And Others TITLE Houston Parent-Child Development Center
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 135 459 PS 009 074 AUTHOR Johnson, Dale L.; And Others TITLE Houston Parent-Child Development Center. Final Report. INSTITUTION Houston Univ., Tex. Dept. of Psychology. SEONS AGENCY Office of Child Development (DHEW), Washington, D.C. PUB DATE Aug 76 GRANT DHEW-90-C-379 NOTE 197p. EDRS PRICE EF-$0.83 HC-$10.03 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Bilingual Education; Child Rearing; Community Services; Cultural Factors; *Home Programs; Intervention; Language Development; Learning . Activities; Low Income Groups; Measurement Instruments; *Mexican Americans; Objectives; Parent Child Relationship; *Parent Education; Parent Participation; Parent Role; *Precchool Children; *Program Descriptions; *Program Evaluation; Socioeconomic Influences IDENTIFIERS *Houston Parent Child Development Center ABSTRACT This final report describes the development and evaluation of a parent education program, the Houston Parent Child Development Center in Houston, Texas. Funded by the Office of Child Development the Houston Model was especially developed to meet the needs of low income Eexican American families with preschool children. Eajor components of the program consisted of home visits, language development, a Parent Advisory Council, family workshops, community services and an in-center program. Chapter I of the document covers the economic and educational backgrounds of the families, their access to resources such as health services and family valuen. Chapter II considers the research basis for parent education including parent role and parents' own expectations for their children. A third chapter discusses program goals for mothers, fathers and children. Chapter IV gives a description of the model in terms of fauily involvement, professional staffing, educational methods and the bilingual/bicultural aspects of the program. Chapter * is an overall program description. Chapter VI presents the evaluation strategy and design, Chapter VII the program evaluation itself. (MS) Documents acguired by ERIC include many informal unpublished * materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort * * to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal * * reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality * * of tie microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available * * via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not * responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions * * supplied by !DRS are the best that can Le made from the original. ,* *********************************************************************** U S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION IWELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPRO- DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN- ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPRE- SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY FINAL REPORT Grant No. DHEW-90-C-379 Office of Child Development HOUSTON PARENT-CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER by Dale L. Johnson, Principal Investigator Alfred J. Kahn, Data Coordinator HazeI Leler, Replication Field Coordinator Department of Psychology C7) University of Houston Houston, Texas 77004 Ce) August, 1976 $14 SUMMARY The final report for Office of ChildDevelopment grant #DHEW- 90-C-379 describes the development andevaluation of a parent ed- ucation program, the Houston Parent-Child DevelopmentCenter. The general design of the program was developedin 1969 and the first pilot groups of families enteredin 1970. Continuing with the basic model the program was improved,staff trained and curricula written during the next two years. Although refinements in program implementation continue and somemodifications are made in response to inputs from participatingfamilies, the program as reported is highly developed and stabilized. Background The instigation for the program was a concernfor the educational future of the young child of a low income,minority group background. For a great many reasons, thesechildren often find schooling a frus- trating, unrewarding experience. The PCDC project was begun on the assumption that this school experience couldbe more productive and rewarding if the child's parents could beenlisted as effective pre- school teachers of the child. With the help of a parent education program, the parents couldprovide the children with conceptual, social and verbal skills to make the mostof the opportunity pro- vided by the school. The parents' own attitudes abouteducation would be expected to have aninfluence on the child's motivation for learning. In making these assumptions wealso realize that schools ,tre not always benevolent;depending on talents, attitudes and resources of teachers they maybring out the best in the child 3 or inhibit any existing interest in learning. Thus, the parents may need to become forceful advocates for the childrenin the ed- ucational system. Goals The ultimate goal of the program is to help parents helptheir own children to optimize their schoolperformance. This is a long- range goal and attaining it depends on meeting anumber of immediate goals. These goals were determined through a survey of parentsof young children in the relevant Houstonneighborhoods, and through a review of the literature of research on parent-childrelationships and the development of child competence. Major goals to be attained at gram's end were as follows: Mothers who benefit from the progam will beaffectionate, use nonrestrictive control, provide opportunities forexploration and curiosity, encourage verbal interaction, view the home as alearning environment, provide for interesting, challenging playexperiences and view h;arself as a teacher of the child. Fathers who benefit willunderstand the program, supportthe participation of their wives in it, and see themselves asimportant teachers of their children. Children who benefit from the program will be competentcogni- tively, linguistically, and socially. In all of the -6bove, the goals are assumed tohave been met if program families achieve higherstanding in evaluation measures than control families. This set of goals does not completelydescribe the full array of goals for the program, but only those goalsfor which evaluation 4 assessment was carried out. Program The family is enrolled in the program when the child is one year of age. They continue for two years until the child is three. The first year consists of a home-based program and a seriesof four family workshops. This first in-home year was considered essential because of the home-centered orientation of the Mexican- . American population and the mother's role in the home. During this first year paraprofessional home educators visit the home once weekly for about one and a half hours. Families are invited to four family workshops, each held all day on aweekend. These workshops include the entire family and provide a group ex- perience with other families. This program component is a response to the family-centeredness of the Mexican-Americanpopulation and the presence and role of the father in the home. During the second year, mothers and two-year-olds attend a center program four mornings weekly for three hourseach morning. Half of the curriculum consists of home managementactivities, in- cluding nutrition, budgeting, health, sewing and driver'seducation. Sessions dealing with child development and themother's teaching skills form the other half. In both home visits and in center-based child development sessions, the focus is upon the motherteaching her child. The cneter's children's classrooms serve as alabora- tory for the mothers. Fathers are included in two evening discus- sion sessions each month and in the Parent AdvisoryCouncil. Evaluation Design Families entering the program in annual cohorts wereselected through door-to-door recruitmentand screening for incomeeligibility and interest. They were tI'm randomlyassigned to program or control general groups. ror cohorts D and F allcontrol families received services; e.g., transportation toclinics, assistance with family problems, etc. The F and G cohorts includedtwo control groups, one which received the servicesmentioned and another thatreceived only medical examinatiric for the index childand the annual evaluation assessment. A thorough analysis ofrandomization and attrition datahas indicated that the program and controlgroups have beengenerally The D comparable on a large number ofdemographic characteristics. cohort is an exception in thatthe D control familieshad more mid- dle class characteristics. The numbers of families whobegan the program andcompleted it for each cohort are asfollows: Cohort Began Completed Exp 53 20 Con 35 24 Exp 27 17 CDn 22 17 Exp 50 25 Con-S 47 30 Con-N 29 10 Exp 55 20 Con-S 33 13 Con-N 22 7 6 Total Exp 185 82 Con-All 188 101 The evaluation strategy included both processand outcome measurement. The process measures, designed tomonitor the quality of the on-going program, are very brieflyreported here. Outcome measures were selected todetermine whether program goals had been attained. The assessment procedures included assessmentof mother behaviors a's Weil-d6-teStsofithe child'sperformance. Both beha- vioral and verbal-attitudianl measures wereused, but the former were given priority. Child assessment included both generalintel- lectual performances and program criterion measures. Evaluation Results Interviews with parents who had comple4-edthe program indicated a high level of satisfactionand a willingness to recommend it to other parents.