StrongStart BC

Human Early Learning Partnership

British Columbia Ministry of Education

September 2008 Report

School-based (Preschool) Family Drop-in Centres

StrongStart BC

E v a l u at i o n o f S t r o n g S ta r t B Cii

Acknowledgements

Greetings from HELP (Human Early Learning Partnership)

i want to express my appreciation for the work of the ECEs, school professionals and community members who have put so much effort into creating this innovative program in BC schools. as a result of your efforts, families with young children will be better supported and children will thrive. in addition, HElP is pleased to have conducted this documentation and evaluation process for StrongStart BC and the Ministry of Education. We believe that research collaborations such as this have the capacity to ensure that BC children receive high quality programs and services that truly support their early development.

Special thanks go to Dr. Janet Mort and her evaluation team: Jane Beach, Jane Bertrand, Pamela Quigg and Judith Evans, who have conducted an imaginative and high quality evaluation. i believe that their work, reflected in this report and its recommendations, provides the kind of information that can genuinely lead to continuous improvement in program quality. finally, i want to thank the HElP advisory Committee, whose input into the design of the study and interpretation of the findings have greatly improved the final product. readers must understand that i, as Principal investigator, take personal responsibility for any deficiencies that may be found in this work. they cannot be attributed to either the evaluation team or the advisory Committee.

Dr. Clyde Hertzman Director, HElP

About the Human Early Learning Partnership

the Human Early learning Partnership (HElP) is an interdisciplinary collaborative research institute that is directing a world-leading contribution to new understandings of and approaches to early child development.

Directed by Dr Clyde Hertzman, HElP is a partnership of over 200 faculty, researchers and graduate students from six BC universities:• UniversityofBritishColumbia• UniversityofVictoria• SimonFraserUniversity• UniversityofNorthernBritishColumbia• UniversityofBritishColumbiaOkanagan• ThompsonRiversUniversity

HElP’s mission is to create, promote and apply knowledge through interdisciplinary research to help children thrive.

Human Early learning Partnership tel: 604-822-1278university of British Columbia fax: 604-822-06404th floor, library Processing Centre E-mail: [email protected] East Mall Website: www.earlylearning.ubc.ca vancouver, BC v6t 1Z3 Mapping Portal: ecdportal.help.ubc.ca

E v a l u at i o n o f S t r o n g S ta r t B C iii

Abstractthe evaluation of StrongStart BC documented and evaluated the implementation of 12 family drop-in centres in schools in British Columbia, funded by the Ministry of Education. these pilot sites were led by certified and licensed ECE facilitators whose responsibility it was to establish activity centres and model skills for parents and caregivers. the main purpose of the sites was to support families by offering them experiences and activities in a literacy-rich environment so that skills learned would be transferable to the home environment. a secondary purpose was to introduce families to a welcoming school environment where they could connect to other community services. the activities were offered in a three-hour session, usually in the morning, and included circle time with book reading, storytelling and language development activities. the third purpose was to help adults working with their children at learning centres. resources included high-quality books, puzzles, blocks, arts and crafts, painting, environmental and science collections, drama and dress-up and other age-appropriate explorations, thus enhancing literacy development in the context of social, emotional, physical and cognitive development. outdoor play activities, large-muscle activities and field trips were offered where possible.

the study employed case-study methodology (focus groups, interviews, data collection and analysis, observations and surveys) to explore, over a two-year period, the 12 sites located in urban and rural settings. a literature review on family drop-in centres was used to guide the evaluation process. research questions for parents/caregivers asked how they heard about the program, how frequently they attended, how their family had benefited from the program, changes they had noted in their children as a result of the program, praise for and criticism of the program and transfer of knowledge to the home. research questions for school staff explored start-up issues, marketing of the program, attendance issues, integration of the program within the school, connections to interagency services, perceived benefits and access issues for hard-to-reach parents. Questions for community members asked about their connections to other community agencies and programs for families, their perceptions of the program offering, its fit within the early childhood community and the relative success of the program compared to other offerings. the study noted social processes, relations, practices, experiences and actions.

Key Findings

the program was highly valued by parents who attended. Most attended once or twice a week while some attended 3 to 5 times per week. immigrants, refugees and other second-language minorities appreciated help with language issues. the program reduced isolation and made connections with a Canadian school. Parents particularly valued the ECE facilitator, the enriched learning experiences and resources, and the outdoor and gymnasium time. Parents gave examples of how the experience in the program had changed the activity at home with their children. they reported positive changes in their children that they attributed to the program. interagency relationships had been established in communities, with StrongStart BC as a partner, playing a referral role.

through descriptions of interviews, focus groups, respondents’ quotes, and survey results, the study shows an evolving model of an effective family drop-in program in 12 pilot school sites. it makes recommendations that will strengthen it, a necessary process because approximately 400 more sites are being implemented in the Province of British Columbia.

Executive Summaryoctober 15th, 2008

StrongStart BC: Executive Summary

StrongStart BC is a school-based drop-in centre for families or caregivers and their preschool children, at no cost to families. the centres are designed to fill a community need and

be located near other services for families of young children. StrongStart BC centres are intended to fill an early learning niche for preschool children who are not in full-day childcare, but may be at home with their parents or other caregivers such as grandparents, other relatives or nannies. (note: this report uses the term parent to imply parent and/or caregiver).

Both children and caregivers benefit from the StrongStart BC centre by engaging in program offerings that include literacy, physical and social experiences, all modelled by a qualified early childhood educator (ECE). the program’s intentions are to supplement activities that can be offered in the home and to offer parents and caregivers new ideas and skills that they can transfer to the home environment.

The Evaluation Processthe purpose of the research study was to document the StrongStart BC program and report on its operation and effectiveness so that government, communities and schools can guide the development of StrongStart BC programs. the study employed case-study methodology—focus groups, interviews, data collection and analysis, observations and surveys—to explore, over a two-year period, the 12 diverse sites located in urban and rural settings. findings were based on (a) data provided by parents, staff and involved community members in over 300 key informant interviews, and (b) three surveys that canvassed the views of over 600 parents.

a literature review specific to family drop-in centres was used to guide the evaluation process. the evaluation teams comprised two ECE and school professionals who visited the sites twice over the course of the two years, guided by Dr. Clyde Hertzman, director of HElP (Human Early learning Partnership), Dr. Janet Mort, research team leader (HElP) and a HElP advisory committee.

StrongStart BC: A Family Drop-in Program

Evaluation Report

ivBritish Columbia Ministry of Education

Human Early Learning Partnership

E x E C u t i v E S u M M a r y : E v a l u at i o n o f S t r o n g S ta r t B C v

Findings: Questions and Answers

1. What did the StrongStart BC program offer families?

the research team found that all 12 programs offered varied early learning opportunities in a three-hour session designed to improve children’s language, personal, emotional and social development, vocabulary, literacy, and self-esteem. the programs featured regular, structured group times such as “circle time,” a facilitator-led session for parents and children together providing group book reading, storytelling and language development activities. the facilitators intentionally modelled literacy activities for parents to use at home.

another major feature was time for parents to engage with their children at various “learning centres” that included resources such as puzzles, blocks, fine arts activities, environmental and science collections, drama and other age-appropriate explorations.

activities at the sites facilitated child development and learning through moving, manipulating, investigating, problem solving, building and communicating. facilitators moved among the learning centres modelling ways to use the resources and strategies for adult-child interactions and child/child interactions. outdoor play and gymnasium activities were offered where possible.

2. Where were the 12 pilot StrongStart BC sites located and who attended them?

the first12 pilot sites were located in rural and urban communities across British Columbia in diverse school populations ranging from multicultural communities with numerous refugees and immigrants, and rural small schools with high aboriginal populations to predominantly Caucasian populations. figure a shows the family characteristics of survey respondents.

Figure A: Characteristics of respondent parents

Selected family characteristics (n=407)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Male

Female

Gen

der

Couple parent

Single parent

Extended family

Blended family

More than $60,000

Hou

seho

ld in

com

eCu

lture

and

lang

uage

Pare

ntal

sta

tus

$30,000-$39,000

$40,000-$59,000

$15,000-$19,000

$20,000-$29,999

Less than $14,999

Child is of Aboriginal descent

Respondent is of Aboriginal descent

Child is a recent immigrant

Respondent speaks English

English spoken by child

E x E C u t i v E S u M M a r y : E v a l u at i o n o f S t r o n g S ta r t B Cvi

according to Statistics Canada, the poverty line begins at $32,000 for a family of four. according to that measure (although the size of the families in this study is unknown), approximately 22.7% of the survey respondents were living below the poverty line, excluding the 18.7% who made no response. the median reported household income range of the children was $30,000-$39,999; 21% lived in households with an annual income of less than $20,000.

figure a shows the characteristics of respondent families. it was derived from the general parent-survey respondents.

While the Ministry of Education anticipated that the program would primarily serve families with three- and four-year olds, approximately half of the children were from birth to age 3. Parents expressed gratitude that they were able to bring children of multiple ages.

3. How frequently did parents attend the program?

attendance varied widely. at one site, most parents attended three to four times per week and had developed strong social bonds with each other. at another site, many parents attended but only once or twice per month. this did not appear to change the parents’ perspective of the value of the program or its effectiveness. Some parents reported they had other options for their children or their own commitments such as part-time work. Some were choosing to create balance in their children’s experience by visiting the pool, the playground or preschool on other days, while some parents primarily attended StrongStart BC for most days of the week.

on an average day, 22 to 50 adults and children attended the program. Sometimes this resulted in overcrowding or in parents being turned away from the program because it was too full.

4. Why did parents attend the program?

in focus groups and interviews, parents were asked why they had started to attend the StrongStart BC program. Most parents (figure B) agreed that opportunities for enriched learning experiences and

Top three reasons forcoming to StrongStart (n=407)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Convenience

To get help

To practice English

Because my child hasspecial needs

Other

Friends with others coming

Close to home

New things for child to play with

To learn with the child

To meet and socializewith other people

No cost

Play time for the child

Figure B: Top three reasons for coming to StrongStart BC

E x E C u t i v E S u M M a r y : E v a l u at i o n o f S t r o n g S ta r t B C vii

resources were the prime reasons. Most described playing with their children without home distractions as valuable; many considered the opportunity for social interaction with other children equally important. Many parents described their own isolation at home as a motivating factor. Caregivers other than parents appreciated the resources they could not offer in their own home. new immigrants and refugees valued the opportunity to improve their English skills. other major factors included the learning environment, preparation for school and program flexibility.

When asked the three major reasons for attending the StrongStart BC program, survey responses confirmed the results from interviews and surveys. See figure B.

5. Why did parents stop attending StrongStart BC?

local, independent survey managers contacted parents who had dropped out of the program. they interviewed those who had registered and attended for several regular sessions, then stopped attending. in all, 119 interviews were conducted at nine sites. the main reasons respondents stopped attending were related to the parents’ schedule and a return to (or changes to) their work. figure C provides details:

Figure C: Reasons for no longer attending the program

Reasons for no longerattending StrongStart (n=119)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Did not bene�t from the progrm

Attending another StrongStartcloser to home

Language barriers

Children involved intoo many other activities

Family moved

Transportation problems

New baby or otherfamily considerations

Parent schedules unrelated to work

Child had started preschoolor child care

Parent returned to work or schooland schedule no longer worked

6. What did parents like about the program?

Parents consistently expressed appreciation for the program. When asked what they really liked about StrongStart BC (see figure D):

• 98%agreedorstronglyagreedthatplayactivitieswereofgreatestimportance

• 92.2%agreedorstronglyagreedthatthefacilitatorwasahighlight,and

• 91.4%agreedorstronglyagreedthattoysandmaterialswerethenextmostimportantpriority

E x E C u t i v E S u M M a r y : E v a l u at i o n o f S t r o n g S ta r t B Cviii

7. What did parents want to see improved or changed in the program?

When parents were asked in interviews and focus groups what they would like to see changed about the program they provided few suggestions, emphasizing how much they liked the program. Survey responses to what they wanted changed were:

• 36.7%gavenoresponse

• 19.5%wantedmoreactivitiesoractivitieschangedmorefrequently

• 10.9%wantedachangeinhours

• 10%wantedincreasedcentrespace,and

• Theremainderwasitemsthatrepresentedfewerthan10%ofrespondents

8. How did StrongStart BC fit in with other community offerings to families and young children?

there was some concern in the first year of the research team’s visit that StrongStart BC would compete with other established family oriented programs, resources and childcare/preschool services. for this reason, the research team ensured that representatives of interagency groups and child-development programs were included in the interview process both years.

By the end of the second year, the research team had documented a great deal of positive change in this perception. in all 12 sites, new cooperative relationships were developing. other services such as health-screening staff visited the sites and school districts were involved in joint planning at early child development (ECD) tables. in six sites, these relationships were becoming collaborative. they were sharing resources, facilities, planning community resources together and organizing a network of referrals for children with challenges. the research team was unable to document evidence of StrongStart BC’s negatively affecting other programs in the 12 pilot sites.

What I really like aboutStrongStart (n=407)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Connections

The facilitator

Toys and Materials

Snack time

Circle time

Play activities

Stronglyagree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Stronglydisagree

Noresponse

Figure D: What parents like about StrongStart BC

E x E C u t i v E S u M M a r y : E v a l u at i o n o f S t r o n g S ta r t B C ix

9. What were the characteristics of an effective family drop-in centre, as identified in the literature review?

the evaluation of StrongStart BC was based on the most current research on family drop-in programs. in summary:

• Childrenbenefitfromregular,frequentparticipationinchild-focusedprogramswithotherchildren

• Parentsandothercaregiversbenefitfromparticipationintheirchildren’sprograms

• Elementsofevidence-basedprogramquality(includingcurriculumandpedagogy,dailyscheduleand routines, use of physical space, accessibility and adult-child interactions) should be extracted and used to guide program practices

• Schoollocationsandinvolvementcanprovideasupportiveinfrastructure,encouragefamilyinvolvement and promote collaboration with other school and early childhood programs, and

• Programevaluationmayincludethemeasurementofprogramquality,childandfamilyoutcomesand connections with other early childhood programs in the community

the research team confirmed that all twelve sites were meeting these research criteria, some more effectively than others. the research team, therefore, made a series of twenty recommendations, which can be found in the complete report. these recommendations, once implemented, will strengthen all StrongStart BC programs. the recommendations comprise:

• ProposalsforstabilizingandsupportingtheECEworkforce

• Strategiesforintegratingtheprogramintoschoolsandcollaboratingwithinteragencyservices

• Descriptionoftheleadershipsupportrequired

• Improvedattendanceanddata-collectionprocedures

• Improvedaccessforfamiliestotheprogramofferings,and

• Furtherevaluationandresearchplanning

10. Were the 12 StrongStart BC pilots a success?

yes. the research team concluded that many young children and their families in the 12 pilot sites are being well served by this drop-in program in schools. the BC government has committed to expanding the program with up to 200 sites planned by the end of school year 2008/2009. StrongStart BC is highly valued by those who attend. it is serving the needs of hundreds of young families. the data describe effective ECE facilitators modelling skills that enhance child development. Parents and children learn to work together in a literacy environment. families transfer skills and knowledge from the classroom to their home and intersectoral (interagency) coalitions build early child development bridges together.

View the full report at HELP (Human Early Learning Partnership) [email protected] under Publications.

E v a l u at i o n o f S t r o n g S ta r t B Cx

acknowledgements ii

abstract iii

StrongStart BC: Executive Summary iv

table of Contents x

list of figures xii

Section 1: What is StrongStart BC? 11.0 Definition 1

1.1 the objectives of the Centres 1

1.2 activities at the Centres 2

1.3 literature review 2

1.4 Context of StrongStart BC in BC Early learning activities 4

1.5 terms of reference (Definitions) for the StrongStart BC Evaluation report 5

Section 2: Background of the Documentation and Evaluation Process 62.0 introduction 6

2.1 the HElP advisory Committee 6

2.2 Direction Provided by the HElP advisory Committee 7

2.3 location of the 12 Sites 8

Section 3: Methodology for the Documentation (Stage 1) and Evaluation (Stage 2) Processes 93.0 Purpose and timelines 9

3.1 Methods 9

3.2 Stage 1 and Stage 2 Site visits: interviews, focus groups and observations 10

3.3 Daily team Debrief 10

3.4 Changes in Methodology for Stage 2: four Surveys 11

Section 4: Findings 134.0 introduction to findings 13

4.1 Context of the Sites 13

4.2 operations 13

4.3 Enhancements to StrongStart BC Programming 14

4.4 Human resources 15

4.5 leadership in School Systems 17

4.6 attendance of Parents/Caregivers and Children 19

4.7 Program [Quality] Effectiveness 30

Table of Contents

E v a l u at i o n o f S t r o n g S ta r t B C xi

4.8 Program Evaluation 38

4.9 Parental, School and intersectoral views of Strengths 46

4.10 Parental, School and intersectoral views of issues/ Weaknesses in focus groups and interviews 52

Section 5: Recommendations 545.0 the recommendations 54

5.1 Context of the Sites (refer to page 13 for details) 55

5.2 operations (refer to page 13 for details) 55

5.3 Human resources (refer to page 15 for details) 56

5.4 leadership in School Systems (refer to page 17 for details) 58

5.5 attendance (refer to page 19 for details) 59

5.6 Program [Quality] Effectiveness (refer to page 30 for details) 60

5.7 Strengths and limitations of the Study 62

Section 6: Conclusion 65

Section 7: Appendices 66appendix a: literature review 66

appendix B: Parent/Caregiver Survey 82

appendix C: Questions 88

E v a l u at i o n o f S t r o n g S ta r t B Cxii

List of Figures

figure a: Characteristics of respondent parents v

figure B: top three reasons for coming to StrongStart BC vi

figure C: reasons for no longer attending the program vii

figure D: What parents like about StrongStart BC viii

figure 1: StrongStart BC pilot sites 8

figure 2: Characteristics of site locations, reported by site 13

figure 3: Parent perceptions about the school 18

figure 4: attendance 20

figure 5: frequency of attendance 21

figure 6: Characteristics of respondent families 24

figure 7: Employment status of parents 25

figure 8: additional programs children attended 25

figure 9: Educational attainment of parents 26

figure 10: top three reasons for coming to StrongStart BC 27

figure 11: reasons for no longer attending StrongStart BC 28

figure 12: What parents like about StrongStart BC 33

figure 13: other things parents like about StrongStart BC 33

figure 14: Courtenay (glacier view Elementary) interconnectedness chart 42

figure 15: Burnaby (Edmonds Elementary) interconnectedness chart 43

figure 16: revelstoke (Mountain view Elementary) interconnectedness chart 44

figure 17: Parental perception of StrongStart by attendance per month 49

figure 18: Parental perception of program by frequency of attendance: high quality experiences in exploratory play, active play and snack 50

E v a l u at i o n o f S t r o n g S ta r t B C 1

Section 1

What is StrongStart BC?

(Note: Sections 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 are quotes from the Ministry/School District Contribution Agreements.)

1.0 DefinitionStrongStart BC is a school-based drop-in centre for families or caregivers and their preschool children at no cost to families. the centres are designed to fill a community need and be located near other services for families of young children, such as childcare or parent-resource centres in school-based hubs. StrongStart BC centres are intended to fill an early learning niche for preschool children who are not in full-day childcare, but may be at home with their parents or other caregivers such as grandparents, other relatives or nannies. Parents or caregivers who are responsible for children under age five during the day are able to attend a StrongStart BC centre in their local school.

it is proposed that both children and caregivers will benefit from the activities at the StrongStart BC centre by engaging in program offerings that include literacy, physical and social experiences, all modelled by a qualified ECE (Early Childhood Educator). the intentions of the program are to supplement activities that can be offered in the home and to give parents and caregivers new ideas that they can transfer to the home environment.

the Ministry of Education and school districts now have an opportunity to increase early learning programs available to families and their preschool children. along with the Ministry of Children and family Development and their community agencies, schools can play a greater role in realizing the vision for early learning. a greater proportion of children will enter school with optimal health and development, ready for success in kindergarten.

1.1 The Objectives of the Centres

• Topromotelanguageandthephysicalandsocial/emotionaldevelopmentofyoungchildren

• Toprovideopportunitiesforparents/caregiverstoobserveandpractiseeffectivestrategiestoencourage early learning; ideally, have an outreach component for the hard-to-serve families

• Tobeestablishedinschoolsofferingkindergarten

• TobestaffedbyatleastonecertifiedEarlyChildhoodEducator,trainedtoworkwithyoungchildren

• *Tobeinclusiveenvironmentsthatwelcomeallpreschoolchildren(withemphasison3to5yearolds) in the neighbourhood five mornings per week, together with their parents and caregivers, for regular activities

• Tobedesignedincollaborationwiththecommunitytomeettheneedsoftheneighbourhood

• Tolinktoservicesofferedbyhealthauthorities,communityagenciesandothersocialserviceproviders (e.g., early screening, libraries, parent resource centres, childcare resource and referral services, referrals for children who may have developmental or other special needs)

E v a l u at i o n o f S t r o n g S ta r t B C2

• Toallowserviceproviderstoconnectwithparents/caregiversandchildrenandprovidethemwithinformation and services, e.g., public health, libraries, ESl, literacy

• Tobefamily-friendlyenvironmentswhereparents/caregiverscanmakeconnections

• Tobefreeofchargeforparents/caregiversattendingwiththeirpreschoolchildren.

*Althoughinitiallytheprogramwastoattract3-and4-year-oldsandtheirparentsandcaregivers(as this was thought to be the client group that would be most attracted to the program), in fact approximately half of the children attending were under the age of 3 years and included nursing babies and toddlers. While this was unanticipated, facilitators had modified the room and resources to accommodate the wide age span. Parents expressed appreciation that they were able to attend a site that welcomed babies as well as preschoolers.

1.2 Activities at the Centres

• Organizedactivitiessuchasstorytime,music,singing

• Accesstobooks,artandcraftsmaterials,andpuzzles

• Playareasthatpromotecreativity,exploratoryindividualandgroupplay(water,sand,clay)

• Movementandlarge-muscleactivities

• Snacktime,withfoodthatmodelshealthyeating

• Possibleoutingsinthecommunity,e.g.,tothebeach,park,swimmingpool,library (Ministry of Education Contribution agreement, 2006)

1.3 Literature Review

Literature Review

the following is a summary of highlights of the literature review found in appendix a. as this literature review guided the evaluation process it will be useful in the future design and development of StrongStart BC Programs.

the Ministry of Education requested that the evaluation be based on recent research on similar types of family participation and drop-in programs. as a result, a literature review was conducted. the following five principles emerged and guided the design and implementation of Stage 2 of the evaluation. the literature review is referred to throughout the report and can be found in appendix a.

the program design principles that emerged as dominant in the literature review were:

1. Children benefit from regular, frequent and continual participation in child-focused programs with other children. the evidence from family drop-in programs is consistent with studies of early childhood programs that report positive effects on vulnerable children’s development are best achieved by giving children structured, centre-based programs and involving their parents in the process (Doherty, 2007; Shaw, 2006; Brooks-gunn, 2003; Cleveland et al., 2006; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).


2. Parents and other caregivers benefit from participation in their children’s programs. family drop-in programs that include goals for parental involvement encourage changes in parenting abilities, parent-child relationships and the home-learning environment (Mitchell, Wylie, & Carr, 2006; Cleveland et al., 2006; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).

3. Elements of evidence-based program quality (including curriculum and pedagogy, daily schedule and routines, use of physical space, accessibility and adult-child interactions) should be used to guide program practices. Effective programs (that improved outcomes for children and families) had a planned curriculum and pedagogy. the daily schedule include structured conversations, story time, book-sharing and take-home activities as part of the daily schedule (Evangelou et al., 2006). Children’s activities were based on their interests, social learning and learning how to learn (graue, Clements, reynolds, & niles, 2004). the physical environment in effective family drop-in programs are set up to support a “learning parenting by doing” approach ((layzer, goodson, Bernstein, & Price, 2001; Brooks-gunn & Markham, 2005). Home environments are influenced when activities and routines are taken home (Wolanski, 2008). Parental engagement with their children’s out-of-home education is increased (graue et al., 2004; Corter, 2006).

4. the location and involvement of the school provides a supportive infrastructure, encouraging family involvement and promoting collaboration with other schools and early childhood programs. School-based family drop-in programs increase their success by collaborating with other school programs and early childhood programs in the same building or community. When family drop-in programs link with other early childhood programs, the staff benefit from the harmonization of professional education and development (Colley, 2006; Corter et al., 2006; Child and youth advocate BC, 2005; ontario Best Start Panels on Quality and Human resources and Early learning, 2007). Service integration increases families’ access to the services that they need, when and where they need those (Corter et al., 2006). Parent education that builds parenting skills, information, and referrals to specialized resources can be offered through stable program platforms that also provide good early childhood programs. the integration of family drop-in programs with other programs designed for young children and families is viewed as a strategy to create a holistic approach. Schools are able to deliver a range of services including public health and early intervention services (Williams, 2006; McCain, Mustard, & Shanker, 2007; Schorr, 1998).

