… And this helps me how?: Family child care providers discuss training

Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14, No. 3, 285–312 (1999) ISSN: 0885-2006

© 1999 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights in any form reserved

. . . And This Helps Me How?: Family Child Care Providers Discuss Training Andrew R. Taylor Centre for Research and Education in Human Services

Lee Dunster Family Day Care Training Project

June Pollard Ryerson Polytechnic University

In this paper, we describe a national Canadian study designed to (1) produce a description of current Canadian practice with respect to various forms of training for family child care providers, and (2) deepen our understanding of what caregivers, parents, trainers, and other stakeholders see as the key training issues. This participatory study involved interviews with 298 caregivers and other stakeholders and a national survey of organizations that offer training. Results explore “front-line” perspectives on availability, accessibility, motivation, content, and recognition. We suggest that training programs be made more available and accessible, but also more relevant to the work and more sensitive to the ideas and needs of participants. We suggest that standardized core content be embedded in an adult learning process that focuses on real-world caregiving issues. The development of effective and accessible training is one of the key challenges facing the discipline, in part because success will require stakeholders to confront more directly their disagreements about what constitutes quality in family day care.

What family child care is, what it should be, and what role it has to play in North American child care systems are controversial topics. The development of effective and accessible training is one of the key challenges facing the discipline, in part because success will require stakeholders to confront more directly their disagreements about what constitutes quality in family child care. Direct all correspondence to: Dr. A. R. Taylor, Centre for Research and Education in Human Services, 26 College Street, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada N2H 4Z9; Phone: (519) 741-1318; Fax: (519) 741-8262; E-mail: [email protected].

285

286

Taylor, Dunster, and Pollard

Family child care providers constitute the largest single group in Canada’s child care delivery system (Beach, Bertrand, & Cleveland, 1997; Taylor, 1998). All provinces and territories have some form of regulated family child care. In some jurisdictions, provincial governments license family child care agencies. These agencies contract with caregivers, provide varying degrees of support and supervision, and help to link families to caregivers. Some of these agencies are private, while others are public, run by (for example) municipalities. In other parts of the country, provincial and territorial governments license and monitor caregivers directly. Although many American states have mandatory licensing or registration systems, it is legal throughout Canada to provide care outside the regulated system, as long as the number of children in care does not exceed limits set provincially. According to a recent survey, about 95% of Canadian family child care providers are unregulated (Beach et al., 1997). Over 98% of Canadian caregivers are women, and most (87% in the regulated sector and 81% in the unregulated sector) are also caring for children of their own (Goss Gilroy Inc., 1998). Their working day is long (typically 47 hours of caregiving and 9 hours of prep time a week), and an average annual net income is about $1,600 CDN ($1,145 US) per child in care. Working alone in their homes, caregivers sometimes find it difficult to connect with their peers. Across Canada, both regulated and unregulated caregivers are classified as self-employed. This combination of conditions leaves family child care providers in a difficult position. The demand for their services from parents is very high, partly because they offer child care that is flexible, personalized, low-cost, independent, and negotiated directly with parents. These same qualities, however, make family child care difficult to regulate. As a result, caregivers and their advocates are often left out of the loop when it comes to policy development, and outsiders take turns ignoring, vilifying, and trying to fix family child care. In North America, discussions about raising the status of family child care workers often focus on the need for better training programs. At present, family child care providers in both Canada and the United States have limited access to training and learning opportunities (Kontos, Machida, Griffin, & Read, 1992; Taylor, 1998), and there are questions about the effectiveness and accessibility of the events that do take place. The study described here engaged caregivers and other key stakeholders from across Canada in discussions about the current status of family child care training, and their ideas for improving it.

DEFINITIONS OF QUALITY Many of the most contentious debates about family child care involve opposing sets of assumptions about the nature of the work, or different paradigms concerning what constitutes quality (Doherty, 1997). As is often the case in such situations, many of us see something of value in both perspectives and feel caught in the middle. But because the paradigms suggest very different, sometimes contradictory approaches to improving quality, we feel paralyzed. Family child care providers, and those who work with them, appear to be “suspended in

Training and Family Child Care

287

judgment between the public world with its ideology of professional caregiving and the private world with its ideology of motherhood” (Pollard & Fischer, 1992, p. 101). Researchers have generally leant towards the professional conceptualization of quality (Moss, 1994). Doherty (1997) points out that the “expert” perspective on quality is driven by a concern for children in general, rather than concern for a specific individual child. As a result, those who hold this perspective tend to emphasize concrete, objective, quantifiable components of quality that are believed to be associated with positive outcomes for children. These typically include care provider/child ratios, group size, and care provider education. This conception of quality was once used to suggest that family child care was inherently less professional and consequently lower in quality than center-based care. Johnson and Dineen (1981), for example, described home day care providers as doing the work only because they felt unable to do anything else. A number of correlational studies in the 1980s suggested a relationship between amount and type of caregiver education and quality of care (Eheart, 1987; Fosburg, 1981; Howes, 1983). As a result, family child care providers with little formal education were often judged harshly (Boisvert, 1997). More recently, proponents of a professional or expert model of quality in family child care have focused on finding ways to monitor or improve the quality of care provided. Their position has been that the best way to enhance the quality of family child care is to encourage care providers to behave in more professional ways (Pence & Goelman, 1987). Kontos et al. (1992) advocate this approach and suggest family child care aspire to the status of a “true profession.” Traditionally, a profession has been defined as a group with a unique knowledge base, standards for entry into the profession, and required training that confers authority. It is often said that caregivers and parents do not define quality in these “professional” terms, but instead judge family child care with respect to how closely it resembles a family setting. Some have suggested that caregivers and parents judge quality in terms of the “ideology of motherhood,” or the belief that experience as a parent automatically qualifies a person for a career in family child care (Pollard & Fischer, 1992). Researchers and academic experts like Ferri (1992) identify the ideology of motherhood as a major barrier to the enhancement of quality care: “The tendency for childminders to equate their caring role with mothering meant that their own parenting practice became the dominant influence on their approach to minded children . . . until the contradictions in this view are recognized, and the provision of day care dissociated from parenting, it is difficult to see how training can create the perspectives needed for a new approach to childcare” (p. 184). Others have suggested that the “ideology of motherhood” argument is an unfair caricature of how parents and caregivers understand quality (Kyle, 1997a; Pollard & Fischer, 1992; Powell & Bollin, 1992). Emlen and Prescott (1992) point out that parents seek child care providers who share their own understandings of quality, and that this sense of common vision is a key component in any successful child care arrangement. They advise respect for the wisdom of parent choices and suggest that “when mothers want a homelike atmosphere, or when

288

Taylor, Dunster, and Pollard

caregivers say that they are like mothers or that the experience of mothering is valuable, there may be more precise meanings behind this” (p. 275). Kyle (1997a) and Pollard and Fischer (1992) both suggest that caregivers’ conceptualizations of quality are a complex and seemingly self-contradictory combination of both professional/expert elements and notions connected to motherhood, caring, and personal relationships. Kyle (1997a) suggests that we need to stop setting up these two conceptions of quality (or, as she puts it, the “public” and “private” aspects of the caregiving role) as polar opposites. Traditional ways of thinking about “helping professions” often draw a sharp distinction between the role of the paid service provider and the unpaid family or community member. One is seen as providing a needed service, such as teaching or counseling, in exchange for money and professional satisfaction. The other is seen as helping out of love, or because they care about an individual in a much more personal way (McKnight, 1977). If a caregiver becomes more business-like in her management of money or undergoes a college training program, it is often assumed (by researchers, parents, and even caregivers themselves) that she will become less personal and caring in the process. While the field sees the benefits of becoming “more professional”—improved credibility and better working conditions, for example— caregivers and parents worry that the family-like essence of family child care will become diluted in the process. Understanding how caregivers bring meaning to their work challenges us to re-think our assumptions about the nature of paid work and caregiving. Kyle (1997a) suggests that the public and private aspects of the caregiving role are not in opposition, but are in fact interconnected and interdependent. Moss (1994) suggests that more balanced and inclusive definitions of quality will emerge only when there is “the inclusion and empowerment of as wide a range of stakeholders as possible in defining and evaluating quality” (p. 5). Moss advises that “the process of defining quality involves stakeholder groups, and is not only a means to an end but is important in its own right” (p. 1). As Moss points out, information on how caregivers themselves see the issue is still scarce. Stories that connect this theoretical struggle to the real life work of caregiving and suggest practical steps are just beginning to emerge (Dombro & Modigliani, 1995; Kyle, 1997a).

THE STRUGGLE TO DEVELOP EFFECTIVE TRAINING Caregiver training plays a central role in discussions about enhancing quality in family child care. Those who seek to “professionalize” family child care have a strong interest in a system of substantial, standardized training that leads to some form of certification or accreditation. Those who take a more grassroots approach, and hope to help caregivers develop a unique professional identity that incorporates their “private,” nurturant roles, see training as an important step in the process of individual and collective caregiver empowerment. While the two groups may disagree around the functions that training should play, there seems to be agreement on at least one point: Taking action to improve caregiver training is a key step in the continuing development of the field. In the process, it may also

Training and Family Child Care

289

provoke constructive discussion on larger issues within the family child care community. To date, at least three major stumbling blocks have hindered the development of caregiver training programs. First, research on the benefits of training is infrequent, and inconclusive in many areas. Galinsky, Howes, and Kontos (1994); Kontos et al. (1992); and Pence and Goelman (1991) have found correlations between past training and current quality, and there is some evidence that training actually contributes to quality (DeBord & Sawyers, 1996; Dombro & Modigliani, 1995; Ferri, 1992). However, Kontos, Howes, and Galinsky (1996) point out that little is known about the potential long-term implications of training, including changes in children’s behavior or development, retention, and relations with parents. Ferri (1992) suggests that the influence of training may be small in some situations because the lessons learned are overpowered by habits care providers learn while parenting their own children. Furthermore, the instruments used to measure quality in family child care (see Clifford, Harms, Pepper, & Stuart, 1992; Modigliani, 1991, for reviews) tend to work from “professional” definitions of quality. The Family Day Care Rating Scale (Harms & Clifford, 1989), for example, includes subscales focusing on the physical environment, basic care, language and reading, learning activities, and social development. Evaluation studies on the effects of actual training programs have been rare, have often used small samples, and have focused more on introductory training than ongoing professional development (Kontos et al., 1996; Pence & Goelman, 1991). Although the research on family child care training to date has been fruitful in many ways, it is not yet comprehensive enough to guide the development of new initiatives in a substantial way. Particularly frustrating are the lack of information on the perspectives of caregivers themselves, and the lack of data on the relationship between training and issues such as caregiver support and empowerment. The second major stumbling block faced by training programs is poor attendance. Kontos et al. (1992) cite studies showing that about 40% of American caregivers have no interest in training. Of the 60% who do, half are interested primarily in low-key, short-term training and informal support. On the basis of findings like these, some trainers and researchers conclude that caregivers are not motivated to seek training. However, Kontos points out that the level of interest in an Alberta sample was much higher. About 86% were willing to participate if some key barriers (financial support and a schedule that fit around their work hours) were addressed. Kontos and others have argued that it is at best premature to blame caregivers for the limited success of training initiatives. There are a number of systemic barriers that a motivated caregiver must overcome in order to access training opportunities. Long hours and low pay for this kind of work make it difficult for people to find the time, money, or transportation to attend training or learning opportunities (Kyle, 1997b). The interventions developed to date have not always been sensitive to these barriers (Cohen & Modigliani, 1990). Caregivers who do come to training and learning events sometimes express dissatisfaction with the training programs that are offered, and this is a third major

290

Taylor, Dunster, and Pollard

stumbling block. Caregivers claim that training opportunities are not relevant to their work. Kyle (1997b) found that caregivers who do make it out to current training events often leave feeling that the training has not met their needs, and that professionals who design or offer the training are condescending, or working from a different mindset about the nature of child care. Underlying all three of these stumbling blocks are unresolved paradigmatic tensions about what constitutes quality in family child care. The research literature leaves one with the impression that the development and evaluation of training initiatives has been grounded firmly in traditional notions of professionalism. Boisvert (1997) suggests that training “should be seen not so much as a means to change the behavior of caregivers or to prescribe professional standards for the industry but as a vehicle to enable caregivers to deal with the challenges of their occupation and to respond to changing market demand for services” (p. 11). Kyle’s work suggests caregivers are looking for this kind of training. To date, however, research has rarely considered the efficacy of training with respect to issues of empowerment.

SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Although several successful training programs exist, many others are poorly attended, at least in part because their relevance or value has not been made clear. Very few training programs in Canada have found ways to reach out to unregulated caregivers. Although relevant research is being conducted, few clear and conclusive strategies for overcoming these stumbling blocks have emerged. Discussions about issues like these tie larger conceptual controversies around definitions of quality to concrete implications for practice. As a result they often bring areas of consensus and tension into sharp relief. Moss (1994) says that dialogue about different conceptions of quality child care has not yet really begun in North America. To be sure, the discussion that has taken place has rarely included caregivers directly. We expect most leaders in the field (whether they are researchers, care providers, or others) would agree that this situation has to change. According to Lord and Church (1999), meaningful partnerships evolve when people working from different perspectives are able to identify the things they agree on while acknowledging and dealing with areas where differences persist. The purposes of the study reported here were to produce a description of current Canadian practice with respect to various forms of training for family child care providers, and to deepen our understanding of what caregivers, parents, trainers, and other key stakeholders see as the key issues confronting those with an interest in promoting relevant, useful, and accessible training for family child care providers. During the process of conducting this study, we were able to talk with a wide variety of caregivers, parents, trainers, and others about their experiences with training for family child care. We also heard many ideas about how things could or should change in the future. In preparing this paper, we have tried to describe these experiences and perspectives as accurately and vividly as

Training and Family Child Care

291

possible, placing special emphasis on areas where the ideas of caregivers complement or enhance what we know from the existing literature.

