Assessment of Parent–Teacher Relationships in Early Childhood Education Programs During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Relationships between families and schools are important in the educational experiences of young children. However, the COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2019 and spread rapidly around the world disrupted many families, teachers, early childhood programs, and other child-support institutions. There is much to be learned on how this pandemic specifically affected parent–teacher relationships. This study examined whether parent, teacher and other program characteristics had an impact on early childhood parents’ ratings of the quality of their relationships with teachers. Results suggest that parent’s education, income, age of child, location of the center and distance learning availability, impacted how parents perceived their relationships with teachers. Supporting parents’ home environments may be one effective strategy for promoting positive relationships between parents and teachers in times of challenges.

Introduction and Review of Literature

It is an established fact that parent–teacher relationships are a critical and integral part of early childhood education. The benefits of a strong parent–teacher relationship on children’s learning and development are numerous and long lasting (Lang et al., 2013). During a crisis this relationship becomes more significant, as the parent–teacher duo often scrambles to pool resources at their disposal together to support children. During the COVID-19 pandemic, all humanity was put in survival mode with people leaning into their own silos for self-protection. Many support systems, including parent–teacher relationships, were thrown into disarray (Annat & Gassman-Pines, 2020; Karpman et al., 2020). The impact of COVID-19 is still felt and remains under investigation for years to come. This research seeks to specifically investigate the pandemic’s impact on the parent–teacher relationship.

The COVID-19 pandemic had a colossal impact on all spheres of human life at micro and macro levels. The initial impact on the early childhood field has already been explored and documented by a growing number of studies (for e.g., Wei et al., 2021; Hae Min et al., 2021). All aspects of children’s development were impacted. For instance, children’s physical activity, nutrition (Lafave et al., 2021), socio-emotional wellbeing, and cognitive stimulation (Egan et al., 2021) were adversely compromised. Egan et al. (2021) also reported increased maladaptive behaviors like tantrums, clinginess, and boredom. Even though the government’s responses to the crisis created by COVID-19 to support young children was commendable, it was far from adequate (Hae Min et al., 2021).

Following the onset of the pandemic’s lockdown, it took a few months for programs to enter into an adaptation mode (McKenna et al., 2021). Programs were compelled to shift their resources from the regular programing to the safety of children and families. A national survey of over 5000 childcare providers conducted by NAEYC in July 2020 further demonstrates the dilemmas programs were thrown into. For instance, NAEYC found that 40% of childcare providers reported that they would close their programs permanently if they did not receive additional public assistance. Also, many of the programs that were open reported enrollment going down by an average of 67%. A whopping 70% of the programs experienced substantial extra costs in areas such as staff, cleaning supplies, and personal protection equipment (NAEYC, 2020). Delivery of education programming was a challenge. Communication with all families, access to technology e.g., devices and internet, and assessing and screening children, were impossible tasks to perform adequately (McKenna et al., 2021). The pandemic inadvertently challenged programs to rethink delivery of educational experiences and professional development trainings to support teachers to be effective in delivering early childhood programming remotely (Crawford et al., 2021).

The pandemic’s specific impact on teachers was vast. NAEYC (2020) found that very many teachers lost their jobs while others’ working hours were reduced. Teachers had challenges in delivering play-based developmentally appropriate educational experiences online, supporting parents to engage their children, or even contacting parents all together. They were also faced with limited teacher-collaboration opportunities due to reduced staff. All these challenges created considerable stress and anxiety in them. They reported feeling sad, restless, worthless, nervous, hopeless and overall decreased levels of wellbeing (Swigonskil et al., 2021). Eadie et al. (2021) found that stronger professional wellbeing, especially among senior or more experienced staff, was associated with less conflicts in educator-child relationships and lowered risk of staff turnover more. Ironically, educators working remotely were more likely to report a lower level of stress than those working with children at childcare centers (Elek & Church, 2021).

Meeting the needs of children with special needs demanded a higher level of engagement from the teachers. They (teachers) spent more time providing support to families and improvising ways to assess children (Steed & Leech, 2021). To add more stress on teachers, there were high turnover rates among child protective service workers. This represented both the loss of important support services and the development of a working relationship that could support the process of noticing and identifying children in need (Toros et al., 2021).

Preservice teacher preparation programs were also impacted. Opportunities for field-based learning had to be improvised, reduced, or eliminated altogether. This led to feelings of inadequacy among preservice teachers as they entered the workforce (Callaway-Cole & Kimble, 2021).

Swigonskil et al. (2021) reference the age-old societal issue of underpaying early childhood educators prior to the pandemic. Teacher pay went to newer lows, making it almost impossible for teachers to afford basic needs like food, utilities and rent and/or mortgage payments.

Despite all these challenges. Wei et al. (2021) reported that many early childhood teachers remained optimistic about their occupation during the heights of the pandemic period. Elek and Church (2021) also found that the existence of some organizational structures supporting professional wellbeing also mitigated the impact of the pandemic on some early childhood professionals. Some of the research done on remote learning delivery during the pandemic (e.g., McKenna et al., 2021) found that even with the limited guidance educators got from administrators, most adapted successfully to remote instruction, with confidence of educators growing over time.

Like teachers, parents were faced with more responsibilities for their children. For the most part, teachers relied upon families to deliver educational activities. The online platform teachers had to use to deliver educational materials to parents was uncharted and intimidating territory (Crawford et al., 2021). Families were also adjusting to public health measures and other changes in their work while supporting all their children’s learning from home. They also had to adjust to changes in routines that required a great deal of time and effort. It was difficult for families to find time to educate their children at home (Kimil et al., 2021). Consequently, parents’ depression went up and their quality of co-parenting declined (Feinberg et al., 2021).

Educators estimated that the parents who used their emergency childcare service presented either high (37.7%) or average (32.2%) levels of wellbeing. The factors that educators identified as facilitating their interactions with families included parental recognition of their work (11.68%) and having direct contact with them (12.62%) (Bigras et al., 2021).

Family income and education continues to be a strong variable in determining children’s developmental outcomes across the Prek-16 spectrum. In pre-pandemic research, Iruka et al. (2011) found that parent–teacher relationships of kindergarten children were stronger for high income families than those of the low-income. Some studies have found that this disadvantage was amplified during COVID-19 pandemics. For instance, Kimil et al. (2021) found that parents in the low income and low education spectrums were less likely to have educational resources and learning activities occuring at home.

Additionally, during the pandemic families with low income were more impacted in areas of employment like job loss, reduced pay, and non-remote working as many were over-represented in the essential workers category (Annat & Gassman-Pines, 2020; Karpman et al., 2020). This further amplified challenges in childcare responsibilities given that schools were closed (Kerr et al., 2021). Due to limited resources in these households, there was difficulty in arranging child-care, leading to many parents being forced to stay at home from work to take care of children (Karpman et al., 2020). Further, most of them were less likely to receive COVID-19 governmental support (Annat & Gassman-Pines, 2020), adding to more stress in such a time of uncertainty.

Families or homes that had pre-pandemic chaos such as destabilized routines, disorganization, instability, noise, and crowding, and low income experienced elevated depression levels during the pandemic (Johnson et al., 2022).

McKenna et al. (2021) found that many early childhood administrators made gains in various family support areas including regular communications, accessibility of technology tools and internet, assessments, and screening of children, etc. However, Mckenna et al.’s study did not examine socio-economic status or parent education as variables.

One of the variables the current study is examining is parent–teacher relationship differences with regards to the age of the children during the COVID-19 pandemic (infants, toddlers, and preschoolers). Pre-pandemic literature is clear about the fact that, due to young children’s limited self-advocacy and communication skills, reliance on the teacher–child relationship is arguably more critical (Lang et al., 2016). Unfortunately, most research on parent–teacher relationships has focused on older children (Bernhard et al., 1988; Nzinga-Johnson et al., 2009). Further, there is even much less research focusing on parent–teacher relationships of infants and toddlers (Lang et al., 2016). This study therefore also examines how parent–teacher relationships of the various ages of children within 0–5 years, were impacted by COVID-19.

The Family Provider Teacher Relationship Quality Conceptual Model FPTRQ

This study follows the Family Provider Teacher Relationship Quality Conceptual Model FPTRQ (Forry et al., 2012) as its conceptual framework. The FPTRQ places family sensitive care, family support, and parental involvement/engagement at the core of positive relationships. These conceptual perspectives share an ecological view of child development and wellbeing that views parents, families, communities, and programs as interdependent (Forry et al., 2012) with the goal of improving child outcomes. Second, the model argues that even though the three groups/pathways vary by model, all the three are focused on improving outcomes across all domains.

The FPTRQ perspective posits that empowering families and facilitating parental well-being will enhance child development. That children’s learning will be enhanced when focus is placed on supporting parent’s active and direct engagement in their children’s development across all domains. Third, the framework reiterates that all the three perspectives in addition to the focus being on child outcomes, do also impact family-related outcomes such as family self-sufficiency, well-being, and efficacy, and recognize that social and peer support are key elements hypothesized to shape and enhance the ways families care for their children (Forry et al., 2012). The overarching idea of the FPTRQ model is that children are impacted by the programs i.e., teachers and classrooms they attend and by the families and home environment they belong to. Teachers have the role of making sure that these entities interact well to lead to positive children and family outcomes. For example, knowledge of parenting styles can help teachers and parents work together to better serve the child in behavior management. The model is made up of three constructs that were obtained during the development Family Provider Teacher Relationship Quality (FPTRQ) assessment tool that are effective for family teacher’s relationships: family specific knowledge which is knowledge about families, practices with families, and attitudes about families (Porter et al., 2015). All the constructs other than the knowledge have several elements (Porter et al., 2011; Forry et al., 2012).

Family Specific Knowledge

This is defined as the knowledge teachers generally have about the children and families. It includes knowing and understanding children’s family cultures, the contexts they live in, the situations that affect them, knowledge of community resources that are helpful to families, and understanding of families’ abilities, needs and goals. The thinking behind this is that there should be a reciprocal relationship where teachers gather family child -specific knowledge from families and offer families relevant information about themselves. The programs allow providers to be responsive to families and serve as resources to families (Porter et al., 2011).

Teacher Practices

This component examines how teachers collaborate and engage families in their programs. Teacher practices believed to facilitate high quality family provider relationships should have mastery of both relational and goal-oriented skills (Forry et al., 2012). Teachers that have solid relational skills develop positive reciprocal communications, are engaging, sensitive, flexible, and act in responsive ways (Forry et al., 2012). Crucial goal-oriented skills include advocating for families, teaching families to advocate for themselves, connecting families to resources and, families and parents working collaboratively in decision making (Forry et al., 2012, Porter et al., 2011). The teacher practice component is broken down into 4 sub scales; (1) collaboration which examines how teachers collaborate and engage families in the program; (2) responsiveness that assess how teachers are engaging, sensitive and responsive to families’ needs and goals; (3) communication that looks at how teachers promote 2-way communication while respecting parents preferences and also considering their own personal boundaries, and; (4) family focused concerns which assess if teachers communicate with families in ways that show interest; and understanding contexts looks at teacher’s appreciation of broader contexts of situations of families and how those contribute to their development (Porter et al. 2011).

Attitudes

These component beliefs that teachers’ caring, and commitments are to be reflected through the way they show sensitivity in meeting the needs of the children, parents, and families they are working with (Poter et al., 2011). Forry et al. (2012) have identified four attitudes as reinforcers of high quality family provider relationships: respect which examines teachers valuing of children and families- for example do they engage in activities that are welcoming, accepting, nondiscriminatory and non-judgmental; commitment observes how sensitive teachers are to the needs of children, parents and families; openness to change focuses on how willing teachers are to alter their typical practices so as to be sensitive to individual children, parents or family needs; and understanding contexts examines teachers understanding and appreciation of the impact of the different contexts on children and families (Forry et al., 2012).

The model has been used to look at how programs completed the tasks in each of these constructs during COVID-19. Teachers were working with parents in a different environment as most programs went online synchronously and/or asynchronously or closed. During pre-COVID-19, teachers were expected to meet expectations in the FPTRQ measures. For example, teachers were expected to meet with families to discuss children’s learning. At these meetings they shared information about their children’s day at school, resources on parenting or activities for parents to complete with their children at home. The model’s constructs help us understand how teachers were able to develop relationships with parents during these challenging times, and also demonstrates the effectiveness of the model during unique times.

Methods

This study aimed at examining the relationships between teachers and parents of young children in early childhood programs during COVID-19 pandemic. A survey approach was used to gather parent views. Quantitative approaches like surveys are often used to reveal how existing situations look while being objective (Karasar, 1999). This was seen as the appropriate method of data collection given the situation with the COVID-19 pandemic and the limitations of not being able to directly have access to parents like during the typical times that you can drop a questionnaire to go home with them. Two research questions were investigated:

1. How do early childhood education parents perceive parent–teacher relationship practices in their programs during COVID-19?

2. Were there differences in parent perceptions of parent–teacher relationships based on parent income, education, age of child, distance learning option and program location during COVID-19?

Sample and Sampling

Data was collected from parents with children enrolled in early childhood programs in a midwestern U.S. state. The early childhood programs included in the study comprises Head Start programs, family childcare centers, and private center-based programs. To determine the programs to participate in the study, the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) directors of early learning programs, and Head Start programs in the state were contacted. The directors provided website links with the list of individual Head Start programs and the names of their respective directors. Emails of the Head Start directors were copied and sent the invitation to participate. For all the other early childhood programs in the state, there contact information were searched on the internet, and the information about the study and the Qualtrics survey link sent to the directors to forward to the parents in their programs.

A total of 83 parents completed the survey (Table 1). Parents in the study reported having more girls (52.4%) than boys (42.9%) in their families. It was also determined that 50% of the parents were White, and 27.4% were Native Americans. The majority of the programs were in the urban areas (53.2%) compared to rural areas (46.8%). Most of the parents who participated had children enrolled in private childcare 73.8% compared to those in Head Start 26.3%. 64.3% of the programs had a distance learning option during COVID-19 pandemic. Also 34.5% of the parents had stayed with the same teacher for more than 2 years. Only 8% of the parents had worked with the teacher for less than 6 months. over half (63%) of them had worked with the teachers more than 1 year. 76.2% of the parents had either some college/associate degree or bachelor’s/graduate education. Over 50% of the parents were earning more than $35,000 a year.

Table 1.

Demographics of parents and children included in the study N = 83

Variables			Variable
Number of children	N	%	Family income	N	%
Boys	36	42.9	0–$34,999	14	16.7
Girls	44	52.4	35,000–44,999	20.	23.8
			45,000–54,999	19	22.6
			55,000–75,000	27.	32.1
Race
White	42	50
Black/African American	8	9.5
American Indian or Alaska Native	23	27.4
Asian Indian	3	3.6	Program location
Chinese	1	1.2	Rural	37.	46.8
Vietnamese	1	1.2	Urban	42.	53.2
Other Asian	1	1.2	Type of program
Filipino	1	1.2	Head start	21	26.3
Education level			Private childcare centers	59	73.8
GED/no high school diploma	16	19
Some college/associate degree	39	46.4
Bachelors/graduate degree	25	29.8	Language used at home
			English	51.	60.7
			Spanish	18	21.4
Parent experience with provider/teacher			English & Spanish	9	10.7
Less than 6 months	8	9.5	English & another language	1.	1.2
6 months–1 year	19	22.6
1–2 years	24	28.6	Age of child
2+ years	29	34.5	0–2 years old	28	33.3
Hispanic or Latino origin			3–4 years old	52	61.9
Yes	26	31
No	53	63.1
No. of program closed during COVID	77
Distance learning option
Yes	54	64.3
No	16	19.0

Data Collection Tool

Parent–teacher relationship quality was measured by the Family and Provider Teacher Relationship Quality (FPTRQ) measure (Porter et al., 2015). This measure asks questions about how parents work with their childcare provider/teacher. It was developed to be used within a wide range of early childhood programs. It has been field tested across race, ethnicity, and class (Kim et al., 2014). The measure consists of 23 items (short form) asking questions related to three broad constructs: teacher’s knowledge of parents they work with, practices they use with parents, and their attitudes towards parents. Means were calculated for each construct as well as for each subscale. The items were scored on a 4-point likert scale with a few items using “yes” or “no” responses. Each construct has a total of 8 various subscales: Family specific knowledge consists of 15 items and has a Cronbach alpha of 0.9, col4. It measures a teacher's knowledge of the families they work with. Collaboration has 11 items with a Cronbach alpha of 0.92, responsiveness has also 11 items with a Cronbach alpha of 0.91, communication consists of 8 items with a 0 0.91, alpha and family focused concern has 3 items with a Cronbach alpha of 0.75. Commitment has 9 items with an alpha of 0.90, understanding context has 4 items with an alpha of 0.97t and respect has 4 3 items with an alpha of 0.83. Mean scores for each construct and total scores are obtained by adding individual items in the subscales after reverse coding the negatively worded items as described by the scoring manual (Alison & Gaviria-Loaiza, 2021). When the short measure was tested, the items were found to have high item response rates and the Cronbach’s alphas for each construct were above 0.6. An example of an item from the family specific knowledge construct is,  “How comfortable would or do you feel sharing with your childcare provider your marital status”. An example from the practices construct is, “How often have you met with or talked to your childcare provider or teacher about what to expect at each stage of learning.” And finally, an example from the attitude is “my childcare provider/teacher judges my family because of our culture and values”. During the development of the FPTRQ tool the reliability of all items in the 8 subscales measured showed an acceptable, and mostly good or excellent reliability of above 0.70 (Porter et al., 2015).

Program Closure, Distance Learning and Program Location Variables

These three variables were examined on how they impacted parent–teacher relationships. We investigated the impact of program closure during the COVID-19 pandemic on parent–teacher relationships. In typical settings before COVID-19, programs were building parent–teacher relationships through their daily contacts with parents. The study also explored how distance learning impacted the development of parent–teacher relationships. Distance learning was an important variable to include since programs were either operating remotely, closed, or continued services via distance learning. Third, program location was necessary to investigate because some studies on COVID-19 indicated that rural programs were most affected by the pandemic. The study sought to investigate if there were any differences in parent–teacher relationships based on where the program was located.

Data was collected in the Fall of 2020 after most programs were open in one way or another. The COVID-19 pandemic started in fall 2019 and the shutdown of most programs occurred in spring & fall of 2020. Collecting the data in fall of 2020 captured parent responses better as they had just started getting back to school.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to examine the means and frequencies of the parent–teacher relationships constructs and subscales. Independent t tests and one way ANOVA were used to calculate mean differences. It is advised that although the total score of the constructs provides a broad overview of the quality of the teacher/provider and parent relationship, it is better to use subscale scores to correctly identify potential areas for professional development and training (Porter et al., 2015).

Results

Overview

The field test data obtained during the development of the FPTRQ tool provided mean scores that were obtained for each construct and subscales that were used to compare with the scores of parents in this study. This field test data was obtained by assessing parent teacher relationships across different child care centers nationaly. This data was used to determine if the average construct and subscale scores were higher or lower than those obtained in the field study (Porter et al., 2015). All means in all the constructs and subscales were lower than those of the field test parents (Table 2). Parents had a total FPTRQ mean score of 181.32, compared to the field test parents 229.7. The mean differences between parents in the field test and the parents of the study in attitudes construct showed a bigger difference of 19.39, compared to the other constructs, practices 18.69, and family specific 11.2. Parents in the study had a mean score of 48.31 compared to parents in the field test 67.7 in the attitudes construct. Mean differences between the maximum score and the score of parents in the study show that the practices component had the biggest difference of 66. Also comparing the maximum mean differences of the field test parents with those in the study, the field test mean differences are way low (see Table 2). Suggesting that parents in the field test group had higher ratings of parent–teacher relationships than those who participated in this study in all the subscales. In the commitment subscale, parents frequently agreed that teachers shared information with them about their child’s day, parents noted that their teachers were caring, understanding, flexible, dependable, trustworthy, respectful, available, were trustworthy and had their children’s best interest. Parents highly believed that the teachers could maintain a safe environment. However, in the communication subscale, 36 parents out of the 83 reported never or rarely did the teachers suggest activities for them and their child to do at home during COVID-19 pandemic. There were 33 parents who reported that teachers never or rarely offered ideas or suggestions about parenting. Meanwhile, 38 parents said that never or rarely did the teachers provide them with opportunities to make decisions about their child’s care and education. There were 33 parents who reported that never or rarely were they given the opportunity to give feedback on the teacher’s performances. And, 25 said that never or rarely did their teachers work with them to develop strategies they could use at home to support their child’s learning and development during COVID-19.

Table 2.

Total family provider relationship quality subscale means scores

Variable	N	Min	Max	M	SD	Field M	Differences
							Max.-P	Max.-F	F-M
Total FPTRQ	80	139.0	230	181.32	48/28.07	229.	748.7	0.348	4
Family knowledge	79	15	60	41.5	7.7	52.6	18.5	7.4	11.2
Construct practices	73	62	128	90.7	14.6	109.4	66	18.6	18.7
Collaboration	80	19	44	30.0	5.3	37.1	14	6.9	7.1
Responsiveness	73	19	44	31.7	5.9	38.7	12.33	5.3	7
Communication	80	16	32	21.2	3.5	23.3	10.8	8.7	2.1
Family focused	77	4	12	7.7	1.78	10.2	4.3	1.8	2.5
Construct attitudes	73	36	68	48.3	5.3	67.7	19.4	0.3	19.4
Commitment	75	16	36	25.4	5	34.0	10.6	2	8.6
Understanding
Context	76	4	20	10.89	4.27	15	9.1	5	4.1
Respect	79	7	18	12.2	2.8	18	5.8	0	5.8

Min minimum mean, Max. maximum mean, SP-M parents in study mean, F. field test parents mean, M mean

There were significant differences in ratings of parents with a GED or less and those with an associate or some college education ANOVA (F (2,77) = 8.026, p = 0.000. A Tukey post hoc test revealed that the parent–teacher relationships ratings were statistically significantly lower for parents with a GED education or less (Table 3) than those of parents with some or associate degree in all the subscales except in the family focused concern, understanding context and respect. No significant difference in ratings for the parents with a bachelors or graduate degree were found and those with an associate or some college degree. Mean differences (Table 3) show that parents with a GED or less education had lower mean scores in all the dimensions of parent–teacher relationships compared to the other groups of parents. The lower educated parents felt that their parent–teacher relationships were not strong compared to the more educated parents (Table 4).

Table 3.

ANOVA results on parent–teacher relationship (PTR) according to the parent’s education level

PTR dimensions	Variable	N	SD	F	P	M
FPTRQ total	GED & less	16	0.47	8.02	0.001	19.8
	Some or assoc	39	2.8			22.5
	Bachelors/grad	25	1.9			21
Family specific	GED & less	16	1.2	6.07	0.004	36.4
Knowledge	Some or assoc	39	7.6			44
	Bachelors/grad	25	8.7			40.6
Collaboration	GED & less	16	1.3	4.01	0.022	27.4
	Some or assoc	39	5.3			31.5
	Bachelors/grad	25	6.3			29.2
Responsiveness	GED & less	16	0.65	4.22	0.019	28.0
	Some or assoc	39	6.6			33.1
	Bachelors/grad	25	5.9			31.9
Communication	GED & less	16	1.4	5.66	0.005	18.6
	Some or assoc	39	3.5			22.0
	Bach/grad	25	3.9			21.4
Family focused	GED & less	16	0.44	1.26	0.288	7.0
	Some or assoc	39	1.9			7.8
	Bach/grad	25	2.0			7.8
Commitment	GED & less	16	1.2	4.13	0.017	22.4
	Some or assoc	39	5.2			26.6
	Bach/grad	25	5.4			25.5
Understanding cont.	Ged & less	16	4.8	0.46	0.630	9.9
	Some or assoc	39	4.4			11.1
	Bach/grad	25	4.2			11.1
Respect	GED & less	16	0.79	3.07	0.055	13.6
	Some or assoc	39	2.9			15.6
	Bach/grad	25	3.1			15.08

Table 4.

ANOVA results on parent–teacher relationship according to the parent’s income level

FPTRQ dimension	Variable	N	SD	F	P	M
Family specific	0–34,999	14	0.29	5.240	0.002	46.6
	35,000–44,999	20	0.18			36.6
	45,000–54,999	19	0.32			43.0
	55,000–75,000	27	0.29			41.5
Collaboration	0–34,999	14	0.72	2.416	0.073	33.1
	35,000–44,999	20	0.44			28.7
	45,000–54,999	19	0.55			28.7
	55,000–75,000	27	0.23			30.3
Responsiveness	0–34,999	14	0.74	2.021	0.179	33.0
	35,000–44,999	20	0.38			29.8
	45,000–54,999	19	0.64			30.8
	55,000–75,000	27	0.31			32.6
Communication	0–34,999	14	0.50	1.614	0.193	22.3
	35,000–44,999	20	0.43			19.8
	45,000–54,999	19	0.46			21.1
	55,000–75,000	27	0.41			21.6
Family focused concerns	0–34,999	14	0.68	6.43	0.010	7.3
	35,000–44,999	20	0.39			6.8
	45,000–54,999	19	0.62			7.6
	55,000–75,000	27	0.66			8.5
Commitment	0–34,999	14	0.68	3.01	0.039	28.5
	35,000–44,999	20	0.43			23.6
	45,000–54,999	19	0.65			25.5
	55,000–75,000	27	0.34			24.8
Understanding contexts	0–34,999	14	0.88	17.28	0.000	6.7
	35,000–44,999	20	0.63			9.9
	45,000–54,999	19	0.99			10.7
	55,000–75,000	27	0.87			14.2
Respect	0–34,999	14	0.78	10.97	0.000	9.9
	35,000–44,999	20	0.62			13.3
	45,000–54,999	19	0.67			10.7
	55,000–75,000	27	0.47			13.4
Total FPTRQ	0–34,999	14	0.29	7.106	0.000	21.4
	35,000–44,999	20	0.18			20.3
	45,000–54,999	19	0.32			21.2
	55,000–75,000	27	0.29			23.2

There was a significant difference in the parents’ ratings across the subscales according to the family income variable F (3.76) = 7.106, p = 0.000. Differences were seen in family specific knowledge (p = 0.002), family focused concerns (p = 0.001), commitment (p = 0.032), understanding context (p = 0.000) and respect (0.002). An examination of the result of the Tukey test to determine among which groups the differences were, there were differences in scores between the parents with an income of between 35,000 and 44,999 and those earning 55,000 and above and those earning between 45,000–54,999 and 55,000 and above. (p = 0.000). Therefore, in general parents with an income between 35,000 to 54,999 scored differently from those parents with an income from 55,000 and above. The means show that parents with the lower income rated understanding contexts (M = 6.7) and respect (M = 9.9) lower than those with higher incomes. These parents felt that their teachers judged them more based on their faith and religion, cultural values, race and ethnicity and financial situations than the parents with the higher income. However, in the family specific (M = 46.4) subscale and commitment (M = 28.5), parents with the lowest income scored the highest means. These parents also felt that in family focused concerns (M = 8.5), understanding contexts (M = 14.2) and respect (M = 15.4), parents with the highest income scored the highest means. The income breakdowns used in the development of the FPTRQ tool were used.

Parent–Teacher Relationship Based on the Child’s Age

Parents of older children, 3–5 years, had significantly higher parent–teacher relationship scores t (78) = − 4.12, p = 0.000) than those of the younger children (0–2 years old). These was seen in communication (22.01 ± 3.2), t (78) = − 3.132, p = 0.002, family focused concerns (8.1 + 1.7), t (78) = − 3.278, p = 0.002, and understanding context (11.97 ± 4.4) t (78) = − 3.049, p = 0.003 than parents with younger children, communication (19.5 ± 3.6), family focused concerns (6.8 ± 1.6), and understanding context (9.0 ± 3.3). During the pandemic, parents of younger children felt that teachers did not promote 2-way communication that considered the parents’ preferences while considering their own personal boundaries. They also felt that teachers did not address parents’ family-focused concerns in ways that showed interest in meeting their needs. Finally, parents of younger children felt that teachers did not show understanding and appreciation of the broader contexts of situations the families were going through and how that contributed to their development. That is, they felt they were judged based on their religious beliefs, culture, values, race & ethnicity, and their financial situations. They had lower mean scores in these subscales.

Parents with children in programs at the rural locations reported significantly higher parent -teacher relationship ratings on family specific knowledge (M = 43.4) collaboration (M = 31), responsiveness (M = 33.3), communication (M = 22.1), and commitment (27.2) (Table 5). They felt that teachers knew them and their families well, collaborated with them and engaged them in the program. Specifically, they engaged parents in appropriate communication and were sensitive to the needs of parents and their children compared to parents in the urban programs. However, they felt teachers did not understand the context they were living in; they judged them based on their faith and religion, culture and values, race, and financial situations. They did not show appreciation of the broader contexts of the experiences they were having and did not feel respected from the way teachers treated their children and families. Parents in the urban programs had statistically significant higher parent–teacher ratings in understanding context (M = 12.4) and respect (M = 13.6). They felt teachers showed appreciation of the broader contexts of the experiences they were having and how it impacted their development. They also felt teachers in the urban areas were respectful based on how they valued their children and families. They were welcoming, accepting, nondiscriminatory and non-judgmental compared to how the parents in the rural areas felt. There were no significant differences in the family focused concerns. Both parents from the urban and rural areas did not differ in the way they felt teachers communicated with them.

Table 5.

Independent t test results on parent–teacher relationships and according to the social context variable rural/urban

Variable	M	SD	T	p
N Rural = 37
N Urban = 42
Family specific knowledge	1.99	76		0.000
Rural	43.4	9.9
Urban	39.2	4.9
Total FPTRQ practices	2.04	66		0.003
Rural	187.2	17.5
Urban	176.11	2
Collaboration	1.41	77		0.000
Rural	31.0	6.8
Urban	29.2	3.5
Responsiveness	2.42	71		0.000
Rural	33.3	7.5
Urban	30.1	3.4
Communication	2.06	77		0.004
Rural	22.0	4.2
Urban	20.4	2.7
Family focused concerns	− 0.356	74		0.453
Rural	7.6	1.7
Urban	7.7	1.8
Commitment	3.30	72		0.000
Rural	27.2	6.2
Urban	23.6	2.2
Total attitudes	− 1.86	0.888
Rural	47.2	5.6
Urban	49.5	4.8
Commitment	3.30	77		0.002
Rural	7.62	1.7
Urban	7.76	1.8
Understanding context	− 3.49	73		0.000
Rural	9.2	4.7
Urban	12.4	3.2
Respect	− 5.81	76		000
Rural	10.5	3.2
Urban	13.6	1.2

Parent–Teacher Relationships Based on Mode of Learning (Distance or in Person)

Parents with children in programs that provided distance learning option had statistically significantly higher parent–teacher relationship rating scores (22.1 ± 2.5) compared to parents in programs that did not provide a distance learning option (19.7 ± 1.2), t (68) = 3.68, p = 0.000. Specific differences were noted on family specific knowledge (42.2 ± 6.3), collaboration (29.5 + 1.8) responsiveness (30.9 ± 4.9), family focused (7.9 ± 1.9), and understanding context (12.4 + 0.006) for families with distance learning option compared to families without the option (36.5 ± 3.0). (28.3 ± 2.6), (7.0 ± 0.00), and (9.8 ± 1.9). Communication, commitment, and respect were not statistically significant. Commitment looks at how sensitive teachers are to the needs of children, parents, and families; how they are open to change, how willing they are to alter their typical practices to be sensitive to individual child, parent, or family needs. Communication looks at how teachers promote 2-way communication while respecting parents’ preferences and considering their own personal boundaries. Since programs were closed most of these services may have not seamlessly continued. Respect measures how teachers value child & family by being welcoming, accepting, nondiscriminatory & non judge mental. Again, it’s presumed that this was not going on during COVID-19 pandemic as there was a lot of fluctuations in centers opening or closing. The distance learning option helped parents feel connected to the programs in most of the parent–teacher relationship areas i.e., they felt teachers knew who they were and their children, they were more responsible in meeting their needs, teachers collaborated with them about their child, teachers were also focused on family needs and were committed to supporting their child and family. Also, teachers understood what they were going through and the contexts they were living in.

Discussions and Conclusions

It is clear from the findings that the quality of parent–teacher relationships during COVID-19 was lower compared to those who had participated in the field test study that analyzed parent teacher relationships across different early childhood programs nationally. There were big differences in all the 8 subscales beginning from family specific knowledge to respect. However, during COVID-19 parents agreed that they were comfortable sharing a variety of information with their teachers such as what activities they were doing outside school to support their child’s learning, their household schedules, and their family culture and values. Also, several parents agreed that they had met with their teachers during the year to discuss their child’s abilities. It looked like even during COVID-19, parents were in contact with their teachers. This finding is in line with NAEYC’s survey (2020) which suggested that programs created avenues to reach parents. However, there were parents with a mean score of 15 out of 60 on family specific knowledge subscale. This could imply that some parents did not feel their teachers connected with them sufficiently during this pandemic period. The mean scores of the individual items in the family specific knowledge were all 2.5 and higher on a scale of 1–4). Items on sharing information about their spouse, family life, and their religion and faith scored the least compared to families feeling that they were very comfortable sharing information about their culture and family values (M = 2.98), sharing what they do outside school to support their child’s learning (M = 2.95), and sharing about their household schedule (M = 2.91). It can be said that during COVID-19 teacher connections with parents to know them better was not disrupted. Programs stepped up and continued to provide these connections.

Additionally, in collaboration and responsiveness practices, some parents had a mean score of 19 out of a 44 possible score. Both items scored a mean of 30. The highest ranked areas where parents felt teachers collaborated well with them during COVID-19 were on meeting and talking with parents about their child’s abilities (M = 3:1), their child’s learning (M = 3.0), the goals they had for their child (M = 3.0). The lowest mean item on this subscale was meeting and talking with parents on what they do outside education and care setting to support their child’s learning (M = 2.5). These two items had the biggest difference in means, followed by communication, where also some parents had a minimum mean of 16 out of a 32 possible score. In understanding context, we had some parents scoring teachers with a mean of 4 out of a possible 20; which was very low. Overall, the practices component that requires parents to work with families suffered in COVID-19 for some parents. However, most parents agreed that teachers were respectful and committed to their work.

Parents with the least education (GED or less) reported low scores in parent–teacher relationships, specially when compared to the other groups of parents with either some college or an associate degree, and those with a bachelors or graduate degree. This group of parents scored less in all the subscales during COVID-19. Examining other factors contributing to this in parents with low level education is necessary to better serve them during challenging times. Some studies on parent involvement among immigrants have found that often the most parent volunteers in school were those with less education (Peña, 2000). In this study, 29 of the participants were native Americans. Also, it has been found that while most of the parents that volunteer in schools are less educated it does not translate to building better relationships with their teachers. Other studies have statistically found parent education as one of the family demographic variables significantly affecting parent involvement (Fantuzzo et al., 2000; Manz et al., 2004). Even if these parents had low means in all subscales, it was evident that the means of the parents with either a bachelors or graduate degree and those with some or associate degree were not significantly different. Both groups scored low compared to the field test parents, suggesting that COVID-19 impacted the parent–teacher relationships for most groups of parents. It is also possible that the less educated parents had less knowledge of ways to reach their childcare providers or that they lacked strategies for surviving during the pandemic. Developing tools for this group of parents may be helpful during pandemics e.g., stress reductions tools, time management, defense mechanism tools, etc. The higher educated parents may have found other ways to meet their needs that could be investigated and possibly adapted to support other parents. Also, a look at program characteristics would help shade light into these findings.

Another finding was that parent income affected how teachers rated the family specific knowledge, family focused concerns, commitment, and understanding contexts during COVID-19. In all these three, parents with an income between 35,000 and 44,999 had the lowest mean scores. Generally, parents with the second lower income had lower means scores than the high-income parents. It is possible that higher income parents in the study had advantages of being more knowledgeable, committed to their children’s learning and were more likely to understand situations better than less educated parents. Parents of lower income agreed that teachers knew them and their families and were committed to them. However, they didn’t feel the same about teachers’ understanding of their contexts and being respectful to them. These group of parents felt that teachers judged their families based on their faith and religion, their culture and values, their race and ethnicity, and their financial situation compared to the parents who were earning between 45,0000 and 54,999. This could be areas for teachers to work on in their programs especially for these group of parents and looking more into why the parents felt this way during COVID-19.

Parents of older children, 3–5 years, had statistically significantly higher parent–teacher relationship scores than those of the younger children (0–2 years old) in communication, family focused concerns and understanding context. During the pandemic, parents of younger children felt that teachers did not promote 2-way communication that considered their preferences and personal boundaries. They also felt that teachers did not address parent’s family-focused concerns in ways that showed interest in meeting their needs. Finally, parents of younger children felt that teachers did not show understanding and appreciation of the broader contexts of situations the families were going through and how that contributed to their development. The COVID-19 pandemic had a big impact on parents and teachers in this area.

Parents living in rural areas had higher mean ratings for parent–teacher relationships in family specific knowledge collaboration, responsiveness, communication, and commitment. Parents in the urban programs rated respect and understanding context as the highest mean scores. They felt teachers collaborated with them and engaged them in the program, were committed to working with them to improve their children’s learning, and were responsive in meeting their needs. Many schools or programs closed during the COVID-19 pandemic, however data reports that closures in rural areas were even more than in urban areas (Lee et al., 2021). This census report found that more closures happened along the west coast and northeast coast which experienced relatively high rates of closure. This study was in a midwestern state. It is important to note that even before the pandemic there was a shortage of childcare programs in rural areas due to the decline in licensed family and home-based providers. Quality is often likely to be an issue (Center for Rural Development and Policy, 2017). Thus, assessing parent–teacher relationships in already under qualified programs was a big call. Most of these programs fall under the home/family childcares and private programs. This data looked at the parents who came from rural areas and who also were in this kind of program. The data revealed that parents in the private/family/home child care programs and in rural areas had much lower ratings compared to those in Head Start. Thus, there is a need to advocate for more quality programs in rural areas.

Parents that had the distance learning option reported higher ratings on parent–teacher relationships. The distance learning option during COVID-19 helped parents feel connected to the programs in most of the parent–teacher relationship areas. They felt teachers knew who they were and their children, they were more responsible in meeting their needs, teachers communicated to them about their child, teachers were also focused on family needs and were committed to supporting their child. Family and teachers understood what they were going through and the contexts within which they lived. A survey of preschool parents on distance learning by Stites et al. (2021) found that parents reported engaging more in literacy-based activities and receiving few opportunities for social emotional development when the distance learning option was used. Parents were not supportive of the amount of time involved in assisting children with distance learning opportunities and preferred activities that took less time, allowing for social interaction with other children. There is still more to learn on the aspects of distance learning that were effective during COVID-19 and how those impacted parent–teacher relationships. But from this study the distance learning option gave parents a connecting place for learning but not for the social needs of their children.

Limitations, Implications and Recommendations

This is a self-report study of early childhood parents’ perceptions of parent–teacher relationships in their programs and therefore bears limitations of that methodology. Additionally, the study investigated a wide range of early childhood programs. Early childhood programs are very diverse with some not having an inbuilt parent–teacher relationship program such as those in Head Start. This study did not explore program differences as a variable. A study that investigates that variable might give further useful insights into other factors affecting parent–teacher relationships. This study collected data from only parent–teacher relationships. Looking at other sources of data, for instance, teacher reports of the same could also contribute to a strong understanding of parent–teacher relationships during the pandemic. Data on student outcomes or parent outcomes would also be helpful for understanding if the benefits of parent–teacher relationships have an impact on children and parent outcomes.

The other limitation of the study is related to the differences in the times programs were shutdown due the pandemic, as well as the nature of the program clientele in these programs. The COVID-19 pandemic started Fall 2019 and most programs started closing in the mid-2020 spring semester when it was clear the world was going through a pandemic. Most ECE programs experienced this effect from spring 2020 when most campuses and schools closed too. The NAEYC (2020) survey that makes its monthly updated database on childcare closures to the public shows that two-thirds of childcare centers closed in April 2020, while one-third remained closed in April 2021. The data also points out that non-White families were more likely to be exposed to childcare closures than White families. Such findings have greater implications on the widening inequalities in access to childcare and ­the pace of labor market recovery after the pandemic subsides. Since there was no specific time that all programs closed, it is difficult to capture data across these programs.

Declarations

Competing Interests

There are no financial or non-financial interests that are directly or indirectly related to this work submitted for publication.