5. Program evaluation may include the measurement of program quality (including child-child and adult-child interaction), child and family outcomes and connections with other early childhood programs in the community.

• Duringthedevelopmentstage,programevaluationmonitorstheprocessandprovidescontinual feedback to the participant.

• Trackingchildandfamilyattendanceisessentialtolong-termprogramevaluation.Evaluating a program to determine the effectiveness of a program requires a study of the long-term impact of children’s participation. to do a study, it is essential to collect the data about individual participants and their use of the program. in studies of family drop-in programs that have not tracked individual use, the research team are not able to determine which families living in a community were accessing the services nor can the team determine the frequency and duration of children’s participation. (e.g., Barlow et al., 2007; Corter et al., 2006; Peters et al., 2000; yau, 2005).

• Childoutcomesareacentralcomponentofprogramevaluationsthatarebestgatheredonce a program has been established. although studies of family drop-in programs differ in the evaluation’s sample, design, and methods, they suggest several common


conclusions about the effect of family drop-in programs on children’s development. one conclusion is that such research requires a multidimensional design intended to examine the relationship between program characteristics and quality (including teacher-child interaction) on the one hand, and child and family characteristics and child outcomes on the other.

• Programeffectivenessisanimportantcomponentofprogramevaluation.

• Connectionstootherearlychildhoodprogramscanbemonitoredonacontinuumfromco-location to integration.

the literature review examines studies of school-based family drop-in and related programs that are reported in the academic literature in Canada as well as internationally. it examines the use of individual child assessment, program evaluation and community monitoring. research studies that used both quantitative and qualitative methodologies are included. the review identifies the strengths and limitations of program evaluations to date.

the review includes programs that meet the four characteristics that define StrongStart BC programs:

1. location in school settings

2. Participation of primary caregivers (typically parents and other family members)

3. Participation of young children, and

4. a specific program with defined goals designed to support children’s early learning and development and primary caregivers’ active participation in their children’s early development

1.4 Context of StrongStart BC in BC Early Learning Activities

Most communities in BC offer a variety of programs for early learners. Kindergarten is delivered in public and private schools and is a legislated entitlement of 2.4 hours of instruction each school day. Parents can defer attendance until the following school year. fulltime kindergarten is available for special populations.

a wide variety of regulated services is licensed. regulated childcare is offered for group childcare centres on a fee basis. Preschools offer group programs for no more than four hours a day. out-of- school care is available in some communities. family childcare can be offered in private homes for no more than seven children. Emergency care is offered in some communities for no more than 72 hours per month. Child minding and ski hill or resort care is also regulated.

Child Care resource and referrals (CCrr) programs are provincially funded to provide information, support and training to registered license-not-required and licensed family childcare providers. they provide equipment and toy lending, workshops, networking, home visits and a caregiver referral registry for families inquiring about finding childcare. in addition, BC funds and licenses aboriginal on-reserve and off-reserve childcare through the same programs available to other facilities. the BC association of family resource Programs is a not-for-profit provincial organization dedicated to raising the awareness of the importance of community-based family resource programs. it might be a family Place, a neighbourhood House or a Parent Place drop-in, all designed to have parent/child interactive programs. it might include a StrongStart BC centre with the exception that StrongStart centres must be located in schools, are available for only three hours a day, and activities at the centre are geared to literacy and a school-preparation focus. there may be other programs designed for community needs and sponsored by other agencies.


1.5 Terms of Reference (Definitions) for the StrongStart BC Evaluation Report

BCeSIS (British Columbia Enterprise Student information System) is a common student information system implemented by independent schools and the school districts of British Columbia. it provides the foundation for a centrally hosted, web-accessible student information system. BCeSiS gathers attendance in the classroom using an electronic attendance checklist.

Effective – Most programs are based on a defined curriculum or pedagogy; however, StrongStart BC, being a new program, was based on a contractual arrangement between the Ministry of Education and school districts. in the absence of a curriculum or pedagogy, the evaluation was based on a literature review (appendix a) of similar family drop-in programs. the term effective is used in the report to describe activities and centres that were aligned with the literature review. the terms less and more effective are used to describe activities and centres that either did or did not meet the criteria descried in the literature review.

Intersectoral coalition – Most communities have developed intersectoral coalitions. these inter-agency groups plan cooperative programs or services for children. the membership in each community is particular to the needs of the community. Membership often includes health, social services, school districts, early child development services, libraries and sometimes business groups and municipal services. the structures of the coalitions vary; some communities have one large committee while others function with a series of sub committees. Some committees plan while others implement.

Learning centres – throughout the report, reference is made to learning centres established within the classroom. these are centres developed by the facilitator (teacher) in the classroom to encourage parents and children to work with different toys, resources and activities, which might change by the day or the week. typical centres include arts and crafts, books and reading, blocks, puzzles, dress-up, cutting and pasting, sandbox, environmental and other activities. Parents and children move freely between the centres, choosing activities of interest.

Most, many, few – throughout the report, numbers were used wherever possible. in cases where the researchers did not have an actual count, the terms “most,” “many” and “few” were used. Most meant two thirds or over, many meant over one half, and few meant less than one third.

PEN – the Personal Education number (PEn) is a nine-digit number assigned to each student as s/he enters the British Columbia education system. this identification is used for multiple services such as the distribution of funding to schools or transition analysis between schools and student reporting. it follows the student through their K-12 and post secondary education. in 2007-2008, children attending StrongStart BC were assigned a PEn number.

Qualitative research, case study methodology – Qualitative and case study methodology were chosen as the preferred research methodology of StrongStart BC because this approach is designed to contribute to the knowledge of organizational and social phenomenon. this approach emphasized the quality of activities and processes, described and interpreted them, and took into consideration the context of the site and multiple points of view. Data were triangulated. Interviews of multiple people at the case study site were the essential case study evidence because case studies are about human affairs. the evidence was then corroborated by information from documents, surveys and observation.


Section 2

Background of the Documentation and Evaluation Process

2.0 Introductionin the fall of 2006, the BC Ministry of Education announced the implementation of up to 16 pilot sites in schools in British Columbia as family drop-in centres for local parents and children. the Human Early learning Partnership (HElP), an interdisciplinary consortium of six BC universities, was asked to evaluate the sites to be opened between September 2006 and January 2007. after some consideration, it was decided that because the pilot sites were in 12 districts, it would be useful to begin the evaluation process with a documentation stage. the documentation process was to be a stage of inquiry. the documentation stage was to consist of teams from HElP visiting the sites to document the environmental circumstances at each site. it was to be completed by September 2007. the HElP StrongStart BC advisory committee would then determine which evaluation processes were most appropriate for Stage 2. Stage 2 was implemented in 2008 and completed by September 2009.

Dr. Janet Mort, a HElP researcher, was selected to lead a team of expert researchers to design the process for documentation and to lead team visits to the sites. Jane Bertrand of george Brown College was invited to be an Early Childhood Development (ECD) process advisor and to prepare a literature review on related types of programs.

2.1 The HELP Advisory Committee

HElP struck an advisory committee consisting of staff from the university of victoria and university of British Columbia to assist in the planning of Stage 1. the advisory committee first met in april 2007, before the site visits, to advise the team leader on how to proceed with the documentation process.

the advisory committee met again in July 2007 to consider the report on Stage 1 and suggest how to proceed with Stage 2: Evaluation. at the close of the advisory committee meeting on July 5th 2007, a formal decision was made to proceed with Stage 2 of the evaluation with the guidance of HElP and the primary investigator, Dr. Clyde Hertzman. the advisory committee was asked to continue in an advisory capacity. Janet Mort was again designated as the team leader. Jane Bertrand, Judith Evans and Jane Beach (research team members) were invited to continue to play key roles in the research team and were subsequently joined by Pamela Quigg.

in September 2007, the documentation final report was presented to the Ministry of Education at a gathering of representatives from the 12 sites as well as representatives of the (approximately) 65 new sites that were preparing to open in the 2007/2008 year.


2.1.1 Advisory Committee Membership

Jane Beach ECE Policy Consultant

Jane Bertrand Professor, School of Early Childhood, george Brown College

lily Dyson Professor, university of victoria

Judith Evans ECE Consultant

laurie ford associate Professor, university of British Columbia

Hillel goelman Senior Scholar and Professor, university of British Columbia, HElP

Clyde Hertzman Professor and Director of HElP, university of British Columbia

Janet Mort researcher (School-based initiatives) at university of British Columbia, HElP and team leader

alison Preece associate Professor, faculty of Education (language and literacy, ECE) university of victoria

Jacqueline Smit alex associate Director, operations and Communications, HElP

anat Zaidman-Zait Post-doctorate fellow, HElP

Staff from the Ministry of Education and ted Whiteland, British Columbia Principals & vice Principals association (BCPvPa) attended the meetings

2.2 Direction Provided by the HELP Advisory Committee

2.2.1 General

the advisory committee requested that the research teams identify the nature of the sites, looking for differences in quality, findings of variability and varying degrees of success. in addition, the research team was advised to examine the implementation process, any sign of problems, the ways with which different sites dealt with implementation issues, the scope of the budget, and whether the budget is adequate to operate the centre.

2.2.2 Program

the research team was asked to examine the type of program offered at each site. there was some concern that the Ministry’s expectations were lacking in sufficient detail to provide a consistently high-quality program throughout the province. the advisory committee asked the research team to provide a description of the program at each site and be prepared to describe the effectiveness of the programs without revealing individual site identities. of particular interest was the degree of involvement of parents and children to the program, because it was drop-in and was offered for only a short time each day. the team was asked to examine the frequency of attendance by parents and children to establish which evaluation strategies would be most useful.

2.2.3 Staff, School and School District Circumstances

the advisory committee asked the team to examine the environment in which each program took place and, in particular, the job description of the facilitator at each site and his or her qualifications. they were to investigate the relationship between the facilitator, school staff and other community agencies. leadership problems were to be explored and, in particular, the line of authority between the facilitator,


the school and the school district. the team was to inquire how the school district decided on the location of each site.

2.2.4 Parents and Children

the advisory committee asked the team to examine the usage patterns, including the frequency of use, reasons why some families did not use the program more frequently, and any barriers that might limit access for families. the advisory committee requested that the team meet with parents and children (where possible) to survey how they felt about the program, their experience at the site, and their views on the value of the experience for their family. Since the majority of children were under the age of three it was not possible, due to limited time, to gather much information from them.

2.2.5 Community

the advisory committee had particular questions about the reception of the program in the community context, including (a) whether the program was integrated with services already provided in the community, and (b) whether it was seen as redundant or competing with other agency services. the committee asked the research team to explore the degree to which the program was integrated with other services both in the school and outside the school, including other Early Child Development (ECD) services in the area.

2.3 Location of the 12 Sites

twelve sites in 12 different school districts were chosen by the Ministry of Education for the evaluation process (see figure 1).

Strong Start Site School District

Edmonds Elementary SD 41 Burnaby

Spruceland Elementary SD 57 Prince george

roy Stibbs Elementary SD 43 Coquitlam

okanagan falls Elementary SD 53 okanagan Similkameen

Win West Heights Elementary SD 75 Mission

Mountain view Elementary SD 19 revelstoke

John todd Elementary SD 73 Kamloops/thompson

Conrad Elementary SD 52 Prince rupert

riverview Elementary SD 28 Quesnel

glacier view Elementary SD 71 Comox valley

ucluelet Elementary SD 70 alberni

Bridgeview Elementary SD 36 Surrey

Figure 1: StrongStart BC pilot sites


Section 3

Methodology for the Documentation (Stage 1) and Evaluation (Stage 2) Processes

3.0 Purpose and TimelinesCase-study methodology was selected because it matched the purpose of the study—inquiring into and documenting the environmental circumstances of each site. yin (1994) provided a rationale for the choice of case study as a methodology. a case study is a preferred methodology when:

• Howandwhyquestionsarebeingasked

• Thefocusisoncontemporaryphenomenainareal-life context

• Theinvestigatorhaslittlecontroloverevents

• Thecasestudycontributestoourknowledgeoforganizational and social phenomenon

Stake (1995) suggested that in reporting the case study, the writer should “emphasize the quality of activities and processes, portraying them in narrative description and interpretive assertion … [taking into consideration]… the essentiality of contexts, multiple points of view, and triangulation” (p. 91).

While each site was studied individually, the research team was asked to prepare its report in a summative way so as not to reveal the identity of individual sites in its comments. Ethics approval from uBC was received on april 30th, 2007. the 12 sites were visited between april 30th and June 12th in each of the two school years (2007 and 2008). Each site was visited for two working days.

3.1 Methods

Before the visits, sites were sent a list of requested documentation. it was suggested that sites organize the documentation into binders under the following five headings:

1. record of family and child attendance

2. Program and policy documentation

3. Human resources policies and procedures

4. Evidence of parent/caregiver communication

5. Community relations and linkages

Sites were invited to incorporate any other information that might be useful such as photos, scrapbooks, samples of student activities and schedules. Consent forms and interview questions (as approved by the ethics committee) were sent to the sites before the visit.


3.2 Stage 1 and Stage 2 Site Visits: Interviews, Focus Groups and Observations

District contacts at each site were asked to schedule interviews, focus groups and observations in the program with the following types of representative groups:

• Thesitecoordinator

• Theschooldistrictcontact(s)

• TheEarlyChildDevelopmentfacilitator(s)(ECE[teacher]atthesite)

• Theschoolprincipal(s)

• Adistrictofficeadministrator(s)

• Coalitionandsteeringcommitteemembers

• Kindergartenteachersatthesite’sschools

• TheParentAdvisoryCommittee(PAC)president

• Volunteers

• ChildCareResourceandReferral(CCRR)representatives

• LocalECEownersand/oroperators,and

• Keyinteragencyrepresentatives

the team typically engaged with 10 to 15 parents in focus groups of 45 to 60 minutes. a general invitation was provided to parents and the team accepted all parents who attended the focus group. at times, the team received requests for interviews and accepted all requests even from those who had not been scheduled. When necessary, translators were provided to assist with interpretation at the interviews and focus group meetings. the documentation that had been collected before the visit was discussed with multiple respondents at each site to find explanations and any necessary information.

3.3 Daily Team Debrief

the research team’s schedule on the two-day visits was typically from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm to accommodate all the meetings and observations. During the day, the research team sometimes worked together and sometimes worked separately. to maximize shared knowledge and wisdom, the research team met in the evening to share notes and their impressions of the day (which were later transcribed) under the following headings:

1. The context particular to each site: the hours of operation, a description of the space, a description of the budget and equipment

2. Human resources: the contractual arrangements with the facilitator, the remuneration, hours of operation, preparation time and career background

3. Program: the schedule of the program highlights in the schedule, and learning activities. the team had been asked not to evaluate individual sites. in order to discuss the perceptions of the sites the team decided to comment only on the effectiveness of the program and arrived at the following conclusion. Effective programs have demonstrated an improvement in children’s development. the research team used the five-element framework from the literature review to assess the effectiveness of each site’s delivery, based on program observations. the team did not use a formal evaluation tool or structured checklist of the identified elements. Program observation notes were compared


and discussed at the end of each day and the assessments were determined by consensus. the team thought that the 12 sites ranged between moderately effective and highly effective.

4. Highlights: anything about the site that was worthy of special note

5. impact/benefits: the viewpoints of the parents, focus groups and other representatives of the school or community as to the value of the program

6. issues/barriers: Based on Hertzman’s (2006) list of potential barriers, an identification of the barriers that remain or efforts to eliminate barriers

7. lessons learned: any lessons that could be learned and applied to other sites

8. (Stage 1 only) Suggestions for the evaluation stage: in each interview, the research team asked staff members and parents what could be evaluated at their site. the plan for Stage 2 was based on the information gathered during these interviews

9. (Stage 2 only) recommendations for the final report: the research team asked interviewees for recommendations to improve the program

3.4 Changes in Methodology for Stage 2: Four Surveys

four surveys were recommended by the advisory committee for Stage 2. a parent/caregiver and a family childcare-provider survey were developed by a sub-committee of the advisory committee. a survey for parents/caregivers who had dropped out of (stopped attending) the program and another survey for kindergarten parents in the 12 sites (regarding previous attendance) were developed by the research team with instruction from the advisory committee. the main purpose of the surveys was to reach a larger number of respondents than was possible through focus groups and interviews, in order to enhance and contextualize the team’s findings.

at each site, a survey administrator was employed to manage the survey process. Districts were asked to employ a survey administrator who (a) had no vested interest in the program, (b) would encourage as many caregiver clients as possible in the process, (c) would collect the surveys with attention to confidentiality for each participant, and (d) would submit the completed surveys by the deadline to an impartial and experienced research agency – Malatest & associates: Program Evaluation and Market research. (refer to appendix B to view the surveys.)

3.4.1 Parent/Caregiver Surveys

Districts were canvassed to determine the percentage of second-language attendees in the programs. as a result, the parent survey was translated into nine different languages and distributed to all 12 sites. Surveys were distributed by hand at each site and returned by the parent in an envelope at a central collection site managed by the survey administrator. the survey administrator offered to assist parents with the survey by recording their answers for them (in cases where illiteracy may have been an issue). in total, 411 surveys were returned out of approximately 1,200 active attendees at the sites (34.5%). (Active refers to the number of people attending in april 2008; those who could be accessed by the survey manager on site). an additional 119 who had stopped attending were surveyed and eight parents interviewed pre- and post-registration (44.8% total).

Several sites with a high number of second-language participants submitted the lowest number of responses in spite of the fact that surveys were translated into eleven languages. only 12 second-language surveys were returned. Despite this fact, the research team ensured that second-language participants participated in interviews and focus groups with the assistance of on-site translators.


3.4.2 Family Childcare Surveys

a similar survey was developed for family childcare providers and administered in the same way as the parent survey. the StrongStart BC program was not originally intended for daycare providers and the advisory committee wanted to understand the reason for their attendance. two surveys were returned by daycare providers.

3.4.3 Parent Dropout* Surveys

*Dropoutincludesthosewhoregistered and stopped attending

the committee noted that during the documentation stage, registrations in the fall were high but daily attendance did not reflect the number of original registrants. the survey managers were asked to telephone registrants who had provided telephone numbers to ask about their experience at the centre and why they had stopped attending. the results of the telephone interviews were conducted, documented and 119 responses returned.

3.4.4 Kindergarten Parent Surveys

the committee requested that kindergarten parents in the same schools as the sites be surveyed to find out whether they had attended the centre in the previous year and if yes, the value they placed on it and if no, why they had not returned. Sixty-five surveys were returned.

3.4.5 Pre and Post Interviews

the committee requested that, where possible, the researchers interview new registrants in the programs to document the frequency of their activity with their children, and then interview them later to document any changes in the frequency of the same activities. a researcher travelled to two sites in november 2007 for the first set of interviews and a second researcher conducted the follow-up interview in May 2008. Eleven parents were interviewed in the pre-interviews; eight of those were available for the post-interview.

the paper surveys were distributed to the survey managers in mid-april with a return deadline of May 5th, 2008. the completed parent surveys were couriered directly to Malatest & associates for collation and the first stage of analysis. the other surveys were fewer in number so they were hand-collated by an independent contractor. the research team conducted the initial in-depth analysis. a sub-committee of the advisory committee met to review the results, to raise pertinent questions and to request further analysis for the final report.


Section 4

Findings

4.0 Introduction to Findingsas described in the previous section, the following findings are based on:

i. the classroom observations, interviews with 126 individuals and focus groups (included 132 parents) were conducted by the research team during their two-day visit

ii. over 600 surveys submitted by parents/caregivers (three surveys in total)

iii. Corroborating evidence in the form of the collection of documents was presented to the research team during the visit by the site facilitator

iv. in the absence of a declared program curriculum or pedagogy, the principles defined in the literature review were used as criteria for each section of the report under investigation

4.1 Context of the Sites

the 12 sites each have special characteristics (figure 2), as reported by school district staff:

Characteristics N=12

located in urban centres (>50,000) 5

Smaller communities (<50,000) 7

low SES neighbourhoods (Source – Stats Canada data) 9

neighbourhoods with high vulnerabilities as identified by the Early Development instrument (EDi) 11

neighbourhoods with highly transient populations 2

Designated as a community hub with multiple services on site 1

Designated as a community school 3

a large multicultural population 4

a large aboriginal population 6

Predominantly Caucasian 1

Figure 2: Characteristics of site locations, reported by site

4.2 Operations

4.2.1 Program Schedule

the standard operating hours varied from site to site although time of day and program times changed through the course of the year, often in consultation with the parents’ desires. Most programs were offered in the morning five days a week with an 8:30 or 9:00 am start. Programs typically ran for three hours per day with a one-hour preparation time for the facilitator. variations included (a) a Saturday


session instead of one weekday session so that parents who worked during the week could attend, (b) one or two afternoons a week instead of mornings, and (c) all afternoon sessions at one site so that one facilitator could manage both the morning and afternoon programs at two sites.

4.2.2 Facility and Resource Issues

facilities were renovated, freshly painted and clean. School and classroom layouts were different at each site. all but one of the classrooms was located in the school building; the exception was located in an annex. Several of the classrooms were located close to the kindergarten classrooms, allowing the kindergarten teacher and the facilitator to collaborate. at some sites, the StrongStart BC classroom was shared with other programs or another ECE; this worked better at some sites than others and was dependent on the similarity between programs and the degree of cooperation between the programs.

access to toilet facilities was problematic at three sites. Participants found it most satisfactory when bathrooms were located close to the classroom because adult supervision was required for bathroom visits for young children. Walking past elementary classrooms was reported as a distraction at two sites. Schools are careful about security issues related to students and unknown adults are not permitted in schools. Most schools require adults to check into the office for security reasons. Some StrongStart BC centres had exterior entrances (generally desirable). Some sites had resolved this problem by providing StrongStart BC parents with identity cards to wear. Some sites had designated bathrooms nearby; one site had built a bathroom attached to the classroom.

Sanitary diaper tables are a health and safety requirement in childcare settings but two sites did not have diaper tables and three sites were not using them properly. a suitable table at the right height, sanitizing cleaner to prevent the spread of bacteria between babies, disposable paper on which to lay the baby and a proper distance from food preparation areas are important criteria.

Storage space for the number of strollers was insufficient; there were often up to a dozen at a time. in some cases, they were stored in cloakrooms because storage in hallways is a fire-safety problem. at other sites, they occupied valuable classroom space and interfered with the range of activities that could be offered. at one site, they were left in a covered play area outside, and at another site, a makeshift plastic cover had been constructed by the custodian.

access to water was an important issue raised at six sites. two classrooms did not have a sink. the children were required to wash their hands before snack time and after messy play activities. Water was also required for many early childhood activities such as painting and water play.

resources and equipment were unique to each site; all programs were considered well resourced although the quality of materials varied. a highly desirable aspect of ECD programming is outdoor play, which enhances physical development, environmental awareness and broader social interaction. only five of the 12 sites had access to the outdoor playground; only one site had a fenced-in area to contain the children safely so outdoor play was carefully supervised.

4.3 Enhancements to StrongStart BC Programming

Seven of the sites were planning enhancements to the program. one site had developed an indoor playroom with multiple pieces of large-muscle equipment for indoor play. the playroom was subsequently opened to other community agencies. another site had developed a jungle-themed preschool library in an unused space and opened it to the whole community. StrongStart BC, in collaboration with other early childhood community programs and the school, established an afternoon preschool in the same space as the morning StrongStart BC program. at several sites, StrongStart BC was offered two mornings a week in the summer and on Saturday. this was being considered at other


sites. Some of these offerings were funded by a Ministry of Education grant or by other early childhood community groups (e.g., members of the local intersectoral ECD coalition) in a cooperative venture.

4.4 Human Resources

it was required of all StrongStart BC facilitators that they be qualified Early Childhood Educators (ECE) with a license to practise. given the novelty of the position, contractual arrangements varied. in most districts, facilitators signed a personal contract with salaries ranging from $18 to $25 per hour depending on the type of benefits they received (some did not receive any benefits). other arrangements occurred. one person was employed by the Parks & recreation branch of the city; two were employed by the school district and members of CuPE and one facilitator was exempt staff. facilitators agreed that they would prefer to be school-district employees with appropriate benefit packages; they were anxious about the future of their position.

Concern was expressed at all sites about the lack of qualified ECE facilitators and the resultant limitation of new centres; however, only one site had difficulty staffing the position. Community members worried that qualified staff from other agencies were being lured from their jobs by StrongStart BC. Some centres had to close when the facilitator was ill, due to the lack of qualified replacement staff. in a few cases, arrangements were made for qualified staff from other agencies or district positions to substitute on a temporary basis, but their own assignments suffered. Success by Six and agencies that were part of the intersectoral coalition supplemented the staff at three sites by providing funding or resources for additional services from their own resources.