METHOD AND APPROACH A Caregiver Driven Approach Part of what makes this study unique is that caregivers and caregiver advocates controlled its conceptualization, design, implementation, and interpretation. The National Family Day Care Training Project1 began in the fall of 1996 as a collaboration between two national organizations, six provincial family child care associations, and a Canadian university. From the project’s inception, the sponsoring organizations were committed to ensuring that the project was truly national in scope and involved caregivers directly in every possible way. At the heart of the project was a national advisory network. Four of the nine members were active home child care providers, and two more were former care providers. In addition, both the project director and support staff were former caregivers, as were two of the interviewers who conducted focus groups. Once all data were collected, the advisory network hosted a national symposium. Half of the approximately 60 participants were caregivers, and the group also included researchers, government policy makers, advocates, and resource people. This meeting provided a forum for intensive and highly participatory examination of the data, and discussion of the findings. Many of the conclusions presented in this paper were first discussed at this symposium. It also provided an opportunity to link research with action, by allowing participants to decide how they would act, individually and collectively, on what they had learned through the study and the symposium. Methods During this study, research team members spoke directly with 298 Canadians involved in family child care. Written information from 258 organizations that offer family child care training was also received. Data collection for this study included five main strategies: Thirty-seven key informants were interviewed individually by phone. This sample included researchers, representatives of several levels of government, community college instructors, family resource center staff, and family child care associations. It also included ECE trainers, and representatives from other child care associations. Interviewers took notes on each interview, and interviewees were given the opportunity to review and clarify the notes. These interviews were intended to provide an overview of the key issues in caregiver training, and to point us towards examples of innovation or promising ideas for the future. Focus groups were conducted with three separate stakeholder groups. Stewart and Shamdasani (1998) define focus groups as group discussions of a pre-selected “focus” topic involving 8 to 12 people. A trained researcher facili-

292

Taylor, Dunster, and Pollard

tates the group and ensures that the conversation stays on-topic. Effective use of focus groups requires highly skilled researcher/facilitators and careful recording of the discussion (Taylor & Botschner, 1998). As a research technique, focus groups are an efficient way to gather in-depth and exploratory qualitative information. They are highly flexible, allowing researchers to explore unexpected insights. They provide an opportunity for participants to build on one another’s ideas. These strengths made focus groups an ideal match with our study’s central purpose, which was to deepen our understanding of how various stakeholders frame key issues. The focus groups conducted for this study were facilitated by trained members of the research team, using a semi-structured set of questions as a guide. In other words, facilitators tried to cover several pre-selected issues, but were free to adapt question wording and ordering to facilitate discussion. Questions focused on the past training experiences of participants, on training barriers and facilitators, and on ideas for the future. The format was pilot tested twice and revised. A note-taker was present at each session, and discussions were also audio-recorded. A series of 17 caregiver focus groups were conducted, involving 145 caregivers from across the country. Locations and participants were chosen purposefully to reflect the full range of Canadian caregivers as accurately as possible. Regulated caregivers (those who are licensed directly by the provincial government, and those who work through an agency that is government licensed) and unregulated caregivers (those who provide service without any form of licensing) participated. However, unregulated caregivers were under-represented in the sample, partly because of the difficulty involved in making contact. Forty-four percent of participants were either directly licensed or agency affiliated, 34% were unregulated, and 22% were unknown. Some focus groups included a number of caregivers facing similar issues (all were inexperienced, or from rural areas, or members of a single ethno-racial or cultural minority group, for example). Other focus groups were more heterogeneous. Focus groups took place in every province and Yukon Territory. Approximately 21% of participating caregivers identified themselves as Francophone (members of the French-Canadian cultural and linguistic community), and 7% identified themselves as belonging to other ethnoracial or cultural minority groups. A series of nine focus groups for trainers and agency staff were conducted across the country. Eighty-eight individuals who offer training programs, work as home visitors, manage a family child care agency, or perform other support roles participated. The format and questions for these sessions were similar to those used for the caregiver focus groups. However, discussion also focused on participants’ experiences as formal or informal trainers. Twenty-eight parents who use family child care also participated in four focus group discussions. These sessions were similar in format and content to the caregiver sessions but focused on the parents’ feelings about family child care and their perspectives on the role of training. These sessions were exploratory in nature and were designed to provide some points of comparison for analysis of

Training and Family Child Care

293

caregiver data. As a result, they were fewer in number and not designed to be representative of the entire country. Parents from Ontario and the Maritimes, involved in both regulated and unregulated care, participated. Organizations that offer training to family child care providers participated in a national survey. This survey included both quantitative and qualitative questions about the format, content, structure, and history of all training programs offered by respondents. Its primary purpose was to gather basic information about current Canadian training practice. It included special sections on formal certificate programs, organized non-certificate programs such as workshops, and informal training techniques such as home visits or mentoring. The survey was pilot tested with members of the national advisory network and other trainers. The survey was mailed to Canadian colleges, provider associations, family child care agencies, and other organizations known to offer training. It was also mailed to organizations assumed to be in a position to offer training, whether they were known to do so or not. The final mail-out list of over 1110 organizations from across the country was developed with input from advisory network members. A total of 258 surveys were returned. Since we do not know what percentage of the original sample actually were eligible to complete the survey (i.e., were offering some kind of training or learning opportunity) it is difficult to calculate a meaningful response rate. Focus group, key informant, and survey data were gathered simultaneously during the summer and fall of 1997. Data Analysis Analysis of qualitative data began with intensive review of facilitator notes and audio recordings of focus groups. Content coding schemes were developed for each interview question in an inductive way, using an approach similar to what Strauss (1987) refers to as “open coding.” A similar process was used to code qualitative survey responses. This process generated detailed descriptive summaries of the data. A careful audit trail was maintained, in order to ensure coding categories remained clear and consistent with what people actually said, and to allow breakdowns of qualitative data by region and various subgroups of respondents. A team approach to coding was employed. Coders worked collaboratively and inductively to refine the coding scheme throughout the analytical process. In order to maintain confidentiality and simplify data gathering, comments made within each focus group were not linked to specific individuals. One of the limitations of this approach was that frequency counts for each content coding category reflect only the number of focus groups within which each code was mentioned, and not the actual number of individuals who mentioned a particular idea. Quotations used in this paper are chosen to be illustrative rather than representative. Quantitative survey data were summarized using simple descriptive statistics.

