- Loading...
- No images or files uploaded yet.
Preschool and Kindergarten Study Summary:
Due to the limited number of studies that were looked at and the omission of large national preschool programs like Head Start, this section of the study on predicting later literacy outcomes did not have statistical significance. However, there are several fabulous messages here about preschool programs that are very important.
The greatest impact was on the composite measure for reading readiness which showed that preschool and kindergarten programs are highly effective in getting children ready for school. A smaller but still important effect was the ability of kindergarten programs to assist in the development of spelling skills. This may be due to the focus of kindergarten on spelling, but may also be influenced by preschools development of phonemic awareness skills and alphabetic knowledge.
It is interesting to note that although several areas did not reach statistical significance the researchers mention that the areas of the study are still educationally significant. This happens because of the number of studies used and the way the statistics are calculated. For instance, the oral language outcomes are very modest, but this could be because that was not the main outcome focus for the study included. Oral language is still an important component of early childhood education; however, the study could only say statistically that these programs can have an impact on the reading development of children.
The panel wanted to determine if age, ethnicity, or population density affected the outcomes for later literacy success and calculated statistics for each of these areas; however, the studies that were included again got in the way. At first in was believed that kindergartners did better than preschoolers by age, but the statistics overlapped and this could not be proven. Ethnicity was not reported in several studies and the data could not be interpreted. Finally, population density was not specified in several studies and the ones that did specify urban did not have outcomes for the variable that was studied, so the data was not statistically reliable.
Lastly, the panel wanted to inform the preschool and kindergarten community about the importance of literacy-focused curricula, professional development, and parental involvement. They found that literacy-focused curricula and professional development were very important for successful programs. In particular a literacy-focused curriculum was pivotal for reading readiness. Unfortunately, the studies included both literacy-focused curricula and professional development together and the variables could not be separated. Parental involvement is heavily used in several of the program studies used and the panel dedicated a chapter to shared-reading; however, in the context of early childhood preschool settings it could not be reliably measured or empirically proven that parental involvement improved literacy performance. That does not mean that it is not important to encourage parental involvement. It simply means that statistically researchers have not found a good way to measure this variable independently.
Implications:
This study brings to light the need for more experimental and quasiexperimental research. Much of what is studied is qualitative in nature and in changing governmental understanding more numerical data is needed. It would be beneficial if that data can include more specifically age, ethnicity, population density, and socioeconomic status. This could allow for richer data to inform decisions made at the governmental level.
Preschool Programs:
(Campbell & Ramey 1994)(Campbell & Ramey, 1995)
This project took place in a university town in the United States between 1972 and 1977. To look at an historical perspective of the Abecedarian Project click here. The researchers combined sociodemographic factors and a High Risk Index to determine eligibility of families and children. In addition to these at-risk indicators, children were assessed to be free from any links to mental retardation. Each family chosen was found to be living in poverty with 98% of the participants being African American. 109 families total were enrolled into the program along with their 111 total children with the average age being 4.4 months. The center was open for eight hours per day, five days per week, and approximately 50 weeks per year. Upon entering the study each child was placed into a group. These groups differed in treatment given in relation to academics. In the preschool program, a curriculum was used that would, “enhance cognitive, language, perceptual- motor, and social development” (Campbell & Ramey, 1994, p. 687). This same curriculum was adapted as children grew older to include preliteracy skills and language development. The activities were considered learning games and this program was tailored to the students as they were ready for each lesson. Once children reached school age, they were assigned a Home School Resource Teacher. This teacher was the liaison between the family and the school and would make weekly visits to the child’s classroom and discuss the child’s current success with the homeroom teacher. These discussions would then lead to the Home School Resource teacher to make packets for the child and parent to work with at home to enhance the child’s learning. Like the others, this study kept in contact with the participants and tested them several times throughout their academic lives. The academic gains found within this study lasted through seven years of schooling and those children (infancy to age 12) maintained a higher IQ over those children who did not participate in the study. Academic test performance was significantly higher for those students who participated in the study in the areas of both reading and math. Also, there were fewer instances of referrals to special education and grade level retention in the participant group than the control group.
The HighScope Preschool Project (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997)
In this 1967 study, Weikart and his colleagues assessed the effects of three diverse preschool curriculum models on young children living in poverty. The study was conducted in Ypsilanti, Michigan and researchers used a three question questionnaire to judge poverty levels and eligibility to the study. Children, ages three and four, were only admitted when they were perceived to score low on the Stanford- Binet Intelligence scale and had no evidence of a physical disability. In total 68 children were selected and were randomly assigned to three different curriculum groups- High/Scope, Direct Instruction, and traditional nursery school. The Direct Instruction curriculum model that was used was originally developed by Bereiter and Engelmann in 1966 and represented a type of programmed-learning approach to education. This method of instruction focused on the teaching of the academic skills that were represented on achievement and intelligence tests. This model was implemented by teachers using twenty-minute lessons in the areas of mathematics, reading, and language. In these well planned and precisely prepared lessons, the focus was on questions and answers without excess dialogue. The classrooms did not contain much else besides the teachers’ manual and student workbooks, as these were the materials used to learn. The nursery school curriculum model is a child-centered approach in which the teachers center learning on units of study and themes. The focus in this curriculum model is on developing social skills rather than intellectual skills. This approach is considered child-centered because although the teacher guides each unit of study, the children are able to make choices about some of the activities and paths that they take that individualizes their learning. The High/Scope curriculum model is based on the work of Piaget and adults engage children as active learners in the different interest areas situated throughout the classroom. Each day, the children completed a cycle of plan-do-review. More specifically, the children are allowed to plan the activity that they want to complete, they completed the activity as they desired, and then they reviewed the activity with an adult. Children also were participants in large and small group activities throughout the day and had time for outdoor play. The goal for the teachers was to facilitate intellectual, social, and physical key experiences in each child’s development. In each of the three models, children were taught in 2 ½ hour sessions daily Monday through Friday in classrooms with a teacher to student ratio of approximately 1:8. The teachers also facilitated home-visits lasting 1 ½ hours every two weeks to answer parents questions and to aide them in demonstrating curriculum items that could be fostered in the home environment. To look at video clips that show classroom instruction click here. This study was longitudinal and followed the students for approximately 20 years. The children were tested at the age of ten, then again at fifteen, and for the final time at 23 years of age. The findings at age ten were that the preschool models, when implemented correctly, had the same effects on children’s intellectual and academic performance. However, this changed when the students were tested at the age of fifteen. At this testing period, the researchers included community behavior into the study and found that the students who received the Direct Instruction model reported committing 2 ½ times more acts of community misconduct than the children in the High/Scope curriculum model group. At age 23, the High/Scope group had advantages over the Direct Instruction group in the areas of years planned of education, percentage of participants living with spouse, and fewer felony arrests. Although this study focuses on the social effects of this curriculum model, the participants also had long-term achievement in the academic setting. These students planned to continue to receive an education despite the poverty in which they still live.
The Chicago Child-Parent Center (Ou & Reynolds, 2006)(Grau, Clements, Reynolds, & Niles, 2004)
The Chicago Child-Parent Center is a large- scale publicly funded program that began in Chicago in 1985. This project is on-going; however the following information is based on the original study conducted. 989 children, ages three and four, were selected based on a set of three conditions: the child must reside in a neighborhood that qualifies for Title I funds, the child cannot be enrolled in another preschool program, and the parents must agree to participate in the program for a set number of hours each week. The program is designed to focus on the development of school readiness and language skills. Parent involvement is viewed as an extremely important aspect of this program and to elicit parent volunteers, each center is equipped with a space specifically for parents to learn about the curriculum and how to help their child. The Child-Parent Centers also offer comprehensive services like free meal services and health screenings. The comprehensive services also include professional development for the teachers and instructional supplies, along with the limiting of class size to enhance school readiness. Through these domains, the program can ensure that each family has an opportunity for success in school and in later achievement. There are differences between this program and Head Start. Children eligible for the Head Start program is based on family-level poverty versus the neighborhood poverty criteria set forth by the Child-Parent Centers. Head Start programs are not part of the school system unlike the Child-Parent Centers that are often located within walking distance, if not inside, of the elementary school. Also, Head Start programs are only a preschool program and service only children ages three to four. The Child-Parent Center service children for up to six years, from ages three to nine. They believe this long range of services equips the student to have a better transition and success rate in school. The teachers in this program also had to meet the minimum requirement of attaining at least a Bachelor’s degree with certification in early childhood, whereas certification and levels of education required by other programs differs significantly. The center runs for nine months, similar to the regular school calendar and also operates a summer program for approximately eight weeks. The preschool program is a structured half-day program. Surprisingly, the Child-Parent Centers claim to use no official or uniform curriculum, but rather base their curriculum on the individual needs of the students they serve. This may be a contributing factor to their success as there are 23 centers located throughout Chicago, all servicing a vast spectrum of high poverty students. Despite this, they do report that their unified philosophy is of, “literacy and a common core of activities that include individualized instruction, small group activities, and field trips” (Ou & Reynolds, 2006, p. 181). The program emphasizes the basic skills and knowledge in literacy and mathematics and embeds these in diverse learning environments such as large group, small group, centers, individual work, and field trips. The findings reveal that the students who attended the Child-Parent Center had a higher level of educational attainment than the comparison group although this level was still lower than the national norm. The participants in this study also had higher levels of high school completion, highest grade completed and college attendance. These are significant findings for the continuing of preschool programs with this study serving as a model. In conjunction with this study, Graue and colleagues (2004) studied the curriculum used in the Child-Parent centers. Despite their evidence of having no-set curriculum, the researchers were able to discuss with the Head teachers of the program implementation to receive more background knowledge and thoughtful insights. Through these interviews, the researchers concluded that curriculum focused on high levels of teacher directed instruction was, “significantly associated with greater school readiness, word analysis and math achievement in kindergarten, 3rd and 8th reading achievement scores, and lower rates of grade retention” (Graue et al, 2004, p. 17). However, instructional methods that employed high levels of child initiated activities was associated with, “significantly greater school readiness, 3rd grade reading achievement, lower rates of grade retention, and higher rates of high school completion” (Graue et al, 2004, p. 18). This illustrates how important it is for a preschool curriculum to be a blend of both of these types. A successful program for preschoolers will be one that integrates teacher-directed lessons with child-initiated learning activities.
Head Start Head Start began in 1965 as a way to fight poverty and create a "Great Society" in the United States. To read about the history of Head Start click here. As an intervention program, Head Start has evolved and has played a pivotal role in the lives of children with regard to their school preparedness, health, and social development. It is a program dedicated to the well being of young children. Head Start is not one program, but a series of locally operated programs with many incarnations. They are responsible for meeting government guidelines and belong to the National Head Start Association.
The following video showcases the need for a nurturing and educational environment as a father wishes for more for his son.
Head Start utilizes the three main areas of concern from the panel; literacy-focused curricula, professional development, and parental involvement. A recent Head Start Impact Study was conducted and the results were similar to those of the NELP results. Head Start has intrinsic value and former students do well in school compared to their peers. They are less likely to need special services and more likely to graduate from high school; however, many of the literacy gains that students make are in kindergarten are unremarkable at the end of first grade. More research has been called for to determine what changes can be made to assist Head Start programs in making improvements. To see the Head Start Impact Study research and press releases click here.
In the following video a parent is very proud of her child’s accomplishments in Head Start:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.