How Early Childhood Teachers Perceive the Educational Needs of Military Dependent Children

1 23

�� !��"� #��

��

��

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and allrights are held exclusively by Springer Science+Business Media New York. This e-offprint isfor personal use only and shall not be self-archived in electronic repositories. If you wishto self-archive your article, please use theaccepted manuscript version for posting onyour own website. You may further depositthe accepted manuscript version in anyrepository, provided it is only made publiclyavailable 12 months after official publicationor later and provided acknowledgement isgiven to the original source of publicationand a link is inserted to the published articleon Springer's website. The link must beaccompanied by the following text: "The finalpublication is available at link.springer.com”.

How Early Childhood Teachers Perceive the EducationalNeeds of Military Dependent Children

Michele L. Stites

! Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract Military dependent children remain a largelyunexplored subject, particularly in early childhood educa-

tion. In an effort to fill the gap in the current literature, this

research study focuses on how early childhood teachersperceive the educational needs of military dependent

children. Previous research in the areas of geographic

mobility, parental separation, and socioemotional needs arereviewed and used as a platform for this study. The study

includes a survey developed by the researcher used in

conjunction with Teacher Observation of ClassroomAdaptation—Checklist to further examine the needs of

these children from the perceptions of their teachers. The

results of the study demonstrate that while early childhoodteachers do not perceive a significant difference between

military and nonmilitary dependent children in the

socioemotional domains of prosocial behavior, concentra-tion, and disruptive behavior, they do believe there is a

difference related to stability. Additionally, early childhood

teachers noted a negative socioemotional and academicimpact related to parental separation and a negative aca-

demic impact related to geographic mobility. Teachers’responses indicated mixed beliefs about the social impact

of frequent relocations.

Keywords Military dependent ! Geographic mobility !Parental separation ! Early childhood education !Socioemotional development

Introduction

The military lifestyle can be a foreign concept to many

civilians. Frequent relocations and parental separations area reality for military families. With these realities of daily

life in a military family comes ‘‘stress and uncertainty’’

(Allen and Staley 2007, p. 83) that can impact schoolperformance (Allen and Staley 2007). The research

demonstrates that there is little consensus about the impact

of a military lifestyle on school performance, particularlyin early childhood settings. Although there is promising

research in three main topic areas (parental separation,

geographic mobility, socioemotional needs) there are anumber of issues that require further evaluation. Re-

searchers have started a discussion but, unfortunately, there

is little research to provide schools on the most effectiveways to support military children (Horten 2005).

Examining teachers’ perceptions is an important first

step in exploring how geographic mobility, parentalseparation, and socioemotional needs impact the educa-

tional performance of military dependent children. Whilemedical and psychological research has scratched the sur-

face, teachers interact daily with military dependent chil-

dren and their input is critical in developing curricula tomeet the needs of this population. These professionals are

able to observe first-hand if a child is being affected by a

recent relocation, deployment, or other socioemotionalfactor related to the military lifestyle. They are also able to

pinpoint how and why they offer support when needed.

Additionally, teachersare able to best outline the areas in which they them-

selves need better training in order to support these chil-

dren in their classrooms; this makes teachers criticalcontributors to any curriculum designed to support military

dependent children. Unfortunately, educational research

M. L. Stites (&)University of Maryland, Baltimore County,Catonsville, MD, USAe-mail: [email protected]

123

Early Childhood Educ J

DOI 10.1007/s10643-015-0698-1

Author's personal copy

has yet to explore these issues; instead educational research

has focused on older children and used a mental health orpsychological perspective. Teachers have not been asked to

share their perceptions; rather, test scores have been the

primary source of data on this population.Teachers, particularly early childhood teachers (who

typically remain with their students throughout the entire

course of a school day), play an integral role in developingacademic skills but also provide socioemotional support to

their students; therefore, teachers’ perceptions are criticalin understanding how to frame curriculum to meet the

needs of these children. Understanding the beliefs of

teachers allows researchers insight on how teachers per-ceive the military lifestyle as impacting these learners.

Unfortunately, educational research has yet to question

these first-hand observers about what is needed to bestmeet the diverse needs of this population.

The question of why teachers’ opinions matter has been

asked in educational research throughout the years. Re-search has demonstrated that teachers’ perceptions are re-

lated to their actions (Hardre et al. 2008). Examining these

beliefs is key in developing curriculum for young militarydependent children because these perceptions or beliefs

influence the manner in which teachers frame curriculum

(Biddle and Anderson 1986; Wenglinski 2000) and deter-mine how and why teachers proceed in a certain manner

(Morgan 2008; Silverman and Subramaniam 1999).

Tabachnick and Zeichner (1984) noted that teachers’ per-ceptions impact the manner in which they deliver instruc-

tion as well as their overall performance. The subsequent

delivery of the curriculum framed by these perceptionsdirectly impacts learners (Green et al. 2005) and the per-

ceptions and ideals that guide teachers’ practices reflect the

climate of each early childhood classroom (Hanson et al.1998). It is also important to note that teachers develop

perceptions of their students shortly after they enter the

classroom at the beginning of the school year (Meisels1999). Frequently, they have met at least one of each stu-

dent’s parents and have some knowledge of the general

socio-economic status of the classroom (Zill 1999).Teachers in schools with a large military dependent

population are typically aware of this factor and may plan

accordingly. This is why examining teachers’ perceptionsis critical in developing curriculum to meet the needs of

this population.

Keeping this in mind, the following research questionframed the overall study: What are early childhood

teachers’ perceptions of the needs of military dependent

children in the early childhood classroom? The followingfour subquestions guided the data collection process:

1. Do early childhood teachers perceive a significantdifference between the level of socioemotional

development in military dependent and nonmilitary

dependent children?

2. Do early childhood teachers perceive geographicmobility as impacting socioemotional and academic

development in military children age three to eight?

3. To what degree do early childhood teachers perceivemilitary children as being significantly affected by

parental separation?

4. What types of emotional supports do early childhoodteachers perceive military children and families need-

ing when a parent (or parents) deploys and when the

parent returns from a deployment?

Methods

A web link embedding a Likert-type survey with additional

open-ended questions was administered via county emailaddresses to early childhood intervention, pre-kindergarten,

and kindergarten, first and second grade teachers in schools

within a ten-mile radius of Ft. Meade, Maryland, known asthe Meade Cluster. The Meade cluster is located in Anne

Arundel County Maryland and is comprised of ten ele-

mentary, two middle, one high, and one charter school.Given its proximity to Ft. Meade, the Meade cluster con-

tains the highest concentration of military dependent stu-dents in Anne Arundel County. For the purpose of this

study, early childhood is defined as ages three to eight or a

child in preschool through second grade.The survey opened with a statement of informed con-

sent. It combined Likert-type questions with open-ended

questions to examine the research questions. This allowedthe researcher to focus on a group of teachers in purpose-

fully chosen schools with a large population of military

dependent children and adequately explore how thoseteachers make meaning of the proposed questions. Teach-

ers were prompted to answer questions based on their

perceptions of military dependent children. These percep-tions may have been influenced by personal experience

and/or their time working in a school with a large military

population. It provided an in-depth study of this ‘system,’based on a diverse array of data collection materials. These

methods allowed the researcher to ‘‘situate this system

within its larger ‘context’ or setting’’ (McCaslin and Scott2003 p. 449).

The survey used focused on three main factors influ-

encing military dependent children: geographic mobility,parental separation, and socioemotional factors. The in-

strument focused on teachers’ perceptions of those factors;

it was not specific to their current class make up, but ratherhow they perceive the aforementioned factors using their

own experiences. The study consisted of preschool (ages


123


three and four), pre-kindergarten (ages four and five), and

kindergarten (ages five and six), first grade (ages six andseven), second grade (ages seven and eight), and primary

grade special education (ages four through eight) teachers.

The population consisted of teachers who are both militaryand nonmilitary dependent to account for potential biases

in both groups; however, a potentially negative opinion of

families is one limitation of the study. Surveys were dis-tributed to the population at the same time via an email

with a link to the survey and participants was given a dateby which to respond. Official school and county records

determined each teacher’s grade level assignment.

152 teachers were approached to complete the survey (5ECI, 7 Pre-K, 41 kindergarten, 44 first grade, 45 second

grade, 10 primary special education) (county records re-

view November 19, 2011); however, only 63 responded tothe survey request. School resource personnel (speech and

language pathologists, teaching assistants, occupational

therapists, etc.) were not asked to complete the surveybecause their responsibilities extend past the second grade

level and their student caseloads often exceed that of

classroom teachers, limiting day-to-day contact withspecific children.

Demographic Analysis

The demographic questions included in the survey ad-

dressed the grade level taught, number of years teaching,number of military dependents they are currently teaching,

and whether or not the respondent is a military dependent.

The survey was administered to 152 early childhood in-tervention, pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, first, second,

and special education teachers in the Meade cluster of the

Anne Arundel County Public Schools. A total of 63 re-sponses were yielded. Not all of the teachers answered

every question. Demographic questions were included at

the end of the survey.The first demographic question asked the respondents to

list the grade currently teaching. Of the 63 respondents, 57

answered this question. Demographic information in rela-tion to grade teaching is outlined in Table 1.

Question two asked respondents how many years they

had been teaching. The number of years teaching rangedfrom one to 36, with the mean number of years teaching

being 9.175. This question yielded 56 responses. The third

and fourth questions asked respondents to list the numberof military dependents they are currently teaching and their

status as a military dependent. Fifty-six teachers responded

to question three and the responses ranged from 0 to 36military dependents currently teaching with a mean of 7.93.

The military dependent status mean was 8.90, indicatingthat the majority of teachers were not military dependents.

Data Analysis

For each teacher, values (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) were entered for

13 total Likert-type items. In instances where a response isleft blank, the researcher created a neutral value that did

not impact the analysis positively or negatively. Therefore,

the median across each variable was calculated and thataverage value was used to fill in the blank value. Reliability

or internal consistency for this instrument were tested using

Cronbach’s alpha. The Teacher Observation of ClassroomAdaptation—Checklist (TOCA-C) has been evaluated for

reliability in a series of studies completed by Koth et al.

(2009) that examined the ‘‘factor structure and reliability’’(p. 26) of the TOCA-C suggested that the TOCA-C was a

‘‘valid, stable, and reliable measure for diverse samples of

elementary school children’’ (p. 27).Subquestion one was analyzed using an independent

samples t tests except when questions had open-ended re-

sponse formats. Using an alpha level of .05, independent-samples t tests were conducted to evaluate whether the

composite scores for question one differ significantly. Prior

to beginning the analysis, the researcher confirmed that thefollowing assumptions were met: a bivariate independent

variable, a continuous dependent variable, independent

observations of the dependent variable, and a normal dis-tribution of the dependent variable. It is important to note

that although data are ordinal they were treated as interval.

Effect size was calculated using Cohen’s d to evaluate thedegree that the mean of the difference scores is equal to

zero.

Likert-type items addressing research subquestion twowere analyzed using a Chi square goodness of fit analysis.

Additionally, the expected frequencies were examined and

determined to be large enough to conduct the analysis. Aswith subquestion two, Likert-type items for subquestion

three were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Data from

subquestion four, as well as the open-ended responses tothe previous subquestions were coded into the thematic

categories that emerged. Data from these responses were

reported in terms of frequency. Cronbach’s alpha wascalculated for each composite score prior to conducting a

Table 1 Grade currently teaching

Grade currently teaching Respondents (N = 57)

ECI 8.77 % (5)

Pre kindergarten 14.03 % (8)

Kindergarten 26.31 % (15)

First grade 17.54 % (10)

Second grade 19.30 % (11)

Special education 14.03 % (8)


123


statistical analysis. The instrument was pretested prior to

full implementation. Pretests continued until a Cronbach’salpha for each composite score reached a minimum of .7.

Comparison Between the Socioemotional Skillsof Military and Nonmilitary Dependent Children(Research Subquestion 1)

Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation—Checklist Results

Scores from the TOCA-C were divided into the threecategories defined by the instrument (concentration, dis-

ruptive behavior, and prosocial behavior) and analyzed

using three independent samples t tests. The first domainexamined compared the concentration scores between

military and nonmilitary dependent children. The second

domain examined the levels of disruptive behavior. Ho-mogeneity of variance was met prior to analyzing the re-

sults in these two domains. Data from the third domain,

prosocial behavior, were analyzed using Levene’s Test forEquality of Variances prior to examining the statistics.

Results from this test indicated that equal variances could

not be assumed and therefore the statistics were examinedwith this in mind. The difference between the scores of

military and nonmilitary dependent children was not sta-

tistically significant in any of the domains. A comparisonof TOCA-C results for military and nonmilitary dependent

children is displayed in Table 2.

Likert-Type Survey Questions-Comaprison

of Socioemotional Development

Teachers were also asked to compare military and non

military dependent children using a Likert type rating scale

corresponding to (1) never, (2) rarely, (3) sometimes, (4)often, (5) very often, (6) almost always to respond to the

following statements: ‘‘Additionally, the following state-

ments are true about military dependent children’’ relatedto the statements listed below:

1. Have nurturing relationships with family members.2. Come from single parent homes.

3. Frequently have a family member gone for an extend-

ed time (greater than 2 weeks) due to work/military-

related circumstances.4. Demonstrate a change in behavior when a par-

ent/guardian is gone for an extended amount time

due to work/military related circumstance.

The first item asked teachers to report on their beliefs

about their students’ relationships with their families.

Teachers were asked to report if military and nonmilitarydependent children ‘‘have nurturing relationships with

family members’’. Homogeneity of variance was met for

this test. The difference between military and nonmilitarydependent children was not statistically significant

(Table 3).

The next item asked teachers to report on their obser-vations about the number of children coming from single

parent homes. Homogeneity of variance was also met for

this test prior to analyzing the statistics. An analysis of thedata indicate a statistically significant difference, indicating

that teachers perceive nonmilitary dependent children as

more likely to come from a single parent home.The third item in this section asked teachers to report how

‘‘frequently’’ military and nonmilitary dependent children

have a family member gone for an extended time (greaterthan 2 weeks) due to work/military-related circumstances.

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances indicated that equalvariances could not be assumed and therefore the statistics

were examined with this mind. The data demonstrate that

military dependent children are perceived as more likelythan their nonmilitary dependent peers to have a parent

absent for an extended amount of time.

The final question in this group explored whetherteachers perceive military and nonmilitary children as

demonstrating ‘‘a change in behavior when a par-

ent/guardian is gone for an extended amount time due towork/military related circumstance’’. Levene’s Test for

Equality of Variances indicated that equal variances could

be assumed. The difference between military and non-military dependent children was significant. Teachers re-

ported that military dependent children were more likely

than their nonmilitary dependent peers to demonstrate achange in behavior when a parent leaves for an extended

time.

Table 2 Comparison ofTOCA-C results for militaryand nonmilitary dependents

* p \ .05

Item Military dependent status t test results

Military Nonmilitary

N Mean SD N Mean SD t Df p

Concentration 62 3.15 .61 61 3.12 .53 .343* 123 .732

Disruptive behavior 62 2.55 .56 61 2.66 .37 1.39* 123 .167

Prosocial behavior 62 4.13 .75 61 4.15 .62 .148* 123 .883


123


Open-Ended Question Summary-SocioemotionalDevelopment

Additionally, an open-ended question was used to examinehow teachers perceive the differences in the socioemo-

tional development of military and nonmilitary dependent

children. Respondents were asked, ‘‘Based on your expe-riences, what are the biggest differences between military

and nonmilitary dependent children?’’ The answers to this

question were coded for themes following an examinationof responses. A second rater was asked to examine the

responses and inter rater reliability was 100 %. The fol-

lowing themes emerged from this question:

• Less stability—inconsistency in routine, expectations,

parent at home and/or primary caregiver.• Adaptability—ability to adjust to new situations, loca-

tions, routines, and/or expectations.

• Extended support system—people and resources out-side a person’s immediate family who offer assistance

when needed.

• Uncertainty about the future—a child being unsureabout where he/she will be in the future (often in

regards to school and friends) and/or being unsure

about whether or not a parent will be present forspecific events.

• More world knowledge—having a greater sense ofworld/current events, being aware of other cultures,

and/or having first-hand experiences of other cultures.

• Behavioral issues—negative behavior exhibited by achild (i.e. anger issues, negative attention seeking, and

aggression).

• No difference—no dissimilarity between groups.

A total of 38 responses were yielded from this question.

The responses were coded and categorized into the themes

outlined above. A total of three responses contained in-formation that fit into two categories and therefore received

two codes for a total of 41 responses. The most frequently

occurring difference between military and nonmilitarydependent children was less stability while the least fre-

quently occurring were children’s uncertainty about the

future, being more worldly, and behavioral issues. Resultsare reported in frequencies and displayed in Table 4.

After making a socioemotional comparison between

military and nonmilitary dependent children, teachers were

asked to indicate their perceptions regarding what factorsmost influence the socioemotional development of military

dependent children. This question received 40 responses

and the following themes emerged:

• Parental separation—having one or both parents gone

for more than 2 weeks.• Geographic mobility—relocating more frequently than

once every three years.

• Change in family dynamic—change in the primary caregiver.

• Uncertainty about the future- a child being unsure about

where he/she will be in the future (often in regards toschool and friends) and/or being unsure about whether or

not a parent will be present for specific events.

• Lack of a family support system—the family not beingclose to extended family such as grandparents, aunts,

uncles, etc.

• Parent involvement—amount of presence and involve-ment the parent has in the school as well as the time the

parent spends engaged with the child.

Responses that contained information that fit into 2categories received two codes for a total of 48 responses.

The theme that occurred the most frequently was parental

separation and the least occurring theme was uncertaintyabout the future. These responses were examined in fre-

quencies and are displayed in Table 5. Interrater reliability

for this question was 100 %.

Table 3 Comparison of Likert-type survey questions formilitary and nonmilitarydependents

* p \ .05

Item Military dependent status t test results

Military Nonmilitary

N Mean SD N Mean SD t Df p

Nurturing family 46 3.80 .97 46 3.90 .86 .575* 92 .567

Single parent home 46 2.88 .52 46 3.27 .54 3.57* 92 .001

Parent gone extended time 46 4.04 1.0 46 2.30 .59 10.35* 80.86 .000

Behavior change when parent gone 46 4.06 .96 46 3.57 .87 2.59* 92 .011

Table 4 Teachers’ perceptions of the differences between militaryand nonmilitary dependent children

Themes Frequency Percentage

Less stability 17 41.5

More adaptability 6 14.6

Extended support system 5 12.2

More uncertainty about the future 3 7.3

More worldly 3 7.3

More behavioral issues 3 7.3

No differences 4 9.8


123


Impact of Geographic Mobility (ResearchSubquestion 2)

Geographic mobility questions were addressed using seven

questions.

1. Military children are negatively impacted by frequent

relocations.2. Military children are positively impacted by frequent

relocations.

3. Military children face academic challenges due tofrequent relocations.

4. Military children are negatively impacted socially by

frequent relocations.5. Military children are positively impacted socially by

frequent relocations.

Responses to questions were rated using a 5-point Likert

scale. Numbers 1 through 5 were used and corresponded to

(1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) neither agree or dis-agree, (4) agree, and (5) strongly agree. On average, teachers

stated that geographic mobility has a negative impact on

children (M = 3.43, SD = .880) and leads to academicchallenges (M = 3.75, SD = .862). Teachers did not agree

on the social impact of geographic mobility. Some teachers

responded that geographic mobility had a positive impact(M = 3.38, SD = .930) while others noted a negative impact

(M = 3.11, SD = .889). Responses are outlined in Table 6.

The second subquestion, ‘‘Do early childhood teachersperceive geographic mobility as impacting socioemotional

and academic development in military children age three to

eight?’’ was examined using descriptive statistics. Teachers

reported that they believe that geographic mobility has a

negative impact on children that they perceive as leading toacademic difficulties. However, there was not an overall

agreement on the socioemotional impact of geographic

mobility. Some teachers responded that geographic mobilityhad a positive impact while others reported that they per-

ceive a negative impact on socioemotional development.

Impact of Parental Separation (ResearchSubquestion 3)

Parental separation questions were addressed using sevenquestions. A Likert-type rating scale with numbers 1

through 5 corresponding to (1) strongly disagree, (2) dis-

agree, (3) neither agree or disagree, (4) agree, and (5)strongly disagree was used. Using the aforementioned

scale, respondents were asked to respond to the following 2

questions:

1. Military children are impacted socially by frequent

parental separation.2. Military children are impacted academically by

parental separation.

In the area of parental separation, teachers noted thatparental separation impacts socioemotional development

(M = 3.97, SD = .723) using a 5-point Likert scale where

agree has a value of four. Using the same scale, they alsonoted that parental separation has an academic impact

(M = 3.66, SD = .745). The small standard deviations are

indicative of strong agreement between the teachers sur-veyed. Descriptive results are outlined in Table 7.

Teachers were asked to respond to the following two

multiple choice questions with answers corresponding to(1) parental separation, (2) geographic mobility, (3) both,

(4) neither. Using this scale the following two questions

were addressed:

1. Which of the following most significantly impacts

classroom academic performance?2. Which of the following most significantly impacts the

socioemotional development of military dependent

children?

Table 5 Teachers’ perceptions of socioemotional influences onmilitary dependent children


Parental separation 23 47.9

Geographic mobility 10 20.8

Parental Involvement 4 8.3

Change in family dynamics 8 16.7

Uncertainty about the future 1 2.1

Family support system 2 4.2

Table 6 Teachers’ perceptions of the impact of geographic mobility

Relocation impact N Mean SD % Stronglydisagree

% Disagree % Neitheragree or disagree

% Agree % Strongly agree

Negative impact 62 3.43 .880 1 9 18 30 4

Positive impact 62 2.89 .851 3 17 26 16 0

Academic challenges 62 3.75 .862 1 6 8 39 8

Positive social impact 62 3.38 .930 0 14 15 28 5

Negative social impact 62 3.11 .889 3 11 25 22 1


123


A Chi square analysis was performed to determine

whether teachers perceived parental separation, geographicmobility, both or neither as impacting academic perfor-

mance. The results of the test were significant v2(3,

N = 63) = 22.14, p \ .01. The number of teachers indi-cating that both parental separation and geographic mo-

bility impacted academic performance (p = .48) was

greater than the hypothesized proportion of .25. Parentalseparation was also more frequently reported (p = .29) but

not as frequently as both parental separation and geo-graphic mobility. Geographic mobility (p = .14) and nei-

ther (p = .10) were less than the expected frequency of .25.

A Chi square test was also utilized to analyze whetherteachers perceived parental separation, geographic mo-

bility, both, or neither as impacting socioemotional de-

velopment. The results of the test were significant v2(3,N = 63) = 38.27, p \ .01. The number of teachers indi-

cating that both parental separation and geographic mo-

bility impacted socioemotional development (p = .43) wasgreater than the hypothesized proportion of .25. The data

also indicate that teachers perceive parental separation as

having an equally significant impact (p = .43) as a com-bination of parental separation and geographic mobility.

Geographic mobility (p = .05) and neither (p = .06) were

less than the expected frequency.The subquestion, ‘‘To what degree do early childhood

teachers perceive military children as being significantly

affected by parental separation?’’ was examined using de-scriptive statistics. The responses indicated that teachers

perceive parental separation as impacting socioemotional

development. They also agreed that parental separation hasa negative academic impact.

A Chi square analysis, which is a nonparametric mea-

sure, was used to compare the impact of geographic mo-bility and parental separation on academic performance

and socioemotional development. When examining whe-

ther one factor impacted academic performance more thanthe other, the data obtained from the survey questions

indicate that teachers believe both factors equally impact

academic performance. In the socioemotional domain,results demonstrated an equal number of teachers believe

that both geographic mobility and parental separation

and parental separation by itself impact socioemotionaldevelopment.

Types of Supports Needed for Military DependentChildren (Research Subquestion 4)

Respondents were asked to answer the following open-

ended questions:

1. Based on your experiences, what factor(s) most influ-

ences the socioemotional development of militarydependent children?

2. What types of support(s) do you feel military depen-

dent children need when a parent deploys?3. What types of support(s) do you feel military dependent

children need when a parent returns from deployment?

Answers to these questions were coded and examined for

themes. A second rater was asked to also examine the responsesand the interrater reliability is reported for each question.

The first open-ended question in this section asked

teachers about their perceptions regarding the types ofsupports young learners need when a parent(s) deploys.

This question yielded 42 responses. The codes that

emerged from this question were:

• Access to a peer support system—a support system put

in place by school personnel where children of militaryservice members have to opportunity to meet with other

children of deployed parents.

• Additional supports provided in the home—supportsput in place in the home environment (as opposed to the

school environment) to ease the burden on caregiver.

• Additional socioemotional support from teachers/schoolpersonnel—informal concessions made by the school to

help support children when a parent is deployed.

• Increased home/school communication—increasedcommunication between the teacher/school and the

primary caregiver in the home during deployment.

• Consistent environments—maintaining similar struc-ture in the home and school as before the service

member left.• Counseling—formal opportunity for discussion and

feedback with a mental health professional such as a

psychologist or a guidance counselor.• No additional support can replace a parent—belief that

no effective supports can be implemented when a

parent is deployed.

Table 7 Teachers’ perceptions of the impact of parental separation

Parental Separation Impact N Mean SD % Stronglydisagree

% Disagree % Neither agreeor disagree

% Agree % Strongly agree

Social impact 62 3.97 .723 0 2 11 36 13

Academic impact 62 3.66 .745 0 4 19 33 6


123


Inter rater reliability for this question was 97 %. Resultsare displayed in Table 8.

The final open-ended question examined the supports

teachers perceive children needing when a parent returnsfrom deployment. Responses to this question fell into the

following categories:

• Time together to adjust—giving the family concessions of

time off from work and school, excusing school assign-

ments, etc. so that the family can spend time together whena service member returns from deployment.

• Continuation of supports provided during deploy-

ment—maintaining any support system put in placeduring deployment. Responses in this category did not

specify which supports should remain in place.

• Increased home school communication—increasedcommunication between the teacher/school and the

primary caregiver in the home during and following

deployment.• Availability of teacher/school personnel to provide

support—informal concessions made by the school to

help support children when a parent returns fromdeployment.

• Consistent expectations at home and school—main-

taining similar structure in the home and school aswhen the service member was away.

• Counseling/therapy—formal opportunity for discussion

and feedback with a mental health professional such asa psychologist or a guidance counselor.

There were a total of 40 responses to this question.When the responses were reviewed it was determined that

three of the responses fit into two categories, therefore

providing a total of 43 responses. The most popular re-sponse was allowing families time together to adjust while

continuation of supports provided during deployment was

the least popular. When compared with a second rater theinter rater reliability score was 90 %. Results are outlined

in Table 9.

The final research subquestion, ‘‘What types of emo-tional supports do early childhood teachers perceive

military children and families needing when a parent (or

parents) deploys and when the parent returns from a de-ployment?’’ allowed teachers to provide open-ended re-

sponses about what types of supports are needed during and

following deployment. Teachers reported that based ontheir experiences, children with a deployed parent benefit

the most from additional supports in the school (from

teachers, guidance counselors, etc.) as well as peer supportgroups where children can meet with and discuss their

feelings. It was also noted by a majority of the teachers that

supports should be available for families in the home.In regards to supports when a parent returns from de-

ployment, many of the teachers stated that they felt al-

lowing time together to adjust to the change in familydynamics was important. The importance of school per-

sonnel remaining available and the need for consistent

expectations in the home and at school were also high-lighted, but at a lesser rate.

Results

Comparison of Socioemotional Development BetweenMilitary and Nonmilitary Dependent Children

(Research Subquestion 1)

The results of this survey did not render statistically sig-

nificant differences in how teachers perceive military andnonmilitary dependent children in relation to the socioe-

motional factors of prosocial behavior, concentration, and

disruptive behavior indicating that the teachers who re-sponded to this study do not believe that military dependent

children display a higher level of negative behaviors.

However, it is important to note that in open-ended re-sponses, teachers did perceive differences between military

and nonmilitary dependent children. For example, on tea-

cher noted

Often in these dual military or single parent house-

holds children get moved around in a way similar to

Table 8 Teachers’ perceptions of types of supports needed when aparent deploys


Peer support system 13 22.0

Home supports 14 23.7

School supports 16 27.1

Home/school communication 4 6.8

Consistent environments 6 10.2

Counseling 5 8.5

No support can replace a parent 1 1.7

Table 9 Teachers’ perceptions of types of supports needed when aparent returns from deployment


Time for family to adjust 15 34.9

Continuation of deployment supports 4 9.3

Home/school communication 6 14.0

Availability of school personnel 7 16.3

Consistent expectations 6 14.0

Counseling 5 11.6


123


foster children - living with whoever is able to ac-

commodate them at that time - and jumping from

school to school and then back again

Most of the differences were related to stability in the home

(parental separation and geographic mobility) but other

differences such as lack of an extended support system anduncertainties about the future were also noted.

While less stability (related to geographic mobility,

parental separation, change in home and school routine)was the most frequently noted difference, not all of the

differences noted were negative. Many teachers also re-

sponded that military children are worldlier and moreadaptable than their nonmilitary dependent peers. For ex-

ample one teacher stated,

They seem to be more adaptable to change; several

students who have joined me mid-year were able to

quickly jump into the routines of the year since theywere used to making the adjustment.

While others noted, ‘‘Military children who have traveled

often have more background knowledge’’ and ‘‘militarydependent children seem to be more able to have perspective

on issues’’. These teachers have noted benefits of the

military lifestyle and indicate that they believe there is valuein their experiences and by extension geographic mobility.

Parental Separation and Geographic Mobility (Research

Subquestions 2 and 3)

The fundamental findings related to parental separation and

geographic mobility are that overall early childhood

teachers believe that parental separation negatively impactsacademic progress and socioemotional development and

geographic mobility negatively impacts academic growth.

Interestingly, while teachers’ responses demonstrated abelief that the aforementioned negative impacts are rec-

ognized, they were largely split on whether or not there is a

negative socioemotional impact related to relocating everyfew years. Some perceive, as the previous research has also

demonstrated, a positive impact. This seems to indicate that

early childhood teachers appear to believe that this loca-tional instability helps some children develop more so-

phisticated interpersonal and adaptation skills allowing

them to easily seek out and foster new friendships. Thedivision in the results suggests that this is not the case for

all military dependent children. Evidence of this division in

beliefs about the impact of geographic mobility is evidentin the responses to the open-ended question about what

factors most impact negative impact military dependent

children. One teacher stated,

The consistent uprooting of families every 2 to

3 years does not allow children to form long lasting

relationships with friends. Even if a strong friendship

is made, the friends move away from one another and

are most likely not to be seen again. This can be veryhard for a child to understand and makes them more

apprehensive of committing to another friendship

knowing that this will be the end result.

Conversely, another teacher remarked ‘‘Many military

children are forced to be able to make friends due to

moving around a lot. Most children find coping mechan-isms because of the fact that they have to move often’’.

These sample responses highlight the differing opinions

among the teachers responding.Overall, teachers’ responses demonstrated that they per-

ceived parental separation to have negative academic and

socioemotional impacts. When asked to determine whetherchildren where most impacted by ‘geographic mobility’,

‘parental separation’, ‘neither’, or ‘both’, there was an in-

crease in the number of teachers who responded that parentalseparation left the biggest impact on the young children they

teach. As was the case when analyzing geographic mobility,

open-ended question responses provided additional insightinto the quantitative data. One teacher stated that,

The lack of extended family network and the supporttraditionally associated with that coupled with a de-

ployed parent/single parent transferred far away from

the non-custodial parent. Particularly troubling aredual-military families who rely on relatives a child is

unfamiliar with for times when both parents are de-

ployed. Often in these dual military or single parenthouseholds children get moved around in a way

similar to foster children - living with whoever is able

to accommodate them at that time - and jumping fromschool to school and then back.

Additionally, many responses were similar in fashion to theresponse of this teacher who noted that she believed,

‘‘When a family member is gone for an extended period of

time’’ is the most influential socioemotional factor.

Types of Support Needed for Military Dependent

Children (Research Subquestion 4)

Teachers were asked to remark on what types of supports

they feel the young children they teach need when a parent(s) deploys and returns home following that deployment.

The majority of responses focused on support; in the

school, the home, and with other peers in the same situa-tion. School based supports, specifically what the teachers

can and already do in their classrooms, were frequently

noted. One example of this is the teacher who stated,

As a teacher I make sure to give them more hugs and

attention then I already give! Make sure school is fun


123


so at least when they are in school they are usually

happy and mind is not thinking about it. (A little

more emotional support!).

The time when a parent returns from deployment can

also be an uncertain time for the child and teachers noted

that time together to readjust is critical. They also pointedout the importance of schools making exceptions for chil-

dren to be allowed to spend that time readjusting to having

the deployed parent home. One example is the teacher whostated,

I think a few days of adjustment should be granted toboth the military member and their family to spend

some needed quality time together without the pres-

sures of work and school. This will allow the familyto reconnect. Also, I feel that the students and the

parent should not be penalized for this time in the

form of unexcused absents or sick time taken fromtheir leave.

Another teacher noted, ‘‘Flexibility with homework as well as

opportunities for family members to come and visit students inschool’’ which also highlights teachers’ beliefs that schools

need to be accommodating of the readjustment period.

Discussion

The results of this study have implications for both the

professional development of early childhood teachers andearly childhood curriculum development related to military

dependent children. The manner in which teachers perceive

the socioemotional impact of geographic mobility remainsunclear; however the results of this study demonstrate that

teachers perceive a negative socioemotional impact as a

result of frequent parental separations. Academically,teachers perceive a negative impact from both parental

separation and geographic mobility.

The first implication for practice involves using what areperceived as positive aspects of the military lifestyle to

support the more challenging. Many teachers who re-

sponded to this study perceived frequent relocations to be apositive aspect in their students’ lives. Many noted that

military dependent children had an increased ability to

make friends, were more adaptable and ‘‘worldlier’’ thantheir nonmilitary dependent peers. These positive factors

need to be included when planning curriculum and pro-

fessional development. An underlying theme of theteachers’ responses to this study is that there are many

positive aspects of this lifestyle.

The belief that frequent relocation may have a positivesocioemotional impact while rendering a negative aca-

demic one warrants additional attention. While efforts are

in place to implement a common core curriculum across

the states, the reality is that expectations still vary acrossjurisdictions. Implementing a common exit assessment,

indicating what material was covered by the sending school

and where the child was achieving when they exited theschool would provide receiving schools with a baseline

indicator of the child’s strengths and needs. Having a

measure of the where the child is performing academicallywould allow the new school to better plan curricula to meet

the child’s needs. It would also allow receiving schools todetermine if there was an academic impact brought on by

the relocation or if the child was simply not exposed to

certain information.Providing teachers with training regarding the how best

to meet the needs of these children is the next implication.

This includes ensuring that teachers have a better under-standing of military life as a whole, including the fact that

some families adapt to the lifestyle without any negative

impacts on education. This includes a better understandingof how to determine when a child or family truly needs

support related to a military issue. While teachers noted the

importance of providing supports in the home, many ofthem pointed to the importance of supporting these chil-

dren in the classroom and larger school setting. What many

of their responses lacked were the specifics about how,when, and/or why these supports are needed. Teachers,

particularly those in school systems with a large number of

military dependents, need proper training in order to de-velop curriculum and meet the academic and socioemo-

tional needs of these children.

Future research should focus on the education needs ofmilitary children and be completed by the educational re-

search community. The mental health perspective of the

current research limits educators’ abilities to apply findingsto the school setting. While the mental health community

can provide educators with valuable insight, there is an

urgent need for research specifically pertaining to theeducational impact of parental separation, geographic

mobility, and socioemotional adjustment on military chil-

dren. Research has also demonstrated that children responddifferently to these stressors (particularly parental separa-

tion) based on age (Kelley et al. 2001; Kelley 2002) and

family make up.The most logical next step is to expand on the research

presented here using qualitative interviews and focus

groups. Using these methods to examine the researchquestions will allow the researcher to focus on a group of

teachers in purposefully chosen schools with a large

population of military dependent children and adequatelyexplore how those teachers make meaning of the proposed

questions. It would also allow the researcher to explore in-

depth how early childhood teachers experience and per-ceive the factors influencing education of young children


123


and will provide an in-depth study of this ‘system,’ based

on a diverse array of data collection materials.Also needed are traditional experimental research or

qualitative studies more variety. Experimental studies al-

low for generalizability across the population, andqualitative methodologies (such as ethnographies, case

studies, and phenomenological research) would allow an

‘‘insider perspective’’. Variety in research design or the useof mixed methodology would also allow direct observation

of the children being studied and less reliance on parentalinterpretations. Survey methods are recommended, but

should represent multiple geographic locations including

military children stationed in nonmilitary communities.Additionally, surveys should be designed so that children

can respond for themselves instead of relying on parental

interpretation.This study highlighted how early childhood teachers

perceive the military lifestyle as impacting the children in

their classrooms. While negative factors were noted,teachers also noted a number of positive aspects to this

lifestyle. They also shared a perspective unique to early

childhood educators. These individuals have a unique andimportant relationship with these children and their input is

critical. Allowing them to lend their voices to curriculum

and professional development will strengthen the educa-tional experiences of these children.

References

Allen, M., & Staley, L. (2007). Helping children cope when a lovedone is in military deployment. Young Children, 62(1), 82–87.

Biddle, B. J., & Anderson, D. S. (1986). Methods, knowledge, andresearch on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on teaching (pp. 42–64). New York: McMillian.

Green, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K.L. (2005). Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagementand achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions andmotivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 462–482.

Hanson, M. J., Woltberg, P., Zercher, C., Morgan, M., Gutierrez, S.,Barnwell, D., & Beckman, P. (1998). The culture of inclusion:Recognizing diversity at multiple levels. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 13(1), 185–210.

Hardre, P. L., Davis, K. A., & Sullivan, D. W. (2008). Measuringteacher perceptions of the ‘‘how’’ and ‘‘why’’ of studentmotivation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14(2),155–179.

Horten, D. (2005). Consultation with military schools: A proposedmodel. Consulting Psychology Journal, 57(4), 259–265.

Kelley, M. (2002). The effects of deployment on traditional andnontraditional military families: Navy mothers and their chil-dren. In M. G. Enders (Ed.), Military brats and other globalnomads: Growing up in organizational families (pp. 3–22).Westport, CT: Praeger.

Kelley, M. L., Hoch, E., Smith, K. M., Jarvis, M. S., Bonney, J. F., &Gaffney, M. A. (2001). Internalizing and externalizing behaviorof children with enlisted navy mothers experiencing militaryinduced separation. Journal of the American Academy of Childand Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(4), 464–471.

Koth, C. W., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2009). TeacherObservation of Classroom Adaptation—Checklist (TOCA C):Development and factor structure. Measurement and Evaluationin Counseling and Development, 42, 15–30.

McCaslin, M. L., & Scott, K. W. (2003). The Five-question methodfor framing a qualitative research study. The Qualitative Report,8(3), 447–461.

Meisels, S. J. (1999). Assessing readiness. In R. C. Pianta & M.J. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 39–66).Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Morgan, P. (2008). Teacher perceptions of physical education in theprimary school: Attitudes, values, and curriculum preferences.Physical Educator, 65(1), 46–56.

Silverman, S., & Subramaniam, P. R. (1999). Student attitude towardphysical education and physical activity: A review of measure-ment issues and outcomes. Journal of Teaching in PhysicalEducation, 19(11), 97–125.

Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1984). The impact of thestudent teaching experience on the development of teacherperspectives. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 28–36.

Wenglinski, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the class-room back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service.

Zill, N. (1999). Promoting educational equity and excellence inkindergarten. In R. C. Pianta & M. J. Cox (Eds.), The transitionto kindergarten: Research, policy, training, and practice (pp.67–105). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brooks.


123


How Early Childhood Teachers Perceive the Educational Needs of Military Dependent Children

Documents

Transcript of How Early Childhood Teachers Perceive the Educational Needs of Military Dependent Children