294

Taylor, Dunster, and Pollard

Thematic analyses began by inviting research team and advisory network members to review content coding summaries and survey data. Feedback from this process, combined with selective review of audiotapes from focus groups, was used to develop, refine, and confirm overarching themes within the data. On the basis of these discussions, a preliminary “synthesis” report was prepared (Dunster & Taylor, 1998) and shared with study participants. At the national symposium the findings presented in the preliminary report were reviewed by caregivers from across the country, government representatives, researchers, and advocates. This intensive and highly participatory discussion of the study’s findings constituted an important credibility check. Since many of those who attended the symposium had also participated in the study in some other way, the meeting was also a form of “member check” (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) or verification that the analysis had captured participants’ perspectives accurately. Although our thematic analyses considered issues about which study participants disagreed as well as areas of consensus, we were surprised by the degree of agreement we found. Across stakeholder groups and geographic regions, there was a great deal of consistency in participants’ comments on the content training should cover, the barriers to effective training, and other key topics. The reasons for this consistency are difficult to identify. It may be that the under-representation of unlicensed caregivers (and in particular, isolated unlicensed caregivers) left us with a narrower range of opinions on key issues. Since this study is part of a larger research and development project designed to build support for a national training resource, it may be that participants were sensitized to the need to overcome longstanding controversies and identify areas of agreement that could lead to progress. The highly participatory approach used to identify themes in the data may also have helped participants to resolve points of conflict.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Barriers to Training Training programs for caregivers have often faltered due to low attendance. Recent research has challenged the assumption that low turnout is a result of lack of interest on the part of caregivers. In our conversations with caregivers, they identified a number of barriers that make it difficult for even the most highly motivated caregiver to access training (see Table 1). In the sections that follow, we discuss barriers related to availability, accessibility, and recognition. Availability. Many caregivers told us they had not participated in training because, as far as they knew, it simply was not available. While more than 115 Canadian community colleges and universities offer Early Childhood Education programs, this study identified only 12 community colleges that reported offering training specific to family child care. With some notable exceptions, most of the non-academic organizations that offer training are licensed by or under contract with provincial and territorial governments, and receive government funding to provide regulated family child care services. These organizations typically offer

Training and Family Child Care Table 1.

295

Barriers to Accessing Training Mentioned Most Frequently by Various Stakeholders

Caregivers

Trainers

● Time and competing responsibilities ● Financial costs and benefits ● Training does not meet our needs ● Recognition

● Time and competing responsibilities ● Training does not meet caregiver needs ● Low motivation/low turnout for training ● Isolation

● Public attitudes

● Financial costs and benefits ● Policy barriers (mandatory training rules, prohibition of caregivers getting together in one home)

● Isolation

Key Informants ● Cost ● Caregivers’ attitudes towards their work ● Isolation ● Time and competing responsibilities ● Public attitudes

● Not aware of available training ● Training not available

training only to the caregivers they supervise. Given that the majority of Canadian caregivers work outside the regulated sector, it is hardly remarkable that many caregivers experience difficulty in accessing training and other professional development opportunities. There are exceptions to this trend in the provinces of Ontario and, to a lesser extent, British Columbia. The government of Ontario introduced funding specifically targeted to the provision of support and training to the unregulated family child care sector more than 18 years ago. Our findings indicated a greater availability of training opportunities for caregivers in the unregulated sector in that province through resource centers and other organizations. The government of British Columbia has, through the establishment of Child Care Resource and Referral programs (Child Care Support Programs), provided increased access to training for those caregivers in the unregulated sector who are willing to participate in a registration process. Our survey of organizations offering training/learning opportunities for caregivers received 258 responses. Outside of Ontario and British Columbia only five organizations reported providing family child care training that was promoted and available to all caregivers. Two of those were located in Nova Scotia, two in Newfoundland, and one in Saskatchewan. Ontario and British Columbia were also the two provinces most likely to have access to learning opportunities through community colleges. Four colleges in each of those provinces reported family child care programs. In Quebec, two Cegeps2 and one university reported family child care programs, as did one community college in the Northwest Territories.

296

Taylor, Dunster, and Pollard

Caregivers in the unregulated sector frequently expressed the need for more training/learning opportunities. Caregivers told us that there is little available for caregivers new to the field and even less for the caregiver who wants more in-depth training around specific areas or refresher courses around basics. Caregivers also expressed a desire for training that is delivered through non-traditional models. Many suggested distance education courses, yet we were able to identify only four distance education courses in family child care training in Canada (three originating in Ontario, one in British Columbia). Other models that caregivers felt had promise included use of new technologies (e.g., training on the Internet), training packages that could be used in small groups or through independent learning, and mentoring systems. Caregiver comments and our survey of training institutions both suggested that these options are not currently available throughout most of the country. Accessibility. Even where training/learning opportunities are made available, trainers are often disappointed by low turnout rates. Caregivers, trainers, program staff, and key informants all identified accessibility issues as the greatest barrier to caregiver participation in training programs and other professional development opportunities. Program staff, particularly those in smaller or rural communities, spoke of the difficulty in planning training opportunities for smaller numbers of caregivers living a greater distance from one another. However, even staff from larger urban communities described their struggles to find locations that were accessible to those without convenient transportation, as this comment illustrates: A large number of our caregivers either don’t drive or don’t have access to a car. If we can’t find a location very close to their homes, or at least on a bus route with a decent schedule, we might as well offer the workshop on the moon. In fact we even plan our start and stop times for sessions around the bus schedule. But we still have a lot of caregivers who just won’t or can’t come—and I can’t say I blame them. After a ten-hour day I don’t think I’d put in a three- or four-hour evening.

Resource centers, agencies, associations, and child care resource and referral programs, who are the main providers of caregiver training and support programs, struggle with resources inadequate to provide a full range of services to caregivers and families. Even when these groups are able to offer training, it can be difficult to find the advertising money to let caregivers know about their existence. Caregivers tend to be low income earners (Goss Gilroy Inc., 1998). Few caregivers can afford the cost of training programs, yet many organizations must offer them on at least a partial cost recovery basis. Further, some caregivers and others expressed frustration that participation in training was unlikely to produce tangible benefits in terms of higher earnings. A parent participant spoke to this issue: Our caregiver took night classes for seven years and finally finished her E.C.E. two years ago. At a party to celebrate the big joke was “Now your rates are going to really go up.” But of course they didn’t. I just feel this is so unfair somehow.

Training and Family Child Care

297

I don’t want to pay higher rates, but she committed all that work, time, and effort, and our children benefit, but she doesn’t.

By far, the access issue most commonly mentioned by caregivers was lack of time. Program staff, trainers, parents, and other key informants all acknowledged the issue was an important one. A home visitor shared the following comment: That is one of the reasons why I feel my work as a home visitor is so important. If I feel a caregiver needs more help or information in a particular area I bring her resources and we will work through materials if necessary during home visits. I’m very close to the caregivers I work with and I know all the demands on their time—I feel it is really important to respect that and not expect or demand more from them.

One parent said: I think expecting people to attend courses on the weekend or at night when they already work more hours in a week than most of us, and for less money, is really expecting too much. And from a purely practical point of view, I don’t want my caregiver tired in the morning because she was out last night attending training.

Caregivers concurred. While many spoke of their interest in training, and several focus group participants had participated on a regular basis in training opportunities, many spoke of the difficulties of finding the time to fit training in to busy schedules: I don’t know whether it’s because I’m a single parent or just jinxed. Every time I’ve tried to attend a workshop something goes wrong, one of the kids get sick, the car won’t start, the babysitter doesn’t show up, or I’ve had the kind of day when what I need is a nursing home, not a classroom. My day care day doesn’t end until 5:45 when the last two children are picked up, then I make supper, get my oldest son settled in to homework, bathe the baby, help my husband tidy the house and do the dishes, read stories (if it’s my turn), get the kids to bed, and then, and only then, I collapse into a chair. If you think that I could go out to a training session and absorb anything, you’re wrong. I used to try and no matter how good the instructor was by 7:45 I’d be nodding off in my chair.

Recognition. Caregivers often spoke to us about the lack of recognition for their prior experience and education. Parents who use family child care admitted that training was not a major consideration in their selection of a caregiver: After the fourth interview I think I didn’t even bother asking if they had child care training—that really surprises me now that I come to think about it because normally, whatever the job, I want to know someone is qualified for it. But I think that the qualities that I was looking for don’t come out of training, or at least no amount of training can give them to you if you aren’t naturally a caring person.

298

Taylor, Dunster, and Pollard

Caregivers and others expressed frustration at prevailing attitudes regarding child care generally and family child care specifically. While some focus group participants noted that they had seen improvement over the last decade in how child care was valued, most still expressed concern about the low status afforded caregivers and family child care. Most participants felt the parents who used their services appreciated the importance of their role, but still felt that society at large did not respect caregiving as “real work.” Also of concern to many participants was the negative way family child care is often portrayed in the media. Caregivers expressed particular frustration with the attitudes they sometimes face within the child care community itself. The friction that sometimes arises between trained and untrained or regulated and unregulated caregivers, the patronizing attitudes of some trainers and program staff, and the perceived lack of support from other child care sectors were all issues that caregivers spoke about with feeling: I went to my first provincial child care conference this year. I had been to our local family day care conference every year and always found it so encouraging, really a way to recharge my batteries, so I was very excited about going out of town and having three whole days to immerse myself in things. It was terrible. I spent the first two days trying to make myself fit in, trying to talk to people from other child care settings about our common interests, trying not to be offended when people obviously turned off as soon as I said I provided family day care, trying not to react to all those little “shots” about poor quality care in home settings, and the differences between caregivers and educators. But by day three I just gave up. I left the conference more disheartened than I have ever been. We have a long way to go in the child care community if we can’t even find a way to respect each other.

Caregivers also expressed concern around the lack of recognition for all of the informal training that they participated in. One caregiver expressed herself in this way: I went through the process of listing all the conferences and workshops I’ve attended, all the courses I’ve participated in, all the articles and books I’ve read and all the experience I’ve had in nine years as a parent, seven years as a caregiver, four years as a network leader and two years as a workshop leader for caregiver training and the college offered me two credits towards a 40 credit Early Childhood Education program. Does that make any sense?

Much of the training that caregivers participate in is not part of a formal program. Only 34 of the 258 survey respondents indicated that they offer a formal, multi-session training program leading to a certificate, while 218 offer events like workshops and conferences. Even though many organizations that offer workshops now provide certificates or other forms of symbolic recognition, much of the training that caregivers are participating in is undocumented and unrecognized in any substantive way. Program staff also expressed concern about the issue: I know how much training I do as a home visitor, and the impact of that training on the quality of care. Yet when placed in a position of having to justify the

Training and Family Child Care

299

importance of our role to funders or others, it is really difficult to demonstrate it in a concrete way—you just don’t document the time you spend helping a caregiver understand and work with a child with special challenges or helping her resolve a communication problem with parents.

Motivations for Seeking Training Some researchers have suggested that efforts to connect caregivers with training/learning opportunities will only be successful when caregivers feel that training meets their needs and interests. Our findings suggest that success in overcoming some of the barriers listed in the previous section ought to be linked to action on more fundamental issues. Caregivers did not simply tell us that training needed to be cheaper. They also told us that they wanted better returns on their investment of money, time, and energy. They wanted training and learning opportunities that demonstrated respect for their profession, understood the meaning of quality care in the same ways that they did, and led to some recognition within the child care community and in our society at large. Caregivers come to training events to fulfill many goals. They are interested in improving the quality of their care, raising their credibility, or solving a particular problem they are facing. In some cases, they come out of a love of learning and a motivation to continually grow as professionals. However, caregivers who participated in this study also came to training events with other, perhaps less obvious, motivations: I think the most important benefit I get from attending workshops and other training activities is the validation I get for my work. To be with a group of people who think the way I do, that this is a serious, important job—that keeps me going.

When asked what they found most useful when starting out, caregivers emphasized informal support—from family, friends, other caregivers, and agencies and associations. Even established, experienced caregivers, when asked what they felt they needed most in the present, mentioned networking with other caregivers in twice as many focus groups as any other resource. While workshops on parenting and orientation sessions from agencies and associations were also seen as useful, caregivers appreciated them, in part, because they were also opportunities to meet and talk with other caregivers. When they were asked what an ideal training program would look like, caregivers almost always told us that it should include ample opportunities for networking. While trainers may think of networking as one way to learn, caregivers themselves seemed to see things the other way around. Training was one way to network. One key informant put it this way: The need for social networking with other people who do the same work is a major motivator for many caregivers. In some situations, the need to overcome a sense of isolation is more important than the actual course content or learning outcomes.

300

Taylor, Dunster, and Pollard

Caregivers also told us much about why networking was so important to them. Since most caregivers work alone in their homes, a sense of connectedness is something they value very much. Since their work involves confronting an ever-growing range of behavioral, developmental, cultural, and family issues, caregivers need opportunities to trade strategies with others who have faced similar challenges: Even the two-hour workshops I go to are useful. You get so much out of them, not just from the trainer and the materials but from sharing each other’s experiences. It’s even encouraging to hear that other people are having the same problems you are. You get ideas from each other about how to handle it and sometimes you can share things you’ve learned that worked. To me that is training.

Most fundamentally, though, caregivers told us that connecting with other caregivers and caregiver associations helped them to feel as if their work was important, valued, and worthwhile. Talking with other caregivers helped the people we spoke with feel less like isolated babysitters and more like members of a legitimate and important profession that contributed something of value to society: I think my favorite “learning tool” is the newsletters I get from the two associations I belong to. There is so much practical information that applies to my daily work and they also serve as a reminder to me that there are other people out there who do care what I do.

Key informants pointed out that a sense of professional identity and sorority with other caregivers are important because they, in turn, are essential to the long-term improvement of caregiver working conditions and the value given to carework within our culture: It is important to help them [caregivers] become a resource to themselves. They need networking and support from one another, e-mail, and community contacts; all of which help to remove the feeling of isolation. They want training that will allow them to share their knowledge and experience, where they will be listened to, where their skills will be acknowledged and validated.

If we have a better understanding of what motivates caregivers to seek training, and the kinds of obstacles that make it difficult for them to act on their motivations, we can design better training programs. The Content of Training Some have argued that the best training for a career in family child care is a college diploma in Early Childhood Care and Education. These programs are well established and credible, the argument goes, and deal with the skills required to

Training and Family Child Care

301

provide quality child care. Some of the caregivers we spoke with share this view. Others, however, claim that these programs are biased in favour of center-based care and do not cover the content a home-based care provider requires. However, neither researchers nor caregivers have been very successful at articulating exactly how the content of family child care training needs to differ from other forms of child care training. When we asked members of the family child care community what information they felt training and learning opportunities should provide, the lists they generated included much of the curriculum of a typical ECCE program (see Table 2). However, they also included issues specific to the job of family child care, especially in the areas of relating to parents and running a family child care business. Although caregivers, trainers, and key informants tended to agree on the basic content that training ought to cover, caregivers were much more likely than the other groups to emphasize the need for high quality content. They told us that the relevance of what was being presented to their work had to be emphasized. Competent, qualified trainers with experience as home caregivers, or a good knowledge of family child care issues, were also seen as important. Some caregivers asked for more stimulating, in-depth and challenging content, while others felt information needed to be concise, clear, and well organized. Although caring for children is covered intensively by most certificate programs and many informal training services (see Table 3), some participants suggested that this information is often geared more towards center-based caregivers. Although some of the basic areas of content may be equally relevant to any child care setting, the examples used, the questions raised, and the underlying understanding of the caregiver’s roles and relationships that drives the training may all limit the usefulness of the training to home day care providers. For example, some caregivers told us that content is most meaningful to them when it is presented in a practical way by someone who has worked as a home caregiver: I really like to hear information that comes “from the trenches.” That’s why I prefer training done by experienced caregivers. These people aren’t coming at things from a theoretical perspective, they’ve lived this work.

Similarly, another caregiver makes it clear that trainers need to approach the same basic content in different ways for people with different kinds of life experiences: I think it’s important that training offered to caregivers reflects the fact that most of us have far more life experiences than a teenager fresh out of high school entering ECE training. Our lives are about our own children and our day care children so our training needs are different.

As Kyle (1997b) points out, there is a need for training organizations to recognize the unique nature of family child carework and to design courses that address the specific needs of careworkers in home settings rather than simply adapting materials designed for center-based programs. As Table 4 shows, content areas

Business Management Issues Behavior Management Programming Safety/First Aid

Business Management Skills

Activity Ideas

Children with Unique or Special Needs Caring for Oneself, Empowering Oneself Assertiveness/SelfConfidence

Child Development

Child Development

Behavior Management

Dealing with Parents

Questions Asked:

Communicating with Parents

What kinds of information or skills do caregivers need?

Would would you like to learn more about right now?

Most Frequent Responses

Key Informants

Caregivers

Health and Safety Knowledge Knowing What you are Getting Into

Behavior Management

Business Management Skills

Child Development

Communicating with Parents

What kinds of information or skills do caregivers need?

Trainers

First Aid

Knowledge of Community Resources Experience Raising Children

Child Development

What skills, qualifications or qualities did you look for when you were seeking care for your children?

Parents

A Summary and Comparison of Common Responses to Focus Group Questions about Optimal Training Content

Stakeholder:

Table 2.

302 Taylor, Dunster, and Pollard

96 93 89

Health practices and nutrition Child guidance Communicating about child rearing practices Child development Safety proofing and awareness Sharing info about child’s life Activity/program planning 89 89 86 86

% Health practices and nutrition Child guidance Child development First aid and CPR Safety proofing and awareness Activity/program planning Income tax and financial record keeping

Organized Training/Learning Opportunities 91 84 83 82 80 78 74

%

Health practices and nutrition Safety proofing and awareness Child development Child guidance Communication about child rearing practices Activity/program planning Planning for different ages and stages Child abuse

Informal Training/Learning Opportunities

Content Covered in the Greatest Percentage of Training Programs

Formal Certificate

Table 3.

89 87 86

95 95 93 93 91

%

Training and Family Child Care 303

304

Taylor, Dunster, and Pollard

that are uniquely relevant to home child care, like caregiver work management, are not covered well in existing training programs. Furthermore, participants in this study have made it clear that the content needs of caregivers vary greatly, and that it is not just what you teach that matters, but also how you teach it. In the debate about the degree to which the content of caregiver training should be standardized and made compulsory, a simple point seems to have been overlooked. Despite the absence of any compulsory curriculum in Canada, there is amazing consensus across a wide range of stakeholders concerning the basic information a caregiver needs to know (see Table 2). Caregivers themselves, as a group, are well able to generate the core content topics. If we were to dictate the topics that caregiver training ought to cover, the findings of this study do not suggest that current Canadian practice would change significantly. In other words, the needs identified in Table 2 are, for the most part, covered in the training programs described in Table 3. Creating training opportunities that make a meaningful contribution to increasing quality of care requires us to go further in several ways. Part of the solution involves placing training in context by providing credit for informal learning and creating customized courses. Some of the participants in our study also pointed out that we need to move beyond listing the information that caregivers need, and begin to describe how this information ought to be applied in real-life caregiving settings. Learning outcomes and self-assessment tools may be useful in this regard. At a more basic level, the content of training opportunities for caregivers needs to be expressed and explored in ways that reflect an understanding of how caregivers and parents understand the value of the work they do. While organizations that offer training will never change societal attitudes on their own, one of the important ways they can assist is by recognizing the value of training opportunities as vehicles for caregivers to work together towards strengthened professional identity and collective advocacy. One of the most powerful messages to emerge from these data is the link between training and professional identity. Training was seen as a way to improve caregiving skills, but also as a means towards improved confidence, increased control over professional development, and the creation of networks. These networks would affirm and enhance the individual caregiver’s feeling that she was a member of a valued and skilled professional group—a group that shared her commitment to the caregiver’s unique blend of the public and private worlds: I think we are the ones who have to work towards recognition and appreciation of our work. It’s through our own actions and through our working with associations and other caregivers that things will change.

For caregivers, developing a sense of professional identity was not about being absorbed by existing professions or even emulating them. It was a grassroots process of connecting to other caregivers and building a unique sense of identity from the ground up.

% 46 57 61 64 64 64

Formal Certificate

Informal Training/Learning Opportunities Financial planning Self-assessment Agency organizational and administrative procedures Communication about lifestyle issues Advertising and promotion Anti-bias child care Sibling relationships

% 38 37 38 41 41 45 47 48

Organized Training/Learning Opportunities Financial planning Self-assessment Observation skills Anti-bias child care Advertising and promotion Sibling relationships Legal and ethical responsibilities Balancing work and family demands

Content Covered in the Smallest Percentage of Training Programs

Advertising and promotion Financial planning Contracts and child care policies Interaction with own children Special needs Self-assessment

Table 4.

%

65 58 57 61

42 51 54

Training and Family Child Care 305

306

Taylor, Dunster, and Pollard

Caregivers’ Perspectives on Quality Much of the research literature assumes there are two basic approaches to judging the quality of family child care (the public/professional and the private/ family-based), and that these conceptualizations are at odds with one another. Kyle (1997a) challenges this assumption and invites us to entertain new ways of thinking about the nature of family child care. Emlen and Prescott (1992) raised the possibility that the seeds of these new ways of thinking might already exist, as “more precise meanings” hidden within the statements caregivers make about the links between their work and mothering. When we spoke with caregivers, parents, and trainers across the country, it was clear that they saw the caregiver’s job as complex and multi-faceted. Many were still struggling with how best to integrate their multiple roles, and we heard a variety of differing opinions on what would constitute an ideal balance. However, most caregivers saw caregiving as spanning both public and private spheres. Caregivers who participated in focus groups felt that families look to home day care settings for a sense of belonging and a sense of security and stability. When asked what families need from them, the response caregivers gave more than any other was that families need love, warmth, and caring. Many caregivers said that they offered a home-like setting and functioned like an extended family or even a second mother. Parents who use family child care also felt that love, warmth, caring, and nurturing were among the most important things they needed from a caregiver. Parents often described the family child care setting as a home away from home or part of their extended family. As one parent put it: My kids think of their day care home like a second home and while Karen3 is still Karen and not Mom, when something big happens to them on the weekend they can’t wait to tell Karen about it the same way they can’t wait to tell us about news during the day care day. To me, I have a lot of difficulty trying to label things, these are intangibles. But I can tell you this, if it’s not there you’d know it.

For many caregivers, the development of these special relationships was at the heart of their identity as caregivers but was difficult to define, and perhaps impossible to train for: The kinds of things that I feel that children need most, a caring adult, stability, security, a welcoming environment, are not things that you can be trained for.

Some parents expressed similar sentiments, questioning the value of training for a job they believed you could only learn to do by living it: When I think about the kind of skill level that people get from training that probably accounts for about 25% of what they need to know. We all know that you could take 50 people and train them to do anything and only a few of them may provide the level of service that you would want. It is almost insignificant to me whether or not they have had training. It was really important to me that my caregiver had raised children because I just don’t think that you have any idea what it’s really like day to day unless you have done it.

Training and Family Child Care

307

While many caregivers told us that their caring, nurturant roles were their first priority, few saw carework as including only these kinds of roles. For the caregivers we spoke with, quality care required a good knowledge of the basics— how to create a safe environment, run good programming, provide nutritious food, and manage a small group, multi-age setting. An environment that fostered healthy development, according to caregivers, provided ample opportunities for children to build self-esteem and develop social skills and was responsive to the individual needs of each child. Parents who used family child care shared many of the components of this vision of quality care. As one parent said: [I need] someone who understands that my daughter is somebody’s child—the most important person in my life, and who understands that she is precious to me.

In many focus groups, both caregiver and parent participants saw a mutual sense of trust and partnership as absolutely essential. Caregivers emphasized the importance of clear communication with parents, particularly around roles and expectations, parenting philosophies and values, and any problems they were facing with the children. Parents also felt a need for honest discussion about behavioral issues and solutions. They valued updates on daily events and the developmental progress of their children. Caregivers also felt that many parents look to them as a source of information, referrals, emotional support, and friendship. Some parents described the support they themselves received from caregivers: I count on my caregiver more than my child’s father; she is a support to me in my role as a single parent. This is my first child and I rely on my caregiver to help me.

The Vision for Caregiver Training: A Work in Progress When researchers have argued for improved training for family child care providers, they have typically framed it as a means to make more of the caregiver’s roles explicitly public. Caregivers and parents who participated in this study, it seems to us, had a broader vision. Their primary commitment was to maintain the unique, unstructured warmth and caring that they saw as the essence of family child care, while at the same time providing support and training that would cover the topics Kontos (1992) sees as important. As one trainer said: Careful here! We’ve mentioned it before. It’s not because a person has a B.A. that she’s necessarily better at her work . . . Professional recognition is important but let’s make sure it is recognition for home child care and its specificity. The law and its regulations are eating us up. Let’s be cautious about training and what it means.

Kontos (1992) advocates for more rigorous licensing standards, clearer links between training and licensing, and increased community awareness of the need for training. These are solutions imposed from outside the caregiving community

308

Taylor, Dunster, and Pollard

by people who already have professional status themselves. These are solutions that focus almost exclusively on bolstering the public aspects of the caregiving role. Caregivers envisioned an approach to professional development that was directed by them, and built from what they saw as the core of their work: I hope that they’ll listen to us. We’re the ones doing the job . . . They are not in our homes, ten hours a day, doing what we do. And each and every one of us is different . . . We’re individuals. If they listen to us. Set up training schedules for us, on topics that we discuss and that we feel we need, and at convenient times for us.

At the same time, our experiences during this study have shown us that we still have much to learn about how this vision can be translated into practical training initiatives. Although authors like Kyle and Benner have suggested that the public and private aspects are in fact interdependent and can reinforce one another, it is still far from clear how this would look in practice. The dynamics within the advisory network for this project are a good example of the struggles involved here. The group included several current and former family child care providers, as well as educators, researchers, and representatives of national organizations. Our discussions about how to improve training for caregivers often explored difficult issues like how to recognize informal learning and what to include as core content areas. We noticed that these discussions had a tendency to get more and more theoretical and jargon-filled as they progressed. Researchers would talk more and more, and caregivers would say less and less. Inevitably, the energy in the room would dwindle and discussion would falter until someone with a more front-line perspective brought the discussion back to practical implications. One of these reality-check comments, “ . . . and that helps me how?!!” became a running joke for the advisory network and a reminder that translating the vision into meaningful, practical training strategies will require collaboration and respect among all involved stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE There is relatively little family child care training available in most of Canada, especially for those who are among the unregulated majority of caregivers. Our participants told us unequivocally that this has to change. The fact that this point is not at all new and has been endorsed by almost everyone connected to the field does not make it any less important. Deciding what to teach in caregiver training courses has always been difficult. Some people believe content should be focused on providing networking and support and reducing isolation. Others (including Kontos, 1992) see a need for standardized “core content” to be covered as well. Discussions that took place during our national symposium suggest that the relationship between the two is perhaps more complex than we had assumed. Our findings suggest that successful training must find ways to make core content relevant and useful to caregivers,

Training and Family Child Care

309

and that this kind of synthesis of theory and practice is missing from most current training opportunities. Even when training has been made available, caregivers are often unable to access it. Distance, scheduling conflicts, and problems with promotion of training opportunities were frequently mentioned by participants in this study. Caregivers also report limited time and energy and limited financial resources as barriers. These are clearly important barriers that deserve to be addressed. One of the least obvious but most important barriers has to do with the fact that training programs often work from assumptions about the nature of caregiving work that are fundamentally different from those of caregivers themselves. While there has been some discussion in the literature about how to overcome the practical barriers, less has been written about how to make training interesting, useful, and otherwise attractive enough to motivate caregivers to overcome the barriers they face and actually attend. Our discussions with caregivers have generated a wealth of practical ideas on the topic. These include informed instructors, real-world family child care examples, opportunities to network, respect for past education and informal learning, sensitivity to local context, and use of new communication technology. Practical ideas for overcoming paradigmatic barriers— communication problems that arise because of conflicting views on what family child care is or ought to be—also deserve more attention. In making their suggestions for future research on training, Emlen and Prescott (1992) allude to the need to support caregivers in their efforts to develop their own paths to professional development. They suggest respect for their reticence to participate, an emphasis on caregivers training caregivers, and respect for the ability of caregivers to draw on their experience as mothers while retaining the knowledge that caregiver and mother roles are quite different. Emlen and Prescott say “consumer understanding of what makes for quality care may have a long way to go, but so does research-based understanding of the conditions under which individualized quality of care occurs” (p. 277). They also invite researchers to “clarify some of these [consumer] descriptions, rather than dismiss them” (p. 275). We see our findings as a partial response to Emlen and Prescott’s invitation. Listening to caregivers from across Canada has helped us to understand some of the deeper issues that need to be explored in order to move beyond the dualistic assumptions and paradigmatic clashes that have characterized much of the discussion about training for family child care in Canada and North America. We learned, for example, that caregivers need training that is meaningful and useful as well as accessible. If training is to be meaningful, the process of imparting necessary information and skills cannot be separated from the process of individual and collective caregiver empowerment. If it is to be useful, core content must be linked to context at every opportunity. Learners who work as caregivers and understand this context must be engaged as partners in the learning process. While many caregivers see the caring, mother-like aspects of the work they do as central, we learned that their conceptions of quality child care are a fair bit more complex than others have often assumed. These findings suggested to us that there is a need to reframe some of the questions that have guided past research.

310

Taylor, Dunster, and Pollard

We hope this article can be a small step towards caregivers becoming more directly involved in discussions about what constitutes quality in child care. It may be, as Benner (1997) has suggested, that quality is not something that is implemented after discussions about definitions are resolved. Instead, it is in the process of discussing quality that it begins to emerge. Critical reflection and open communication of differing points of view is, or should be, part of the definition of quality child care. In the next phase of this research project, we plan to explore a new approach to organizing core content that we believe meets these criteria. Learning modules built around problem-solving for real-life caregiving scenarios may help to ensure that content is linked to the experiences of caregivers in a meaningful way. Such modules also encourage learners to build from what they already know, and to learn from one another as well as from instructors and textbooks.

NOTES 1.

The Family Day Care Training Project is a collaborative effort overseen by the Canadian Child Care Federation, the Family Day Care Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Western Canada Family Day Care Association of British Columbia, the Alberta Association of Family Day Home Agencies, the Home Child Care Association of Ontario, the Family Day Care Association of Manitoba, the Ontario Network of Home Child Care Provider Groups, the Canadian Association of Family Resource Programs, the Centre for Research and Education in Human Services and Ryerson Polytechnic University. The project is funded by the Child Care Visions program of Human Resources Development Canada. 2. Quebec’s Colle´ges des E´tudes Gene´rale et Professionelles are similar to community colleges, but also offer university preparation programs. 3. A pseudonym.

REFERENCES Beach, J., Bertrand, J., & Cleveland, G. (1997). Our child care workforce: From recognition to remuneration: More than a labour of love. Paper prepared for the Child Care Sector Study Steering Committee. Ottawa: Canadian Child Care Federation. Benner, A. (1997). Quality child care and community development: What is the connection? Paper prepared for the Partners in Quality Project. Ottawa: Canadian Child Care Federation. Boisvert, D. A. (1997). Literature review of training and family day care. Paper prepared for the Family Day Care Training Project. Ottawa: Canadian Child Care Federation. Clifford, R., Harms, T., Pepper, S., & Stuart, B. (1992). Assessing quality in family day care. In D. L. Peters, & A. R. Pence (Eds.), Family day care: Current research for informed public policy (pp. 243–265). New York: Oxford. Cohen, N., & Modigliani, K. (1990). The evaluation report of the family to family project. New York: Families and Work Institute. DeBord, K., & Sawyers, J. (1996). The effects of training on the quality of family child care for those associated with and not associated with professional child care organizations. Child and Youth Care Forum, 25(1), 7–15. Doherty, G. (1997). Multiple stakeholders, multiple perspectives. Paper prepared for the Partners in Quality project. Ottawa: Canadian Child Care Federation. Dombro, A. L., & Modigliani, K. (1995). Providers speak about training, trainers, accreditation, and professionalism. New York: Families and Work Institute. Dunster, L., & Taylor, A. (1998). Family day care training project: Synthesis report. Ottawa: Canadian Child Care Federation.

Training and Family Child Care

311

Eheart, B. K. (1987). Training day care home providers: Implications for policy and research. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1(2), 119 –132. Emlen, A., & Prescott, E. (1992). Future policy and research needs. In D. L. Peters & A. R. Pence (Eds.), Family day care: Current research for informed public policy (pp. 266 –278). New York: Oxford. Ferri, E. (1992). What makes childminding work? A study of training for childminders. London: National Children’s Bureau. Fosburg, S. (1981). Family day care in the United States: Final report of the National Day Care Home Study, Volume 1. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. Galinsky, E., Howes, C., & Kontos, S. (1994). The family day care training study: Highlights of findings. New York: Families and Work Institute. Goss Gilroy Inc. (1998). Providing home child care for a living: Surveys of the regulated and unregulated sectors. Ottawa: Canadian Child Care Federation. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Harms, T., & Clifford, R. M. (1989). Family day care rating scale. New York: Teachers College Press. Howes, C. (1983). Caregiver behavior in center and in family day care. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 4, 99 –107. Johnson, L., & Dineen, J. (1981). The kin trade. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. Kontos, S., Machida, S., Griffin, S., & Read, M. (1992). Training and professionalism in family day care. In D. L. Peters & A. R. Pence (Eds.), Family day care: Current research for informed public policy (pp. 188 –207). New York: Oxford. Kontos, S. (1992). Family day care: Out of the shadows and into the limelight. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Kontos, S., Howes, C., & Galinsky, E. (1996). Does training make a difference to quality in family day care? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(4), 427– 445. Kyle, I. (1997a). Private and public discourses: The social context of child care. Canadian Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 6(3), 203–222. Kyle, I. (1997b). Ontario home child care providers’ reports of their training and educational experiences. Ottawa: Canadian Child Care Federation. Lord, J., & Church, K. (1999). Beyond partnership shock: Getting to yes, living with no. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 12(2), 113–121. McKnight, J. (1977). Professionalized service and disabling help. In I. Illich, I. Zola, J. McKnight, J. Caplan, & H. Shaiken, Disabling professions (pp. 69 –92). New York: Marion Boyers. Modigliani, K. (1991). Assessing the quality of family day care: A comparison of five instruments. Hayward, CA: Mervyn’s Public Affairs Office. Moss, P. (1994). Defining quality: Values, stakeholders and processes. In P. Moss & A. Pence (Eds.), Valuing quality in early childhood services: New approaches to defining quality (pp. 1–9). New York: Teachers College Press. Pence, A., & Goelman, H. (1991). The relationship of regulation, training and motivation to quality of care in family day care. Child and Youth Care Forum, 20(2), 83–101. Pence, A., & Goelman, H. (1987). Who cares for the child in day care? Characteristics of caregivers in three types of daycare. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2, 315–334. Pollard, J., & Fischer, J. L. (1992). Research perspectives on family day care. In D. L. Peters & A. R. Pence (Eds.), Family day care: Current research for informed public policy (pp. 92–111). New York: Oxford. Powell, D. R., & Bollin, G. (1992). Dimensions of parent-provider relationships in family day care. In D. L. Peters & A. R. Pence (Eds.), Family day care: Current research for informed public policy (pp. 170 –187). New York: Oxford. Stewart, D., & Shamdasani, P. (1998). Focus group research: Exploration and discovery. In L. Bickman & D. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 505–526). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

312

Taylor, Dunster, and Pollard

Taylor, A. (1998, Winter). Providing home child care for a living: Summary of the national surveys. Interactions, 12(4), 21–28. Taylor, A., & Botschner, J. (1998). Evaluation handbook. Toronto: Ontario Community Support Association.