Most facilitators worked part-time in their four-hour position and appreciated the opportunity to do this. Some facilitators had to find other jobs to supplement the position. one facilitator taught in two programs. one facilitator was also the school district’s Early learning Coordinator; one was assigned other tasks by the school district to complement her position. Most facilitators and their supervisors commented that they provided extra hours to enhance the program. after the first year of implementation, facilitators resigned at three of the sites because other positions had become available to them.

at three of the sites, the facilitators felt they were not part of the school staff. this was, in part, due to conflicting schedules between school hours and program hours. in one case, it was due to resentment among school staff over resources, placement of the program and competing space issues. at nine sites, enthusiasm for the program was obvious. the facilitator was included in staff meetings and school professional-development sessions. the facilitator and kindergarten teacher shared resources and planning as well as combining classes for some activities. the principal and other school resource staff visited and taught in the classroom. at one site, the facilitator, the preschool teachers and the primary teachers enjoyed professional development/training experiences organized by the district. at these sites, facilitators expressed a higher degree of satisfaction with their job.

4.4.1 Selected Parent Survey Results

About the Facilitator

Parents and caregivers were asked to rank a number of items that they really liked about the StrongStart program on a five-point scale. in all, 92.2% agreed that one of the things they really liked about StrongStart BC was the facilitator. in addition:

• 92.7%agreedthattheyfeltcomfortabletalkingtothestaffattheprogram

• 70.6%agreedthattheylearnedbywatchingthefacilitatorworkingwiththechildren


Written Responses to Open-ended Questions in the Survey

note: Most parents (approximately two-thirds) did not offer written comments, but only completed the basic survey. Where written comments were provided, selected comments are presented, chosen because of the high frequency of similar responses. in order to ensure there is no bias in the presentation of written comments, negative comments are presented where they exist even though they were few.

in an open-ended question, parents/caregivers were asked what they thought were the greatest strengths of the program. the most common response (made by over 140 of 411 respondents) was related to the skills and qualities of the facilitator. a sample of comments includes:

• An outstanding teacher who goes the extra mile.

• I can’t say enough about our teacher. She is always positive and gains the respect of all the children and parents.

• Theteacherishighlyexperiencedandknowledgeablewhenitcomestoeducatingchildreninatremendous learning environment.

• Theteacherisfantastic.Sheisveryeasytounderstandandhasabeautifulsingingvoice.

there were two negative comments about the facilitator.

in response to the question If you could change some things about StrongStart what would that be? four of the 411 respondents made suggestions about the facilitator. two such comments were:

• Sometimesthemomsarediscouragedfromtalking.Iunderstandthattheyaremodellingparentingskills, but stay-at-home caregivers need adult interaction to form friendships and stay sane. it would be nice if that were recognized.

• WhileIunderstandthattheteacheristheretoguideandhelpparentsintheirinteractionwiththeirchildren, her comments sometimes feel intrusive and judgmental. intuition is the key for effective facilitators. the program should be positive in all aspects.

in response to the final open-ended question, “Whatsuggestionscanyougiveustomakethecentresbetter?” five respondents suggested adding a second facilitator, or at least having a relief facilitator available in cases of illness. they mentioned the disappointment of making the effort to get to the centre and then finding it closed because the facilitator was ill. one suggestion was to post absences on the school district website to avoid the situation. two other parents made the following suggestions:

• Itwouldbehelpfultohavetwostaffmembersatonce(oratleastareliefpersonintheschoolforemergencies) as there have been situations when a parent needs immediate private support. These opportunities have been missed because the staff cannot leave the group to give this support. This is especially important if you want to ensure that parents who are less comfortable in school settings feel welcomed and supported. I suspect that certain parents have not returned to the program because they were embarrassed by things that have happened (child having tantrum) and teacher was unable to address the issue privately. This also means that the parent could not be assured that [he or she] could be referred for further help.

• Irecognizethatitisverybusywithalotofnewfamiliesjoiningeachday.Perhapsitwouldbewelcominginitiallytohavea“WelcometoStrongStart"packageforeachnewfamily–infoabouttheprogram,theteacher,otherresourcesandfeedbackinformation.Thiswayevenifthecoordinatorisbusywhenanewfamily arrives, this info can welcome the family until the coordinator is free.


4.5 Leadership in School Systems

research on school leadership credits the role of the school principal as essential to the successful implementation of new programs in schools—not for pedagogy of new programs which are typically led by school district staff but for human resource, parent resource, professional development, communication, interagency collaboration, safety and facility management.

the placement of preschool programs in schools raises the question of leadership responsibility. the research team believes that the role and quality of leadership provided at all levels of the school system (particularly on site by the school principal) was pivotal to the success of the program. it was documented in interviews and focus groups with respect to the satisfaction levels of the facilitators, the parents and the school staff.

five of the 12 districts demonstrated strong leadership at all levels of the system—from the trustees, the superintendent, district staff, the principal and the facilitator. for example, all were actively engaged in and/or supporting the work of the local intersectoral coalition. two of these districts, with the permission of their school board, decided how to allocate the Ministry of Education grant through a collaborative process based on community needs. four of the larger districts allocated funds for district coordination of Early learning programs. all but one of the districts had a “champion” in the form of support from a senior administrator at the school board office that was responsible for, understood and supported the program. nine facilitators felt strongly supported by an administrator in the district. However, they reported that the lines of decision-making were unclear and sometimes frustrating, particularly in budgeting. this was because budgets were still being managed at a central level (because of the newness of the program and because grants were not targeted by the principal who typically manages in-house program budgets and understands relative program priorities).

While all principals said they supported the program, only eight of the principals enthusiastically engaged with the StrongStart BC program (as described in interviews and focus groups). these principals dropped in to greet parents, read stories to the children, encouraged new attendees from the neighbourhood, met regularly with the facilitator to solve problems, arranged for modifications to the facility where necessary and advocated for the program at the district and community level. the degree of program integration in the school varied accordingly. in one case, the principal was reluctant to support the use of the school library because the program made no funding contribution to the school. in a second site, the principal created a special preschool library in a storage space. in a third site, the principal taught music in the program and authorized other staff (such as the music and physical education teachers and the aboriginal coordinator) to contribute time to the program.

in the three districts that had more than one facilitator, strong bonds were developed between facilitators. at six of the 12 sites, new relationships were developed with the kindergarten teachers, who were regarded as important support for those involved. five schools included the StrongStart BC facilitator in regular professional-development activities, which was appreciated by the facilitators. it was evident in the interviews and focus groups that multiple layers of understanding and support in the school district enhanced the effectiveness of the program and encouraged the staff.

Literature Review: Highlights (appendix a)

research suggests that principals play a powerful role in improving teaching and learning. they must energize the school community about higher student achievement through shared decision-making and less authority on the principal’s part. they are expected to provide working conditions for teachers that allow them to practise their profession. this kind of leadership is needed by early childhood educators.


Selected Parent Survey Results

Welcome at the School (See Figure 3)

in total, 16.6% of parents and caregivers felt uncomfortable coming into the school, while 37.5% felt supported by the principal. in all, 90.7% felt comfortable in the StrongStart BC program and 92.9% felt comfortable talking to the StrongStart BC staff.

Parent/caregiver comfortlevel in the school program

(n=407)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I feel comfortablein the program

I feel comfortable talking to thepeople who work at the program

I feel supportedby the school principal

I am uncomfortatblecoming to the school

Stronglyagree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Stronglydisagree

Noresponse

Figure 3: Parent perceptions about the school


note: Most parents (approximately two-thirds) did not offer written comments, but only completed the basic survey. Where written comments were provided, selected comments are presented, chosen because of the high frequency of similar responses. in order to ensure there is no bias in the presentation of written comments, negative comments are presented where they exist even though they were few.

• Personally, I did not want to be involved with going to school with a child because of my negative feelings about schools. This is an excellent environment and any child should be happy to attend grade school and be prepared socially and emotionally.

• IfeverychildhadtheopportunitytogotoaStrongStartprogrambeforeschool,whatanamazingboosttotheirjoyinlearningthatwouldbe.OurBCMinistryofEducationdeservessomuchcreditforpromoting and financing this invaluable program. My little guy and I include ourselves among all of the StrongStarters who are incredibly grateful for this especially beneficial program.


4.6 Attendance of Parents/Caregivers and Children

in September 2007, the Ministry of Education required that a staff representative from all StrongStart BC sites train for and implement an electronic registration system through BCeSiS (BC Electronic Student information System). Parents were required to provide a birth certificate at the time of registration. Children were then entered into the educational database and assigned a Personal Education number (PEn). Schools were required to document the daily attendance of each child. this has resulted in valuable data for monitoring and long-term program evaluation but has generated two problems for the sites.

1. Most significant was the fact that a number of parents do not have, cannot get, or will not produce the child’s birth certificate. the staff interviewed by the research team thought that this was a problem particularly for (a) new immigrants and refugees who have waiting periods before qualifying for proper identification, (b) individuals with literacy problems who have difficulty managing bureaucratic procedures for applying for legal documents, (c) illegal residents in the country, (d) single parents who did not have original records and (e) those who distrust the social system. Most staff welcomed attendees even if they did not produce the appropriate documents at registration, but many felt they had lost some of the neediest clients because of this expectation. in one site, only 23 families were officially registered but records demonstrated that 119 different children attended over the course of a few months. PEn numbers were not generated for the others.

2. at all sites, school staff noted that the computerized registration procedure was onerous and time-consuming for staff and was imposed on already heavy workloads. in most cases, the school secretary was assigned the task. in two cases, the facilitator was assigned responsibility. in another two cases, the school board office entered the data once it had been provided by the school.

Despite these initial difficulties, on the second visit to the sites, the research team was impressed by the additional information that was available to them through this system, in particular the greater detail on frequency of attendance. (Some sites were just beginning to use the system so this was not true at all sites.) as the data-collection process continues and appropriate measures are put in place, it may become possible to develop longitudinal studies on the effects of the program on child outcomes by examining


the findings from family drop-in programs are consistent with recent reviews of the impact of early childhood program reports that positive effects on vulnerable children’s development are best achieved from initiatives that target children directly with structured, centre-based programs and involve their parents in the process (Doherty, 2007). “Programs that offer both a parent and a child component appear to be the most successful in promoting long-term developmental gains for children from low-income families” (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).

Evaluating a program to determine the effectiveness of a program requires a study of the long-term impact of children’s participation. to do a study it is essential to collect the necessary data about individual participants and their utilization of the program. the national evaluation of the u.K.’s Sure Start local Programs (SSlPs) which compared families in SSlPs with families in Sure Start-to-be communities (national Evaluation of Sure Start team, 2005) tried to measure the impact of supportive parenting components of family drop-in programs. However because they did not track individual utilization, the research team was not able to able to distinguish which parents living in a community were actually accessing the services.


children’s developmental trajectories over time. While all sites collected the same data, it was presented to the team in different ways (daily, weekly, monthly) and in different formats. Some sites were unable to provide detailed records of the frequency of attendance for each child in a database or the identity of the caregiver attending with the child, but provided approximations.

figure 4 provides figures for official registrations, average daily attendance and the number of surveys returned from each site.

School DistrictOfficially

Registered

Officially Registered & Unofficially Attending

(No PEN #’s)

Daily AverageAttendance

(Children and Parent/caregiver)

Number of Surveys Returned

SD 41 Burnaby(Community School) 50 142 35 15

SD 71 Comox 210 210 28 63

SD 43 Coquitlam 120 300 50 64

SD 73 Kamloops 108 108 24 33

SD 75 Mission (Hub and Community School) 79 126 40 25

SD 53 okanagan falls 60 80 22 32

SD 57 Prince george 152 152 30 22

SD 52 Prince rupert 23 85 28 17

SD 28 Quesnel 95 134 30 26

SD 19 revelstoke (one SS site plus 2 attached programs in other rooms)

119 13448 am 22 pm

34 Saturdays46

SD 36 Surrey (Community School) 80 80 36 25

SD 70 Port alberni (ucluelet) 60 95 24 26

undefined Package 17 17

total 411

note: undefined package refers to a package of surveys that were delivered with no identification attached.

Figure 4: Attendance

4.6.1 Daily/Weekly/Monthly Attendance

the average daily attendance appears reasonable in terms of facilitator/child ratio and classroom space but when an adult accompanies each child, the classroom can become overcrowded. the research team observed one site with over 40 people in one classroom. Many of them were mothers with young babies who carried diaper bags or with older children carrying backpacks. frequent overcrowding was documented in six of the twelve sites, in others, it was infrequent; however, attendance was often seasonal or dependent on the weather, so daily attendance was unpredictable. the team also observed classrooms in which only 10 persons attended, including adults. this was much more manageable considering the goals of the program. at most sites, parents had to travel across town to attend. this situation will likely be alleviated as more StrongStart BC sites are opened.


Many problems arose from overcrowding. Since one of the main purposes of the program was to model skills for parents, this modelling was almost impossible for facilitators in an overcrowded room, where the priority became managing resources (for example, refilling paint jars). the facilitators lost the opportunity to build relationships with parents, observe children or advise parents. Safety issues were a concern to the team in overcrowded classrooms. toddlers and babies on the floor had to be closely monitored as lively 4-year-olds moved from activity to activity. Circle/story time lost its focus and noise levels were high during overcrowding.

two of the sites had attempted to deal with the overcrowding issue by closing the door and putting up a sign when a specific number of children had arrived. in one case, the maximum was 15 children, for example. this was very unpopular with parents who arrived too late (while those who arrived early reported they were pleased with the smaller number). Some parents reported that, for a variety of reasons, they were unable to be there for the early start and the closure had resulted in wasted time dressing the children and travelling to the site. the children who had anticipated the day were disappointed and the mother who needed support had no alternative. one mother reported walking in the mall on those days as a distraction for her disappointed children.

a more palatable solution for parents at other sites was to agree about which days groups of parents would attend, on the understanding that this was a flexible guideline rather than a rule. Since many parents attended only two or three days a week, this seemed to work well. the same solution was used on days that a childcare centre attended. Some parents felt it was unfair to have a group of children attend with only one adult because of the lack of space. the solution was to designate attendance times and publicize them to parents so they could choose to attend at different times of the day.

attendance varied widely as demonstrated in figure 5. at one site, most parents attended three to four times per week and had developed strong social bonds with each other. at another site, many parents attended but only once or twice per month. this did not appear to change the parents’ perspective of the value of the program or its effectiveness; it seemed to be a matter of whether they had other options for their children or whether they had commitments themselves, such as part-time work commitments. Some were choosing to create balance in their children’s experience. they went to the pool, the playground or preschool on other days. Some parents relied only on StrongStart BC for most days of the week. in the survey results, parents who attended twice a week felt confident their children were benefitting from the program; the facilitators felt the same.

Selected Parent Survey Results:

Number of times childattended in one

month (n=407)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

no response

more than 12 times

9-12 times

4-8 times

fewer than 4 times

Figure 5: Frequency of attendance


4.6.2 Characteristics of and Numbers of Children Attending with Caregivers

at one site, the predominant age group was 3- and 4-year-old children; at another site, 75% of attendees were under 2.5 years; at most sites, a broad range of ages were represented in the room from birth to 5 years. Most parents brought one or two children. Parents sometimes brought a neighbour’s child. Most caregivers were parents but others were grandparents, aunts, a great-aunt, nannies and family daycare providers.


(note: Some respondents did not answer all questions so numbers may not total 100%. Parents were asked to provide responses for Child one and Child two if they brought more than one child to the site.)

number of children

• 54.7%ofrespondentsbroughtonechildtothecentre

• 36.3%broughttwoand5.1%broughtthreechildrentothecentre

gender

• ForthechildidentifiedasChildOne:44.5%weregirlsand52.6%wereboys

• ForthechildidentifiedasChildTwo:24.6%weregirlsand18.5%wereboys

ages of children

• ForthechildidentifiedasChildOne:5.1%werelessthanoneyearofage,16.1%wereageone,29.4%were age two, 21.7% were age three, 19% were age four and 5.8% were age five

• ForthechildidentifiedasChildTwo:8.7%werelessthanoneyearofage,6.8%wereageone,9.5%were age two, 7.5% were age three, 6.3% were age four and 4.1% were age 5 (65.7% did not respond probably because they did not have a second child.)

identity of caregiver

• 85.9%ofcaregiversweremothers,5%werefathers,5.7%weregrandmothers,7%weregrandfathers,1.2% were other relatives and 2.7% were other caregivers

4.6.3 Reaching Out to Families and Reducing Barriers to Attendance

it was apparent that in eight of the sites, staff had made considerable effort to canvas the needs in their community and reach as many families as possible, particularly those in need. it is important to note, however, that vulnerable children and families are found in all social classes; vulnerability is the result of numerous factors beyond socio-economic conditions. this has been demonstrated in the EDi (Early Development instrument) research at HElP (Human Early learning Partnership, 2008).

the research team noted many creative strategies to encourage the attendance of vulnerable families. relationships were developed with intersectoral agencies that referred (and sometimes brought) clients to StrongStart BC. Booths were set up in local stores and malls, which parents were invited to attend. taxis were sent to pick up remote families. one principal knocked on doors in his community looking for preschoolers. Several districts allocated funds for hours of outreach time for staff and free bus tickets were distributed to parents.


the team was concerned that the sites in which school-district demographics indicated a high proportion of aboriginal or multicultural families and low socioeconomic status, these groups were not well represented in the attendance figures. the sites varied widely. in one site where over twenty persons were attending, all attendees were reported to be refugees or immigrants. at another site, 104 children attended over the course of the year but only a fraction of these were registered. the majority of attendees came from eleven language groups (Pashto, vietnamese, traditional Chinese, Spanish, russian, farsi, Dari, french, Punjabi, Croatian and Simplified Chinese). another “hub” school registered eight languages and provided multiple layers of interagency services on site such as social services, health and aboriginal staff. in sites where registrants comprised a mix of ethnic and cultural groups, the team observed heartening relationships as parents worked together. at the same time, the team heard several negative comments from parents about those who spoke only English as they described frustration with the multiple languages on site and how the language issues took away from the facilitator’s time.

the research team believes that multicultural groups were not well represented in the survey results (proportionate to registration numbers) given the inconsistency between what was observed and mentioned at sites, compared to survey responses. the returns from sites with a high percentage of different cultures were low. families may have been intimidated by the survey process even though they were offered translation services; some may not have understood the survey process or the fact that their identities would not be revealed. only 12 translated surveys were returned out of 411. nevertheless, the team had good representation from the multicultural perspective in the focus groups through the use of translators, where personal relationship building was possible. Cultural challenges were significant at these sites but the families described themselves as comfortable and enjoying this environment. for example, adults described how important it was that they were enjoying learning “the Canadian way.”

figure 6 describes income levels of surveyed families. according to Statistics Canada, the poverty line begins at $32,000 for a family of four. according to that measure (although we did not know the size of the families in this study) approximately 22.7% of the respondents were living below the poverty line, excluding the 18.7% who made no response. a further examination of the data at individual sites revealed that approximately one-third of respondents lived below the poverty line at five of the sites; at eight sites, one-fifth of the participating families lived below the poverty line. at eight sites, less than 10% of respondents earned more than $40,000. at two sites over half the attendees earned more than $40,000. as a result, the combined data from the sites provide a different picture because two of the sites are in higher socioeconomic status categories. if the survey results are representative of all attendees, it could be concluded that most of the attendees have a modest income.

the median reported the household income range of the children was $30,000-$39,999; 21% lived in households with an annual income of less than $20,000.


Selected family characteristics (n=407)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Male

Female

Gen

der

Couple parent

Single parent

Extended family

Blended family

More than $60,000

Hou

seho

ld in

com

eCu

lture

and

lang

uage

Pare

ntal

sta

tus

$30,000-$39,000

$40,000-$59,000

$15,000-$19,000

$20,000-$29,999

Less than $14,999

Child is of Aboriginal descent

Respondent is of Aboriginal descent

Child is a recent immigrant

Respondent speaks English

English spoken by child

Figure 6: Characteristics of respondent families


Family Characteristics

respondents were asked a number of questions about the family characteristics of the children they brought to the StrongStart centre. While 90% of respondents were the child’s mother or father, 10% were another relative or caregiver, who may not have had accurate information about the income, education, ethnicity or family type of the child. reported results, therefore, should be treated with caution.

figure 6 provides an overview of selected family characteristics. in all, 85% of children lived in two-parent households; the remaining 15% were equally divided among single-parent, blended and extended families. of the children, 6% were reported to be recent immigrants to Canada and 91% spoke English; 11% were of aboriginal descent.


of mothers whose children attended StrongStart, 50% were working in the paid labour force; 19% worked full-time and 31% part-time (see figure 7); 21% of children also attended childcare and 23% also attended a preschool program.

Employment status of parents (n=407)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Mothers Fathers

No response

Not employed

Students

Part-time

Full-time

Figure 7: Employment status of parents

Many of the children attended programs in addition to StrongStart BC (figure 8), including recreational programs, family resource programs and childcare. twenty-three percent also attended a preschool program and 21% attended childcare. StrongStart BC was the only program attended by 18% of children.

Additional programschildren attended (n=407)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Child care

Preschool

Family resource programs

No other programs

Private lessons (e.g. music, dance)

Other community programs

Recreation programs

Figure 8: Additional programs children attended


figure 9 shows the highest educational level of the child’s mother and father. ten percent of mothers and 6.8% of fathers had less than high school completion; 58.6% of mothers and 62.7% of fathers had post-secondary credentials.

Educational attainment of parents (n=407)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Mothers Fathers

Bachelor degree or higher

Diploma or certi�cate

Some post-secondary

High school completion

Less than high school

Figure 9: Educational attainment of parents

Transportation to the centre

in total, 77.9% get to the centre by car; 21% walk; 4.1% take the bus; 2.2% bike and 1.5% carpool.

4.6.4 Reasons Parents Started to Attend the Program

in focus groups and interviews, parents were asked why they started to attend the StrongStart BC program. Most parents agreed that opportunities for enriched learning experiences and resources were the prime reasons. Most described the focus on playing with their children without home distractions as worthwhile. Many considered the opportunity for social interaction with other children equally important. Many parents described their own isolation at home as a motivating factor. Caregivers other than parents appreciated the resources they could not offer in their own home. new immigrants and refugees valued the opportunity to improve their English skills.


When asked the top three reasons for attending the StrongStart BC program, survey responses were similar (see figure 10).


Top three reasons forcoming to StrongStart (n=407)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Convenience

To get help

To practice English

Because my child hasspecial needs

Other

Friends with others coming

Close to home

New things for child to play with

To learn with the child

To meet and socializewith other people

No cost

Play time for the child

Figure 10: Top three reasons for coming to StrongStart BC

other major factors included the learning environment, preparation for school, and program flexibility.


note: Most parents (approximately two-thirds) did not offer written comments but completed the basic survey. Where written comments were provided, selected comments are presented, chosen because of the high frequency of similar responses. in order to ensure there is no bias in the presentation of written comments, negative comments are presented even though few exist.

approximately:

• One-thirdofparentsmentionedthetypesofactivities,toysandequipmentavailabletothechildren

• One-thirdofparentsmentionedtheavailabilityoftoysthattheycouldnotaffordtohaveathome,and activities that were too messy for doing at home. Some mentioned the wide range of crafts, art and science activities available on a daily basis, and the excellent stimulation provided to the children

• One-fifthofparentsmentionedsocializationfortheirchildren,includinginteractionwithchildrenof different ages and from different cultures. Several mentioned how their children were gaining confidence from these interactions and were learning to share, take turns and make friends

• Onepersonwrote:MyhusbandandItaketurnsattendingtwiceaweek.WebothabsolutelylovetheStrongStart program and our teacher. She and the program have given us a place to learn how to educate our children. We were new to the province. After attending StrongStart for a few months I had built several


wonderful, parent-support friendships, which I spend time with in and out of Strong Start, and monthly the four of us get together without the children. My husband and I feel extremely fortunate to have this programandtheteacherasanimportantpartofourweeklyroutine

4.6.5 Reasons Families Stopped Attending the Program

Survey managers were asked to contact parents who had dropped out of the program. they were to interview those who had registered and attended for several regular sessions, then stopped attending. in all, 119 interviews were conducted (figure 11) at nine sites to ask the following questions:

1. How did you and/or your child benefit from the experience?

2. Do you have any suggestions for improvement?

3. if you dropped out of the program, what caused you to do so?

4. What would make it possible for you to attend again?

responses to Questions 1 and 2 were similar to the responses of all parents and will be included in Section4.9–Strengths and Section4.10–Weaknesses. the main reasons respondents stopped attending were related to the parents’ schedule, and a return to (or changes to) their work.

Reasons for no longerattending StrongStart (n=119)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Did not bene�t from the progrm

Attending another StrongStartcloser to home

Language barriers

Children involved intoo many other activities

Family moved

Transportation problems

New baby or otherfamily considerations

Parent schedules unrelated to work

Child had started preschoolor child care

Parent returned to work or schooland schedule no longer worked

Figure 11: Reasons for no longer attending StrongStart BC

of those who stopped attending regularly, 16% indicated that they were planning to attend again in the future.



note: Most parents (approximately two-thirds) did not offer written comments but only completed the basic survey. Where written comments were provided, selected comments are chosen because of the high frequency of similar responses. in order to ensure there is no bias in the presentation of written comments, negative comments are presented where they exist even though they represent few viewpoints.)

approximately:

• OnequarteroftherespondentsmentionedadesireforadditionalStrongStartlocationsclosertohome

• Onetenthoftherespondentsmentionedaneedforimprovedtransportation;wantedadditionalprogram hours, including afternoons and summer operations; mentioned that their current caregivers (often older grandparents) did not feel comfortable coming to the program

• Onetwentiethindicatedtheneedforachangeinworkschedule;werelookingforachangeintheprogram; wanted additional assistance for a child with special needs and mentioned that their children were going to kindergarten, so would not be returning

a few respondents expressed a desire for older children in the program; others who spoke the same language as the respondent; and less crowding

4.6.6 Reasons that Parents with Children Attending Kindergarten Classes (in the same school as StrongStart BC) Did or Did Not Attend the Program

the advisory committee requested that kindergarten parents be surveyed in the schools where StrongStart BC was located. Survey managers were asked to circulate a questionnaire in the kindergarten class(es). in total, 65 completed surveys were returned. the questions posed were:

1. Did you and/or your child attend StrongStart BC last year (2007/2008)?

2. if yES, how did you and/or your child benefit from the experience? Do you have any suggestions for improvement?

3. if no, (a) why did you not attend, and (b) what might have made it possible for you to attend?

Responses to Question 1: twenty-five of the respondents replied yES. forty of the respondents replied no they had not attended.

Responses to Question 2: the responses to the remainder of Question 2 are very similar to the other survey responses and are included in the Section4.9–Strengths and Section4.10–Weaknesses.

Responses to Question 3(a) and (b): • 35%ofthosecontactedreportedtheywerenotawareoftheprogramoffering• 20%wereworking• 22%hadchildrenattendingotherprogramsalready• 8%foundthetimingoftheprogramtobeunsuitable• 5%foundtheprogramunsuitablefortheirneeds


note: Most parents (approximately two-thirds) did not offer written comments, but only completed the basic survey. Where written comments were provided, selected comments are chosen because of the


high frequency of similar responses. in order to ensure there is no bias in the presentation of written comments, negative comments are presented although there are few.

• [The]kidsareindaycarebecausewework.

• [The]programhadn’tstartedyet.

• [I]didnotfeelmychildrequiredtheservicesashehashaddaycare/preschoolexperiencebeforeandis accustomed to routines/social/learning environment.

• MychildwasalreadyattendingpreschoolandhadmadefriendswhenIfoundoutabouttheStrongStart program.

• MychildenteredschoolonSept/07.Weneverheardaboutthis.

• AlsoIfeelthattheStrongStartprogramisinthewrongneighbourhoodasthiselementaryissituatedin an upper middle class neighbourhood and most people have the economic means to send their children to Early Childhood Education facilities (i.e., preschools and parent participation preschools, Montessori institutions). StrongStart would be of more benefit if it were situated in a lower socio-economic neighbourhood where the children and parents attending would benefit greatly from this program.

Question 3b: in response to the question about which circumstances would have made it possible to attend, respondents named two major issues: (a) to be better informed about the program, and (b) to have assistance with transportation. other responses included changed hours and placement of the program in low SES areas.

4.7 Program [Quality] Effectiveness

the research team struggled with the issue of how to study and report on program quality given that the visits to the sites were limited to two days and the fact that the team was not to report on individual sites. the research team, therefore, decided to use the Ministry checklist of expectations combined with the principles identified in the literature review to monitor various aspects of program effectiveness systematically at each site, then report collectively on them. the pertinent references follow:

Activities at the centres:

• Organizedactivitiessuchasstorytime,music,singing

• Accesstobooks,artandcraftsmaterials,andpuzzles

• Playareasthatpromotecreativity,exploratoryindividualandgroupplay(water,sand,clay)

• Movementandlarge-muscleactivities

• Snacktime,withfoodthatmodelshealthyeating

• Possibleoutingsinthecommunity,e.g.,tothebeach,thepark,theswimmingpool,thelibrary.(Ministry of Education Contribution agreement, 2006)

the literature review identifies five elements of program quality that are related to program effectiveness: (1) curriculum and pedagogy; (2) daily schedule and routines; (3) use of physical space; (4) accessibility; and (5) child-child and child-adult interactions (Evangelou, 2005; Cleveland et al., 2006; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).

these five elements form the framework for the discussion of program quality. they will be referred to throughout in more general terminology as program effectiveness.


4.7.1 Curriculum and Pedagogy

the literature review shows the importance of a child-centred curriculum and pedagogical approach in all early childhood programs, including family drop-in programs, in supporting children’s optimal development and early learning (Evangelou, 2005; Corter et al., 2006; graue, Clements, reynolds, & niles, 2004). as in the literature on the effect of curriculum and pedagogy, having a planned and consistent curriculum and pedagogy is central to program effectiveness. a range of curriculum and pedagogical approaches benefits children’s early learning and development (see Cleveland et al., 2006; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).

the research team found that all 12 programs offered varied early learning opportunities for young children resulting in parental perceptions that children’s language, personal and social development, vocabulary, literacy, and self-esteem were all improved by the program. Many programs featured open-ended resources and activities as well as regularly structured group times. at the same time, given the newness of the program, improvement at all sites was possible.

activities at the sites promoted development and learning through moving, manipulating, investigating, problem solving, building, representing and communicating. the processes were challenging for the facilitators, given the wide range of age from newborns to five-year-olds. the challenge was further increased by the expectation that adults would engage with their children in learning through the activities. Some parents were shy, reluctant or not sure how to proceed. open-ended materials were provided to encourage children to become flexible thinkers and responsive playmates at various stages of independent and cooperative play.

Several of the centres had designed flexible spaces that could be altered depending on the children’s interests. Methods included portable screens and dividers, a combination of small and larger spaces, moveable equipment and furniture, large blocks and variety in small- and large-muscle toys, pillows and soft furniture for quiet times, “found” objects for creative play, and opportunities for outdoor and gymnasium play. these strategies contributed to a highly effective play-oriented environment where children could become more capable, self-confident, and respectful of others, and could engage in play both independently and cooperatively. as previously mentioned, these benefits were compromised when sites were overcrowded.

Effective practices provided children with many opportunities to express their thoughts. attractively displayed tools and materials invited children to explore symbolic representations and learn about the functions of reading and writing. they were encouraged to read and write through play and the creation of images with their parents. Paint, sand, sand-substitutes, play dough and block structures helped children to face new challenges with new mediums. Science experiments intrigued both children and adults. facilitators used physical gestures, signs, logos and rhymes to create a rich environment for visual and oral literacy.

Phonemic and alphabet awareness was introduced in meaningful, playful ways. at one site, children were encouraged to print letter shapes in sand, on whiteboards and paper, and through other media


Peers Early Education Programme (PEEP) is based on the growing body of evidence linking the early development of language, literacy, and personal and social development with outcomes relating to higher educational attainment, improved behaviour and crime prevention. in a comparative study, early findings show improved verbal comprehension, vocabulary, concepts about print, phonological awareness, writing, early number concepts, and perhaps most importantly in terms of the prevention of preschool behaviour problems, improved self-esteem (Evangelou et al., 2005).


such as paints and play dough. number- and letter-matching activities were available but not the focus of attention unless children expressed interest. (Some parents in the focus groups expressed a desire for more literacy activities; most facilitators had found a way to create a balance in types of offerings.) in less effective practices, children coloured pre-printed worksheets and glued craft activities with an anticipated teacher-designed product; there was a noticeable absence of paint and other messy play. these activities, in the opinion of the research team, were not as desirable as the open-ended activities. (at some sites, messy activities were problematic because of limited access to water and/or space issues.) Phonemic awareness and alphabet activities were presented without a meaningful context and were sometimes repetitive.

Effective practices displayed many examples of the work of child artists and included drawings, paintings, and sculptures as well as work by well-known artists, books, stories and adult displays. learning centres are designated areas in the classroom where specific learning resources are offered for children to explore. Examples included many opportunities for building, dramatic play, dance, music, storytelling, and other means to encourage symbolic thinking, the cornerstone of meaningful literacy. Books were distributed throughout the room. Books and print materials were used as part of learning centres and circle time as facilitators modelled the excitement of sharing great stories, poems and songs. less effective classrooms were either over-stimulating, with too many offerings, or were adult-oriented or too structured. Balance in types of program offerings was obvious in effective learning centres, and activities changed regularly.

Effective programs scheduled a regular time for outdoor play but some centres did not have access to a safe space outside. one centre used a central courtyard. While traditional playground equipment is normally available on school playgrounds, some facilitators had developed inventive ways to use “found” materials and safe parts from industrial sites. Seasonal rituals were developed as a thematic approach to outdoor explorations. animal and plant life became the subject of learning; games, rhythm and song encouraged big-muscle activities.

these classrooms were rich with inexpensive collections of rocks, shells, driftwood, bark, branches, leaves and herbs. Studies of scents intrigued one group through baking, cooking, candles and sensory conversations. Baskets held collections of different textures. Parents were encouraged to engage their children in language play with “texture” words. an old boat provided a great natural prop for imaginative play. tunnels and open-ended boxes encouraged crawlers and new toddlers to engage. a sand table became a beach when rocks and driftwood were added. less effective classrooms were dominated by toys that were less imaginative.

Some sites organized monthly thematic events about cultures in the community. they featured special literacy events, offered book and toy exchanges with second-hand toys collected from thrift shops, cleaned and repaired by parent volunteers. Parent-education evenings were planned for the classroom with babysitting offered in the gym. focus-on-father evenings or Saturday events and healthy cooking-for-kids classes also took place.

Survey Results

When parents were asked what they really liked about StrongStart BC (see figures 12 and 13):

• 98%agreedthatplayactivitieswereofgreatestimportance,while

• 91.4%agreedthattoysandmaterialswerethenextmostimportantpriority


What I really like aboutStrongStart (n=407)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Connections

The facilitator

Toys and Materials

Snack time

Circle time

Play activities

Stronglyagree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Stronglydisagree

Noresponse

Figure 12: What parents like about StrongStart BC

Other things I likeabout Strong Start (n=74)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Convenience

Arts and crafts

Singing and story time

Socialization/opportunitiesfor play with other children

Facility (location,cleanliness, friendly)

Learning environment

Exercise and gym time

Figure 13: Other things parents like about StrongStart BC


4.7.2 Daily Schedule and Routines

the most common schedule for the program (in varying sequence) included:

• Earlymorningpreparation–thefacilitatorsetuplearning centres with resources and materials

• Awelcometothefamiliesastheyarrivedandsigned in

• Freeplayforparentswithchildren,whichinvolvedvarious types of activities offered in learning centres while facilitators coached and modelled learning activities for parents

• Snacktimewithofferingsofhealthyfoods

• Whereavailable,outdoorplayorgymnasiumplay

• Circletimeledbythefacilitatorwiththeparticipation of adults and children, and

• Afarewellritual

Circle time: of these rituals, circle time was the favourite activity. the whole group (as many as 45) would gather in a circle with the facilitator at the centre. this 15-minute session included puppetry, games, songs, nursery rhymes, and stories. the session gently introduced early literacy activities such as book reading, language development activities and rhyming word games and actively engaged children and parents who were obviously enjoying the experience. Many parents organized the timing of their visits to coincide with circle time. only one site did not use circle time as a major organizer.

the research team was impressed by the skill most facilitators demonstrated in circle time while coordinating activities. they used tambourines, scarves, songs and creative movement to attract the children’s attention. During circle time, facilitators used creative teaching tools to engage even the youngest of children. Parents held children in their laps in most classrooms and assisted their children with words and body movements as they participated in learning songs, language development games and literacy activities. Children seamlessly moved in and out of different activities and showed remarkable skill in following routines and assisting with clean up. in most cases, parents had learned classroom routines and assisted the facilitator.


the family drop-in programs in this review that reported benefits for children and their families were structured to (a) provide an opportunity for children’s early learning, and (b) encourage parenting skills. Curricula and pedagogy vary but common elements include:

Consistent circle or group time: Parents, caregivers and children are led in a variety of carefully chosen songs and rhymes. families may be offered an audiotape and/or a songbook containing the songs and rhymes used in the program.

Structured conversations: an opportunity is presented for adults to discuss information and ideas, to share experiences and help each other.

Story time: Daily sharing of books is modelled by the staff who demonstrate stimulating ways of sharing books with children. Picture books without words are usually included so that parents who are not literate can participate in story time with their children.

Book sharing: Children’s books are available for families to borrow.

take-home activities: Practical suggestions and materials for games and activities are available. they are closely related to and encourage specific early learning goals.

A study of curriculum approaches in Chicago Preschool Centres programs concluded, “Teacher-directedbasic-skillspreschoolprogrampromotesearlyliteracyskillsthatmakethetransitiontokindergartenandkindergartenachievementeasier.Longer-term child outcomes, especially high-school completion, come with the benefits typically attributed to child-initiated activity –engagementbasedonchildinterest,sociallearning, and learning how to learn.” (Graue, Clements, Reynolds, & Niles, 2004).


Snacktime: this was a highlight in the program for many families and was a noticeable ritual at some sites. one facilitator organized a pictorial menu served as a buffet of snacks. in other cases, parent and child chose snacks together, discussing the merits of each. the research team observed a wide range of healthy snacks. often, the snack time was introduced by songs related to gratitude for our blessings, or manners. the ritual included the washing of hands or sometimes just a rhyme or song. Parents chatted throughout and much laughter and camaraderie was evident. only one site chose to make snacks available on an as-needed basis throughout the morning. in the focus groups, parents frequently mentioned the value of circle and snack time. Many reported that the transfer of learning to the home environment was most evident from these two more structured activities. this included the desire to read more, basic literacy activities, and the desire to sing and play with the parents. Some children expressed willingness to eat healthy snacks at home for the first time and used the manners and routines they had learned in the program for clean up, eating, taking turns and sharing. Parents described the strategies they had learned from the facilitator and used at home for managing behaviour issues.

other adults offered special activities to the program in different sites. for example:

• AnAboriginalteachertaughtthelocalAboriginallanguage

• APunjabifathertaughtdanceclasses

• AnIndo-Canadianwomentaughthandpainting

• ABelgiansymphonyconductorandfatherperformedregularly

• Ayogateachertaughtbaby/childmassagetechniques

• Thepubliclibrarianconductedweeklystorytelling

• AFilipinomotherbroughtinanexampleofhealthyFilipinosnacks. the daily “hello” song was taught in all the languages used by the attendees.

the StrongStart BC programs have been enriched by the way facilitators have embraced different cultures and community offerings.


When asked what they really like about StrongStart BC, parents responded:

• 84.3%agreedorstronglyagreedoncircletimeasthethirdmost important activity

• 75.7%agreedonsnacktime(19.2%wereneutral)asthefourth most important activity

4.7.3 Accessibility

accessibility issues have been discussed in the facility section (p. 18) related to the classroom and school site, and in the attendance section (p.25) related to barriers to access to the program and hard-to-reach families.


family involvement and parenting skills are enhanced when families have a good time playing with their children. nurturing relationships, active participation in child-centred play and early literacy activities (storytelling, reading, songs and phonetic word play) improve children’s social, emotional and cognitive development before formal schooling (Cleveland et al., 2006; McCain, Mustard, & Shanker, 2007; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). a “learning parenting by doing” approach provides peer support for parents. it has shown great improvement in parents’ attitudes and knowledge (layzer, goodson, Bernstein, & Price, 2001; Brooks-gunn & Markman, 2005). Home environments are influenced when activities and routines are taken home. a program’s ability to increase parental engagement with their children’s out-of-home education may be equally important predictors of long-term positive results.


4.7.4 Attractive Physical Spaces

Effective programs were places where parents and children felt welcome and were eager to participate. Coming to school was described as the highlight of the day. Participants felt as though it was their place. they had a sense of pride, knowledge of roles and responsibilities, a sense of ownership. they felt the place was theirs and not just the facilitator’s, a home away from home. these facilitators had found the balance between creating a place where parents could connect with each other and play a responsible role in working and learning with their children. they used furnishings, floor space, lighting, music, colour, flowers, plants and storage space to create a comfortable space where both adults and children could make connections throughout the session. Such things as a trellis, a tent, a gazebo and a dining room table contributed to a feeling of comfort. Snack time and circle time were used as ways of making those connections. in contrast, less effective program practice separated parents from each other and imposed rules to manage relationships, rather than facilitate them.

4.7.5 Adult/Child Interactions

Skilled facilitators modelled purposeful literacy activities for both children and adults with the goal of encouraging parents to enrich their home setting. Some facilitators sent packages of material, recipes for play dough, song and instruction sheets and ideas newsletters to encourage activities at home. in less effective programs, facilitators worked directly with children while parents talked with each other instead of working and playing with the children. this was difficult for the facilitators to manage, all of whom had made it clear that engaging parents in playing with their own children and encouraging their children to play cooperatively with other children was a high priority of the centre.

Many parents agreed about the importance of the children learning to socialize. in effective classrooms, facilitators modelled how to handle a bullying situation or a sharing opportunity. they offered activities that encouraged collaboration and taught social skills at circle and snack time. Parents sought advice from the facilitator on how to resolve conflicts between children. Parents gave advice and assisted with problem solving about child behaviour. Mothers with new babies and an older child received offers of assistance from other mothers who guided the toddler through some of the activities while mom was breast-feeding. in less effective classrooms, children worked only with their own parents and collaborative child play was not encouraged.


note: Most parents (approximately two thirds) did not offer written comments, but only completed the basic survey. Where written comments were provided, selected comments are chosen because of the


Research shows that (a) what young children learn, (b) how they react to events around them, and (b) what they expect for themselves and others are affected by their relationship with their parents, the behaviour of their parents, andtheirhomeenvironment(Shonkoff& Phillips, 2000; Gomby, Larner, Stevenson, Lewit, & Behrman 1995). Parenting is defined as the attitudes, values and practices of parents in raising young children. Enhanced parentingskillsanticipateimprovedchild outcomes in subsequent years (Shonkoff&Phillips,2000;McCain,Mustard,&Shanker,2007).Home-school relationship refers to the formal and informal contacts and communications between families and their children’s early childhood settings and later educational institutions. The home-learning environment depends on the emphasis the family places on activities that encourage children’s readiness for school learning, particularly language and literacy. The home-school relationship contributes to children’s academic achievement (Weiss, Caspe, & lopez, 2006).


high frequency of similar responses. in order to ensure there is no bias in the presentation of written comments, negative comments are presented where they exist.

Parents were asked what they valued most in the program. approximately:

• One-thirdmentionedthetypesofactivities,toysandequipmentavailabletothechildren.Anumbermentioned the availability of toys that they could not afford to have at home, and activities that were too messy to do at home. Some mentioned the wide range of crafts, art and science activities available on a daily basis, and the excellent stimulation provided to the children.

• One-fifthmentionedsocializationfortheirchildren,includinginteractionwithchildrenofdifferentages and from different cultures. Several mentioned how their children were gaining confidence from these interactions and were learning to share, take turns and make friends.

the other most commonly mentioned strengths in the written comments were:

• Thestructureoftheprogram,helpingchildrenlearnroutinesandprepareforkindergartenorpreschool

• Circletime,includingthestories,songsandbooks

• Networkingorgainingsupportfromotherparentsandcaregivers

• Theflexiblenatureoftheprogram,thefactthatitwasdrop-inandthattheycouldcomeattimesthat suited their schedules

• Nocosttotheprogram;someindicatedthattheywouldnotbeabletoattendiftheyhadtopay

• Theopportunityforexerciseandfreeplayintheschoolgym

• Thehealthysnacks

Parents were asked for suggestions to improve the program. approximately:

• Two-thirdssuggestedmoreStrongStartBCprogramsandextendedhourstosolvetheovercrowdingproblem.

others mentioned:

• Extendingsomeofthemoreformalactivities,suchaslongercircletime,morestoriesandmorestructured pre-literacy activities

• Additionaltimeforgrossmotoractivitiesbyeitherincreasingthegymtime,orplayingoutside

• Healthiersnacks

• Addingoccasionalfieldtripstotheschedule

• Moreage-appropriateoutdoorequipment,especiallyfortoddlers

While the most common response to the question of the strength of the program related to the facilitator, a few parents and caregivers made some suggestions for improvement. two such comments follow:

• Sometimesthemomsarediscouragedfromtalking.Iunderstandthattheyaremodellingparentingskills,but stay-at-home caregivers need adult interaction to form friendships and stay sane. It would be nice if thatwererecognized.

• WhileIunderstandthattheteacheristheretoguideandhelpparentsintheirinteractionwiththeirchildren,hercommentssometimesfeelintrusiveandjudgmental.Intuitionisthekeyforeffectivefacilitators. The program should be positive in all aspects.


4.8 Program Evaluation

4.8.1 Measurement of Program [Quality] Effectiveness

the issue of Program [Quality] Effectiveness has been addressed on page 37. the team was aware that program quality could be improved in each of the sites but believed that the process should be a formative type of evaluation, which would require a program improvement process best undertaken at the local level. it should be guided by provincial expectations and implemented at the school district level. Such a process would ideally engage the facilitators, other ECE experts and school-district administration, supported by a defined process and expectations.

4.8.2 Child and Family Outcomes

in the interviews and focus groups, parents reported changes they saw in their children, in themselves and in their home environments that they attributed to the StrongStart BC program. the research team asked parents to explain how they could be sure the changes were a direct result of the program, rather than experiences they might have had in other programs, the community and the neighbourhood. in all focus groups at all twelve sites, parents were able to be specific about linking learning in the program to new behaviours at home.

Examples related to parent outcomes included:

• Theincreasedfrequencyofreading

• Theuseofpuppetsforstorytelling

• Singingallthenewsongstheyknewastheydroveinthecar or played at home

• Takingartactivitieshome(suchastherecipeforplaydough) and creating their own.

Parents described many outcomes originating in the program that affected how they worked with their children at home:

• Theyusedclassroompromptstoavoidcleanupconflictsathome

• Theychangedsnackpatternsathometothoseatschool

• Theysoughtreferralsafterasuggestionfromthefacilitator

• Theyorganizedtoysinthesamewaytheywereorganizedatschool

• Theyassignednewtaskstothechild,whichtheyhadlearnedatschool,suchashelpingtosetthetable, creating rice play-boxes inside instead of sand, building a sandbox in the yard and filling it with creative containers and toys like those used in the classroom

• Theycreatedcollectionsrelatedtonature


Program evaluation includes the measurement of program quality, child and family outcomes and connections with other early childhood programs in the community..


although studies differ in the evaluation’s sample, design, and methods, they suggest several common conclusions about the impact of family drop-in programs on children’s development. one overarching conclusion is that such research requires a multidimensional design intended to examine the relationship among program characteristics and quality (including teacher-child interactions) on the one hand, and child and family characteristics and child outcomes on the other.


• Onecentreevenprovidedbookbagsthatcontainedabookandsometheme-relatedactivitiesplusall the materials to create, play, read and use at home. these bags were prized by the parents and were checked out frequently

it was clear to the research team that StrongStart BC had enriched parental behaviour in the home because of the facilitator’s modelling in the classroom.

Parents could link the following child outcome examples to the program:

• Increasedvocabularyandlanguagedevelopment

• Newknowledgeinthemedsubjectareas

• Improvedmanners

• Longerattentionspanswhenlisteningtostories

• Greaterinterestinspecifictypesofbooks

• Improvedbehaviourswithpeers

• Greatercooperationwithtasksandheightenedawarenessofsocialnorms

• Increasedinterestinandparticipationinphysicalactivities

• Anewandpositiveattitudeaboutattendingschool

• Anewwillingnesstotryhealthysnackslikefruitsandvegetables

as described earlier, the research team identified 11 parents who had registered in november and agreed to take part in pre- and post-interviews. they were interviewed at the start of the program about the types of activity they had engaged in with their children at home before attending StrongStart BC, and then re-interviewed again in april to inquire about changes in home-activities that might be attributable to attendance at the centre. the results were the same: parents noted a similar result to that of the focus groups. they were confident about being able to explain the connection between StrongStart BC experiences, changes they had made at home, and changes in their children.

Due to the newness of the program, it was impossible to identify individual child outcomes although some facilitators were successful in documenting some outcomes for individual children. this difficulty is noted in the literature review, which cautions that this type of evaluation can be conducted only when a program is well established and stable and when child development outcome measures are used, not yet the case for StrongStart BC. the research team believes that as multiple centres are established across BC and as the numbers of attendees become stable at individual sites, child-outcome patterns may become more apparent, and longitudinal studies may become feasible.

Most facilitators had not attempted to document child development due to large attendance and the newness of the program. However, the research team was able to document promising practices developed by some facilitators. a few facilitators had begun to lead the way by trying some strategies with a small number of children: one had started an observation system in which she documented the activities of regular attendees to monitor changes in their ability to play individually, cooperatively and collaboratively. another facilitator developed binders for four children that included samples of drawings, recorded stories, collages, finger-painting, attempts at alphabet writing, photographs and a two-page typed anecdotal report to share with the parents during formal interview time. another facilitator maintained a portfolio for each child to share with parents. another used the new Zealand approach of “learning Stories” to record learning experiences by using anecdotes and photographs. the research team was impressed with these samples of age-appropriate documentation practices.


4.8.3 Interconnections with Other Early Childhood Programs in the Community

i. Types of Coalition Leadership

at each site, the research team asked to meet with the chair of the local intersectoral coalition; only one site did not have an interagency group of any kind. the team noted that the organization of coalitions in the other 11 sites was particular to each community and included sitting representatives of school districts. two sites were served by a committee that focused particularly on StrongStart BC, while membership comprised representatives of a larger interagency coalition. the sites, regardless of size, worked with coalitions that ranged from six to 30 different agencies represented in a decision-making capacity. four sites had developed a series of working committees that reported to a central group. one of the larger lower mainland districts used a regional committee structure with a central committee.

this variety was described to the research team in detail and documented in chart format. it was clear that Early learning decisions were carefully considered by multiple service providers, resources were shared where possible and assets were located and relocated as needs arose. in all cases, the EDi (Early Development instrument) results were mentioned as being important to decision making especially with respect to the placement of the site. (only one site-selection was not based on EDi results.) School districts were welcomed into the coalition and, in most cases, respondents reported that school-district participation had accelerated momentum and brought prestige to the early child development agenda.

ii. Schools and Interagency Relationships

the imposition of StrongStart BC in communities was initially a controversial decision in many communities, especially for family resource Programs. the advisory committee, therefore, requested that the research team include members of the early child development community in their investigation. these included representatives of nearby preschool services, members of intersectoral coalitions, interested community members and interagency service providers. the object was to determine (a) the state of the relationships, and (b) whether StrongStart BC was a welcome addition to the range of services, or whether it was in conflict with existing offerings. the research team interviewed an equal number of school representatives and intersectoral/community representatives. Where possible, the research team sought out these individuals, even visiting them at their places of work if they were not scheduled for an interview. a few declined the invitation to be interviewed.

While the research interview team was surprised to document the many connections, interconnections and efforts to collaborate that were being made in the first year of the visits, even greater developments


Schools promote collaboration and integration. School-based family drop-in programs increase their success by collaborating with other school and early childhood programs in the same building or community. When family drop-in programs link with other early childhood programs, the staff benefit from the harmonization of professional education and development (Colley, 2006; Corter et al., 2006; Child and youth advocate BC, 2005; ontario Best Start Panels on Quality and Human resources and Early learning, 2007). Service integration increases families’ access to the services that they need, when and where they need them (Corter et al., 2006). Parent education that builds parenting skills, information, and referrals to specialized resources can be offered through stable program platforms that also offer good early childhood programs. the integration of family drop-in programs with other programs designed for young children and families is viewed as a strategy to create a more holistic approach. Schools are able to deliver a range of services including public health and early intervention services (Williams, 2006; McCain, Mustard, & Shanker, 2007; Schorr, 1998).


were documented in the second year. at all sites, progress had been made toward establishing cooperative relationships. in only one of the sites the StrongStart BC program appeared to have attracted clients from a family resource Program and in that case the two programs had decided to reorganize the timing of offerings in order to avoid competing for the same clients. in fact, in the focus groups some parents reported they attended both programs and saw them as offering different services. the StrongStart BC program offered modelling for parents and the family resource Programs offered many other valuable services.

at effective sites, cooperation had developed to collaborative efforts to provide services and become interdependent. offerings were almost seamless. families that needed support were provided with services without having to seek them out, due to the interconnected network and communication system developed by the interagency professionals. all sites were working towards this goal. only one site did not have a strong intersectoral coalition in the community. figures 14–16 provide examples of this type of interconnectedness at three of the sites particular to its needs and community.

in community schools and hubs, this type of interconnectedness has been easier to implement by virtue of their structure and definition. other schools started from the beginning because interagency relationships had not been part of their day-to-day work except through school district staff.

Some examples of the types of observed interconnection at different sites (not all) included:

• AdentalhygienistfromthelocalhealthauthorityvisitedStrongStartBCsiteseveryfourmonthstoprovide information, conduct checkups and fluoride teeth

• Thestaffmemberfromthepubliclibraryvisitedregularly,providedlibrarymembershipsfreeofcharge, a special summer loan program, and trained StrongStart BC facilitators in storytelling. Boxes of books were circulated to the sites, and these included books for ESl parents

• TheParksDepartmentprovidedoutdooractivitiesfortheprogramsuchasparkwalksandoutdoorgames

• IntersectoralagencieshandedoutStrongStartBCflyersandevenescortedfamiliestotheprogramtointroduce them; in turn, the StrongStart BC facilitator displayed and promoted services provided by other agencies

• InteragencygroupsandStrongStartBCheldaneveninginthemalleachmonthtointroduceservicesthrough a thematic approach

• SpecialeventssuchasliteracyeventsandparentingsessionswereheldspecificallyfortheAboriginalcommunity apart from centre time; aboriginal parents expressed the view that they were more comfortable coming together initially in their own cultural group (self-report)

• ChildSafetygroupsleddemonstrationsaboutcarseatsduringcentretime;intheparkinglot,theyexamined cars, provided advice and free car seats to those who could not afford them

• Anutritionistandthepublichealthnurseregularlyscheduledvisitstoconnectwithfamilies.Nursesconducted Healthy Baby checks and other health related activities at most sites

• MCFDhadrequiredsomefamiliestoattendwhohadbeenincrisis;thishasbeenhelpfulforthefamilies and the centre, after some initial tension

• Busticketswereprovidedbyanothergovernmentagencytofamiliesonwelfare

• UnitedWayraisedfundsforadditionalresources

• MostprogramsreportedbeingconnectedtoandparticipatingintheprovincialReady Set Learn program (different at each site)


aboriginal Headstart

Puddleduck Preschool

Elementary School

Glacier View

•ComoxMilitaryFamilyresource Program

•PacificCare(CCRR)•StoneSoupFamilyDrop-in

Program•ComoxValleyFamilyServices• ImmigrantSupportFamily

Services

StrongStart BC

Figure 14: Courtenay (Glacier View Elementary) interconnectedness chart

•ChildDevelopmentassociation

•PublicHealth•MCFD

•WachaiyFriendshipCentre•ECDAboriginalCouncil

aboriginal Services

Committees/Services/NGO’s/Societies

family resource Programs

other referral agencies

Programs in the School

Preschool Programs

Childcare Programs

family Programs

Programs

Collaboration

arrowheads = the flow of activity

Some interaction but not collaboration

outreach

Mother goose

Kindergarten teachers

literacy Program for

Parents

Welcome to K

ready, Set learn

Speech/language/Counsellor/learning

assistance

Montessori Program

Intersectoral Group Membership:

•MCFD•PublicNursing•SucccessbySix•CommunityDevelopmentAssociation

•ECE’s•AboriginalHeadstart•Principal–SchoolDistrict•EarlyLearningSupportTeacher

Public Health (2x per month)

ESl Home/school

Support


Edmonds Preschool

Edmonds Community School

Edmonds Centre (Multiple Services)•FamilyResources•BurnabyFamilyLife•FamilyDrop-in•POPS•BabiesandMe•others

S. Burnaby neighbourhood

House – after-school friendship

St alban’s Childcare

St. Matthews Daycare

Community Centre Preschool

afghans together Settlement (Homework and

friendship)

Community Service room (resource and referral advocacy)

Spirit of the Child (afternoons for

aboriginal families 0 to 6)

Eastburn family Drop-in Program

StrongStart BCopen all summer for day

camps and into evenings until 10pm for community activity – cubs & scouts, Cameray father’s

counselling, youth social groups, other community

events.

Figure 15: Burnaby (Edmonds Elementary) interconnectedness chart

Intersectoral Group Membership: Edmonds Centre Burnabythis is a unique situation: while the community of Burnaby has a strong intersectoral coalition, well represented by multiple agencies, this particular school is a community school attached to a city-sponsored centre of multiple services and the school houses numerous services that collaborate and work closely together. the services on this chart, therefore, represent the intersectoral groups which serve this school within the umbrella of the regional intersectoral group.

•BurnabyFamilyLife•MCFD• MEIA•CamerayCounselling•Progressivehousing•BCHousing•MLA/MPoffice•Vancouver/LowerMainland

Mulitcultural family Services

•MulticulturalFamilyCentre•ParksandRecreation• ImmigrantservicesSociety•Survivors–VictimsofWar•FraserHealth•NewCanadianClinic•VancouvernativeHealth

Society•BurnabySchoolDistrictESL

•SpiritoftheChild•FamilyNights•PowWowsandBabyBears

aboriginal Services


family resource Programs

other referral agencies

Programs in the School

Preschool Programs

Childcare Programs

family Programs

Programs

Collaboration

arrowheads = the flow of activity

Some interaction but not collaboration


Elementary School

Mountain View

•CommunityConnections(IDFandFamily Drop-in)

•ChildcareSociety(CCRR)

•MCFDChildProtection• InteriorHealthAuthority(Speech/LanguageandPublicHealth)

•ParksandRecreation

AboriginalServices


FamilyResourcePrograms

OtherReferralAgencies

ProgramsintheSchool

PreschoolPrograms

ChildcarePrograms

FamilyPrograms

Programs

Collaboration

Arrowheads = Theflowofactivity

Someinteractionbutnotcollaboration

StrongStart BC

StrongStartPreschool

BabyTalk(InteriorHealth)

CoolKids

JumpingJacks

SteppingStonesPreschoolandChildcare

Intersectoral Group Membership: ECD Committee

•ChildcareSociety•SchoolDistrict•CommunityConnections (InfantDevelopment, SupportiveChildcare)

•MentalHealth•SpeechandLanguage•PublicHealth•KindergartenTeachers•2ECE’s

•MCFD•FamilyLiteracy•OkanaganLibrary•CityofRevelstoke•Screensmart

SixRegulatedFamilyChildcareProviders

Figure 16: Revelstoke (Mountain View Elementary) interconnectedness chart

Leapland(Anindoorplayroomforlargemuscleactivity)

FamilyLiteracy/MotherGooseProgram


iii. Referrals to and Consultations with and from Other Agencies

respondents to the parent survey indicated that 20.9% had been referred to other agencies. they did not specify whether these agencies were recreation-oriented or were a response to Special needs. in the interviews and focus groups, the research team inquired about referrals.

Examples of the responses include:

• Referralsweremadetoapregnancyoutreachprogram

• Referralsweremadetopreschools

• MCFDstaffreferredparentstothecommunityschooloutreachworkerwhothenbroughtthemtoStrongStart BC and other co-located programs

• Schooldistrictresources(suchasspeechlanguagepathology)wereconsultedwhenthefacilitatorhad a concern

• Thefacilitatorassistedintransitionissuesforchildrenattendingkindergarten

• TheparentofachildwithsuspectedAspergersyndromewaspersuadedbythefacilitatortotalktoher doctor, who referred her to a pediatrician

• ThefacilitatorconsultedwiththeInfantDevelopmentTeamregularlyaboutachildwhohadhadatracheotomy

• TheschooldistrictChildDevelopmentCenterbroughtspecialneedschildrentoStrongStartBCforsocial interaction with other children

• ManyreferralsoccurredamongAboriginalworkersandthecentresaswellastheCCRR(ChildCareresource and referral Centre)

• Twoseparatedparentsattendedwiththeirsocialworkerandtheirchildren

• MCFDchildprotectionandmentalhealthteamsbothacceptedreferralsfromtheprogramandreferred clients to the program

• Refugeeandimmigrantfamilieswithextremedentalneedswerereferredtofreedentalprograms

it was clear to the research team that interagency referrals were becoming a natural, efficient and commonplace part of the integrated approach to young children in most of these communities. Confusion occurred at most sites about which procedures to follow and the differing possibilities for referrals to school district staff and interagency staff. facilitators felt a responsibility to refer children or families for help but with no clearly established protocols, they sometimes felt uncertain about how to proceed. Systemic procedures needed to be defined for them.


4.9 Parental, School and Intersectoral Views of Strengths

In the interviews and focus groups with parents, there was general agreement about the benefit of the program to children and families. the most frequently mentioned benefits were as follows:

4.9.1 Benefits to the Children as Identified by Parents in Focus Groups and Interviews

Communication literacy and learning development

• Increasedattentionspan

• Activitiesthatarenotavailableathome,especiallymessyones

• Learningtobeinastructuredprogram

• Opportunitiesforfinemotorskillsactivities

• Thearts–movement,singing,painting

• LearningtheEnglishlanguage

• Languagedevelopmentingeneral

• Theabilitytolistenandcooperateinagroup

Social and emotional development

• Parentsunderstandingtheirchildren’sbehaviourbetter

• Asocialcontextforchildrenwithnosiblings

• Bondsandfriendshipsdevelopedthatcontinueinthecommunity

• Apositiveviewofcomingtoschool

• Increasedself-confidence,lessshyness

• Lessclingingtomom

• Awillingnesstoshareandbepatient

• Nopressureonthechildren,justopportunities

• Reducedbullying

Physical development

• Gross-motordevelopmentingymactivities

• Childrennowtryhealthyfoodsathomeasaresultofthesnackprogram

• Outdoorplayactivities

4.9.2 Benefits Described by the Parents

• Modellingbythefacilitator

• Nocost

• Developingnewparentingskills

• Learninghowtoplaywithchildren(forlearning)

• Confidenceintheschool


• Asocialnetworkforisolatedparents

• Qualitytimeawayfromhomedistractions

• Reinforcingandlearningnewskillstouseathome

• Increasedunderstandingofagesandstages

• Beingabletofocusattentionononechildwhiletheotherisinschool

• Enhancingattachmentsbetweenchildandparent

• Abilitytowalktotheprogramintheirneighbourhood

• Learninghowtodiscipline,buildroutines,andspeaktotheirchildrenathome

• Thewelcomeintotheschool

• Morelikelytohaveconversationswiththeirchildren

• Theparentresourcecentresandopportunitytoborrowbookbagsandtoys

• Take-homeactivitiesasafollow-uptotheprogram

• Connectiontootherservicesinthecommunity

• Connectiontoothercultures

• Othercultureslearningnewattitudestowardschildreninthe“Canadian”way


note: Most parents (approximately two thirds) did not offer written comments, but only completed the basic survey. Where written comments were provided, selected comments are presented, chosen because of the high frequency of similar responses. in order to ensure there is no bias in the presentation of written comments, negative comments are presented where they exist.

• Inonemonth,IhaveseenamazingprogressandIamlearningtooasaparent

• WearenewCanadians;thisisadifferentculture;wearelearningaboutsharing,playing,eatingandetiquette

• Throughtheseactivities,theyareexposedtothegatewaytoschool

• StrongStartisasmuchabouttheparentsasitisabouttheirchildren

• Familiesaresoempoweredbytheirexposuretosuchapositiveplace

• ComingheretoStrongStartmakesmeabetterparent

• StrongStarthaseverythinghere–library,storytime,MotherGoosesongs.IhavebeentoMotherGooseonmy own and the public library, but here at StrongStart this program has it all. At StrongStart, all the pieces worktogethertoteachthechildrensomuch

• (Immigrant)Nosupportfrommyfamily;thefacilitatorguidesme.Shecomesbyandsays,”Trythis”andI learn to be better. If you come from my country, the government does not have such a StrongStart. I appreciate Canada and StrongStart here

• (Spanishmom)Athome,Iamnotsopatient.BeingatStrongStartbringsthebestofmetomychildren.Athome all day it is so hard that sometimes my patience goes short. Here at StrongStart it is a good time for me and my family


• Fromthemomentyouwalkinthedoor,itisallpositive.Thefacilitatorscareabouteachchild’sdevelopment. In turn, parents care about each other’s child development

• Ihavelivedinthiscommunityforfiveyearswithoutafriend.IfoundmyfriendatStrongStartandevenourhusbands are friends and so are our children

• Mydaughterisless“colour-blind”–shedoesnotnoticeotherculturesanymoreandsheisevenspeakingafewwordsofPunjabinow

• Mydaughterusedtobeextremelyphysical–nowsheismorelovingandsharingwithothers

• IusedtobereallyshywhenIcameintotheschool;nowIsay“hi”tothesecretary.Isay“hi”totheprincipal.Ifeellikethisismyschool

• HowcouldIjustifybeingabletositinpreschoolwithmydaughterwhenshecriedallthetimewhenIcancome here and we can laugh and play together for free

• WhenmybabywasbornandIcouldn’tattendtomyotherchild,theothermotherswashedmydaughter’shands with her

• Canwesignapetition–tokeepthis?

Parents and caregivers were asked to rank, on a five-point scale, their perception of their children’s learning and the quality of experiences since attending the StrongStart BC program. the areas of learning included language, physical and social-emotional development, and getting along with other children. the experiences included a range of age-appropriate activities in areas of literacy, arts, exploration and active play as well as snack and community outings. respondents were asked to rank how children felt about coming to StrongStart BC.


in all but one area, more than 80% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their perception was that StrongStart BC encouraged development in all areas, provided high quality experiences for their children, and that the children enjoyed coming to the program. the one area in which fewer than half (40%) agreed or strongly agreed, was StrongStart providing high quality experiences with outings to the community. field trips were identified as an expectation in the Ministry’s stated expectation; however, this was difficult to achieve given the nature of a drop in program. unless all parents could be informed in advance, they arrived to an empty classroom.

While general perceptions were positive, considerable difference occurred in responses depending on how often the respondent and child visited the centre. respondents were grouped into the following categories: those who attended fewer than 4 times in the month, between 4-7 times, between 8-12 times, and more than 12 times (See figures 17 and 18).

in every area of perceived learning and benefit, the percentage of those who “strongly agreed” increased with more frequent attendance.

Perception of StrongStart by attendance per month (n=404)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

More than 12x/moEnco

urag

ed la

ngua

gede

velo

pmen

t

8 to 12x/mo

4 to 7x/mo

Fewer than 4x/mo

More than 12x/mo

8 to 12x/mo

4 to 7x/mo

Fewer than 4x/mo

More than 12x/mo

8 to 12x/mo

4 to 7x/mo

Fewer than 4x/mo

Stronglyagree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Stronglydisagree

Enco

urag

ed so

cial

emot

iona

l dev

elop

men

tEn

cour

aged

phy

sica

lde

velo

pmen

t

Figure 17: Parental perception of StrongStart by attendance per month


Perception of program by frequency of attendance:High quality experiences in exploratory play, active play, and snack (n=408)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

More than 12x/moExpl

orat

ory

expe

rienc

es

8 to 12x/mo

4 to 7x/mo

Fewer than 4x/mo

More than 12x/mo

8 to 12x/mo

4 to 7x/mo

Fewer than 4x/mo

More than 12x/mo

8 to 12x/mo

4 to 7x/mo

Fewer than 4x/mo

Stronglyagree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Stronglydisagree

Snac

kAc

tive

play

Figure 18: Parental perception of program by frequency of attendance: high quality experiences in exploratory play, active play and snack

4.9.3 Benefits Described by School Staff and/or members of the Intersectoral Coalition

• Thecommunitycannotofferthesameservice

• Theregularhoursonadailybasis

• Thelocationinschools

• Thenaturaltransitiontokindergarten

• Theconnectionandreferralstootherservices

• Theinitialconcernaboutcompetitionwithotherserviceshasnotoccurred

• Thefacilitatorfeelslikeaprofessionalmemberoftheschoolteam

• StrongStartBChasraisedexpectationsinthecommunityaboutthequalityofprograms

• Increaseincontactwith2-to4-year-olds


• Schoolstaffarelearningaboutearlylearningneeds

• Arenewedchild-centredatmosphereintheschool

• OtheragenciesaregettingaccesstofamiliesthroughStrongStartBC

• Somekindergartenteachersnotedlessseparationanxiety,morefamiliaritywithroutines,bettertransitions between activities, more parents attending parent conferences and more self-confidence; she attributed this to participation in the StrongStart BC program


note: Most parents (approximately two thirds) did not offer written comments, but only completed the basic survey. Where written comments were provided, selected comments are chosen because of the high frequency of similar responses. in order to ensure there is no bias in the presentation of written comments, negative comments are presented where they exist.

• StrongStartbringsfamiliesaleveloftrustandcomfortwiththeschoolsystemthatopensthefamilyuptoother agencies

• EDIdatahasbeenusefulindeterminingplacement

• Bringingchildreninearlyhelpsthemtodecidetoenrolhereforkindergarten

• (ECDcoordinator)Thereisnoquestionit(StrongStart)haselevatedcommunityexpectationsaboutquality service and increased awareness of ECD issues

• (Parks&Recreationstaff)StrongStartisacatalystformanyagenciestocometogether,tobecomemorecollaborative and to find the gaps in services

• ...ourheartsandourheadstellusthatthisisagoodthingforthesekidsandfamilies

• (Principal)HousingStrongStartinourschooladdsalayerofenergyandenthusiasm.Wecanfeelthepositivepresenceofearlylearninghappeningrightinourbuilding.OurexposuretoStrongStartstretchesus all

• (Schooltrustee)Attheanniversarycelebrationthatwehadayearaftertheopening,therewasanentirelygoodfeeling–thisisourplaceinourneighbourhood–theplacewaspackedandnooneleft.Connectionshave been made and not on a superficial level

• (Intersectoralcoalitionchair)Wehavepeopleatthistablewhocanmakethedecisionsandtheysay,“Yeswecandothat”insteadof“FirstIwillhavetocheckwithsoandso,soandsoandsoandsoandsoandgetbacktoyou.”Wemakedecisionsasneeded

• (Schooltrustee)Itisourresponsibilityasaschoolboardandwearestrivingtoimproveliteracy...WeareproudofourstartinStrongStart.Maintainingthecentres–thismakesadifference–let’sseesomeharddata though, so that these SS centers can never be eliminated

• (Schoollibrarian)ThisStrongStartcentreislikeapracticum.IseewhatIneedtodoandlearn.Icandothis. Parents believe and feel they can do this for their children. They can try things at home that they have learned at the centre. At StrongStart, parents are reaffirmed

• (Superintendent)Inthesepastfouryears,wehavecomeleapsandboundsinunderstandingtheimportance of supporting young children and their families here. There are so many more offerings for families now in our community


4.10 Parental, School and Intersectoral Views of Issues/Weaknesses In Focus Groups and Interviews

the research team provided equal time in focus groups and interviews to inquire about concerns, issues and the improvements respondents would like to see in the program. in focus groups and interviews, the following concerns were expressed:

4.10.1 Parental Views about Issues

• Theclassroomistoocrowdedonoccasionandthisdilutestheservice

• Gaspricesandaccesstotransportationareissues

• MoreStrongStartsareneeded–soparentsdonothavetotravelandcanstayintheirneighbourhood

• Continuetomixsocio-economiclevels

• Thereisaneedtofindwaystoincludeworkingparents

4.10.2 School System and Intersectoral Views about Issues

• Careneedstobetakennottocompetewithothercommunityprograms

• Somevulnerablefamiliesarenotbeingreached;outreachstafforadditionalresourcesareneededtohelp with this

• Transportationisabigissue

• Accesstowaterandbathroomshasbeenaproblem,

• StrongStartBCfundingdoesnotcovertheincreaseddemandonthesecretary,principal,custodialstaff, librarian and other staff and services

Parent Survey Results

When asked how they would like to see the program changed, parents responded as follows:

• 36.7%gavenoresponse

• 19.5%wantedmoreactivitiesandactivitieschangedfrequently

• 10.9%wantedanadjustmentorchangeinhours

• 10%wantedtoincreasecentrespace

• 7.3%wantedmorecentresandlocations

• 7.3%wantedtorestrictnumbersintheclassrooms

the remainder of the responses were less than 5%.


note: Most parents (approximately two thirds) did not offer written comments, but only completed the basic survey. Where written comments were provided, selected comments are chosen because of the high frequency of similar responses. in order to ensure there is no bias in the presentation of written comments, negative comments are presented where they exist.


approximately:

• One-fifthwantedtheprogramstobeopendifferentoradditionalhours;suggestionsincludedbeingopen in the afternoons, in the summer, on the weekends, on school breaks, and in a few cases, where the program was offered in the afternoons, that it be offered in the mornings

• One-fifthmentionedtheproblemoftoomanychildrenandadultsintheroomatonetime.Suggestions including limiting the number of children or splitting the age groups on different days or at different times of the day

• One-sixthsuggestedthatthefacilityshouldbelargertoavoidfrequentovercrowding

• Others(lessthanonesixth)wantedmorefacilities,inparttoreducetheovercrowding,buttoreduce the distance they had to travel. they often arrived late and found the program full. they had problems with transportation and wanted all families to have access to StrongStart BC

• Morefrequentformalactivities,suchaslongercircletime,morestoriesandmorestructuredpre-literacy additional time for gross-motor activities, by either increasing the gym time, or playing outside

• Healthiersnacks

• Occasionalfieldtripsontheschedule


SECTION 5

Recommendations

5.0 The Recommendations in spite of the inherent limitations in evaluating a family drop-in program, the study points to a number of key findings and conclusions.

in 10 pilot sites, the programs were oversubscribed and overcrowded some days but as the number of sites increases, this problem should be minimized, because at the moment, many parents drive from all over town to attend the only centre available. the facilitators were highly valued by families. While the pilot sites have generally been able to employ effective facilitators, some concern remains about the perceived shortage of trained ECE staff and that other programs will lose staff to the school programs.

in the first year of operation at all sites, intersectoral groups were concerned about the introduction of StrongStart BC, particularly because it was delivered through the school system and without previous consultation. By the second visit, that concern was being alleviated. the research team documented many examples of (a) strong working relationships, (b) interdependence and better relationships between the intersectoral groups and the school system, and (c) requests from other schools to host StrongStart BC sites.

over 90% of parents surveyed were positive about the perceived learning and benefits to their children as well as to their family. they identified important changes they had made in their home routines after what they had learned from StrongStart BC. Parents in focus groups described how they knew that some learning was directly connected to their experiences in the program rather than the result of any other program or activity. facilitators described changes in learning for some children through documentation strategies, but not in a systematic way. While accepting that parents’ and facilitators’ perceptions (and the evidence from their stories) were legitimate, the research team was unable to document specific child outcomes due to the newness of both the program and attendance-gathering mechanisms. in addition, an assessment of the effect of participation in StrongStart BC compared to other programs was beyond the scope of this study. in the second year of the program, new attendance procedures were put in place that will provide data for longitudinal studies related to child outcomes. one of the recommendations is to support school district compliance with the contract expectation of PEn (Personal Education number) for each student.

