The mechanism of parent choice is sometimes viewed as a way of improving the quality of child care centres. This study looks at whether parent choice is constrained by family variables such as socio‐economic status, education and family income and to what extent parents do select quality. The sample for the present study included 100 child care centres catering for under two year old children from around New Zealand. The quality of each centre was assessed using two measures, a checklist (the Abbott‐Shim Assessment Profile) and an interval observational procedure focusing on child‐staff interactions (the Howes/Melhuish Observational Schedule). Two under two year‐olds from each centre were observed for 100 minutes and their parents filled in a questionnaire about their satisfaction with the child care centre. The study showed modest correlations (‐.18 to .27) between socio‐economic status, education and family income and the Abbott‐Shim Assessment Profile but none with observations of child/staff interactions. Eighty‐six per cent of parents in the study said that this centre was their first choice and ratings of quality were highly positive. Yet for most measures there were zero correlations between research‐based measures of quality and parent satisfaction. Qualitative data showed that there was some overlap between the criteria which parents mentioned as the ‘best’ or ‘worst’ things and criteria incorporated into research methods. Parents, however, were concerned about cost, location and convenience which were not part of the research measures. Comments on centres which were of high quality and low quality made by parents and early childhood trained researchers were compared. Parents were much more positive and uncritical in their comments than researchers. It was concluded that many parents make passive choices of centres rather than actively choosing between alternatives and that many do not have knowledge or awareness of specific aspects of quality to look for. It was concluded that parent choice is not currently a viable means of controlling quality and that policy makers need to look to other mechanisms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barraclough et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: