Login | Registration

Adjust Font Size:

The following is an excerpt from...

Participating in a Research Project: A Head Start Program's Experience

An Interview with Gayle Cunningham

Guest Editor Judy David interviewed Gayle Cunningham for this article.

We'd had a successful research experience before. Over ten years ago, our Head Start program participated in the Transition Project, funded by the ACYF/HSB. At that time, my interest in research was very small; rather, I was interested in continuing the Head Start services from kindergarten to grade 3, which was part of the project. I thought evaluation was just a necessary evil. I came to appreciate the value and methods that Dr. Martha Abbott-Shim, the primary investigator, and the other researchers used to work with the Head Start staff, children, and families. When that research project ended, there was a new research Request for Proposals out on Head Start quality. Martha and I each read it and immediately thought of another collaboration. She was awarded the grant at Georgia State University and we partnered with her. From the very beginning, I was clear about my goals – to use the research findings to enhance staff development and our own internal processes for improvement.

At various times during the program year, evaluators came into the classrooms to collect data. They observed, using the Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs II, which is similar to NAEYC accreditation criteria. They also interviewed staff and parents. The research project paid for a Research Coordinator on site. She was responsible for hiring and training the testers, collecting the data, and coordinating between Georgia State and our program. There was also a part-time researcher who collected data from our parents.

The on-site Research Coordinator helped everything work smoothly. The research project was not perceived as an extra burden by Head Start staff because she took care of the research tasks. She made friends with the staff and became part of our Head Start family. Staff was willing to cooperate because they trusted her. My message to my staff and parents was that we were privileged to participate in the research undertaking because it also would help us improve our program. We have shared results with staff, so this has been an open, aboveboard process.

Our Quality Research Center has found that Head Start teachers with more individualized teaching practices tend to promote greater overall developmental gains, and higher cognitive and social functioning for children. Also, these teachers reduce the effects of maternal depression on children's social behavior. An important finding for us was that the educational level of staff relates to their beliefs about children, their instructional activities, and, in turn, the quality of the classroom. The research also found that the teacher training we have offered positively affected classroom practice.

We discussed the research results at our management meetings first, and then presented summary findings at training sessions with teachers and aides. We never discussed the data on the individual classroom or cluster level (a grouping of several classrooms). The management staff knew the breakdown, but we did not want competition among the staff. We didn't want to reward or punish teaching staff for what the research found in their classrooms. We also shared the findings with the Policy Council so that the governing group of parents and community representatives would be well informed. Martha also came to several full staff meetings to talk in general about the results. Our focus has been on communicating what staff, teachers, and parents need to know to make improvements in the delivery of services. Since research findings are still coming out, this is a continuous process for us.

Definitely. We have used the results to plan staff development. The research has helped identify the areas where we need to improve. For example, when the children's data indicated that they were weak in some early literacy skills, we strengthened a variety of experiences in the classrooms. Now we see many more instances where teachers are inviting children to write, teaching children rhymes, sending books home with children, and creating print-rich environments. Data also showed that parent literacy is closely linked to children's literacy, so we started a number of initiatives, including a reading program for fathers and their children, and GED preparation. When the findings indicated that the children were not doing well in math, we beefed up that area of the curriculum by adding new materials and training. We also found that the better-educated teachers did more individualizing in classrooms. So we've encouraged, supported, and rewarded staff taking more teacher training courses at local colleges. Overall, the research findings have raised our expectations for teachers and the kinds of curriculum experiences they plan for children.

In reality, all programs already collect data because they do screenings and assessment. But they don't necessarily use the information effectively. That's because there have not been clear expectations about what to do with the data. With the new regs and Head Start Outcomes, there are clear expectations. We have to review and revise our assessment instruments to ensure that we obtain the required information. Our program has just begun to look at the Outcomes. We'll see if the domains and indicators plot back to our instruments, and we'll tailor them accordingly. Martha helped us develop our instruments and our teachers find them easy to use. They are flexible and we can adjust them. I believe they already measure most of the Outcomes.

Make friends with the researchers and develop a comfort level with them. Find out exactly what you're getting into–how often they'll be visiting the classrooms, talking with parents, etc. Most importantly, make sure the research findings will be useful to your program. Research is a shared activity; it should not take away from your program, but add to it. As we approach the new Head Start Outcomes, program and evaluation folks need each other even more. Program staff should call on them for help with their instruments and data collection and analysis, using their expertise to improve the quality of services to children and families.

Gayle Cunningham is the Executive Director of the Jefferson County Committee for Economic Opportunity. T: 205-290-9251; E: gcjcceo@aol.com.