Sponsored by the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 1

Services and by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education

Developed by the Regional Educational Laboratories’ Early Childhood Collaboration Network, November 1995

A Framework

for

Home, School, and

Community

Linkages

Continuity in Early Childhood:
Sponsored by the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 2

Services and by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education

Developed by the Regional Educational Laboratories’ Early Childhood Collaboration Network, November 1995

Continuity in Early

Childhood:

A Framework for

Home, School, and Community

Linkages

Developed by the Regional Educational Laboratories’

Early Childhood Collaboration Network. November 1995.

This publication is supported by federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education, Office

of Educational Research and Improvement, contract no. RP91002007 and the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families.

Its contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of either Department, nor does

mention of trade names, commercial products or organizations imply endorsement.

Reprinting is encouraged with proper credit.
Sponsored by the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 3

Services and by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education

Developed by the Regional Educational Laboratories’ Early Childhood Collaboration Network, November 1995

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Regional Educational Laboratories’ Early Childhood Collaboration

Network Members ................................................................................... 4

Acknowledgments .................................................................................... 5

Preface ...................................................................................................... 7

Introduction ............................................................................................. 9

Notes to the User ....................................................................................... 14

The Elements of Continuity .................................................................... 17

ELEMENT 1: Families as Partners .............................................. 18

ELEMENT 2: Shared Leadership ................................................. 27

ELEMENT 3: Comprehensive and Responsive Services .............. 37

ELEMENT 4: Culture and Home Language ................................. 47

ELEMENT 5: Communication ...................................................... 66

ELEMENT 6: Knowledge and Skill Development ........................ 76

ELEMENT 7: Appropriate Care and Education ........................... 85

ELEMENT 8: Evaluation of Partnership Success ........................ 99

Glossary .................................................................................................... 110

Using the Framework: A Guide for Partnerships ............................... 121
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 4

Developed by the Regional Educational Laboratories’ Early Childhood Collaboration Network, November 1995

Information about this document can be obtained by contacting the early childhood

specialists at the Regional Educational Laboratories that collaborated in its

development.

Appalachia Educational Laboratory (AEL)

1031 Quarrier Street, Second Floor

Charleston, WV 25301

(800) 624-9120

Far West Laboratory (FWL)

180 Harbor Drive, Suite 112

Sausalito, CA 94965

(415) 331-5277

Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory

(McREL)

2550 S. Parker Road, Suite 500

Aurora, CO 80014

(303) 337-0990

North Central Regional Educational

Laboratory (NCREL)

1900 Spring Road, Suite 300

Oak Brook, IL 60521

(800) 356-2735

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

(NWREL)

101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500

Portland, OR 97204

(800) 547-6339

Pacific Region Educational Laboratory (PREL)

828 Fort Street, Suite 500

Honolulu, HI 96813

(808) 533-6000

The Regional Laboratory for Educational

Improvement of the Northeast & Islands (NE/IS)

300 Brickstone Square, Suite 950

Andover, MA 01810

(800) 347-4200

Research for Better Schools (RBS)

444 N. Third Street

Philadelphia, PA 19123

(215) 574-9300

Southwest Educational Development

Laboratory (SEDL)

211 East Seventh Street

Austin, TX 78701-3281

(512) 476-6861

SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education

(SERVE)

345 S. Magnolia Drive, Suite D23

Tallahassee, FL 32301

(800) 352-6001

EARLY CHILDHOOD COLLABORATION

NETWORK MEMBERS
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This document is the result of three years of

collaboration among the Administration on

Children, Youth, and Families (ACYF), U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services; the

Office of Educational Research and

Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of

Education; and the Regional Educational

Laboratories (RELs).

Members of the Regional Educational

Laboratories’ Early Childhood Collaboration

Network were the primary developers of this

document. Listed alphabetically, major

contributors to the creation of this document

were: Glyn Brown, Judy Caplan, Janet

Cornwell, Dan Jesse, Jan Jewett, Alice

Kawakami, Linda Kunesh, Nancy Livesay, Peter

Mangione, Patty Molloy, Helen Nissani, Judy

Northup, Carol Perroncel, Cindy Rojas

Rodriguez, Tim Speth, and Wyllys Terry III.

The Regional Educational Laboratories’ Early

Childhood Collaboration Network gratefully

acknowledges the support of the following

people: Allen Smith and Michele Plutro, ACYF;

Charles Stalford, Lynn Spencer, Marshall

Sashkin, John Egermeier, and the Institutional

Liaisons, OERI; Mary Jean LeTendre and

Yvonne Hicks, Office of Elementary and

Secondary Education; Preston Kronkosky, REL

Executive Director Liaison; and the other

Regional Educational Laboratory Executive

Directors.

This document has greatly benefited from the

input of four national associations, which are

now collaborative partners in developing the

Continuity Framework. The four national

associations and their Coordinators in this project

are: Thomas Schultz, National Association of

State Boards of Education; Sherry Deane,

National Black Child Development Institute;

Maggie Holmes, National Head Start

Association; and Carol Berman, ZERO TO

THREE/National Center for Clinical Infant

Programs.

We wish to thank the families and staff of the

following schools, associations, community

groups, and Head Start programs for their

participation in our field work and validation

study. Their reactions, suggestions, and guidance

were invaluable in the production of the

Continuity Framework. Our local experts were:

Albuquerque Public Schools, Chapter I/Even

Start: PACCT for Literacy, NM; Amanda Stout

Elementary School, Reading, PA; Burlington

Early Childhood Connection, Leadership Team,

Burlington, VT; Ceden Family Resource Center,

Austin, TX; Choctaw High/Scope Early

Childhood Education Program, Philadelphia,

MS; Choctaw Tribal Schools, Choctaw Early

Childhood Education, Conehatta, MS; Cone

Elementary Schools, Greenville, SC;

Conocimiento Project (Southwest Human

Development Agency), Phoenix, AZ; Del Pueblo

Elementary School, Denver, CO; Early

Childhood Collaborative, Washington, DC; Early

Childhood Center, Burns, OR; East Central

Arkansas Economic Development Corporation,

AR; El Paso County Head Start, TX;

Fredericksburg Head Start, Fredericksburg, VA;

Full-Day Comprehensive Child Development

Program for Four Year Old Children, Greenville,

SC; Head Start Transition Project (Southwest

Human Development Agency), Phoenix, AZ;

Hugh Meerer Elementary School,

Fredericksburg, VA; James Weldon Johnson

Elementary School/Parent Child Center,

Chicago, IL; Johnson Elementary School,

Spencer, IA; K-4 Program, Harding Elementary

School, Lebanon, PA; Kosrae Head Start Center,
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 6

Tofol, Kosrae, Federated States of Micronesia;

Leon Interagency Network for Kids, Tallahassee,

FL; Lee County Board of Education/Head Start,

Jonesvile, VA; Marin City/Sausalito School

District Transition to School Project, Marin City/

Sausalito, CA; Metz Elementary, Austin

Independent School District, Austin, TX; Montana

Vista (Clint Independent School District), TX;

Montgomery County Public School Head Start

Transition Project, Montgomery County, MD;

New Mexico Head Start/K-3 Comprehensive

Transition Project, NM; North Dakota Association

for the Education of Young Children, Bismarck,

ND; North Dakota Early Education Collaborative,

Bismarck, ND; Office of Child Development, City

of Albuquerque, Zero to Three Project, NM;

Platteville Even Start Advisory Committee,

Platteville, WI; Portland Early Intervention

Program, Portland, OR; Preschool Liaison

Program, Gainesville, FL; Project REACH,

Newport Public Schools, Newport, RI; Queen

Liliuokalani Children’s Center, Honolulu, HI;

Risinger Primary (Fabens Independent School

District), TX; San Felipe BIA School, NM; San

Felipe Head Start, NM; Seaford Head Start/

Project STEPS, Seaford, DE; Seguin Follow

Through, Seguin, TX; State Coordinating Council

for Early Childhood Education, Tallahassee, FL;

Thomson Estates Elementary School, Elkton, MD;

Ulupono, The Kamehameha Schools PreKindergarten Program, Honolulu, HI; Upper Des

Moines Opportunity Head Start Program,

Graettinger, IA; Wedlock Elementary (West

Memphis Public Schools), AR; West Virginia

Head Start Transition Project, Charleston, WV.

The Regional Educational Laboratories’ Early

Childhood Collaboration Network also would

like to thank the following people at the RELs

and in the field who offered their feedback on

this document: Jeannette Allen, Susan Austin,

Nina Barrios, Joan Buttram, Deborah ChildsBowen, Terry De Martini, Joanne Farley,

Caroline Follman, Kara Gallup, Rex Hagans,

Ermile Hargrove, Younghee Jang, Ron Lally,

Carol Lidz, Stephanie Lubin, Jack Lumbley,

Shirley McCune, Rebecca Novick, Sheila

Roman-Velazquez, Carol Anne Spreen, and

David L. Williams, Jr.

Special thanks are extended to Joseph Achacoso,

Janet Hintz, Shannon Kilkenny, Elizabeth Sears,

Artie Stockton, and Shawnda Paulk for their help

in preparing the manuscript.

We are also grateful to Shirley Hord and Bethany

Robertson for their help in conceptualizing and

reviewing the document.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 7

• Continuity supports early development. With

continuity, young children and their families

are able to form meaningful relationships and

learn to anticipate the rules and expectations of

an unfamiliar setting. When a transition is

necessary, continuity between settings balances

new experiences with familiar ones.

• Connections among the home, school, and

community create continuity and ease

transitions for young children and their

families. These connections should exist at the

beginning of a child’s life and should continue

throughout early childhood (through age eight).

• Home, school, and community partnerships

support continuity. Partnerships are central in a

small number of demonstration programs that

have successfully provided continuity and

smoothed transitions during early childhood.

In light of these conclusions, the Regional

Laboratories worked with local home, school, and

community partnerships in their regions to

identify policies and practices that support

continuity and build on the benefits of early

intervention. Working collaboratively, the

Regional Laboratories drew together what they

learned from local efforts throughout the country

and developed a framework for early childhood

continuity. This Framework provides home,

school, and community partnerships with a

comprehensive approach to creating continuity for

young children and their families. Given the

importance of the information in the Framework,

Under sponsorship from the Administration on

Children, Youth, and Families, U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services, and the Office of

Educational Research and Improvement, U.S.

Department of Education, the ten Regional

Educational Laboratories have been working to

strengthen linkages between early childhood and

elementary school programs. The Regional

Laboratories began by studying the research

literature and conducting a series of national and

regional forums to understand the effect of the

transition from early intervention to school

programs. This activity included a review of past

and current national efforts to create continuity in

early childhood and smooth the transition between

early childhood and school programs. Several of

these programs are particularly noteworthy. The

Follow Through Program was the first major

attempt to link Head Start and elementary school.

For more than 20 years, this program explored

ways to carry forward children’s early childhood

experiences into the elementary school years.

During the 1970s, Project Development

Continuity represented another effort to connect

Head Start with school programs. Recently, Head

Start began to study a comprehensive approach to

supporting young children’s transitions to school.

This effort centers on demonstration projects that

are collaboratively run by local Head Start

programs and school districts.

In studying research and national programs

related to continuity and transition in early

childhood, the Regional Educational Laboratories

reached three conclusions:

PREFACE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 8

the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services and the U.S. Department of Education

decided to support a validation study of the

Framework. In 1994, the Regional Laboratories

joined together with four national

organizations—National Association of State

Boards of Education, National Black Child

Development Institute, National Head Start

Association, and ZERO TO THREE/National

Center for Clinical Infant Programs—to carry out

the validation study which tested the usability of

the Framework, the appropriateness of the

Elements, and the extent to which the document

met communities’ needs. Twenty-nine

community partnerships representing every

region in the country participated in the study.

Input from the collaborating national associations

and communities shaped the present version of

this document.

The Framework is designed to support the efforts

of home, school, and community partners to

improve continuity and transition in early

childhood. It consists of major Elements of early

childhood continuity. The effective practices

identified under each Element were drawn from

diverse programs across the country. For home,

school, and community partners, the Framework

is a tool for exploring how they can strengthen

continuity for young children and their families.

It suggests ways to think about connections

between the home and service settings, as well as

connections between service settings, such as

infant programs and preschool programs.

Through attending to these critically important

connections, home, school, and community

partnerships can promote the early development

and long-range success of young children.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 9

The start of a new life sends a message of hope

to everyone. In a community that has the

resources to offer critically important services,

families know where to go for support. They can

feel secure and confident on the path they take to

provide for their children’s health, nutrition, care,

and education. Each step along their path is a

nurturing one that supports development.

Yet not every family with a young child has a

nurturing path available to them. Some families

may find themselves on a path that has many

bumps and detours. There may be no signs that

clearly guide their way. Each place they stop is

different from the last place. Every time they

seek help, they have to cope with new rules and

expectations. Often, they have to start all over

again. Their struggle to survive takes away

valuable time they could spend with their young

child. Instead of experiencing the joy of having

good choices for their child and themselves,

families may feel they have no choice but poor

quality health care, nutrition, and education.

There may be few or no meaningful connections

between the families and the community’s

service providers. Isolated families may feel

lost. And, not knowing where to go next they

may lose hope.

With support from their community, families can

find a nurturing path. A community that creates

such a path for families with young children has

two main ingredients. One, everyone in the

community, including families, schools, health

and social service providers, and religious,

business, and other leaders, works together to

create the path. And two, the community has the

necessary resources. Resources are scarce, and

many communities do not have the resources they

need to adequately support families. In many

communities, families are in crisis and need a lot

of support. Yet, no matter what the crisis or level

of need, every family can benefit from support

that focuses on its strengths. Members of a

community have the opportunity to commit

themselves to working together for the good of

families. They can work to make the most of the

resources that are available.

This document focuses on what a community can

do to support families with young children. The

extent to which ideas in the document can be tried

will depend on the resources available to a

community. A framework is presented that

identifies what a home, school, and community

partnership can do to help families thrive as they

experience change and their young children grow.

It explains how connections among the home,

school, and community enable families to move

from setting to setting with ease and build on their

previous experiences. It defines the goal of

continuity: for families to be able to shape and

choose appropriate services for themselves and

for their young children every step along their

path. Families will then be able to move forward

with confidence and hope.

INTRODUCTION
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 10

Continuity in Early Childhood

Kagan (1992) has described two types of

continuity: horizontal continuity and

vertical continuity:

• Horizontal continuity refers to the various

settings in which a young child receives care

and education at any point in time. For

example, the child lives at home, plays in the

neighborhood, may attend a local preschool,

may receive health care at a nearby clinic, and

may require special transportation services.

Each day, a child routinely moves or makes a

transition from one setting or service to

another. Changes from setting to setting may

be disjointed or connected. In other words,

horizontal continuity may be weak or strong.

• Vertical continuity refers to connections

between care and education, health, and social

services across time. For example, during

infancy a child may be immunized by a

county health agency and receive care in an

infant care center. Later on, the child may

attend a nearby preschool and receive medical

care at a local health clinic. In elementary

school, the same child may attend the

neighborhood school at which a nurse

coordinates health services. While growing

older, the child must make transitions from

various service settings to other service

settings. Likewise, families must learn to

relate to different services as their children

grow. Service providers for different age

levels may have little or nothing to do with

each other, or they may link their activities.

Strong vertical continuity means that services

provided at a later point in development build

on services provided at an earlier time. Rather

than repeatedly having to adapt to new

systems, families gain needed time to nurture

and strengthen family members, both adults

and children.

The concepts of horizontal and vertical

continuity relate to stability and change during

development. Major theories suggest that

development is best supported when children are

firmly grounded in their present stage of

development and are appropriately challenged to

move to the next stage. In contrast, too much

change, inappropriate expectations, or abrupt

change may interfere with development. Thus,

the task facing home, school, and community

partnerships is twofold: (1) to offer a stable base

to children by connecting the home with service

settings; and (2) to connect service settings to

smooth transitions or changes. Creating

continuity means building bridges for the

transitions young children and their families

must naturally make.

Both horizontal and vertical continuity should

receive attention in the design of early childhood

services. From the point of view of horizontal

continuity, ongoing connections between families

and service providers is centrally important.

Each service should be linked with every other

service. The rules and expectations should be the

same from setting to setting. Cultural links

between the home and service settings, and

communication in the family’s home language,

prevent children from experiencing the

potentially harmful effects of too much

discontinuity. Links to the culture and home

language of the families will allow them to join

in a partnership with their community’s service

providers.

From the perspective of vertical continuity, early

childhood services should be available during

pregnancy and at birth and extend through eight

years of age (and beyond, for that matter).

Services over time mean that no one period of

development receives attention to the exclusion

of others. At all times, special needs should be

part of a service plan. Of course, services for
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 11

families with infants are critical. Early

experience establishes the foundation for later

functioning, especially social-emotional

development. But services should remain strong

after infancy. They should build on the early

care children receive. Services should also

provide links for the various transitions that

occur during early development.

Providing children and their families with

continuity smooths numerous transitions for

them. Changes they must naturally make during

early childhood are appropriately challenging

and less abrupt when strong links between

service settings exist. To achieve early childhood

continuity, the home, school, and community

should be connected in a partnership whose focus

spans from pregnancy through age eight.

The Transition to School

One of the most important steps for families with

young children is entry into school. This

transition has been looked upon from two

perspectives. One perspective reflects the first

National Education Goal: “All children in

America will start school ready to learn.” Goal

One emphasizes the role of the family and the

community in preparing young children for

school. Helping young children become ready

for school should smooth their transition to

school. It should also establish a foundation for

future academic success.

The other perspective on readiness and transition

places responsibility on the school program.

Many experts argue that schools should be ready

for children. To accomplish that end, schools

should build on children’s early childhood

experiences. The school curriculum should be

based on the same principles as the early

childhood curriculum and meet special needs.

Family services and family participation in the

educational program should resemble the way

they were prior to school entry.

Thus, much of the discussion about school

readiness has boiled down to whether children

and families should be ready for school or

schools for children and families. Yet each of

these positions oversimplifies the issue. Every

aspect of the lives of young children and their

families deserves attention. Children and the

families that nurture them do not develop apart

from the world around them. In fact, the home,

the school, and the community all contribute to

the long-range success of children. Seen in this

light, the question of readiness becomes less a

matter of who’s ready for whom. Instead, it is a

matter of everyone working together to support

children and their families as they become ready

for the next type of service or stage of

development. The idea of different service

providers working together keeps the entire life

circumstances of the child and family in focus.

Service providers begin to see how their work

fits into the total experience of the developing

child and family. Creating continuity during

early childhood becomes the common goal of

families and providers of care and education,

health, and social services.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 12

Elements of Continuity

The framework for early childhood continuity

presented in this document keeps the whole child

in focus, genuinely involves the family, and

emphasizes both the horizontal and vertical

aspects of continuity. Eight Elements make up

the Framework. Specifically, continuity for

children from birth through age eight is

strengthened when:

1. Families are an integral part of the home,

school, and community partnership and the

primary decision makers concerning their

child’s care and education.

2. Home, school, and community partners

share leadership and guide decision making.

3. Care and education, health, and social

services focus on the full range of needs

and circumstances of individual children

and their families.

4. Services are consistent with the home

culture of the families, and communication is

provided in the home language.

5. Home, school, and community partners

maintain open communication and

respect confidentiality.

6. Home, school, and community partners

work together to build their knowledge

and skills and the capacity of community

services.

7. Care and education services are

developmentally and culturally

appropriate.

8. Home, school, and community partners

document their efforts and use evaluation

information to improve policies,

programs, and practices.

Shared 

Leadership

Children 


& 


Families Comprehensive 

& Responsive 

Services

Families as 

Partners

Evaluation of 

Partnership 

Success

Appropriate 

Care & 

Education

Knowledge 

& Skill 

Development

Communication 

Culture 

& Home 

Language

FIGURE 1

The Framework is designed to encourage a

comprehensive understanding of continuity and

transition. Although the Elements may partially

overlap one another, each one defines a distinct

aspect of continuity. As shown in Figure 1, all

eight Elements together form a complete picture

of how collaborative efforts of home, school, and

community partners can ensure continuity for

young children and their families. In practice,

partnerships will use the Framework to fit their

circumstances. Home, school, and community

partners may decide to begin by focusing on one

or two Elements. Focusing on only one of the

Elements, for example, Appropriate Care and

Education, may ease the transition from

preschool to school. However, the new setting

may still present children with difficult

adjustments. For transitions to go as smoothly as

possible, attention must be paid to all eight

Elements of continuity. Only then will a

community’s efforts to link services help young

children and their families experience change in

a stable and nurturing way.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 13

Resources

Berrueta-Clement, J. R., Schweinhart, L. J., Barnett, W. S., Epstein, A. E., & Weikart, D. P.

(1984). Changed lives: The effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youths through age

19. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.

Kagan, S. L. (1994). Readying schools for young children. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(3), 226-

233.

Kagan, S. L. (1992). The strategic importance of linkages and the transition between early

childhood programs and early elementary school. In Sticking together: Strengthening

linkages and the transition between early childhood education and early elementary school

(Summary of a National Policy Forum). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Lally, J. R., Mangione, P. L., & Honig, A. S. (1988). The Syracuse University Family

Development Research Program: Long-range impact of an early intervention with lowincome children and their families. In D. Powell (Ed.), Parent education in early childhood

intervention: Emerging directions in theory, research and practice. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Publishing Corporation.

Lazar, I., & Darlington, R. (1982). Lasting effects of early education: A report from the

Consortium for Longitudinal Studies. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child

Development, 45, (203, Serial No. 195).

Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H., Weikert, D. P., Barnett, W. S., & Epstein, A. E. (1993).

Significant benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through age 27. Monographs of

the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, No. 10. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope

Educational Research Foundation.

ZERO TO THREE/National Center for Clinical Infant Programs. (1992). Heart start: The

emotional foundations of school readiness. Arlington, VA: Author.

INTRODUCTION
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 14

The Framework is organized to help home,

school, and community partners focus on policies

and practices that support continuity and apply

them in effective ways. It is a tool that is broken

down into manageable parts. Each Element is

introduced with a short Rationale, which

summarizes the thinking behind the Element. On

the next page is a listing of Indicators for that

Element. The list is followed by a presentation

of each Indicator on a separate page. The

information on the Indicator page is formatted in

a way that helps home, school, and community

partnerships consider the meaning and

application of each Indicator in their work. Each

page introduces a specific set of ideas and

concepts so that partners can discuss the

Framework, page by page, and compare their

community’s continuity efforts with those

described in the Framework. Space is provided

for partners to describe and rate their

community’s current continuity practices, and

identify what they consider most important about

their practices. If a partnership uses the

Framework as a focus of discussion and study

over several occasions, the document can serve

as a written record of the partnership’s efforts to

improve continuity for children and families.

The following description of the various parts of

the Framework will clarify how the document

is designed.

As stated in the introduction, the Continuity

Framework consists of eight Elements. The

Elements are broad areas of concern that contribute

to ensuring continuity for young children and their

families. Taken together, the Elements represent

the building blocks of continuity.

The Rationale for each Element describes key

concepts from research supporting the Element,

and explains the Element’s importance in creating

early childhood continuity. The Rationale for

each Element is purposely brief so that it can

facilitate discussion of key concepts related to the

Element. The Rationales have often been used by

home, school, and community partnerships as

starting points for consideration of an Element.

Typically, partnerships meet to discuss one of the

Rationales as a first step in exploring the meaning

of an Element to the partnership’s work.

After the Rationale, the Indicators for an Element

are introduced. Indicators are statements that

describe what the Element looks like in action or

practice. Indicators provide a means to judge

whether an Element has been put into practice.

Each Element has a unique set of Indicators. The

total number of Indicators for an Element depends

on the Element’s complexity as well as on the

range of conditions that demonstrate the Element

in action.

NOTES TO THE USER
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 15

The visual on this page presents an example of

an Indicator page. There are columns labeled

“Indicator,” “Practices in Need of Change,” and

“Effective Practice.” In addition, on the bottom

half of the page there is a space for “Your

Community Partnership’s Practice” and a rating

scale and space to explain the rating. These two

areas of each Indicator page are designed to

facilitate a partnership’s exploration and

documentation of its efforts to create early

childhood continuity. It is recommended that

communities use these different sections in ways

they feel will be most helpful to them. The

Guide for Partnerships provides additional

information about potential uses of the

Framework. A brief description of the different

parts of the Indicator page follows:

FIGURE 2

Indicator: As explained above, an Indicator is a

statement that gives an idea of how an Element

looks in action or practice.

Practices in Need of Change: This column

provides examples of practices that do not

adequately address the intent of the related

Indicator. This information is provided as a

reference point or comparison with the next

column, Effective Practice.

Effective Practice: This column lists practices

and policies that represent examples of fully

developed efforts to address the intent of the

Indicator.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 16

Your Community Partnership’s Practice: This

blank space provides a place where a partnership

can record continuity practices in its community.

The partnership can identify the unique strengths

and weaknesses of its policies and practices as it

considers the meaning of an Indicator for its

community.

Rating Scale: A partnership can use the scale to

record the opinions of individuals or the group

about the similarities between the community’s

practice and the description of Effective Practice.

Reasons for the Rating: In this space the

partnership can record specific comments about

its practices. This process will help the

partnership understand its rating and give focus to

its efforts to improve practices that support

continuity for young children and their families.

Finally, the Indicator pages for each Element are

followed by a list of resources that provide further

information about the Element. Some of the

resources listed are referred to in the Rationale for

the Element.

Following the entire set of eight Elements are the

Glossary and the Guide for Partnerships. The

Glossary can be used by partnerships to develop

a common understanding of terms. The Guide

for Partnerships provides general information on

how partnerships can form and use the

Framework to further continuity efforts. It also

provides guiding principles, gives examples of

major uses, and offers tips and points to consider.

This document is designed to encourage its

repeated use. The Glossary and Guide for

Partnerships support understanding and use of

the Framework. The Framework is envisioned as

a tool whose use by home, school, and

community partnerships will be active, ongoing,

and creative. Both the content and organization

of the document are intended to encourage

efforts at continuity for young children and their

families.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 17

ELEMENTS OF

CONTINUITY

The Continuity Framework can guide the development of connections among all services for

young children and their families. Partnership among the home, school, and community, not

individuals providing separate services, is what builds continuity. Eight Elements are

identified in the Continuity Framework. Without giving attention to all of the Elements,

early childhood continuity will be incomplete. Continuity for children from birth through

age eight and their families is strengthened when:

1. Families are an integral part of the home, school, and community partnership and

the primary decision makers concerning their children’s care and education.

2. Home, school, and community partners share leadership and guide decision

making.

3. Care and education, health, and social services focus on the full range of needs

and circumstances of individual children and their families.

4. Services are consistent with the home culture of the families, and communication

is provided in the home language.

5. Home, school, and community partners maintain open communication and

respect confidentiality.

6. Home, school, and community partners work together to build their knowledge

and skills and the capacity of community services.

7. Care and education services are developmentally and culturally appropriate.

8. Home, school, and community partners document their efforts and use evaluation

information to improve policies, programs, and practices.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 18

ELEMENT 1

FAMILIES AS PARTNERS

Families are an integral part of the home, school, and

community partnership, and the primary decision makers

concerning their children’s care and education.

Shared 

Leadership Children 
 & 
 Families Comprehensive 

& Responsive 

Services

Families as 


Partners

Evaluation of 

Partnership 

Success

Appropriate 

Care & 

Education

Knowledge 

& Skill 

Development

Communication 

Culture 

& Home 

Language
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 19

ELEMENT 1 RATIONALE

FAMILIES AS PARTNERS

Families are an integral part of the home, school, and community partnership, and the

primary decision makers concerning their children’s care and education.

Families are big, small, extended, nuclear, multigenerational, with one parent, two parents, and

grandparents....A family can be as temporary as a

few weeks, as permanent as forever. We become

part of a family by birth, adoption, marriage, or

from a desire for mutual support. As family

members, we nurture, protect, and influence each

other. Families are dynamic and are cultures

unto themselves, with different values and

unique ways of realizing dreams. Together, our

families become the source of our rich cultural

heritage and spiritual diversity....Our families

create neighborhoods, communities, states, and

nations.

New Mexico Task Force on Children,

Youth, and Families, 1991

The term family refers to any individuals or

groups who assume primary responsibility for

nurturing their members. Families provide a

needed anchor for young children. They are the

main source of continuity in children’s lives.

Today, many families are facing high levels of

stress, a sense of isolation, and serious economic

hardship. Thus, the role of families in providing

continuity is more challenging and more

important than ever before.

Effective family support and educational

programs address the basic survival needs of

families, the personal development of parents,

and the developmental needs of children.

Progress in each area of need is linked to

progress in the others (Weiss & Halpern, 1990).

Collaborative services that focus on all of the

areas of need can build on family strengths and

offer prevention and early intervention instead of

remediation.

The main purpose of home, school, and

community partnerships is to work together with

families as partners. Respect for the preferences,

language, and aspirations of each family should

guide the home-community relationship. The

family should be acknowledged as the primary

decision maker in all efforts to provide familyfocused, culturally consistent services.

Community services should support parents in

their efforts to develop and provide for their

families as their needs change over time.

Kagan (1990) states that family support and

educational programs must be individualized,

adaptive, and flexible. Programs must respect a

family’s values and schedules, and relate to

parents as equals when planning and providing

family services.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 20

FAMILIES AS PARTNERS

Continuity for children from birth through age eight

and their families is strengthened when families are an integral

part of the home, school, and community partnership,

 and the primary decision makers concerning their children’s

care and education.

Indicator #1 Families are important partners with care and education,

health, and social service providers in meeting all the care and

educational needs of their child, including special needs.

Indicator #2 Care and education, health, and social service agency providers

work with families to identify and plan services to meet individual

family needs.

Indicator #3 The policies and practices of care and education, health, and social

services support the active involvement of families.

Indicator #4 Families participate in knowledge and skill development

opportunities to ensure full partnership in the development of their

child and family.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 21

FAMILIES AS PARTNERS

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

There is little or no

evidence that families are

full partners in the

development and

implementation of the

care and education, health,

and social services for

their children and

themselves.

Policies and practices

reflect an attitude of

inclusion, respect, and

value for all families.

Family needs, insights,

and opinions shape the

implementation of the

care and education,

health, and social

services.

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE

1. Families are important

partners with care and

education, health, and

social service providers

in meeting all the care

and educational needs of

their child, including

special needs.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 22

FAMILIES AS PARTNERS

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Information about many

community resources and

service options is

available and readily

shared with families.

Together, providers and

each family develop a

family service plan to

address the family’s

needs and priorities.

Service plans are updated

as children grow and

family needs and

priorities change.

Families have little or no

involvement in designing

services to meet their

individual needs.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE

2. Care and education,

health, and social service

agency providers work

with families to identify

and plan services to meet

individual family needs.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 23

FAMILIES AS PARTNERS

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

All child care and

education, health, and

social service providers

have an open door

policy. Policies and

practices create a

welcoming climate for

families and give them

easy access to service

agencies. For example,

meeting times, child

care, transportation, and

the location of meetings

accommodate the needs

and circumstances of

families.

Although some families

are involved in services

for their children, there are

no formal policies for

actively involving

families.

3. The policies and

practices of care and

education, health, and

social services

support the active

involvement of families.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 24

FAMILIES AS PARTNERS

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Families have

opportunities for ongoing

knowledge and skill

development, including

leadership development.

Parents develop and

conduct knowledge and

skill development

activities for service

providers and other

parents.

Few knowledge and

skill development

opportunities are offered

to families that enable

them to become full and

equal partners in their

child’s and family’s

development.

4. Families participate in

knowledge and skill

development

opportunities to ensure

full partnership in the

development of their

child and family.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 25

FAMILIES AS PARTNERS

Resources

Burns, R. C. (Ed.). (1993). Parents and schools: From visitors to partners. Washington,

DC: National Education Association.

Center on Evaluation, Development, and Research. (1990). Parent involvement in the

schools. Phi Delta Kappa Hot Topic Series. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.

Comer, J. P., & Haynes, N. M. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecological

approach. The Elementary School Journal, 11, 187-200.

Dunst, C., Trivette, C., & Deal, A. (1988). Enabling and empowering families. Cambridge,

MA: Brookline Books.

Epstein, J. (1992). School and family partnerships (Report No. 6). Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools.

Gotts, E. E. (1989). Hope revisited: Preschool to graduation, reflections on parenting and

school-family relations (Occasional Paper 28). Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational

Laboratory.

Hoffman, S. (Ed.). (1991). Educational partnerships: Home-school-community. The

Elementary School Journal, 91(3).

Inger, M. (1993). Getting Hispanic parents involved. The Education Digest, 58(8), 32-34.

Kagan, S. L. (1990). Excellence in early childhood education: Defining characteristics and

next-decade strategies. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and

Improvement.

Liontos, L. B. (1991). Involving the families of at-risk youth in the educational process.

Trends & Issues. Series No. 5. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Shields, P. M. (1987). Involving low-income parents in the schools:

Role for policy? Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 156-160.

Schurr, S. L. (1993). 16 proven ways to involve parents. The Education Digest, 58(8), 4-8.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 26

Weiss, H., & Halpern, R. (1990). Community-based family support and education

programs: Something old or something new? New York: Columbia University, National

Center for Children in Poverty.

Williams, D. L., & Chavkin, N. F. (1989). Essential elements of strong parent involvement

programs: Seven elements are common to successful parent involvement programs.

Educational Leadership, 47(2), 18-20.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 27

ELEMENT 2

SHARED LEADERSHIP

Home, school, and community partners share leadership and

guide decision making

Shared 


Leadership Children 
 & 
 Families Comprehensive 

& Responsive 

Services

Families as 

Partners

Evaluation of 

Partnership 

Success

Appropriate 

Care & 

Education

Knowledge & Skill 

Development

Communication 

Culture 

& Home 

Language
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 28

Continuity for young children and their families

depends on the home, school, and community

working as partners to achieve common goals.

Kirst (1991) states that “Collaboration must be

based on a community-wide planning process

that is locally generated and includes broad

citizen involvement.” Broad-based

representation keeps everyone in touch with the

local community’s values, beliefs, history, needs,

strengths, and aspirations. It enables home,

school, and community partners to develop an

effective system of response to local needs.

When collaborating, partners “establish common

goals and agree to use their personal and

institutional power to achieve them” (Melaville,

Blank, & Asayesh, 1993). Collaboration means a

long-range commitment to a common mission,

shared decision making, and the use of resources

to respond to mutually identified needs (National

Assembly of National Voluntary Health and

Social Welfare Organizations, 1991).

Collaborative planning might include the

following tasks:

Develop a shared vision with common goals.

Melaville and Blank (1991) state that the vision

statement “...provides a reason and rationale for

joint action....the collaborative’s view of what

child and family outcomes should be.”

Determining goals allows the partners to identify

common concerns and test their flexibility and

skill in resolving conflicting subgoals (Kagan,

1991). When goals are clear, attainable, and

shared among all partners, the collaborative

effort is more likely to succeed (Mattessich &

Monsey, 1992).

Establish a leadership team. Effective

collaborative efforts have formal and informal

leadership teams that share responsibility for

decisions and outcomes (Kagan, 1991; Melaville

& Blank, 1991). Leadership teams may vary in

structure (e.g., task forces or governing boards)

but should always include parents. Teams

usually remain flexible to allow for local needs

and preferences (Pollard, 1990). Leaders must

be willing to share their authority. Melaville,

Blank, and Asayesh (1993) note that “Leaders

from partner organizations may experience

difficulty in sharing power, but collaboratives

will fail unless partners willingly cultivate a new

style of leadership—partnership among equals.”

ELEMENT 2 RATIONALE

SHARED LEADERSHIP

Home, school, and community partners share leadership and guide decision making.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 29

SHARED LEADERSHIP

Continuity for children from birth through age eight and their

families is strengthened when home, school, and community

partners share leadership and guide decision making.

Indicator #1 Home, school, and community partners form a group committed to

addressing the needs of young children and their families.

Indicator #2 Partners clearly understand, value, and respect each partner’s

knowledge and skills and share leadership roles.

Indicator #3 Partners develop goals for their work together.

Indicator #4 Partners share decision making and collaborative responsibilities.

Indicator #5 The partnership influences policies and practices that affect young

children and their families.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 30

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

The partnership includes

a diverse group of

individuals representing

home, school, and

community. Membership

is open and reflects the

diversity of the

community as well as the

range of ages and needs

of children and families.

A group of individuals with

common backgrounds and

levels of authority forms a

partnership. They meet

periodically to share

information about their

activities related to young

children and their families.

Few, if any, families

participate in these

meetings. Membership is

closed and neither reflects

the diversity of the

community nor the range of

ages and needs of children

and families.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE

1. Home, school, and

community partners

form a group committed

to addressing the needs

of young children and

their families.

SHARED LEADERSHIP
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 31

SHARED LEADERSHIP

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Leadership roles are

clearly defined.

Leadership knowledge

and skill development is

ongoing and involves all

partners. Partners

become knowledgeable

about the community’s

diversity and the full

range of needs of

children and their

families.

Leadership roles are

unclear and individuals

are responsible for their

own skill development.

2. Partners clearly

understand, value, and

respect each partner’s

knowledge and skills

and share leadership

roles.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 32

SHARED LEADERSHIP

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Partners undertake a

process that helps them

understand one another’s

perspectives and draws

upon one another’s

experiences and strengths

in developing the vision

and goals for the

partnership. The vision

and goals of the

partnership focus on

addressing the needs of

all young children and

their families. Particular

attention is paid to

movement from one

service to another and as

children grow older.

The concerns of individual

service agencies shape the

goals of the partnership.

The needs of young

children and families do

not guide the direction and

actions of the partnership.

3. Partners develop goals

for their work together.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 33

SHARED LEADERSHIP

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Partners share

information and

resources to support a

long-range collaborative

effort. The partnership

strives for consensus of

all partners.

Decisions are not made

jointly or collaboratively

by partners.

4. Partners share decision

making and

collaborative

responsibilities.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 34

SHARED LEADERSHIP

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

The partnership is an

effective advocacy group

that is respected by

agency directors,

policymakers, and others

who develop and

implement policies and

practices for young

children and their

families. Over time, the

partnership sees its

influence reflected in

changes to existing

services and

implementation of new

approaches to better

serve and support young

children and their

families.

The partnership has little

influence in changing

existing or creating new

policies for young

children and their families.

It has an advisory status at

best.

5. The partnership

influences policies and

practices that affect

young children and their

families.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 35

SHARED LEADERSHIP

Resources

Fay, J., Gilbert, J., & Wrean, K. (1993). Building villages to raise our children: Funding

and resources. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.

Fleming, D. S. (1991). Shared leadership and decision making teams. Andover, MA: The

Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands.

Institute for Educational Leadership. (1994). Preparing collaborative leaders: A

facilitator’s guide. (Volumes I & II). Washington, DC: Author.

Kadel, S. (1992). Interagency collaboration: Improving the delivery of services to children

and families. Tallahassee, FL: SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education.

Kagan, S. L. (1991). United we stand: Collaboration for child care and early education

services. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Kirst, M. W. (1991). Improving children’s services: Overcoming barriers, creating new

opportunities. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(8), 615-618.

Kirst, M. W., & Jehl, J. (1992). Getting ready to provide school-linked services: What

schools must do. The Future of Children 2(1), 95-106.

Lopez, M. E., & Balle, K. (1993). Building villages to raise our children: Community

outreach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.

Maeroff, G. I. (1993). Building teams to rebuild schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(7), 512-

519.

Mattessich, P., & Monsey, B. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work. St. Paul, MN:

Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

Melaville, A., & Blank, M. (1991). What it takes: Structuring interagency partnerships to

connect children and families with comprehensive services. Washington, DC: Institute for

Educational Leadership.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 36

Melaville, A., Blank, M., & Asayesh, G. (1993). Together we can: A guide for crafting a

profamily system of education and human services. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Education.

National Assembly of National Voluntary Health and Social Welfare Organizations. (1991).

The community collaboration manual. Washington, DC: Author.

Payzant, T. W. (1992). New beginnings in San Diego: Developing a strategy for interagency

collaboration. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(2), 139-146.

Pollard, J. (1990). School-linked services—so that schools can educate and children can

learn. INSIGHTS on Educational Policy and Practice. No. 20. Austin, TX: Southwest

Educational Development Laboratory.

SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education. (1994). Leadership for collaboration: A

training program. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

Tushet, N. C. (1993). Guide to developing educational partnerships. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 37

ELEMENT 3

COMPREHENSIVE AND

RESPONSIVE SERVICES

Care and education, health, and social services focus on the

full range of needs and circumstances of individual

children and their families.

Shared 

Leadership Children 
 & 
 Families Comprehensive 


& Responsive 


Services

Families as 

Partners

Evaluation of 

Partnership 

Success

Appropriate 

Care & 

Education

Knowledge 

& Skill 

Development

Communication 

Culture 

& Home 

Language
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 38

ELEMENT 3 RATIONALE

COMPREHENSIVE AND RESPONSIVE SERVICES

Care and education, health, and social services focus on the full range of needs and

circumstances of individual children and their families.

To attain the first National Education Goal – “All

children in America will start school ready to

learn” – the physical, cognitive, and emotional

needs of young children must be met (National

Education Goals Advisory Panel, 1991).

Because many factors affect early development,

services focused solely on children are bound to

have limited impact. Kadel (1992) states: The

problems which children can face are many and

complex. In addressing these problems,

consideration is rarely given to how they relate to

one another, to the problems of other family

members, or to the inherent limitations of the

service delivery system which is meant to help

children and their families.”

Effective early childhood services address all

aspects of the lives of children and their families.

They cut across the traditional boundaries of

education, care, health, welfare, human services,

mental health, employment, and related fields.

Rather than being determined by the priorities

and capabilities of separate service providers,

services should be based on the needs of children

and their families. The service system should

ensure that children and families do not ‘slip

through the cracks’ or remain outside the service

and support system entirely (Jewett, Conklin,

Hagans, & Crohn, 1991).

Services that are connected effectively respond

to the full range of a family’s needs and

circumstances. Particular attention is paid to

movement from one service setting to another

and as children grow older. Collaborative

services:

• make all services easily accessible

to families,

• maintain common enrollment and

record-keeping forms and procedures,

and

• adapt responsively to the special

needs of individual families.

Usually the family’s input and preferences guide

the development of service delivery plans.

Bruner (1991) suggests that service providers

should work together with each family to identify

how their service can help the family achieve its

goals.

Sharing information and resources among service

agencies increases the responsiveness of all

service providers. It also fosters the efficient use

of service providers’ time and resources

(Melaville, Blank, & Asayesh, 1993).
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 39

COMPREHENSIVE AND

RESPONSIVE SERVICES

Continuity for children from birth through age eight and their

families is strengthened when care and education, health,

and social services focus on the full range of needs and

circumstances of individual children

and their families.

Indicator #1 Policies exist on the roles and responsibilities of parents and the

care and education, health, and social service agencies in providing

services to the community’s young children and their families.

Indicator #2 There are a variety of services that fully meet the needs of all the

community’s young children and families.

Indicator #3 Care and education, health, and social service agencies actively

share information with one another about services available to

young children and their families.

Indicator #4 The partnership promotes effective ways to connect families

with services.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 40

COMPREHENSIVE AND RESPONSIVE

SERVICES

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Policies and practices of

all care and education,

health, and social service

agencies reflect a

commitment to fully

meet the needs of young

children and their

families. The agencies

have both written and

informal agreements to

ensure that children and

families receive high

quality, effective, and

appropriate services.

No common policies exist

among care and education,

health, and social service

agencies. There is no

parent involvement in the

provision of services.

1. Policies exist on the

roles and responsibilities of parents and

the care and

education, health, and

social service agencies

in providing services to

the community’s young

children and their

families.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 41

COMPREHENSIVE AND RESPONSIVE

SERVICES

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Partners work to ensure

that services are in place

that responsively meet

the diverse needs of

young children and their

families. When partners

identify gaps in services

they address them

effectively. Services are

of high quality, and are

inclusive and accessible

to families.

Services are available

only to a portion of the

population who meet

specific service or

eligibility criteria.

2. There are a variety of

services that fully meet

the needs of all the

community’s young

children and families.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 42

COMPREHENSIVE AND RESPONSIVE

SERVICES

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Care and education,

health, and social service

providers are fully aware

of services and how

children and their

families can access them.

Further, there are ongoing

ways to inform service

providers about the needs

of families and gaps in

services. Services are

consistent as children and

families move from one

setting to another.

Few, if any, providers

from care and education,

health, and social service

agencies know the array

of services available to

children and families in

the community. As a

result, families are left to

their own devices to

identify agencies that may

assist them. Those

providers who know of

available services do not

share this information

with others in their own

agency.

3. Care and education,

health, and social

service agencies actively

share information with

one another about

services available to

young children and

their families.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 43

COMPREHENSIVE AND RESPONSIVE

SERVICES

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Partners work together to

ensure that all children

and families obtain the

services they seek in a

consistent and supportive

manner. Connections

across agencies and

programs create smooth

and easy access for all

young children and

families. When referrals

for services are made,

follow-up with families is

done to determine

whether services are

satisfactory and

confidentiality rights are

protected.

It is difficult for families

to access and use care and

education, health, and

social services.

4. The partnership

promotes effective ways

to connect families with

services.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 44

Resources

Bruner, C. (1991). Thinking collaboratively: Ten questions and answers to help policy

makers improve children’s services. Washington, DC: Education and Human Services

Consortium.

Center for the Future of Children. (1992). The future of children: School-linked services,

2(1). Los Altos, CA: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Dolan, L. J. (1992). Models for integrating human services into the school. Baltimore, MD:

Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged

Students.

Jewett, J., Conklin, N., Hagans, R., & Crohn, L. (1991). Integration of education and human

services project. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Kadel, S. (1992). Interagency collaboration: Improving the delivery of services to children

and families. Tallahassee, FL: SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education.

Kagan, S. L. (1991). United we stand: Collaboration for child care and early education

services. New York: Teacher’s College Press, Columbia University.

Kahn, A. J., & Kamerman, S. B. (1992). Integrating services integration: An overview of

initiatives, issues, and possibilities. New York, NY: National Center for Children in

Poverty, Columbia University.

Koppich, J. E., & Kirst, M. W. (Eds.). (1993). Integrating services for children: Prospects

and pitfalls. Education and Urban Society, 25(2), 123-128.

Kunesh, L. G., & Farley, J. (1993). Collaboration: The prerequisite for school readiness

and success. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood

Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED356906)

COMPREHENSIVE AND RESPONSIVE SERVICES
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 45

Liontos, L. B. (1991). Building relationships between schools and social services. (Report

No. EDO-EA-91-8). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational

Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED339111)

Melaville, A., Blank, M., & Asayesh, G. (1993). Together we can: A guide for crafting a

profamily system of education and human services. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education.

National Association of State Boards of Education. (1988). Caring communities:

Supporting young children and families. Washington, DC: Author.

National Education Goals Advisory Panel. (1991). Goal 1: Technical planning sub-group

report on school readiness. Washington, DC: Author.

Nissani, H., & Garcia, W. (1992). Family service workers: Facilitators of the integration of

education and human services. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (1992). Integrating community services.

(Videotape and guidebook). Schools that work: The research advantage. Oak Brook, IL:

Author.

Payzant, T. W. (1992). New beginnings in San Diego: Developing a strategy for

interagency collaboration. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(2), 139-146.

Schorr, L. (1988). Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage. New York:

Doubleday.

Sugarman, J. (1991). Building early childhood systems. Washington, DC: Child Welfare

League of America.

View, A. V., & Amos, K. J. (1994). Living and testing the collaborative process: A case

study of community-based services integration. (Executive Summary). Arlington, VA:

ZERO TO THREE/National Center for Clinical Infant Programs.

Weiss, H., & Halpern, R. (1990). Community-based family support and education

programs: Something old or something new? New York: Columbia University, National

Center for Children in Poverty.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 46

Weiss, H. B., Woodrum, A., Lopez, M. E., & Kraemer, J. (1993). Building villages to raise

our children: From programs to service systems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family

Research Project.

Weissbourd, R. (1991). Making the system work for poor children. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED342850)

Wolery, M., & Wilbers, J. S. (Eds.). (1994). Including children with special needs in early

childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young

Children.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 47

ELEMENT 4

CULTURE AND HOME

LANGUAGE

Services are consistent with the home culture of the families,

and communication is provided in the home language.

Shared 

Leadership Children 
 & 
 Families Comprehensive 

& Responsive 

Services

Families as 

Partners

Evaluation of 

Partnership 

Success

Appropriate 

Care & 

Education

Knowledge & Skill 

Development

Communication 

Culture 


& Home 


Language
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 48

ELEMENT 4 RATIONALE

CULTURE AND HOME LANGUAGE

 Services are consistent with the home culture of the families, and communication is

provided in the home language.

Continuity for young children and their families

begins with the development of connections

between the child’s home and the care and

education, health, and social services in the

community. The home culture, including

language, creates the background for all

interactions and learning within the family. In

addition, culture provides the child with a sense

of identity and a framework for interpreting the

world. When children venture into settings

outside the home, they begin to encounter

unfamiliar frames of reference. This absence of

shared meaning in a new setting may interfere

with children’s competent functioning in that

setting. For this reason it is important that young

children experience settings that respect and

reflect the home culture and language.

CULTURE

The frames created by a child’s culture go

beyond the routines and rituals of the home

community. All aspects of daily life—beliefs,

values, spiritual practices, rules for behavior,

communication, and ways of knowing—originate

with the child’s home culture. For example,

some cultures may value cooperation and

obedience within the group instead of

competition and individual achievement. Other

cultures may emphasize creativity and artistic

expression more than reasoning and logical

organization. Children and families whose

culture emphasizes individual achievement and

independence may be unappreciated or even

viewed as uncooperative and disruptive when

they enter programs that value and reward

compliance and group cooperation.

To provide continuity for young children and

families from diverse cultural backgrounds,

home, school, and community partners must

work to build a common understanding about the

powerful influence of culture and the role of the

family as the child’s first teachers. Many studies

have documented the importance of social and

cultural factors in children’s acquisition of

language and knowledge. The ways that families

talk and work together; transmit knowledge,

skills, and attitudes; and recognize success must

be considered when designing programs so that

children are able to communicate, play, teach,

and learn together.

Just as developmentally appropriate practice is

important to the individual child, so is culturally

grounded practice. As home and service cultures

meet, differences will become more apparent. In

response, steps must be taken by service

providers to respect and support the home culture

of young children and their families rather than

stereotyping individuals and groups. In all

settings, and especially in multicultural settings,

constructive, open attitudes toward race,

ethnicity, gender, disabilities, income status,

family configuration, and other characteristics of

children and families (not personal bias) should

be the foundation for continuity created by home,

school, and community partnerships.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 49

HOME LANGUAGE

Continuity for young children and their families

hinges on supporting the family’s culture and

language. Young children’s experience with

culture and language at home gives them a

critically important foundation for development

and learning. Early communication and

language learning are rooted in the home culture.

Appropriate behaviors, showing respect to

others, and terms of affection are all learned

through the child’s home (first) language. Key

studies indicate that young children who have

been instructed too early in a second language

often lose their first language and become unable

to converse with their parents (Fillmore, 1990).

This language barrier seriously disrupts or limits

relationships between parents and children, and

prevents parents from conveying cultural lessons

that all young children need to learn.

In addition to strengthening cultural learning and

early socialization, a good command of the home

language enhances children’s ability to learn a

second language. Research in the field of

bilingual education shows that children who fail

to master their home language at a young age

lack the building blocks needed to acquire a

second language. Learning a language to

communicate with sufficient competency takes

time. One or two years in a second language

setting will probably not result in successful

language learning and may take away time when

children could be mastering their home language

(Cummins, 1989; Fillmore, 1986; Hakuta, 1986;

Krashen & Biber, 1988; Laosa, 1984).

To ensure continuity for non-English speaking

young children in early childhood settings, every

effort should be made to provide all children with

the opportunity to learn in their home (first)

language. Communicating with children in their

home language in care and education settings is

challenging, particularly when a group of

children comes from diverse linguistic

backgrounds. Research suggests that various

strategies, for example, cooperative learning,

using volunteers from the community, increasing

parental involvement, and providing appropriate

books and audiovisual materials, support each

child’s learning of the home language

(Abramson, Seda, & Johnson, 1990; Morrow &

Rand, 1991; Nissani, 1990; Quintero & HuertaMacias, 1990).
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 50

CULTURE

Continuity for children from birth through age eight and

their families is strengthened when services are consistent

with the home culture of the families.

Indicator #1 Policies and practices promote respect and appreciation

for the culture of all children and their families.

Indicator #2 Care and education, health, and social service providers

represent the cultural and language diversity of all children and

families served.

Indicator #3 Communications with families occur through means that are

culturally appropriate.

Indicator #4 Home culture is reflected in program practices, materials,

and activities.

Indicator #5 Adult-child interaction facilitates communication and diverse

ways of teaching and learning.

Indicator #6 Knowledge and skill development for all partners strengthens

the capacity of community services to connect with the home

culture of children and families.

Indicator #7 Cross-cultural communication opportunities help families and

service providers understand one another’s cultural and

language expectations.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 51

CULTURE

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

1. Policies and practices

promote respect and

appreciation for the

culture of all children

and their families.

Policies do not promote,

acknowledge, or

appreciate the cultures

and cultural history of all

children and their

families. Policies may

discourage or disallow

acknowledgment of

cultures.

Policies and practices

promote the consistent

acknowledgment and

appreciation for the cultures

of all children and their

families.

An ongoing effort ensures

that service agency staff

clearly represent and have

knowledge of the cultural

diversity of the children and

families served.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 52

CULTURE

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

An ongoing effort

ensures that service

agency staff clearly

represent and have

knowledge of the cultural

diversity of the children

and families served.

Care and education,

health, and social service

providers do not represent

the cultural diversity of

children and families

served.

2. Care and education,

health, and social

service providers

represent the cultural

and language diversity

of all children and

families served.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 53

.

CULTURE

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Communication occurs in

culturally meaningful

ways that are convenient

and comfortable for the

family. Home visits,

telephone conversations,

meetings in the

community, and written

communications are used

to make and strengthen

connections between

families and providers.

All communication is in

standard English and

occurs in ways convenient

and comfortable for the

providers instead of the

family. No attention is

given to cultural

differences in the

communication style of

the families.

3. Communications with

families occur through

means that are culturally

appropriate.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 54

CULTURE

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

There is consistent,

positive evidence of

home culture in the

environment and in

learning activities. Home

culture is well

represented by teaching

styles, resource people

from the community, and

materials, for example,

dolls, books, puzzles, and

pictures.

There is little or no

evidence of home culture

in the environment or

learning activities. No

culturally diverse themes,

dolls, books, puzzles, or

pictures are available for

children. Teaching is not

reflective of diverse

learning styles.

4. Home culture is

reflected in program

practices, materials, and

activities.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 55

CULTURE

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

5. Adult-child interaction

facilitates communication and diverse ways

of teaching and learning.

Adult-child interaction in

the learning and service

environment is not

consistent with the child’s

cultural experience.

Interactions of providers

and children demonstrate

respect for home culture

as well as for differences

in learning styles,

learning skills, and ways

of understanding

disabilities. Adults

ensure that all children

have opportunities to

learn and grow in ways

that are compatible with

their home culture.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 56

CULTURE

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

6. Knowledge and skill

development for all

partners strengthens the

capacity of

community services to

connect with the home

culture of children and

families.

Knowledge and skill

development for all

partners fails to address

home culture.

Knowledge and skill

development for all partners

and everyone who has direct

contact with families includes

ways to:

• support home culture in the

delivery of care and education,

health, and social services;

• improve communication

among families and providers;

• promote appropriate

interaction outside the home;

• build understanding and

appreciation of cultural

diversity, and break down

barriers between groups

(anti-bias training);

• understand cultural

interpretations of special needs;

and

• provide learning opportunities

for members of the cultural

group being served.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 57

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

7. Cross-cultural

communication

opportunities help

families and service

providers understand

one another’s cultural

and language

expectations.

Communication about one

another’s experiences and

expectations rarely, if

ever, occurs between

parents and service

providers.

Through planned

activities, families and

service providers share

their experiences and

expectations. These

activities can include

support groups for

newcomers and

community forums to

discuss expectations of

parents and service

providers.

CULTURE

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 58

HOME LANGUAGE

Continuity for children from birth through age eight and their

families is strengthened when communication is provided in the

home language.

Indicator #1 Policies and practices support the use of the home language of all

children and families served.

Indicator #2 Care and education, health, and social service providers are able to

communicate in the home language of the children and

families served.

Indicator #3 Home language is reflected in practices, materials, and activities.

Indicator #4 Knowledge and skill development for all partners focuses on the

needs of linguistically diverse families.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 59

HOME LANGUAGE

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Policies consistently

acknowledge, appreciate,

and support the use of the

home language(s) of

families. Policies ensure

that community services

communicate in the

language(s) of the

children and families.

Policymaking is done by

individuals who are

representative of the

language diversity of the

community.

Policies do not support,

acknowledge, or

appreciate the language of

children and families.

1. Policies and practices

support the use of the

home language of all

children and

families served.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 60

HOME LANGUAGE

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Ongoing efforts ensure

that service providers are

able to communicate with

children and families in

their home language.

When they do not,

community and family

representatives are

brought into the learning

and service environments

to make communication

possible in the home

language.

Providers have little or no

knowledge of the

language of the children

and families served.

Service providers speak

and/or support the

language of the children

and families served.

2. Care and education,

health, and social

service providers are

able to communicate in

the home language of

the children and

families served.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 61

HOME LANGUAGE

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Daily use of the home

language is built into the

child’s experience outside

the home. Books are

read to children in their

home language, and

items in learning and

service settings are

labeled in the home

language.

There is little or no

evidence of home

language in the

environment, activities, or

materials.

3. Home language is

reflected in practices,

materials, and activities.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 62

HOME LANGUAGE

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Ongoing knowledge and skill

development for all partners

and everyone who has direct

contact with families includes

ways to:

• promote home language in the

delivery of care and education,

health, and social services, for

example, provide teachers and

caregivers who speak the child’s

home language;

• understand the developmental

importance of the family’s home

language;

• create opportunities for partners

and families to learn a second

language; and

• build understanding and

appreciation of cultural and

language diversity and break

down barriers between groups

(anti-bias training).

Little or no effort is made

to help service providers

work with non-English

speaking families.

4. Knowledge and skill

development for all

partners focuses on the

needs of linguistically

diverse families.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 63

Resources

Abramson, S., Seda, I., & Johnson, C. (1990). Literacy development in a multilingual

kindergarten classroom. Childhood Education, 67(2), 68-72.

Au, K. H. (1993). Literacy instruction in multicultural settings. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt

Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Au, K. H., & Mason, J. M. (1983). Cultural congruence in classroom participation

structures: Achieving a balance of rights. Discourse Processes, 6(2), 145-167.

Collier, V. P. (1987/1988). The effect of age on acquisition of a second language for school.

Washington, DC: The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, Occasional Papers in

Bilingual Education, No. 2, 1-12.

Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento, CA: California

Association for Bilingual Education.

D’Amato, J. (1988). ‘Acting’: Hawaiian children’s resistance to teachers. Elementary

School Journal, 88(5), 529-544.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990). Literacy for empowerment: The role of parents in children’s

education. New York: Falmer Press.

Derman-Sparks, L., & the A.B.C. Task Force. (1989). Anti-bias curriculum: Tools for

empowering young children. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of

Young Children.

Erickson, F., & Mohatt, G. (1982). Cultural organization of participation structures in two

classrooms of Indian students. In G. B. Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of

schooling: Educational anthropology in action (pp. 132-174). New York: Holt, Rinehart,

and Winston.

Fillmore, L. W. (1990). Now or later? Issues related to the early education of minoritygroup children. Early childhood and family education: Analysis and recommendations of

the Council of Chief State School Officers. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Fillmore, L. W. (1986). Research currents: Equity or excellence? Language Arts, 63(5),

474-481.

CULTURE AND HOME LANGUAGE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 64

Fillmore, L. W. (1991). Language and cultural issues in the early education of language

minority children. In S. L. Kagan (Ed.), The care and education of America’s young children:

Obstacles and opportunities (pp. 30-47). The 90th Yearbook of the National Society for the

Study of Education, Part I. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.

Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language. The debate on bilingualism. New York, NY: Basic

Books, Inc.

Hakuta, K., & Gould, L. J. (1987). Synthesis of research on bilingual education. