INFANT Child Development Need This Done Tomorrow Wednesday February 26, 2019 By 12pm PACIFIC TIME ZONE!

In this discussion, you will share your “culture” with classmates. Instead of writing paragraphs to accomplish this task, we are going to make some digital art.

In a separate document, make a list of all the things that make up or describe your culture. There are lots of reflective ideas in this week’s readings (PDF FILE BELOW) to help you get started. A truly effective list will have 25 or more different descriptors… Think about all of the things that are obvious about you and then think about what’s below the surface. What elements of your culture can we not see by looking at you?

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on

Just from $13/Page

Order Essay

This weeks reading pages:

Cultures and Identity Development: Getting Infants and Toddlers Off to a Great Start, by Carol Brunson Day, pages 2-12

Prejudice, Bias, and Inequity in the Lives of Infants and Toddlers, by Louise Derman-Sparks, pages 13-24

Cultural Sensitivity in Caregiving Routines: The Essential Activities of Daily Living, Janet Gonzalez-Mena, pages 56-66

1. Visit

ABCya.com

to create a visual representation of your list.

2. After you follow the link, click the play arrow in the large box to get started.

3. Copy and paste your entire list.

4. Click on create.

5. You can customize your list by changing the color, shape, or font in any way you want.

6. Click on Menu and Save to download your artwork.

7. Upload your artwork here as your discussion response.

child development

WestEd

A Guide to

Culturally
Sensitive Care

Second Edition

Developed collaboratively by the

California Department of Education

and WestEd

Sacramento, 201

Infant/Toddler Caregiving

A Guide to

Culturally
Sensitive Care

Second Edition

Edited by

Elita Amini Virmani and Peter L. Mangione

Developed collaboratively by the

California Department of Education

and WestEd

Publishing Information

Infant/Toddler Caregiving: A Guide to Culturally Sensitive Care, Second Edition,
was developed by WestEd, San Francisco. The publication was edited by Faye Ong,
working in cooperation with Elita Amini Virmani and Peter Mangione, WestEd; and
Sy Dang Nguyen, Consultant, Child Development Division, California Depart
ment of Education (CDE). It was prepared for printing by the staff of CDE Press,
with the cover and interior design created by Juan D. Sanchez. The document was
published by the California Department of Education, 14

N Street, Sacramento,
CA 95814-5901. It was distributed under the provisions of the Library Distribution
Act and Government Code Section 11096.

by the California Department of Education
First edition printed in 1995; reprinted in 2010.
All rights reserved

ISBN 978-0-8011-1734-3

Ordering Information

Copies of this publication are available for purchase from the California Depart
ment of Education (CDE). For prices and ordering information, visit http://www.
cde.ca.gov/re/pn/rc/ or call the CDE Press sales office at 1-800-995-4099.

Notice

The guidance in Infant/Toddler Caregiving: A Guide to Culturally Sensitive Care,
Second Edition, is not binding on local educational agencies or other entities. Ex
cept for statutes, regulations, and court decisions referenced herein, the document is
exemplary, and compliance with it is not mandatory. (See Education Code Section
33308.5.)

Prepared for printing
by CSEA members

http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/rc/

Contents

A Message from the State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Acknowledgments

vii

About the Authors

Introduction

Section One: Understanding the Social Context of Infant/Toddler Care 1

Chapter 1. Culture and Identity Development: Getting Infants and
Toddlers Off to a Great Start

Carol Brunson Day

The Beginnings of Identity Development Are in Infancy 2
Dimensions of Identity Development 3
The Role of Culture in Development 4

Cultural Empowerment: Preparing Infant/Toddler Care Teachers for

Competent Practice

Culture as a Process

Culturally Responsive Practices That Support Identity Development

References

Chapter 2. Prejudice, Bias, and Inequity in the Lives of Infants and Toddlers 13

Louise Derman-Sparks

Societal Inequity and Families 1

What Infants and Toddlers See and Hear in Child Care Settings 14

Socialization in Two Cultures

Practicing Culturally Responsive Care 1

Building Blocks of a Culturally Responsive Care/Learning Environment 1

Conclusion 22

Glossary 23

References

Chapter 3. Inclusion of Children with Special Needs in Diverse Early
Care Settings

Deborah Chen
Diverse Perspectives on Disability 25

Differences in Perspectives 27

Understanding Early Intervention Terminology, Eligibility, and Intervention

Eligibility for Early Intervention Services 28
Initiating the Early Intervention Process: Making Referrals

iii

Individualized Family Service Plan 33

Teaming with Interpreters 33

Gathering Information from Families 34

Sharing Information with Families

Supporting Participation and a Sense of Belonging in the Early Care Setting 36

Person-First Language 37

Universal Design for Learning 37

Teaming with Early Intervention Service Providers 38

Embedding Specific Learning Opportunities in Daily Routines 38

Questions to Guide Practice 39

Conclusion 39

References

Section Two: Becoming Informed About Cultural Practices and Cultural
Communities 41

Chapter 4. A Cultural Communities and Cultural Practices Approach to
Understanding Infant and Toddler Care 42

Alison Wishard Guerra and Sarah Garrity
Participation in Cultural Practices at Home and in the Early Care Setting 44

Understanding Cultural Communities

Understanding Cultural Practices 47

Families and Communities 47

Interactions with Children and Families and Becoming Informed About Cultural

Practices and Cultural Communities 51

Understanding the Classroom or Program as Its Own Cultural Community 52

References 53

Chapter 5. Cultural Sensitivity in Caregiving Routines: The Essential Activities
of Daily Living 56

Janet Gonzalez-Mena
Differing Beliefs and Values 56

What Is a Routine? 57

Cultural Differences in Daily Routines: Toileting, Feeding,

and Sleeping/Napping

Toileting 59

Feeding Practices 61

Sleeping/Napping Routines 63

Summary 64

References 65

Section Three: Creating Collaborative, Reciprocal Relationships with Families 67

Chapter 6. Developing Culturally Responsive Caregiving Practices: Acknowledge,

Ask, and Adapt 68

Louise Derman-Sparks
The Process of Culturally Responsive Care 68

Acknowledge, Ask, and Adapt 72

Identifying Culturally Responsive and Culturally Insensitive Practices 75

Scenario 1: A Baby Crying

Scenario 2: Babies Wearing Protective Amulets 79

Scenario 3: Babies Staying Clean or Engaging in Active Learning 82

Scenario 4: “Two Mommies” 84

Developmental Issues or Cultural Differences? 86

Determining the Nature of the Behavior 86

Conclusion 88

References 88

Thinking/Doing Activity 1 89

Thinking/Doing Activity 2 90

Thinking/Doing Activity 3 91

Thinking/Doing Activity 4 92

Thinking/Doing Activity 5 93

Thinking Doing Activity 6 94

Chapter 7. Creating Collaborative, Reciprocal Relationships with Linguistically

Diverse Families 95

Gisela Jia and Alison Wishard Guerra
Linguistic and Cultural Diversity at Home 95

Family Beliefs and Goals for Children’s Bicultural and Bilingual

Development 96

The Importance of Developing Home Language and Cultural Competence

Communication and Language Development in Non-English-Speaking

Homes 97

Strategies for Creating Collaborative Relationships with Linguistically

Diverse Families 98

Conclusion 104

References 105

Section Four: Suggested Resources 107

A Message from the State Superintendent
of Public Instruction

C ulturally responsive practices are essential to supporting children’s development in all domains. To address culturally responsive practices in early care settings, seven noted experts have been brought together to create this second edition of A Guide to Culturally Sensitive Care, which was developed collaboratively by the
California Department of Education and WestEd. The guide focuses on understanding the
role that culture and language play in contributing to children’s development and includes
important considerations in caring for young children from diverse cultural and linguistic
backgrounds. The publication introduces readers to new ways of thinking about culture
and its impact on child development. It suggests ways for teachers to collaborate with
families to better understand how family goals and values influence their daily caregiv
ing practices and routines. In addition, the book aims to help infant/toddler care teachers
deepen their appreciation of how they are influenced by their own cultural beliefs and
how an awareness of one’s beliefs is the foundation for being responsive to the cultural
perspectives and experiences of young children and families. Above all, this resource
offers infant/toddler care teachers many practical ideas on how to create relationships
with families and establish meaningful connections between the home and the early care
setting.

It is our hope that everyone in the infant/toddler field will use this new publication
hand in hand with the other resources created by the Department of Education to promote
the well-being and long-term development of California’s youngest children and their
families.

TOM TORLAKSON
State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Acknowledgments

T he first edition of this publication was developed by the WestEd Center for Child and Family Studies, under the direction of J. Ronald Lally. Funding for the first edition was generously provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Special thanks go to Jesus Cortez, Louise Derman-Sparks, Janet Gonza
les-Mena, Alicia F. Lieberman, Jayanthi Mistri, Carol Brunson Day, Carol Lou Young-
Holt, and Peter L. Mangione for their contributions to the first edition; to Karla Nygaard
for editorial assistance; and to Robert Cervantes, Kay Witcher, Janet Poole, Virginia
Benson, Helen Nguyen, and Mary Smithberger, Child Development Division, California
Department of Education, for their review of the content. Thanks are also extended to
the members of the national and the California review panels and the Advisory Panel for
Culturally Sensitive Care for their comments and suggestions. The national panel mem
bers were T. Berry Brazelton, Laura Dittman, Richard Fiene, Magda Gerber, Asa Hill
iard, Alice Honig, Jeree Pawl, Sally Provence, Eleanor Szanton, Yolanda Torres, Bernice
Weissbourd, and Donna Wittmer. The California panel members were Dorlene Clayton,
Dee Cuney, Ronda Garcia, Jacquelyne Jackson, Lee McKay, Janet Nielsen, Pearlene
Reese, Maria Ruiz, June Sale, Patty Siegel, and Lenore Thompson. The members of the
culturally sensitive care panel were Ruby Burgess, Jesus Cortez, Louise Derman-Sparks,
Ron Henderson, Frances E. Kendall, Christina Guzman-Pederson, Carol Brunson Day,
and Yolanda Torres.

For contributions to this second edition, special thanks go to Carol Brunson Day, J.
Ronald Lally, Louise Derman-Sparks, Deborah Chen, Sarah Garrity, Janet Gonzales-
Mena, Alison Wishard Guerra, Elita Amini Virmani, and Peter L. Mangione. For editorial
assistance, appreciation is extended to Eva Gorman.

The California Department of Education gratefully acknowledges Sara Webb Schmitz
for the use of photos that appear in this publication and Deborah Greenwald for her work
in selecting the photos. Special thanks also go to the following programs: Associated
Students Inc. Children’s Center, California State University, Sacramento; Blue Skies for
Children; the Cameron School; Contra Costa Community College Early Learning Center;
Eben Ezer Family Child Care; Little Munchkins Academy; Marin Head Start, Hamilton
Campus; Marin Head Start, Indian Valley Campus; Marin Head Start, Meadow Park
Campus; and Willow Street Schoolhouse.

vii

About the Authors

C arol Brunson Day, PhD, is a native of Chicago. She holds a BA in psychology from the University of Wisconsin, an MA in early childhood education from the Erikson Institute, and a PhD in education from Claremont Graduate School.
Throughout her career in early childhood education, Dr. Day has been involved in

both teaching young children and training teachers, at first as a Head Start teacher and
instructor of child development at Prairie State College in Illinois. For 13 years, she was
a member of the human development faculty at Pacific Oaks College in Pasadena, Cali
fornia, specializing in early childhood education and cultural influences on

development.

From 2005 to 2010, Dr. Day was the president of the National Black Child Development
Institute after serving as the CEO and president of the Council for Professional Recogni
tion from 19

until 2004.

Dr. Day received two fellowship awards: the first in 19

from the Ford Founda
tion and the National Research Council, and the second in 19

when she was named a
Shaughnessy Scholar under a program by the U. S. Department of Education’s Fund for
the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education

Louise Derman-Sparks, MA, has worked for more than

years on issues of diver
sity and social justice as a preschool teacher, child care center director, parent, college
teacher, researcher, and activist. A native of New York City, she holds a BA degree with
a major in English and a minor in history from Brooklyn College and an MA in early
and elementary education from the University of Michigan. On the human development
faculty of Pacific Oaks College, Pasadena, for

years, she is now a professor emeritus.
Louise began her career as an early childhood educator in the Perry Preschool Project and
the Ypsilanti Early Childhood Project and then directed a child care center in Los Ange
les. She is the author and co-author of several books, the most recent work being Anti-
Bias Education for Young Children & Ourselves, co-authored with Julie Olsen Edwards
(2010). Other books include What If All the Kids Are White?, Anti-bias/Multicultural
Education with Young Children and Families with Dr. Patricia Ramsey (2010), Teaching/
Learning Anti-Racism: A Developmental Approach with Dr. Carol B. Phillips (1997), and
Anti-Bias Curriculum: Tools for Empowering Young Children, with the A.B.C. Task Force
(1989).

Ms. Derman-Sparks speaks, conducts workshops, and consults widely throughout the
United States and internationally. A former member of the governing board of the Nation
al Association for the Education of Young Children, she currently works with Crossroads,
an anti-racism training organization, and has been a social justice activist for 50 years.
Ms. Derman-Sparks is also the mother of two children, Douglass and Holly Sparks.

viii

Deborah Chen, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Special Education at Cali
fornia State University, Northridge. Dr. Chen coordinates the Early Childhood Special
Education credential program and teaches courses in this area. She has been an early
interventionist; special educator; and administrator of programs for children with a
variety of learning needs, severe and multiple disabilities, and sensory impairments. Dr.
Chen’s research, publications, and materials focus on the following areas: interdisciplin
ary perspectives in early intervention; communication with infants and young children
who have multiple disabilities, visual impairments, and who are deaf-blind; and cultur
ally responsive services to young children and families of diverse cultural and linguistic
backgrounds. She has presented at statewide, national, and international conferences and
has conducted professional development courses and workshops throughout the United
States and internationally.

Alison Wishard Guerra, PhD, is an assistant professor in the department of educa
tion studies at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). She received her PhD in
education from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 2005, with an emphasis on
psychological studies in education. Dr. Wishard Guerra’s research focuses on culture and
development in early childhood, with a particular focus on social and language develop
ment among Latino children from low-income families. Her research looks specifically at
how social relationships and interactions may serve as protective factors for later cogni
tive development among at-risk children. She studies within-group variations related
to immigration and acculturation experiences and their associations with children’s
developmental outcomes. Dr. Wishard Guerra is a member of the National Early Head
Start Research Consortium, where she continues research investigating social and cogni
tive developmental outcomes. Within the consortium she leads a team to investigate the
links between stability and continuity in early child care experiences and developmental
outcomes of 3,000 children, from birth to three years old, participating in the Early Head
Start National Research Project.

Dr. Wishard Guerra was a member of the expanded research consortia that devel
oped the California Preschool Learning Foundations on English-language development,
and she has served as an expert reviewer of English-language development and cultural
diversity in the development of volumes 2 (Visual and Performing Arts, Physical De
velopment, and Health) and 3 (History–Social Science and Science) of the California
Preschool Learning Foundations and the California Preschool Curriculum Framework,
published by the California Department of Education. Her current research at UCSD
investigates the role of social pretend play in the development of oral language and school
readiness among Mexican-heritage children. In the education studies department, she
teaches courses on early childhood education; culture and developmental theory; quanti
tative research methodology; a dissertation-writing seminar; and research on curriculum
design. Dr. Wishard Guerra is a 2009–10 Hellman Foundation Fellow and the recipient
of a 2009–10 and 2011–

University–Community (UC) Links grants. UC Links is a
network of educational programs that connect community and university partners work
ing together to create innovative after-school programs.

Sarah Garrity, EdD, received an MS in child and family development from San
Diego State University and an EdD in educational leadership through a joint doctoral
program offered by the University of California, San Diego, and California State Univer

sity, San Marcos. She has been a practitioner in the field of early childhood education for
almost

years as a teacher, administrator, and literacy coach. In her role as a Head Start
administrator, she was responsible for implementation of Early Head Start and state-fund
ed infant/toddler programs. Currently, she is an assistant professor in the Department of
Child and Family Development at San Diego State University, where she teaches courses
in early childhood education and for the department’s early childhood mental health
certificate program. Dr. Garrity’s research focuses on using mixed methods and research
techniques to learn more about the complexities of educational settings, particularly the
cultural and linguistic origins of teacher practices and how they impact children’s ex
periences and outcomes. Her research is committed to improving outcomes for at-risk
children and closing the school-readiness gap through the use of classroom practices that
are based on evidence and are meaningful and culturally relevant to both teachers and
students.

Janet Gonzalez-Mena, MA, retired from working as a full-time faculty member in
the child and family studies program at Napa Valley College and now is a self-employed
consultant specializing in infants and toddlers, diversity, and partnerships with families.
She was formerly director of child care services for a family service agency in San Mateo
County. The agency’s services included an infant/toddler center, a network of family child
care homes, and a program of therapeutic child care for abused and neglected infants,
toddlers, and preschoolers. She worked in Head Start as a teacher (when it first began)
and later as a Head Start trainer. Her career includes being a home visitor in a bilingual
program for Spanish-speaking children and their families. Ms. Gonzalez-Mena is the co
author of Infants, Toddlers, and Caregivers: A Curriculum of Respectful, Responsive Care
and Education and the author of Infant/Toddler Caregiving: A Guide to Routines. She
also wrote Diversity in Early Care and Education: Honoring Differences. She has written
many articles about infants and toddlers, diversity, and parenting for periodicals, includ
ing Young Children and Exchange Magazine. She has a multiethnic, multiracial family.

Gisela Jia, PhD, is currently an associate professor in the department of psychology at
Lehman College, City University of New York. She received her BA in English language
and literature and her MA in linguistics from Beijing University and her doctorate in
developmental and cognitive psychology from New York University. Throughout the past

years, she has conducted research in bilingual language development among first- and
second-generation immigrants speaking Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, Russian, or Span
ish as their home language. Her work has been published in many professional journals,
books, and proceedings read by psychologists, linguists, educators, and speech/language
pathologists. Dr. Jia has involved many graduate and undergraduate students, as well as
high school students, with multicultural and multilingual backgrounds in her research.
She has served as a consultant for the California Department of Education to develop
language learning standards for bilingual children.

Introduction

As early education programs strive to promote development for all children, those

from diverse cultures as well as those from the mainstream, meeting the challenge of

making everyone’s culture visible will do more than merely improve program prac

tice—it will reshape the entire field. To discover ways to educate all children, we must

also consider the unique differences of individuals. An important influence on these

differences is one’s culture. As our understanding of culture’s influence on the devel

opment of all people deepens, our understanding of human universals will increase.

So as we work to discover the developing cultural child, we at the same time unveil the

human child.

G
—Carol Brunson Day, Concepts for Care: 20 Essays

on Infant/Toddler Development and Learning

ilbert, Goode, and Dunne (2007) state that “Culture is the learned and shared
knowledge that specific groups use to generate their behavior and interpret their
experience of the world. It comprises beliefs about reality, how people should
interact with each other, what they ‘know’ about the world, and how they should

respond to the social and material environments in which they find themselves.” Through
culture, children gain a sense of identity, a feeling of belonging, and beliefs about what
is important in life, what is right and wrong, and how to care for themselves and others.
When children are raised only in their home culture, they learn those lessons almost ef
fortlessly. But when they spend some of their formative years in child care with people
who were not raised in their culture and who do not necessarily share the same family
and community values, the learning of those important
early lessons becomes more complex. That is the condi
tion that many young children are now experiencing in
the United States, as cultural diversity in child care is
becoming the norm.

Because child care is becoming more culturally het
erogeneous, infant/toddler care teachers can no longer
be expected “naturally” to provide care that is consistent
with parental care. Child care programs are experienc
ing an unparalleled growth in linguistic and cultural
representation among the families and children served;
therefore, understanding the impact of the out-of-home
child care experience and the child’s home culture on a

child’s development is crucial. The Program for Infant/Toddler Care is particularly con
cerned about the impact of the situation on children under three years of age. Research
and practice have shown that for infants and toddlers to prosper in child care, their experi
ences should reflect a care teacher’s sensitivity to the home culture. When out-of-home
caregivers support the child’s primary language and culture, they not only help the child
develop, but also open the child care program’s doors to the child’s parents and com
munity. Early caregiving in a child’s native language and within familiar cultural rules
makes child care a secure and supportive experience for the child. Culturally responsive
care influences positively the development of identity, social competence, language, and
intellectual competence.

This guide is written to assist infant/toddler care teachers in becoming more cultur
ally responsive. It is intended to help teachers (1) better understand themselves and how
they are influenced by their own cultural beliefs, (2) better understand the children and
families they serve, and (3) learn a process for relating to cultural issues in a way that will
help them become more effective teachers. The entire guide is based on three unifying
themes that recur throughout the text:

• Cultural diversity is good and enriching for everyone.
• Cultural responsiveness is an ongoing process that continues to develop over time.
• Support of a child’s full participation in his or her home culture is vital to optimal

development.

The guide is divided into four sections, including a suggested resources section. Seven
chapters written by experts in infant/toddler development, multicultural education, and
cultural sensitivity underscore the need for culturally responsive infant/toddler care. The
contributing authors present information, strategies, and insights for teachers working
with infants and toddlers from culturally and linguistically diverse communities. The
authors share the belief that commonalities and differences are fundamental to all human
ity and that cultural diversity brings a rich mosaic to life. The purpose of the guide is to
help readers analyze their own culturally driven behaviors, expand their ability to accept
children and adults as they are, and respond more appropriately to people from cultural
backgrounds different from themselves.

The first chapter, “Culture and Identity Development: Getting Infants and Toddlers Off
to a Great Start,” by Carol Brunson Day, provides a brief overview of identity develop
ment in the early years, highlighting the important role of infant/toddler care teachers in
supporting the development of young children’s positive sense of self as cultural beings.
The author identifies basic characteristics of culture and discusses culturally responsive
and consistent practices that empower infants and toddlers in multicultural child care set
tings. The chapter closes with practical ways for teachers to connect the cultural experi
ences of families and children to children’s experiences in care.

The second chapter, “Prejudice, Bias, and Inequity in the Lives of Infants and Tod
dlers,” by Louise Derman-Sparks, introduces readers to the ways in which prejudice, bias,
and social inequity enter the lives of infants and toddlers. The chapter challenges readers
to think deeply about messages regarding “who matters or does not matter, and who mat
ters more” in early care settings and how these often subtle messages affect infant/tod
dlers’ sense of competence and well-being. Thoughtful and critical examination of one’s
own beliefs and biases regarding families served in the programs is recommended as the

xii

first step toward providing culturally respon
sive care. Additionally, elements of the early
care setting (e.g., vision/mission, organiza
tional culture, milieu, staff makeup and rela
tionships with one another) are considered as
central to building culturally responsive early
care and education programs.

In the third chapter, “Inclusion of Children
with Special Needs in Diverse Early Care
Settings,” Deborah Chen provides insight into
some of the diverse perspectives that families
hold around disability. Readers are introduced
to early intervention terminology, eligibility
criteria, and interventions for infants/toddlers
with special needs. In addition, ways to sup
port participation and a sense of belonging in
the early care setting are discussed.

The fourth chapter, “A Cultural Com
munities and Cultural Practices Approach to
Understanding Infant and Toddler Care,” by
Alison Wishard Guerra and Sarah Garrity,
introduces readers to a new way of thinking
about culture and its impact on development.

A cultural communities and cultural practices lens is discussed as a powerful way to un
derstand variations within ethnic and linguistic groups as opposed to making comparisons
across these groups. Teachers can utilize this framework to explore with families how
one’s goals and values influence daily caregiving practices and routines.

The fifth chapter, “Cultural Sensitivity in Caregiving Routines: The Essential Activities
of Daily Living,” by Janet Gonzalez-Mena, examines the importance of ongoing and open
communication between parents and child care providers. The author focuses on the care-
giving routines of feeding, diapering and toileting, and sleeping and napping as examples
of how established practices may conflict with the culturally based approaches of parents.
An open attitude of respect is recommended in communicating with parents about rou
tines in the child care program. Through an understanding of the cultural reasons behind
caregiving practices and preferences, teachers may find acceptable ways to accommodate
parents’ requests.

The sixth chapter, written by Louise Derman-Sparks, takes the reader on an adventure
of self-evaluation, challenge, and professional cultural growth. This chapter is relevant
to the field of cultural awareness and sensitivity. Although it is not necessary to know
everything there is to know about the cultures of the children with whom infant/toddler
teachers work, the process of acknowledge, ask, and adapt challenges even the most expe
rienced teacher to grow in cultural understanding. Through a process of thinking, writing,
and evaluating, the reader learns concrete methods by which to identify, communicate,
negotiate, and resolve issues of responsive caregiving.

The seventh chapter, “Creating Collaborative Relationships with Linguistically Diverse
Families,” by Gisela Jia and Alison Wishard Guerra, discusses the complexities of work-

xiii

ing with young children from a wide array of linguistic and cultural backgrounds in early
care settings. For young children, culture and language are essential to their developing
sense of self and belonging. As such, continuity between the home and the care setting is
recommended. This chapter offers a wide variety of strategies for teachers to engage with
families in ways that support children’s dual-language development and promote infant/
toddlers’ sense of belonging in early care settings.

References

Brunson Day, C. 2006. “Every Child Is a Cultural Being.” In Concepts for Care: 20 Es
says on Infant/Toddler Development and Learning, edited by R. Lally, P. Mangione,
and D. Greenwald. San Francisco: WestEd.

Gilbert, J., T. D. Goode, and C. Dunne. 2007. “Cultural Awareness.” From the Curricula
Enhancement Module series. Washington, DC: National Center for Cultural Compe
tence, Georgetown University Child Development Center.

xiv

Section One :

Understanding the Social
Context of Infant/Toddler Care

CHAPTER 1

Culture and Identity Development : Getting
Infants and Toddlers Off to a Great Start

Carol Brunson Day

The Beginnings of Identity Development Are in Infancy

In crafting the preparation and training of infant and toddler care teachers, J. Ronald
Lally calls for a focus on identity development as a central concern of infancy. He asserts:

[I]n the process of forming [their] preliminary sense of self . . . part of

what infants and toddlers get from caregivers are perceptions of how

people act at various times and in various situations (seen as how the

infant should behave), how people act toward them and others (seen as

how they and others should be treated), and how emotions are expressed

(seen as how they should feel). The infant uses these impressions and

often incorporates them into the self she becomes. . . . More is happen

ing than tender loving care and learning games—values and beliefs are

being witnessed and incorporated. (Lally 1995, 58–59)

T he idea that an infant is not yet an individual (psychologically speaking)—but is in the process of becoming one—is widely
accepted among experts in infant/tod-
dler development. Although many factors
influence this process, it is within the
context of close, nurturing relationships
that infants begin to see themselves as
they are seen by others who are signifi-
cant in their lives. In this context, infants
begin to develop an identity, which is a
set of organized beliefs about themselves
that influences how they behave in social
settings.

Right from the beginning of life,
infants are competent in engaging in

social interaction and very soon become
sophisticated in their understanding of
the social world. During their first year
of life, infants begin to notice differences
and similarities among people around
them, including differences in skin color
(Derman-Sparks and Olsen Edwards
2010; Katz and Kofkin 1997). Children
as young as two years of age may begin
to talk about the differences they see
between people and begin to comment
on these differences. Between the ages of
three and five years, children may begin
to include racial categories in how they
identify themselves and others (Winkler
2009). When the caregivers in an infant’s
life are aware of the sophisticated ways

in which children process information in
their world, they can respond in a cultur
ally responsive and sensitive manner. This
is important because the way that teach
ers respond to infants and toddlers as the
children notice differences between others
and themselves influences how infants
process these experiences and contributes
to their developing sense of self.

As the number of child care and early
education programs serving infants and
toddlers increase, greater attention is fo
cused on teachers’ capacities to recognize
that their actions are being perceived and
interpreted by young children and incor
porated into their definition of self that
they are forming.

For example, Zero to Three has
established this premise in its advice to
parents, caregivers, and policymakers,
arguing that “the development of strong
attachment relationships with family and
primary caregivers is a central task of
infancy.”1 It is in the context of warm,
loving relationships that infants learn to
trust, to feel safe exploring their world,
and to develop a sense of competence and
confidence in their ability to master new
skills. This growing sense of self-esteem
and personal identity is a foundation for
later success (Zero to Three 2009).

Dimensions of Identity Development

As this personal identity forms,
children are also developing a refer
ence group identity. In fact, Bordere and
Morrison (2001) argue that children’s
developing sense of reference group
identity stems from certain social con
texts, including gender, class, ethnic, or
racial group membership. Others have
argued that maintaining an ethnic identity
is particularly relevant when one’s ethnic
group is a “minority” group in the soci
ety (Rosenthal 1987). Margaret Spenser

and her colleagues (Swanson et al. 2009)
maintain that, because personal identity
and reference group orientation are inex
tricably bound together, understanding
one’s personal self as distinct from one’s
social group requires advanced cogni
tive abilities that neither infants/toddlers
nor preschoolers possess developmen
tally. Nonetheless, as mentioned above,
it is known that the sophisticated ways
in which very young children process
information allow them to notice skin-
color differences and make group distinc
tions among people. Yet because personal
identity and reference group identity, for
infants, are interwoven, the messages
they receive about the social group they
can distinguish and identify with also has
implications for their developing per
sonal sense of self. Therefore, how these
complex and highly significant parts of a
child’s self-identity are treated is impor
tant even in infancy.

Since culture shapes the context for
the social interactions that form the
fundamental building blocks of the vari
ous dimensions of identity, it is through
cultural learning that children gain a
feeling of belonging, a sense of personal
history, and security in knowing who they
are and where they come from. Although

infants and toddlers are not capable of
understanding abstract ideas about ances
try or how their family’s culture fits into
the larger society, Bordere and Morrison
(2001) assert that it is never too early to
demonstrate respect for children’s cultural
traditions. The fundamental question for
infant/toddler identity becomes this: How
do families and caregivers help infants
and toddlers develop an identity that
keeps them rooted in their culture and
firmly attached to their family?

Zero to Three makes a solid case that
goals for infants and toddlers’ early learn
ing must be developed with attention to
issues of culture, ethnicity, and language
in order for them to be accepted by mem
bers of different groups. This strategy is
important because culturally authentic
and consistent practice will contribute to
the child’s developing sense of self.

Culture, ethnicity, and language are
incorporated by young infants into their
sense of self through their relationships
and experiences in their environment.
“Each child learns how I am to behave
and how others should be with me
through culturally prescribed interac
tions” (Petersen et al. 2008, 21). Accord

ingly, the child care environment should
“be in harmony with what goes on at
home, following the form and style of
what is familiar to the child” (Lally n.d.).

The Role of Culture in Development

Although the early childhood field has
a long history of commitment to develop
ing culturally appropriate approaches to
educating young children (“multicultural
education”), it still struggles with under
standing the role of culture in the devel
opment of our youngest children (Mas
chinot 2008; Derman-Sparks and Olsen
Edwards 2010). To develop a culturally
responsive approach, it is essential to
understand that what children learn from
parents and infant care teachers is an idea
system that extends deep into the values
of a group of people. Learning goes far
beyond the things generally associated
with culture, such as art, music, or styles
of dress. As a child acquires cultural ways
of being, these cultural rules for behavior
impact identity by giving children the
tools to understand their family/communi
ty and be understood in it. Acquiring the
idea system of the group is so powerful
that it gives children the ability to interact
with the group. For example, babies are
born with the capability to make sounds;
however, those sounds become meaning
ful only as they communicate with their
families. Through communication the
sounds are shaped and organized into the
words and sentences the babies’ families
use to share meaning. Thus, as children
come to know the ideas that govern
speech and language in their community,
they gain the power to communicate and
to represent themselves in the world.

So when infant/toddler care teachers
treat culture with an almost exclusive em
phasis on the celebrations, styles of dress,
art, music, and food habits, they fail to

appreciate the depth of cultural impact
and the idea system at work in the process
of development. Although a child’s iden
tity is impacted by participation in family
cultural rituals, the focus neither starts
nor ends there. Surrounding children with
artifacts and customs that are a part of
their history, homes, and communities is
important. However, when that approach
becomes the sole emphasis in attempts to
embrace culture, it diverts attention from
the more fundamental role that culture
plays in the development of children’s
social, emotional, physical, and intellec
tual well-being. The challenge for infant
care teachers and trainers of infant and
toddler care teachers is to understand the
importance of culture to human develop
ment and to move beyond mere cultural
appreciation and enrichment to cultural
empowerment.

Cultural Empowerment: Preparing
Infant/Toddler Care Teachers for
Competent Practice

This view about the ways that culture
empowers the process of development
is gaining ground in the field of early
childhood education and care. Whereas
the field once sought to teach children
to appreciate the culture of others, or to
enrich children’s understanding of their
own, now it strives to teach children in
a culturally consistent context. Teachers
must become aware that they probably
will never learn a cultural curriculum that
they will teach; instead, they will learn
ways to relate to issues of culture. It will
take work and study to understand the
subtleties of how culture influences and
empowers people. Such an endeavor is
especially important for teachers respon
sible for the care of children who come
from cultures that are different from the
teachers.

The cultural empowerment approach
helps the infant/toddler care teacher
provide culturally consistent settings for
children—settings built on the attitudes,
values, and behavioral expectations of the
home culture of the child. The knowledge
that teachers need to create such settings
resides in understanding the deep struc
ture of culture and the way it works to
support development.

Children build their basic sense of
trust, security, and stability on cultural
foundations learned at home. Therefore,
continuity, consistency, and respect in the
early care environment for cultural foun
dations are essential to children’s growth.
As stated in chapter 2, program practices
vary in terms of continuity or discontinu
ity with the family’s culture. When the
family’s culture is ignored or when infant
care teachers react to children who are
culturally different from them as though
they are deficient, underdeveloped, or in

competent, children experience problems
in communication, in getting their needs
met, and in establishing relationships.
Under those conditions, children lose the
power to develop their overall well-being.

The cultural empowerment of children
involves recognizing negative reactions to
cultural differences and taking steps to
ward shifting these thoughts and reactions
toward more affirmative ones. One way
for infant/toddler care teachers to do this
is to learn more about how culture is and
is not transmitted. The following concepts
are essential to helping teachers move
toward a deeper understanding of cultural
differences:

• Culture is a set of rules for behavior.

• Culture is characteristic of groups.

• Culture is learned.

• Individuals are embedded, to different
degrees, within a culture.

• Cultures borrow and share rules.

• Members of a cultural group may be
proficient in cultural behavior but un
able to describe the rules.

Understanding these concepts will help
in building relationships with families,
a necessary part of providing culturally
consistent and empowering care that sup
ports identity development for infants and
toddlers.

Culture as a Process

The six concepts mentioned above
focus on the “deep structure of culture.”
They help promote an understanding of
culture as a process. A more detailed dis
cussion of each concept follows.

1. Culture is a set of rules for be
havior. Culture cannot be “seen”
because the rules are invisible; one
can see only the products of culture:

the behaviors produced by the rules.
Nevertheless, cultural rules do not
cause behavior; they influence peo
ple to behave similarly, in ways that
help them to understand each other.
It is by understanding a culture’s
rules that one knows how to greet a
person younger than oneself, older
than oneself, a friend, or a stranger.
Cultural rules help teachers to know
how to hold a baby. Cultural rules
shape food preferences and celebra
tions—determine whether the sun or
the moon is celebrated; whether to
wear a dress or pants, or nothing at
all. These rules give meaning to all
the events and experiences of life.
The essence of culture is not these
behaviors themselves, but the rules
that produce the behaviors.

2. Culture is characteristic of
groups. The rules of a culture are
shared by the group, not invented
by the individual. The rules of the
group, which are passed on from
one generation to the next, form the
core of the culture. It is a mistake to
confuse individual differences with
group cultural differences. Each per
son develops a unique personality as
a result of his or her personal history
and, at the same time, develops in a
cultural context with some behav
ioral characteristics that are shared
by other members of the group.

3. Culture is learned. No one is born
acculturated; rather, each person is
born with a biological capability to
learn. What each person learns de
pends upon the cultural rules of the
people who raised the person. Some
rules are taught with words: “hold
your fork in your right hand, and
your knife in your left.” Other rules
are demonstrated by actions—when

to smile, how close to stand when
talking to someone, and so on.

Because culture is learned, it is
a mistake to assume a person’s
culture by the way she or he looks.
Someone may be racially black and
culturally Irish. A person can also
become bicultural or tricultural by
learning the rules of cultures other
than his or her own primary group.

4. Individuals are embedded, to dif
ferent degrees, within a culture.
Because culture is learned, it may
be learned well by some people in
the group and less well by others.
As children are acculturated, they
usually learn the core rules of their
culture, yet they may not always
learn each cultural rule equally well.
Some families are more bound to
tradition, others less so. Further,
even though families and individu
als learn the cultural rules, they may
not always behave according to
what they have learned—some
people are conformists; others are
nonconformists. Consequently, the
behavior of members of a cultural
group will vary, depending on how
deeply embedded their experiences

are within the core of a
culture. Thinking about
behavioral variations in
this way helps those who
work with individual
families to understand
why, for instance, not
all Japanese people “act
Japanese.”

5. Cultural groups bor
row and share rules.
Each cultural group
has its own set of core
behavioral rules and is
therefore unique; yet

some of the rules of Culture A may
be the same as the rules of Culture
B. This happens because cultural
rules evolve and change over time,
and sometimes when two groups
have extensive contact with one
another, they influence each other
in some areas. Thus two groups of
people may speak the same lan
guage, yet have different rules about
roles for women. Understanding of
this concept helps to avoid confu
sion when a person from another
culture is so much like the teacher in
some ways, yet so different in other
ways.

6. Members of a cultural group may
be proficient at cultural behavior
but unable to describe the rules.
Acculturation is a natural process;
as people become acculturated,
they are not conscious that their
ideas and behavior are being shaped
by a unique set of rules. Just as a
four-year-old who is proficient with
language cannot diagram a sentence
or explain the rules of grammar if
asked to do so, so also people may
become thoroughly proficient with
cultural behavior without con

sciously knowing that they behave
according to rules. In the same way,
understanding acculturation explains
why one cannot walk up to a person
and ask him or her to teach the
culture. Teachers probably cannot
explain theirs.

Culturally Responsive Practices
That Support Identity Development

The following practices are culturally
responsive and support identity develop
ment in infants and toddlers.

1. Make a commitment to learn
about the cultural expectations
of the families whose children are
in your care and eliminate any
stereotyped and biased attitudes
toward cultures different from
your own. There are no shortcuts to
achieving this goal; it is a continu
ous process. A conscious choice is
required to create a climate in which
dialogue about culture occurs on
a regular basis. In such a climate,
infant care teachers and parents
can raise issues openly, and deci
sions about what is best for children
are collaborative, resulting from
a negotiated consensus. Where
to begin is not difficult—begin at
the beginning. Commit yourself
to identifying and examining your
own cultural biases with the aim of
eventually eliminating them. Re
member that everyone has biases
from growing up and living in a
society in which negative attitudes
and practices are institutionalized in
the political, social, and economic
systems that govern everyday life
(Katz 1978). Biases in institutional
systems give privilege to one group
over others by declaring the char
acteristics of that group superior

to all others. Racist, classist, and
sexist ideas must also be rejected.
There are many written resources
to help you explore your biases (see
http://www.EdChange.org). Several
organizations that specialize in such
resources for educators are the Anti-
Defamation League’s A World of
Difference Institute (http://www.adl.
org/education) and Educational Eq
uity Concepts (http://www.edequity.
org).

2. Actively search for subtle mes
sages of bias in your daily life. One
beginning exercise to become aware
of how biased messages subtly pen
etrate one’s life involves examining
the ways in which different people
and their behavior are represented
on prime-time television. Arrange
with a group of teachers, or with
both teachers and parents, to watch a
series of the same television pro

http://www.EdChange.org

http://www.adl.org/education

http://www.edequity.org

grams; then meet for a follow-up
discussion of what was seen and not
seen on the television screen. You
will probably find that the charac
ters represent a limited range; in
fact you might notice characters in
roles that reflect typical stereotypes
for their racial or cultural group;
or you might notice the absence of
members of diverse racial or cul
tural groups. No matter how much
one may want to deny that those
images affect one’s attitude about
various groups of people, they do.
An important step in the exercise is
to look for appropriate models in the
community to counteract the nega
tive mass-media stereotypes. This
kind of exercise can help eliminate
bias if it is carried out in a sensitive
manner. Once bias is acknowledged,
it is necessary to go beyond the
negative images to the positive ones
to be shared with the children in
your care.

3. Seek accurate information about
the culture of the children in your
care and determine how to use the
information in the care setting.
Keep in mind the six concepts of ac
culturation presented earlier. Avoid
focusing only on artifacts. Instead,
try to get at the attitudes and values
in the deep structure of the culture,
knowing that various families are
embedded to different degrees in
their culture and that they may be
unable to verbalize the cultural
rules. Talk with families about what
they do at home that they feel is par
ticularly culturally significant, what
they consider to be the right and
wrong ways to discipline children,
and how they want their children to
express anger or relate to authority

figures. Ask how they feel children
should act toward their friends and
toward their siblings. Have them
describe their style of bathing their
babies, feeding them, and playing
with them. Remember that you, too,
operate on cultural rules and should
share them in the discussions.

4. Read about other cultures and
discuss what you read with your
families and colleagues. Ask peo
ple from other cultures whether the
information you read is of value and
discuss with them when and how to
apply it. A good deal of theoretical
as well as practical material appears
in the early childhood education
literature. The Internet is an excel
lent way to locate resources (one
example is the Web site http://www.
EdChange.org). The most visible
and well-known body of information
in recent years has resulted from the
multicultural education movement
that began in earnest in the 1960s
(York 2006; Cross, Baker, and Stiles
1977). The movement has had an
enormous impact and has generated
a large body of curriculum mate
rial. Much of what has been written,

http://www.EdChange.org

however, contains stereotypes and
biases. Be cautious and remain open
to other people’s opinions about
what you read.

5. Help families deal with issues
of cultural conflict. Children and
families experience conflict when
society devalues them by demand
ing that they give up their culture
to achieve success (Delpit 1995;
Hale-Benson 1986; Morris 1986).
Often, families do not realize that
young children can become bicul
tural. Family members think they
must choose between their culture
and the dominant one. Sometimes
they feel that the dominant culture
is more important, and they want
their children to be successful in the
broader society. That conflict can
be resolved through open discus
sions and program approaches that
support families in maintaining their
cultural integrity while they are
acquiring skills to function in the
larger society.

6. Work consciously to establish
a program approach that helps
children function in their own cul
tural community and builds their
competence in the culture of the
larger society. Set up care settings
that emphasize the following strate
gies:

a. Use culturally appropriate
(culturally empowering) child
rearing strategies in the daily
functions of the care environ
ment.

b. Use children’s native language
to communicate with children
and their families.

c. Select and train program staff
members who understand how

culture influences their own be
havior and who know the culture
of the children.

d. Establish agreed-upon strate
gies to foster development in the
children’s own culture. (For ex
ample, develop both English and
the native language through the
natural use of both languages in
child care, whenever possible.)

e. Establish agreed-upon strategies
to facilitate the development in
children of skills necessary for
successful functioning in the
dominant culture. (Development
of such skills is most effectively
done by programs with an addi
tive approach, helping children
to gain additional skills rather
than substitute dominant-culture
skills for home-culture skills.)

To grow and thrive, children need cul
tural skills—skills that will provide them
with power and productivity in main
stream North America and with a sense of
meaning in life, history, and home. With
help, they will learn those skills and form
views about who they are and who they
can be. Children see themselves only as
they are seen by the adults in their lives.
When children see themselves through
culturally responsive eyes, they will see
their power.

References

Barrera, Isadora, Rob Corso, and Dianne
McPherson. 2003. Skilled Dialogue:
Strategies for Responding to Cultural
Diversity in Early Childhood. Balti
more, MD: Paul Brookes.

Bordere, Tashel, and Johnetta Wade
Morrison. 2001. “Supporting Biracial
Children’s Identity Development.”

Childhood Education

(3): 134–8.

Cross, Delores E., Gwendolyn C. Baker,
and Lindley J. Stiles, eds. 1977. Teach
ing in a Multicultural Society. New
York: Free Press.

Day, Carol Brunson. 2006. “Every Child
Is a Cultural Being.” In Concepts of
Care: 20 Essays on Child Learning
and Development, edited by J. Ronald
Lally, Peter Mangione, Deborah
Greenwald, 97–99. Sausalito, CA:
WestEd.

Delpit, Lisa. 1995. Other People’s Chil
dren: Cultural Conflict in the Class
room. New York: New Press.

Derman-Sparks, Louise, and Carol
Brunson Phillips. 1997. Teaching and
Learning Anti-Racism: A Develop
mental Approach. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Derman-Sparks, Louise, and Julie Olsen
Edwards. 2010. Anti-Bias Education
for Young Children and Ourselves.
Washington, DC: National Association
for the Education of Young Children.

Derman-Sparks, Louise, and Patricia
Ramsey. 2011. What If All the Kids Are
White? Anti-Bias Multicultural Educa
tion with Young Children and Families.

New York: Teachers Col
lege Press.

Gonzalez-Mena, Janet. 2001.
“Cross-Cultural Infant Care
and Issues of Equity and
Social Justice.” Contempo
rary Issues in Early Child
hood 2 (3): 368–71.

Hale, Janice. 2001. Learning
While Black: Creating Cul
tural Excellence for African
American Children. Balti
more, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.

Hale-Benson, Janice. 1986. Black Chil
dren: Their Roots, Culture, and Learn
ing Styles. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.

Katz, Judith. 1978. White Awareness:
A Handbook for Anti-Racism Train
ing. Norman: University of Oklahama
Press.

Katz, P. A., and J. A. Kofkin. 1997.
“Race, Gender, and Young Children.”
In Developmental Perspectives on Risk
and Pathology, edited by S. Luthar,
J. Burack, D. Cicchetti, and J. Weisz,
51–74. New York: Cambridge Univer
sity Press.

Kendall, Frances E. 1983. Diversity in the
Classroom: A Multicultural Approach
to the Education of Young Children.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Lally, J. Ronald. 1995. “The Impact of
Child Care Policies and Practices on
Infant/Toddler Identity Formation.”
Young Children

(1): 58–67.

———. n.d. Caring for Infants and Tod
dlers in Groups: Necessary Consider
ations for Emotional, Social, and Cog
nitive Development. [Handout from
Module II, Introduction to Module II:
Group Care training session]. Unpub
lished document. Sausalito, CA: The

Program for Infant/Toddler Care.

Maschinot, Beth. 2008. The Changing
Face of the United States: The Influ
ence of Culture on Child Development.
Washington, DC: Zero to Three.

Morris, Lee, ed. 1986. Extracting Learn
ing Styles from Social/Cultural Diver
sity: Studies of Five American Minori
ties. Norman, OK: Southwest

Teacher

Corps Network.

Neugebauer, Bonnie, ed. 1992. Alike and
Different: Exploring Our Humanity
with Young Children. Rev. ed. Wash
ington, DC: National Association for
the Education of Young Children.

Petersen, Sandra, Lynn Jones, and Karen
A. McGinley. 2008. Early Learning
Guidelines for Infants and Toddlers:
Recommendations for States. Washing
ton, DC: Zero to Three.

Rosenthal, D. 1987. “Ethnic Identity
Development in Adolescents.” In Chil
dren’s Ethnic Socialization: Plural
ism and Development, edited by J. S.
Phinney and M. J. Rotheram, 153–79.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Swanson, Dena Phillips, Michael Cun
ningham, Joseph Youngblood, II,
and Margaret Beale Spenser. 2009.
“Racial Identity Development During
Childhood.” In Handbook of African
American Psychology, edited by Helen
A. Neville, Brendesha M. Tynes, and
Shawn O. Utsey, 269–81. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Winkler, Erin N. 2009. “Children Are
Not Colorblind: How Young Children
Learn Race.” Practical Approaches for
Continuing Education 3 (3): 1–8.

York, Stacy. 2006. Roots and Wings:
Affirming Culture in Early Childhood
Programs. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf
Press.

Zero to Three. 2009. Early Experiences
Matter: A Guide to Improved Policies
for Infants and Toddlers. Washington,
DC: Zero to Three.

CHAPTER 2

Prejudice , Bias, and Inequity in the
Lives of Infants and Toddlers

Louise Derman-Sparks

The [United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child] applies to all

children, whatever their race, religion or abilities; whatever they think or

say, whatever type of family they come from. It doesn’t matter where chil

dren live, what language they speak, what their parents do, whether they

are boys or girls, what their culture is, whether they have a disability or

whether they are rich or poor. No child should be treated unfairly on any

basis. (UNICEF 1990, 1)

Readers may wonder why this guide includes a chapter about prejudice, bias, and inequity and their relationship to the care and
development of infants and toddlers. On
the surface, the need to bring up racism,
classism, or sexism would seem to be
incongruous in the same breath as talking
about child care for infants and toddlers.
Yet, sadly, it is necessary. Prejudice, bias,
and societal inequity* enter the lives of
infants and toddlers in a variety of ways.
Whether based on race, culture, gender,
economic class, or family structure, these
attitudes and realities have a negative,
hurtful effect on the quality of life and
development.

Although the child’s immediate and
extended family provides the primary
environment of socialization in the infant/
toddler years, much bias, prejudice, and
societal inequity come from outside of

*For definitions of these and other terms used in chapter
2, refer to the glossary on page 23.

the family. The professionals who provide
infants and toddlers and their families
with a range of services (e.g., child care
providers, medical staff, social workers)
are one source of the messages that con
vey whose way of life matters more and
whose matters less. Some of these mes
sages are obvious, some are subtle, and
ironically, many are unintended. Some
negative messages come from the atti
tudes and behaviors of the professionals.
Many come from structural dynamics of
the organizations in which human service
professionals, including infant/toddler
care teachers, work. These negative mes
sages may include unexamined policies,
procedures, and beliefs that create advan
tages for some groups and disadvantages
for other groups.

The cumulative effect of messages
about who matters (more or less) gradu
ally influences how children begin to
understand and feel about themselves and
others—even in the first year of life. The

messages also impact their quality of life.
An understanding of the various forms of
bias, prejudice, and inequity and how they
influence infants and toddlers is critical
to counteract potential damage to healthy
development. Understanding grows from
awareness, the first step to practicing
culturally responsive, non-biased infant/
toddler care that nurtures all children and
families.

Societal Inequity and Families

Poverty is the social inequity that is
most detrimental to infants and toddlers.
In numerous ways, poverty denies fami
lies the resources they need to support
optimal development. Housing may be
available only in old, deteriorating build
ings, which may be inadequately heated
and ventilated, be overcrowded, and have
toxic lead in the paint. Families living in
poverty are much more unlikely to afford
health insurance. This means inadequate
or no prenatal care and then insufficient

well-baby care, since poor families often
depend on hospital emergency care,
sometimes travel long distances from
home, and see less-experienced doctors
after waiting for hours in crowded emer
gency rooms. Studies have found that
in poor neighborhoods food is often of
inferior quality and more expensive. No
matter how loving and skilled the family
is, the reality of poverty creates some
times insurmountable barriers to optimum
child rearing.

Other factors may interact with poverty
to add to these challenges. In the current
political climate facing immigrants–espe
cially undocumented immigrants—fami
lies may have no access to social services
and health institutions that help support
the family’s quality of life. Families of all
backgrounds, headed by a single mother,
are more likely to live in poverty than
are all other kinds of families. Poverty in
rural areas is also an increasing reality,
regardless of racial or ethnic background.

Although child care providers of
infants and toddlers cannot change the
conditions of families in poverty, gaining
an understanding of the challenges cre
ated by poverty makes it possible to take
action to mitigate its negative effects.

What Infants and Toddlers See and
Hear in Child Care Settings

Messages about who matters or does
not matter—and who matters more—are
significant pathways of bias and inequal
ity. The visual and auditory environment
of an infant/toddler care and education
program communicates many of these
kinds of messages. These matter because
infants and toddlers are just beginning
to amass and process information about
themselves and others. And this aware
ness starts very early. For example, as
young as six months, infants begin to

notice differences in skin color (Bronson
and Merryman 2009; Katz 1976). Notic
ing, paying attention to, or being curious
about differences and similarities in their
environment is not a sign of emerging
prejudice, but rather a characteristic of
how all children learn.

Inaccurate and stereotypical images
of people like themselves are one type of
bias that infants and toddlers may en
counter in the early care program. Those
images communicate misinformation
about their own social identities, which
damages their developing sense of self
and family. They need accurate, authen
tic photographs, posters, and pictures of
themselves and their families. To begin to
develop positive attitudes toward people
different from themselves, infants and
toddlers also need accurate images about
people different from themselves. They
do not need misinformation from com
mercialized, stereotypical, or cartoon-
looking images of people.

Visibility (or the lack thereof) is anoth
er powerful pathway of bias and inequity.
When children see images of people who
look like them, they receive a positive
message for their self-concept. How
ever, seeing only images similar to them

conveys a second, negative

message: only people like you
exist or are important. Con
versely, young children who
do not see images of people
similar to them in the early
care and learning environ
ment receive the message that
they do not matter as much as
the people whose images and
languages are visible. Experi
encing invisibility in an infant/
toddler care and education
program is especially dam
aging, since it is one of the

first societal institutions that very young
children encounter.

The numerical balance of images that
reflect diverse racial identities, families,
and cultural ways of life also conveys
messages about who matters and who
matters more. When the majority of the
images in an infant/toddler care program
reflect the “way of life defined by the
dominant group in society as the “nor

mal or right way to live, the message
conveyed is that the dominant group is
the most important. When one cultural
group’s way of life becomes the standard
for everyone else, the seeds of racial and
cultural advantage and disadvantage are
sown.

In addition to the visual environment,
the sounds of a program also convey
information about whose family’s way of
life matters or not. The language of the
program is the most obvious source of
sound—and it may or may not be what
infants and toddlers hear at home. Hear
ing a language different from the one at
home creates a more complicated adjust
ment and developmental challenge for
infants and toddlers than that experienced
by those whose home language matches
the program’s language. Similarly, the
sounds of music and song evoke—or do
not evoke—the security of home, depend
ing on how similar or different they are
from what an infant is used to.

A growing body of research also
indicates that misinformation and preju
dice about social identity harm children’s
development (e.g., Derman-Sparks and
Ramsey 2004; Tatum 2003). The nega
tive impact is cumulative—coming not
just from overt “bigotry” or messages of
direct prejudice, but also from the effect
of small “micro-contaminants” in the way
others interact with them as well as mes
sages of invisibility regarding who they
are (Pierce 1980). These messages and
actions in their daily lives gradually build
up to become toxic to children’s sense of
self, well-being, and competence. A non-
biased environment is a necessary condi
tion for nurturing each child’s healthy
identity and positive attitudes about
diversity. However, the visual and audi
tory environment is only one component
of culturally responsive programs.

Socialization in Two Cultures

The widespread use of outside-the
home group and family infant/toddler
care signifies that, for the first time in
human history, the family—nuclear and
extended—is no longer the only primary
child-rearing environment of infants and
toddlers. This means that in the earliest
years, hundreds of thousands of children
experience two differing cultural contexts
every day—that of the family and that of
early care and education. Thus, cultural
continuity in child rearing is disrupted.
Paying attention to cultural continuity and
cultural discontinuity between home and
infant/toddler care programs is the central
issue in a culturally responsive approach.

Where an infant/toddler’s experiences
fall on the continuity-discontinuity con
tinuum depends on the degree of simi
larity or difference between the specific
cultural dynamics of their family and

those of the early childhood program.
These include fundamentals such as
furniture, equipment, spatial organiza
tion, care procedures, language, and how
staff members interact with the children
and each other. Some infants and toddlers
experience a high degree of continuity,
while others experience a high degree
of discontinuity. The more discontinuity
infants and toddlers face, the more they
find that what they are learning in their
family about how to be in the world does
not work for them in the care program.

Discontinuity between very young
children’s two primary socialization
environments and the long-term effect on
development are not known. However, it
is clear that the degree of familiarity or
unfamiliarity with a program’s care prac
tices makes it easier or harder for infants
and toddlers to adjust, to build strong
relationships, to act and feel competent,
and to feel secure. It is also known that
a primary source of a child’s sense of
belonging, security, and empowerment in
a child care and education program comes
from as much continuity as possible with
what children experience in their home
culture, as chapter 1 suggests. Young
children thrive when an early childhood
program respects and integrates their

home languages and cultures into all of
its operations. In such programs, children
can learn and develop because they feel
“supported, nurtured, and connected not
only to their home communities and fami
lies but also to teachers and the educa
tional setting” (NAEYC 1995, 2). In sum,
when an infant/toddler’s home culture
(including language) differs significantly
from the culture of her/his child care pro
gram, she does not have the opportunity
to thrive.

Practicing Culturally Responsive
Care

The goal of culturally responsive care
and education is to create and foster an
equal playing field for all the infants and
toddlers in a program. This goal requires
minimizing the discontinuity between
each child’s home and the infant/toddler
program, as well as eliminating inac
curate, stereotypical, and inauthentic
messages about all people. It also re
quires that early childhood education
(ECE) professionals work to understand
their own cultural beliefs and behaviors
about the raising of infants/toddlers, and
thoughtfully, critically examine their
beliefs, information, and biases regard
ing the families whom they serve. Thus,

culturally responsive care
also incorporates the goals
of anti-bias education
(Derman-Sparks and Olsen
Edwards 2010).

Critical examination of
the premises and culture
of the infant/toddler care
and education field, which
has its own set of values,
rules, information, and
acceptable behaviors, is an
other element of culturally
responsive care and educa

tion. Many of the tenets that underlie the
infant/toddler care culture are grounded
in this country’s dominant culture—West
ern, affluent, European-Anglo. These do
not necessarily match what is considered
“normal development” and “best prac
tices” across all ethnic/cultural lines.
Consequently, some beliefs and approach
es of the ECE field may unintentionally
become a source of bias and inequity
when they create a high degree of cultural
discontinuity for an infant or toddler.

However, culturally responsive care
does not require teachers to abandon all
that they have learned about infant/toddler
development in order to create high-
quality group care/learning environments,
as some people fear. It does mean know
ing how to learn from each family about
what matters to them and learning how to
engage in an ongoing blending of home
and ECE culture. It also means knowing
how to support the children and families
who are being asked to make the greatest
adjustments. The culturally responsive
approach also does not mean integrating
everything a family does into the pro-
gram—this is not really possible, because
the group of families the program serves
practice their culture in their particular
way. Even when all the families come
from the same ethnic and cultural group,
they most likely do not do everything
in the same manner. However, as Carol
Brunson Day points out, a program’s
customary way is not the only way:

We can learn principles for creat
ing culturally consistent programs.
However, there is no recipe for be
ing there. The there is built by you
with families and staff. It is always
a dynamic process and depends on
the people who are together in a

program at any given time. It calls
on everyone to be willing to negoti
ate and compromise if necessary. If
you stay open to the fact that your
way is not the only right way, trust
in the ability of people to figure out
differences, and really work on it,
you can get to where you want your
classroom to be. When everyone
has access to deciding on a solu
tion that works for them, then there
is real equality. (Derman-Sparks
and Olsen Edwards 2010, 61)

As teachers learn about each child’s
home culture, they will find that some
practices that come from their own
cultural background and from their ECE
training must be adapted or rethought for
some children in order to create conti
nuity with their families’ cultures. The
NAEYC (2009) recognizes this fact,
specifying that for any practice to be
developmentally appropriate it must take
into account not only a child’s age group
and individual characteristics but also the
social and cultural contexts in which the
child lives. Thus, culturally responsive
infant/toddler care environments do not
look like a “universal or model” program;
nor do they look exactly like any one
family’s home culture. Rather, a culturally
responsive infant/toddler program contin
ually evolves and changes as the compo
sition of the program (children, families,
and staff) changes and as the staff gets
better at learning from families and
making adaptations as needed (Derman-
Sparks and Olsen Edwards 2010, chapter
5). Making ongoing adaptations to con
nect with children and families is what
this guide will help you learn to do.

Building Blocks of a Culturally
Responsive Care/Learning
Environment

This final section of the chapter takes
an overall look at the elements that must
be continually developed, implemented,
and assessed to build a culturally respon
sive care/learning program. Chapters 4–7
then offer a range of specific strategies for
putting these building blocks in place.

Vision/mission: A vision or mission
statement expresses what a program is
working toward. It is an inspiration and
guide as well as an expression of hopes
(Carter and Curtis 2010). The mission
statement briefly sums up the framework
in which a program operates. Both the vi
sion and mission statements set the course
for the daily practice of a program. A
culturally responsive program explicitly
spells out this value and concept.

Organizational culture: The culture of
an organization—its leadership, structure,
management systems, and relationships—
makes the program’s vision come to life.
Resources must be marshaled to make a
culturally responsive approach concrete
every day in all aspects of the program.
Otherwise, a culturally responsive vi
sion and mission stays only on paper. A

culturally responsive program
is committed to open, respectful
conversations with each family
and ongoing changes to create
continuity between the family’s
home and the program.

Goals: Set specific goals at
the beginning and revisit them
throughout the program year.
Goals must reflect the culturally
responsive mission and a stra
tegic plan for achieving it. For
example, beginning-of-the-year
goals might include develop
ing an agreed-upon vision and

mission, assessing the visual/aesthetic
environment, engaging staff members in
conversations about cultural backgrounds
and their influence on work with children,
and planning how to build respectful
relationships with families. Three months
into the year, goals might include a plan
for holding in-depth conversations with
each family about child-rearing goals and
practices and developing a comprehensive

plan for how staff will begin integrating
family needs into the program. A midyear
goal might be to assess what progress
has been made in building a culturally
responsive milieu and adapting program
practices to reflect thinking about ECE
best practices and families’ needs. If
a program has already achieved these
kinds of goals, then the beginning-of-the
year goals might include assessing what
they have achieved and setting goals for
improvement in each area of the program.
It might also include goals for deepen
ing their critical thinking about ECE best
practices.

Milieu: This category includes the
program’s visual/aesthetic appearance,
all images in the environment, the sounds
and language, equipment, and organiza
tion of space. A diversity-rich, stereotype-
free visual and auditory environment
provides the sights and sounds that young
children need to develop positive self-
awareness and comfortable relationships
with others. The first rule of thumb is
for all the children and families in the
program to be respectfully and equitably
reflected in the environment. A culturally
responsive environment reflects the rich
variety within cultural and ethnic groups,
as well as the wider diversity in the
U.S.A. Each staff member has the respon
sibility to ensure that no child and fam
ily are invisible and no stereotypical or
insulting images of any group are present.

Assess everything in the visual/audito
ry environment. For example, in a toddler
room, do all of the art materials include
various shades of black and brown? Are
dolls—big and small—diverse? Does the
collection of picture books equitably and
accurately depict people who look like the
children and families in the program and
also introduce diversity among people be
yond the program and equipment? Equip

ment also matters. For example, not all
babies sleep in the same kind of furniture.
Do the infants sleep at home in cribs, in
hammocks, in cradles, in the same room
with their parents or siblings, or alone
in their own rooms? This information is
valuable to know.

Be creative in solving cultural dif
ferences. Carol Brunson Day shares an
example she observed in one infant/tod
dler program (Derman-Sparks and Olsen
Edwards 2010): Licensing rules (and the
NAEYC Accreditation Criteria) require
children to nap in their own cribs. How

ever, some of the babies served by the
center sleep in hammocks at home, and
they will not go to sleep in the cribs. So
the staff became creative. Staff members
tied hammocks diagonally from the crib
posts, so that each infant slept in a posi
tion comfortable to them while still being
in cribs.

Caregiving procedures and other
interactions with infants/toddlers: This
element of a culturally responsive infant/
toddler program goes to the core of cul
ture. Young children are not only continu
ally absorbing information learning about
themselves and others from the sights and
sounds of the environment, they also learn
about how to be in the world from the
relationships they have with the people
who care for them, the care routines (e.g.,
eating, sleeping, eliminating), and the in
teractions between adults and themselves
when they hurt themselves, cry, are scared
or happy. All of these interactions trans
mit important messages about whom an
infant/toddler care and education program
values and ways of being in the world.

In a culturally responsive care and edu
cation program, staff members critically
assess the degree to which all staff–child
interactions, including the basic care pro
cedures, such as diaper changing, eating,
sleeping, comforting, and the like, are
continuous or discontinuous with the in
fant/toddlers’ homes (for a more in-depth
discussion of this topic, see chapter 5).
They also consider the degree to which
cultural discontinuous interactions make
it easier or harder for the infants/toddlers
to develop comfortable, supportive rela
tionships with their caregivers. Teachers
are also willing and able to make changes
in their practice as needed. Assessment
and changes in practice are ongoing, as
staff members learn from and collabora
tively work with families. Sections Two

and Three provide tools for implement
ing these essential, culturally responsive
strategies.

Language continuity and discontinuity:
This element is also central to socializa
tion and the home–infant/toddler program
cultural contexts in which language devel
opment takes place. As stated in chapter
1, infants and toddlers are beginning to
learn the language of their family. How
ever, for many infants and toddlers, their
family’s language differs from that of the
larger society—and, usually, from the
language spoken in the early childhood
program. A culturally responsive envi
ronment tackles this challenging reality
based on information about language
development and not personal opinion
or political ideology. The subject is so
essential that it merits its own chapter,
“Creating Collaborative Relationships
with Linguistically Diverse Families”
(chapter 7).

Relationships with children’s family

and community: In a culturally responsive
care-and-education program, families
are indispensable partners. They are the
primary source from whom staff members
learn about the particular cultural dynam
ics in each infant/toddler’s home. As
the NAEYC advises all early childhood
programs:

Practitioners work in collabora
tive partnerships with families,
establishing and maintaining
regular, frequent two-way com
munication with them . . . [They]

involve families as a source of
information about the child . . .
and engage them in planning for
their child. . . Mutual respect, co
operation, and shared responsi
bility inform these family-teacher
relationships. (NAEYC 2009, 23)

A chapter is devoted to the topic of
how to build collaborative, reciprocal
relationships with families, which is a
theme throughout this book.

Staff makeup and relationships with
each other: All members of the staff (e.g.,
the director, teachers, teacher assistants,

cook, custodian, and so forth) are part of
the care and learning environment. Ide
ally, the staff is made up of people who
come from backgrounds similar to the
children and families served, with some
diversity of racial identity, language and
home culture. It is also essential to build
relationships of respect and collaboration
among all staff members, as well as a cul
ture of providing support for each other’s
growth in becoming culturally responsive.
As one of the NAEYC’s position state
ments explains:

Because early childhood settings
tend to be children’s first commu
nities outside the home, the char
acter of these communities is very
influential in development . . . The
foundation for the community is
consistent, positive, caring rela
tionships . . . It is the responsibil
ity of all members of the learning
community to consider and con
tribute to one another’s well-being
and learning. (NAEYC 2009, 16)

Conclusion

Ultimately, creating culturally respon
sive programs requires early childhood
professionals to travel on a journey of
awareness, learning, and change. Biased
and inequitable behavior is not just what
others do. Nor is it necessarily or always
intentional. Every person who works with
children and families should take this
journey. This requires willingness to do
the sometimes hard and uncomfortable
work of uncovering biases, areas of mis
information, and insufficient information
in one’s thinking and in accepted beliefs
about early childhood care and education.
It also requires a critical examination of
the daily activities that impact the infants,

toddlers, and families served by a pro
gram.

Of course, culturally responsive care
and education also brings challenges. It
is a more complex approach than work
ing from only one cultural perspective.
It requires continual staff self-reflection,
program assessment, learning, and adap
tation of staff practices to diverse family
socialization practices. Teachers face
the realities of group care, where several
different home cultures may be present
and even families from the same cultural
group likely live their culture in some
different ways. Culturally responsive
care also obliges teachers to be reflective
practitioners, adapting their professional
training and teaching to the diversity of
the infants/toddlers and families in the
program. In addition, teachers have to
take into account licensing requirements
and other regulations. All of this takes
ongoing discussion and problem solving
by staff. Ultimately, programs must do the
best they can to implement the principles
of culturally inclusive care and education,
although it is often not possible to do it
one hundred percent.

However, the work is worth it because
everyone benefits from culturally inclu
sive care and education. The infants/tod
dlers being served are much more likely
to thrive. Families will know that their
precious children are safe, and it will
be more likely that families will work
productively with teachers. Staff also
gains. Staff members are able to grow
more fully as human beings, with a better
understanding of both themselves and
others. Finally, early childhood practi
tioners are better able to meet the core
professional goal of nurturing all children
toward their fullest development.

In the foreword to a book about anti-
bias education, Carol Brunson Day wrote
something that is equally true for cultur

ally responsive education: “[S]hould you
choose to fully engage on the journey,
your reward will be a renewed sense of
hope that by your own hand, things really
can change” (Derman-Sparks and Olsen
Edwards 2010, vi).

Glossary*

bias. An attitude, belief, or feeling that
results in and helps to justify unfair
treatment of a person because of his or
her identity.

dominant group. A group within a
society that has the greatest power,
privileges, and social status. It may or
may not constitute the majority of the
population. Throughout much of the
history of the United States, the domi
nant group has been white, Christian,
affluent, and male.

prejudice. An attitude, opinion, or feeling
formed without adequate prior knowl
edge, thought, or reason. Prejudice
can be prejudgment for or against any
person, group, or gender.

*Definitions from Derman-Sparks and Olsen Edwards
2010.

social identities. Membership in groups
that are defined by society, are shared
with many other people, and have
societal advantages and disadvantages
attached to them. These identities
include gender, economic class, racial
identity, heritage, religion, age group,
and so on.

social inequity. The outcomes of laws,
policies, procedures, and practices that
place people at an advantage or disad
vantage based on their social identity.

References

Bronson, P., and A. Merryman. 2009.
“See Baby Discriminate.” Newsweek
(September 14): 53–59.

Carter, M., and D. Curtis. 2010. The
Visionary Director. St. Paul, MN:
Redleaf Press.

Derman-Sparks, L., and J. Olsen Ed
wards. 2010. Anti-Bias Education for
Young Children and Ourselves. Wash
ington, DC: National Association for
the Education of Young Children.

Derman-Sparks, L., and P. Ramsey. 2011.
What If All the Kids Are White? Anti-
Bias Education for Young Children and
Families. 2nd ed. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Katz, P. A. 1976. “The Acquisition of Ra
cial Attitudes in Children.” In Towards
the Elimination of Racism, edited by P.
A. Katz, 125–154. New York: Per
gamon.

National Association for the Education
of Young Children (NAEYC). 1995.
Responding to Linguistic and Cultural
Diversity: Recommendations for Ef
fective Early Childhood Education.
Position statement. Washington, DC:
NAEYC.

———. 2009. Developmentally Appro
priate Practice in Early Childhood
Programs Serving Children from Birth
through Age 8. Position statement.
Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Pierce, C. M. 1980. “Social Trace Con
taminants: Subtle Indicators of Rac
ism.” In Television and Social Behav
ior: Beyond Violence and Children,
edited by S. Withey, R. Abeles, and
L. Erlbaum, 249–57. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Ramsey, P. G. 2004. Teaching and Learn
ing in a Diverse World. 3rd ed. New
York: Teachers College Press.

Tatum, B. D. 2003. “Why Are All the
Black Kids Sitting Together in the
Cafeteria?” and Other Conversations
about Race. 2nd ed. New York: Basic
Books.

UNICEF. 1990. “Fact Sheet: A

Summary

of the Rights under the Convention on
the Rights of the Child.” New York:
UN General Assembly. http://www.
unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.
pdf (accessed March 20, 2013).

http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview

CHAPTER 3

Inclusion of Children with Special Needs
in Diverse Early Care Settings

Deborah Chen

F amilies that have very young children with special needs are almost always concerned about how their children will fare in
early care and education settings—how
they will be treated and what special
accommodations will be made for them.
With time, effort, and a welcoming
climate in the early care setting, infant/
toddler care teachers can develop relation
ships with families that help them trust
that their concerns for their child will be
addressed. Essential to the development
of this trusting relationship is the pursuit,
by infant care teachers, of information
about each individual family—its values,
beliefs, and child-rearing practices—so as
to facilitate continuity between the child’s
experiences at home and in the early care
setting.

Differences in cultural backgrounds,
educational levels, and roles of teachers
and family members may contribute to
differing values, beliefs, child-rearing
practices, and notions about how to relate
to a child’s special need, and, in turn,
negatively impact attempts at maintaining
continuity. The key to building continuity
of care between home and early care set
tings for children is for teachers to respect
differences they may have with families
and to use a warm and welcoming style
that conveys interest in and commitment
to the family’s perspective. This chapter
explores a culturally responsive approach

to including children with special needs
in infant/toddler care. It shares some
ideas about disability that families hold.
It defines early intervention terminology
and offers ways to gather information
from families to support inclusion of
infants and toddlers with special needs in
early childhood settings. Finally, it rec
ommends strategies for partnering with
families of diverse linguistic and cultural
backgrounds.

Diverse Perspectives on Disability

A family’s understanding of their
child’s special need may be quite differ
ent from that of other families and from

that of teachers and early intervention
service providers. For example, families
from one cultural group may view the
child’s special need as a natural part of
life or spiritual phenomenon that is to be
accepted without outside intervention.
Other families may believe that they have
a God-given responsibility to do every
thing possible to care for their child. Still
other families may believe that the child’s
special need is due to very bad luck or
a misdeed committed by a member of
the family or of the child in a former life
(Lynch and Hanson 2011). These var
ied beliefs may influence child-rearing
practices, expectations of the child, and
the family’s willingness to be involved in
early intervention services. Similarly, pro
fessionals may have a specific clinical or
medical view of the child’s special need
that may compel them to recommend
interventions to promote the child’s devel

opmental skills and remediate difficulties
in particular ways.

One common way of viewing the
successful development of children in
the United States is to see individual
ity or independence as a strength to be
mastered early. In other countries, and
in particular cultural communities in the
U.S., a focus on group membership and
interdependence is more common. Early
intervention services in the United States
often stress the infant’s development of
independence, particularly in the areas of
daily living skills and motor development,
but some families may not have these
particular goals for their very young chil
dren. Such differences between profes
sionals and families can be resolved only
through a process of sharing perspectives,
understanding each other’s point of view,
and reaching mutual agreements.

Each morning, Mr. Sanchez carries his daughter Anna into the toddler classroom,
and when he picks her up a few hours later he carries her to the car. Sometimes
Anna arrives drinking from a baby’s bottle. She is almost three years old (

months) and has Down syndrome. Two goals for her on her transition Individual
ized Family Service Plan (IFSP) are to walk without support and to drink from a
cup. Anna has begun to walk without support in the classroom and to take a few
sips from a cup at snack time. Ms. McKay, her teacher, wants Anna to be ready for
preschool when she has her third birthday and is concerned about her delays in
walking, self-feeding, and other areas of development. Rather than stereotyping the
father’s behavior as being “overprotective,” she decides to learn more about the
family’s values and goals for Anna’s development. In this way, she hopes to develop
a shared understanding with the family about Anna’s care. Ms. McKay decides on
the following steps:

1. Initiate a conversation with Mr. Sanchez about his goals, priorities, and
expectations regarding Anna’s development and when she begins preschool.

2. Find out about the father’s perspective on Anna’s walking by herself and why
she likes to drink from the baby bottle.

Mr. Sanchez indicates that he knows Anna should learn to walk on her own. How
ever, he is concerned about (a) the time and energy this will take each day, (b) her

safety, and (c) her tolerance for walking to and from the classroom. When they arrive
in the morning, Anna fusses and wants to be picked up when he gets her out of her
car seat. He gives Anna a bottle in the car because it comforts her during the transi
tion from home to the center, she does not have time to finish her breakfast in the
morning, and he does not want her to be hungry when she arrives. He believes that
his responsibility is to keep Anna safe and happy rather than teach her to walk dur
ing the hectic drop-off and pickup times at the center. He admits feeling a little guilty
about leaving her at this program with strangers even for a few hours, although he
knows that Anna enjoys being there, but he needs to get to work. Once Ms. McKay
has listened carefully to the father’s comments, she acknowledges the benefits of
giving Anna a bottle in the car. She also says that, when needed, Mr. Sanchez can
bring the leftover breakfast to the center for Anna to finish eating it. Ms. McKay asks
whether there are convenient times at home to help Anna drink from a cup. She also
shares how Anna is encouraged and helped to drink from a cup in the center. Mr.
Sanchez and Ms. McKay also agree that the father will carry Anna from the car to
the door of the classroom and that Ms. McKay will encourage her to walk from the
door to a favorite area in the room.

In this vignette, Ms. McKay demon
strates critical interpersonal and profes
sional skills that facilitate development
of collaborative relationships with
families. She maintains a nonjudgmental,
respectful, and open attitude in gather
ing information; clearly identifies and
discusses the area of concern with Mr.
Sanchez; listens to and accepts his point
of view and recognizes its value; and
then offers ways to address both of their
concerns. In this way, she demonstrates
interest in and commitment to supporting
Anna’s development and an appreciation
of partnering with the family. Once the
family’s circumstance and perspectives
are understood, the teacher is able to offer
suggestions that are both aligned with
the family’s priorities and are in the best
interest of the child.

Differences in Perspectives

Differences in beliefs, values, and
caregiving practices may contribute to
differences in opinions between families

and early intervention service providers
and teachers about how best to support
a child’s learning and development. For
example, an early childhood program
may not condone the use of walkers for
toddlers, but a physical therapist may
recommend a specialized walker for
a 30-month-old with cerebral palsy. A
speech and language therapist may sug
gest the use of signs for key words for

an 18-month-old with developmental
delays but the child’s family is concerned
that the use of manual signs will inhibit
the child’s speech development. In these
situations, it is helpful for all parties in
volved to have a conversation about each
person’s perspective about the issue. The
focus of these conversations should in
clude (a) learning about the basis of each
concern; (b) identifying a common goal
for the child’s development; (c) agreeing
on which practice will be tried, the speci
fied period of time for the practice, and
who will be involved; and (d) scheduling
a follow-up meeting.

Understanding Early Intervention
Terminology, Eligibility, and
Intervention

When an infant or toddler is identi
fied as being eligible for early interven
tion services, the family will likely be
introduced to an unfamiliar process
with its own terminology. Teachers who
understand a family’s cultural perspec
tive regarding the meaning of the child’s
disability and of the intervention process
can help families make sense of this new
terminology.

Early intervention is a system of
services for young children (birth to
36 months) with special needs and
their families. Part C of the Individu
als with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA)—a federal law—mandates
early intervention services (U.S. De
partment of Education 2011).

The purpose of early intervention is to
provide supports to children and fami
lies that will promote early learning and
development, but this purpose cannot
be achieved without the collaborative
efforts of the family and the early care

and intervention services. Typically, early
intervention services are provided in a
variety of settings. Priority should be
placed on providing services in a natu
ral environment, one in which the child
would function if he or she did not have
a special need. For infants and toddlers,
natural environments include the fam
ily home, child care, early childhood,
and community settings with typically
developing peers. Natural environments
allow children to learn and develop skills
in everyday activities and social interac
tions in the very environments in which
the skills are used and needed. Because
families may not be familiar with the im
portance of natural environments, it may
be helpful for teachers to assist families in
understanding why natural environments
are preferred.

Eligibility for Early Intervention
Services

To be eligible for early intervention
services, the very young child (i.e., birth
to 36 months of age) must be identified
as having a developmental delay in one
or more areas of development (cognitive,
physical, communication, social/emo
tional, and or adaptive); or an established
risk or diagnosed condition that has a
high probability of resulting in a devel

opmental delay (e.g., Down syndrome,
cerebral palsy, autism, visual impairment,
hearing loss, or multiple disabilities); or
a biological or environmental risk such as
medical (e.g., prematurity) or home con
ditions (e.g., parents with disabilities) that
may significantly compromise a child’s
development if early intervention is not
provided (U.S. Department of Education
2011)

The term developmental delay indi
cates that a young child is not demon
strating behaviors that are typical for his
or her age. Some of these children will
catch up with typically developing peers,
whereas some of these children may
always acquire skills at a slower rate,
develop some skills but not others, or
may never “catch up” developmentally.
It is important for teachers and families
to understand the meaning of the child’s
eligibility category in order to obtain
needed services and resources. Teachers
who establish respectful relationships
with families can help them gain a shared
understanding of the diagnosis and eligi
bility category.

Initiating the Early Intervention
Process: Making Referrals

Given their knowledge about early
childhood development and experience
with infants and toddlers, teachers are
likely to notice when a child does not
meet expected developmental milestones
or engages in atypical behaviors. Atypical
behaviors may include, but are not limited
to, a lack of interest in social interac
tions, excessive energy levels, difficulty
changing from one activity to another,
extreme sensitivities to different sounds
or textures, or repetitive actions with
objects (e.g., spins them). The intensity
and persistence of such unusual behav
iors may indicate the need for a referral

for developmental screening, particularly
if the child cannot be guided to more
developmentally appropriate interactions.
Teachers should discuss their observa
tions to determine whether the family has
also noticed these behaviors at home and
ask if they are concerned about them.

As discussed previously, families have
a variety of caregiving practices and ex
pectations about young children’s devel
opment and behaviors. For example, some
toddlers may not have opportunities to
move around on the floor at home so the
family may not have observed how the
child crawls or walk. This lack of experi
ence may contribute to what appears to be
clumsiness when this child moves around
the classroom. Another family may not
be concerned if their little boy displays
aggressive behaviors, as they believe that
boys must be bold and forceful. Behav
iors that teachers find worrisome may be
quite acceptable to some families. It is

therefore important for teachers to rec
ognize the profound influence of family,
home, and culture on a child’s behavior
and development and simultaneously be
familiar with unusual behaviors or high-
risk signs that may indicate the need to
refer a child for developmental screening.
Teachers should notice whether a child
shows any of the following signs (Cook,
Klein, and Chen 2012).

Behavioral Signs

• Avoids or rarely makes eye contact

• Does not seek comfort or approval
from a familiar caregiver or parent

• Stares into space or sits and rocks
body more often than children of the
same age

• Shows more frustration, acting out, or
aggressive behaviors compared with
other children

• Gets easily upset (e.g., by
changes in familiar rou
tines or loud, sustained
sounds such as a vacuum
cleaner) and has great
difficulty calming him or
herself

Physical Signs

• Arms or legs are stiff

• Body posture is limp com
pared to other children of
the same age

• Uses one side of the body
more than other

• Seems physically clumsy compared
with children of the same age

Vision Signs

• Has difficulty visually following ob
jects or persons

• Turns or tilts head in an unusual posi
tion when looking at an object

• Has difficulty making eye contact

• Brings objects very close to eyes

• Has poor eye–hand coordination

• Eyes appear to turn in or out

Hearing Signs

• Does not startle when there are loud,
sudden noises

• Does not develop sounds or words that
are used by children of the same age
and home language

• Does not respond to his or her name
when called from across the room

• Makes sounds or talks in a very loud
or soft voice

• Turns or cocks head to hear speaker

If a child exhibits any of these signs,
record observations in writing during
natural, everyday activities that call for
the child to exhibit his or her abilities
and behaviors. Note the child’s skills and
discuss them and any unusual behaviors
with the family.

If parents have concerns about their
child’s development, teachers should
explain the referral process for obtain
ing a developmental screening and ask
for the parents’ permission to initiate a
referral. Teachers should also help parents
understand the purpose of developmental
screening, who conducts them, what is in
volved, and how the results may be used.
The purpose of a developmental screening
is to obtain information about a child’s
milestones and basic skills. A variety of
trained professionals may be qualified
to conduct developmental screenings,
including, physicians, nurses, psycholo
gists, and early childhood special educa
tion personnel. The screening process
may include a variety of methods—for
example, administration of a standard
ized assessment tool, observations, and
interviews with significant caregivers. In
formation about the child’s development
is used to determine whether the child
has a developmental delay that indicates
the need for referral to early intervention
services.

Teachers play an important role in
helping families get access to and ne
gotiate an unfamiliar early intervention
service system. It is important that teach
ers take into account the family’s culture,
language, and beliefs when interpreting
an infant/toddler’s behavior. However,
determining whether a behavior deserves
attention by a professional or if it is just
different from what a teacher expects to
see may be difficult. Consider the follow
ing example:

Sixteen-month-old Jiyun Park
has just joined Monica’s infant
group. Jiyun is a happy child who
babbles a lot, although she has
been identified as having a de
velopmental delay. The family’s

home language is Korean; how
ever, both parents speak English in
the community. Monica asks Mrs.
Park about the Korean words that
Jiyun understands and says, as
well as the meaning of the words.
Monica learns that Korean parents
use certain words with their very
young children—such as “mam
ma,” which means food, and “kka
kka,” which means small snacks or
crackers. Monica is very surprised
to discover the true meaning of
Jiyun’s vocalizations, as she was
misinterpreting them based on her
own language background and
experiences.

Monica’s experience highlights that
learning about the family’s home lan
guage is essential to appreciating a child’s
language development and communica
tion efforts. Through her conversation
with Mrs. Park, Monica realizes that she
mistakenly assumed that Jiyun’s vocaliza
tions were merely babbling sounds. Now
she understands that Jiyun is actually us
ing words intentionally to make requests.
Monica shares this important information
with the classroom staff so that everyone
can interpret and respond appropriately to
Jiyun’s use of words.

In another classroom, 24-month-old
Billy Patel has been in the toddler group
for about three weeks. He wanders around
the classroom and gets upset if an adult
tries to guide his participation in activities
with other children. His teacher, Evelyn,
realizes that he may need time to become
familiar with the adults, children, and
activities in the class. She knows that
this is Billy’s first experience away from
his parents. However, she is becoming
concerned that his difficulties may be

signs of special needs that require early
intervention services. She decides to
discuss her concerns with her program
administrator, Mr. Clark, and to figure out
how to discuss these observations with
Billy’s parents. Later that week, Evelyn
and Mr. Clark meet with Mr. and Mrs. Pa
tel to discuss Evelyn’s observations. The
Patels say that they have wondered about
Billy’s tendency to roam around and his
lack of interest in other children at family
gatherings. This is why they thought an
early care setting would be good for him.
They had hoped that Billy would become
accustomed to Evelyn’s class routine and
become interested in other children. Mr.
Clark explains the referral process for de
velopmental screening and also describes
early intervention services. The Patels say
that no one else has ever mentioned these
things to them. They express great relief
to hear that Billy will receive the extra
support he needs, and they thank Evelyn
and Mr. Clark for their help.

As an experienced early childhood
teacher, Evelyn was familiar with how
much time most toddlers usually needed
to become familiar with the class routine
and ways to help them feel comfortable,
secure, and engaged in a new setting. She

relies on her knowledge of child develop
ment to determine behaviors that seemed
unusual and brings these concerns to the
program administrator. Together they
discuss their observations with Billy’s
parents and find out that his parents have
also noticed these difficulties. Evelyn’s
experience demonstrates the important
role that early childhood teachers play in
identifying children who may need to be
screened for developmental delays and
for sharing information with families.

If the child is found to be eligible for
early intervention services, other service
providers may become involved with the
child and family and may provide ser
vices in the early childhood setting. An
individualized family service plan (IFSP)
will be developed to address the child’s
special needs and the family’s priorities
and concerns. The following services may
be provided:

• Family training, counseling, and home
visits

• Special instruction

• Speech-language pathology services
(sometimes referred to as speech
therapy)

• Audiology services (hearing tests and
hearing aids for children with hearing
loss)

• Occupational therapy

• Physical therapy

• Psychological services

• Medical services (only for diagnostic
or evaluation purposes)

• Health services needed to enable the
child to benefit from the other services

• Social-work services

• Assistive technology devices (such as
a communication device) and services

• Transportation

• Nutrition services

• Service coordination

Individualized Family Service Plan

When an infant is found to be eligible
for early intervention services, an indi
vidualized family service plan (IFSP)
must be developed. According to the
Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA), the IFSP document should
include the following elements:

1. The infant’s current level of physical
(fine and gross motor, vision, and
hearing, and health), cognitive, com
munication, social or emotional, and
adaptive (self-help) development

2. If the family agrees, information
on the family’s concerns, priorities,
and resources related to the infant’s
development.

3. Main outcomes expected for the
child, the criteria for accomplish
ment, timelines, and procedures for
measuring progress

4. Specific early intervention services
that will be provided and the fre
quency, intensity, and methods for
delivering them

child’s and family’s transition from
Part C services and to preschool or
other services.

The IFSP is both a document and a
process for providing appropriate and
coordinated services to the child and
family. The IFSP should be reviewed at
least once every six months, and needed
changes should be made. As a process,
the IFSP facilitates collaboration with the
family and service providers from vari
ous disciplines, outcomes that are valued
by the family, and coordination of ser
vices from different agencies and service
providers.

Teaming with Interpreters

5. Natural environments in which early
intervention services will be pro
vided and, if applicable, justification
for services that will not be provided
in the natural environment

6. Initiation dates and duration of ser
vices

7. Name of the service coordinator
who is qualified to implement and
coordinate the IFSP with agencies
and service providers

8. Steps to be taken to support the

When teachers and family members
do not share a common language, teach
ers should collaborate with qualified
interpreters so that the true meaning of
eligibility categories and other early inter
vention terminology can be translated and
explained to the family. Because early
intervention terms are based on special
education policy in the United States,
they may not be easily translated from
English to another language. There may

not be a word-for-word translation, so
the interpreter has to convey the accurate
meaning of these terms. For example,
words such as “developmentally appropri
ate practice,” “early intervention,” “inclu
sion,” and “individualized family service
plan” may require an explanation of their
meaning when translated into another
language. Moreover, if interpreters are
not familiar with the beliefs and values
on which early intervention services
are based, they may provide inaccurate
translations of relevant terminology. For
instance, when asked how he translated
the term “developmental delay, a Hmong
interpreter said, “the child . . . cannot
play with friends . . . cannot do anything”
(Chen, Chan, and Brekken 1998).

This type of translation error can be
avoided if teachers and early interven
tion service providers clarify terms with
the interpreter in advance of the meet

ing. This example highlights the need for
teachers and early intervention service
providers to identify terms and concepts
that need translation into the family’s
home language. Together with an inter
preter, teachers and early intervention
service providers may discuss the mean
ing of the terms and how best to commu
nicate these concepts to families.

Gathering Information from
Families

Begin by identifying information that
is needed to help the child become com
fortable in the early childhood setting.
Figure out the best way to gather this in
formation through conversations with the
family. Develop a short list of questions
to guide conversations. A sample format
is provided.

Information About a New Child

Child’s name

Parent(s)

Date

Teacher

Questions

1. What are your child’s favorite times of day,
activities, foods, things, and people?

2. What activities, foods, and things does your
child dislike?

3. How does your child communicate?

4. What seems to motivate his or her interactions
with familiar people?

5. What words does your child understand?

6. What words does your child speak?

7. Do you have any concerns about your
child?

8. Is there anything we should know that will help
us in caring for him or her?

Sharing Information with Families

Family Responses

Families of children with special needs
may have concerns related to the extra
time, attention, or particular supports that
a child requires in an early childhood set
ting. Remember first that it is important
to balance attentive listening with sharing
information with the family. Initial visits
to the program are valuable for introduc
ing the child and family to the routines,
activities, children, and adults in the early
childhood setting. Use these opportunities
to find out about the family’s concerns
and hopes for the child’s participation in
the group. Some families may be direct in
their communication style and open about
expressing concerns. Others may be more
reserved and hesitate to ask questions. Let
the families know about the teacher–

child ratio, who is likely to be their
child’s primary teacher, and address any
concerns they may express. Ask about
the family’s preferred ways to keep in
contact: by notes, e-mail, texting, phone
calls, or brief discussions at drop-off and
pickup times. Once the child attends the
program, consider video recording the
child’s participation in daily activities. In
this way the family can see how the child
is doing in the group care setting.

Supporting Participation and a
Sense of Belonging in the Early
Care Setting

Once a child’s special need has been
identified and the appropriate services
have been sought out within the early care
setting, responsive teacher interactions
are the essential foundation for support
ing a child’s participation and sense of
belonging. Recommended practices in the
Program for Infant/Toddler Care include
individualization, adaptation, and being
responsive to children and families. These
practices are particularly significant when
the child has a special need. For example,
some infants and toddlers with special
needs may benefit from encouragement to
move their bodies and interact with toys
and other children. A few easy-to-grasp,
colorful objects can be displayed on low
shelves of a neutral color so that the toys

Concerns of New Families Who Entrust Their Child to an Early Care Setting
New families often have many questions about an early care setting:

• How will my child behave in an unfamiliar place?

• Will my child be safe and happy?

• Will my child get the attention that he or she needs?

• Will my child get along with the other children?

• Will people like my child?

are easy for the children to see and reach.
Infants who are not ambulatory may be
placed on a mat with toys that are easy
for them to grasp and tug. A child with a
motor difficulty may be positioned with
support (based on the physical therapist’s
recommendations) to facilitate rolling
or reaching for toys. Some infants with
developmental delays may appear passive
and require more physical stimulation
to maintain an alert state. Others may be
become overly aroused or agitated by
typical handling during caregiving activi
ties (e.g., being held, fed, or diapered). A
responsive teacher recognizes and re
sponds to each child’s particular signals.
Discussing observations with the child’s
family and consulting relevant service
providers (e.g., occupational therapist
or physical therapist) may help teachers
obtain suggestions necessary for engaging
in sensitive ways with each child in their
care.

Person-First Language

Another important way for child care
program staff to be responsive to a child
with special needs is to value the “child”
as a child first and to avoid labeling the
child as an eligibility category. For ex
ample, the phrase “a child with a devel
opmental delay” should be used when
referring to the child rather than “the de
velopmentally delayed child.” The terms
(e.g., developmental delay or the name of
a specific disability) are merely ones used
to meet eligibility requirements for early
intervention services and should not be
used to stigmatize a child. Consider how
the use of positive person-first language
will promote a child’s sense of identity,
affect the family’s feelings, and influence
the expectations of children and adults
who interact with the child and family.

Universal Design for Learning

Programs can be responsive to children
with special needs by being sensitive
to the principles of universal design for
learning (UDL) that promote access to
learning environments for children with
a range of abilities through a variety of
strategies that accommodate individual,
cultural, and linguistic needs. The three
principles of UDL involve multiple means
of representation, expression, and engage
ment (CAST 2012).

Multiple means of representation
refers to using a variety of formats that
will enable children to acquire informa
tion. The range of formats may include
English, home languages, manual signs,
pictures, and objects. For example, to
facilitate understanding, teachers may
alert very young children about the next
routine activity by using multiple means
such as spoken words (in English and

home languages), manual signs, pictures,
or an object that represents the activity.
A picture or object activity schedule may
help toddlers anticipate familiar daily
activities.

Multiple means of expression involves
a range of ways for children to respond
and to express preferences, feelings, and
ideas. For example, children may indicate
their preference for an activity by moving
or pointing to the area, saying or sign
ing a word, selecting a picture or object
that represents the activity, or by press
ing a voice output device or alternative
and augmentative communication device
(AAC).

During snack time, toddlers sit around
a small table for a snack of crackers, cut
up fruit, and water. After the first serving,
the care teacher waits for each child to
communicate. Some children say “more,”
others “más,” and one or two children
make the sign for MORE or ALL DONE.
The care teacher responds to each child’s

communication in efforts to support each
child’s sense of identity and language
development.

Multiple means of engagement cap
tures children’s attention by addressing
their learning styles and interests and
using scaffolds to support their participa
tion. These scaffolds include identifying
the characteristics of the objects and ac
tivities that the child prefers. For exam
ple, a toddler dislikes washing her hands
but enjoys music time. The care teacher
might encourage the child’s participation
by singing “This is the way we wash our
hands . . . .”

Teaming with Early Intervention
Service Providers

In an early care setting, a child with
special needs may receive services from
one or more early intervention service
providers, such as a physical or occupa
tional therapist, an early childhood special
educator, and/or a speech and language
pathologist. These early intervention
service providers are likely to provide
a consultation-based service delivery
model. In this intervention model, ser
vice providers develop a partnership with
the child’s family and teachers to find
out about the child’s typical day, regular
learning opportunities in the care set
ting, the child’s preferred activities, and
any challenges that tend to come up. It is
essential for the child’s early intervention
team members (including teachers) and
family members to discuss how to address
the family’s priorities and child’s IFSP
outcomes within the daily routine.

Embedding Specific Learning
Opportunities in Daily Routines

Typical daily activities, such as playing
with toys, eating a snack, or going for a
walk, are meaningful and natural op

portunities for young children to develop
and practice skills as they communicate
and interact. These activities may be
planned or may occur spontaneously.
In collaboration with early intervention
service providers, teachers should identify
opportunities within the daily routines for
targeting the child’s learning need. For
example, care teachers may target specific
child behaviors such as pointing to ob
jects or pictures or making a manual sign
to indicate a choice during snack time.

Questions to Guide Practice

If a child receives early intervention
services, ask the following questions:

1. What early intervention services
will the child receive in the early
care setting?

2. How are these services understood
within the family’s cultural perspec
tive and linguistic background?

3. Who provides these services, what
is involved, when will services be
provided, and how will the child’s
early intervention services affect the
typical day for the other children?

4. What information
does the family, the
teachers, and the ser
vice providers need
to share to support
this child’s learning
needs? How do they
share that informa
tion?

5. Who will make the
necessary modifica
tions and supports for
this child’s participa
tion?

6. What is expected of

teachers beyond their usual roles
and responsibilities?

7. How will early intervention service
providers and teachers work togeth
er and collaborate with the family?

If the child’s development or behavior
causes concerns, determine:

1. What is the program procedure for
discussing concerns with families?

2. What is the referral process for
developmental screening?

Conclusion

Including young children with spe
cial needs in early care settings requires
collaboration among families, teachers,
and early intervention service providers.
Adopting an open attitude of inquiry will
enable teachers to develop a shared un
derstanding of the child with the family.
Teaming with early intervention service
providers will promote the teachers’ use
of specific strategies to support children’s
participation in everyday learning op
portunities. Early childhood teachers
have a vital role in identifying infants and
toddlers who may require developmental

screenings and early intervention ser-
vices. Teachers may also assist families
in negotiating the unfamiliar and some
what daunting system of early interven
tion. In this way, teachers may facilitate
the positive developmental outcomes of
young children with special needs as well
as enhance their own partnerships with
families of diverse cultural and linguistic
backgrounds.

References

Center for Applied Special Technology
(CAST). 2012. “Universal Design for
Learning.” http://www.cast.org/udl/
index.html (accessed November 19,
2012).

Chen, D., S. Chan, and L. Brekken. 1998.
Conversations for Three: Communicat
ing through Interpreters. DVD. Van
Nuys, CA: Child Development Media.

Cook, R. E., M. D. Klein, and D. Chen.
2012. Adapting Early Childhood
Curricula for Children with Special
Needs. 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.

Lynch, E. W., and M. J. Hanson, eds.
2011. Developing Cross-Cultural
Competence: A Guide for Working with
Children and Families. 4th ed. Balti
more, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

U.S. Department of Education. 2011.
IDEA 2004: Building the Legacy.
Part C (birth–2 years old).

http://www.cast.org/udl/index.html

Section Two:
Becoming Informed About
Cultural Practices and
Cultural Communities

CHAPTER 4

A Cultural Communities and Cultural
Practices Approach to Understanding
Infant and Toddler Care

Alison Wishard Guerra and Sarah Garrity

universal task in every society
is to prepare children to engage
in the community and contrib
ute meaningfully to the family,

community, and economy. How com
munities go about this, however, may be
quite different. Often these differences
are attributed to “cultural diversity,” but
what exactly defines one’s culture? How
can culture be seen? What sense can be
made of culture? Culture is something in
which everyone participates and can be
seen as an ever-changing set of goals and
activities that guide people’s behavior and
help to explain it. This chapter introduces
culture as made up of “cultural communi
ties” where people engage in shared “cul
tural practices” that represent the adaptive
strategies developed by families for social
and economic well-being (Rogoff 2003).
The cultural communities and practices
framework can serve as a way of under
standing the cultural nature of develop
ment and providing culturally sensitive
care to young children, especially in
infant and toddler early care settings.

The cultural nature of development
may be understood by thinking carefully
about care practices and the functions and
goals they serve. Those practices include
both what people do as well as how they
do them. For example, cultural practices
include seemingly mundane routines such

A as eating and sleeping and the physical and cultural tools used in the routines (e.g., eating utensils, literacy or mathematics materials). An understanding of
cultural practices needs to extend to the
reasons and the goals for those routines.

Use of a cultural communities and
practices framework to understand culture
and development can help the early-
education-and-care field to move be
yond two common assumptions that
often cloud these discussions. The first
assumption is that there is one set of
“best practices” and one set of universal
developmental goals for all children and
families. By avoiding this static view and
looking instead at culture as a fluid set of
practices organized to accomplish specific
goals, one sees that each cultural com
munity may have a unique set of “best
practices” and socialization and develop
mental goals for its children. All of these
practices and goals are situated within the
broader community context that includes
political, social, and economic history.

The second assumption is that culture
is equivalent to one’s ethnic or linguistic
background. Looking at culture as a set of
practices rather than as a person’s back
ground provides a more powerful way to
understand variations within ethnic and
linguistic groups than simply compar
ing attributes across groups. As teachers,

early care providers, and researchers often
note, it is typical for more differences
than similarities to appear among children
from the same ethnic or linguistic back
grounds. Families from similar ethnic
or linguistic backgrounds do not neces
sarily have the same routines, goals, or
practices. Routines, goals, and practices
are developed in the context of a family’s
history, including cultural and linguis
tic heritage, but they are usually more
strongly associated with the immediate
and recent social, political, and economic
goals of the community.

The cultural practices, or routine ways
of doing things, define the cultural con
text in which humans develop. Using this
approach, practitioners and researchers
can explore how culturally based prac
tices with children drive developmental

outcomes rather than focus exclusively
on how developmental outcomes differ
across ethnic and linguistic groups. The
following vignette illustrates this concept.

José is a 17-month-old child whose family lives in an apartment in a large city
located close to the Mexican border. His family has recently moved to the United
States and has been living with his aunt and her four children. José has been attend
ing a local infant/toddler program for almost two months. His teachers report that
naptime is particularly difficult for José. Although obviously very tired, José strug
gles to transition to his cot and often lies on the floor and cries, which disturbs the
other children and often wakes them. José’s primary care teacher has tried carrying
José to his cot and giving him a book or favorite toy to help him calm down; how
ever, José rolls off the cot and onto the floor and continues to cry. When José finally
does fall asleep, it is usually time for the children to get up and have a snack.

The lead teacher, Carla, decides to bring up this issue to her supervisor during her
next reflective supervision meeting. When asked to describe how José’s behavior
during naptime makes her feel, Carla shares that she feels sad for José because
he is so obviously distressed and that she wishes she could do something to help
him. She also feels that since José has been in the program for almost two months,
he should be able to make the transition to naptime more easily. When asked how
José’s behavior makes her feel in her role as lead teacher, Carla shares that she
feels ineffective as a teacher and worries about the effect that José’s behavior has
on the other children. She also worries about how she and her assistant will get
their lunch breaks since all children need to be asleep in order for one of them to

leave the classroom. Carla’s supervisor suggests that she do a home visit to get to
know the family better and learn more about the family’s caregiving routines.

During the home visit, Carla learns that José has slept with his mother since birth
and that in José’s country of origin, children typically sleep with a parent until
another sibling is born, at which time they generally move to an older sibling’s bed.
When discussing this with her supervisor, Carla comes to understand that co-sleep
ing reflects a goal of José’s cultural community, which is to foster interdependence.

As this vignette illustrates, the inter
dependence valued in José’s home is
dramatically different from the emphasis
on self-reliance and autonomy found in
his early care program. Researchers have
reported that environments where sleep
patterns are different from those of the
home setting can lead to uncertainty for
children (Provence, Naylor, and Pat
terson 1977) and that sleep patterns are
often among the final practices to change
when a family moves to a new country
(Farooqui, Perry, and Beevers 1991). José
experiences very different practices in the
early care program, which are based on
the goal of independence, from those he
experiences at home. By making a home
visit to learn more about family practices,
Carla has taken an im
portant first step toward
understanding José’s
behavior and creating a
sensitive and responsive
classroom. In chapter 5,
Janet Gonzalez-Mena
further discusses efforts
that teachers can make to
understand the ways in
which families engage in
routine caregiving prac
tices and to better serve
the infants and toddlers in
their care.

Participation in Cultural Practices
at Home and in the Early Care
Setting

The primary context for participation
in cultural practices is typically the home,
through social interactions and relation
ships with primary caregivers and other
members of the community. However,
most families participate in multiple
cultural communities as they engage in
neighborhood activities, spiritual activi
ties, and with people of similar ethnic or
linguistic backgrounds. For young infants
and toddlers in early care settings, their
cultural communities include, at a mini
mum, both the home and the child care
context. An understanding of how culture
informs interactions with children must

focus on the types of activities and the
goals behind these activities in each of
the child’s cultural communities, primar
ily those of the home and the early care
context.

Figure 4.1 provides a visual frame
work of how a family may participate in
multiple cultural communities, each with
a unique set of cultural practices designed
to achieve the goals and values of the spe
cific community. The family is depicted
in the center, participating in each of four
cultural communities that overlap to vary
ing degrees. Other participants in each of
these cultural communities may also par
ticipate in various cultural communities,
creating both similarities and differences
in practices, beliefs, and values.

Figure 4.1
Example of a Family Participating
in Multiple Cultural Communities

Childcare
program

Heritage
country Family home

Neighborhood

To summarize, this framework illus
trates the cultural nature of development,
both broadly conceived and specifically
related to the context of infant/toddler
learning environments. This framework
will be used to define cultural communi
ties and practices, discuss why they are
relevant, and suggest how to think about
them. This approach will be applied
to understand the family organization
and highlight how variations in cultural

practices in the family structure can have
profound effects on children’s develop
ment and their expectations for how the
world works. This conceptual framework
will be applied to the infant/toddler
learning environment and to the infant/
toddler care teacher’s interactions with
children and families. The discussion will
illuminate how the infant/toddler learn
ing environment can be seen as its own
cultural community with unique cultural
practices, specific to the historical and
current needs, values, and goals of the
community.

Understanding Cultural
Communities

Within the cultural community per
spective, culture refers to participation
in cultural processes that unite groups of
people into communities. In this sense, a
cultural community is a group of people
who share a set of core practices aimed
at accomplishing certain things together,
with attention to the way they coordinate
their activities and relate to each other
(Rogoff 2003). Rogoff defines communi
ties as “groups of people who have some
common and continuing organization,
values, understanding, history, and prac
tices” (2003, 80).

Members of cultural communities
often share a common racial, ethnic,
national, geographic, linguistic, or histori
cal identity, but the defining feature of all
cultural communities is evolving, shared
practices. Moreover, individuals typically
participate in multiple cultural communi
ties, sharing beliefs and practices main
tained in different communities that re
flect the multifaceted nature of their own
history, values, and goals for their fam
ily. Consider, for example, two families
connected to the military whose children
are enrolled in the same program. While

they may share many common experi
ences and beliefs based on participation
in this community, participation in racial,
ethnic, geographic, or linguistic commu
nities will also impact their goals for their
children.

Cultural communities are neither fixed
in time nor a geographic place; instead,
they reflect the changing demograph
ics of the community and needs of the
participants. Although cultural communi
ties adapt their practices to the changing
times, they also include practices from
previous generations that may or may not
continue to be relevant. Routine caregiv
ing practices often continue even after
social and economic circumstances have
changed. For example, across many dif
ferent ethnic and linguistic groups, adults
maintain the practice of spoon-feeding
their children despite the children’s physi
cal ability to use utensils and the presence
of an adequate food supply. This practice,
which ensures that food is not wasted,
may have been carried over from a time
when there was a limited food supply.

Likewise, the cultural concept of
community is not limited to people in

a specific geographic area with regular
face-to-face contact. Rather, a cultural
community spanning geographic regions
can activate networks of family and com
munity members, coordinating social
and economic resources to accomplish a
shared set of goals. In terms of early care,
a relevant example of a cultural commu
nity that spans geographic regions is that
of a family who recently immigrated from
another country, where they continue
to share social and economic resources
with community members in their home
country. The goals and practices of the
cultural community in the home country
continue to guide the daily practices of
the members living in the new country in
similar and new and unique ways (Howes,
Wishard Guerra, and Zucker 2007). Such
cultural communities that span geograph
ic areas, as well as the individuals par
ticipating in those communities, are not
static and continue to change in response
to changing circumstances, values, and
goals.

Use of a cultural communities ap
proach to understand the infant/toddler
care context may facilitate humanistic
connections across ethnic and linguistic
groups by emphasizing the role of shared
goals and practices that define different
cultural communities. In this approach,
an infant/toddler care program provides
a context in which parents, families, and
early care providers from different ethnic
heritage backgrounds may band together
in sharing similar goals for the children
and the community and in determining
a unique set of practices to accomplish
those goals. By relating to culture as a
set of practices, infant/toddler programs
can validate that humans are not bound to
the culture they were born into, but rather
actively participate in and develop their
cultural community.

Understanding Cultural Practices

The common ways of doing things
that describe and distinguish individual
cultural communities are cultural prac
tices. Cultural practices are routine activi
ties that have a shared meaning among
a group of individuals (Howes, Wishard
Guerra, and Zucker 2007; Miller and
Goodnow 1995; Rogoff 2003). Cultural
practices include ways of ensuring eco
nomic sustainability, family structures,
and social networks. Specifically relevant
to the infant/toddler care setting are
everyday child-rearing practices, such as
the way a mother responds to her child’s
distress and the choice to use relative or
nonrelative child care when the mother or
father is not available to care for the child.
As a result of shared practices, partici
pants in cultural communities, especially
those based in shared ethnic, racial, and
language identities, often have common
social interaction styles and parenting
practices (Garcia Coll et al. 1996; Howes,
Wishard Guerra, and Zucker 2007).

Seeing culture as a framework of cul
tural communities and practices can help
early care providers understand culture as
dynamic and avoid stereotypes in which
all people in a group are assumed to live
the same lifestyle and have the same
goals for their children. Likewise, it can
be seen that the child care setting may be
come its own cultural community, with a
set of shared practices and ways of doing
things, and that this cultural community
has a profound impact on the participat
ing children and adults.

Families and Communities

The way families organize everyday
caregiving routines is driven both by the
availability of caregivers within families,
the organization of families’ dwellings,

and the socialization goals and values
that families have for the children. From
a cultural community practices perspec
tive, these factors contribute to essential
cultural practices, including caregiving
routines. Caregiving practices and fam
ily organization may look dramatically
different in different cultural communities
across the world. Many of these differ
ences are related to the varying rates of
infant mortality, economic constraints, the
availability of siblings and other family
members to provide care, and cultural
practices relating to engaging in groups or
dyads (Rogoff 2003).

Variations in Caregiving
Arrangements

The nature of a child’s relationship
with primary caregivers guides the way
children learn to form relationships with
others. Children are socialized to adapt
to modes of learning as a result of such
relationships. For many years, doctors
and developmental scientists believed
that children’s primary attachment rela
tionships were only with their primary
caregiver, most often the mother, and that
it was this one relationship that organized

the way a child interacted with other
adults and children. More recently,
researchers of attachment and culture
have suggested that the ways children
form attachment relationships, as well as
the people they form attachment relation
ships with, can be understood only within
the context of the cultural community
(Howes and Wishard Guerra 2009; Roth
baum et al. 2000).

Although the primary caregiving re
lationship in many homes is between the
mother and child, this structure is not the
norm for many families across the world.
For many families, there is a network of
primary caregivers who provide care to
the child either in a one-on-one setting or
with multiple caregivers and often multi
ple children present. There may be a wide
variety of caregivers in a wide variety of
settings and social groups: from relatives
to child care providers, and from dyadic
caregiving interactions to larger-group
caregiving interactions. The presence of
multiple caregivers does not interfere with
a child’s ability to form a trusting rela
tionship with his or her mother or parent;
in fact, the presence of multiple secure
and trusting attachment relationships
can help protect young children from
the stresses of daily life related to family
poverty, emotional trauma, or parental
stress among others (Spieker et al. 2003).
Each caregiver who provides physical and
emotional care, continuity, or consistency
in the child’s life and has an emotional
investment in the child
is thought to be identified as an attach
ment figure for an infant or young child
(Howes 1999; Howes and Smith 1995).
Secure relationships with additional at
tachment figures, including teachers and
child caregivers, can at least partially
compensate for insecure parent–child
relationships (Howes et al. 1988; Mitch-

ell-Copeland, Denham, and DeMulder
1997; Spieker et al. 2003; Wishard et al.
2003). Each additional attachment figure
provides an opportunity for the child to
develop a positive relationship that can
serve as a secure base for exploring the
world.

Siblings as caregivers. In many com
munities, infant and toddler care is
primarily provided by five- to-10-year-old
siblings or community children (Edwards
and Whiting 1993; Harkness and Super
1992, LeVine et al. 1994; Rogoff 2003).
In those communities, caregiving prac
tices may be split into those pertaining to
playing with and entertaining children,
and those pertaining to teaching basic
skills and feeding, changing, and bathing.
Often the infants and toddlers are brought
to the adults only when they need feed
ing, changing, or bathing and left to the
siblings and older children for play, enter
tainment, and teaching of basic skills. For

example, in Mexican working-class fami
lies, children are rarely seen playing with
their mothers; instead, they play primarily
with older children in a mixed-age con
text. In these types of arrangements, the
quality and complexity of the peer play
often resembles the nature of play ob
served in U.S. mother–child play (Farver
1992; 1993). Similarly, one study found
that children in a working-class African
American community in the Carolinas
tended to watch and listen to adults and
played and talked to other children. Older
children often engaged in song, language
play, counting, naming of items, and other
activities with babies—activities typi
cally engaged in by adults in middle-class
European American communities (Heath
1993; Rogoff 2003).

Same-age peers versus mixed-age
peers. When infants and toddlers have ac
cess to larger groups of children, whether
siblings, other relatives, or other children
in the community, they typically play in
mixed-age groups. In fact, grouping chil
dren according to age is relatively unusual
around the world, where sibling relation
ships are prioritized over peer relation
ships. In many North American families,
however, peer relationships are prioritized
over sibling relationships, and children
are separated from siblings in same-age
classroom settings.

In North American families with
few siblings or other children available,
young children are often separated in
same-age groups of infants and toddlers,
preschoolers, and school-age children.
Certainly this is also the pattern in most
child care centers where classrooms and
programs are designed to meet the needs
of a narrow age range of children. When
infants and toddlers first arrive at a child
care program, the child may feel more
comfortable in a mixed-age setting and

seek playtime and affection from older
siblings or older children at the center
rather than from unfamiliar adult teach
ers. As care teachers seek to provide
culturally sensitive care, it is important to
ask the families about who participates
in the everyday caregiving, including
feeding, changing, bathing, and playing.
For those children, providing them with
time to play with older children may be
an important factor in assisting in their
social–emotional adjustment. Of course,
when infants and toddlers are cared for in
family child care homes, play with older
children happens naturally throughout the
day.

The community as caregiver. In many
communities, the primary responsibility
of child supervision may belong to the
general cultural community rather than to
the individual parents. In these settings,
children may expect any number of adults
to engage in daily care routines, and the
children may move fluidly back and forth
between nonrelative community caregiv
ers and relative or parent caregivers.

In North America and many industrial
ized nations where one or more parents
work outside the home, the early care
setting has come to serve as a “commu
nity as caregiver” model, where children
are brought to the community center to
be cared for by a cultural community of
“expert” caregivers, engaging in specific
cultural practices with the goal of provid
ing care and support to young children.
It is useful to consider the early care
setting from the cultural communities’
perspective. This enables one to view the
daily routines and practices as an orga
nized system of practices geared toward
achieving very specific goals. When these
cultural practices and goals conflict with
those of the attending children and fami
lies, the transition from home to center

can be strained, potentially weakening the
connection between the family and the
child care providers. To minimize poten
tial conflict between the home and the
center, care programs need to establish
open communication and collaboration
with families. Though family child care
may be more consonant with families’
cultural practices and goals, open com
munication and collaboration are just as
important.

Children’s involvement in mature ac
tivities. The degree to which children are
either included in or separated from adult
activities varies according to the nature
of the caregiving routines. When chil
dren are raised in cultural communities
where child rearing is considered more
of a communal event, children are often
included in the mature activities of the
community and given small but authentic
tasks that contribute to the community.
The practice of giving children “toys”
and filling their day with child-oriented
activities may be common only in indus
trialized nations, where children are often
segregated from mature adult activities
and grouped into same-age peer groups
for care. However, some approaches to
early childhood education, such as those
developed by Maria Montessori, argue

that young children, especially infants and
toddlers, are most interested in engag
ing in the everyday activities they see the
adults in their community participate in.
According to such approaches, activities
related to “practical life” are seen as es
pecially suited to children’s interests and
developmental abilities. Allowing young
children to participate in real tasks relat
ing to the care of the environment, such
as sweeping, dusting, watering plants,
and food preparation can be a wonderful
and meaningful way to include them in
the everyday practices of the child care
community. And when young children
give care to babies, the babies experience
firsthand how their older peers contribute
to the community.

In sum, the caregiving practices within
the family and community are deeply
connected to the family structure, the so
cial and economic structures and demands
of the community, and the historical goals
for young children’s socialization. The
early care program, particularly centers,
may present a stark difference from the
everyday caregiving routines a young
infant or toddler is familiar with. Con

sequently, the program may potentially
increase the stress associated with separa
tion from the child’s primary caregiver.
A cultural communities and cultural
practices framework provides a tangible
way for caregivers to understand how
culture shapes children’s development
and the goals of parents and families for
their children. By tuning in to the cultural
practices of families who attend the child
care program, child care providers may be
better able to create and sustain a cultural
community within the program by includ
ing cultural practices that respect and
support the practices that children and
families may be familiar with.

Interactions with Children and
Families and Becoming Informed
About Cultural Practices and
Cultural Communities

By inviting families to share their care-
giving practices, early care providers can
work with families to develop care rou
tines that reflect the practices of the home
cultural community and thereby decrease
cultural conflict for children. To create
such partnerships, however, teachers need
to be flexible, because often the practices
used by families may greatly differ from
current practices in early care and educa
tion programs.

Program policies, such as attendance
and continuity of care, illustrate how pro
gram goals and practices might conflict
with parental goals and practices. During
the summer months, enrollment and/or
attendance may go down as older siblings
who are home from school for the sum
mer may care for infants and toddlers.
Although this may disrupt the continuity
of care and the developing relationship
between the infant/toddler care teacher
and other children, the practice of older
siblings caring for younger ones may be

an important caregiving practice passed
on from previous generations. When
school is out for the summer and older
siblings are available, families may prefer
to adhere to their value that the youngest
members (infants and toddlers) be cared
for within the cultural community rather
than by outside experts. As this example
of attendance during the summer months
suggests, keeping children home may
reflect the community goals related to
the interdependence of family members
and a history of children being cared for
by older members of the community in
mixed age groups.

Infant/toddler care teachers must use
their understanding of cultural practices
and cultural communities to inform their
interactions with children and families. To
do this requires ongoing critical thinking,
reflection, and the ability to take the per
spective of others with differing orienta
tions. Sensoy and DiAngelo (2012) call
attention to the need to distinguish opin
ions, which are a product of collective
socialization and do not require critical
thinking, from information or knowledge,
which is the result of ongoing experience
and study. In contrast to opinions, infor
mation or knowledge requires individuals
to expand, question, and go beneath the
surface of initial ideas to truly learn about
the goals, ideologies, and practices enact
ed by various cultural communities and
how they relate to caregiving practices.
Such an approach leads to exploration of
many questions; for instance, how might
a history of food shortage (or the opposite
experience of having food in abundance)
affect the practices associated with feed
ing? (See chapter 5 to further explore rou
tine caregiving practices associated with
feeding.) Or how might various cultural
communities view the teaching and learn
ing process? Without critical thinking and
reflection, conflicts between programs

and communities may emerge that un
derstanding and open communication of
goals and practices could have minimized
or prevented. Consideration of what will
influence teacher practice requires asking
the following questions:

1. How does the family balance the
goals of independence and interde
pendence for children?

2. Is it the goal of the caregiver to
prepare the environment or to have
children to participate in the prepar
ing the environment or both?

3. Is it the goal of the program for the
children to participate in the mature
activities of the community or to
play, or to do some of both?

By learning from the families their
caregiving goals, one can focus on under
standing them. Exploring the reasons why

certain goals are preferred reveals the
history and assumptions behind typical
care routines enacted by both the cultural
communities served and the early care
and education program.

Understanding the Classroom
or Program as Its Own Cultural
Community

Just as teachers need to respond
sensitively to the various temperaments,
languages, and dispositions of children
in their care, so they must also respond
thoughtfully to the various caregiving
practices used by members of different
cultural communities. Participation in
cultural communities is fluid, and indi
viduals and families often participate in
several cultural communities at the same
time. As families participate in multiple
sets of cultural practices, they are often
able to better understand the goals and
values maintained within each commu
nity. Through open communication and
collaboration with families, teachers and
program directors can build their under
standing of multiple sets of caregiving
practices to create a cultural community
reflective and supportive of the various
sets of cultural practices that the children
are familiar with.

Children develop through guided par
ticipation in cultural practices and daily
routines. By understanding the concept of
multiple sets of cultural practices, teach
ers can, for example, find ways to both
support continuity of primary caregiv
ers to children and, at the same time,
effec-tively provide culturally relevant
and sensitive care. By considering the
early care program as a cultural com
munity with its own set of unique cul
tural practices, teachers can both borrow
practices from other cultural communities
and build on cultural traditions of the

families enrolled in the program as well
as the people living in the geographic
region. For example, programs serving
children who are accustomed growing up
in mixed-age groups and participating in
the daily activities of adults may decide to
adopt a schedule allowing the infants and
toddlers to share some routines with older
children, such as mealtime, play time,
and participation in practical life activi
ties such as caring for the environment.
They may also gain ideas by visiting
and observing nearby family child care
programs.

A community practices framework is
a pragmatic approach to culture to aid in
understanding the specific aspects of fam
ily life that are relevant to the early care
environment. This approach results in a
culturally sensitive early care environ
ment that both acknowledges the cultural
communities of incoming families and
develops new cultural practices.

In conclusion, there is great variation
in the care of infants and toddlers. Sensi
tive and responsive teachers should seek
information about community practices
and integrate them into the cultural com
munity of their program. Integration of
cultural practices requires ongoing critical

thinking, wondering, and
reflection as teachers
learn from families and
the larger community
about the goals and val
ues held for children and
the practices that reflect
those goals. By doing so,
meaningful and authentic
collaboration between
parents and teachers
develops, which in turn
builds an infant/toddler
care community that sup
ports the cultural goals
and caregiving practices

of families.

References

Edwards, C. P., and B. B. Whiting. 1993.
“‘Mother, Older Sibling and Me’: The
Overlapping Roles of Caregivers and
Companions in the Social World of
Two- to Three-Year-Olds in Ngeca,
Kenya.” In Parent-Child Play: De
scriptions and Implications, edited by
K. MacDonald, 305–28. Albany: State
University of New York Press.

Farooqui, S. I., J. Perry, and D. G. Beev
ers. 1991. “Ethnic Differences in
Sleeping Position and Risk of Cot
Death.” The Lancet 338:1445.

Farver, J. A. M. 1992. “An Analysis of
Young American and Mexican Chil
dren’s Play Dialogues.” In The Collab
orative Construction of Pretend, edited
by C. Howes, 55–66. Albany: State
University of New York Press.

——— 1993. “Cultural Differences in
Scaffolding Pretend Play: A Compari
son of American and Mexican Mother–
Child and Sibling–Child Pairs.” In
Parent-Child Play: Descriptions and
Implications, edited by K. MacDonald.

Albany: State University of New York
Press.

Garcia Coll, C., K. Crnic, G. Lamberty,
B. Wasik, R. Jenkins, H. Garcia
Vazquez, and H. Pipes McAdoo. 1996.
“An Integrative Model for the Study of
Developmental Competencies in Mi
nority Children.” Child Development

(5): 1891–1914.

Harkness, S., and C. M. Super. 1992.
“The Developmental Niche: A Theo
retical Framework for Analyzing the
Household Production of Health.”
Social Science and Medicine 38 (2):
217–26.

Heath, S. B. 1993. Identity and Inner-City
Youth: Beyond Ethnicity and Gender.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Howes, C. 1999. “Attachment Rela
tionships in the Context of Multiple
Caregivers.” In Handbook of Attach
ment: Theory, Research, and Clinical
Applications, edited by J. Cassidy and
P. R. Shaver, 671–87.

Howes, C., and A. Wishard Guerra. 2009.
“Networks of Attachment Relation
ships in Low-Income Children of
Mexican Heritage: Infancy through
Preschool.” Social Development 18 (4):
896–914.

Howes, C., A. Wishard Guerra, and E.
Zucker. 2007. “Cultural Communities
and Parenting in Mexican-Heritage
Families.” Parenting: Science and
Practice 7 (3): 235–70.

Howes, C., C. Rodning, D. C. Galuzzo,
and L. Myers. 1988. “Attachment and
Child Care: Relationships with Mother

and Caregiver.” Early Childhood Re
search Quarterly 3:403–16.

Howes, C., and E. W. Smith. 1995. “Chil
dren and Their Child Care Caregivers:
Profiles of Relationships. Social Devel
opment 4:44–61.

LeVine, R. A., S. Dixon, S. LeVine, A.
Richman, , P. H. Leiderman, C. H.
Keefer, and T. B. Brazelton. 1994.
Child Care and Culture: Lessons from
Africa. New York: Cambridge Univer
sity Press.

Miller, P. J., and J. J. Goodnow. 1995.
“Cultural Practices: Toward an Inte
gration of Culture and Development.”
New Directions for Child Development
67:5–16.

Mitchell-Copeland, J., S. A. Denham, and
E. K. DeMulder 1997. “Q-Sort Assess
ment of Child–Teacher Attachment
Relationships and Social Competence
in the Preschool.” Early Education &
Development 8 (1): 27–39.

Parlakian, R. 2001. Look, Listen, and
Learn: Reflective Supervision and
Relationship-Based Work. Washington,
DC: Zero to Three.

Provence, S., A. Naylor, and J. Patterson.
1977. The Challenge of Day Care.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Rogoff, B. 2003. The Cultural Nature
of Human Development. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Rothbaum, F., M. Pott, H. Azuma, K.
Miyake, and J. Weisz. 2000. “The
Development of Close Relationships
in Japan and the United States: Paths
of Symbiotic Harmony and Generative

Tension.” Child Development 71:1121– Income Toddlers.” Infant Behavior &
42.

Sensoy, O., and R. DiAngelo. 2012. Is
Everyone Really Equal? An Introduc
tion to Key Concepts in Social Justice
Education. New York: Teachers Col
lege Press.

Spieker, S. J., D. C. Nelson, A. Petras,
S. N. Jolley, and K. E. Barnard. 2003.
“Joint Influence of Child care and
Infant Attachment Security for Cogni
tive and Language Outcomes of Low-

Development 26 (3): 326–44.

Wishard, A., E. M. Shivers, C. Howes,
and S. Ritchie. 2003. “Child Care
Programs and Teacher Practices: As
sociations with Quality and Children’s
Experiences.” Early Childhood Re
search Quarterly 18:65–103.

CHAPTER 5

Cultural Sensitivity in Caregiving Routines:
The Essential Activities of Daily Living

Janet Gonzalez-Mena

E very day you bring your personal values and beliefs to your work with children and families, and
it is likely that the way you were raised
shaped those beliefs and values. There
fore, it is essential to understand just how
cultural upbringing influences child care
practice. Interactions you engaged in,
even during your own infancy, around
such basic activities as feeding, toilet
ing, and napping had an effect on what
you may think is the right way to care

for children and will even influence the
specific caregiving techniques you use.
Additionally, your practice is influenced
by the way you were trained as an in
fant/toddler care teacher. Therefore, it is
important to understand that you come to
child care with both a conscious and not-
so-conscious set of beliefs, values, and
rules for behavior that come from your
history and training. When you work with
families that were raised in ways
different from you and hold different
beliefs and values about child rearing, it
is crucial to be aware that both sets of
beliefs may be valid.

When caring for infants and toddlers,
remember that you are participating in
a subtle, but powerful form of teaching.
The way care—the everyday caregiving
activities you engage in over and over
again—is provided has a profound effect
on early development. While engaging in
routine tasks, teachers pass on important
messages about how life should be lived.
Personal and cultural values are reflected
in the way you provide care. If the child
rearing practices of the parents of the
infants and toddlers in your care are not
in agreement with yours, you may wind
up socializing a child in a manner con
trary to what a parent wants. This chapter
is written to lessen that possibility.

Differing Beliefs and Values

Many times, infant/toddler care teach

ers are unaware of what parents are
trying to accomplish—the values behind
a request—when the parents ask for a
routine to be done in a particular way. For
example, parents who endorse caregiv
ing practices that stress self-help skills
and competence building in infants, such
as feeding oneself and putting oneself to
sleep alone in a crib, usually want their
children to grow up to be self-sufficient,
and they tend to think the time to start is
in infancy. The goal behind those prac
tices often is to produce an independent,
unique individual. In contrast to that
goal, some parents feel a child’s sense of
belonging to a group may be more impor
tant than independence. These parents see
optimum functioning in the group or fam
ily system as a greater priority than inde
pendence; therefore, their child-rearing
practices emphasize group experience.
These parents may expect adults and
older children to help a child with eating
throughout early childhood and consider
falling asleep to be something the child
always does in the presence of others.
Parents who endorse those practices tend
to value the goal of interdependence more
than that of independence. Although it
may seem like families face an “either/
or” situation, in reality some families fall
somewhere in between the goals of inde
pendence and interdependence.

Both goals are valid. Yet the differ
ence between them is fundamental. If a
teacher can conduct a routine in a way
that allows both goals to be met, it is the
optimal outcome for all. Routine caregiv
ing practices carried out with attention to
parents’ preferences will allow teachers
to acknowledge, work with, and resolve
potential conflicts or “cultural bumps” as
Isaura Barrera calls them. They invariably
arise when people hold different view
points. Only with this flexibility can one

truly provide infants and toddlers with the
sensitive care that supports their devel
opment within their family and cultural
context. This approach is consistent with
Alison Wishard Guerra and Sarah Gar
rity’s guidance in chapter 4, which recom
mends the use of a cultural communities
framework to help teachers understand
parents’ goals for their children.

What Is a Routine?

There are several different uses of the
word routine. Although most people do
not admit that routines are repetitive and
boring, they often perceive them as such.
Furthermore, people often have differ
ent ideas about what the word actually
means. Once I overheard a participant
leaving my workshop complain to
someone that the workshop was over, and
she was leaving without having gotten a
routine to take away with her. I was curi
ous about what she had expected from
the workshop until I found out that she
had expected to leave with a schedule in
hand that specified what routine to do and
when.

At another time a woman attending my
workshop, who was native to the North
American continent and called herself an
Indian, talked to me at length about the
preschool her child attended. She com
plained about how the teachers always
looked at their watches and then at the
schedule on the wall. That practice upset
her because it was unlike her child’s expe
rience at home. Furthermore, the message
she received from the preschool was that
she was supposed to have a schedule at
home for her children to replace the daily
free-flow that felt right and natural to her.
She went on to point out that the words
for the schedule all had the word “time”:
as in “arrival time,” “outdoor time,”
“snack time.” Furthermore, time may be

important in some cultures and not so
in others; even the concept of time may
cause confusion and sometimes cause
hard feelings or discomfort. That was the
case when the mother thought she was
supposed to use time segments to regulate
her day at home instead of allowing a
more free-flowing daily routine.

In her book Respecting Babies, Ruth
Anne Hammond puts a “positive spin” on
the word routine as it applies to the daily
life of infants and toddlers:

Routine is a pathway . . . that
provides a framework so that
each day need not be a new inven
tion, but is an opportunity to
fine tune one’s orientation to
the world. It takes on the spirit
of beloved ritual that nurtures
relationships as much as bodies.
(Hammond 2009, 46)

Cultural Differences in Daily
Routines: Toileting, Feeding, and
Sleeping/Napping

You will probably be unfamiliar with
some of the positions people hold about
toileting, feeding, and sleeping/napping

due to their cultural background. You may
even be unaware of your own values con
nected with them until you find yourself
in a conflict with a parent or a fellow
infant/toddler care teacher about one of
them.

Consider these three situations and
think about your probable response:

1. Toileting. A new parent explains to
you that her one-year-old child is
toilet trained and insists that you
leave off the diapers.

2. Feeding. The mother of a toddler
is upset by the mess she sees when
she discovers that you let him feed
himself. She asks you to spoon-feed
her child as she does at home, “so
he eats more, doesn’t get so messy,
and less food is wasted.”

3. Napping. Another parent explains
that his baby is used to falling asleep
in someone’s arms, not by herself in
a crib in a separate room. He asks
that you hold the child until she
goes to sleep each day.

Now reflect on your process. When
you considered the three scenarios, was
your natural inclination to think about
such things as your program policies,
philosophy, guidelines, developmental
theory, research studies, or even licens
ing regulations? If so, you acted as most
teachers would. Teachers often raise such
issues in responding to a parent who
asks for something to be done differently
from the child care program’s standard
routine, especially when the request is for
something that seems unreasonable and
difficult to carry out.

Child care programs in family homes
and centers are serving an increasingly
diverse population. Parents may or may
not have chosen your program because of
its philosophy and caregiving practices.

It is vital to find out how the parents view
their child’s care and the practices related
to it. Observe. Ask. Good communica
tion with parents is the key to providing
the best care for each infant or toddler.
Communication is especially important in
a culturally diverse program. This chapter
examines three caregiving routines.

Toileting

Most experts (e.g., Sears, Brazelton,
and the American Academy of Pediatrics)
agree that to start toilet training much
before two years of age is unwise. In their
view, the child’s readiness is the main fac
tor in deciding when to start toilet train
ing. This readiness involves the child’s
physical, intellectual, and emotional abili
ties to control, understand, and cooperate
in the toilet-training or toilet-learning pro
cess. The goal of toileting, in the experts’
approach, is to get children to handle their
own toileting without adult help. For that
reason, a child must be mature enough to
walk, talk, handle clothing, and so forth.
Toilet training, or toilet learning, is con
sidered an important step in the child’s
growing independence.

As sensible as the experts’ approach
to toileting may appear, there are other
points of view on the matter. For some
parents, the goal of toileting is to create
a partnership between parent and child;
these parents may also want to elimi
nate the use of diapers as early as pos
sible. Eventually, the self-help skills and
independence in toileting will come, but
that development is not seen as necessary
or important to begin the toilet-training
process.

Janice Hale, a professor at Wayne State
University and author of many books
about the African American child, talks
about an approach to toilet training that is
different from the experts’ wait-until-two

years-of-age approach. Hale states that
in some cultural communities, babies are
held so much of the time that teachers can
give “an immediate response to urination
and bowel movements. Hence, from an
early age, there is an association in the
infant’s mind between these functions and
action from the mother. Consequently,
when the mother seeks to toilet train
the child, the child is accustomed to her
direct involvement in this process” (Hale
1983, 70).

Hale pointed out that difference in
toileting many years ago. Much more
recently, Spock and Needlman (2011)
introduced an idea they call “early toilet
training,” which can occur in the first
year. What they explain as “early toilet
training” relates in some ways to what
some parents call “elimination commu
nication.” These parents are using the
same idea that some African American
families (and other families around the
world) have been using for centuries. The
Web site diaperfreebaby boldly declares
that elimination communication is not
potty training.

How is it different? The widely ac
cepted process backed by experts that is
called “potty training” or “toilet learn
ing” comes after a long period, when
babies’ bodily functions of elimination
typically occur when they are physically
separate from the parent or caregiver(s).
The parent or caregiver begins to become
actively involved in the child’s bowel
and bladder activities after many months
of giving them only cursory attention. A
toilet-training or toilet-learning process
based on readiness, beginning when the
caregiver perceives that the child is ready
for it, is very different from an ongoing
process based on a partnership between
a caregiver and child who maintain close
physical contact with one another.

If a mother is sensitive to her one-year
old’s signals and manages the child’s
toileting without diapers, it is quite rea
sonable for her to ask the child’s teacher
to do the same. Her expectations may be
that the teacher will form the same kind
of partnership that she and her infant have
developed together. Therefore, when she
talks about the child being toilet trained,
she does not mean that the child will go
to the bathroom and use the toilet inde
pendently. She means that the teacher will
be able to read the child’s signals and take
the child to the toilet.

Teachers who have experience with
children from a variety of backgrounds
know that many young babies often do
not have wet diapers. That observation
supports the idea that an early adult–child
partnership and early toileting are pos
sible. Whether or not a particular toileting
practice is advocated, it is necessary to
know that variations in children’s re
sponses to toileting may reflect a cultural
or family difference rather than a physi
cal difference. The infant’s capability
for early toileting comes from continual
physical contact with the caregiver and
the caregiver’s belief that dry diapers are
possible, even for babies.

Communicating About Toileting

Understanding that a parent may have
a different view of toileting because of
cultural or individual beliefs and practices
is crucial when communicating about
different approaches. In the following
scenario, notice the miscommunication
that occurs:

The mother arrives to pick up
her 12-month-old son and finds
him playing on the floor, in a
wet diaper, while the teacher is
busy fixing the afternoon snack.

The mother frowns as she car
ries her son over to the diaper
ing table and changes him. Her
displeasure shows on her face
throughout the process, but
she does not say anything until
she is on her way out the door.
Then, as a parting remark, the
mother says over her shoulder
to the teacher, “I wish you’d be
more alert and catch my son
before he wets! At home he stays
dry because he’s toilet trained.”
“Sure he’s trained!” the teacher
says sarcastically under her
breath, as though she does not
believe it. Then she adds, loudly
enough for the mother to hear,
“He’s not trained. You are!”

The parent and the teacher have a prob
lem. Obviously, there has been no prior
communication about the parent’s expec
tations about toileting, dry diapers, and
the like. The teacher has not talked with
the parent about the child care program’s
expectations or what is reasonable for a
parent to expect when his or her child is
being cared for in a group setting. An
other problem is the attitude of nonaccep
tance expressed by both the teacher and
the parent toward each other’s caregiving
practices.

If you were in the teacher’s shoes, you
might have difficulty following that par
ent’s practice, even if you wanted to. You
might feel you could not possibly hold
one baby all the time in order to learn the
subtle body signals the baby sends just
before he or she wets. How could you
possibly take care of more than one infant
and hold each one all the time? But if you
understand the mother’s experience, her
point of view, and her definition of toilet
training, your attitude toward her will be

different from just thinking of her as lack
ing knowledge.

The parent, too, might have a more
accepting attitude of you and your care-
giving practices if you had arranged a
conversation with her about the difference
between caring for infants and toddlers in
groups and caring for one baby alone at
home. That conversation between the par
ent and teacher needs to begin before the
child is in care, during a parent–teacher
orientation. The discussion between
parents and teachers is a two-way street.
In addition to sharing information, the
mother and teacher need to engage in
some problem solving about consistency
of care and shared expectations for the
child’s care.

You may be surprised, as I have been,
that some teachers work with families
who use an elimination communication
approach, and teachers say it can work—

even in group care settings! I have not
tried it myself, but I see the advantages of
being so tuned in to a baby—so obser
vant, so sensitive—that you get to know
that baby very well. Imagine what it must
feel like to be that baby.

Feeding Practices

Cultural differences often arise when
breast-feeding is concerned. Programs
serving families of infants and toddlers
tend to support families in their choice to
breast-feed or not (Liamputtong 2011).
Programs may offer mothers a quiet,
secluded place to breast-feed and a proper
storage space for breast milk so it can be
fed to their infants in bottles when the
mother is not available. Cultural differ
ences also arise in the timing of introduc
ing solid foods and the expectations about
how feeding is handled.

The focus of this section is feeding
infants and toddlers solid food in child
care programs. A major issue arises
around the fact that self-feeding of very
young children is a messy but an impor
tant step toward independence. According
to the experts—Brazelton and Sparrow,
for example—it is important to encourage
babies to take part in the feeding process,
even though a mess results. Some experts
even suggest that babies be allowed to
play with their food to get the full benefit
of the sensory experience. Almost every
one who has been involved in infant/tod
dler child care has been confronted with
a parent who is unhappy about a mess.
Moreover, some teachers may be uncom
fortable with messes as well.

There may be several reasons why
some parents or some caregivers object
to allowing babies to feed themselves,
even when they are capable of doing so.
Some cultural practices forbid fingers
from ever touching food. In some cultural

communities, food is revered and is never
considered a play thing at the table or as
an activity, such as finger painting with
pudding. Parents or caregivers who have
experienced severe food shortages or
who empathize with the circumstances of
starvation may be horrified at the thought
of playing with food.

When there is a core belief about
the importance of cleanliness, experi
ences with the tactile properties of food
and playing with food are discouraged.
Parents who have little time to feed their
babies or who clean them afterwards may
find that spoon-feeding them until they
can eat neatly and efficiently by them
selves is more expedient, even though
some children may reach that point as late
as four years of age. Telling parents about
the importance of taking time to feed their
children is easy enough, but many will
not hear the message because they have
a different set of priorities and values.
However, in the early care setting there
is time for children to learn self-feeding
skills and for adults to clean up the mess.
Again, it is important to recognize that
values and beliefs are what drive caregiv
ing practices; feeding practices need to be

discussed in the parent/caregiver orienta
tion meeting and in conversations.

Marion Cowee, a preschool teacher–
director in the San Francisco Bay Area,
tells about her experience with a mother
spoon-feeding her child beyond infancy.
When a Chinese family enrolled, Marion
was surprised to discover that the mother
was still spoon-feeding her four-year
old daughter. In fact, she came at lunch
time each day for that very purpose.
When Marion asked her why she did it,
the mother replied, “To make sure my
daughter is getting enough to eat.” Marion
thought she was overprotective and gently
tried to convince the mother that her
child was old enough to feed herself. She
also shared with the mother her worries
about the child’s lack of self-help skills
in kindergarten, but the mother never quit
coming at lunch time. In spite of their dif
ferent views about the need for self-help
skills, they developed a positive relation
ship. By the end of the school year, noth
ing had changed at lunch time. A year
later, the mother and daughter came back
to visit Marion at the preschool. After
a warm, get-reacquainted conversation,
Marion asked about how lunch time was
at school. The mother proudly announced
that she had gotten a job as a lunch-room
supervisor, so she knew that her child got
enough to eat. By then she had stopped
spoon-feeding her.

Marion’s comments about this story
were as follows: “This experience taught
me how powerful cultural practices are;
it’s not something that can be willed
away by logic or guilt.” She went on to
say, “By a unilateral decree on my part, I
could have forced an important part of a
family’s link to their cultural community
to be absent in my program. By doing
that, I might have destroyed the trust and
joy that that family experienced in our

school” (Cowee 2012).

Sleeping/Napping Routines

As in feeding and toileting routines,
different cultural and personal values sup
port different practices related to sleeping
and napping. But being open to cultural
variation in sleeping practices has become
highly sensitive since the back-to-sleep
movement changed infant sleeping prac
tices in many cultural communities. One
outcome of the movement is the lowering
of the risk factors of SIDS (sudden infant
death syndrome) and that is a blessing.
Yet the American Academy of Pediatrics
recommendation against co-sleeping
bumps up against the infant sleeping prac
tices in many cultures. Taking a different
perspective from that of the American
Academy of Pediatrics, sleep scientist
James McKenna (2000), and an anthro
pologist, Meredith Small (1998), as well
as Sears and Sears (2001 and 2003), find
some co-sleeping practices benefit babies
and lower SIDS risk factors. Decisions
should be made carefully here.

Sears and Sears (2001 and 2003) give
recommendations for safe co-sleeping,
which include putting the baby on his
back and guarding against overheating.
They list a number of “don’ts,” which
include drugs, alcohol, smoking, and
soft surfaces (such as beanbag chairs and
waterbeds) as well hair spray, deodorants,
and perfumes. Obesity of the adults is
another risk factor.