While the evaluation results demonstrated that the program is well received by its clients and is meeting many family, school and community needs in its second year of operation, the research team has identified the following recommendations in order to strengthen the program.

the study recommendations are listed in the order they appear in the headers of the findings (Section 4) of the report. Page references are provided so that the reader can refer to a more detailed explanation


of the reasons for the recommendation. in each header, the recommendations are made to the government, the Ministry of Education or School Districts, depending on the governing or legislative responsibility related to the recommendation.

5.1 Context of the Sites (refer to page 13 for details)

5.1.1 Expansion of the Program

this evaluation has presented strong evidence that StrongStart BC is welcomed, needed and valued by parents, caregivers and community members involved with the program. Placement of the program in schools has brought families into the school system where they are (a) learning new strategies for working with their children, (b) linking to other community services, and (c) improving their attitude towards the school system. the school system has integrated this new responsibility with varying degrees of enthusiasm and has begun to build liaisons, partnerships and relationships with interagency groups.

Recommendation1: To the Ministry of Education Expand the StrongStart BC program into schools and communities across BC, in collaboration with local community leadership. the needs that are being met by StrongStart BC can be anticipated to exist virtually everywhere there are families with young children.

5.1.2 Location of the Site

all but one of the pilot sites was located in an area where there were perceived vulnerabilities, as identified by the EDi (Early Development instrument). ten sites had high populations of aboriginal families, immigrants or refugees. Eight of the 10 sites registered a high attendance of these population groups. in three cases, StrongStart BC programs were placed in neighbourhoods without consultation with interagency groups. the result was a perception of threat to existing services and possibility of duplication of services. Consultation with other service providers would be an investment in the development of more harmonious and collaborative relationships.

Recommendation 2: To School DistrictsBefore designating sites, consult with intersectoral coalitions or interagency groups and other child/family serving agencies in the area to (a) assess current offerings, and (b) consult on the best school location for community needs.

5.2 Operations (refer to page 13 for details)

5.2.1 Program Hours, Space and Facilities

i. Program Hours and Space:

Most parents were happy with the morning/weekday designated hours but in some cases, sites altered hours to accommodate a greater number of working parents by including Saturday and evening openings. four sites shared available space with other interagency professionals and preschool programs in the afternoon. While general guidelines for program hours are useful, in some communities there were legitimate needs for varied hours to accommodate seasonal workers, shift workers, the attendance of fathers, other needs of parents, and cooperative efforts to accommodate other program


offerings. in addition, some interagency professionals (such as speech pathologists and multicultural workers) have appreciated the opportunity to use the space in off-hours.

Recommendation 3: To School Districts3a. Encourage sites to vary (or supplement) their program hours to meet community needs.

3b. Encourage sites to share the classroom space with other community agencies when it is to the mutual benefit of both programs. (Most sharing arrangements worked best when program goals were compatible.)

ii. Facility improvements:

the funding from the StrongStart BC start-up grant enabled all StrongStart BC classrooms to be renovated or painted and equipped for a family school-based drop-in program. unfortunately, the classrooms were not always in the best location in the school. an effective program requires clean-up facilities for activities such as painting and water play. Health and safety factors necessitate frequent hand washing and parental supervision of bathroom visits without interfering with other school instruction. outdoor large-muscle play and important opportunities for exploration in natural environments can be facilitated by access to the outdoors. Some sites did not have either this access or safe places to play. Start-up funding can be used for this purpose.

Recommendation 4: To School Districtsin determining the placement of the program in the school, ensure that the classroom has running water, accessible outdoor play areas suitable for preschool children, and easy access to washrooms.

5.3 Human Resources (refer to page 15 for details)

5.3.1 ECE Facilitators, Employment and Funding

i. ECE Facilitators’ Availability:

in every focus group, parents expressed admiration for the skill, compassion and caring provided to them and their family by the facilitators. they saw the facilitators as role models, counsellors and teachers. in survey results, parents identified the ECE facilitators as the greatest strength of the program. Communities are worried that StrongStart BC will attract ECE staff away from community-based programs due to a higher pay scale, additional benefits and, in some cases, an enhanced work environment.

Recommendation 5: To the Ministry of Education Work with other Ministries and the ECE articulation Committee to coordinate a strategy to ensure a knowledgeable and stable early childhood workforce for early childhood programs in BC, including StrongStart BC. issues to be addressed include (a) the availability of early childhood educators, (b) working conditions, and (c) access to professional education and development.

ii. ECE Training:

StrongStart BC drop-in centres require facilitator skills in addition to those now offered in ECE postsecondary programs. Some facilitators that were interviewed by the team did not feel adequately prepared. the skills they identified included: interacting with many parents who are participating in


the program, modelling skills for parents, preparing resources for one-on-one adult/child interaction, documenting child developmental progress in a drop-in program, building relationships with multiple parents in a group setting, planning curriculum for a mixed age group from infants to 5-year-olds. these same skills would enhance the capacity of ECEs to be effective practitioners in all early childhood settings (Beach et al., 2006).

Recommendation 6: To the Ministry of Education Work with ECE postsecondary institutions through MCfD and the ECE articulation Committee (program coordinators of ECE training Programs) to discuss including facilitation skills specific to [family] drop-in programs; this would also be applicable to those working with families in regulated childcare, preschool and early intervention programs. Encourage the same initiative in provincial and school district professional-development offerings.

iii. ECEs as Employees of the School System:

all the facilitators expressed their pleasure at working in the school system. at the same time, they were unanimous in wanting a stable working environment for the long term. at different sites, inconsistent employment arrangements involved a municipality, the school district CuPE union, personal contracts and one exempt school district employee. StrongStart BC facilitators wanted a stable relationship and reasonable compensation in a strong organization for security reasons. all those interviewed preferred to be a member of the school district staff in some form.

Recommendation 7: To the Ministry of Education formalise the identity of the employer of the facilitator, the employer’s responsibility and role, and the reporting relationship so that it is consistent throughout the province.

iv. Funding for Integration of StrongStart BC into Schools:

at nine sites, champions of the program had emerged in the form of district staff, school principals or designated new early learning coordinators. librarians had welcomed facilitators and contributed resources, secretaries welcomed parents and prepared newsletters, and school resources were made available to the programs beyond the designated StrongStart BC start-up funding. Effective programs will require that the program be integrated in the school system to include professional-development activities, classroom maintenance, collection of attendance data, supervision and evaluation of staff and financial management. all items require attention from other district employees. the electronic school data system (BCeSiS) has created a burden for facilitators and school secretaries. Because of the nature of the drop-in program, it is possible that strangers are arriving in busy programs and the facilitator has no knowledge of whether they have registered or not. School office procedures are interrupted by unexpected arrivals because, unlike kindergarten, multiple new arrivals register throughout the year. Continued efforts to collect birth certificates take up considerable time and discourage registrants from attending.

Recommendation 8: To the Ministry of Education Provide extra funding to acknowledge the additional workload placed on district staff and school administrators and on clerical, maintenance and other school district services that provide critical and important administrative support.


5.3.2 Integration of the Program

ten of the twelve facilitators who reported high levels of job satisfaction participated in school events and felt supported by school staff, particularly the kindergarten teacher and the principal.

Recommendation 9: To School DistrictsEngage the StrongStart BC facilitators as an integral part of the school staff’s internal activities. Encourage StrongStart BC staff attendance at staff and school events, inclusion in professional-development activities, use of other school professionals and sharing of facilities and resources.

5.4 Leadership in School Systems (refer to page 17 for details)

5.4.1 The Role of the Principal

leadership theory is explicit about the fact that programs in schools thrive when the principal supports staff and provides program support. the StrongStart BC programs that were thriving were those in which the facilitator (a) worked within clearly defined reporting relationships, (b) perceived that the principal supported the StrongStart BC program, and (c) was given guidance by school district staff. at three sites, little support for the facilitator was apparent. the result was a sense of isolation for these facilitators.

StrongStart BC facilitators require two types of leadership:

1. Program and pedagogical leadership

2. organizational or systemic leadership

Program and pedagogical leadership will best be provided by a trained ECE coordinator who may or may not be the principal but both types of leadership need to be provided.

Recommendation 10: To School DistrictsDesignate responsibility for program leadership and supervision to a district staff member and the principal of involved schools. Provide them with professional-development experiences so they can work with the facilitator to integrate the StrongStart BC program into the school system. Designate clear reporting relationships.

5.5 Attendance (refer to page 19 for details)

5.5.1 Temporary Registration Procedures and Presentation of Data

i. Temporary Registration Procedures ( To the Ministry):

Many parents were unable or unwilling to provide the required birth certificate or equivalent identification and, as a result, did not return to the program. Program staff reported that, in many cases, these might have been families most in need of the program.


Recommendation 11: To the Ministry of Education Develop ways to help centres comply with the StrongStart BC contract requirement to assign PEn numbers. Some districts have found creative ways to achieve this. Canvas the 12 pilot sites (and others implemented in the 2007/2008 school year) for creative solutions to explore options.

ii. Presentation of BCeSIS Data (To the Ministry):

the new BCeSiS applied this year at most sites improved the information collected on attendees and frequency of attendance. in order to sustain the program, evidence of success must be shown in the form of continued parental support, reduced vulnerability and child developmental outcomes. the data gathered by the parents’ survey suggests that, in the perception of the parents, learning increases if the family attends twice or more per week on a regular basis.

Recommendation 12: To the Ministry of Education Consult with experienced researchers to determine the best way to organize the attendance data into databases to establish useful patterns for the collection of longitudinal data. inform and monitor school districts about the patterns so that the data collection will be consistent. Begin to put longitudinal studies into place, especially using the EDi data as the main outcome of interest, perhaps using matched comparison groups to estimate the effect. Even if numbers are small in the first year, it may be a useful pilot project for improving the methods used.

5.5.2 Overcrowding and Hard-to Reach-Families

i. Overcrowding:

at some sites, when the room became overcrowded, a “closed” sign was put on the door. this resulted in competitive parent line-ups half-an-hour before the door opened so they could ensure their place for the morning. Closure of classrooms due to overcrowding has been a problem for parents who have made an effort to travel with their children only to find the program unavailable. Some sites have used different measures to resolve the problem (refer to p. 91 for examples).

Recommendation 13: To School Districtsif overcrowding is a problem, create different attendance patterns for groups of families or daycare groups to avoid closure of the classroom.

ii. Accessing Hard-to-reach Families:

School staff report that some families in low socio-economic circumstances are attending the program. of the survey respondents, 49.5% reported a family income of less that $39,999 and half of those reported an income of less than $30,000 (below the Statistics Canada poverty line for a family of four); 18.7% did not respond to the question. While vulnerability exists at all levels of the SES spectrum, a few sites (as documented in interviews and focus groups) were not reaching the full range of demographics in their neighbourhood. other sites have used creative strategies to find those in need, using volunteer groups and interagency staff to assist with outreach efforts. in particular, aboriginal families are not attending most programs regularly even though programs are offered in neighbourhoods with high numbers of aboriginal families.


Recommendation 14: To School DistrictsEncourage a comparison of attendance data with local demographics to monitor who is (and is not) using the site. a genuine effort needs to be made, site by site, to determine what would make the program more attractive to those who are choosing not to attend. Develop creative marketing strategies for StrongStart BC to reach those who are not aware of the offering. these may include low SES populations (refugees and immigrants, and multicultural and aboriginal populations). Work with local aboriginal leaders, with their existing programs and with other agencies to develop partnerships that are sensitive to aboriginal culture, and encourage families to attend.

5.6 Program [Quality] Effectiveness (refer to page 30 for details)

5.6.1 Relationships with Intersectoral Coalitions and Referrals

i. Intersectoral Coalitions:

the literature review explains the importance of (a) early childhood programs being interconnected, and (b) collaborative relationships being developed among the intersectoral coalitions. the research team agreed that the most effective StrongStart BC sites are those that have developed interdependent relationships with interagency groups. these sites have developed new interagency communication systems among staff and shared other resources and facilities, while planning collaboratively.

Recommendation 15: To School DistrictsEstablish a formal relationship with the local intersectoral coalition (if not already in place) to collaborate on early learning initiatives. Establish partnerships, share resources and develop interagency referral processes that can be implemented through the StrongStart BC program.

ii. Referrals from StrongStart BC to Other Agencies:

one of the greatest advantages of collaborative relationships among family support groups is the opportunity to apply interventions to help children or families at the earliest possible stage. While a high number of referrals and interventions have already been made through StrongStart BC sites, few structured systems have been established to support the facilitators who are uncertain about local expectations. the referral process would be enhanced at each site by clearly defined protocols in (a) the school system, and (b) the community.

Recommendation 16: To School DistrictsEstablish internal policies and procedures for referrals of families and/or children with special needs or who may be considered to be living in a condition of risk. Define roles, responsibilities and processes for referrals both in the school district and to interagency groups, particularly health authorities and social services, using formal and informal channels of communication.


5.6.2 Descriptors for the Program

Most programs were following the Ministry-stated expectations for program offerings in accordance with the new provincial Early learning framework. the team, however, documented some practices in the programs that were not consistent with recent research and would not be considered exemplary practice. a more elaborate description of exemplary practice is required to ensure a consistent program throughout the province. Descriptions might include the importance of (a) open-ended activities, (b) language development and symbolic representation strategies, (c) flexible spaces, (d) natural environments and outdoor play, (e) the visual arts, (f ) literacy, (g) intellectual engagement, (h) skills related to modelling for parents in a classroom setting, and (i) the role of the facilitator in establishing such an environment.

the research team documented examples of practices that were not consistent with the program philosophy and prevailing research as described above.

Recommendation 17: To the Ministry of Education Develop and publish descriptors of StrongStart BC exemplary program practices (curriculum and pedagogy) that are consistent with the Early learning framework and the literature review.

5.6.3 Professional Development Offerings

as early learning programs become more commonplace in schools, the system needs to create new professional-development programs that include principals, kindergarten teachers and facilitators. this initial investment is important for the long-term integration of early learners into the school system.

Recommendation 18: To School DistrictsProvide professional-development activities for principals, kindergarten teachers and facilitators of StrongStart BC programs, based on the descriptions referred to in recommendation 17.

5.6.4 Provincial StrongStart BC Evaluation Procedure Guidelines

School programs, especially new ones, need to be monitored in order to improve the program and staff. Child outcomes are a different issue; they will be maximized only if the program offerings are of consistently high quality. School district staff is accustomed to program evaluation processes but will need guidance on the new provincial early learning mandate as it applies to program practices.

Recommendation 19: Evaluation Guidelines with Descriptors (Recommendation 17) for StrongStart BC ProgramsDevelop and publish a recommended process and guidelines for the evaluation of the StrongStart BC program consistent with the Early learning framework, the literature review, the descriptors referred to in recommendation 17 and the prevailing research on the evaluation of early learning programs.


5.6.5 School District StrongStart BC Evaluation Systems

StrongStart BC evaluations should become part of the evaluation of school district programs and of the accountability processes at the local and provincial levels.

Recommendation 20: To School DistrictsDevelop local policies and procedures consistent with the Ministry of Education guidelines to evaluate StrongStart BC programs at the school district level.

5.7 Strengths and Limitations of the Study

5.7.1 Strengths of the Study

the evaluation results were based on the work of the research team, including:

• Apreliminaryyearofdocumentationofthesites

• Preparationofaliteraturereviewonpertinenttopicsrelatedtoschool-basedfamilydrop-inprograms and preschool programs in general

• Two-dayresearchteamvisitstoeachsiteinthesecondyear

• Acollectionofdocumentationoneightkeytopicsthatsiteswererequiredtopresentasevidence

• Siteinterviewswithatotalof126membersofintersectoralgroupsandschooldistrictstaff

• Focusgroupsateachsite,including132parents/caregivers,and

• Over600surveysofparentswhohadattendedtheprogram(threedifferentsurveys)

(in all, 864 adults expressed their views to the research team either in person or by survey.)

the analysis of the data was triangulated by comparing the findings from the research team, the surveys, the collection of documents and the principles that emerged in the literature review. Based on the results, the research team concluded:

• Placementoftheprograminschoolshasbroughtfamiliesintotheschoolsystemwheretheyare(a)learning new strategies for working with their children, (b) linking to other community services, and (c) enhancing attitudes towards the school system

• Theprogramishighlyvaluedbyparentsandfamilies

• TheagenciesandintersectoralgroupsthatworkwithStrongStartBCalsovaluetheserviceitprovides

• Familiesfromawidevarietyofsocio-economicbackgroundsareusingthesites,and

• Theresearchteamdocumentedmanyexamplesofpositivesocialimpactasaresultoftheprogramas described by grateful families, particularly those living in poverty and isolation as new immigrants and refugees


5.7.2 Limitations of the Study

Researchers’ Visits to Sites: Time Issues

the researchers were limited to two days at the sites in research teams of two. in this time, the teams were able to observe the program, interview as many as 20 individuals, conduct two focus groups, attend briefing and de-briefing meetings, visit off-site (intersectoral) facilities when relevant, and collect documents. additional time would have been used to work with the facilitator on program development. the facilitators indicated they would have liked to spend more time with the ECE experts on the team to discuss program issues.

Generalizability of the Findings

the evaluation included only 12 pilot sites. Since the evaluation started, as many as 80 additional sites have been implemented. it is not known at this time whether the findings of this study are generalizable; however, implementation of the recommendations contained in this report will support the delivery of a standard program across the province.

Data Collection

there was no base-line data with which to begin the process because the program was new.

the first year of data collection was conducted manually in the classroom. in the second year, sites were expected to be using BCeSiS. this became problematic for two reasons: (1) some sites were not able to be on-line until late in the year; (2) the data were presented in inconsistent formats, making it difficult to compare and interpret attendance.

Source: School System Data

for some information, such as statistics about aboriginal and multicultural populations in school communities, the research team relied on information provided by the school district and community coalitions, which may or may not have been accurate.

Surveys

over 600 parents were surveyed (three surveys). Surveys were translated into 11 languages at a cost of $5,000; however, only 12 translated surveys were returned. focus groups and private interviews, however, included a good representation of multicultural groups and provided the research team with the information required.

Registration

registrants were expected to provide birth certificates or the equivalent. reportedly, some registrants dropped-out of the program as a result. registration processes were cumbersome and time-consuming for facilitators and/or school secretaries. the researchers received some attendance data that included only official registrants with PEn numbers while other sites provided registered and unregistered counts.


Program Quality/Effectiveness

there was no established curriculum or pedagogy so the research team was restricted in its capacity to measure effectiveness other than to rely on the literature review and the methods that experts advocate as promising practice.

Evidence of Child Outcomes

it was not possible to document child-development outcomes at this stage of the program’s development. given the new attendance procedures in development through BCeSiS, it was not possible to calculate the frequency of visits or the duration of each visit at this stage of the program’s development.

Lack of Policies and Procedures

School districts rely on policies and procedures to manage their systems, maintain standards and guide practice. few districts had attempted to develop guidelines for StrongStart BC centres, resulting in confusion about roles and responsibilities.


Section 6

Conclusion

Evaluating the 12 StrongStart BC pilot programs was a complex two-year assignment for the StrongStart advisory committee and the research team. StrongStart BC was an emergent program, the first of its kind in the school system with some vulnerable families as clients. the sites were diverse and geographically disparate. the challenge was to:

• Capturetheviews,experiences,benefitsandconcernsoffamilyclientsandinvestedcommunitymembers

• Measurethegrowth,improvementsandchangesinthe12sitesfromStage(Year)1toStage(Year)2

• Designprocessessothatfutureuseofthedatacouldbemaximized

• Documenttheimplementationofpromisingpracticessotheycouldbecommunicatedtoschooldistrict staff, the Ministry of Education and future StrongStart BC sites in order to enhance the effectiveness of the program

• Encourageinterconnectednessandknowledgetransferamongallservicesconnectedwithearlylearning programs

• Raiseawarenessofthemultipleneedsofearlylearnersandtheirfamiliesinordertoadvisepolicymakers

the results were consistent from all 12 sites. in interviews, focus groups and surveys, over 95% of parents and caregivers expressed appreciation for the program offerings. Between Stage 1 and Stage 2, the researchers documented improvements in attendance and systemic record keeping, program effectiveness, school district ownership of (and pride in) the program and creative extensions to the program. the research team recorded many promising practices in effective early learning and play environments. the team verified growing connections between interagency groups, which resulted in collaboration between programs, sharing of resources, new relationships and increasing referrals for young children and families. the team recorded numerous stories of families who described a need, received support and were grateful in return.

the data collected from over 700 parents, caregivers and community members confirm the results of this case study. StrongStart BC is highly valued by those who attend and is serving a need for hundreds of young families. the data describe (a) effective ECE facilitators modelling skills that enhance child development, (b) parents and children learning to work together in a literacy environment, (c) family transferring skills and knowledge from the classroom to their homes, and (d) intersectoral coalitions building early child development bridges together.

implementation of the recommendations contained in this report will strengthen the quality of the StrongStart BC program and support families and their preschool children in BC communities.

E v a l u at i o n o f S t r o n g S ta r t B C a P P E n D i C E S66

Section 7

Appendices

Appendix A: Literature Review(Authored by Jane Bertrand)

Strong Start Review of LiteratureJune 2008

in the 2006-2007 school year, the British Colombia Ministry of Education funded 12 school districts to pilot 12 Strong Start British Columbia (StrongStart BC) centres for families/caregivers and preschool-aged children (Ministry of Education, 2006). StrongStart BC expanded to 85 sites in 2007-08 and a total of 400 are planned for 2008/09/10. StrongStart BC centres are located in schools and may be co-located with other early childhood programs such as childcare or parent resource centres, as part of emerging school-based hubs. they are intended to support early learning, i.e., the knowledge and skills that young children acquire through physical means, language, communication, and in social and emotional domains. StrongStart BC centres help (a) parents to participate in their children’s early learning and development and (b) children establish school-family relationships before they enter kindergarten, and (c) enhance their home environment.

StrongStart BC is one type of family support program. StrongStart BC centres are defined by four characteristics:

1. location in school settings and operated by school districts

2. Participation of primary caregivers (usually parents) in activities that encourage children’s early learning and development

3. Participation of young children (0- to 5-years-old)

4. a program designed to support children’s early learning, emergent literacy, readiness for school settings and parents’ active participation in their children’s early development.

the Human Early learning Partnership (HElP) is conducting the evaluation of the StrongStart BC. the evaluation of the 12 StrongStart BC pilots proceeded in two stages.

The first stage

• Assistsindocumentingtheenvironmentalcircumstances,implementationprocess,programofferings, and client base and responses in each site

• Determineswhatcanbeevaluatedduringaprogram-developmentstage

• AdvisesontheprocessesandtoolstobeusedinStage2oftheevaluation

• Proposesastructurefortheevaluationandfinalreport–Stage2(Mort,2007).

a P P E n D i C E S E v a l u at i o n o f S t r o n g S ta r t B C 67

The second stage of StrongStart BC evaluation is intended to:

• DocumenttheimplementationofStrongStartBCintheinitial12pilotsitesinthesecondyearofitsimplementation

• Captureandusetheself-reportedviews,experiences,benefitsand/orconcernsofparents,caregivers, community intersectoral groups and staff

• CollectdatabasedontheinformationfromStage1butdesignStage2sothatuseofthedataismaximized

• CompareprogressfromStage1andStage2toidentifyareasofgrowthand/orproblems

• Meetdistrictstafftoprovidethemwithcurrentperceptionssothatchangescanbeimplementedina timely fashion

• CommunicatepromisingpracticestoallpilotsandtotheMinistryofEducationsothatthelearningprocess is continuous in Stage 2 (the Ministry may choose to extend this communication process to all sites through its own mechanisms)

• Encourageintersectoralknowledgetransfer

• Raiseawarenessofthemultipleneedsoffamilies

the review of literature of current knowledge on the effectiveness and evaluation of [family] drop-in programs like StrongStart BC is intended to support the documentation in Stage 2, and to provide recommendations for StrongStart BC program-design principles and future evaluation strategies.

BackgroundThegeneralquestionofwhetherearlychildhoodprogramscanmakeadifference[to children’s outcomes] hasbeenaskedandansweredintheaffirmativeinnumerabletimes.Thisgenericqueryisnolongerworthyoffurther investigation. The central research priority for the early childhood field is to address more important sets of questions about how different types of interventions influence specific outcomes for children and families who face differential opportunities and vulnerabilities (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000, p. 379).

Schools across Canada are responding to current needs by implementing early childhood program initiatives (Mort, 2004; McCain, Mustard & Shanker, 2007; friendly, Beach, ferns, & turiano, 2007). the commitment to school-run early childhood programs is a combination of (a) the growing awareness of the importance of early experiences to learning in the school system (Whiteland, 2006), and (b) access to federal funds that can be allocated to school-based early learning initiatives (friendly, Beach, ferns, & turiano, 2007). it builds on the emergence of community or full-service schools in the united States in the 1990s (Melaville & Blank, 1999; Schorr, 1998; Moss, Petrie, & Poland, 1999) and increases cooperation between schools and early childhood programs (oECD 2001, 2006) in most industrialized countries.

in British Columbia, the education sector’s commitment to early childhood programs before entry to grade 1 is expanding. Progress has been made through the Human Early learning Partnership (HElP) Mapping Project, under the direction of Dr. Clyde Hertzman of the university of British Columbia (Mort, 2004). Kindergarten teachers in 60 BC school districts, as well as many independent and band schools, have assessed the developmental characteristics of their students at school entry in five domains using the Early Development instrument (EDi): physical health and well-being; social competence; emotional maturity; language and cognitive development; and communication skills. Subsequently, HElP maps neighbourhood EDi results to understand the role that community factors play in helping early


childhood development. results are discussed in public forums to give communities information about the school readiness of preschool populations.

used with local demographic characteristics, EDi results can help a community assess the utilization and impact of local early childhood programs (for example, see yau, 2005; Corter et al, 2006; Wolanski, 2008) and plan new programs that meet the needs of vulnerable populations (Mort, 2004; Wolanski, 2008). Many British Columbia school districts note that (a) EDi reporting was their first exposure to hard data indicating that they should become involved in discussing the preschool agenda, and (b) they now felt confident to apply the findings to the reallocation of funding for early years programming (Mort, 2004).

Since the introduction of EDi reporting in British Columbia, over 200 new community-driven, early childhood projects are intended to strengthen social capital and family capacity. Many schools are playing a major role; some initiatives are pilot projects in schools. Projects are often based in family centres that allow participants to access library resources, experience creative play, become familiar with community resources, and meet other families in the neighbourhood. Parenting centres offer instruction on literacy activities, nutrition, and behaviour management. Babies and younger children enjoy play and literacy activities with their parents. School-based programs for aboriginal children include activities specific to cultural needs. recreation programs are designed to ameliorate physical vulnerabilities. Health-related programs include immunization and nutrition programs; dental, hearing and sight screening are provided on-site. the BC Ministry of Education has funded a province-wide Ready, Set, Learn program, which has resulted in the promotion of books for babies, parent literacy fairs, and community awareness programs. the expansion of early years programming within in schools has been accompanied by a number of challenges (budget cuts, reduction of postsecondary ECE programs, labour shortages and high staff turnover) faced by programming offered through British Columbia’s child care centres, preschools and family resource programs (friendly, Beach, ferns & turiano, 2007).

Methodologythe review of literature evaluates [family] drop-in programs connected to school delivery, like StrongStart BC. it begins with a series of questions:

1. What are the benefits for children?

2. How do parents and families benefit?

3. What are the program elements that are likely to contribute to effective delivery of family drop-in programs?

4. How do family drop-in programs align with other school programs and with other community early childhood programs?

5. How can family support drop-in programs be evaluated?

• Whatisthepurposeofevaluation?

• Whatdowewanttoevaluate?

• Whatmeasurementtoolsshouldweuse?

the review of literature reviews studies of school-based family drop-in and related programs that are reported in the academic literature in Canada and internationally. it examines the use of individual child assessment, program evaluation and community monitoring. Both quantitative and qualitative methodology is included. the review identifies the strengths and limitations of program evaluations to date.


the review includes programs that meet the four defining characteristics that define StrongStart BC programs. they are school-based; primary caregivers and children participate; they have an early learning program with defined goals.

Findingsthe review identified evaluations for eight school-based family drop-in programs.

1. 21st Century Schools are a community-school model. it incorporates early childhood programs, after-school care, and other family support services designed to promote the optimal growth and development of children beginning at birth (Henrich, ginicola, & finn-Stevenson, 2006). family drop-in programs were one element present in several of the community schools. 21C was first implemented in independence, Mo, in 1988. Since then, more than 1,300 schools in several states have implemented the program and continued its operation.

2. Better Beginnings, Better Futures, began operation in 1994 as a 25-year longitudinal demonstration project targeting children living in at-risk communities (Peters et al., 2000). there are eight sites in different communities; five have children from birth to four years and the other three have children aged four to eight. While each site offers a family drop-in program, the specific mix of services varies from site to site. local schools and school boards are partners in all the sites.

3. The Chicago Child-Parent Center (CPC) Program is a centre-based early intervention that provides comprehensive educational and family-support services to economically disadvantaged children from preschool to early elementary school in central Chicago (graue, Clementys, reynolds, & niles, 2004). the goal of the program is to promote children’s academic success and facilitate parent involvement in children’s education. Children were enrolled in a daily program for one or two years prior to kindergarten. Parents or other family members participated in the program about once a week. the Chicago CPC program was not a family drop-in program, as children were registered and parents were not always together. However, the elements of family participation and school-based and the extensive research that has followed children into their adult life, make it a valuable candidate to include in this review.

4. Family and Schools Together (FAST) is an early intervention and parent involvement program (Caspe & lopez, 2006). faSt aims to strengthen families and children and reduce the incidence of problems such as school failure, substance abuse, child abuse, and delinquency. the program takes a preventative approach that requires interagency collaboration. faSt now operates successfully in over 500 schools in 33 states, overseen by the alliance for Children and families.

5. Peel District School Board readiness and hub centres operate in the board’s highest-needs communities to help families make the transition to school easier (Pelletier & Corter, 2005; Wolanski, 2008). Both hubs and centres are designed to accommodate children from birth to four years who are accompanied by their caregivers. families are welcome to attend any of the hubs or readiness centres, regardless of where they live in Peel.

6. Peer Early Education Partnerships (PEEP) programs in the united Kingdom help parents and caregivers to develop three aspects of learning with their children: literacy and numeracy, self-esteem and learning dispositions. this early intervention program aims to benefit children’s development, particularly in disadvantaged areas. PEEP may be delivered in community centres, children’s centres and schools (Evangelou, Brooks, Smith, & Jennings, 2005). Parents and their children (from infancy to age 6) attended at least once a week.


7. TorontoDistrictSchoolBoardParentingandFamilyLiteracyCentres operate in 50 neighbourhood schools where children are deemed vulnerable. they offer parent/caregiver and child play-based group programs with trained staff who provide activities to develop social, language and problem-solving skills and give information and support to parents/caregivers (yau, 2006)

8. Toronto First Duty initiative set out with broad child-development and parenting-support goals and a vision of core-integrated services located in schools. funding and support for five sites came from multiple sources including the municipal government, a foundation, and the school board (Corter et al., 2006).

1. the findings from the studies of the eight school-based family drop-in programs and reports from related research studies are summarized in five program and evaluation design principles as:

2. Children benefit from frequent, regular participation in effective child-focused programs with other children, including those with parental participation.

3. Parents and other caregivers benefit from participation in their children’s programs.

4. Elements of program quality (including curriculum and pedagogy, daily schedule and routines, use of physical space, accessibility and adult-child interactions) should be defined and used to guide program practices.

5. School locations and involvement provide supportive infrastructure, encourage family involvement and promote collaboration with other schools and early childhood programs.

6. Program evaluation includes measurement of program quality; child and family outcomes; and connections with other early childhood programs in the community.

1. Children benefit from frequent, regular participation in child-focused, quality preschool programs with other children.

family drop-in programs are more likely to benefit children if the goal is good early childhood education (Brooks-gunn, 2003; Cleveland et al., 2006; layzer, goodson, Bernstein, & Price, 2001; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). a review of studies of parenting programs shows that two-generational programs outside the home where the child spends considerable time are more likely to improve the child’s capacity than parenting-education programs that target parents only (Shaw, 2006). this is consistent with the research literature on all early childhood programs - program intensity (quality) and the frequency (how often) and duration (how long) of child attendance are critical elements (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; ludwig & Sawhill, 2007; Mitchell, Wylie & Carr, 2008).

• PeersEarlyEducationProgramme (PEEP) is based on the growing body of evidence linking the early development of language, literacy, and personal and social development with outcomes relating to higher educational attainment, improved behaviour and crime prevention. in a comparative study, early findings show improved verbal comprehension, vocabulary, concepts about print, phonological awareness, writing, early number concepts, and perhaps most importantly in terms of the prevention of preschool behaviour problems, improved self-esteem (Evangelou et al., 2005). Children and parents attended sessions at least once a week, from infancy.

• Five-year-oldswhohadparticipatedinoneoftheParentingandFamilyLiteracycentresbeforeschool entry were found to be 8-28% less likely than the comparison children to obtain scores in the lowest percentile on any EDi scale (yau, 2000). the greatest difference between the two groups was in social competence and language/cognitive development. reading and numeracy tests in the third grade indicate that the benefits persisted through the primary grades (yau, 2005).


• ChildrenattendedtheChicagoChild-ParentCenterProgramfordifferentlengthsoftime.Thosewhoattended for two years have been found to be significantly associated with higher levels of school achievement into adolescence compared to those who only attend for one year (reynolds, temple, robertson & Mann, 2002).

the findings from family drop-in programs are consistent with the recent review of the effect of early childhood programs reports. it was noted that a positive influence on vulnerable-children’s development is best achieved when (a) targeting children directly with structured, centre-based programs, and (b) involving their parents in the process (Doherty, 2007). “Programs that offer both a parent and a child component appear to be the most successful in promoting long-term developmental gains for children from low-income families” (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000, p. 345).

although parent/family-focused interventions may benefit parents by increasing self-confidence or social networks, targeting children’s development indirectly (attempting to change parenting style and/or improve parental education) have negligible effects on children’s development. the review notes that two-generation initiatives vary in their emphasis on parental and child-focused programming. Programs with the greatest child-development gains provided the most direct programming for children.

Evaluations of Canada’s Community action Plan for Children (CaPC) reported similar results. the pan-Canada evaluation involved (a) families from different CaPC sites across Canada, and (b) a comparison group of matched families. no statistically significant differences occurred in the health and functioning of the families (Boyle & Willms 2002). CaPC sites vary in their primary objectives, the mix of services they provide and the degree of emphasis they put on each service, which was not taken into account in the analysis. a subsequent analysis of the same data (Palacio-Quinton, 2002, in Doherty, 2007) found that CaPC programs in which children participated (either on their own or with their parents) were associated with enhanced child development. in contrast, CaPC programs directed at parents had the least effect on children’s developmental outcomes.

the uK Sure Start parenting programs included those with a focus on children’s early learning. the evaluation report notes that some of the child-focused programs were based on recognised methods of intervening. Most had developed locally, covering group-based activities and had no agreed structure or specific format. those that had good outcomes for children did have a specific focus and program structure to support early learning goals (Barlow et al., 2007).

2. Parents and other caregivers benefit from participation in their children’s programs.

research shows that (a) what young children learn, (b) how they react to events around them, and (b) what they expect for themselves and others are affected by their relationship with their parents, the behaviour of their parents, and their home environment (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; gomby, larner, Stevenson, lewit, & Behrman 1995). Parenting is defined as the attitudes, values and practices of parents in raising young children. Enhanced parenting skills anticipate improved child outcomes in subsequent years (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; McCain, Mustard, & Shanker, 2007). Home-school relationship refers to the formal and informal contacts and communications between families and their children’s early childhood settings and later educational institutions. the home-learning environment depends on the emphasis the family places on activities that encourage children’s readiness for school learning, particularly language and literacy. the home-school relationship contributes to children’s academic achievement (Weiss, Caspe, & lopez, 2006).

family drop-in programs that include specific goals for early learning and for parent involvement seem to encourage changes in parenting abilities, in the home-environment and in later home-school relationships. an extensive review of parenting outcomes (associated with participation in


early childhood programs) found evidence of the following. improved (a) interactions with the child, including greater acceptance of the child’s behaviour and positive parenting, (b) activities to help the child learn at home, (c) father involvement in the early childhood setting and in parenting, and (d) parental knowledge of early child development (Mitchell, Wylie & Carr, 2008).

• IntheUK,PEEP had a strong impact on the quality of parent-child interactions when the children were one- and two-years-old (Evangelou, et al., 2005).

• TorontoFirstDuty reported positive changes in parenting, home-school involvement and home-learning environment, including increased reading at home and communication with kindergarten teachers (Corter et al., 2006; Patel & Corter, 2007).

• twelve years of evaluation of FAST program cycles in a variety of settings found a consistent pattern of positive outcomes (nix, 2004). Parents report that their interactions with their children have improved and that they feel more appreciative of teachers and school staff.

• School-basedfamilydrop-inprogramsinPeel reported that parents seemed to be more engaged in language and literacy activities and in play with their child at home. they emphasized engaging (Wolanski, 2008). Most parents indicated improved parenting skills and greater confidence in their parenting abilities. Parents gained knowledge about available community services, early child development and the school curriculum.

Parents seem better able to assume responsibility for their child’s development if (a) they are aware of the effect of a positive and nurturing home environment, and (b) they feel confident of their ability to parent and to contribute to their children’s learning. a program’s ability to increase parental engagement with their children’s out-of-home education may be equally important predictors of long-term success (Weiss, Caspe & lopez, 2006).

in the evaluation of a variety of parenting programs in united Kingdom’s Sure Start initiative, a number of groups in early learning and literacy concentrated on the relationship between the mother and child. a key area for these groups was the inclusion of both parent and child (Barlow, Kirkpatrick, Wood, Ball, & Stewart-Brown, 2007). the effective parenting programs provided structured play/early learning sessions as a strategy to promote good parenting. Parents reported that they valued opportunities to watch the way workers interacted and communicated with children.

family involvement and parenting skills are enhanced when families have a good time playing with their children. nurturing relationships, active participation in child-centred play and early literacy activities (storytelling, reading, songs and phonetic word play) improve children’s social, emotional and cognitive development before formal schooling (Cleveland et al., 2006; McCain, Mustard, & Shanker, 2007; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). a “learning parenting by doing” approach provides peer support for parents. it has shown great improvements in parents’ attitudes and knowledge (layzer, goodson, Bernstein, & Price, 2001; Brooks-gunn & Marhkam, 2005). Home environments are influenced when activities and routines are taken home. a program’s ability to increase parental engagement with their children’s out-of-home education may be equally important predictors of long-term positive results.

3. Program quality elements (including curriculum and pedagogy, daily schedule and routines, use of physical space, accessibility and adult-child interactions) should be defined and used to guide program practices.

the quality of a child’s early learning environment is associated with his or her later success (for example, national research Council, 2002; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; McCain, Mustard, & Shanker, 2007, etc). Early childhood program evaluations show the importance of explicit programming for


young children in subsequent comprehensive preschool programs (e.g., Pelletier & Corter, 2002). Some program curricula deliberately encourage purposeful play with other children. the play includes opportunities to sustain, extend and enrich child-directed play.

• Thefamilydrop-inprogramsinthisreviewthatreportedbenefitsforchildrenandtheirfamilieswerestructured to (a) provide an opportunity for children’s early learning, and (b) encourage parenting skills. Curricula and pedagogy vary but common elements include:

• Consistentcircleorgrouptime:Parents,caregiversandchildrenareledinavarietyofcarefully chosen songs and rhymes. families may be offered an audiotape and/or a songbook containing the songs and rhymes used in the program.

• Structuredconversations:Anopportunityforadultstodiscussinformationandideas,toshare experiences and help each other.

• Storytime:Dailysharingofbookstypicallymodelledbythestaffwhodemonstratedstimulating ways of sharing books with children. Picture books without words are usually included so that parents who are not literate can participate in story time with their children.

• Booksharing:Children’sbooksareavailableforfamiliestoborrow.

• Take-homeactivities:Practicalsuggestionsandmaterialsforgamesandactivitiesareavailable. they are closely related to and encourage specific early learning goals.

• AstudyofcurriculumapproachesinChicago Preschool Centres programs concluded, “teacher-directed basic-skills preschool program promotes early literacy skills that make the transition to kindergarten and kindergarten achievement easier. longer-term child outcomes, especially high-school completion, come with the benefits typically attributed to child-initiated activity – engagement based on child interest, social learning, and learning how to learn.” (graue, Clements, reynolds, & niles, 2004)

• InToronto First Duty, the quality (as measured by ECErS-r) improved in the parenting centres as staff organized the environment for increased pretend and constructive play (Corter et al., 2006).

• Thefamilydrop-inprogramsinthePEEP (Evangalou, 2005), Chicago Child-Parent Centers (graue et al., 2004) Toronto Parenting and Family Literacy Centres (yau, 2005) and Peel District School Board Readiness Centres (Pelletier & Corter, 2005) programs accommodate children’s active engagement in purposeful, child-guided play, interspersed with short periods of group ECE or teacher-led activity.

4. School locations and involvement can provide a supportive infrastructure, encourage family involvement and promote collaboration with other school and early childhood programs in the community.

Schools can play a pivotal role in creating and sponsoring early childhood programs in concert with other community organizations (Mort, 2006; Williams, 2006; naESP, 2005; McCain, Mustard, & Shanker, 2007). With school enrolment declining in most of Canada, the neighbourhood elementary school is a logical site for the establishment of local early childhood centres (Wolanski, 2008; Whiteland, 2006).

locating family drop-in programs in schools and aligning their operation to schools encourages family involvement and frequent use. the link between early childhood programs and schools is a major step in involving parents in the early childhood arena and in building capacity for life-long home-school-service community relations (Patel & Corter, 2007). School-based programs are usually accessible to families in their neighbourhood.


• TorontoFirstDuty reported that most families learned about family drop-in programs through neighbourhood word-of-mouth and through school communications (Corter et al., 2006).

• BetterBeginningsBetterFutures reported that school-based drop-in programs were more widely accessed by young children and their families than the same programs delivered in other settings (Peters et al., 2000).

Schools can promote collaboration and integration. School-based family drop-in programs can increase their success by collaborating with other school and early childhood programs in the same building or community. When family drop-in programs link with other early childhood programs, the staff benefit from the harmonization of professional education and development (Colley, 2006; Corter et al., 2006; Child and youth advocate BC, 2005; ontario Best Start Panels on Quality and Human resources and Early learning, 2007). Service integration increases families’ access to the services that they need, when and where they need them (Corter et al., 2006). Parent education that builds parenting skills, information, and referrals to specialized resources can be offered through stable program platforms that also offer good early childhood programs. the integration of family drop-in programs with other programs designed for young children and families is viewed as a strategy to create a more holistic approach. Schools are able to deliver a range of services including public health and early intervention services (Williams, 2006; McCain, Mustard, & Shanker, 2007; Schorr, 1998).

• ThefindingsfromToronto First Duty reported that all staff (including kindergarten teachers, early childhood educators, parenting workers, family resource program staff and educational assistants) found professional benefits, including role redefinition and exposure to broader knowledge, through integrating child care with other early childhood settings (Corter et al., 2006).

• TorontoFirstDuty found that the early childhood programs linked to schools and the delivery of preschool, childcare and/or kindergarten programs are more effective portals for parent education and information and referrals (Corter et al., 2006).

• ThePeelschool-basedfamilydrop-inprograms became hubs that were able to connect families with other services and programs in the community and to connect children and families to additional services available through the school (Wolanski, 2008).

research suggests that principals play a powerful role in improving teaching and learning. Principals are expected to be (a) leaders of learning, (b) knowledgeable about curriculum and pedagogy, and (c) to assess and develop teacher skills (Phillips, ratham, & reniham, 2003; naESP, 2005; Mort, 2006; McElgunn, 2006). Principals must generate and analyze data to (a) guide instructional and program decisions, and (b) establish and monitor specific performance targets. they must energize the school community about higher student achievement through shared decision-making and less authority on the principal’s part. they are expected to provide working conditions for teachers that allow them to practise their profession. When principals do not have early childhood curriculum expertise, that can be provide by other school specialists. this kind of leadership is needed by early childhood educators.

• TFDreportsthattheroleofprincipalisacriticalelementinthesuccessfulintegrationofearlychildhood programs in the school setting and that early childhood curriculum expertise from school consultants can support the development of effective early learning environments and early childhood staff teams (Corter et al., 2006).

• The21stCenturyschoolsreportedtheimportanceofbothprincipalsandearlychildhoodcoordinators in providing leadership to early childhood programs, including family drop-in programs (Heinrich, ginicola & finn-Stevenson, 2006).


5. Program evaluation can include measurement of program quality; child and family outcomes; and, connections with other early childhood programs in the community.

although studies differ in the evaluation’s sample, design, and methods, they commonly conclude that family drop-in programs can benefit children’s development (Barlow et al, 2007; Cleveland et al, 2006; Evanglelou et al, 2005; Wolanski, 2008) . one conclusion is that such research requires a multidimensional design to examine the relationship between (a) program characteristics and quality (including teacher-child interactions), and (b) child and family characteristics and child outcomes.

Designing measures and methods to assess growth and development and evaluate program quality is a complex task. Measuring how children are doing is a first step. Early child-development measurement must go beyond monitoring human development to understanding the multiple factors that influence the development. Measuring early child development includes (a) assessing developmental outcomes, (b) evaluating children’s environments and (b) monitoring the effect of various early environments on the development of all children, locally and province-wide. the program evaluation should use a mixed methodology that includes continual quantitative and qualitative measures of process and outcomes.

5.1 During the development stage, program evaluation could monitor the process and provide regular feedback to participants

a program-development stage is essential before assessing any effect on child outcomes. the implementation of early childhood and family programs takes time. Several studies have reported that findings of quality improve as program implementation matures (Weiss, Caspe, & lopez, 2006).

• EvaluationstudiesoftheSchools of the 21st Century initiative report that as schools implement early childhood programs, they need time, assistance and resources to sustain them for several years so that programs have an opportunity to develop. although program evaluation should begin with implementation start-up and indicate what is being implemented and how, no program should be evaluated for outcomes until it has achieved stability (Henich, ginicola, & finn-Stevenson, 2006).

• TheTorontoFirstDuty report showed improvements in quality as measured by ECErS-r during the three-year implementation stage (Corter et al., 2006).

involving early childhood practitioners and families in the evaluation process (during the design and implementation stage) contributes to a learning community. Participants reflect on how to construct a program that benefits a particular group of children living in a particular community.

• Toronto First Duty research team used parent surveys to measure changes in family involvement and asked families to respond to satisfaction and needs surveys on a regular basis (Corter et al., 2006).

• The Chicago Parent-Child programs measured parent involvement by aggregating ratings of parent participation in school by children’s first-grade teachers (graue, Clements, reynolds, & niles, 2004).

• TheevaluationofFamilies and Schools Together program designed a parent-teacher involvement questionnaire to assess the amount and type of contact that occurred (Hernandez, 2000; nix, 2004).

• The Peel Readiness Centres used parent surveys to assess parents’ involvement, motivation and engagement in the program (Pelletier & Brent, 2002).


5.2 Child outcomes are a central, but complex component of program evaluations that are best gathered once a program is established and stable

it is a complex matter to assess the relationship between early childhood program participation and children’s development. the differences in cognitive and social-emotional outcomes among the subgroups of children discussed in this report show the importance of collecting data on relevant child and family characteristics. young children are developmentally unreliable test takers. they have a limited ability to understand assess ment cues such as verbal instructions, aural stimuli, situational cues, or written instructions (Meisels, 2006).

• TheevaluationoftheArkansasschoolofthe21st Century concluded that child outcomes should be considered in the context of program factors and community ecology. (ginicola, yekelchik, & Stevenson, 2007)

• TorontoFirstDuty,TorontoParentingandFamilyLiteracyCentresand Peel Readiness Centres’ evaluations used community-based Early Development instrument (EDi) data (Corter et al., 2006; Janus et al., 2007; Pelletier & Corter; 2005; yau, 2005). the EDi provides population data about all kindergarten-age children in a neighbourhood or community. EDi data can be considered in the context of numerous socio-economic and demographic factors as well as in early childhood program factors. Community-wide EDi data avoids some of the limitations of individual child measures.

the Kindergarten Parent Survey is a companion tool to the EDi that provides information on children’s use of early childhood programs prior to kindergarten to help communities interpret EDi data (Janus et al., 2007). the survey is completed by parents and is not a standardized instrument; its psychometric properties have not been studied. However, information from the survey does provide a better understanding of children’s health, economic background and use of early childhood programs. it also allows schools to measure parent satisfaction and engagement in schools.

5.3 Tracking individual child and family attendance is essential to longer-term program evaluation

Evaluating a program to determine its effectiveness requires a study of the long-term effect of children’s participation. to do the study it is essential to collect the data on individual participants and their use of the program. the national evaluation of the u.K.’s Sure Start local Programmes (SSlPs) compared families in SSlPs with families in Sure Start-to-be communities (national Evaluation of Sure Start team, 2005). they tried to measure the effect of supportive parenting components of family drop-in programs. However, because they did not track individual use, the research team was not able to distinguish which parents living in the community were actually accessing the services.

• BetterBeginningsBetterFutures was limited in its ability to analyze the effect of a community-based initiative because individual data on “who got what” was not collected (Peters et al., 2000).

• TorontoFirstDuty instituted an intake and tracking system to track use across program activities at each site. failure to provide the necessary support for data input and report generation resulted in incomplete attendance records, which limited any long-term follow-up (Corter et al., 2006).

• ThefinalreportofthePeelDistrictSchoolBoard’sreadinessandhubcentresreportsthatitwasdifficult to track the numbers of families in the program. Participation fluctuated; many families were not officially registered and not all families signed in on the daily attendance sheets. therefore the research was limited in reporting on the actual numbers of families, how often children attended and the potential relationship between frequency and duration of attendance (Wolanski, 2008).


Measuring family participation and attendance, and gathering baseline information on families are necessary for evaluation (Caspe & lopez, 2006; Corter et al., 2006). Early childhood programs connected to the school system are often able to track children through their school years. in order to study the contribution of early childhood programs, it is essential to track individual children’s use of early childhood programs (Corter et al., 2006). the length of the program and the service provided give some measure of the level of “treatment” or “dosage” that families received. this may be helpful in understanding findings on program or service outcomes. another aspect of “dosage” is the intensity with which services are used. for example, the experience of 400 hours of a service spread over three years may have a different effect from the same number of hours concentrated in a shorter time. a limitation of several family drop-in studies is a lack of attendance information. it is not possible to compare the outcomes for children who occasionally attended and those who participated on a regular basis (for example, see Peters et al, 2000; yau 2005; Evanglou, 2005).

5.4 Connections to other early childhood programs can be monitored on a continuum from co-location to integration

TheEarlyYearsStudy2(McCain, Mustard, & Shanker, 2007) reinforced the importance of setting a goal to consolidate the array of early childhood programs into a comprehensive program. the same goal is proposed by the oECD (2006) review of early childhood programs in Europe, north america, australia and new Zealand.

• TorontoFirstDuty created a tool to measure service integration. the “indicators of Change” assess progress on a continuum from co-existence to integration, for items in five categories: governance, access, parent participation, early learning environment and staff team (Corter et al., 2006, 2007).

5.5 Program effectiveness is an important component of program evaluation

Effective programs are those that achieve the identified outcomes. Scaling up successful early childhood programs into effective universal programs is a challenge that can be dealt with through quality standards and monitoring service delivery on a regular basis (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard university, 2007). regular feedback about quality and service delivery should be used in conjunction with professional development and technical assistance to ensure that the central vision and goals are implemented (Corter et al., 2006). Standardized measures of program quality such as the Early Childhood Environmental rating Scale (Harms, Clifford & Cryer, 1998) have been applied in family drop-in contexts (for example, Corter et al, 2006; Wolanski, 2008). another approach emerging in the literature is a measurement of quality teaching that measures the quality of interactions including dimensions of emotional support, organizational support and instructional support in school-based prekindergarten to grade 5 classrooms (Pianta, 2008; Pianta et al, 2007) and could be introduced into program evaluation of family drop-in programs.

Early childhood programs, including family-support drop-in programs, will be most effective at producing better cognitive and social-emotional results for children when they function in harmony with their families, communities, schools, and other educational institutions. Properly conceived, early childhood program evaluations and accountability procedures should help programs achieve the challenging but useful task of playing a major role in children’s lives.


ReferencesBarlow, J., Kirkpatrick, S., Wood, D., Ball, M., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2007). Family and parenting support in Sure Start local programmes. london: national Evaluation of Sure Start.

Boyle, M. H., & Willms, J. D. (2002). impact evaluation of a national community-based program for at-risk children in Canada. Canadian Public Policy, 28(3), 461-81.

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2006). Invitation to pilot a Strong Start centre. victoria: government of BC.

Brooks-gunn, J. (2003). Do you believe in magic? What we can expect from early childhood intervention programs. Social Policy Report, XVII(1).

Brooks-gunn, J., & Markman, l. (2005, spring). the contribution of parenting to ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness. The Future of Children. 15(1), 139-158.

Caspe, M., & lopez, M. E. (2006). Lessons from family-strengthening interventions: Learning from evidence-based practice. Boston: Harvard family research Project.

Centre on the Developing Child at Harvard university. (2007). Ascience-basedframeworkforearlychildhood policy: using evidence to improve outcomes in learning, behaviour and health for vulnerable children. accessed august 10, 2007, from http://www.developingchild.harvard.edu

Child and youth advocate BC. (2005).

Cleveland, g., Corter, C., Pelletier, J., Colley, S., Bertrand, J. & Jamieson, J. (2006). Early childhood learning anddevelopmentinchildcare,kindergartenandfamilysupportprograms. toronto, on: atkinson Centre at oiSE/ut.

Colley, S. (2006). Integrationnetwork.toronto, on: institute for Child Study, oiSE/ut.

Corter, C., Bertrand, J., Pelletier, J., griffin, t., McKay, D., Patel, S, ioannone, P, & McCuaig, K. (2006). toronto first Duty stage 1 summary report: Evidence-based understanding of integrated foundations for early childhood. toronto, on: atkinson Centre at oiSE/ut. retrieved august 2, 2008, from http://www.toronto.ca/firstduty/tfD_Summary_report_June06.pdf

Corter, C., Bertrand, J., Pelletier, J., Janmohamed, Z., Brown, D., arimura, t., & Patel, S. (2007). Toronto First Duty stage 2 progress report. toronto, on: atkinson Centre at oiSE/ut.

Corter, C., & Pelletier, J. (2005). Parent and community involvement in schools: Policy panacea or pandemic? in n. Bascia, a. Cumming, a. Datnow, K. leithwood, & D. livingstone (Eds.), International handbookofeducationalpolicy (pp. 295-327). Dordrecht, the netherlands: Springer.

Doherty, g. (2007). Ensuring the best start in life: targeting versus universality in early childhood development. IRPP Choices, 13(8).

Evangelou, M., Brooks, g., Smith, S., & Jennings, D. (2005). The birth to school study: A longitudinal evaluation of the Peers Early Education Partnership (PEEP). london: DfES.

friendly, M., Beach, J., ferns, S. & turiano, M. (2006). Early childhood education and care in Canada 2006. toronto, on: Childcare research and resource unit.

gomby, D. S., larner, M. B., Stevenson, C. S., lewit, E. M., & Behrman, r. E. (1995). long-term outcomes of early childhood programs: analysis and recommendations. Future of Children, 5(3), 6-24.

graue, E., Clements, M. a., reynolds, a. J., & niles, M. D. (2004, December


24). More than teacher directed or child initiated: Preschool curriculum type, parent involvement, and children’s outcomes in the child-parent centers. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(72). retrieved July 15, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n72/

Henrich, C., ginicola, M. M., & finn-Stevenson, M. (2006). Theschoolofthe21stcenturymakingadifference: Findings from two research studies. new Haven, Ct: the School of the 21st Century.

Hernandez, l. (2000). Familiesandschoolstogetherbuildingorganizationalcapacityforfamily-schoolpartnerships. Boston: family involvement network of Educators (finE) Harvard family research Project.

Horton, C. (2007). Early care and education programs: What does the research tell us about their effects on child development? research Brief. Herr research Centre for Children and Social Policy, Erikson institute.

Janus, M., Brinkman, S., Duku, E., Hertzman, C., Santos, r., Sayers, M., Schroeder, J., & Walsh, C. (2007). The earlydevelopmentinstrument:Population-basedmeasureforcommunities.Ahandbookondevelopment,properties and use. Hamilton, on: offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster university.

layzer, J., goodson, B., Bernstein, l., & Price, C. (2001). National evaluation of family support programs final report volume A: The meta-analysis. Washington, DC: administration of Children, youth & families.

ludwig, J. & Sawhill, i. (2007) Success by ten: Intervene early, often and effectively. Washington, DC: Brookings institute.

McDonald, l., Billingham, S., arthur, M. & Payton, n. (1997). families and schools together (faSt): integrating community development with clinical strategies. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 140-155.

McElgunn, J. (2006, fall). opening our doors … for the children. The CAP Journal, 14(3), 28-30.

McCuaig, K. (2006, fall). integrated early years model shows promising outcomes for children. The CAP Journal, 14(3), 35-44.

Meisels, S. (2006). accountability in early childhood: no easy answers. OccasionalPaperNumber6.Chicago: Herr research Centre, Erikson institute.

Melaville, a., & Blank, M. (1999). Together we can: A guide for crafting a pro-family system of education and human services. Washington: uS Dept of Education, office of Educational research and improvement and uS Dept of Health and Human Services, office of the assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

Mort, J. (2004). The EDI impact study: BC school districts: Embracing young children and their families. vancouver, BC: Human Early learning Partnership.

Mort, J. (2006, fall). Mobilizing schools and communities, investing in our youngest, most vulnerable children. The CAP Journal, 14(3), 18-22.

Mort, J. (2007). Documentation: StrongStart pilot sites, stage 1. retrieved March 17, 2008, from http://www.earlylearning.ubc.ca/publications

Moss, P., Petrie, P., & Poland, g. (1999). Rethinkingschool:Someinternationalperspectives.leicester, uK: youth Work Press.

national association of Elementary School Principals. (2005). Leading early childhood learning communities:Whatprincipalsshouldknowandbeabletodo.alexandria, va: naESP.


national Evaluation of Sure Start team. (2005a). Early impacts of Sure Start local programmes on children and families. Report 13. Department of Education and Skills. retrieved March, 5, 2008, from www.surestart.gov.uk/research/evaluations/ness/latestreports/

nix, r. l. (2004). improving parental involvement: evaluating treatment effects in the fast track program. The Evaluation Exchange, 10(4), 5.

ontario Best Start Expert Panel on Early learning. (2007). Early learning for every child today. toronto, on: Ministry of Children and youth Services.

ontario Best Start Expert Panel on Quality and Human resources. (2007). Investing in quality: policies, practitioners, programs and parents. toronto, on: Ministry of Children and youth Services.

oECD (organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2001). Starting strong: Early childhood education and care. Paris: oECD.

oECD (organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2006). Starting strong ii: Early childhood education and care. Paris: oECD.

osborn, a. f., & Milbank, J. (1987). The effects of early education: A report from the child health and education study. oxford: Clarendon Press.

Palacio-Quintin, E. 2002. national impact evaluation analysis. in National and regional evaluations of the community action plan for children (CAPC): 1995-2000 (pp. 70-83). ottawa: Public Health agency of Canada.

Patel, S., & Corter, C. (2006). Parent-school involvement, diversity, and school-based preschool service hubs. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the american Educational research association, San francisco, 9 april.

Pelletier, J., & Brent, J. (2002). Parent participation in children’s school readiness: The effects of parental self-efficacy, cultural diversity and teacher strategies. International Journal of Childhood Education, 45-60.

Pelletier, J., & Corter, C. (2006). integration, innovation, and evaluation in school-based early childhood services. in B. Spodek & o. n. Saracho (Eds.), Handbookofresearchonthe education of young children (2nd ed.), (pp. 477-496). Mahwah, nJ: lawrence Erlbaum.

Peters, r. v., arnold, r., Petrunka, K., angus, D., Brophy, K., Burke, S., Cameron, g., Evers, S., Herry, y., levesque, D., Pancer, M., roberts-fiati, g., towson, S., & Warren, S. (2000). Developing capacity and competence in the better beginnings, better futures communities: Short-term findings report. Kingston, on: Better futures research Coordination unit, Queen’s university.

reynolds, a. J., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (2003). Early childhood programs for a new century. Washington, DC: CWla Press.

reynolds, a. J., temple, J. a., robertson, D. l., & Mann, E. a. (2002). age 21 cost-benefit analysis of the title i Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 267-303.

Schorr, l. (1998). Common purpose: Strengthening families and neighborhoods to rebuild America. new york: Doubleday.

Shaw, D. S. (2006). Parenting programs and their impact on the social and emotional development of young children. in: r. E. tremblay, r. g. Barr, r De v. Peters (Eds.), Encyclopedia on early childhood development [online]. Montreal, QC: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development; 2006:1-7. retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://www.excellence-earlychildhood.ca/documents/Shawangxp.pdf


Shonkoff, J., & Phillips, D. (2000). Neurons to neighbourhoods: The science of early child development. Washington, DC: national research Council.

Susseman, C., & gillman, a. (2007). Building early childhood facilities: What states can do to create supply andpromotequalitypreschoolpolicyreport,April2007. new Jersey: niEEr.

Weiss, H., Caspe, M., & lopez, E. (2006, spring). Family involvement in early childhood education, policy brief, number 1. Boston, Ma: Harvard family research at Harvard graduate School of Education.

Whiteland, t. (2006, fall). Early childhood development: introduction to the fall edition of the CaP journal. The CAP Journal, 14(3), 4-5.

Williams, r. (2006, fall). Magic happens if you let it. The CAP Journal, 14(3), 23-27.

Wolanski, a. (2008). Peel early years hubs and readiness centres implementation and outcome evaluation. Mississauga, on: Peel District School Board.

yau, M. (2005). Do parenting and family literacy centres make a difference? Research Today, 1(1), 1-4.

yau, M. (2000). Doin-schoolparentingandfamilyliteracycentresmakeadifference?Findingsfromfirst-year evaluation, 1999-2000. toronto, on: toronto District School Board.


Appendix B: Parent/Caregiver Survey

Page 1

StrongStart Program

PARENT/CAREGIVER SURVEY (Spring, 2008)

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey. Your participation will help us learn about how to work with young children and families in British Columbia.

This is a survey that asks about you, the child(ren), and your perceptions of the StrongStart Program.Here are some things to remember as you answer the items on the survey:

Please read each item carefully before responding. It is important that you answer each item as thoughtfully and honestly as possible. There are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions as this is not a test. Even though you signed the consent form, your participation in the survey is completely voluntary. All information you provide will be treated in accordance with Canadian and provincial privacy laws regarding the protection of personal information. The information collected will be used for research purposes only. We will ensure that all individual responses are held in confidence and that people cannot be identified from the reporting of results. You are not obligated to answer any question that you do not wish to answer. The survey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete.

Thank you for your help!

The Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP) A research institute based at the University of British Columbia (funded by the Ministry of Education)

INSTRUCTIONS

THERE ARE 4 SECTIONS TO THIS SURVEY.Section 1: Parents/Caregivers Perceptions of the StrongStart Program Section 2: Parents/Caregivers Perceptions of the Children’s Learning Section 3: Open-ended Questions Section 4: Centre Use and Awareness

YOU ARE ASKED TO RESPOND IN ONE OF THREE WAYS 1. By circling the number that best represents you/the child(ren). 2. By writing a response to a specific question. 3. By checking a circle or box that best describes you, the child(ren), or your family.

The following are EXAMPLES of the types of questions you will be asked and how to respond. You DO NOTneed to respond to these questions.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

1. I have met new families since I’ve attended the StrongStart Program 1 2 3 4 5

2. What is the child(ren)’s favourite activity in the StrongStart Program? _______________________________

3. What is your relationship to the child(ren)? Mother Father


Page 2

SECTION 1: Parents/Caregivers Perceptions of the StrongStart Program

What are the top 3 reasons you started attending the StrongStart Program? (please do not check more than 3)

no cost close to my home play time for the child friends with others coming to learn with the child to get help to meet and socialize with other people to practice English convenience because the child has special needs kids have new things to play with other (please specify) _______________________________________________________________

The next area asks you to answer a different kind of question. Please indicate your response by circling the number that best describes you and/or the child(ren).


Agree

a) What I really like about StrongStart is:

play activities 1 2 3 4 5

snack time 1 2 3 4 5

circle time 1 2 3 4 5

teacher 1 2 3 4 5

talking with other people 1 2 3 4 5

toys and materials for the child 1 2 3 4 5

other ______________________________ 1 2 3 4 5

b) I feel comfortable in the StrongStart Program 1 2 3 4 5

c) The parenting skills presented at the StrongStart Program were ones I already knew. 1 2 3 4 5

d) I feel comfortable talking to the people who work at the StrongStart Program. 1 2 3 4 5

e) I learn activities that I can use at home with the child(ren). 1 2 3 4 5

f) I learned about other community programs (e.g., Public Libraries, Public Health, Family Resource Programs, Recreation) that I didn’t learn about any where else.

1 2 3 4 5

g) I am uncomfortable coming to the School. 1 2 3 4 5

h) By participating in the StrongStart Program, I am more aware of the importance of providing healthy snacks to the child(ren).

1 2 3 4 5

i) The StrongStart Centre has too many children. 1 2 3 4 5

j) I learned by watching how the teacher worked with the children. 1 2 3 4 5

k) I feel like I have made new connections through the StrongStart Program (e.g., teacher, other adults…)

1 2 3 4 5

l) I feel supported by the school principal. 1 2 3 4 5


Page 3

SECTION 2: Parents/Caregivers Perceptions of the Child(ren)’s Learning

The next area asks you to answer questions about the child(ren)’s learning sine you have been attending the StrongStart Program. Please indicate your response by circling the number that best describes the child(ren).


Agree

a) I think the StrongStart Program has encouraged the child(ren)’s:

language development 1 2 3 4 5

physical development 1 2 3 4 5

social-emotional development 1 2 3 4 5

b) The child(ren) learns to get along with other children at the StrongStart Program. 1 2 3 4 5

c) The StrongStart Program provides the child(ren) with high quality experiences with: 1 2 3 4 5

books (e.g., storytime, looking at books) 1 2 3 4 5

music and singing 1 2 3 4 5

arts and crafts 1 2 3 4 5

play 1 2 3 4 5

exploratory activities (e.g., water, sand, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5

jumping, climbing and active play 1 2 3 4 5

snack time 1 2 3 4 5

outings in community 1 2 3 4 5

d) At the StrongStart Program, the child(ren) feels proud of things they do and/or make. 1 2 3 4 5

e) The child(ren) likes coming to the StrongStart Program. 1 2 3 4 5

IF YOU ARE NOT THE PARENT, PLEASE DO NOT COMPLETE THIS AREA. GO TO THE NEXT PAGE.Has anything changed at home as a result of you and your child(ren)’s participation in the StrongStart Program? Please check the box that best describes you and/or your child(ren).

BEFORE coming to StrongStart

Every Day

2-3times

aweek

3-4times

amonth

Lessthanonce

amonth

AFTER coming to StrongStart

Every Day

2-3times

aweek

3-4times

amonth

Lessthanonce

amonth

Read with my child(ren) Read with my child(ren) Sang with my child(ren) Sing with my child(ren) Went to the playground Go to the playground Went to the library Go to the library Had playtime with other children

Have playtime with other children

Got together with other parents

Get together with other parents

Ate healthy snacks Eat healthy snacks Participated in painting, drawing, arts and crafts

Participate in painting, drawing, arts and crafts


Page 4

SECTION 3: Open-ended Questions

PLEASE WRITE YOUR RESPONSES BELOW THE QUESTIONS.

1. What are the greatest strengths in the StrongStart Program?

2. If you could change some things about the Program, what would that be?

3. StrongStart Programs are something new in BC. What suggestions can you give us to make the Centres better?

4. Do you have any other comments?


Page 5

SECTION 4: StrongStart Centre Use and Awareness

The following questions pertain specifically to the children attending the Centre.

1. How many children do you usually bring to the Centre? _________

2. Please record their ages and whether they are boys or girls.

AGE BOY GIRL

3. What is your relationship to this child (children)?

Mother Father Grandmother Grandfather Other Relative Guardian Care Provider Other (please specify) ______________________________________________

4. Are you: Male Female

5. How many adults live in the child(ren)’s home? ________

6. How do you describe the child(ren)’s family:

Two parent family One parent family Blended family Extended family Other (please specify) ______________________________________________

7. What best describes the annual household income of the child(ren)’s family? (If you are uncomfortable answering this question it is ok to leave it blank.)

Less than $14,999 $15,000 - $19,999 $20,000 - $29,999 $30,000 - $39,999 $40,000 - $59,999 $60,000 or more

8. What is the highest level of education for each of the following people in the child(ren)’s home?

Mother: Father: Less than Grade 9 Less than Grade 9 Less than High School Diploma Less than High School Diploma High School Diploma High School Diploma Some college, trade school, university Some college, trade school, university Diploma/Certificate college/trade school Diploma/Certificate college/trade school Bachelors Degree Bachelors Degree Post-Baccalaureate Diploma or Graduate Degree Post-Baccalaureate Diploma or Graduate Degree


Page 6

9. Please describe the current employment status:

Mother: Father: working full-time working full-time working part-time working part-time full-time student full-time student part-time student part-time student not employed not employed

10. Is English the primary language spoken in the household? Yes No

11. Does the child(ren) speak English? Yes No

12. Is the child(ren) of Aboriginal descent? Yes No

13. Is the child(ren) a recent immigrant to Canada? Yes No

14. Are you of Aboriginal descent? Yes No

15. The child(ren) also attends (check all that apply):

Preschool Recreation Programs at Community Centre Family Resource Programs Child Care Private Lessons (e.g., music, dance, art, gymnastics, etc.) Other Community Programs

16. To your knowledge do any of the children you bring to the Centre have any special needs? Yes No

17. How do you get to the Centre?

car bus taxi walk bike carpool other

18. How many times have you and the child(ren) visited the Centre in the last month?

a) Total number of times visited: _________ (estimate)

b) Approximately how many hours did you spend at the Centre each week over the past month (Enter Ø if you did not attend during that week)?

Week 1: ____ (hours) Week 2: ____ (hours) Week 3: ____ (hours) Week 4: ____ (hours)

19. Did the StrongStart staff refer you or the child(ren) to other agencies? Yes No


Appendix C: Questions

The following questions were used for the interviews and focus groups during the visits at the StrongStart BC sites.

Questions for parents (or caregivers)

(note: throughout this document, the term parents will be used because they were the predominant adult visitors to the program but the term also implies caregivers.

• Howdidyouhearabouttheprogram?

• Howfrequentlydoyouattendwithyourchild?Wouldyouliketoattendmorefrequently?

• Whatmakesitpossibleforyoutoattend?Whatkeepsyoufromattending?

• Haveyouand/oryourchildbenefitedfromtheprogram?Ifso,how?

• Whatareyour(yourchild’s)favouriteactivities?

• Whatisthemostimportantskillyou(andyourchild)havelearned?

• Pleasedescribeanychangesyouhaveseeninyourchilddevelopmentally—socially,emotionally,language-related, physically or others.

• Hasattendingtheprogramchangedhowyouareorwhatyoudowithyourchildathome?Explain.

• Hasyourviewoftheschoolchanged?Ifso,how?

• Whatisyourgreatestcriticismoftheprogram?

• Whatisyourhighestpraisefortheprogram?

• Iftheprogramcouldbeenhanced,whatwouldyourecommend?

Questions for school district staff

• Doyouhaveacollectionofdocumentsforus?Willyoureviewthemwithus?

• Howwasyourschoolchosen?

• Describethestart-upissuesyouencountered.

• Describewhattheprogramoffersandhowitworks.Isthereanyintegrationwithotherprograms?

• Areanyinteragencyservicesco-locatedwithStrongStart?Pleasedescribe.

• HowhavelocalECEgroupsrespondedtotheprogram?Havetheybeeninvolved?

• Howhaveyoumarketedtheprogramtothecommunity?Pleaseshareexamples.

• Whoattendstheprogram?Pleasereviewyourrecordsofattendancewithus.

• Whatbenefitshaveaccruedtochildrenandfamilies,totheschool,ortothecommunity?

• Doyouhaveanyevidenceofbenefits?

• Whathavebeenthebiggestroadblockstoasuccessfulprogram?

• Whathasbeenthebiggestsuccess?Inyouropinion,isthisapositivemove?Whyorwhynot?


Questions for community members

• WhatisyourinvolvementwiththeStrongStartBCprograminyourcommunity?

• HowdoesStrongStartBC(inyourcommunity)relatetootherearlychildhoodprogramsinthecommunity?

• HowdofamilieswithyoungchildrenfindoutaboutStrongStartBC?

• CanyouidentifywhetherStrongStartBCismeetingsomeoftheneedsoffamilieswithyoungchildren in your community, and how?

• CanyoudescribewhatyouthinkasuccessfulStrongStartBCprogramwouldbe?

• WhatdoyouseeasthechallengesfacingStrongStartBC?

• Howwelldoyouthinkyourcommunitysupportsyoungchildrenandtheirfamilies?

• WhatdoyouthinkarethemostimportantabilitiesandskillsfortheStrongStartBCfacilitatortohave?

Documents

StrongStart BC