Date
10-14-2026
Department
School of Behavioral Sciences
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology (PhD)
Chair
Holly Walker
Keywords
Head Start, Funding, Metropolitan, Non-Metropolitan, Classroom Quality, Teacher-Child Interaction
Disciplines
Psychology
Recommended Citation
Smith, Kelly, "Funding and Quality in Metropolitan vs. Non-Metropolitan Head Start Programs" (2026). Doctoral Dissertations and Projects. 9029.
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/9029
Abstract
This quantitative survey study examined how Head Start program location and perceived funding levels were associated with perceived classroom quality and perceived teacher-child interactions. The study addressed three research questions: how funding distribution between metropolitan and non-metropolitan programs related to perceived classroom quality; how perceived funding levels related to teacher-child interactions; and whether perceived funding, classroom quality, and teacher-child interactions were significantly related across program settings. Head Start programs support children from low-income families through federal, local, and community resources. Because resources may vary by location, this study compared perceived funding, classroom quality, and teacher-child interactions across metropolitan and non-metropolitan settings. Data came from 66 Head Start stakeholders recruited through Prolific. Results showed that participants connected to metropolitan programs reported higher perceived classroom quality than those connected to non-metropolitan programs. Teacher-child interaction scores also differed across low, moderate, and high perceived funding groups, with the lowest scores reported by participants who perceived funding as low. Spearman correlations showed a strong positive relationship between perceived funding and teacher-child interactions overall and within both settings. The evidence suggests that perceived funding and geographic location are important considerations in Head Start quality and point to the need for equitable funding discussions, targeted support for non-metropolitan and lower-funded programs, and future research using both stakeholder perceptions and verified funding or classroom observation data.