One thing is clear, however: the idea
that babies should sleep in separate cribs
in a quiet room away from the family
activity is not a universally held belief.
In many cultural communities, people
believe it is important for the infant and
caregiver to maintain close physical prox
imity; when the baby needs to sleep, he or
she does so while being carried about or

on the body. In some cultural communi
ties, as Hale (1983, 25) states, “socializa
tion emphasizes the closeness of people.
Physical and psychological closeness are
reinforced by encouragement of body
contact between people.” When families
immigrate to the United States, they bring
the roots of their child-rearing practices
from their homeland. Hale and Small both
discuss the influences of the “old coun
try” on sleeping arrangements. In coun
tries where children are typically breast
fed for a longer period than they are in
the United States and held a great deal of
the time, even when they are not being
breast-fed, the children also usually sleep
with their mothers. Not all families have
space for members to sleep alone and in
separate rooms. Whatever the reason may
be, a mother who is used to having her
baby sleeping with her may well request
that the child not be put in a crib to learn
to sleep alone.

Values about sleeping and napping

routines often cause a conflict when
the caregiving practices at home do not
match those in the early care setting.
In many programs in the United States,
the policy of the child care program, the
licensing requirements, or the interpreta
tion of child care licensing regulations
dictate separate sleeping arrangements for
infants and toddlers. Consequently, when
children come from home settings with
different caregiving practices for sleeping,
they experience a major inconsistency
in care. The situation becomes difficult
for all concerned—baby, teacher, and
parents—when babies are accustomed to
being held and rocked to sleep at home
but in the child care setting are placed
alone in a crib in a quiet, separate sleep
ing room. No wonder the children have
difficulty falling asleep when they first
come into group care.

Again, it is important to be sensitive
and responsive to the needs of individual
parents and babies and to be realistic
about what is possible and best for the
child in the child care setting. Together
you and the parents will need to explore
how to come to a mutually satisfying
solution. With this particular issue, the
licensing official may have to be included
in discussions to be sure the require
ments are truly appropriate to the infant’s
needs and consistent with the family’s
child-rearing practices and are not simply
a culturally biased interpretation of the
regulation.

Here is what happened in a program
when a 15-month-old born to a refugee
family arrived in the center. When the
boy was placed in a crib, he screamed so
loudly that his cries disturbed everyone.
He just could not get used to the crib.
The teachers learned that at home, which
was crowded with family members, the
boy never slept alone in a crib in a dark
room. Over time, staff members discov

ered that if they just let the boy stay in the
play room when he got tired, he would
eventually find a corner to cuddle in and
go to sleep. Everything was fine until the
licensing official arrived one day, pointed
at the sleeping child, and asked, “What
is he doing there?” The head teacher
explained, but the licensing official just
kept shaking her head, “No!” After a long
discussion, the head teacher finally asked
to see the regulation, which as it turns
out stated that every child was entitled
to quiet, undisturbed sleep. She pointed
out that he did not get it in the crib room,
and nobody else did, either. A waiver was
granted, and the only stipulation was that
the child had to have a clean sheet under
him for sanitation reasons.

Summary

There are no “right” answers about
values or the extent to which teachers
should adapt their practices in any of the
situations discussed in this chapter. Even
practices that are considered develop
mentally appropriate in infant and toddler
caregiving routines are influenced by cul
tural, professional, and personal beliefs.
The practices reflect the predominant
culture’s beliefs and values. It is impor
tant for everyone in the child care field
to be knowledgeable about both accepted
caregiving practices and other child
rearing beliefs and practices, keeping in
mind that in another cultural context that
culture’s practices would be accepted for
that setting.

Diversity of beliefs and values of
ten brings conflict. In child care, many
diverse beliefs manifest themselves in
different caregiving practices related to
everyday, routine activities. The purpose
of this guide is to help you tune in to the
sensitivity required to work with someone
else’s baby. In this chapter, various rou
tines and associated values and caregiving

practices are highlighted to help sensitize
you to the differences you will encounter
regularly as a teacher. Such differences
are inevitable with the increasing cultural
diversity that communities experience
today.

What is not necessarily inevitable is
that one cultural view remains or becomes
dominant over another. Instead of auto
matically responding in the usual way,
take time to listen to parents who want
something different for their babies from
what is ordinarily provided. Put yourself
in their shoes. Tune in. Be sensitive. Try
to build a relationship with each fam
ily and increase communication. Both
of those strategies will help you find out
what is really behind a request—especial
ly one that you question. Have ongoing
conversations with family members about
child-rearing and family practices. Un
derstanding parents’ cultural backgrounds
comes only through finding out firsthand
about the culture, not by labeling or ste
reotyping a family because it belongs to a
particular group.

Be sensitive to the child’s feelings.
When infants and toddlers experience
little continuity between home and child
care, they can have a difficult time. It is
important to build bridges. Provide con
sistency with the child rearing at home
whenever possible so that the child will
feel comfortable in care outside the home.
A good idea is to talk with all the fami
lies about routine caregiving and family
practices as part of your enrollment and
orientation procedures before the child
is enrolled. By doing so, you will learn
what the child is used to. The enroll
ment/orientation is also the time to go to
work on building relationships with each
family. It may not necessarily be easy to
accomplish, but is well worth the time
and effort.

When you understand different values
and beliefs, you will be able to collabo

rate with families to develop harmony
between what happens at home and
what happens in the program. It may not
always be culturally consistent, but if you
are at least as responsive as possible, the
care you provide for infants and toddlers
is more likely to support the culture of
the home. To give that kind of support,
it is necessary to come to some kind of
agreement about what is best for this baby
from this family in the care program even
when the usual practices may need to be
modified.

References

Aquino, Consuelo. 1981. “The Filipino in
America.” In Culture and Childrear
ing, edited by Ann L. Clark. Philadel
phia: F. A. Davis.

Barrera, Isaura, Robert M. Corso, and
Dianne McPherson. 2003. Skilled
Dialogue: Strategies for Responding to
Cultural Diversity in Early Childhood.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Brazelton, T. Berry, and Joshua D. Spar
row. 2004a. Feeding Your Child the
Brazelton Way. Cambridge, MA: Da
Capo Press.

———. 2004b. Toilet Training the Brazel
ton Way. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo
Press.

Cowee, Marion. 2012. Personal commu-
nication, May 29, 2012.

Gerber, Magda, ed. 1989. Resources for
Infant Educarers Manual. Los Ange
les: Resources for Infant Educarers.

Hale, Janice. 1983. “Black Children:
Their Roots, Culture, and Learning
Styles.” In Understanding the Multicul
tural Experience in Early Childhood
Education, edited by Olivia N. Saracho
and Bernard Spodek. Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education
of Young Children.

Hammond, Ruth Anne. 2009. Respecting
Babies: A New look at Magda Gerber’s
RIE Approach. Washington, DC: Zero
to Three.

Liamputtong, Pranee, ed. 2011. Infant
Feeding Practices: A Cross-Cultural
Perspective. New York: Springer.

McKenna, James J. 2000. “Cultural Influ
ences on Infant and Childhood Sleep
Biology, and the Science That Studies
It: Toward a More Inclusive Paradigm.”
In Sleep and Breathing in Children:
A Developmental Approach, edited
by Gerald M. Loughlin and John L.
Carroll, 199–230. New York: Marcel
Dekker.

Morrow, Robert D. 1987. “Cultural
Differences—Be Aware!” Academic
Therapy 23 (November): 143–49.

Rogoff, Barbara. 2011. Developing Desti
nies: A Mayan Midwife and Town. New
York: Oxford University Press.

———. 2003. The Cultural Nature of
Human Development. New York:
Oxford University Press.

———. 1990. Apprenticeship in Think
ing: Cognitive Development in Social

Context. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Sandoval, Mercedes C., and Maria C.
De La Roza. 1986. “Cross-Cultural
Perspective for Serving the Hispanic
Client.” In Cross-Cultural Training for
Mental Health Professionals, edited by
Harriet P. Lefley and Paul B. Pedersen.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Sears, William, and Martha Sears. 2003.
The Baby Book: Everything You Need
to Know About Your Baby—From Birth
to Age Two. New York: Little, Brown
and Company.

———. 2001. The Attachment Parenting
Book. New York: Little, Brown and
Company.

Shelov, Steven P., and Tanya Remer Alt-
man. 2009. Caring for Your Baby and
Young Child Birth to Age 5. 5th ed. Elk
Grove Village, IL: American Academy
of Pediatrics.

Small, Meredith. 1998. Our Babies,
Ourselves: How Biology and Culture
Shape the Way We Parent. New York:
Anchor Books.

Sodetani-Shibata, Aimee Emiko. 1981.
“The Japanese American.” In Culture
and Childrearing, edited by Ann L.
Clark. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.

Spock, Benjamin, and Robert Needlman.
2011. Dr. Spock’s Baby and Child
Care. 9th ed. New York: Pocket Books.

Wolraich, Mark. 2003. American Acad
emy of Pediatrics Guide to Toilet
Training. New York: Bantam Books.

Section Three :

Creating Collaborative ,

Reciprocal Relationships
with Families

CHAPTER 6

Developing Culturally Responsive
Caregiving Practices: Acknowledge , Ask ,
and

Adapt

Louise Derman-Sparks

The best interests of children must be the primary concern in making

decisions that may affect them.

—UNICEF 1990.

ulturally responsive caregiving is
for all infants and toddlers—in
all settings. It is both a concep
tual and practical approach to

implementing respectful and relation
ship-based care grounded in reciprocity
between staff members and families. This
chapter offers key strategies for providing
culturally responsive care in any setting.

At the heart of culturally responsive
care and education is partnering with fam
ilies. This means recognizing families’
areas of expertise, including expectations
and hopes for their child, child-rearing
strategies, daily life rituals, language, and
other aspects of their home culture—for
example, how they handle discipline
(Derman-Sparks and Olsen Edwards
2010). Culturally responsive care calls for
a melding between what the professional
believes and knows and what the fami
lies of infant/toddlers believe and know.
Therefore infant/toddler programs will
differ from setting to setting, depending
on the adaptations made to the particular
needs and backgrounds of the children
and families served. Through collabora
tion, everyone in the partnership benefits:

• Infant/toddler care teachers gain
an expanded, richer, more powerful

awareness of the complexities of how
children develop and learn. They are
better able to establish strong rela
tionships with families because they
develop a deeper understanding of the
families and of themselves.

• Family members are better able to
build trusting partnerships with the
child care staff when they feel that
they are respected by the staff. They
are more assured that their precious
infant or toddler will be safe and well
cared for.

• Children gain a deeper sense of secu
rity, support, and predictability in their
lives, conditions that are essential for
emotional and cognitive development.
They sense they are on an equal play
ing field where they can grow toward
their full potential.

Thinking/Doing Activity 1, presented
at the end of this chapter, will help you
explore the benefits of experiencing cul
tural differences.

The Process of Culturally
Responsive Care

Ongoing, dynamic, mutually respect
ful interactions among the families and

staff members generate culturally respon
sive infant/toddler care and education.
These practices are constructed in real
time in response to real situations that
arise in early childhood care and educa
tion programs. Culturally responsive care
involves the weaving together of both
professional and family practices and is
therefore the opposite of “either/or” solu
tions to cultural differences between staff
and family members or among staff.

However, a culturally responsive ap
proach does not mean “giving up” all that
you have previously learned about work
ing with infants and toddlers. Nor does it
mean that the program totally reproduces
the culture of each family. By definition,
group infant/toddler settings—both fam
ily- and center-based care programs—
serve infants and toddlers from more
than one family. The majority of early
childhood programs in the United States
are made up of families from numerous
cultural groups. Even when families come
from the same cultural group, it is unlike
ly that they will all apply cultural patterns
in child rearing in the same way.

Creative thinking is imperative. Some
early childhood educators think of cultur
ally responsive care as building a “third
space”—one that integrates staff and
family practices but is not exactly how
any one staff or family member may want
it to be. Instead, a “third space” is its own
culture—reflecting a respectful composite
of the beliefs and practices of staff and
families. A culturally responsive “third
space” enables you to support the healthy
development of all children and their
families’ way of child rearing, while also
incorporating what you know as an early
childhood professional.

To practice culturally responsive in
fant/toddler caregiving, a blend of par
ticular skills and attitudes is needed for

working with families and colleagues to
generate and use “third space” solutions.
You do not need to know, nor can you
know, everything about the cultures of all
the children with whom you work. Each
new situation—a new child and fam
ily, a new caregiving setting, a new staff
member—will require culturally respon
sive strategies to gain the knowledge and
develop the practices necessary for that
situation. This is an ongoing learning
process.

The fundamental challenge is to stay
open to learning from family and staff
members whose particular child-rearing
beliefs and practices differ from your
own. Examining your ideas and behaviors
through the lens of cultural diversity may
be uncomfortable. Culturally responsive
care also asks you to make modifications
in the way you work to best meet the

needs of the children in your care. Chang
ing behavior can be even more challeng
ing than self-reflection, because doing so
asks you to take risks and to go beyond
your comfort zone. It can make you feel
self-conscious and worried about making
mistakes. Characteristics such as curios
ity, caring, willingness to learn and to
change, and a sense of humor help make
the learning process work. Your shared
humanness with the people you serve is
the bridge.

Four skills are needed to be a culturally
responsive teacher:

Skill 1: Become aware of your
cultural beliefs and values about how
children develop and how best to
nurture and raise them.

Skill 2: Become a critical thinker
about cultural assumptions that are

embedded in the thinking of the in
fant/toddler care and education field.

Skill 3: Use respectful strategies to
discover people’s cultural beliefs
about child development and child
rearing. This includes learning about
how other staff members and families
think.

Skill 4: Use problem-solving strate
gies to create collaborative solutions
that reflect both staff and families’
child-rearing ideas and practices, and
to resolve disagreements stemming
from cultural differences.

The first skill emphasizes that when
you do “what comes naturally,” you act
on your cultural assumptions about chil
dren and child rearing, even though you
may not consciously think about those

assumptions. You use those assumptions
to judge what is normal, what is right,
or what is best. However, doing what
comes naturally to you may not always be
best for a particular child, because your
actions may conflict with another set of
beliefs and rules about child rearing.

Most people become aware of their
cultural assumptions when they experi
ence a cultural conflict in a particular situ
ation. However, a professional needs to
learn how to regularly uncover and exam
ine the cultural beliefs that influence how
she or he works—not just when a par
ticular cultural difference with a family is
experienced. Skill 1 also requires aware
ness of the assumptions, stereotypes, and
biases about other cultural groups that
you learned while growing up, and how
they influence your attitudes and behav
iors. This “self-awareness work” necessi
tates both personal reflection and sharing
with other staff members in the context of
a program culture that fosters open com
munication.

The second skill requires thinking
about what it means to be a professional.
Is a professional someone who establishes
reciprocal learning and problem-solving
relationships? Or, is a professional some
one who is a holder of knowledge and
who uses this knowledge to educate cli
ents? As previously discussed, integrating
professional knowledge with knowledge
learned from families is at the heart of
engaging in culturally responsive caregiv
ing. If this collaborative approach does
not fit with one’s idea of what it means to
be a professional, one must try to identify
the reasons for the incompatibility. Then
new perspectives and knowledge about
collaboration need to be considered.
Joining in staff discussions about what it
means to be an early childhood profes
sional is part of a culturally responsive
approach.

Skill 2 also requires that staff work
together to critically examine professional
training about infant/toddler development
and best caregiving practices. This is not
a question of throwing out all that was
learned in higher education—or “throw
ing out the baby with the bath water.”
It does mean uncovering the cultural
assumptions underlying research as well
as the conclusions based on research that
infant/toddler care programs draw upon to
inform their practices.

Skill 3 involves finding out about the
child-rearing goals, beliefs, and practices
of families. Gathering this data takes
place over time—not just in the first meet
ing with a family—and rests on building
warm, respectful relationships with each
family. Always keep in mind that families
from the same ethnic background do not
express their culture in the same way in
their daily lives; some families may be
very traditional, while others may reflect
the practices of mainstream American
culture. Furthermore, even families that
have many cultural similarities may act
out their cultural beliefs in different ways.
In attempts to understand each child’s
behavior within his or her cultural con

text, be aware that some behaviors that
deviate from your definition (or even the
infant/toddler field’s definition) of “nor
mal” may not be problematic. A rule of
thumb is to assume the behavior is normal
development until more information is
gathered.

Families’ ease in relating their child
rearing hopes, beliefs, and practices to
program staff will vary. Some families
will plunge right in, others will share
bit by bit, and some will need time to
build a trusting relationship with teach
ers before disclosing their child-rearing
beliefs. Some families will find it easy to
raise concerns, while others will not even
consider raising concerns or challenging a
school policy. Responsibility for opening
up and sustaining genuine conversations
lies with the professional. It is the profes
sional’s job to listen and learn as well
as to talk and to initiate the search for
common ground and solutions to specific
differences. It is helpful to remember that
for many people, family consists not only
of parents, but also other family members
such as grandparents, aunts and uncles,
and the like.

Skill 4 is the ability to modify and add
to how one works with infants/toddlers

and their families. This component uses
the previous three skills. It is the essential
step in building a culturally responsive
program. Practice is necessary for these
four basic skills to become a regular,
natural way to work with infants/toddlers.
Teachers will also grow more readily in
these four skills if the program leader cre
ates a culture that supports learning how
to provide culturally responsive care and
education.

See Thinking/Doing Activities 2 and 3
at the end of this chapter.

Acknowledge, Ask, and Adapt

This section explores a way of work
ing that will enable professionals to create
culturally responsive caregiving practices
that are mutually satisfying to staff and
the families with whom they work. It will
foster the growth of all the children in
the care program. This approach involves
three strategic steps called “Acknowledge,
Ask, and Adapt.” Learning to use this ap
proach takes time and patience. Teachers
will always have something new to learn
about themselves, their colleagues, and
the families.

Acknowledge

This first step is an act of recogni
tion that cultural differences are real and
meaningful—and need further investiga
tion when a specific issue arises with a
child or family or between a teacher and
another staff member. It also uses one’s
growing awareness that the cultural ideas
embedded in early childhood professional
concepts do not necessarily fit all cultural
child-rearing beliefs and behaviors. The
Acknowledge step requires staying calm
with the dynamics of cultural diversity,
remembering that cultural differences
do not always lead to a conflict. In most
cases, teachers will be able to figure out a

working solution. Some differences will
be easily incorporated in practice; some
will require more involved problem solv
ing.

The Acknowledge step involves be
coming aware that cultural differences
or conflicts are not abstract; they arise
in specific situations. The scenarios later
in this chapter offer a few examples of
such differences. Indicators of a potential
cultural difference or conflict might be a
family member’s upset or confused reac
tion to an interaction between the teacher
and his or her child; a child’s response
of discomfort, confusion, or anxiety; or
from information gathered from a family
member or another teacher about the cul
tural child-rearing practices of the child’s
family. A potential cultural issue may
also arise when a family disagrees with a
concern raised about a particular behavior
of their infant or toddler.

The Acknowledge step consists of the
following actions:

• Admit that a cultural difference or
conflict may exist on a particular
aspect of caregiving in a certain situ
ation. Check your feelings—and take
the time to address responses such as
discomfort, annoyance, or frustration.
Avoid making a quick judgment that
the family’s way must be the problem.

• Let the family member(s) know that
there is an issue to discuss and set up
a place and time for a conversation.
Show respect for the family through a
caring manner—and in the willingness
to meet at a time and place that works
for the family. Be sensitive to language
issues—such as the need for an inter
preter—with a family who is not fluent
in English.

• Uncover and acknowledge the specific
cultural beliefs that influence your

view of the situation. Sort out your
feelings about the situation as well. If
teachers understand their own reac
tions to the specific situation, the more
effective they will be in talking with
the family.

Ask

The second step is to gather data. It
includes finding out about the family’s
specific cultural beliefs and values and
identifying the developmental issues and
best practices regarding the situation
under consideration. Do not rush the Ask
step. The goal is to get the information
necessary to eventually do collaborative
problem solving. The Ask step consists of
the following actions:

Find out how the family members view
the issue and how they would handle the
caregiving situation. Ask questions and
watch the interactions between the child
and family member in the child care
setting and, if possible, interactions at
the child’s home. A variety of questions
may be needed to get the information.
Be careful not to enter into the conversa
tion with assumptions about the family’s
socialization beliefs based on the cultural

patterns of a particular ethnic group. Lis
ten attentively to the specific beliefs and
behaviors of the family. Avoid approach
ing the family in ways that may put them
on the defensive.

Take time to reflect on information
gained from a conversation with the fam
ily. Feelings about the family member’s
viewpoint and practice
should be examined.
One may be comfortable
with adapting to it. On
the other hand, teachers
may be uncomfortable
because the family’s
viewpoint is contrary
to basic cultural beliefs
about caregiving. Or
a teacher may think it
contradicts what the field
of infant/toddler care be
lieves about development
and best practices, or
that it does not conform
to licensing regulations.
Teachers may need to talk with other staff
or the program leader about these feelings
and what to do before moving on to the
Adapt step. It may be necessary to have
more conversations with the family to
better understand the issue under consid
eration.

Adapt

The third and last problem-solving step
is to use the information gathered in the
Acknowledge and Ask steps about one
self, the family, and the early childhood
education field. The goal is always to find
the most effective way to support each
child’s best growth, taking into account
the cultural issues.

a. Invite collaborative problem solving.
Take the initiative to ask the family to
join the care program in figuring out

the best way to work with their child
on the issue under consideration.
Make sure the staff and the family are
clear about the specific details of the
matter. Assure the family that the goal
is to figure out a mutually satisfying
solution that will be in their child’s
best interests.

b. Facilitate a discussion that allows
both family members and you to sug
gest various ideas and explore their
strengths and weaknesses. Look for
the points of commonality. Some
families may find it hard to engage
in this kind of collaborative problem
solving with teachers since they are
not familiar with being in a partner
ship with a professional. Be patient,
keep the conversation from having an
adversarial tone, and do not give up.
The time spent together will be well
worth it.

c. Come to a mutual decision. The
objective of this step is to reach
agreement on the best-for-the-child
action in the situation. Flexibility and
creativity are essential throughout this
process. Several outcomes are pos

sible: (1) the teacher understands and
agrees to follow the solution preferred
by the family member to maintain
consistency with the family’s child
rearing beliefs; (2) the family and
teacher agree to an action that is a
modification of what each of them
does; or (3) the family, upon under
standing why a teacher uses a par
ticular practice, approves the practice
or decides to live with it. Sometimes,
even with sensitive use of the Ac
knowledge, Ask, and Adapt steps, it
may not be possible to find a mutual
agreement on a particular cultural
conflict. Legal regulations for the
program may interfere with finding
a solution that is satisfactory to the
family. In this case, be sure there is no
way to find a compromise. Even when
a family’s request conflicts with a li
censing regulation, it may be possible
to find a solution that will satisfy the
regulations and meet at least some of
the family’s needs. Another possible
barrier to finding a mutually agreeable
solution is when a teacher’s convic
tions about an issue do not allow for
any modifications in practice. When
that is the case, much soul searching
about one’s beliefs is needed and the
family must be sensitively informed
why no changes will be made.

If the process of communication and
negotiation has been conducted with care
and respect, even when a cultural differ
ence cannot be satisfactorily resolved, the
family will at least know that a sincere
attempt was made. However, a family
may decide to place their child in another
child care setting that will be more cultur
ally consistent for them. In such a case
it may be best, in collaboration with the
program director, to bring in a consultant

who specializes in culturally responsive,
anti-bias care and education to explore
ways to handle similar cultural conflicts
in the future.

Identifying Culturally Responsive
and Culturally Insensitive Practices

The following scenarios of typical
caregiving situations that have occurred
in child care settings illustrate the Ac
knowledge, Ask, and Adapt steps in
action. After each scenario, three varia
tions are described of how the teacher in
each scenario handled the situation and
then rated as to effectiveness. See whether
you agree or disagree with those ratings.
Think about how you might use the three
steps to address each scenario and how
you would rate your actions.

Scenario 1: A Baby Crying

Here are three variations of how Joan, the infant care teacher, might respond to a baby
who is crying.

The Scenario

Rosy, six months old, is waking up from her nap and begins to cry. Joan, her teacher,
has begun to dress Mark. She lets Rosy cry while she finishes dressing Mark (which takes
about five minutes), then picks Rosy up. In the meantime, Rosy’s mother (Mrs. H) has
come early to pick up her daughter and sees the incident. When Joan greets her, Mrs. H
takes Rosy from her and holds Rosy tightly. Rosy does not come to child care the next
two days. When Joan calls to find out what has happened, Mrs. H says that Rosy will be
back the next day, but she does not return until the following Monday. By then, Joan is
concerned. On the day Rosy returns, Joan takes Mrs. H aside and asks why Rosy was out
so long. Mrs. H replies, “Rosy was upset. You didn’t take good care of her.”

Response X

Joan is surprised and hurt. She feels
she has taken good care of Rosy. She re
plies: “I take good care of all my babies.
I would never do anything to hurt Rosy.”
Mrs. H: “Last time, you let her cry too
much.” Joan thinks back to Rosy’s last
day: “I was dressing Mark. I let Rosy
cry only a few minutes. ” Mrs. H: “You
waited too long.” Joan, a little annoyed:
“No, I didn’t. I had to take care of Mark
first. Besides, it doesn’t hurt a baby to cry
a little.” Mrs. H insists: “That’s not good.
In my country, we always pick up the
baby right away.”

By now Joan is really annoyed: “Mrs.
H, in this country we do not believe in
spoiling babies. It’s good for Rosy to
learn that an adult won’t always come im
mediately when she cries.” Mrs. H looks
upset but does not say any more.

Joan decides that she has to do some
thing at the center to ensure that Rosy
does not become spoiled. She starts to let
Rosy cry a little longer before she goes to
her so that Rosy can learn to wait. Rosy
begins to cry more often when her mother

leaves her in the morning. Joan sees that
as evidence of Mrs. H’s “overprotection”
and continues with her plan of teaching
Rosy to wait. Rosy is not doing as well,
so Joan decides to speak with Mrs. H
again to find out what is going wrong at
home.

Rating of Response X: This handling of
the baby crying situation is culturally
insensitive. It does not show awareness
or concern about the cultural issues
in the scenario or any openness by the
teacher in terms of modifying her ac
tions.

Acknowledge gets a minus. Joan pays
attention only to her own feelings and
acts defensively by trying to justify
herself. Joan does not acknowledge either
Rosy’s mother’s concern or the need for
solving the problem.

Ask gets a minus. Joan does not try to
find out anything about what is behind
Mrs. H’s concern. Nor does she show
any evidence of recognizing that her own
cultural assumptions are only one way
of thinking about the issue. Instead, she

makes a quick judgment that Mrs. H must
be spoiling Rosy.

Adapt gets a minus. Joan makes no ef
fort to adapt her behavior to Rosy’s fam
ily’s cultural beliefs and behaviors and
makes things worse for Rosy by creating
an even wider gap between what Rosy’s
family does at home and what she, Joan,
does to avoid spoiling Rosy. When Rosy
shows signs of not thriving at the center,
Joan again assumes the cause must be a
problem at home. Joan does not use good
communication, negotiation, or conflict-
resolution skills.

Response Y

Joan is surprised and concerned. She
thought that Rosy’s mother trusted her.
Joan: “Mrs. H, I’m sorry you feel that
way. I care very much about Rosy and
do not want to hurt her in any way.” Mrs.
H: “Last time you let her cry too long.”
Joan: “I had to finish dressing Mark, and
she didn’t sound too upset. I was going to
pick her up shortly.” Mrs. H: “That’s too
long. That’s not good for babies.” Joan:
“What do you do at home when Rosy
starts to cry?” Mrs. H: “In my house, we
pick her up right away. That is good for
babies.”

Joan: “Well, that may work for you at
home, but in child care we can’t always
do that. There are other babies who need
care also. It won’t hurt Rosy to cry a few
minutes. In fact, it will be good for her.
You don’t want her to be spoiled.” Mrs. H
shakes her head: “In my country, we do
not think that is good for babies.” By now
Joan is unhappy. She does not like having
a disagreement with a family member, but
she does not want to give in. Joan: “At
home you can pick her up as you think
best, but in child care sometimes she will
have to wait.”

When Joan notices that Mrs. H has
become more distant and that Rosy cries

more often when her mother leaves her,
she begins to think that Rosy is confused
by being handled one way at home and
another way in child care. She decides to
work with Mrs. H to convince her to let
Rosy cry a little longer at home before
picking her up.

Rating of Response Y: This variation is
partially sensitive. It shows culturally
responsive behavior in steps 1 (Ac
knowledge) and 2 (Ask) but culturally
insensitive behavior when it comes to
taking action.

Acknowledge gets a plus. Joan rec
ognizes that Rosy’s mother is upset and
expresses concern about how she feels.
Ask gets a plus for one part, a minus
for another part. Joan gets a plus for
asking for some information and for
realizing that Rosy’s mother’s belief
about how to handle crying differs
from her own. She gets a minus
because she moves too quickly to a
solution—she does not get sufficient
information from Mrs. H to determine
the seriousness of the difference.

Adapt gets a minus. Joan is not willing
to change her behavior at all in the child
care setting. She considers it giving in
rather than as adapting. When Rosy is not
doing well in child care, Joan thinks Mrs.
H should change how she handles crying
at home. Joan does not think about how
her own behavior might have made Mrs.
H uneasy and may be making Rosy feel
more insecure in the child care program.
Because Joan does not use step 3, the
consequence of response Y is culturally
insensitive, even though Joan followed
the first two steps.

