View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Parental Conceptions of Quality in Greek Early Childhood Education

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Parental Conceptions of Quality in Greek Early Childhood Education
Language: English
Authors: Grammatikopoulos, Vasilis, Gregoriadis, Athanasios, Tsigilis, Nikolaos, Zachopoulou, Evridiki
Source: European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2014 22(1):134-148.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2014
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Preschool Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Early Childhood Education, Parent Attitudes, Educational Quality, Preschool Children, Preschool Education, Questionnaires, Participant Observation, Interrater Reliability, Preschool Evaluation, Knowledge Level, Space Utilization, Educational Equipment, Child Care, Learning Activities, Interaction, Program Effectiveness, Staff Utilization
Geographic Terms: Greece
DOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2012.738868
ISSN: 1350-293X
Abstract: The aim of the current study was to examine the assessments of parents of the quality of early childhood education (ECE) in Greece. Five hundred and fifty three preschoolers' parents participated in this study providing quality and importance ratings based on the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale Parent Questionnaire (ECERSPQ) for the aspects of ECE. The same aspects were evaluated with Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R) by trained observers. Results suggested that parent ratings overestimate the quality of ECE provided to their children, compared to those of trained observers. Yet, both parent and observer ratings appeared to have a constant variance. Moreover, observers' results indicated that the provision of ECE quality in Greece has to be improved in order to reach acceptable standards as in other developed countries.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 42
Entry Date: 2014
Accession Number: EJ1029342
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFgQJRo2iymrqxpzm8cIfuAAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDN5vgGoceJSZq3L8swIBEICBmhDpYYc-57ZJ9A1CaX39BrP1hLaB8MDE2h7hPUrEZBh2MyAMq_FdSi_Y8OlhygJnamyekDBzIJUVk1z777vlN_XQwvqA2lp4gyijdEbCzI7f1MqCCI6Nf-0CqgbjD8YoXYpxTzRbrmigW7PJGEpbU-Hl1VwFdbp0r1kXtbtf0gvKshaM6tX7r1BbxfUdWIMSbV8vk7_7C_QistE=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0094574182;h3h01jan.14;2019Feb21.15:00;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0094574182-1">Parental conceptions of quality in Greek early childhood education. </title> <p>The aim of the current study was to examine the assessments of parents of the quality of early childhood education (ECE) in Greece. Five hundred and fifty three preschoolers' parents participated in this study providing quality and importance ratings based on the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale Parent Questionnaire (ECERSPQ) for the aspects of ECE. The same aspects were evaluated with Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R) by trained observers. Results suggested that parent ratings overestimate the quality of ECE provided to their children, compared to those of trained observers. Yet, both parent and observer ratings appeared to have a constant variance. Moreover, observers' results indicated that the provision of ECE quality in Greece has to be improved in order to reach acceptable standards as in other developed countries.</p> <p>Le but de cette étude était d'examiner les évaluations des parents sur la qualité de l'éducation préscolaire (ECE) en Grèce. Cinq cent cinquante-trois parents d'enfants en âge préscolaire ont participé à cette étude en jugeant les critères de qualité. Ces critères sont fondés sur l'échelle proposée dans le questionnaire des parents pour l'évaluation de l'environnement préscolaire (ECERSPQ), portant sur les aspects de l'ECE. Les mêmes aspects ont été évaluée par des observateurs experimentés à l'aide de l'échelle de qualité (ECERS-R). Les résultats suggèrent que les évaluations des parents surestiment la qualité de l'ECE fournie à leur enfant, en comparaison avec celle d'observateurs entraînés. Cependant, les classements des parents et observateurs ont une variance constante. En outre, les résultats des observateurs ont indiqué que la qualité des lieux d'éducation des jeunes enfants (ECE) en Grèce doit être améliorée afin d'atteindre des normes acceptables comme dans d'autres pays développés.</p> <p>Das Ziel dieser Studie ist es auszuwerten, wie Eltern die Qualität der frühkindlichen Bildung in Griechenland einschätzen. Fünfhundert dreiundfünfzig Eltern von Kindern im Vorschulalter haben an der Studie teilgenommen und Aussagen über Qualität und Bedeutung der frühkindlichen Bildung abgegeben, die auf dem Elternfragebogen der Kindergarten-Einschätz-Skala KES beruhen. Dieselben Angaben wurden von ausgebildeten Beobachtern auf der Grundlage der revidierten Fassung der Kindergarten-Einschätz-Skala KES-R gemacht. Die Ergebnisse legen nahe, dass die Eltern die Qualität der frühkindlichen Bildung, die ihren Kindern angeboten wird, im Vergleich zu den ausgebildeten Beobachtern überbewerten. Aber sowohl Eltern- als auch Beobachtereinschätzungen haben eine konstante Varianz. Darüber hinaus weisen die Ergebnisse der Beobachter darauf hin, dass die Qualität der frühkindlichen Bildung in Griechenland verbessert werden muss, um akzeptable Standards zu erreichen, wie man sie in anderen entwickelten Ländern vorfindet.</p> <p>El objetivo de este estudio es el examen de la evaluación de los padres en cuanto a la calidad de la Educación en la Infancia Temprana en Grecia. Quinientos cincuenta y tres padres de prescolares han participado en el estudio, ofreciendo clasificación de calidad e importancia, basada en el Cuestionario Paternal de la Escala De Calificación Del Ambiente De La Infancia Temprana para la Educación en la Infancia Temprana. Los mismos aspectos eran evaluados a través de la Escala De Calificación Del Ambiente De La Infancia Temprana - Edición Revisada por observadores cualificados. Los resultados indican que las calificaciones de los padres sobrestiman la calidad de la Educación en la Infancia Temprana en Grecia, en comparación con las de los observadores cualificados. Sin embargo, tanto las calificaciones de los padres como las de los observadores presentan un desacuerdo constante. Además, los resultados de los expertos indican que la provisión de la calidad de la Educación en la Infancia Temprana en Grecia debe mejorarse a fin de llegar a los estándares aceptables de los otros paises desarollados.</p> <p>Keywords: Early childhood education; evaluation; parent perceptions; ECERS</p> <hd id="AN0094574182-2">1. Introduction</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0094574182-3">1.1. Parental involvement in their children's early childhood education (ECE)</hd> <p>In the past decades, a variety of social and economic changes has gradually increased the numbers of young children who are cared for outside their family environments. Children who attend child care centers or kindergarten classrooms have parents who are employed, indicating that the available time for a systematic parent involvement is restricted (Shimoni [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref1">36</reflink>]). However, despite their limited time, the notion that parents must be more actively involved in children's care and education is gaining acceptance (Zellman and Perlman [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref2">42</reflink>]) and is influenced by several family status variables (Cooper [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref3">8</reflink>]; Fantuzzo, Tighe, and Childs [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref4">15</reflink>]; McWayne, Campos, and Owsianik [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref5">27</reflink>]; Waanders, Mendez, and Downer [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref6">40</reflink>]). Barnard ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>]) suggested that parent involvement is a significant element in early childhood education (ECE) in facilitating long-term effects.</p> <p>Since parents visit their children's early education and care setting on a daily basis, it is expected that they will be able to monitor the program for quality and form an overall view of the provided services (Hill and Taylor [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref8">20</reflink>]). As primary advocates for their children's education, parents should be able to somehow influence the quality of the ECE environments (Cryer, Tietze, and Wessels [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref9">11</reflink>]; Powell [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref10">34</reflink>]). To this respect, Katz ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref11">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref12">23</reflink>]) highlighted parents' views as one of the potential sources of information for assessing the quality of ECE. The other sources were the early childhood professionals' views (teachers' and assistants'), children's views, and the perspectives on how the program fulfills the community and society's expectations. In any case, the idea that parents can make informed choices about child care and education is highly debated (Cryer and Burchinal [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref13">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Early childhood environment quality is a relative concept and descriptions may vary according to values, beliefs and needs of the various stakeholders involved (Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref14">12</reflink>]). For example, there is evidence that parents tend to overestimate the quality of care their children receive (Cryer et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>]; Knoche et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref16">24</reflink>]; Torquati et al. 2011), and this overestimation can be attributed to a variety of factors. Walker ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref17">41</reflink>]) hypothesized that 'imperfect information' constitutes the factor which causes the overestimation of quality by parents. In turn, Cryer and Burchinal ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref18">10</reflink>]) examined whether imperfect information might be affecting the quality assessments of parents by considering two opposing assumptions. The first was that parents have different priorities than those of early childhood educators and the second was that while parents value the same characteristics of ECE that teachers do, they are not well informed about the quality of care and education their children receive.</p> <p>The accuracy of parents' information about the quality of care and education their children receive has been examined in various studies. Browne Miller ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref19">5</reflink>]), and Cryer and Burchinal ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref20">10</reflink>]) reported similar findings of parents substantially overestimating the quality of their children's programs. Explanations to these findings can derive from multiple directions. Working parents who have children in child care or kindergarten classrooms do not often have opportunities to spend much time in their children's classrooms or to participate in other school activities. Therefore, the majority of information that parents receive comes either from their child's narrations, the teacher or administrative staff or from the artwork and constructions the child brings home (Cryer et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref21">11</reflink>]). Early childhood educators usually do not particularly desire and encourage parents to spend large amounts of time inside the classrooms (Petrogiannis [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref22">31</reflink>]; Poulou and Matsagouras [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref23">32</reflink>]). Thus, parents are given few opportunities to obtain accurate information about the quality of care and education their children receive.</p> <p>Other evidence supports the influence of culture on parents' perceptions of quality of ECE (Powell [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref24">33</reflink>]). In a cross-national comparison, Cryer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref25">11</reflink>]) showed that parents from the USA and Germany have the tendency to overestimate the quality of care their children receive. Similar findings may not be verified in other countries with different cultural traditions and ECE systems. It is possible that parents from different countries will differ in their views and conceptions of their children's quality of care and education, based on their cultural context and the conditions of the ECE system in which they function (Cryer et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref26">11</reflink>]). Research about the multifaceted and inter-subjective pedagogical quality (Sheridan [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref27">35</reflink>]), should take into account similarities in preschool norms, values, and national traditions, as well as the cultural and contextual specifics in various societies.</p> <hd id="AN0094574182-4">1.2. Early childhood education structure in Greece</hd> <p>Early childhood education (up to five years) in Greece comprises two parallel and almost distinct sections. Similar structure appears in other educational systems (e.g. Portugal, Cyprus) as well (Petrogiannis [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref28">31</reflink>]; David [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref29">13</reflink>]). The first section is the kindergartens, which provide services to four and five years old. The second is the day care centers which provide services for children up to four years of age. Kindergarten attendance has been compulsory, since 2006, for all children aged five. Children at the age of four may attend either a day care center or a kindergarten. Kindergarten and child care teachers in Greek ECE are considered highly educated, as the vast majority, since 1988, have studied for four years at a higher education level, in universities or technological educational institutes. There are also assistant teachers who have at least two-year post-secondary education diploma qualifications.</p> <p>Kindergartens, private or public, are under the authority of the Greek Ministry of Education and provide services based on a national curriculum. Public sector kindergartens usually operate between 8am and 1pm but recently, many of them extended their time table until 4pm, as the kindergartens in private sector, based on a program for the expansion of 'all-day' schools. Child care centers are under the authority of the Ministry of Interior (municipality centers) or the Ministry of Health and Welfare (private sector centers) and there are no specific curriculum requirements. Their operational hours are usually from 8am until 5pm and their staff is usually a mixture of kindergarten teachers, child care teachers and assistants.</p> <hd id="AN0094574182-5">1.3. Parental involvement in Greek ECE</hd> <p>Parents' selection of a child care center or kindergarten is based on meeting specific family needs (Noble [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref30">28</reflink>]). In Greece, parental choice of ECE for children is based on proximity (what is available in the neighborhood) and on what is affordable (whether someone will choose a public or a private sector preschool center). A family might be able to select a public or a private child care center or kindergarten. However, most early childhood schools are public and there are no or very small fees charged to attend. The Greek ECE system focuses mainly on supporting families in caring for and educating their young children and the programs offered do not substantially differ in terms of quality.</p> <p>Research evidence supports that 'parent involvement in their children's early childhood programs is associated with greater gains in the cognitive, language, and socio-emotional domains' (Castro et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref31">7</reflink>], 414). Despite the importance of parental involvement in education, very few studies (Petrogiannis [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref32">31</reflink>]; Poulou and Matsagouras [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref33">32</reflink>]) investigated this issue in the Greek ECE. Their research findings support the estimation that the majority of Greek parents do not take the context and the richness of the ECE programs of the available preschool centers into serious consideration and very few of them seem to base their choices on educational aspects. Their interest is limited to issues such as safety or nutrition, ignoring other important issues such as educational practices, and relationships (Papaprokopiou 2003). Generally, any interest from parents regarding cooperation with teachers is limited to aspects of childhood care rather than education (Petrogiannis [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref34">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Having said that, the general intent of this study was to examine parents' perceptions about the quality of early childhood environments their children attend. More specifically, the study investigated what parents mostly valued in their children's early childhood programs and how they perceived the quality of those programs. Two research questions were addressed: (a) What aspects did parents value as more important?; and (b) Could parents provide reliable and valid information about the quality of their children's care centers and kindergarten programs?</p> <hd id="AN0094574182-6">2. Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0094574182-7">2.1. Participants</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0094574182-8">2.1.1. Classrooms</hd> <p>Eleven child care and 20 kindergarten classrooms, from public preschool centers randomly selected from the district of Thessaloniki, participated in the current study. The 11 child care classrooms included 204 children between 2.5- and four-years-old. The twenty kindergarten classrooms included 437 children between four- and five-years-old. Participating classrooms were selected on a stratified random sample of 31 preschool centers. These centers were drawn from all areas of the city in order to represent socio-economic diversity and city districts size.</p> <hd id="AN0094574182-9">2.1.2. Parents</hd> <p>A total of 641 questionnaires were distributed and 553 parents returned them, reaching a response rate of 86.2%. From the returned questionnaires, 163 were derived from parents with children in child care centers (2.5 to four years), whereas the remaining 390 were from parents with children in kindergartens (four to five years.). The majority of parent questionnaires were completed by mothers (<reflink idref="bib414" id="ref35">414</reflink>), and their age ranged between 26- and 38-years-old. Most of them were married and 45.4% (<reflink idref="bib251" id="ref36">251</reflink>) of them had university degrees, 51.5% (<reflink idref="bib285" id="ref37">285</reflink>) of them had completed secondary education, and 3.1% (<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref38">17</reflink>) of them did not give a response.</p> <hd id="AN0094574182-10">2.2. Instruments</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0094574182-11">2.2.1. ECERS-R</hd> <p>Classroom quality was assessed using the ECERS-R (Harms, Clifford, and Cryer [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref39">18</reflink>]). ECERS-R is a highly respected tool for research and evaluation of the global quality of early childhood education. It was developed in the USA in the early 1980s and has since been used in more than 20 countries, gaining an extensive international reputation. The ECERS-R consists of 43 items, organized under seven subscales: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref40">1</reflink>) Space and Furnishings (8 items); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref41">2</reflink>) Personal Care Routines (6 items); (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref42">3</reflink>) Language-Reasoning (4 items); (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref43">4</reflink>) Activities (10 items); (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref44">5</reflink>) Interaction (5 items); (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref45">6</reflink>) Program Structure (4 items); and (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref46">7</reflink>) Parents and Staff (6 items). Each item has indicators distributed along a 7-point scale, with scores 1 (inadequate), 3 (minimal), 5 (good), and 7 (excellent).</p> <p>Since ECERS-R has not been translated into Greek, the English version with all 43 items was used by trained observers who are fluent in English. However, in Greek child care centers and kindergartens there is not any provision for sand/water activities and also no arrangement for children to have privacy or a space to be alone. Thus, item 23 (sand/water) and item 5 (space for privacy) were omitted from further statistical processing. The item 37 (Provisions for children with disabilities) was not statistically analyzed, as no children with disabilities were indentified in the 31 child care centers and kindergartens. Exclusion of ECERS items in this study is justified through precedents set in previous studies (Barros and Aguiar [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref47">3</reflink>]; Tietze et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref48">37</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0094574182-12">2.2.2. ECERSPQ</hd> <p>The questionnaire used in the current study was the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale Parent Questionnaire (ECERSPQ). The questionnaire based on the ECERS (Harms and Clifford [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref49">17</reflink>]) consisted of 37 items. These items were broken down into 48 questionnaire items in order to become more understandable for the parents (Cryer and Burchinal [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref50">10</reflink>]). For example, the item 'meal and snacks' was broken down to two items 'well balanced meals & snacks and dependable schedule' and 'time to talk, make friends and pleasant learning time.' The questionnaire was designed to assess the degree to which parents valued specific aspects of ECE as defined in the ECERS (Harms and Clifford [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref51">17</reflink>]), and the extent to which parents believed those aspects were present in their child's classroom (Cryer et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref52">11</reflink>]). An example of the items included in ECERSPQ is presented in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1. Example item of the ECERSPQ.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>How important is this to you for your child?</td><td>How well do you think your child's classroom does on this?</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><bold>Helping children learn to talk well:</bold></td></tr><tr><td> • Much time for children to talk while playing</td><td>Not important  Very important</td><td> Not very well Don't know</td></tr><tr><td> • Lots of singing, puppets, stories</td><td><bold>1 2 3</bold></td><td><bold>1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0</bold></td></tr><tr><td> • Teacher asks many questions to help children practice talking</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>ECERSPQ was designed to address two aspects of ECE quality, importance and quality ratings (Cryer et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref53">11</reflink>]). The completion of the ECERSPQ required that parents would indicate the <emph>importance</emph> of each item, using a 3-point scale (1 = not important to 3 = very important). For the <emph>quality</emph> assessments, parents rated each item by using a 7-point scale (from 1 = not well to 7 = very well). The questionnaire rating system also provided a 'Don't Know' option for each item.</p> <p>The Greek questionnaire was a translation of the US version. Following the same reasons that caused the exclusion from analyses of three items from the ECERS-R, the same scale items (<emph>Sand/water, Space for child to be alone</emph> and <emph>Meeting needs of children with handicaps</emph>) were not included in the translated version, as an adaptation to Greek ECE specific characteristics. Therefore, the Greek version of ECERSPQ comprised 34 scale items that were analyzed in the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0094574182-13">2.2.3. Adaptation of ECERSPQ</hd> <p>The original ECERSPQ (Cryer and Burchinal [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref54">10</reflink>]) was translated into the Greek language by the authors. Then, a bilingual academic conducted a back translation into English. Afterwards, a comparison of the original and back-translated versions was made and translation discrepancies were corrected. Following this procedure, a pilot study was conducted in order to test the Greek version. The questionnaire was administered to 27 parents accompanied by open-ended questions, where parents could comment on the items and highlight any problems they faced during the completion of the instrument.</p> <p>Based on the parents' feedback, minor changes were introduced to make some items more understandable. Results revealed the need for breaking down a substantial number of scale items into more simplified questionnaire items. For example, the 'Room decoration' item was broken down to 'Children's artwork hung up' and 'Things displayed low so children can see' items. A similar procedure was also followed in the Cryer and Burchinal study (1997). The breaking down resulted in a total number of 67 questionnaire items for the 34 scale items.</p> <hd id="AN0094574182-14">2.3. Procedure</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0094574182-15">2.3.1. ECERS-R</hd> <p>As indicated earlier in the text, the authors used the English version of ECERS-R. One of the authors had previous experience in using the scale, since she worked for a six-month period in Frank Porter Graham (FPG) Child Development Institute. During this period she received full range training led by the authors of the scale, at Chapel Hill. Two of the other authors were informed by her in detail concerning the evaluation procedures in using ECERS-R. They also studied the multimedia package that demonstrates how to use ECERS-R, namely the 'Video Observations for the ECERS-R/DVD' and 'ECERS: Video Guide & Training Workbook' (Harms and Cryer [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref55">19</reflink>]). Afterwards, the three observers conducted training sessions in six child care and kindergarten classrooms and the interrater percent agreement, within one point scale, was 91%. Furthermore, agreement checks were also conducted in nine classrooms during the data collection. Interrater exact percent agreement ranged between 51.2% and 97.3% (M = 80.1, SD ± 12.2), while interrater within one scale point percent agreement ranged from 87.4% to 100% (M = 96.1%, SD ± 03.8). Weighted kappa ranged from.12 to.97 (M =.70, SD ±.27).</p> <p>The three observers visited the 31 classrooms that participated in the current study between November 2010 and January 2011. The observers remained in each preschool center for at least three hours and were present either during the arrival or departure time. After the observation, they conducted an interview with the teacher to collect additional information on classroom structural features.</p> <hd id="AN0094574182-16">2.3.2. ECERSPQ</hd> <p>When the observers visited a child care center or a kindergarten they gave teachers questionnaires for all children's parents. The teachers received specific instructions about the distribution and the collection of the questionnaires. The questionnaires were administered with an envelope attached and the parents were instructed to return them sealed in the envelope by dropping them in the mail box of the preschool unit. Teachers distributed one questionnaire to the parents of each child in their classroom. The teachers then collected all the returned questionnaires and delivered them to the researchers. Parents were informed about the confidentiality of the procedure and their participation was completely voluntary. The whole procedure lasted four months from November 2010 to February 2011.</p> <hd id="AN0094574182-17">3. Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0094574182-18">3.1. Parent importance scores for ECERSPQ items</hd> <p>In order to examine what child care aspects were valued more, the importance scores from parents were calculated to each of the items of ECERSPQ. All 34 items received extremely high importance scores. On a 3-point scale ranging from 1 = not important to 3 = very important, the average importance scores on the total scale was 2.99. Specifically, two (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref56">2</reflink>) items' mean score was 2.98 (Promoting acceptance of diversity, blocks), for 13 items the mean score was 2.99 and for the remaining 19 items the mean score reached the value of 3.00. The extremely high importance scores on all the quality aspects of ECERSPQ explain the lack of variation in mean scores.</p> <hd id="AN0094574182-19">3.2. Parents' Knowledge about the Quality of the ECE Provided to their Children</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0094574182-20">3.2.1. Descriptive statistics and reliability results for the ECERS-R & ECERSPQ subscales</hd> <p>Mean scores and standard deviations for the items and subscales of the ECERS-R and ECERSPQ are presented in Table 2. The subscales scores ranged for ECERSPQ from 5.07 (Parents & Staff) to 5.97 (Interaction), while the scores of the observers ranged between 1.81 (Parents & Staff) and 4.19 (Interaction). The items of the ECERSPQ that were rated with the highest scores were 'Promoting acceptance of diversity' (6.19) and 'Greeting/departing' (6.11), while the lowest scores appeared in the items of 'Provisions for professional needs of staff' (4.56) and 'Staff interaction and cooperation' (4.70). The items of the ECERS-R with the highest ratings were 'Interactions among children' (4.77) and 'Staff–child interactions' (4.55), and the items with the lowest ratings were 'Provisions for personal needs of staff' (1.29) and 'Promoting acceptance of diversity' (1.48).</p> <p>Table 2. Mean, standard deviation scores for ECERSPQ and ECERS and reliability results for ECERSPQ.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Subscales and items</td><td>Parents</td><td>Observers</td></tr><tr><td>M</td><td>SD</td><td>M</td><td>SD</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><bold>Space and Furnishings (</bold><bold><italic>α</italic></bold><bold>=.84)</bold></td><td char="."><bold>5.48</bold></td><td char="."><bold>1.00</bold></td><td char="."><bold>2.87</bold></td><td char="."><bold>.91</bold></td></tr><tr><td>01. Indoor space</td><td char=".">6.02</td><td char=".">1.00</td><td char=".">2.77</td><td char=".">1.66</td></tr><tr><td>02. Furniture for routine care, play & learning</td><td char=".">6.02</td><td char=".">.92</td><td char=".">3.94</td><td char=".">1.87</td></tr><tr><td>03. Furnishings for relaxation & comfort</td><td char=".">5.18</td><td char=".">1.61</td><td char=".">3.19</td><td char=".">1.13</td></tr><tr><td>04. Room arrangement for play</td><td char=".">4.89</td><td char=".">1.56</td><td char=".">2.35</td><td char=".">.83</td></tr><tr><td>06. Child-related display</td><td char=".">6.01</td><td char=".">.99</td><td char=".">3.35</td><td char=".">.60</td></tr><tr><td>07. Space for gross motor play</td><td char=".">4.97</td><td char=".">1.60</td><td char=".">2.65</td><td char=".">1.17</td></tr><tr><td>08. Gross motor equipment</td><td char=".">4.79</td><td char=".">1.66</td><td char=".">1.87</td><td char=".">1.56</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Personal Care Routines (</bold><bold><italic>α</italic></bold><bold>=.80)</bold></td><td char="."><bold>5.82</bold></td><td char="."><bold>.96</bold></td><td char="."><bold>3.04</bold></td><td char="."><bold>1.19</bold></td></tr><tr><td>09. Greeting/departing</td><td char=".">6.11</td><td char=".">.97</td><td char=".">3.74</td><td char=".">1.78</td></tr><tr><td>10. Meals/snacks</td><td char=".">5.85</td><td char=".">1.43</td><td char=".">2.74</td><td char=".">1.84</td></tr><tr><td>11. Nap/rest</td><td char=".">4.89</td><td char=".">1.83</td><td char=".">2.50</td><td char=".">1.03</td></tr><tr><td>12. Toileting/diapering</td><td char=".">6.07</td><td char=".">1.14</td><td char=".">3.55</td><td char=".">2.14</td></tr><tr><td>13. Health practices</td><td char=".">5.98</td><td char=".">.97</td><td char=".">3.03</td><td char=".">2.04</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Language-Reasoning (</bold><bold><italic>α</italic></bold><bold>=.89)</bold></td><td char="."><bold>5.78</bold></td><td char="."><bold>.94</bold></td><td char="."><bold>3.28</bold></td><td char="."><bold>.73</bold></td></tr><tr><td>15. Books & pictures</td><td char=".">5.81</td><td char=".">1.00</td><td char=".">2.81</td><td char=".">.98</td></tr><tr><td>16. Encouraging children to communicate</td><td char=".">5.56</td><td char=".">1.09</td><td char=".">3.16</td><td char=".">1.03</td></tr><tr><td>17. Using language to develop reasoning skills</td><td char=".">5.97</td><td char=".">1.00</td><td char=".">3.39</td><td char=".">.91</td></tr><tr><td>18. Informal use of language</td><td char=".">5.80</td><td char=".">1.20</td><td char=".">3.77</td><td char=".">1.02</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Activities (</bold><bold><italic>α</italic></bold><bold>=.85)</bold></td><td char="."><bold>5.78</bold></td><td char="."><bold>.88</bold></td><td char="."><bold>2.62</bold></td><td char="."><bold>.57</bold></td></tr><tr><td>19. Fine motor</td><td char=".">5.96</td><td char=".">.93</td><td char=".">3.42</td><td char=".">.99</td></tr><tr><td>20. Art</td><td char=".">6.02</td><td char=".">.91</td><td char=".">3.71</td><td char=".">.93</td></tr><tr><td>21. Music/movement</td><td char=".">5.19</td><td char=".">1.43</td><td char=".">2.48</td><td char=".">.92</td></tr><tr><td>22. Blocks</td><td char=".">5.71</td><td char=".">1.08</td><td char=".">3.39</td><td char=".">.80</td></tr><tr><td>24. Dramatic play</td><td char=".">5.29</td><td char=".">1.49</td><td char=".">2.61</td><td char=".">1.25</td></tr><tr><td>28. Promoting acceptance of diversity</td><td char=".">6.19</td><td char=".">1.06</td><td char=".">1.48</td><td char=".">.91</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Interaction (</bold><bold><italic>α</italic></bold><bold>=.91)</bold></td><td char="."><bold>5.97</bold></td><td char="."><bold>.97</bold></td><td char="."><bold>4.19</bold></td><td char="."><bold>1.06</bold></td></tr><tr><td>29. Supervision of gross motor activities</td><td char=".">5.73</td><td char=".">1.35</td><td char=".">4.06</td><td char=".">1.18</td></tr><tr><td>30. General supervision of children</td><td char=".">6.10</td><td char=".">1.01</td><td char=".">4.06</td><td char=".">1.09</td></tr><tr><td>31. Discipline</td><td char=".">6.01</td><td char=".">1.07</td><td char=".">3.52</td><td char=".">.72</td></tr><tr><td>32. Staff-child interactions</td><td char=".">6.00</td><td char=".">1.10</td><td char=".">4.55</td><td char=".">1.69</td></tr><tr><td>33. Interactions among children</td><td char=".">6.05</td><td char=".">1.05</td><td char=".">4.77</td><td char=".">1.58</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Program Structure (</bold><bold><italic>α</italic></bold><bold>=.84)</bold></td><td char="."><bold>5.85</bold></td><td char="."><bold>.98</bold></td><td char="."><bold>3.30</bold></td><td char="."><bold>1.09</bold></td></tr><tr><td>34. Schedule</td><td char=".">5.93</td><td char=".">1.02</td><td char=".">3.61</td><td char=".">1.43</td></tr><tr><td>35. Free play</td><td char=".">6.01</td><td char=".">1.11</td><td char=".">3.35</td><td char=".">1.19</td></tr><tr><td>36. Group time</td><td char=".">5.62</td><td char=".">1.25</td><td char=".">3.10</td><td char=".">1.39</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Parents and Staff (</bold><bold><italic>α</italic></bold><bold>=.83)</bold></td><td char="."><bold>5.07</bold></td><td char="."><bold>1.50</bold></td><td char="."><bold>1.81</bold></td><td char="."><bold>.72</bold></td></tr><tr><td>38. Provisions for parents</td><td char=".">5.37</td><td char=".">1.40</td><td char=".">1.97</td><td char=".">1.04</td></tr><tr><td>39. Provisions for personal needs of staff</td><td char=".">5.46</td><td char=".">2.00</td><td char=".">1.29</td><td char=".">.46</td></tr><tr><td>40. Provisions for professional needs of staff</td><td char=".">4.56</td><td char=".">1.96</td><td char=".">3.26</td><td char=".">1.54</td></tr><tr><td>41. Staff interaction and cooperation</td><td char=".">4.70</td><td char=".">1.85</td><td char=".">2.85</td><td char=".">1.38</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Total</bold></td><td char="."><bold>5.64</bold></td><td char="."><bold>.47</bold></td><td char="."><bold>3.12</bold></td><td char="."><bold>.77</bold></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> coefficients for the proposed subscales of ECERSPQ were calculated and also presented in Table 2. Reliability scores were satisfying and ranged from.91 (Interaction) to.80 (Personal Care Routines).</p> <hd id="AN0094574182-21">3.2.2. Parents' and observers' discrepancies</hd> <p>To test for possible discrepancies between parents and observers, their ratings for the aspects of child care centers and kindergartens were compared. A strict comparison of the ECERS-R and ECERSPQ measures was feasible, as the respective scores were based on the set of items both scales had in common, namely 34 items.</p> <p>Before further analysis, Intra-class Correlation Coefficients (ICC) for each subscale were estimated. Results indicated that there was a significant amount of variance among different classrooms for all the subscales (see Table 3). Thus, the use of a hierarchical linear analysis was considered the appropriate statistical method to test whether the quality ratings between parents and observers were differentiated taking into consideration variations among classrooms. Analysis revealed significant parent–observer differences for all the subscales, with parents' scores being much higher than those of the observers (see Table 3)</p> <p>Table 3. Intra class coefficients and hierarchical linear analysis results.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>ECERSPQ</td><td>ECERS-R & ECERSPQ</td></tr><tr><td>ICC</td><td>Hierarchical Linear Analysis</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><bold>Space and Furnishings</bold></td><td char=".">.29</td><td char=".">F<sub>(1 28.93)</sub> = 258.04*</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Personal Care Routines</bold></td><td char=".">.25</td><td char=".">F<sub>(1 29.77)</sub> = 138.73*</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Language-Reasoning</bold></td><td char=".">.18</td><td char=".">F<sub>(1 29.39)</sub> = 265.14*</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Activities</bold></td><td char=".">.17</td><td char=".">F<sub>(1 29.69)</sub> = 508.15*</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Interaction</bold></td><td char=".">.18</td><td char=".">F<sub>(1 29.42)</sub> = 74.97*</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Program Structure</bold></td><td char=".">.20</td><td char=".">F<sub>(1 29.53)</sub> = 137.73*</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Parents and Staff</bold></td><td char=".">.21</td><td char=".">F<sub>(1 29.80)</sub> = 296.39*</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note: * <emph>p</emph> < .001</p> <p>However, apart from the difference in scoring between parents and observers, an interesting point that was also examined was the variance of the scores parents and observers rated for every child care center and kindergarten. Thus, it was investigated whether the parent scores had analogous variation compared to those of the observers. For example, did parents rate 'space and furnishings' lower than 'interaction' items, as observers did?</p> <p>In order to examine whether parent and observer ratings co-vary, the following steps were followed. First, the mean differences between the aggregated mean scores of parents and observers for all items were calculated, and the grand mean of this new set of values was 2.54 (SD ± 1.55) (Figure 1). This new data set comprised 34 new values (one value for each item). Second, one-sample t-test was employed using the grand mean (2.54) as the test value. It was expected that, if parent and observer ratings co-vary, the values of this new data set would not differ significantly from the grand mean. Given that 34 tests were conducted (one for every item), the alpha level was adjusted to a more stringent value of.01. T-tests revealed that only seven items showed significant statistical differences from the test value. Six of these items were included in the subscales of 'Interaction' (3 items) and 'Parents & Staff' (3 items). The last item (promoting acceptance for diversity) was included in the 'Activities' subscale. Therefore, it can be said that parent and observer ratings co-vary analogically. All scores for t-tests are presented in Table 4. Additionally, a visual inspection of Figure 1 confirms the analogous covariance, showing that almost all items differences (32 out of 34) are within the range of just one standard deviation (± 1.55).</p> <p>Table 4. One-sample t-test results for the 34 items.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Subscales and items</td><td>t</td><td><italic>p</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><bold>Space and Furnishings</bold></td></tr><tr><td>01. Indoor space</td><td char=".">2.53</td><td char=".">.017</td></tr><tr><td>02. Furniture for routine care, play & learning</td><td char=".">-1.30</td><td char=".">.201</td></tr><tr><td>03. Furnishings for relaxation & comfort</td><td char=".">-2.51</td><td char=".">.018</td></tr><tr><td>04. Room arrangement for play</td><td char=".">.26</td><td char=".">.794</td></tr><tr><td>06. Child-related display</td><td char=".">1.01</td><td char=".">.319</td></tr><tr><td>07. Space for gross motor play</td><td char=".">-.34</td><td char=".">.730</td></tr><tr><td>08. Gross motor equipment</td><td char=".">1.90</td><td char=".">.066</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Personal Care Routines (</bold><bold><italic>α</italic></bold><bold>=.80)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>09. Greeting/departing</td><td char=".">-.51</td><td char=".">.608</td></tr><tr><td>10. Meals/snacks</td><td char=".">1.37</td><td char=".">.179</td></tr><tr><td>11. Nap/rest</td><td char=".">-.08</td><td char=".">.933</td></tr><tr><td>12. Toileting/diapering</td><td char=".">-.04</td><td char=".">.966</td></tr><tr><td>13. Health practices</td><td char=".">1.23</td><td char=".">.226</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Language-Reasoning (</bold><bold><italic>α</italic></bold><bold>=.89)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>15. Books & pictures</td><td char=".">2.11</td><td char=".">.043</td></tr><tr><td>16. Encouraging children to communicate</td><td char=".">-.61</td><td char=".">.546</td></tr><tr><td>17. Using language to develop reasoning skills</td><td char=".">.28</td><td char=".">.775</td></tr><tr><td>18. Informal use of language</td><td char=".">-2.26</td><td char=".">.031</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Activities (</bold><bold><italic>α</italic></bold><bold>=.85)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>19. Fine motor</td><td char=".">.24</td><td char=".">.806</td></tr><tr><td>20. Art</td><td char=".">-1.02</td><td char=".">.312</td></tr><tr><td>21. Music/movement</td><td char=".">.93</td><td char=".">.357</td></tr><tr><td>22. Blocks</td><td char=".">-1.20</td><td char=".">.239</td></tr><tr><td>24. Dramatic play</td><td char=".">.73</td><td char=".">.471</td></tr><tr><td>28. Promoting acceptance of diversity</td><td char=".">11.59</td><td char=".">.000</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Interaction (</bold><bold><italic>α</italic></bold><bold>=.91)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>29. Supervision of gross motor activities</td><td char=".">-3.66</td><td char=".">.001</td></tr><tr><td>30. General supervision of children</td><td char=".">-2.37</td><td char=".">.024</td></tr><tr><td>31. Discipline</td><td char=".">-.20</td><td char=".">.842</td></tr><tr><td>32. Staff-child interactions</td><td char=".">-3.24</td><td char=".">.003</td></tr><tr><td>33. Interactions among children</td><td char=".">-4.36</td><td char=".">.000</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Program Structure (</bold><bold><italic>α</italic></bold><bold>=.84)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>34. Schedule</td><td char=".">-.76</td><td char=".">.449</td></tr><tr><td>35. Free play</td><td char=".">.46</td><td char=".">.647</td></tr><tr><td>36. Group time</td><td char=".">.10</td><td char=".">.914</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Parents and Staff (</bold><bold><italic>α</italic></bold><bold>=.83)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>38. Provisions for parents</td><td char=".">4.20</td><td char=".">.000</td></tr><tr><td>39. Provisions for personal needs of staff</td><td char=".">8.37</td><td char=".">.000</td></tr><tr><td>40. Provisions for professional needs of staff</td><td char=".">-4.08</td><td char=".">.000</td></tr><tr><td>41. Staff interaction and cooperation</td><td char=".">-1.78</td><td char=".">.090</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Grand mean, standard deviation, and mean differences between the aggregated scores of parents and observers for all items.</p> <hd id="AN0094574182-22">4. Discussion</hd> <p>Similar to other countries such as USA and Germany, findings of the current study revealed that parents in Greece tend to overestimate the quality of ECE provided to their children (Cryer et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref57">11</reflink>]; Torquati et al. 2011). Parents scored all aspects of quality of ECE significantly higher compared with observers' scores for the same preschool units. Such a finding could be interpreted by the fact that parents may evaluate the quality of the preschool units their children attend, based on their expectations and wishful thinking or limited knowledge about what to expect from ECE (Cryer and Burchinal [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref58">10</reflink>]). Perhaps, parents evaluate the quality of ECE more in terms of what they hope to be provided to their children and less in terms of what really happens there. Besides, the demands of modern life prohibit parents from spending efficient time in child care centers or kindergartens. An additional reason is that in Greece parents do not have any chance to choose their children's preschool unit, unless it is in the private sector. This limits their options to identify 'varying quality levels and to develop a means for comparison among choices' (Cryer et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref59">11</reflink>], 274).</p> <p>On the other hand, observers tend to rate the quality of ECE with lower scores because they are well trained in the implementation of the ECERS scales and they were provided with a full range of the indicators of the instrument (ECERS-R) available for their assessments. The scoring system of ECERS-R is very exacting (Harms et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref60">18</reflink>]), something that hinders subjectivity. On the other hand, parents have to report on a 7-point Likert scale based on their knowledge and impressions. Compared to the observers, parents operate from differing bases of knowledge when evaluating various aspects of quality. Additionally, compared to parents, the observers are less emotionally involved.</p> <p>In terms of the first research question, which aspects parents valued as more important, results showed that no variation could be detected as parents rated all items of ECERSPQ extremely high. A possible explanation of this result has to do with the limitations of the range of the scale points available to parents. Parents completed the importance scores on a 3-point Likert scale, which may have resulted in parents choosing 'very important' answer for all items. Another explanation could be that parents assign high importance scores to all aspects of care and education, because it is difficult for them to accurately judge which aspects are more important than others. Similarly, in Cryer and Burchinal study (1997), the mean importance score for all items reached 2.79 (SD ±.20), while in Cryer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref61">11</reflink>]) the mean importance scores for the USA sample was 2.78 (SD ±.21) and for the German sample was 2.59 (SD ±.24). These extremely high mean scores and the respectively low standard deviation scores indicated that parents cannot be regarded as reliable assessors of the importance of several aspects of ECE. Further, most parents are not educated ECE professionals who may be able to distinguish the importance that several aspects of ECE would have in their children's education.</p> <p>The second research question asked whether parents could provide reliable and valid information about the quality of ECE. The significantly higher ratings of parents compared to those of observers can be attributed to several factors. Parents have an incomplete picture about what actually occurs in child care and kindergarten classrooms, and that might drive them to presume that the services provided to their children are of high quality. Another reason is that parents are given few opportunities to acquire precise information about the quality of care and education their children receive. Parents have limited opportunities to observe specific aspects of the daily classroom life (e.g. 'activities,' 'interaction'). The lack of cooperation with teachers and teachers' relative unwillingness to encourage parent involvement in their classrooms might also be a factor that inhibits parents from obtaining accurate information (Hoover-Dempsey, Walker, and Sandler [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref62">21</reflink>]; Kreider [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref63">25</reflink>]; US Department of Education 1997). Similar findings and interpretations are also found in the studies of Cryer and Burchinal ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref64">10</reflink>]), and Cryer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref65">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Since the majority of parent scores were between 5 and 7, it can be assumed that scores of 4 or 5 reflect the lowest level of quality, while the score of 7 shows the highest level of quality according to parents' opinions. Indeed, further comparison of the results revealed that despite the fact that parents may overestimate all aspects of ECE quality, their ratings were quite constant with those of the trained observers. Contradictory results were reported by Cryer and Burchinal ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref66">10</reflink>]) and Cryer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref67">11</reflink>]), who found inconsistent covariance between parents' and observers' quality ratings. Perhaps, certain participants' characteristics (e.g. high level of education), parents' interaction during arrival and departure time, or the fact that all parents, of each school, live in the same area (since they do not select the school their children attend) could influence these results. Moreover, it has to be pointed out that the statistical analysis of the current study was different from the analyses used in the other studies. In any case, further examination is needed for the utility of parent quality assessments in future studies.</p> <p>The overall picture for the quality of ECE in Greece based on the observers' ratings was not encouraging. The ratings given for all subscales of ECERS-R were relatively low. One of the lowest scores was attributed to the 'Space and Furnishing' subscale, something that is in accordance with previous studies in Greece (Papaprokopiou 1989; Petrogiannis [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref68">31</reflink>]; AMDC 2003). The issue of infrastructure (e.g. buildings, indoor and outdoor space) in Greece is one of the biggest problems in ECE.</p> <p>The highest score was observed in the 'Interaction' subscale something that was also consistent with other studies in Greece (e.g. Lambidi and Polemi-Todoulou 1992). In an effort to compensate for the lack of quality in infrastructure, equipment and other aspects of ECE, teachers in Greece might be investing more in the quality of interactions with children (Gregoriadis and Tsigilis [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref69">16</reflink>]). The relatively satisfactory results for the 'interaction' subscale can also be attributed to the teachers' high level of education. A prerequisite for teacher employment is to hold a bachelor degree in education. Many other studies stressed the merit of having a high level of education for teachers working in ECE (Burchinal et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref70">6</reflink>]; Croninger et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref71">9</reflink>]; Early et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref72">14</reflink>]; Boyd et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref73">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>The provision of ECE quality in Greece has to be improved further if it is to reach the acceptable standards of other developed countries. In the current study, the highest rating from the observers for a subscale was 4.19 and the overall score for ECERS-R was 3.12. While in North Carolina, where the scales were developed, the cut-off score for a child care center or kindergarten to get a licence is 5 (Cryer 2011, personal communication). A variety of factors can contribute to the improvement of ECE quality in Greece. A more active involvement of parents in their children's early education and care setting might add toward this direction. Additionally, the systematic implementation of official evaluation procedures in Greek ECE, something that has not happened until today, is an important step for the enhancement of ECE quality at a national level.</p> <p>Future studies need to be conducted to highlight the contribution of the evaluation of classroom quality to the improvement of the quality of ECE services. The implementation of the environmental rating scales (ECERS-R, ITERS-R) in Greek settings could play a crucial role in this regard. Other studies should also examine more thoroughly the characteristics of parental involvement in Greek ECE, in order to obtain a clearer view of their potential role as evaluators.</p> <hd id="AN0094574182-23">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors extend their appreciation to Dr Debby Cryer, Dr Wolfgang Tietze and Dr Eliana Bhering for their thoughtful comments and advice during the ECERS meeting 2011 at the University of Oxford, UK.</p> <ref id="AN0094574182-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref40" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> AMDC-Athens Municipality Developmental Corporation 2003. Study for the condition of Athens day nurseries: Analysis and conclusions. Technical report, Athens: Municipality of Athens.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref7" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barnard, W. M. 2004. Parent involvement in elementay school and educational attainment. Children and Youth Services Review, 26: 39–62. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2003.11.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref42" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barros, S., and C. Aguiar. 2010. Assessing the quality of Portuguese child care programs for toddlers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25: 527–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.12.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref43" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Boyd, D., D. Goldhaber, H. Lankford, and J. Wyckoff. 2007. The effect of certification and preparation on teacher quality. Future of Children, 17: 45–68. doi: 10.1353/foc.2007.0000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref19" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Browne Miller, A. 1990. The day care dilemma: Critical concerns for American families, New York: Plenum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref45" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Burchinal, M. R., J. Roberts, R. Riggins, S. Zeisel, E. Neebe, and D. Bryant. 2000. Relating quality of center-based child care to early cognitive and language development longitudinally. Child Development, 71: 339–57. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00149</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref31" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Castro, D. C., D. M. Bryant, E. S. Peisner-Feinberg, and M. L. Skinner. 2004. Parent involvement in Head Start programs: The role of parent, teacher and classroom characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19: 413–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.07.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref3" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cooper, C. E. 2010. Family poverty, school-based parental involvement, and policy-focused protective factors in kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25: 480–92. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.03.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref71" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Croninger, R. G., J. K. Rice, A. Rathbun, and M. Nishio. 2007. Teacher qualifications and early learning: Effects of certification, degree, and experience on first-grade student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 26: 312–24. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.05.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cryer, D., and M. Burchinal. 1997. Parents as child care consumers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12: 35–58. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(97)90042-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cryer, D., W. Tietze, and H. Wessels. 2002. Parents' perceptions of their children's child care: A cross-national comparison. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17: 259–77. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(02)00148-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dahlberg, G., P. Moss, and A. Pence. 1999. Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Postmodern perspectives, London: RoutledgeFalmer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> David, M. E. 1993. Educational provision for our youngest children—European perspectives, London: Paul Chapman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Early, D. M., D. M. Bryan, R. C. Pianta, R. M. Clifford, M. R. Burchinal, S. Ritchie, C. Howes, and O. Barbarin. 2006. Are teachers' education, major, and credentials related to classroom quality and children's academic gains in pre-kindergarten?. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21: 174–95. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.04.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fantuzzo, J., E. Tighe, and S. Childs. 2000. Family involvement questionnaire: A multivariate assessment of family participation in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92: 367–76. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.367</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gregoriadis, A., and N. Tsigilis. 2008. Applicability of the Student Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) in the Greek education setting. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26: 108–20. doi: 10.1177/0734282907306894</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harms, T., and R. M. Clifford. 1980. Early childhood environment rating scale, New York: Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harms, T., R. M. Clifford, and D. Cryer. 2005. Early childhood environment rating scale, revised edition (ECERS-R), New York, NY: Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harms, T., and D. Cryer. 2006. Video observations for the ECERS-R (DVD), New York: Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill, N. E., and L. C. Taylor. 2004. Parental school involvement and children's academic achievement: Pragmatics and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13: 161–64. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00298.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., J. M.T. Walker, and H. M. Sandler. 2005. Parents' motivations for involvement in their children's education. In School–family partnerships for children's success, ed. E. N. Patrikakou, R. P. Weissberg, S. Redding and H. J. Walberg, 40–56. New York: Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katz, L. G. 1995. Talks with teachers of young children, Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katz, L. G. 1999. Multiple perspectives on the quality of programs for young children, Springfield, MA: ERIC Document Reproduction Service.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knoche, L., C. A. Peterson, Pope C. Edwards, and H.-J. Jeon. 2006. Child care for children with and without disabilities: The provider, observer, and parent perspectives. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21: 93–109. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.01.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kreider, H. 2002. Getting parents "ready" for kindergarten: The role of early childhood education, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lambidi, A., and M. Polemi-Τodoulou. 1992. Το παιδί της προσχολικής ηλικίας: Θεσμοί της πολιτείας, χώρος και διαδικασίας κοινωνικής ένταξης στη σύγχρονη ελληνική πραγματικότητα [The preschool child: state institutions, settings and procedures of adjustment in the modern Greek reality]. Ψυχολογικά Θέματα 5: 325–47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McWayne, C. M., R. Campos, and M. Owsianik. 2008. A multidimensional, multilevel examination of mother and father involvement among culturally diverse Head Start families. Journal of School Psychology, 46: 551–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noble, K. 2007. Parent choice of early childhood education and care Services. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 32: 51–7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papaprokopiou, N. 1989. Κοινωνικοί εταίροι και ο ρόλος τους στην προσχολική εκπαίδευση [Social partners and their role in preschool education]. Σύγχρονη Εκπαίδευση 50: 66–71.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papaprokopiou, N. 2003. Δημόσιοι παιδικοί σταθμοί: Χθες, σήμερα, αύριο [Public day care centres: Yesterday, today, tomorrow]. In Προς μία συνεργατική και συμμετοχική επιμόρϕωση στην προσχολική εκπαίδευση [Towards a cooperative and participant training in preschool education], EADAP Αθήνα: Γκούτενμπεργκ.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petrogiannis, K. 2010. Early childhood education and care in Greece: Some facts on research and policy. International Journal of Early Childhood, 42: 131–9. doi: 10.1007/s13158-010-0016-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poulou, M., and E. Matsagouras. 2007. School–family relations: Greek parents' perceptions of parental involvement. International Journal about Parents in Education, 1: 83–9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell, D. R. 1994. Parents, pluralism, and the NAEYC statement on developmentally appropriate practice. In Diversity and developmentally appropriate practices: Challenges for early childhood education, ed. B. L. Mallory and R. S. New, 166–82. New York: Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell, D. R. 2001. Visions and realities of achieving partnership: Parent–school relationships at the turn of the century. In Children in play, story and school, ed. A. Göncü and E. Klein, 333–57. New York: Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheridan, S. 2007. Dimensions of pedagogical quality in preschool. The International Journal of Early Years Education, 15: 198–217. doi: 10.1080/09669760701289151</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shimoni, R. 1992. Parent involvement in early childhood education and day care. Sociological Studies of Child Development, 5: 73–95.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tietze, W., D. Cryer, J. Bairrão, J. Palacios, and G. Wetzel. 1996. Comparisons of observed process quality in early child care and education programs in five countries. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11: 447–75. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(96)90017-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torquati, J.C., H.H. Raikes, C.A. Huddleston-Casas, J.A. Bovaird, and B.A. Harris. 2011. Family income, parent education, and perceived constraints as predictors of observed program quality and parent rated program quality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26: 453–464.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement 1997. Fathers' involvement in their children's schools, Washington, DC: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waanders, C., J. L. Mendez, and J. T. Downer. 2007. Parent characteristics, economic stress and neighborhood context as predictors of parent involvement in preschool children's education. Journal of School Psychology, 45: 619–36. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2007.07.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker, J. 1991. Public policy and the supply of child care services. In The economics of child care, ed. D. M. Blau, 51–77. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zellman, G. L., and M. Perlman. 2006. Parent involvement in child care settings: Conceptual and measurement issues. Early Child Development and Care, 176: 521–38. doi: 10.1080/03004430500147490</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Vasilis Grammatikopoulos; Athanasios Gregoriadis; Nikolaos Tsigilis and Evridiki Zachopoulou</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib414" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib251" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib285" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref72"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1029342
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Parental Conceptions of Quality in Greek Early Childhood Education
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Grammatikopoulos%2C+Vasilis%22">Grammatikopoulos, Vasilis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gregoriadis%2C+Athanasios%22">Gregoriadis, Athanasios</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tsigilis%2C+Nikolaos%22">Tsigilis, Nikolaos</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zachopoulou%2C+Evridiki%22">Zachopoulou, Evridiki</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Early+Childhood+Education+Research+Journal%22"><i>European Early Childhood Education Research Journal</i></searchLink>. 2014 22(1):134-148.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Attitudes%22">Parent Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Quality%22">Educational Quality</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Participant+Observation%22">Participant Observation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interrater+Reliability%22">Interrater Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Evaluation%22">Preschool Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Space+Utilization%22">Space Utilization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Equipment%22">Educational Equipment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Care%22">Child Care</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Activities%22">Learning Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Staff+Utilization%22">Staff Utilization</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Greece%22">Greece</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/1350293X.2012.738868
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1350-293X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The aim of the current study was to examine the assessments of parents of the quality of early childhood education (ECE) in Greece. Five hundred and fifty three preschoolers' parents participated in this study providing quality and importance ratings based on the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale Parent Questionnaire (ECERSPQ) for the aspects of ECE. The same aspects were evaluated with Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R) by trained observers. Results suggested that parent ratings overestimate the quality of ECE provided to their children, compared to those of trained observers. Yet, both parent and observer ratings appeared to have a constant variance. Moreover, observers' results indicated that the provision of ECE quality in Greece has to be improved in order to reach acceptable standards as in other developed countries.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 42
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1029342
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1029342
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/1350293X.2012.738868
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 134
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Quality
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Participant Observation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interrater Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Space Utilization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Equipment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Care
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Staff Utilization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Greece
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Parental Conceptions of Quality in Greek Early Childhood Education
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Grammatikopoulos, Vasilis
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gregoriadis, Athanasios
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tsigilis, Nikolaos
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zachopoulou, Evridiki
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2014
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1350-293X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 22
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Early Childhood Education Research Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1