For it is a mixed research approach, both quantitative and qualitative data analysis techniques were employed. Statistical tests were executed using IBM SPSS statistics 26. The leading aim was to examine differences in emotional behavior conditions i.e. well-being between sample preschoolers of the public center and that of the private center. Thus, a t-test for independent samples was performed to compare the means of the two sample groups. Concurrently, the qualitative techniques of interviewing and document analysis complemented the statistical based, quantitative analysis.
Within the package of EDI/AEDI tool, the scale of emotional behavior development (i.e. emotional maturity) has a total of twenty seven items (Brinkman et al., 2014). Of these, six items are excluded from analysis in the study for each of these items corrected item total correlation is below 0.3 (Field, 2013). Dropping the six items, the internal consistency of the analyzed items of the scale, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, is 0.87 which is very good reliability.
Table 1: A t-test for mean differences on Emotional well-being and development
Source: Output of analysis conducted through IBM SPSS statistics 26.
In table-1, results of the sample items (i.e. kicks, bits or hits other children or adults; tries to help someone who is hurt; gets into physical fights; and takes things that do not belong to him/her) of the scale, emotional behavior development (well-being), are presented statistically. For the item of negative emotion and anti-social behavior i.e. - kicks, bits or hits other children or adults, children from the community preschool have higher mean scores of (M = 4.07, SD = 4.12) than scores of sample study group from private center (M = 1.35, SD = 3.03, t = 3.31, df = 78, p = .001). An item for positive emotion (pro-social behavior), - i.e. tries to help someone who is hurt, pupils from the private preschool have better mean scores (M = 7.76, SD = 3.43) than preschoolers from the community center (M = 7.16, SD = 3.13, t= -0.834, df = 80, p = 0.406). To the item implying problem behavior, i.e. gets into physical fights, there is a significant difference between the two groups; and preschoolers of the public preschool have higher scores (M = 4.09, SD = 4.21) than preschoolers in the private center (M = 1.71, SD = 2.91, t = 2.93, df = 80, p < 0.005). To the other item for problem behavior, i.e. takes things that do not belong to him or her, still preschoolers from the public preschool have higher scores of means (M = 2.95, SD = 3.79) than their counterparts from the private KG setting (M = 1.32, SD = 3.00, t = 2.14, df = 80, p = .035).
The qualitative modes of assessment in which the study partly depended are structured-interviews and document analysis. Interview-based reflections of the administrators in the sample preschools are themed within school-based and home-based support and involvement frames. In the two centers, both forms of involvement i.e. the school-based and home-based involvements take different pictures.
In the first theme, school-based involvement of parents i.e. school to family communication, volunteering by families, shared decision-making and governance, and community collaboration (Rapp & Duncan, 2012) are set, interrelated and assessed. In the public school, the preschool authorities, i.e. the principal and deputy directors, disclosed that families’ school-based involvement is so negligible and infrequent due to various reasons. The principal director rationalized for the intermittent communication of the school with families stating ‘… this is mainly due to the fact that we have too much work-burden here. We juggle from morning to moon serving both the preschoolers and students in the primary level. Time, human and material resources related scarcities are among the main constraints. Moreover, from our assessment most of families of our students are not as such educated and are low income earners. Thus, their main concern seems securing of their daily livelihood. For most of them dealing directly with their child’s education look far less feasible. What can we do with this? ...’
For the second theme, home-based involvement by families, i.e. parenting and facilitation of the child’s learning at home (Smith, et al., 2011) were also briefly examined. In the latter premise of involvement, the community center authorities reported that the school does not have direct access for checking if families are properly discharging their home-based roles and involvement towards their children’s education or not. The main challenges here too, as the school’s authorities unfolded, are not having written mode of school-family communication line and also absence of trend of visit to a child’s home.
To the school leaders in the private center, i.e. the principal director and the coordinator uniformly stated that school-based as well as home-based involvement of families is almost always on and active. They argued firmly that there is healthy and quite regular written interaction between the school and the family. The family-school communication books were found the main bridge in which the two actors reflect in written form events happened, comments and prospective directions. It was noticed that the school was obliging every family to show its involvement through supporting of her/his child on the assignments and worksheets given; and also to exert effort and report on the everyday behavioral conditions of the child. Thus, they were also inquired to comment, sign on and return communication materials in proving their home-based support of the child and engagement on educational matters. As the authorities further reported, families were also often invited to show their active involvement in the core, decision-seeking issues. They were often inquired to comment on through the school’s suggestion boxes. Shared decision-making through the representatives of parent teacher association- PTA is the other approach. To mention some expressions of the principal administrator, “We have well established system and everything runs through it. We carry out a bi-annual meeting with families and there is often experience sharing in such forums. We also sometime summon community members and inquire for mutual support activities in the nearby areas like environmental cleaning, planting of trees, and so forth. We also support the community through offering scholarships for children from the poorest families. In short our system is easy to reach to all concerned groups.”
As for home-based support and involvement by families, the authorities expressed that they do not have the culture of home visits to the children’s families. It is further revealed that the school often provides support demanded by the child’s family when especially one of the child’s parents is able to avail her/himself in the school compound based on prior request and set schedules. However, similar to the public preschool, the private center too had only family-sourced information and implied conclusion as for the amount and quality of support provided to the child by family members while at home. This has been attributed to the inexistence of trend of direct home-visit by teachers and other school authorities.
In line with this, school-family communication books, students’ progress reports and meeting schedules were also given attention, cross-checked and served as supplementary inputs. In the context of the public preschool, school-family communication materials, progress records of pupils and even annual work plans which may evidence meeting and support schedules with families were not available. The only recorded documents accessed were students’ test score records and fragmented weekly lesson plans.
The specific case in the private preschool was quite different. Each student had her/his own school-family communication book. Daily occurrences in the academy as well as in other behavior aspects were reflected by a classroom teacher and communicated to a family. For each reflection from the school, families were thought to read, comment and sign. But the main barrier noted here is that the school-family communication material is prepared in a foreign language, i.e. English. However, it has also been confirmed that almost all the families used local languages including Amharic and Afan Oromo and were not well conversant of the foreign language. The document analysis also revealed that there is a trend of preparation of behavioral anecdotes and evaluation records about each child in the preschool. The behavior record has been prepared on quarterly basis and then parent-teacher discussion (PTD) is held. There is often a scheduled discussion session of a classroom teacher with respective parents about their child’s behavioral conditions. Accordingly feedbacks are exchanged and trajectories of future behavioral progress are designed.
It is found out that in comparison to families from the community preschool, families in the private preschool have shown better partnership and involvement in the day-in day-out activities of the school where their children are attending. The group, i.e. sample children belonged to the private center, have shown more positively oriented emotional dispositions and lesser tendencies in manifesting problem behaviors. The study has also shown evidence for the association of early years emotional behavior problems where there is extremely limited educational involvement of families. One rationale explanation for the finding could be socio-demographic nature of the families. It is further implied that more children of families with higher socioeconomic status have been served by the private center while the public preschool has been providing the education service to children from families of the poorer socioeconomic standing.