Response Z

Joan realizes immediately that this is
a serious issue. Rosy’s mother has never

disagreed with or criticized the teachers
before. Joan: “Mrs. H, I care very much
for Rosy and do not want to hurt her in
any way. Please tell me what I did that
you think wasn’t good for her.” Mrs. H:
“You let her cry too long last time she
was here.” Joan: “When I was dressing
Mark?” Mrs. H nods her head yes. Joan:
“What would you have done?” Mrs. H:
“I would have picked her up right away.”
Joan: “Sounds as though picking up a
crying baby right away is very impor
tant to you.” Mrs. H: “In my country, we
think a mother who lets her baby cry is
not good.” Joan: “So when I didn’t pick
Rosy up right away, it worried you.”
Mrs. H nods again: “Yes, Rosy will be
frightened.” Joan: “Is that why you kept
her home the past few days?” Mrs. H:
“I wanted her home with me. But now I
have to go back to work.”

Joan: “I know it is hard for you to leave
Rosy here all day, especially if you think
I was doing something that would upset
her. I did not know that what seemed to
me like letting Rosy cry only a little while
seemed too long to you. Now that I un
derstand how you feel and what you do, I
will be more careful about picking her up
as soon as she cries. Will
that make you feel safer
leaving her here?” Mrs.
H smiles: “Yes.”

Joan: “I also need
to tell you that because
other babies need atten
tion in child care, and
sometimes there is only
one adult free, once in a
while Rosy may have to
wait a little to be picked
up. That might happen if
another baby is in physi
cal danger or is hurt and
I am the only adult avail

able. Will you be comfortable with that?”
Mrs. H: “I know there are other babies. I
just want to know that Rosy will be safe.”

Joan: “I’m so glad you let me know
that you were unhappy with what I did.
Please be sure to let me know if anything
else I do bothers you. That way we will
make sure that Rosy gets the best care I
can give her.” Mrs. H: “You tell me also if
there is something I need to know.”

After the conversation with Rosy’s
mother, Joan realizes she has not thought
much about what the family members
of her other babies, who come from a
number of different cultural groups, think
about how to handle crying. She also
wonders if other mothers from the same
cultural background as Mrs. H feel the
same way as Mrs. H. She decides to ask
each family about their views when they
pick up their babies during the following
week. She also decides that a newslet
ter about different families’ ideas about
handling crying and a family members
meeting might help family members un
derstand that different children may need
different kinds of responses for them to
feel secure in child care.

Rating of Response Z: This approach Adapt gets a plus. Joan is willing to
to the crying baby scenario is cultur- modify her behavior to be more consistent
ally responsive. The teacher pays close with Mrs. H’s behavior. She does that for
attention to the cultural issues at each Rosy’s sake (so Rosy will feel secure), for
step and demonstrates willingness to Mrs. H’s sake (so Mrs. H will feel secure
make changes. leaving Rosy at child care), and for her

own sake (so she will continue a trusting Acknowledge gets a plus. Joan im
relationship with Mrs. H). Mrs. H alsomediately makes clear that she is open to
has to do a little adapting because Joanhearing about what upset Rosy’s mother.
lets her know that once in a while she She also responds to Mrs. H’s feelings.
may not be able to pick Rosy up imme-Joan shows that she is not defensive about
diately when she cries. Joan also recogmaking mistakes; instead, she accepts that
nizes that she needs more informationshe does and wants to learn more so that
from the rest of the family members and she can do better.
makes a plan for getting it. That behavior Ask gets a plus. Joan asks questions
indicates that Joan is not defensive about that help get her the kind of information
not knowing everything; instead, she is she needs to understand why Mrs. H is
comfortable in planning how to get the upset (Joan learns not only how Mrs. H
information she needs when she discovers handles crying but also that her definition
that she needs it.of being a good mother depends on her

See Thinking/Doing Activity 4 at the response).
end of this chapter.

Scenario 2: Babies Wearing Protective Amulets

Five staff members in an infant/toddler center try to decide what to do about a cultural
practice of some families that conflicts with one of the regulations at the center. Each
staff member represents one kind of response to the problem. As you read their discus
sion, think about which solutions you consider culturally insensitive and which ones are
culturally responsive. Which solution would you choose? Or would you create a solution
different from those mentioned?

The Scenario

Some of the families in the center come from an ethnic group whose cultural practice
is to have babies wear a protective amulet around the neck. The amulets have an impor
tant religious significance; the families believe the amulets protect their babies against
illnesses and other dangers. However, the child care center regulation states that infants
and toddlers may not wear necklaces for safety reasons. Injuries may be caused by other
babies pulling the necklaces too tight or yanking them off or by the babies chewing on
them and choking. The amulets might also be lost.

Staff Discussion

Rosa: I think we have a real problem here. I asked Mrs. M about the amulet, and she
said she never takes it off. The baby could come to harm if she did.

Harriet: Boy, what superstition. I don’t think we should give in to it. It’s very simple—
wearing a necklace is against the regulations. Besides, we know that taking off
the amulet will not hurt the baby.

Mark: We may not think it will; but if the families think so, they will be very unhappy
and anxious if we remove the amulets.

Lynn: Well, I don’t see what else we can do. I mean, I feel sympathy for the families’
feelings, but we cannot let the kids wear them—it’s too dangerous.

Rosa: I agree that it could be dangerous, but I don’t think we can just ask the families
to take them off.

Harriet: Well, I think we are making a big deal out of nothing. Families have to accept
the rules when they use the center. Besides, I don’t think we should be encour
aging such practices. They are living in America now.

Rosa: They are not your religious beliefs, but they are the families’ beliefs. They are
as important to them as yours are to you.

Lynn: Let’s just tell them we are sorry, but it is not safe and it is against the rules. We
can say their children can wear the amulets at home and reassure them that we
have other ways to keep the babies safe and healthy at the center.

Mark: I think we need to do more. We have to consider the children’s safety from
both our point of view and the families’ point of view.

Harriet: If we don’t follow the regulations, we will be out of compliance.

Rosa: We need to find solutions that deal with the regulations and also meet the fami
lies’ needs. I can think of one. I am sure we can think of others. I suggest that
we ask family members to take off the amulets when they come to the center
and put them in a special box that we will keep on a shelf in the room. When
their child goes home, they can put the amulet back on.

Mark: I think we need to ask the families if that will be enough. If it isn’t, we need
other ideas. What if we suggest pinning the amulet to the underside of the
child’s shirt so that it is still on the child but cannot be pulled?

Rosa: We might also suggest that the baby can wear the amulet if it fits securely
around the neck—not too tight and not loose enough to be pulled.

Lynn: That last suggestion would be going against the regulations.

Mark: I think we sometimes have to consider modifying regulations to meet families’
needs. If the family members don’t feel that their child is safe, we will not be
able to build a trusting relationship with them, even if we know our regulation
is intended for the children’s safety.

Harriet: I will not agree to a solution that goes against the regulation.

Rosa: I think we first need to talk with the families before we decide among our
selves which solution to use. They may have other ideas of their own. I think
we can find a solution that fits the intent of the regulation.

Mark: In raising this issue with family members, I suggest we do three things: one,
explain our safety concerns to the families—how, in the center, where many
babies and toddlers are playing with each other, necklaces like the amulets can
cause injuries. We should explain what those injuries could be and how ac
cidents can happen quickly, even when adults, who may be attending to other
babies or toddlers, are around. Two, we should ask more about the importance
of the amulets and assure the family members that we empathize with their
viewpoint. Three, we should suggest some of the possible options and find out
what other ideas they have. Then, together, we can figure out what solutions
will be acceptable to them and to us.

Rosa and Mark volunteer to meet with the five families and report back to the rest of
the staff.

Rating the Staff Members’ Responses

Harriet’s response is culturally insensitive. She does not use any steps of the culturally
responsive process. She refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem, she does not even
consider asking the family members about their beliefs, and, she is not willing to consider
any solution except to remove the amulets.

Lynn’s response shows some cultural sensitivity in the Acknowledge step but shows
cultural insensitivity in the other steps. She acknowledges a problem and expresses more
feeling for the families than Harriet does. However, she is not interested in learning about
the family members’ beliefs and is not willing to make any changes to meet their needs.
She sees the safety of the children only from the center’s perspective.

Mark and Rosa are culturally responsive in their approach to resolving the situation.
They know how to use the Acknowledge, Ask, and Adapt steps to work on creating a mu
tually satisfying solution. They want to communicate and work with the family members
to find a strategy that respects the families’ beliefs and also meets the safety requirements
of the center. Mark is more willing than Rosa to modify the regulations, if necessary.

See Thinking/Doing Activity 5 at the end of this chapter to examine your responses to
this kind of situation.

Scenario 3: Babies Staying Clean or Engaging in Active Learning

In this scenario, a cultural belief of several families conflicts with the teacher’s peda
gogical principles.

The Scenario

Several families in the center strongly believe that by keeping toddlers clean and neat
during the day, teachers demonstrate care and the instruction of healthy behavior. At
home, whenever the toddlers get messy or dirty, an adult immediately cleans them. In
contrast with that view, the teacher believes that an essential part of children’s healthy
development is for children to participate actively with materials such as sand, water,
and paint, to feed themselves, and so forth—which means that toddlers will get messy.
She also believes that toddlers should help clean themselves. The teacher does help them
clean up at times during the day (after an activity is over, before eating, and before a nap);
but if she cleaned every child as soon as he or she got messy, the teacher would be spend
ing most of her time cleaning up. She does not think that is necessary.

Handling the “Babies Staying Clean”
Scenario

How do you think the teacher should
handle the situation? Jot down your ideas
for each step.

Acknowledge

What could the teacher say to herself
and to the family members to communi

cate her awareness that this is a problem
that they need to solve jointly?

Ask

What questions could the teacher
ask the family members to get informa-
tion that will help her understand more
precisely the family members’ concerns
and what they think is an appropriate
practice?

Adapt

How can the teacher open a negotia
tion with the family members about what
to do? The teacher does not want to stop
children from being active with materi
als or stop them from learning how to
take care of themselves. How can the
teacher explain why she allows children
to get messy without immediately clean-
ing them and also communicate that she
wants to find ways to meet the family
members’ needs? What modifications
of child care practice might the teacher
explore with the family members? What
is fair to expect family members to accept
as modification of their home behaviors
while their children are at the center?

Rating Yourself

Now, look over your notes as you
consider the following questions for each
step.

Acknowledge

• Have you examined your thoughts and
feelings about the issue?

• Are you willing to explore the issue
with the family with an open mind, or
are you assuming before you talk with
them that the family’s request about
cleanliness will interfere with your
program or with their toddler’s devel
opment?

• How will you communicate to the
family that you want to find a mutu
ally satisfying solution that takes into
account their cultural perspective?
(Remember, if you merely state the
program policy without exploring
the issue with an open mind, you are
not using a culturally responsive ap
proach.)

Ask

• Will the types of questions you asked
give you the information you need to
understand why family members think
it is important for their toddler to stay
clean at all times? Do your questions
and tone communicate openness and
support so that family members will
feel comfortable telling you what they
really think?

Adapt

• Have you clarified the situation in a
way that invites family members to
figure out with you how their child can
participate in a full range of activities?

• Have you shown openness to finding
a way to meet the family members’
needs for cleanliness and neatness
while also honoring your educational
beliefs? For example, you might de
cide to add more opportunities during
the day in which you help the toddler
get clean. If you are in a center, you
might get a washing machine so that
clothes that are especially dirty can be
washed before the children go home.
(These are only examples, not neces
sarily what you would do.)

Scenario 4: “Two Mommies”

This scenario involves an openly lesbian couple who enroll their child in an infant/tod
dler care program. It focuses on differences of beliefs and attitudes among staff members
concerning the definition of a legitimate family unit. It opens up the thorny issue of a
teacher judging a family as engaging in “wrong” or unacceptable behavior because that
behavior contradicts the teacher’s personal beliefs. What do you think is the responsibility
of a culturally responsive professional in such a situation?

The Scenario

For the first time, a family consisting of two female parents—both of whom are open
about being lesbians—joins the infant/toddler care center. During the intake session, both
women make it clear that they want to be acknowledged as the parents of the infant. They
cross out “father” on the admission form and substitute “mother,” so that there is a place
for each woman to write down her name. They also ask permission to contribute a poster
that shows “two-mommy families” and a few picture books with images of two-mommy
and two-daddy families. The center director consents to their requests. However, when
she informs the staff about the family, conflicting responses to having openly lesbian
parents in the program necessitates a staff discussion.

Christine, the teacher in whose room
the infant will be placed, is uncomfort
able with the situation. She tells other
staff members that she thinks it is wrong
to encourage homosexuality, since she be
lieves it is a sin. She wants the director to
tell the family that only one parent can be
considered the infant’s mother, and that
person is the only family member who
should interact with the program. She also
refuses to use the poster or picture books
the family wants to contribute.

Marie, an assistant teacher, agrees
with Christine. She even suggests that, to
avoid problems, the director not admit the
family into the program. She explains that
since homosexuals cannot properly raise
a child, she does not think the program
should encourage homosexuality by ac
cepting the infant.

Rachel explains that she has no prob
lem with a two-mommy family, but she is
worried that admitting this family into the

program will cause problems with other
families. In the interests of keeping the
peace, she reluctantly supports Christine’s
suggestion to identify only one person as
the infant’s mother and that no materials
show two-mommy families.

Carrie disagrees with the others. She
takes the position that, as professionals,
they have a responsibility to support all
families equally and to make sure that all
the infants and toddlers have their family
visible in the program. She reminds her
colleagues that the family composition
and members’ roles within families vary
widely. Carrie further explains that she is
not questioning her colleagues’ personal
beliefs, but argues that professionals need
to act according to professional ethics
and not just according to their personal
beliefs.

Sarah agrees with Carrie. She reminds
her colleagues of the following excerpt
from the California Early Childhood

Educator Competencies publication:
“Cultural perspectives of children, fami
lies, staff, and colleagues vary widely on
issues such as differences in individual
children’s learning, strengths, and abili
ties; gender identity and gender-specific
roles; family composition and member
roles” (CDE 2011, 21). Sarah reminds
staff that there was a time when many
people considered all single mothers
to be immoral and bad parents. Sarah
further states that it is equally prejudicial
to automatically assume that all two-
mommy families are “bad.” Carrie adds to
Sarah’s point, declaring that child-rearing
problems arise in families of all kinds of
cultural backgrounds and configurations.

Rating the Staff Responses

This scenario addresses a current
topic in early childhood care and educa
tion programs. How might the cultural
responsiveness rating criteria be applied?
Some would argue that this scenario is
not about cultural responsiveness because
it is about religious, personal, and moral
beliefs. However, religious and personal
moral beliefs are also cultural. In addi
tion, this scenario raises the uncomfort
able issue of defining prejudice in teacher
responses to an aspect of human diversity
with which they disagree. For instance,
not so long ago, some people argued that
interracial families and biracial children
were unnatural and wrong, often invoking
religious reasons to justify their position.
But in modern times, interracial families
and biracial children are a growing and
accepted part of society.

Following is one way to rate the degree
of cultural responsiveness of the staff
members in the scenario. Would you rate
them differently or similarly? Why?

Christine and Marie’s responses are not
culturally responsive. Asking the family
to choose only one mother as the legiti

mate parent denies the other mother her
parenting rights, thus undercutting the
family. It would also make their infant’s
family invisible in the center. Their posi
tions raise serious questions about wheth
er they could truly support the infant and
how they could work with the family.

Rachel’s response is only partially ac
ceptable. She acknowledges the family’s
right to define itself on its own terms, but
she does not want to “rock the boat” by
actually supporting the family. Conse
quently, even though her reasons differ
from those of Christine and Marie, the
impact on the family is still the same. She
also assumes that all the other center fam
ilies will agree with Christine and Marie,
without giving the families a chance to
speak for themselves on this issue. Avoid
ing potential differences among families
does not create a culturally responsive
culture in the center. Conversely, provid
ing ways for families to talk with each
other and staff about all issues and how
they can help build a culturally responsive
program for everyone is consistent with
the principle of equitably supporting all
families.

Sarah and Carrie are culturally respon
sive in their approach to handling the situ
ation. They accept that all families have a
right to be who they are and to be recog
nized in an infant/toddler care program.
They also recognize that child-rearing
problems are not connected to specific
ways of life in themselves, but may exist
in families of all kinds and cultures.

Have you been part of a conversation
with staff that is similar to this one? If so,
what would you want to say?

In this scenario, the staff members are
the ones who need to address the differ
ences of beliefs among themselves. They
can also use the Acknowledge, Ask, and
Adapt steps to do this.

See Thinking/Doing Activity 6 at the
end of this chapter.

Developmental Issues or Cultural
Differences?

When infant/toddler care teachers are
not sensitive to or choose to disregard
cultural differences, they may too quickly
interpret a baby’s or a toddler’s healthy
behavior as a developmental problem.
A third possibility sometimes arises: a
cultural difference between what a family
accepts as normal behavior and what a
child needs to be able to do in the group-
care setting and education program (e.g.,
toilet learning, eating independently).
Therefore, another important part of
culturally responsive caregiving is be
ing able to identify when a behavior is
a culturally different way of exhibiting
normal development and when it is a
developmental problem that really needs
attention. Figuring out which it is entails
working with the family and other staff.
Chapter 3 provides teachers with specific
skills and strategies to work with families
to identify those child behaviors that need
special attention in a culturally responsive
approach.

Generally, a specific behavior of a
child will qualify as a developmental
problem when it is seen as a problem in
the child’s culture as well. However, in
some situations, the child’s behavior may
actually be a developmental problem
that the family is not willing to acknowl
edge—for either cultural or personal rea
sons. Keep in mind that this is a response
that a family (part of any cultural group)
might have. Sensitively use the Acknowl
edge, Ask, and Adapt steps to determine
whether with the conflict involves a cul
tural difference or a developmental issue.

It is not always easy to figure out
whether a behavior is (1) culturally differ
ent but still normal, (2) a developmental
problem, or (3) or the infant/toddler’s
response to the different culture of the
group care program. Even so, it is impor
tant to take the time to do so. Prematurely
identifying a child with a potential devel
opmental problem prior to having all of
the information or a delay in addressing
what needs to be done may be harmful.

Determining the Nature of
the Behavior

Acknowledge

1. Identify the specific concerns about
the child’s behavior and the reasons.
Be specific. Consider what, in your
own cultural background or profes
sional training, may contribute to
your uneasiness about the behavior.

2. Talk to other staff in the center or
to the director, or with other family
child care providers to explore if the
behavior concerns them too. Talk
ing with specialists in infant/toddler
and child development who have
a culturally responsive perspective
will be helpful in some cases.

3. If others agree that the behavior in
question might be a developmental
problem, proceed to the Ask step.

Ask

1. Respectfully communicate with the
child’s family members about the
behavior that poses a concern, and
ask for their help in understanding
what the behavior means. Ask fam
ily members whether they see the
same behavior at home and, if they
do, what they think about it. Keep in
mind that the family is a key source
of information in the effort to under
stand the relationship between the
child’s home culture and his or her
developmental progress.

2. If family members express no con
cern about the behavior, ask ques
tions that help in understanding why
it does not concern them. Keep in
mind that the same behavior may be
considered appropriate or expected
in one cultural context and signal a
problem in another. For example,
a two-year-old who expects to be
fed by an adult may be showing
culturally appropriate behavior in
one family and be considered too
dependent in another. If the family
members say the behavior worries
them too, ask questions that help
reveal why it worries them and what
they think is causing the problem.

Work Toward a Solution (Adapt)

What is done after all the information
is collected depends on whether it is de
termined that the child’s behavior reflects
a cultural difference or indicates a devel
opmental issue. If the behavior reflects
a cultural difference, no further action
may be needed, or a mutually agreeable
way may be found to handle the behavior

under consideration in the group setting
of the infant/toddler program. If a teacher,
after working through the Acknowledge
and Ask steps, comes to the conclusion
that the behavior under consideration
does point to a developmental issue, it
is best to work with the child’s family
members, other staff in the program who
directly care for the child, and specialists
(if necessary). The goal is to determine
the causes of the problem and to create
an individualized plan for working with
the child in the care program, with sup
port from the family members. Refer to
chapter 3 for strategies on working with
families that have young children with
special needs.

Conclusion

The suggestions in this guide for prac
ticing culturally responsive caregiving
may seem overwhelming—especially if
they are a new way of working for you. It
is not easy to question previous learning
or to change the way one is used to act
ing. However, the Acknowledge, Ask, and
Adapt steps will become easier and often
less time-consuming as they become
habitual practice.

The time and energy put into becom
ing a more culturally responsive teacher
will be worth it. Professional competence
and effectiveness will be deepened. Each
teacher will also grow as a human being
because he or she will gain a deeper un
derstanding of himself or herself as well
as of the wide range of ways in which
human beings live.

References

California Department of Education
(CDE). 2011. California Early Child
hood Educator Competencies. Sacra
mento: CDE.

Derman-Sparks, Louise, and Julie Olsen
Edwards. 2010. Anti-Bias Education
for Young Children and Ourselves.
Washington, DC: National Association
for the Education of Young Children.

National Association for Family Child
Care. 2007. NAFCC’s Vision for Fam
ily Child Care. http://www.nafcc.org.

UNICEF. 1990. “Fact Sheet: A Summary
of the Rights under the Convention on
the Rights of the Child.” New York:
UN General Assembly. http://www.
unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.
pdf (accessed March 20, 2013).

Homepage

http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview

Thinking/Doing Activity 1

Remind yourself of an experience you enjoyed that involved a cultural difference between you and
another person.

1. Describe the experience here.

2. What do you feel you gained?

3. Why was it enjoyable?

Now, remind yourself of an experience involving a cultural difference between you and another person
that you did not enjoy. Respond to questions 1 and 2 above, and then write down why the experience
was not enjoyable.

Share your experiences with another staff member.

Thinking/Doing Activity 2

What strengths do you bring to developing culturally responsive caregiving practices?

Check the ones you feel you already have:

� Curiosity about others

� Enjoyment of others

� Willingness to learn from mistakes

� Willingness to take risks

� Sense of humor

� Creativity

� Flexibility

� Commitment

Add other strengths that you believe are important.

Now, consider your beliefs and practices about infant/toddler care and education. Which ones might be
easier for you to change in order to adapt to a cultural belief or practice of the families with whom you
work? Which ones would be difficult or even impossible for you to modify? Why?

Thinking/Doing Activity 3

Learning to be more culturally responsive can be challenging. What aspects of this learning process
make you feel uncomfortable?

What is the worst thing you can imagine might happen?

What do you like about learning to be more culturally responsive?

Discuss with other teachers your responses to these questions.

Thinking/Doing Activity 4

Write down your thoughts and feelings about the ratings of the teachers for the four scenarios in this
chapter. Try to be specific, and consider what might underlie your responses.

For Scenario 1 (A Baby Crying), discuss responses X, Y, and Z with other teachers who have completed
the writing activity. Discuss each person’s feelings about the ratings of the three responses.

Thinking/Doing Activity 5

This activity can be done with scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4. Begin this activity by reading one of the
scenarios.

Has your center or family child care home faced a similar problem?

If so, what did you do?

Would you still solve the problem in the same way?

If the situation were to arise in the future, which solution would feel most comfortable to you?

Thinking/Doing Activity 6

Write down three specific examples of cultural differences that have occurred in your infant/toddler pro
gram. How were these handled? Would you handle any of these situations differently now? If yes, how?

Use your examples and others to role-play ways to handle them; then analyze which strategies reflected
cultural insensitivity and which were culturally responsive.

CHAPTER 7

Creating Collaborative , Reciprocal Relation
ships with Linguistically Diverse Families

Gisela Jia and Alison Wishard Guerra

I n early care settings, young infants and toddlers whose home language is not English face the expected challenge of developing new rou
tines and relationships. They also face
the additional task of learning to navigate
these relationships and routines through a
new language. To help children with these
challenges, infant/toddler care teachers
can use a range of strategies. This chapter
presents strategies for building trusting
relationships with children and families
who speak a language other than English.

To use the strategies effectively
requires an understanding of the unique
child-rearing values, goals, and practices
of families from diverse cultural and
linguistic backgrounds. Such an under
standing will help teachers appreciate
children’s various experiences at home.
Teachers can use such an appreciation
to guide themselves through the work
ing process of a productive, collaborative
relationship. Toward this end, this chap
ter will briefly discuss the linguistic and
communicative experiences that children
bring to the early care setting family goals
and values related to language and com
munication, and recommended strategies
for engaging in collaborative relationships
with families.

Linguistic and Cultural Diversity
at Home

Among children with a home language
other than English, the amount of ex

posure to both their home language and
English varies tremendously. Children
who are predominantly exposed to their
non-English home language(s) for the
first three years of life and then begin
to learn English when they enter a care
setting where English is the dominant
language are referred to as successive or
sequential dual-language learners. Al
though these children may be exposed to
some English through TV, older siblings,
or some contacts in the community, the
exposure usually is not enough for them
to develop the ability to speak English.
When children’s main exposure to Eng
lish occurs after age three, their home
language foundation is already solid
(Hammer, Jia, and Uchikoshi 2011), and
thus they learn two languages at different
times.

Another group of children, called si
multaneous dual-language learners, have
more early exposure to English than suc
cessive/sequential dual-language learners.
For example, two parents may each speak
a mixture of a shared home language and
English, such as Spanish and English or
Chinese and English. In another fam
ily, one parent may speak only the home
language and the other parent may speak
only English. And in yet another family,
both parents may speak only in English
while one or more additional caregivers
(such as grandparents or a nanny) speak
the parents’ native language. Although
the relative amounts of exposure to the

home language and English still vary
among these children, they have adequate
exposure to both English and the home
language(s) such that they are able to
learn two languages simultaneously prior
to age three (Hoff et al. 2011). Depending
on the family context for learning lan
guage, each family has different perspec
tives on their children’s bilingual develop
ment.

Family Beliefs and Goals for
Children’s Bicultural and Bilingual
Development

Just as families may vary in their
socialization goals for their children, they
are also likely to have different beliefs
and goals for their children’s bicultural
and bilingual development that influ
ence parenting practices. For example,
almost all immigrant families believe that
becoming proficient in English and be
coming assimilated into or having knowl
edge of mainstream American culture is
essential to their children’s future success.
However, variation occurs with each fam
ily’s beliefs and goals for their children’s
learning and maintenance of their home
language and culture. Some see home
language and culture as
competing for their chil
dren’s resources such as
time and cognitive ability,
and therefore believe that
“only if they abandon
their language and culture
will their children suc
ceed in American society”
(Garcia 1991, 6). These
parents may minimize use
of their home language
and home cultural prac
tices and maximize use of
English both at home and
in the group care setting.

Some others believe that their children
staying close to their cultural roots and
maintaining their home language will lead
to optimal developmental outcomes. Such
parents tend to maximize home language
use and maintain traditional cultural
practices at home and hope that home
language development can be reinforced
in the early care setting, particularly prior
to kindergarten. Another group of parents
may believe that home is where children
will learn and maintain their home lan
guage, and school is where they will learn
English. These parents may expect infant/
toddler care teachers to speak English to
their children or at least not push for their
home language to be present in the group
care environment.

Although some parents are clear about
their beliefs about which language should
be spoken where, many families feel
conflicted about language and culture.
There may be elements of the culture in
the United States that they are eager for
their children to embrace and some that
they want children to avoid. In the same
way, there may be elements of their home
culture that they want their children to
maintain and some that they permit to

give up. Such conflicts may lead to confu
sion in linguistic and cultural behaviors in
some families but also provide an op
portunity for learning. Many families are
ready to absorb new information and may
come to a new understanding of the role
of language and culture through discus
sions with their early care teachers.

The Importance of Developing
Home Language and Cultural
Competence

For young children, cultural and
linguistic identity constitutes an essen
tial part of a sense of self and belonging.
Knowing the family language facilitates
cultural learning, smooth emotional
communication, and the establishment
of the relationship between teachers and
families in early care settings, which in
turn contributes to the well-being of the
entire family (Kouritzin 1999; Shin 2005;
Wong-Fillmore 1991). Contrary to what
some might believe, children are highly
capable of learning two languages at the
same time, and the growth in one supports
the growth of the other. Children who
have strong home language skills tend to
transition more smoothly to proficiency
in English (Cummins 1991). Children
who are dual-language learners may also
enjoy cognitive advantages, such as show
ing earlier abilities to understand words
as symbols for meanings, and stronger
abilities to focus by inhibiting irrelevant
stimulation (Bialystok 1999; Hilchey and
Klein 2011).

Communication and Language
Development in Non-English
Speaking-Homes

Like children who are monolingual, an
infant or toddler who has been exposed
to more than one language has had rich
language and social experiences before

coming to care. For children who learn
two languages at the same time (simul
taneous dual-language learners), the
number of words they know in each lan
guage is usually fewer than that of their
monolingual peers when vocabulary sizes
are counted separately in each of their
two languages. However, when the words
that simultaneous dual-language learners
know are added together, research shows
they know at least the same number of
words as their monolingual peers, if not
more. A child’s relative competence in
each language is directly related to the
amount of input they receive in each
language, with higher frequency and
diversity of vocabulary words related to
higher competence (Pearson, Fernández,
and Oiler 1993; Hoff et al. 2011). When
an infant/toddler program gives children
experience with English and is unable to
provide input in a child’s home language,
it is important for the program to convey

to families the benefit of continuing to
communicate with their infants and tod
dlers in the home language. That way the
children will receive higher frequency and
diversity of language input in both their
home language and English through their
cumulative experiences in their home and
early care setting.

Whether learning one language or
two languages, infants and toddlers rely
greatly on nonverbal means—such as
face-to-face contact, gestures, posture,
and body contact—to communicate
with their caregivers. As an adaptation
to their specific social and community
life demands, different nonverbal com
munication styles have evolved in various
cultural communities. In some cultural
communities, for instance, caregivers
engage infants in much more face-to-face
contact than body contact. This practice
often reflects caregivers’ beliefs of infants
as autonomous beings with their own in
tentions, emotions, and preferences to be

attended to primarily though eye-to-eye
gaze (Keller et al. 2010).

In other cultural communities, caregiv
ers engage infants in much more body
contact than face-to-face interactions. In
fants are carried on the caregivers’ back,
hip, and in the front facing away from the
caregivers. Such extensive body contact
conveys to infants a sense of warmth,
feelings of relatedness, and belonging
ness. It also fosters the development of
caregiver–child mutual sensitivity through
body language such as gestures and
postural changes. The reliance on body
language makes verbal communication
and face-to-face interaction less preva
lent. For example, a parent may direct a
child, solely through gestures without any
verbal input, to solve a problem. Such
practices often reflect caregivers’ beliefs
that body contact establishes effective
communication, as well as their goal to
socialize children into an integral part of
the family and community. To support
children who are dual-language learners,
programs need to become aware of both
verbal and nonverbal communication
styles specific to the cultural communi
ties of the children. Continuity between
home and the early care setting for infants
and toddlers learning a second language
involves respect for culturally based ways
of communicating. Collaborating with
the family is essential to learning about
an infant’s or toddler’s experiences with
nonverbal communication at home.

Strategies for Creating
Collaborative Relationships with
Linguistically Diverse Families

To create collaborative and reciprocal
relationships with linguistically diverse
families, include some strategies that are
generally used with all families (no matter
their language background) and some that

are unique to dual-language learners and
families with a home language other than
English. When infant/toddler care teach
ers use general strategies to work together
with families, communication can be in
any language—their common language or
through interpretation. The PITC resource
Infant/Toddler Caregiving: A Guide to
Creating Partnerships with Families
(CDE 2010) provides many useful strate
gies. Those strategies are expanded below
to consider the additional factor of use of
multiple languages.

Establish clear two-way
communication with the family

Learn what is going on at home:

• Express interest in a child’s home lan
guage by asking about the language,
such as where it is spoken, whether
there are different dialects, what the
written symbols look like, what non
verbal interaction with young infants
is like.

• Inquire about how the child commu
nicates at home with caregivers. Gain
a sense of the English abilities of the
different caregivers and who speaks
what language in what amount to the
child.

• Inquire about parents’ goals for child’s
cultural learning and language devel
opment.

Communicate with the family about what
is going on in the early care setting:

• Explain that the care program has
adopted the philosophy of support for
bicultural and bilingual development
of children, an approach for the long-
term good of the child and the family.

• If teachers have previously encoun
tered children from non-English
speaking homes and the program has

developed certain practices, explain to
parents how infant care teachers typi-
cally interact and communicate with
children from homes where another
language is spoken. Communicate to
the family members that the teachers
will seek to learn common phrases
in the home language, particularly
around care routines. Seek family
members’ responses and suggestions.

• Explain to families, that for babies
and young toddlers, it is beneficial to
have a primary infant care teacher who
speaks the child’s language and that,
whenever possible, the child will be
cared for by a provider who shares the
same home language and/or cultural
heritage. Cultural and linguistic conti
nuity strengthens the child’s develop
ing identity and offers the child a com
fortable and familiar base of security,
both essential for learning and devel
opment in all domains. Explain that
if it is not possible to provide a child
with a teacher who speaks the child’s
home language and/or shares the home
cultural heritage, the child’s home lan
guage will be supported. The primary
care teacher will learn some common
phrases in the home language, particu
larly around care routines. Seek family
members’ responses and suggestions.

• If a child coming to the program is one
of the first with a non-English-speak-
ing background, discuss with family
members the program’s proposed
plans and seek feedback and sugges
tions.

• Describe to family members what kind
of resources the early care setting has
to provide support in the child’s home
language (e.g., the presence or absence
of infant/toddler care teachers who can
speak the child’s home language).

Collaborate with families to support
a child’s bicultural and bilingual

language development

Infant/toddler care teachers and family
members should work together on strate
gies to be used at home:

• Encourage family members to con
tinue to speak to the child in the home
language. Entering an English-speak
ing care setting may be a turning point
for language development for many
children.* Some families are eager for
their children to quickly fit into the
new environment and think learning
English as quickly as possible is the
most effective strategy. Family mem
bers who know English often switch to

*If family members report that their children will reply
only in English or are obviously uninterested in their
home language—even when the family continues to use
the home language—encourage family members to keep
using the home language. That way, children will receive
ongoing exposure to the home language and can continue
to improve their listening skills.

using English at home to “facilitate”
this language transition. It is only
when their children are firmly on track
for English a year or two down the
road and refuse to speak to them in
their home language that they real
ize that it is difficult to turn back to it
(Shin 2005).

• Support family members in keeping
the child interested in the home lan
guage.

Explain that children who have
continuous exposure to their home
language for many years by listening
to and speaking it at home do not all
develop strong proficiency in their
home language. Those whose home
language use is confined to household
routines, in the long run, may end up
with a limited vocabulary and cannot
talk about things that are unfamil
iar and beyond their comfort zone.
However, those who are supported to
use their home language beyond home
(e.g., interactions with members of the
community who share the same lan
guage), and at home beyond household
routines (e.g., being read to in home
language) develop strong long-term
home language skills. Help families
appreciate the importance of a rich
home-language experience. In some
cases, families may be more aware of
these strategies than teachers and are
already actively practicing these strate
gies. In that case, infant and toddler
care teachers can turn family–teacher
communication into opportunities to
learn from the families.

• Encourage family members to re
count family and cultural stories with
their children in their home language.
Encourage families to read interest
ing and age-appropriate books to their
children in their home language (when

100

available). Help families to discover
places (e.g., libraries, bookstores, on
line stores) and people (e.g., relatives
coming from the home country for a
visit) that can provide language rich
experiences. When books in the home
language are not easily available,
guide parents to use English books but
spontaneously translate them into their
home language for children. Recom
mend family members to talk with
their children above and beyond book
reading. Storytelling and conversing
are activities that all families do natu
rally and require no additional resourc
es. This recommendation is particular
ly important for families from cultures
in which family members see reading
more as a learning experience than as
a form of entertainment.

• Encourage family members to support
parent–child interactions or child play
by providing rich language input, such

as naming the texture, smell and taste
of the food a child is eating; describ
ing how a child is playing with a toy;
or how the child is feeling. Advocate
families to share family stories and
jointly retell shared experiences with
children. Suggest that families ask
open-ended questions and ask their
children to describe actions, processes,
and events. Encourage family mem
bers to challenge themselves to use a
richer vocabulary than they normally
would use in daily life or than they
would normally assume is natural for
interacting with young children. Re
iterate that the family is the main and
often sole source of children’s home
language input, a situation different
from that of children living in their
home country. Explain the importance
of the adult paying attention to things
that the child is interested in as a way
to create meaningful language con
texts.

• Encourage immediate family members
to help children maintain close ties to
extended family members, friends, and
other individuals in the home language
and culture community. Encourage
families to develop relationships with
other families with the same cultural
and/or language backgrounds who
share some of the same developmental
goals. Regular interactions with oth
ers who share their home language or
are a part of their cultural community
enhance culture and language learn
ing outcomes for children, helping
children see the relevance of their
language and culture to the larger
community.

• Invite family members to support
teachers in efforts to enhance home
language and culture presence at the
program.

101

a. Invite family members to bring to
class audio and visual materials
and books for children in the home
language and share them with the
child individually or with a group
of children.

b. Encourage family members to
speak to their children in their
home language during drop-off and
pickup or other times when they
are at the program; show interest
when that is going on, and praise
or acknowledge the effort when
children respond to parents in the
home language. These behaviors
provide cues for children that their
home language is valued in the
early care setting.

c. Invite parents and other family
members to the child care pro
gram to lead activities that express
elements of home language and
culture. For example, one pro
gram asked a mother to show staff

members how babies in her culture
are swaddled in a certain way and
why. Another program asked visit
ing grandparents from their home
country to read to children a book
in their home language.

Be sensitive to how you
communicate with children

• Infants and toddlers are attentive and
sensitive to nonverbal communication
cues, such as facial expressions, ges
tures, and eye-gaze. Teachers should
consistently maintain a communica
tion style that is regarded as beneficial
for all children—a style that is respon
sive, warm, patient, and clear. How
ever, as teachers learn from families’
about their children’s communication
styles at home, that information should
be taken into account when communi
cating with children in the early care
setting.

• In accord with PITC practices that aim
to support the child’s home language
and cultural competence, teachers who
can speak the child’s home language
should use the home language for
communication.

• “English-speaking caregivers should
never fear that English is bad and
should not hesitate to speak to the
child as they would to infants from
their own language” (Garcia 1991,
6). Infants and toddlers have remark
able abilities to distinguish between
two languages and to pick up a new
language. Speaking to them in English
in the care setting lays a foundation
for their English-language develop
ment. Doing this will not take away
children’s opportunities to learn their
home language if no teachers can
speak the child’s home language,

102

and children continue to have strong
support in the home language as sug
gested before.

• Together with family members, come
up with solutions for the basic routines
related to language used for social
purposes.

a. How to address each other: Fami
lies from some cultures may not
feel comfortable addressing the
teachers by first name. Families
who speak nonalphabetic lan
guages may find the names of the
teachers and other parents and
children hard to remember. Some
mutually agreed upon ways of
addressing each other should be
decided. Sheets with teachers’ and
children’s names (with pronuncia
tions marked) can be distributed to
the caregivers.

b. Home language phrases: At entry
to the program, have families fill
out a form that asks how to say, in

the child’s home language, com
mon phrases, such as “You want
this?” “Come to me,” “Here you
are,” “Good job,” and “Snack
time.” Teachers can then memorize
these phrases (or keep the sheet
handy to refer to until they do learn
them) and use them with the child,
sandwiched with English phrases.

c. Dialogue book: Keep a dialogue
book to communicate with fami
lies. Teachers may jot notes in the
book about the individual child
throughout the day, as well as com
ments or messages to the parents.
The family members can then
take the dialogue book home, read
the comments, or have someone
translate them, and respond to the
teacher after taking some time
to reflect on the messages. The
teacher and family members can
then refer back to previous com
ments as they think about the
child’s development and progress.
Such communication has several
advantages. Some family members
can read English better than they
can speak it. The written form of
communication takes advantage of
their stronger areas of English. For
family members who also cannot
read English well, written com
munication is a record that they
can take and ask other people to
translate. Written communication
also gives families more time to
think through what the teacher has
shared with them.

d. Photo documentation: Take photos
of children engaging in differ
ent activities throughout the day.
When family members arrive to
pick up the child, the teachers can
hand them the camera and show

103

them some pictures so that fam
ily members have a better idea of
what the child did. Photos can also
be used to help reinforce different
messages or suggested strategies
for families to use at home.

e. Home language and cultural sup
port network: Identify and estab
lish a network of individuals who
share the child’s home language
and culture. Involve both teachers
and family members in this net
work. It may consist of individuals
from other families in the same
program, families in other pro
grams, teachers in a different class
but in the same program, teachers
in another program, a friend or
relative of the child’s family, an
older sibling or an older bilingual
child in the program (only for
age-appropriate content). Such a
network provides support in lan
guage translation to the early care
program whenever necessary. To
the involved families, the network
helps provide a resource for shar
ing information and also a place to
get help or support. One early care
program has reported that families
who are able to connect with some

sort of social or support network
are able to connect in more mean
ingful ways with the teachers. It is
particularly important to begin to
establish the network before a fam
ily enrolls so that families receive
support right from the beginning.
Maintain the network as an ongo
ing project and share the resources
with other programs.

f. Translating written materials: Rou
tine and formal information about
a program should be translated into
languages present at the program.
Multiple programs can share such
resources.

Conclusion

Infants and toddlers from homes where
English is not the dominant language
bring to early care settings rich experi
ences—some that are universal and some
that are unique. Families in North Amer
ica aspire for their children to be fully
integrated into North American society
and have adopted child-rearing goals and
practices deemed to be optimal. However,
as the goals and practices that families en
gage in are derived from families’ cultur
ally specific knowledge and experiences,
some goals and practices may differ from
those that teachers are familiar with. The
first step toward productive, collaborative
relationships with families is to identify,
understand, and appreciate those experi
ences.

The second step in developing col
laborative relationships with families is
to work together at utilizing strategies to
support their children’s development and
learning. One set of strategies involves
building connections between children’s
home language and culture and their
experiences in the infant/toddler care pro
gram to foster the overall development of

104

children. The other set of strategies is to
support the development of bilingual lan
guage skills that will, in turn, benefit the
overall development of children. Through
collaborative relationships, infant/toddler
care teachers have an opportunity to learn
together with families and help their chil
dren to gain the full benefits of learning
two languages early in life.

References

Bialystok, E. 1999. “Cognitive Com
plexity and Attentional Control in the
Bilingual Mind.” Child Development
70:636–44.

California Department of Education
(CDE). 2010. Infant/Toddler Caregiv
ing: A Guide to Creating Partnerships
with Families. 2nd ed. Sacramento:
CDE.

Cummins, J. 1991. “Interdependence of
First- and Second-Language Proficien
cy in Bilingual Children.” In Language
Processing in Bilingual Children, ed
ited by E. Bialystok. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.

Garcia, E. E. 1991. “Caring for Infants in
a Bilingual Child Care Setting.” The
Journal of Educational Issues of Lan
guage Minority Students 9:1–10.

Hammer, C. S., G. Jia, and Y. Uchikoshi.
2011. “Language and Literacy Devel
opment of Dual Language Learners
Growing Up in the United States: A
Call for Research.” Child Development
Perspectives 5 (1): 4–9.

Hilchey, M. D., and R. M. Klein. 2011.
“Are There Bilingual Advantages on
Nonlinguistic Interference Tasks? Im
plications for the Plasticity of Execu
tive Control Processes.” Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review 18 (4): 625–58.

Hoff, E., C. Core, S. Place, R. Rumiche,
M. Señor, and M. Parra 2011. Dual
Language Exposure and Early Bilin
gual Development.” Journal of Child
Language 39:1–27.

Keller, H., J. Borke,, B. Lamm,
A. Lohaus, and R. D. Yovsi. 2010. “De
veloping Patterns of Parenting in Two
Cultural Communities.” International
Journal of Behavioral Development 35
(3): 233–45.

Keller, H., R. D. Yovsi, J. Borke,
J. Kärtner, H. Jensen, and Z. Pa
paligoura. 2004. “Developmental
Consequences of Early Parenting
Experiences: Self-Recognition and
Self-Regulation in Three Cultural
Communities.” Child Development
75:1745–60.

Kouritzin, S. G. 1999. Facets of First
Language Loss. Mahwah, NJ: Law
rence Erlbaum Associates.

Pearson, B. Z., S. C. Fernandez, and
D. K. Oiler. 1993. “Lexical Develop
ment in Bilingual Infants and Toddlers:
Comparison to Monolingual Norms.”
Language Learning 43:93–120.

Rogoff, B. 2003. The Cultural Nature
of Human Development. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Shin, S. J. 2005. Developing in Two Lan
guages: Korean Children in America.
Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters
Ltd.

Wong Fillmore, L. 1991. “When Learn
ing a Second Language Means Losing
the First.” Early Childhood Research
Quarterly 6:323–46.

105

Page 106 is blank.
Do not print this

instruction.

Section Four:
Suggested Resources

Books

Barrera, I., and R. Corso. 2003. Skilled
Dialogue: Strategies for Responding to
Cultural Diversity in Early Childhood.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Barrera, I., and L. Kramer. 2009. Using
Skilled Dialogue to Transform Chal
lenging Interactions. Honoring Identity,
Voice, and Connection. Baltimore, MD:
Paul H. Brookes.

Brody, H. 2000. The Other Side of Eden:
Hunters, Farmers, and the Shaping
of the World. New York: North Point
Press.

Castro, D. C., B. Ayankoya, and C.
Kasprzak. 2011a. New Voices/Nuevas
Voces: Guide to Cultural and Linguistic
Diversity in Early Childhood Hand
book. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

———. 2011b. New Voices/Nuevas Voces:
Facilitator’s Guide to Cultural and
Linguistic Diversity in Early Child
hood. CD-ROM. Baltimore, MD: Paul
H. Brookes.

Chen, D., M. D. Klein, and A. V. Osipova.
2012. “Two Is Better than One! In
Defense of Home Language Mainte
nance and Bilingualism for Young Dual
Language Learners with Disabilities.”
In Supporting Young Children Who Are
Dual Language Learners with or at
Risk for Disabilities. Young Exceptional
Children Monograph Series No. 14.
Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Chen, D., M. McLean, R. M. Corso, and
D. Bruns. 2005. “Working Together
in Early Intervention: Cultural Con
siderations in Helping Relationships
and Service Utilization.” In Building
Healthy Relationships with Families,
edited by R. M. Corso, S. A. Fowler,
and R. M. Santos, 39–58. Longmont,
CO: Sopris West.

Day, M., and R. Parlakian. 2004. How
Culture Shapes Social–Emotional De
velopment. Implications for Practice in
Infant-Family Programs. Washington,
DC: Zero to Three.

Fadiman, A. 1997. The Spirit Catches You
and You Fall Down: A Hmong Child,
Her American Doctors and the Colli
sion of Two Cultures. New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux.

Gonzalez-Mena, J. 2008. Diversity in
Early Care and Education: Honoring
Differences. Washington, DC: National
Association for the Education of Young
Children.

———. 2013. 50 Strategies for Working and
Communicating with Diverse Fami
lies. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.

Howes, C., R. C. Pianta, and J. T. Downer,
eds. 2011. Dual Language Learners in
the Early Childhood Classroom. Balti
more, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Jacobson, T. 2003. Confronting Our Dis
comforts: Clearing the Way for Anti-
bias in Early Childhood. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.

Keyser, J. 2006. From Parents to Part
ners: Building a Family-Centered Early
Childhood Program. St. Paul, MN:
Redleaf Press; and Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education
of Young Children.

Lynch, E. W., and M. J. Hanson. 2011. De
veloping Cross-Cultural Competence:
A Guide for Working with Children and
Their Families. 4th. ed. Baltimore, MD:
Paul H. Brookes.

Nemeth, K. N. 2009. Many Languages,
One Classroom: Teaching English
Language Learners. Silver Spring, MD:
Gryphon House.

108

———. 2012. Many Languages, Build
ing Connections: Supporting Infants
and Toddler Who Are Dual Language
Learners. Lewisville, NC: Gryphon
House.

Parlakian, R. 2003. How Culture Shapes
Social-Emotional Development: Impli
cations for Practice in Infant-Family
Programs. Washington, DC: Zero to
Three: National Center for Infants, Tod
dlers & Families.

Rogoff, B. 2003. The Cultural Nature of
Human Development. New York: Ox
ford University Press.

Santos, R. M., G. R. Cheatham, and L.
Duran, eds. 2012. Young Exceptional
Children Monograph Series No. 14:
Supporting Young Children Who Are
Dual Language Learners with or at
Risk for Disabilities. Longmont, CO:
Sopris West.

Small, M. 1998. Our Babies, Ourselves:
How Biology and Culture Shape the
Way We Parent. New York: Random
House.

Tabors, P. O. 2008. One Child, Two Lan
guages: A Guide for Early Childhood
Educators of Children Learning English
as a Second Language. 2nd ed. Balti
more, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Articles

Bronson, P., and A. Merryman. 2009. “See
Baby Discriminate.” Newsweek (Sep
tember 14): 53–59.

Denney, M. K., T. Itkonen, and Y. Okamo
to. 2007. “Early Intervention Systems
of Care for Latino Families and Their
Young Children with Special Needs:
Salient Themes and Guiding Implica
tions.” Infants & Young Children 30:
326–35.

Division for Early Childhood (DEC).
2010. “Responsiveness to ALL Chil
dren, Families, and Professionals:
Integrating Cultural and Linguistic Di
versity into Policy and Practice.” DEC
position statement. Missoula, MT: The
Division for Early Childhood. http://
www.dec-sped.org/.

Espinosa, L. M. 2008. Challenging
Common Myths About Young English
Language Learners (Policy Brief No.
8). New York: Foundation for Child
Development. http://fcd-us.org/.

Garcia, S. B., A. M. Perez, and A. A. Ortiz.
2000. Interpreting Mexican-American
Mothers’ Beliefs About Language Dis
abilities from a Sociocultural Perspec
tive: Implications for Early Childhood
Intervention.” Remedial and Special
Education 21 (2): 90–100, 120.

Genesee, F. 2008. “Early Dual Language
Learning.” Zero to Three (September
2008): 17–23.

Gonzalez-Mena, J. 2010. “Cultural Re
sponsiveness and Routines: When Cen
ter and Home Don’t Match.” Exchange
32 (3): 42–44.

Gonzalez-Mena, J., and D. Widmeyer
Eyer. 2012. Infants, Toddlers and Care
givers. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Im, J., R. Parlakian, and S. Sanchez. 2007.
“Supporting Infants, Toddlers and Their
Families: Understanding the Influence
of Culture on Caregiving Practices from
the Inside Out.” Young Children 62 (5):
65–66.

Jackson, C. W., L. Leacox, and M. F.
Callender. 2010. “Challenges to Early
Intervention for English Language
Learners.” Early Childhood Services 2:
29–53.

Lee, H., M. M. Ostrosky, T. Bennett, and

109

http://fcd-us.org

http://www.dec-sped.org/

S. A. Fowler. 2003. “Perspectives of
Early Intervention Professionals About
Culturally-Appropriate Practices.” Jour
nal of Early Intervention 25: 281–95.

National Association for the Education
of Young Children (NAEYC). 1995.
“Responding to Linguistic and Cul
tural Diversity: Recommendations for
Effective Early Childhood Education.”
Position Statement. Washington, DC:
NAEYC. http://www.naeyc.org (ac
cessed November 19, 2012).

Ohtake, Y., R. M. Santos, and S. A. Fowl
er. 2000. “It’s a Three-Way Conversa
tion: Families, Service Providers, and
Interpreters Working Together.” Young
Exceptional Children 4 (1): 12–18.

Perez, A. M. 2000. “Mexican American
Mothers’ Perceptions and Beliefs About
Language Acquisition in Infants and
Toddlers with Disabilities.” Bilingual
Research Journal 24 (3): 1–15.

Puig, V. I. 2010. “Are Early Intervention
Services Replacing Home Languages
and Cultures ‘at Risk’? Early Child
hood Research & Practice 12 (1): 1–19.
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v12n1/puig.html
(accessed November 19, 2012).

Zepeda, M., J. Gonzalez-Mena, C. Roth-
stein-Fisch, and E. Trumbull. 2006.
Bridging Cultures in Early Care and
Education: A Training Module. San
Francisco: WestEd.

Zero to Three. 2008. “Language, Culture,
and Learning.” Zero to Three 29 (1).

Videos/DVDs

California Department of Education. 2007.
A World Full of Language: Supporting
Preschool English Learners. Sacramen
to: California Department of Education.
DVD.

Chen, D., M. Haney, and A. Cox. 2012.
Supporting Cultural and Linguistic Di
versity in Early Intervention and Early
Childhood Special Education: A Cross-
Cultural Competence Video Library.
DVD. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Educational Productions. 2002. Starting
Points: For Educators of Culturally and
Linguistically Diverse Young Children.

Program 1: I Don’t Know Where to
Start

Program 2: Getting Your Message
Across

Program 3: Bringing Language Alive!

Online Resources

Center for Early Care and Education
Research: Dual Language Learners
(CECER-DLL).

Culturally and Linguistically Appropri
ate Services (CLAS)—Early Child
hood Research Institute. http://www.
clas.uiuc.edu/ (accessed November 19,
2012).

Early Childhood Technical Assistance
(ECTA) Center. http://ectacenter.org/
(accessed April 3, 2013).

National Association for Bilingual Edu
cation (NABE). http://www.nabe.org/
(accessed April 3, 2013).

National Center for Cultural Competence
(Georgetown University Center for
Child and Human Development).

12-004 PR12-0015 5-13 10M 110

http://www.nabe.org

http://ectacenter.org

http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v12n1/puig.html

http://www.naeyc.org

http://www.clas.uiuc.edu/

What Will You Get?

We provide professional writing services to help you score straight A’s by submitting custom written assignments that mirror your guidelines.

Premium Quality

Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.

Experienced Writers

Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.

On-Time Delivery

Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.

24/7 Customer Support

Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.

Complete Confidentiality

Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.

Authentic Sources

We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.

Moneyback Guarantee

Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.

Order Tracking

You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.

Order Now Talk to Us

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Trusted Partner of 9650+ Students for Writing

From brainstorming your paper's outline to perfecting its grammar, we perform every step carefully to make your paper worthy of A grade.

Preferred Writer

Hire your preferred writer anytime. Simply specify if you want your preferred expert to write your paper and we’ll make that happen.

Grammar Check Report

Get an elaborate and authentic grammar check report with your work to have the grammar goodness sealed in your document.

One Page Summary

You can purchase this feature if you want our writers to sum up your paper in the form of a concise and well-articulated summary.

Plagiarism Report

You don’t have to worry about plagiarism anymore. Get a plagiarism report to certify the uniqueness of your work.

Free Features $66FREE

Most Qualified Writer $10FREE
Plagiarism Scan Report $10FREE
Unlimited Revisions $08FREE
Paper Formatting $05FREE
Cover Page $05FREE
Referencing & Bibliography $10FREE
Dedicated User Area $08FREE
24/7 Order Tracking $05FREE
Periodic Email Alerts $05FREE

Our Services

Join us for the best experience while seeking writing assistance in your college life. A good grade is all you need to boost up your academic excellence and we are all about it.

On-time Delivery
24/7 Order Tracking
Access to Authentic Sources

Academic Writing

We create perfect papers according to the guidelines.

Professional Editing

We seamlessly edit out errors from your papers.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals

Work with ultimate peace of mind because we ensure that your academic work is our responsibility and your grades are a top concern for us!

Check Out Our Sample Work

Dedication. Quality. Commitment. Punctuality

It May Not Be Much, but It’s Honest Work!

Here is what we have achieved so far. These numbers are evidence that we go the extra mile to make your college journey successful.

0+

Happy Clients

0+

Words Written This Week

0+

Ongoing Orders

0%

Customer Satisfaction Rate

Process as Fine as Brewed Coffee

We have the most intuitive and minimalistic process so that you can easily place an order. Just follow a few steps to unlock success.

Call Us +1 (877) 657-8180 Discuss Order Details Now

See How We Helped 9000+ Students Achieve Success

We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing

We understand your guidelines first before delivering any writing service. You can discuss your writing needs and we will have them evaluated by our dedicated team.

Clear elicitation of your requirements.
Customized writing as per your needs.

We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services

We write your papers in a standardized way. We complete your work in such a way that it turns out to be a perfect description of your guidelines.

Proactive analysis of your writing.
Active communication to understand requirements.

We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades

We promise you excellent grades and academic excellence that you always longed for. Our writers stay in touch with you via email.

Thorough research and analysis for every order.
Deliverance of reliable writing service to improve your grades.

Place an Order Start Chat Now

INFANT Child Development Need This Done Tomorrow Wednesday February 26, 2019 By 12pm PACIFIC TIME ZONE!

What Will You Get?

Premium Quality

Experienced Writers

On-Time Delivery

24/7 Customer Support

Complete Confidentiality

Authentic Sources

Moneyback Guarantee

Order Tracking

Areas of Expertise

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Areas of Expertise

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Trusted Partner of 9650+ Students for Writing

Preferred Writer

Grammar Check Report

One Page Summary

Plagiarism Report

Free Features $66FREE

Our Services

Academic Writing

Professional Editing

Thorough Proofreading

Thorough Proofreading

Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals

Check Out Our Sample Work

It May Not Be Much, but It’s Honest Work!

0+

Happy Clients

0+

Words Written This Week

0+

Ongoing Orders

0%

Customer Satisfaction Rate

Process as Fine as Brewed Coffee

Share Your Requirements

Place Order & Deposit Funds

Release Payment to Your Writer

See How We Helped 9000+ Students Achieve Success

We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing

We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services

We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades