through regular conversations during pickup and drop-off. When

54

programs provided transportation and the parents were not in the center every day, staff and teachers tried to have phone conversations with parents regularly. They not only worked to learn more about their families’ cultures, but they also provided families with valuable information regarding social service programs. Following the example of full-service schools, all of the programs provided links to various nutrition, housing, and employment services. Being able to access these programs through the ECE programs contributed to the amount of contact parents had with their children’s school and in turn created more opportunities to build relationships between the ECE programs and parents.

Through these meetings with parents, ECE teachers and staff working with immigrant families can learn about families’ cultures as well as how best to incorporate these cultures into the classroom. Specifically, staff and teachers may learn about immigrant parents’ expectations of the ECE program based on their own experiences in their countries of origin, as well as determine how these expectations mesh with the goals of the ECE program and developmentally appropriate practices. Also, regular and planned interactions with families will help teachers and staff learn about certain cultural preferences. For example, in the present study, programs began to understand varied gender relations and roles among their diverse immigrant families from Africa, the Middle East, and Central America.

They learned what is and is not considered acceptable for each gender in terms of interactions and tried to honor these beliefs when possible. Finally, it is important to try to incorporate aspects of all the families’ cultures into the classroom. In this study, teachers and staff were able to utilize artifacts like blankets, traditional clothing, pictures and photographs, maps, and books to represent families’ cultural backgrounds in the classrooms. All of the classrooms also labeled objects in multiple languages. (Labeling was not necessary in the Roma programs visited because all the children and families spoke the same language.)

A third area of focus among programs working with immigrant children and families that emerged from this project was how programs reflected an ecological approach to ECE, as manifested by the consistent support for parents’ identity development as well as representation in their local communities. As such, programs worked to help parents connect with other social programs, including nutrition, employment, housing, and health programs, as well as supported parents in advocating for their needs in the local community. All of the ECE programs in this study were committed to facilitating these connections, and teaching parents how to navigate the services and resources in their local communities yet taking care not to overfunction for families.

55

The findings from this study indicate that using formal and informal structures can effectively empower immigrant parents regarding their own livelihoods and their children’s education. For example, a requirement of Head Start funding, which three of the US programs received, is to have a parent policy council. This council provides parents with opportunities to contribute to Head Start program policies as well as hone their leadership skills. In addition to this leadership opportunity, programs that had family service workers met with parents specifically to discuss their personal goals related to employment, education, and other aspects of their lives. Discussions regarding parents’ goals as well as informal conversations with teachers during pickup and dropoff often included providing parents with information on and assistance with navigating various child and family institutions, including social services, health care, and education. Consequently, it is necessary for teachers and staff who work with immigrant families to have accurate and up-to-date understandings of various social programs and institutions that are related to child and family life, so that they can most effectively support immigrant families.

In addition to empowering parents regarding their livelihood and identity development, programs worked to engage parents in the classroom and their children’s education in general. They did this through a variety of techniques, including inviting parents to volunteer in the classroom and/or on field trips as well as developing unique ways of sharing with parents what their children were doing in school, including taking pictures of the activities children engaged in throughout the day and then sharing these with parents during pickup time. Also, many teachers invited parents into the classroom to share about their cultural experiences and/or read stories to the children.

Finally, the findings from this study indicate an important focus on aspects of staff dynamics, development, and well-being that may be particularly unique to programs working with immigrant families. Staff and teachers within all of the programs reflected the diversity of the families they served as well as the local community. Most programs organized their classroom teaching assignments so that teachers from different cultural, racial, and linguistic backgrounds worked together. Consequently, in programs in which multiple languages were spoken by families, there was often a teacher present who could easily communicate with each parent. Despite this affinity for ethnic and linguistic matching among the programs in this study, it is important to recognize that this is not necessary for effectively working with immigrant families. Most important is that teachers and staff members be culturally competent, nonjudgmental, and sensitive to families’ unique needs. The programs in this study

56

would often “grow their own” staff and teachers or hire individuals, including parents, from the communities being served, and provide them with the necessary scaffolding to ultimately teach or join the staff.

Hiring individuals from such diverse backgrounds often meant the opportunity for teachers and staff members to learn from one another about other cultures and ethnicities while also supporting each other in linguistic translation for families. Despite such support generally shown for one another in terms of language and culture, there were some occasions when challenges between staff members and/or teachers arose as a result of cultural differences. In these situations it was imperative that programs embrace diversity, so that stereotyping and separation based on cultures was frowned upon and thus, less likely to occur. Many teachers and staff in this study mentioned the importance of cultural competence and diversity training; however, they remarked that the trainings were most effective and beneficial when individuals (either teachers, staff, or parents from the particular program) were asked to discuss their cultural experiences. Some of the English-speaking teachers and staff expressed a desire to learn some of the basic aspects of the languages that their families spoke. This is something that would not only help communication and relationship building with parents but also help break down any barriers and/or stereotypes among staff, teachers, and parents from varied backgrounds. Finally, many teachers discussed a desire to receive more training on behavior management—this was voiced most commonly among teachers who were immigrants themselves.

A final area that emerged as important but that needs more research relates to the health and well-being of teachers and staff members. Many of the teachers in this project followed demanding personal and professional schedules, which often led to physical and emotional exhaustion. Some programs were very much aware of the stresses faced by their staff and teachers and consequently offered support, including providing additional breaks and/or adding additional staff to classrooms at certain times throughout the day or providing professional development activities focused on emotional well-being and self-care. For many teachers and staff, being able to discuss challenges and stressors with their colleagues often provided significant stress relief as well. Given this emerging finding and previous research indicating the high turnover and burnout rate among early childhood professionals, it is important for programs to be aware of this and take measures to guard against the physical and emotional stresses faced by ECE teachers and staff.

We hope this report provides ECE professionals and researchers with a sense of what is happening with immigrant families in ECE programs and and an idea of how best to work with these families in ways that are manageable for individual ECE programs. Findings are based on the experiences of a small number of ECE programs in the United States and Eastern Europe and thus cannot be representative of all high-quality early childhood education programs. This report highlights the need for more research on, and practical work in, how programs can best meet the typical and unique needs of immigrant children and families at the classroom, program, community, and policy levels.

57

58

Appendix A: Interview Protocols Family Services Practitioner Interview Protocol Background • Tell me about your background and what brought you to work at this center.

—How long have you been working here?

—Training and education?

—Previous experience in the field?

—Cultural background?

• Tell me about your role at the center. Where are you located?

• Tell me about a typical day for you.

• Tell me about how you work with families at your center. Are there unique ways that you work with immigrant families?

• Tell me about how you typically interact with families who are new to the Center. How is this different or the same for immigrant children and families?

• What is the most challenging aspect of your work here? What is most challenging specifically in relation to working with immigrant children and families?

Diversity of staff • How does your own cultural background filter into your work with children and families in the center?

• How does the diversity and organization of program staff support families’ experiences at your center?

• Describe the diversity of the staff and the families in the center.

Language of interaction and multilinguality • Tell me about how you work with families and children who are learning English. How is this different from how you work with English-speaking children?

• Tell me about the ways immigrant children and families are able to express themselves with you even if they do not speak English (host language).

Parent engagement • What is your philosophy regarding working with parents? What specific programs, outreach tools, family engagement mechanisms, etc., generally are in place and regularly occur? Also, what is the involvement of families in the programs of the center?

• How do you engage new families in center activities?

—Please describe what happens when a new family begins at the center.

—Tell me about a time you were successful at engaging a new family in activities at the center.

59

• Which activities do families tend to engage in most? Does this vary for immigrant families?

• Tell me about how you work with families who do not speak English (or Spanish). [Ask for a specific example] —Tell me about a time you were successful in engaging a family who did not speak English.

• How do you communicate with families? How do families communicate with you?

• How do you learn about and recognize each family’s culture? [Ask for specific examples] • Tell me about challenges that you face in terms of parental engagement.

• What do you see as parents’ responsibilities in regards to their children’s education? What are teachers’ responsibilities, particularly in relation to immigrant children’s education?

Professional development • Prior to working here, how were you trained in working with children from diverse backgrounds?

• Tell me about any recent professional development you participated in.

• Describe the ways that the center you work in supports your work with children and families, and specifically children from diverse backgrounds.

—How do directors support practitioners in professional development?

—How do staff members support each other in their work?

—Is any of this specifically related to working with immigrant families?

• Describe the in-services available and that you have participated in that support your work with immigrant families.

• If you could design a preservice or in-service for ECE practitioners working with diverse families, what would you include? What type of content would you include and specifically what format would be most helpful?

• In terms of professional development, what do you most need? What has been helpful to you?

Immigrant children’s unique characteristics • Tell me about some of the unique characteristics of the families in your center.

• What are your goals for the children and families you work with, and particularly the immigrant children and families that the center works with?

• Some immigrant families suffer from PTSD from experiences of trauma that occurred in the context of immigration. How do these experiences of families’ impact children’s experiences in your center? In what ways do you consider these experiences when working with immigrant families? [Ask for an example]

Wrap-up • What advice would you give to other centers/teachers regarding working with immigrant families?

• Where do you see the center in five years in relation to serving immigrant families?

• What is your vision for serving immigrant families in your center?

60

Teacher Interview Protocol Background • Tell me about your background and what brought you to working at this center.

— How long have you been working here?

— Training and education?

— Previous experience in the field?

— Cultural background?

• Tell me about a typical day for a child in your center. Are there special programs or activities geared specifically toward immigrant children?

• Tell me about how you work with families at your center/in your classroom. Are there unique ways in which you work with immigrant families?

• Tell me about a typical first week for children and their families in the center. In what ways is this experience different or the same for immigrant children and families?

• What is most challenging in your work here? What is most challenging specifically in relation to working with immigrant children and families?

Diversity of staff • How does your own cultural background filter into your work with children and families ?

• How does the diversity of the staff in the Center support families’ experiences at your center?

• Describe the diversity of the staff and the families in the center.

Language of instruction and multilinguality • Tell me about how you work with children who are learning English. How is this different from how you work with English speaking children?

• Tell me about the ways immigrant children are able to express themselves in the center even if they do not speak English (host language).

• What activities support this (for example. music, art)? [Ask for examples]

Parent engagement • What is your philosophy regarding working with parents? What specific programs, outreach tools, family engagement mechanisms, etc., generally are in place and regularly occur. Also, what is the involvement of families in the programs of the center?

• How do you engage new families in center activities?

— Please describe what happens when a new family begins at the center.

— Tell me about a time you were successful at engaging a new family in activities.

• Which activities do families tend to engage in most? Does this vary for immigrant families?

• Tell me about how you work with families who do not speak English. [Ask for a specific example] — Tell me about a time you were successful in engaging a family who did not speak English.

61

• How do you communicate with families in your center? How do families communicate with you?

• How do you learn about and recognize each family’s culture? [Ask for specific examples] • Tell me about challenges that you face in terms of parental engagement.

• What do you see as parents’ responsibilities in regard to their children’s education? What are teachers’ responsibilities, particularly in relation to immigrant children’s education?

Professional development • Prior to working here, how were you trained in working with children from diverse backgrounds?

• Tell me about any recent professional development in which you participated.

• Describe the ways that the center you work in supports your work with children and families, and specifically children from diverse backgrounds.

— How do directors support teachers in professional development?

— How do staff members support each other in their work?

— Is any of this specifically related to working with immigrant families?

• Describe the in-services available and that you have participated in that support your work with immigrant families.

• If you could design a preservice or in-service for ECE practitioners working with diverse families, what would you include? What type of content would you include and specifically what format would be most helpful?

• In terms of professional development, what do you most need? What has been helpful to you?

Immigrant children’s unique characteristics • Tell me about the unique characteristics of the families in your center.

• What are your goals for the children and families you work with, and particularly the immigrant children and families that the center works with?

• Some immigrant families suffer from PTSD from experiences of trauma that occurred in the context of immigration. How do these experiences of families’ impact children’s experiences in your center? In what ways do you consider these experiences when working with immigrant families? [Ask for an example] • How do you think about social inclusion in your work at the center? How does the center support children and parents being inclusive?

Wrap-up • Where do you see the center in five years in relation to serving immigrant families?

• What is your vision for serving immigrant families in your center?

• What advice would you give to other centers/teachers regarding working with immigrant families?

62

Director Interview Protocol Background • Please briefly tell me about the history of this program—how did it come to be that you are working with the families that are currently a part of your center? [Try to get at how the demography of families they are serving may have changed over time and how they adjusted to this change] • Tell me about the families you serve who are immigrants. Have the demographics of your center changed over time? [How many families who are immigrants are served? What are their characteristics? How would they describe these families in terms of where they are from, their education, their ideas about ECE?] • Tell me about the unique ways that you work with families at your center.

• What challenges do you face in your center?

Language of instruction and multilinguality • In what language(s) are children in your center taught? How was this decided by the center?

• What is your/the center’s philosophy regarding languages used at the center?

Parent engagement • What is your center’s philosophy regarding working with parents? What is unique about how you work with immigrant parents?

• How does the center successfully engage immigrant parents? Tell me about a time when you successfully engaged an immigrant family. How is this the same or different from working generally with families in the center ?

• What are some of the challenges related to engaging immigrant parents in center activities?

Professional development • What training (for example, degrees, certificates, pre-services) is required to work in this center?

• What is your philosophy regarding professional development? Are there any specific trainings that staff attend specifically related to working with immigrant families?

• How is professional development regarding working with immigrant families supported in your center?

• What type of professional development would you like to have access to in relation to working with immigrant families? What type of content should be covered? What format is best?

DVD? In person? Written documents?

Diversity of staff • Tell me about the diversity of your staff.

• How has the composition of your staff in terms of demographic diversity changed or remained the same? Why?

63

• How does your own culture influence the way you interact with families in your center?

How does your own culture influence the way you interact specifically with immigrant families in your center?

Immigrant children’s unique characteristics • Tell me about the unique characteristics of the families in your center. Immigrant families?

• How can your center best work with children and parents? With immigrant children and parents?

• What are the most important aspects of your center for families? For immigrant families?

• Some immigrant families suffer from PTSD from experiences of trauma that occurred in the context of immigration. How do these experiences of families impact children’s experiences in your center? In what ways do you consider these experiences when working with immigrant families? [Ask for an example] • How do you think about social inclusion in your work at the center? How does the center support children and parents being inclusive? [Are they using any type of anti-bias curriculum, etc.?]

• What are the greatest challenges and the greatest satisfactions?

Wrap-up • Where do you see the center in five years in relation to serving children and families?

Immigrant children and families?

• What is your vision for the center? Specifically related to immigrant children and families?

• What advice would you give to other centers/teachers regarding working with immigrant families?

Parent Interview Protocol Background • First, I’d like to hear a little bit about your experiences at the Center as well as your experiences prior to finding the center.

— How did you first learn about the center?

— Did your child utilize any other child care setting?

— What led you to enroll your child in this center?

— Tell me about you and your child’s first week at the center.

Language of instruction and multilinguality • What are your expectations of the center regarding your child’s knowledge of English?

• What are your expectations of the center regarding your child’s knowledge of your own language?

• Does your child speak your language at home or English?

64

Parent engagement • Do you participate in activities at the center?

• How did you first become involved with activities at the center?

• Do you meet socially with other parents?

• How has the center helped you develop these relationships?

• Are there things you wish the center would do to help you be involved more?

• How often are you in contact with the center? How satisfied are you with the contacts you have with the center?

Diversity of staff • What are the particular characteristics and behaviors of staff members at the center that make you feel most comfortable? What is it about them that makes you feel particularly comfortable?

• When you have a question or do not understand something happening at the center, who do you talk to?

Immigrant families’ unique characteristics • How does the center support what you want for your children?

• What is most important to you in terms of your child’s experience at the center?

• In what ways are your experiences different at this center than what they would be in your country of origin?

• What is your favorite aspect of the center?

• What is one thing you would change about or add to the center if you could?

• What advice would you give to other centers/teachers regarding working with immigrant families?

65

Appendix B: Code Book adjusting to the United States—“examples of the parent adjusting to being in the United States” adultification—“children forced to take on adult roles because their parents do not have the language skills to navigate US society” advocating for child—“parent or teacher advocating for the child or parent” availability of language materials—“how easy is it to find materials to support their children’s languages and cultures” biculturalism as a strength—“biculturalism and bilingualism as a strength” child care before center care—“what type of care they used before center-based care” challenges, funding—“explains how funding is a challenge for some centers” children learning English—“how the children learn English in the center and strategies teachers use to help the children learn English” choosing to stay in the United States—“reasons for remaining in the United States beyond initial intentions” demanding schedules of staff—“the stressfullness and demandingness of staff’s schedules” demographics of center—“provides information on the demographic background of the families in the centers; how these demographics have changed over time” empowering parents—“the ways centers empower parents to be involved in the ECE programs or in their children’s lives; making parents feel comfortable at the center; advocating for parents to teach them how to advocate for themselves” engaging parents—“strategies for engaging parents in the center” father involvement—“evidence of fathers being involved in the classroom or discussion of this” future of the center—“how they see the center growing and changing over time” goals for families—“center’s hopes and dreams for families” growing our own—“how ECE centers develop parents into center teachers—-creating a pathway to stable employment as an ECE teacher” home visit—“any text describing the home visit” incorporating families’ cultures into classroom—“what teachers do to bring the families’ cultures into the classroom” language challenges—“issues surrounding language of the child and family; challenges regarding communicating with parents; challenges assessing the child’s skills and needs” language of classroom—“the centers’ philosophies on what and how languages should be taught to the children” language of staff—“information regarding staff members’ languages” learning about families’ culture—“how do staff learn about their families’ cultures?” linking families with services—“hooking families up with services and teaching them about what services they are eligible for, advocating with and for them” location and convenience of center—“where the center is located in relation to where families live, and how convenient it is to them”

66

meeting children’s individual needs—“strategies or techniques for meeting individual children’s unique needs” mental health needs—“mental health needs and issues that may face some families” navigating systems—“the ways ECE centers help families navigate the health care, social welfare, and public education systems” needs of families—“refers to needs of families from transportation to classes to information” parent-parent relationships—”indications of parents supporting one another” parents’ concerns for their children—“any concerns parents voice regarding their children” parents’ cultural beliefs re: school—“info on how parents think about school or education, and their interactions with teachers” parents’ employment—“any discussion regarding parents’ jobs” parents’ employment schedules—“anything referring to parents’ employment schedules” parents’ goals for their children—“what parents want for their children” parents’ ideas about learning English—“parents’ thoughts on how or why the children should learn English” parents’ opinions of the center—“generally what parents think about the center and their experiences at the center; favorite things about the center” parents’ sacrifices for their children—“what parents give up for their children’s benefit. e.g., coming to the US for their children’s benefit” parents and teachers as partners—”examples of how parents and teachers partner for the benefit of the child” professional development ideas—“any ideas that teachers, staff, or parents have for professional development” professional development—“what is offered by the center in terms of professional development— in-servces, preservices” reasons for migrating to the US—“reasons that parents or staff initially came to the US” reputation of the center—“what is thought about the center in the local neighborhood; how families learn about the center” respecting diversity among families—“any action that the teacher or staff does to embrace and accept families diverse needs and wants” responsibilities of parents—“what teachers see as parents’ responsibilities” site information—“information regarding the logistics of the center” social capital—“example of parents using social capital to find care or take care of any other needs” staff credentials—“what are staff members credentials; are there ways that the center helps staff members earn certain credentials?” staff cultural backgrounds/values—“staff’s ideas about culture, race, ethnicity” staff diversity—“refers to the importance of having diverse staff such that staff matches the families in terms of language and culture; how the center recruited such a diverse staff” staff dynamics—“interactions among staff members”

67

staff relations with families—“refers to how centers think about their relationships with their families, and how they forge these relationships” staff responsibilities—“statements referring to what staff are responsible for” staff supervision—“how staff are supervised” strategies for maintaining home language—“the ways parents (and teachers) help children maintain their home language, or parents (and teachers) ideas regarding this, or their experiences with this” strategies for managing language issues—“the ways staff and teachers communicate with parents of all different languages; how they overcome language barriers” teaching children to accept one another—“teachers or staff actively or passively teaching children to respect and be friends with one another—to embrace each others’ differences” transitioning into the center—“how children and parents are transitioned into the center” transitioning out of the center—“discussing the transition to kindergarten; how the center supports the family in this transition” typical day—“teacher describing the daily routine of their classroom” unique characteristics: documentation—“documentation as a unique challenge faced by immigrant families” wait list—“being on the wait list for the center” wraparound services—“reflects the other services available at the center beyond ECE”

68

References Acevedo-Garcia, D., & L.M. Bates. 2008. “Latino Health Paradoxes: Empirical Evidence, Explanations, Future Research, and Implications.” In Latinas/os in the United States: Changing the Face of America, eds. H. Rodriguez, R. Saenz, & C. Menjivar, 101–13. New York: Springer.

Adams, L.D., & A. Kirova. 2007. Global Migration and Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Alba, R., N. Denton, D.J. Hernandez, I. Disha, B. McKenzie, & J. Napierala. In press. “Nowhere Near the Same: The Neighborhoods of Latino Children.” In Development of Hispanic Children in Immigrant Families: Challenges and Prospects, draft title, eds. N. Landalem, S. McHale, & A. Booth.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Amato, P. 2005. “The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social, and Emotional Well-being of the Next Generation. Future of Children 15 (2): 75–96.

Barata, M.C., M .Yuan, & H. Yoshikawa. 2010.“Child Care Choices and Preferences: A Mixedmethods Study with New York Immigrant and Ethnically Diverse Low-income Families.” Paper presented at the VII National Symposium of Research in Psychology (VII Simpósio Nacional de Investigação em Psicologia), Braga, Portugal, February.

Board of Children and Families, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council, & Institute of Medicine. 1995. “Immigrant Children and Their Families: Issues for Research and Policy.” Future of Children 5 (2): 72–89.

Cabrera, N., J. D. Shannon, J. West, & J. Brooks-Gunn. 2006. “Parental Interactions with Latino Infants: Variation by Country of Origin and English Proficiency.” Child Development 77: 1190–1207.

Capps, R. 2006. “Immigration and Child and Family Policy.” In Children in Low-income Families, ed.

M. Beadle, 8. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Capps, R. 2008. “The Social Contexts of Children and Youth in Hispanic Immigrant Families.” Paper presented at the 16th annual symposium on family issues, Development of Hispanic Children in Immigrant Families: Challenges and Prospects, State College, Pennsylvania, October.

Capps, R., M. Fix, J. Murray, J. Ost, J.S. Passel, & S. Herwantoro. 2004. The New Demography of America’s Schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Capps, R., & K. Fortuny. 2006. Immigration and Child and Family Policy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Child Trends Databank. 2005. Early Childhood Program Enrollment. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Christianson, G., & P. Stanat. 2007. Language Policies and Practices for Helping Immigrants and Second Generation Students Succeed. Migration Policy Institute & Bertelsmann Stiftung TransAtlantic Task Force on Immigration and Integration.

Clauss, S., & B. Nauck. 2008. “Germany: The Children of Immigrants.” In The Child Care Transition, Innocenti Report Card 8:22, ed. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Florence: UNICEF. Coleman, J.S. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Sociology 94: S95–120.

Copple, C., & S. Bredekamp. eds. 2009. Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: NAEYC. Crosnoe, R. 2007. “Early Child Care and the School Readiness of Children from Mexican Immigrant Families.” International Migration Review 41 (1): 152–181.

Crul, M. 2007. Pathways to Success for the Children of Immigrants. Amsterdam: Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies.

69

Department of Social and Economic Affairs. 2002. International Migration 2002. United Nations Population Division. deValk, H.A.G., K.R. Noam, A.M. Bosch, & G.C.N. Beets. 2009. Children in Immigrant Families in the Netherlands: A Statistical Portrait and a Review of the Literature. Florence, Italy: Innocenti Research Centre.

Dodson, B. 2002. Gender and Brain Drain Form South Africa. Capetown: Southern Africa Migration Project.

Dryfoos, J.G. 1994. Full-service Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dryfoos, J.G., J. Quinn, & C. Barkin. 2005. Community Schools in Action. New York: Oxford University Press.

Eurydice Network. 2009. Early Childhood Education and Care in Europe: Tackling Social and Cultural Inequalities. Brussels, Belgium: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.

Foner, N. 2003. “Anthropology and Contemporary Immigration: Where We Have Been and Where We Are Going.” In American Arrivals: Anthropology Engages the New Immigration, ed. N. Foner, 3–43. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.

Fraser, A. 1992. The Gypsies. Oxford: Blackwell.

Freudenberger, H.J. 1974. “Staff Burnout.” Journal of Social Issues 30 (1): 159–165.

Fukkink, R. 2008. A Contextual Analysis of Social Function, Stimulation, and Child Participation in Educational Facilities for Young Children in the Netherlands. The Hague: Bernard van Leer Foundation.

Furstenburg, F.F., Jr., & M.E. Hughes. 1995. “Social Capital and Successful Development among Atrisk Youth.” Journal of Marriage and Family 57 (3): 580–592.

Garcia, E., & B. Jensen. 2009. “Early Educational Opportunities for Children of Hispanic Origins.”

SRCD Social Policy Report 23 (2): 1–20.

Garcia, M., A. Pence, & J.L. Evans. 2008. Africa’s Future, Africa’s Challenge: Early Childhood Care and Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Garcia-Coll, C., & A. Marks. Forthcoming. Is Becoming American a Developmental Risk? Washington, DC: APA. Gormley, W.T. 2008. The Effects of Oklahoma’s Universal Pre-Kindergarten Program on Hispanic Children. Washington, DC: Center for Research on Children in the United States.

Harwood, R.L., B. Leyendecker, V.J. Carlson, M. Asencio, & A.M. Millar. 2002. “Parenting among Latino Families in the U.S.” In Handbook of Parenting, Vol. 4, Social Conditions and Applied Parenting, 2nd ed., ed. M.H. Bornstein, 21–46. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hernandez, D.J. 2004. “Demographic Change and the Life Circumstances of Immigrant Families.”

Future of Children 14: 17–48.

Hernandez, D.J. 2009. “Generational Patterns in the U.S.: American Community Survey and Other Sources.” Paper presented at a national conference on children and adolescents from immigrant families, The Immigrant Paradox in Education and Behavior: Is Becoming American a Developmental Risk? Providence, Rhode Island, March.

Hernandez, D.J., N.S. Denton, & S.E. Macartney. 2007. “Children in Immigrant Families–the U.S. and 50 States: National Origins, Language, and Early Education.” Children in America’s Newcomer Families research brief series. Washington, DC, and Albany, NY: Child Trends and the Center for Social and Demographic Analysis, University of Albany, State University of New York. Research Brief Series: Publication 2007-11 (April): 1–9.

Hughes, K., S. Hutson, S., A. Thomas, & M. Warden. 2008. Working for Social Inclusion: Four Case Studies. Swansea, Wales: Alain Thomas Consultancy.

70

IOM (International Organization for Migration). 2008. The Middle East, accessed June 8, 2010.

Kao, G. 2004. “Social Capital and Its Relevance to Minority and Immigrant Populations.” Sociology of Education 77: 172–83.

Kao, G., & M. Tienda. 1995. “Optimism and Achievement: The Educational Performance of Immigrant Youth.” Social Science Quarterly 76 (1): 1–19.

Kenrick, D. 1998. Historical Dictionary of the Gypsies (Romanies). London: Scarecrow Press.

LaRossa, R. 2005. “Grounded Theory Methods in Qualitative Family Research.” Journal of Marriage and Family 67: 837–57.

Leseman, P. 2007. Early Education for Immigrant Children. Migration Policy Institute & Bertelsmann Stiftung Trans-Atlantic Task Force on Immigration and Integration.

Leseman, P. 2009. “The Impact of High Quality Education and Care on the Development of Young Children: Review of the Literature.” In Early Childhood Education in Europe: Tackling Social and Cultural Inequalities, ed. Eurydice, 17. Brussels: Education, Audiovisual, and Culture Executive Agency.

Liang, X., B. Fuller, & J.D. Singer. 2000. “Ethnic Differences in Child Care Selection: The Influence of Family Structure, Parental Practices, and Home Language.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 15 (3): 357–84.

Liegeois, J.P., & N. Gheorghe. 1995. Roma/Gypsies: A European Minority. London: Minority Rights Group.

Magnuson, K., C. Lahaie, & J. Waldfogel, 2006. “Preschool and School Readiness of Children of Immigrants.” Social Science Quarterly 87 (5): 1241–62.

Martin, P., & E. Midgley. 2006. Immigration: Shaping and Reshaping America. Updated and revised.

2nd ed. Population Bulletin 61 (4): 1–32.

Martin, P., & J. Widgren. 2002. “International Migration: Facing the Challenge.” Population Bulletin 57 (1): 1–43.

Martin, P., & G. Zurcher. 2008. “Managing Migration: The Global Challenge.” Population Bulletin 63 (1): 124.

Maslach, C., S.E. Jackson, & M.P. Leiter. 1997. “Maslach Burnout Inventory.” 3rd ed. In Evaluating Stress: A Book of Resources, eds. C.P. Zalaquett & R.J. Wood, 191–218. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Matthews, H., & D. Ewen. 2006. Reaching All Children? Understanding Early Care and Education Participation among Immigrant Families. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.

McDonald, D. 2009. Elevating the Field. Washington, DC: NAEYC. Meekers, D., & A. Calves. 1997. “‘Main’ Girlfriends, Girlfriends, Marriage, and Money: The Social Context of HIV Risk Behavior in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Health and Transition 7 (1): 361–75.

NAEYC (National Association for the Education of Young Children). 2008. “Overview of the NAEYC Early Childhood Program Standards.” www.naeyc.org/files/academy/file/OverviewStandards. pdf National Forum on Early Childhood Program Evaluation. 2007. A Science-based Framework for Early Childhood Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Center on the Developing Child.

National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics. 2007. Para nuestros Ninos, accessed October 31, 2009.

Ng, F.F., E.B. Godfrey, C. Hunter, C.S. Tamis-LeMonda, H. Yoshikawa, & R. Kahana Kalman, 2009.

“Mothers’ Socialization Goals for Children in the First Years of Life: Developmental, Ethnic, and Economic Differences.” In The Dynamics of Parents’ Beliefs and Practices: Cultural, Developmental, and Socioeconomic Contexts, F.F. Ng & E.B. Godfrey (co-chair). Symposium at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Denver, Colorado, April.

71

NICHD (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development). 2006. The NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2006a. Where Immigrant Students Succeed: A Comparative Review of Performance and Engagement in PISA 2005. Paris: Author.

OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2006b. Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: Author.

OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2010. Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,3417 ,en_32252351_32235918_1_1_1_1_1,00.html Parrenas, R. 2005. Children of Global Migration. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Passel, J.S. 2006. Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S. Pew Hispanic Center Report, March 7. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. http://pewhispanic. org/reports/report.php?ReportID=61 Passel, J.S., & D. Cohn. 2009. A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=107 Passel, J.S., & P. Taylor. 2010. “Unauthorized Immigrants and Their U.S.-born Children.” Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=125.

Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Portes, A., & R. Rumbaut. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Richardson, J.W. 2009. The Full-service Community School Movement. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Roma Education Fund. 2007. Advancing Education of Roma in Slovakia. Budapest, Hungary: Author.

Rorke, B., & A. Wilkens. 2006. Roma Inclusion: Lessons Learned from OSI Programming. New York: Open Society Institute.

Ruiz-de-Velasco, J., M. Fix, & B.C. Clewel. 2000. Overlooked and Underserved: Immigrant Students in U.S. Secondary Schools. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Runyan, D.K., W.M. Hunter, R.R.S. Socolar, L. Amaya-Jackson, D. English, J. Landsverk, H. Dubowitz, D.H. Browne, S.I. Bangdiwala, R.M. Mathew. 1998. “Children Who Prosper in Unfavorable Environments: The Relationship to Social Capital.” Pediatrics 101 (1): 12–18.

Small, M. 2009. Unanticipated Gains. New York: Oxford University Press.

Suarez-Orozco, M.M. 2003. “Right Moves? Immigration, Globalization, Utopia, and Dystopia.” In American Arrivals: Anthropology Engages the New Immigration, ed. N. Foner, 45–74. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.

Tabors, P.O. 2008. One Child, Two Languages, A Guide for Preschool Educators of Children Learning English as a Second Language. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Tanner, A. ed. 2004. The Forgotten Minorities of Eastern Europe: The History and Today of Selected Ethnic Groups in Five Countries. Helsinki: East-West Books.

Tanner, A. 2005. The Roma of Eastern Europe: Still Searching for Inclusion. http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=308 Teachman, J.D., K. Paasch, & K. Carver. 1996. “Social Capital and Dropping out of School Early.”

Journal of Marriage and Family 58 (3): 773–83.

Tobin, J. 2009. “Children Crossing Borders: Including the Voices of Migrant Families in ECEC Programmes.” A working paper. The Hague: Bernard van Leer Foundation.

72

UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). 2008. “The Child Care Transition, Innocenti Report Card 8.” Florence, Italy: Innocenti Research Centre.

UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). 2009. “Children in Immigrant Families in Eight Affluent Countries: Their Family, National, and International Context.” Florence, Italy: Innocenti Research Centre.

UNPD (United Nations Population Division). 2005. World Population Prospects: The 2005 Revision Population Database.

UNPD (United Nations Population Division). 2006. World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision Population Database.

Van den Hoonard, W. 1997. “Talking Distance from the Data and Constructing Sensitizing Concepts.” In Working with Sensitizing Concepts: Analytical Field Research. Qualitative Research Methods Series 41. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Vandell, D.L., & K.M. Pierce. 2003. “Child Care Quality and Children’s Success at School.” In Early Childhood Learning: Programs for a New Century, eds. A. Reynolds and M. Wang, 115–39. New York: Child Welfare League.

Vandenbroeck, M. 2006. Globalisation and Privatization: The Impact on Childcare Policy and Practice. Working Papers in Early Childhood Development. The Hague: Bernard van Leer Foundation.

Vandenbroeck, M., S. De Visscher, K. Van Nuffel, & J. Ferla. 2008. “Mothers’ Search for Infant Child Care: The Dynamic Relationship between Availability and Desirability in a Continental European Welfare State.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23 (2): 245–58.

Weisner, T.S. 1997. “The Ecocultural Project of Human Development: Why Ethnography and Its Findings Matter.” Ethos 25 (2): 177–90.

Yoshikawa, H. 1994. “Prevention as Cumulative Protection: Effects of Early Family Support and Education on Chronic Delinquency and its Risks.” Psychological Bulletin 115: 28–54.

Yoshikawa, H. 2011. Immigrants Raising Citizens: Undocumented Parents of the Second Generation.

New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Yoshikawa, H., E.B. Godfrey, & A.C. Rivera. 2008. “Access to Institutional Resources as a Measure of Social Exclusion: Relations with Family Process and Cognitive Development in the Context of Immigration.” In Beyond the Family: Contexts of Immigrant Children’s Development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, eds. H. Yoshikawa & N. Way, 121: 73–96.

73

74

Exploration of the Status of Services for Immigrant Families in Early Childhood Education Programs A study conducted by the National Association for the Education of Young Children with support from the Bernard van Leer Foundation.

National Association for the Education of Young Children 1313 L Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005-4101 www.naeyc.org