Comments on “A review of the child development associate credential”

C o m m e n t s on "A Review of the Child Development

Associate Credential"

Leroy Jones and Trudy M. Hamby University Research Corporation, Washington, D.C.

ABSTRACT." The authors seek to provide additional information on the CDA training component as it is being implemented nationwide.

Introduction

Authors Berk and Berson, in their article, "A Review of the Child Development Associate Credential," discuss the early development and underlying concepts of the CDA Program, and from this review offer a number of inferences relative to perceived educational, economic, and social consequences related to its development. In the main, the authors view the CDA program as a "present danger" to early childhood teacher preparation and the child development field.

In support of their views, Berk and Berson cite early research on the design and field test of the prototype CDA assessment and credentialing system {a distinct component of the CDA program}, and a summary report of initial training efforts conducted by the 13 original CDA pilot training projects. Conclusions are then derived by the authors based on these early sources as the means of viewing the operational CDA training and assessment components.

Our comments on the Berk and Berson article will focus on the CDA training component. Our purposes are (1) to point out the factual errors in Berk and Berson's review; and (2) to provide a contrasting ana- lysis reflecting the operational training component and to place in

Address reprint requests to Leroy Jones at University Research Corporation, 4340 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD, 20014.

Child Care Quarterly, 10(1), Spring 1981 74 0045.6632/81/1300.0074500. 95@198l Human Sciences Press

Leroy Jones and Trudy M. Hamby 75

proper perspective the underlying assumptions and key program ele- ments that more appropriately characterize the CDA program.

Background on the CDA Program

The CDA program was initiated by the Office of Child Development (OCD/DHEW) in 1971 in cooperation with a number of leading early childhood educators and professionals in the child development field. I t was developed as a personnel development program within the Head Start Bureau of OCD, now the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families.

The early developers of the CDA program specified three key components: the CDA competencies, CDA training, and CDA assessment and credentialing. To ensure appropriate interrelationship among the components, OCD specified that both training programs and the assessment and credentialing system be developed based upon pre- scribed competencies. The CDA Consortium, a private, nonprofit organization composed of principal organizations in the child development field, was established by OCD in 1972 to design, field test, and implement an approved assessment and credentialing system. The final system was approved and implemented in June 1975.

Training efforts included the funding of 13 pilot training projects in 1973 to design and field test varied approaches to training design and delivery. Also in 1973, OCD issued training requirements for CDA training programs and specified that the over 350 Head Start Supplementary Training (HSST) programs convert from singularly academic-based to CDA competency-based training. Personnel already enrolled and near completion of A.A. and B.A. degrees were allowed to complete the degree programs in which they were enrolled.

Operational CDA training programs, since 1973, and the assessment and credentiaiing system, since 1975, have been implemented in accor- dance with basic program requirements. To date over 6,000 professionals from Head Start, day care, and other child development programs have been awarded the CDA credential. An additional 7,000 Head Start employees and other child care workers are presently enrolled in ACYF-funded and other CDA training projects.

Contrasting Views

In the following sections we point out factual errors and discuss the salient issues and conclusions reached by authors Berk and Berson regarding the CDA training program.

76 Child Care Quarterly

1. The goals of the CDA effort, the involvement of the early childhood/ child development professions, and the role of institutions of higher education.

Berk and Berson have portrayed the CDA program as a sub-par ini- tiative developed outside the early childhood profession that subverts acceptable professional standards and mandates social policy for child development programs.

They state that a major impetus behind the CDA effort was the pro- vision of teaching staff for the widely expanding day care field. Al- though increasing the supply of trained child care staff was certainly a related goal, the major goal of the CDA effort was then--and still re- mains--QUALITY care for children in child development settings. The basic assumption underlying that goal is that quality of care will increase as staff competence increases--specifically, the competence of the teacher, or primary caregiver.

In addition to the increasing demand for day care, a number of fac- tors were carefully weighed prior to launching the national CDA effort: knowledge was increasing rapidly about the importance of the early years; in the period 1964-71 colleges with departments of early childhood education were few; major emphasis in the majority of existing early childhood teacher education programs was on public school and teaching in kindergarten through the third grade.

Further, traditional early childhood teacher education programs were not geared to the concept of comprehensive child development programs such as Head Start. In Head Start programs, educa- t i o n - a n d early childhood education, in particular--is but one component.

Unlike traditional teacher education, Head Start programs also include health, social services, parent involvement, and mental health components. In addition to the lack of emphasis on young children aged three through five, no established early childhood undergraduate program of 120 to 130 hours covered all of these related disciplines. And even if such a program had existed, there was no demonstrable evidence--in spite of hundreds of years of experience--that mere pos- session of an academic degree denoted competence to perform.

The challenges for CDA program initiators and developers were many. A pluralistic perspective was called for--one representing the best thinking of both early childhood professionals and child development professionals. Basic standards needed to be developed that would represent the consensus of individual interests and priorities in the best interest of all young children and society at large. Creative thinking, change, and innovation were called for.


There were three immediate challenges: first, specilTing the competencies that would be needed by child caregivers in child development settings; second, developing training programs that would focus on acquisition and demonstration of these competencies; and third, devising an assessment and credentialing system for awarding a credential based on demonstration of the identified competencies. In addition, the assessment and credentialing process would have to take into account those persons already competent due to previous experience in the classroom, prior training, and related academic experiences. The training process also would have to provide for individuals who were at different stages of competence.

In the Office of Child Development and masterminding the project were Ed Zigler, Jenni Klein, and others who were themselves early childhood or child development professionals. And whom did they call on for assistance? None other than other members of the early childhood and child development professions representing child care agen- cies and major colleges, universities, and training institutions across the nation--Barbara Biber, Lilian Katz, Alice Keliher, Evangeline Ward, Marilyn Smith, and Rebecca Shuey, to name but a few.

Members of the profession were involved in initial planning and program design, as well as program implementation. They took part in planning colloquies, design of the Credential Award System, became members of the CDA Consortium Board, played key roles in setting down training guidelines, established CDA training programs, became CDA field supervisors {sometimes called field advisors}, CDA academic instructors, CDA Consortium representatives, and Parent- Community Representatives on Local Assessment Teams.

According to Berk and Berson, the motivation for involving the colleges and universities was both political and economic. They also make accusations about CDA initially "bypassing" colleges, and "coming in through the back door." Jenni Klein, Ed Zigler, and their staffs involved the early childhood/child development professionals immedi- ately because this was a situation that professionals needed to face--together. These professionals were located in academic institutions. They came in, out, and through the "front" door as they worked on the CDA program design, development, and later in the implementation of CDA training.

The challenge was to create a new route for becoming qualified to take the role of the teacher, or primary caregiver, in the child development setting. I t would have been remiss, indeed, not to involve the profession in a professional problem. What was created was another professional category of child care workers, and the award of a profes-


sional credential based on the acquisition and demonstration of competence in a child care setting, rather than on numbers of credit hours or courses taken.

Although this is already explained in the comments by Granger and Gleason, we reemphasize that the CDA is a credential, not an academic degree or a certificate. Only states certify teachers. Several times, Berk and Berson make reference to those who equate the CDA credential with the B.A. degree. Designers of the CDA effort had no in- tention of equating the CDA credential with the B.A. degree. Even in the proposed regulations for the long-term incorporation of CDA into Head Start, the CDA is not equated with the B.A. The CDA and B.A. are options open to an individual to qualify for a position of teacher in a Head Start classroom.

2. Initial training efforts of the 13 CDA pilot training projects and findings.

The purposes for establishing the CDA pilot projects were inaccur- ately stated by Berk and Berson. The pilots were to provide ACYF with answers to the workability of the CDA concept in various settings across the nation, and using a variety of training approaches and sponsorships. Information derived from the projects was to be shared, and training modules developed were to be replicable. They were not charged with the incorporation of CDA training into Head Start Sup- plementary Training (HSST), or with encouraging the incorporation of the CDA credential into licensing regulations in ten target states.

Berk and Berson rely heavily on information presented in CDA Pilot Projects: Innovations in Training (Jones, Hamby, & Hardy, 1978), a publication based on the pilots' documentation reports. These pilot projects were charged with coming up with diverse and innovative CDA competency-based training approaches, while simultaneously following basic training guidelines. The guidelines were developed by a task force of early childhood and child development professionals who worked with OCD.

That these projects would so openly share their trials and tribula- tions, as well as their successes, and that OCD (ACYF) should follow up with a report that, in turn, shares all of the information in addition to deriving implications and making recommendations for the use of other training projects and other professions in the wider community is, in our opinion, commendable. The generalizations made by Berk and Berson that initial CDA competency-based training problems have not been ameliorated and can be applied in wholesale fashion to CDA training delivery on an ongoing basis at a trainee's work site seem grossly unfair.


3. CDA training standards--the CDA training criteri~

A factual error made by Berk and Berson is that there is an absence of standards for CDA training. The standards for CDA training are the guidelines mentioned in relation to the pilot projects. They were carefully planned by OCD and the Task Force prior to CDA training implementation. These guidelines were based on assumptions about adult learning and development (Klein & Weathersby, 1973). They were later designated the six CDA training criteria and became OCD policy (I-33-324-1-40) for the conversion of Head Start Supplementary Training to CDA competency-based training for classroom staff (U.S.-DHEW, 1973). They continue as Head Start policy when HSST Program Account 20 funds are used. They are:

1. The training must be based on the CDA competencies and should lead to their acquisition.

2. Valid credit must be offered for CDA training. 3. Academic and field experiences must be integrated. 4. Fifty percent or more of the trainee's total training time must be spent in

supervised field work. 5. Training must be individualized according to each trainee's strengths and

needs with respect to acquisition of the CDA competencies. 6. Training must be flexibly scheduled so that length of training varies

according to each trainee's rate of acquisition of the CDA competencies.

It is true that HSST/CDA training programs have great flexibility in their training approaches; however, their funding is contingent on implementation according to the above criteria. Although not policy for CDA training programs using other funding sources, the training criteria are generally adhered to since they have become hallmarks of CDA training and associated with "quality" CDA training. Findings are that the more successfully the training programs deliver training according to the training criteria, the more successful are their trainees in acquiring and demonstrating the CDA competencies during the credential award process.

One focus of the national training and technical assistance contract since 1974 has been to assist CDA training programs in implementation of training according to the CDA training criteria. The need for technical assistance was demonstrated by the pilot projects. For ex- ample, requirements for flexible scheduling wherein students enter and exit the training program according to training need and acquisition of the competencies, and individualization, wherein students move through the training program at their own pace and study only in areas where there is a training need; are difficult criteria to imple~ ment given the quarter or semester academic structure and traditional


grading and crediting procedures. Guidance materials have been developed, and several national workshops have been devoted to refine- ment of the criteria, their further definition, and the development of implementation strategies.

CDA training standards are also focused on through training of trainers workshops for HSST/CDA projects under the CDA national training and technical assistance contract. CDA program administrators, curriculum developers, and field supervisors come to these workshops to receive special training in related topics associated with implementation of the CDA training criteria. Current plans include the design of a self-monitoring system whereby programs can assess their level of adherence to the criteria. In fact, several ACYF regions have already implemented a regionwide monitoring system for CDA training.

Finally, just as faculty and staff in traditional teacher education programs, because they are personally and professionally interested in maintaining professional standards, conduct self-assessments and student and peer evaluations, so do faculties and staffs of CDA training programs in colleges and universities across the nation.

4. CDA training--key features and distinguishing characteristics.

Berk and Berson offer the following array of criticisms about CDA training, some of which might just as easily apply to traditional teacher education:

CDA

--training is accomplished in diverse ways

--training is assumed to have been adequate if candidates are assessed as competent

--some field sites offer poor models for trainees

--training experiences are haphazard

--curriculum materials vary widely

Traditional Teacher Ed

--methods of academic instructors vary

--students' education is assumed to have been adequate if they receive their degree and certification

--cooperating teachers vary widely in teaching competence

--academic instructors usually do not coordinate student assignments with one another

--academic instructors' choice of textbooks and outside readings vary widely.

Other criticisms by Berk and Berson focus more specifically on CDA training. They state that CDA training:


* is narrowly vocational - focuses on a collection of unintegrated skills • emphasizes performance "as opposed" or "to the neglect of" knowledge

If the above assertions were the case, it is doubtful that so many individuals who have experienced the CDA competency-based approach to training would report such positive gains as improved self-concept, ability to express the theory behind early childhood classroom practices, and improved working relationships with other staff members and parents. At a recent CDA conference held in conjunction with the 1980 NAEYC conference, a workshop session focused on "The Transfer Effects of CDA Training Experiences." A panel of CDAs described how the experience of individualization of training, ongoing self- and field-supervisor appraisals of demonstrated competence, and a team relationship with the field supervisor impacted positively on both their personal and professional lives.

Early childhood and child development professionals who worked with OCD to designate the CDA competencies guarded against having them perceived as "isolated skills." They stated at the outset that the CDA competencies embodied both knowledge and skills. Furthermore, they identified atti tudes that they considered essential to the CDA's ability to demonstrate the specified competencies. These they called the "personal capacities." Included are such atti tudes as being sensi- tive to children's feelings, ready to listen to children, being emotion- ally responsive, etc.

The task force then followed through on their integrative approach to competence when they formulated the CDA training criteria, or guidelines. One of the criteria specifically stipulates that the training should be based on the competencies; another, that academic and field experiences should be integrated.

The charges made by Berk and Berson that CDA training is more practicable for "disadvantaged" students, that it is "narrowly vocational," and their further negation concerning "practical" training, we find very disturbing. They state that "practical training at the expense of liberal education sacrifices resourcefulness, imagination and versatility and transforms teaching from a complex process into a technical trade." The authors fail to acknowledge the research evidence that graduates of traditional teacher education programs, rather than using their own imagination when they begin to teach, are more likely to follow the model set by their cooperating teacher during student teaching.

Berk and Berson generalize that all CDA training excludes general education courses. CDA training is individualized for general educa-


tion courses, reading, and writing skill development, etc. And as for casting aspersions against vocational training, many institutions themselves, as well as external groups such as the prestigious Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, have continued to express concern regarding the irrelevance of traditional education to adequate preparation of students in modern society.

As recently as December 14, 1980, P. T Veliotis, vice president of the General Dynamics Corporation, addresses the method and aim of education from a "businessman's perspective" (The Sun, Baltimore, Maryland). He makes an appeal for "functional education" throughout grade school, high school, and college, and accuses the educational system of being oblivious to the fundamental law of supply and demand. He bemoans the fact that only five percent of the public education budget goes to vocational and adult education programs, and that young people are not being given the tools and skills they really need. At the college level he sees a functional education system characterized by a great degree of flexibility, not necessarily a four- year experience, but one in which students are able to move in and out of the education environment as they need to, have time or funds for, and as they need additional training to become productive contribu- tors to the economic and intellectual life of our society. Sound like CDA?

Fortunately, the over 350 institutions that have continued to provide education and training to Head Start CDA programs have developed new and innovative approaches to providing relevance, utility, and integration of knowledge and skill requirements. Insti tutions such as Wheelock College, Glassboro State, University of Miami, Portland State University, Central Arizona College, State University of New York, and the University of Washington have been leaders and pio- neers in this area. This has been accomplished with the full commit- ment of academicians and administrators within each institution and with the full concurrence of accrediting bodies relative to standards, quality, and professionalism.

In sum, Berk and Berson's criticisms of CDA training are not sup- ported when looking at the original program design or at what have been called "key features" of CDA training. These have been identified based on experiences of the over 350 training institutions that have been implementing the training over the past seven years. They include:

1. Adherence to the CDA training criteria. 2. The concept of demonstrated competence {The field supervisor makes

both initial and ongoing appraisals of competence. This information is


shared with the trainee. Together they devise the individualized training plan.}

3. A team relationship between the field supervisor and trainee 4. Consistency between training and assessment procedures (Both focus on

the acquisition and demonstration of the CDA competencies, a team relationship, reviewability of information, etc.)

5. Focus on the adult learner 6. Flexibility in training approach {structuring of academic experiences,

grouping of interns, timing and frequency of academic sessions, use of trainers, etc.}

7. Humanism vs. behaviorism {There is not a predetermined list of behav- ioral objectices, or "one" way that trainees must demonstrate the CDA competencies.)

8. Focus on the integration of attitudes, skills, and knowledge

Summary

In our comments we have made an effort to maintain an objective viewpoint about the CDA effort and CDA training, specifically. If our bias has shown through, it is because we believe so strongly in the CDA concept and philosophy and have since 1974 been directly involved with--and caught up in-- the excitement of this innovative approach. We are fully aware tha t the entire effort needs further development, study, and research.

Toward the conclusion of their article Berk and Berson contemplate whether "CDA offers anything truly unique tha t couldn't be accomplished with greater quali ty control through the traditional route of a college or university-based teacher preparation program." We invite them to proceed--as long as they adopt the pluralistic approach embraced by CDA and participating insti tutions of higher education, and include the key features we have cited herein.

References

The CDA program: The Child Development Associate, a guide for training. Washing- ton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Weffare, 1973.

Jones, L., Hamby, T. M., & Hardy, S. B. CDA pilot projects: Innovations in training. Washington, D.C.: University Research Corporation, 1978.

Klein, J. W., & Weathersby, R. Child Development Associates: New professionals, new training strategies. Children Today, September-October, 1973.

Comments on “A review of the child development associate credential”

Documents

Transcript of Comments on “A review of the child development associate credential”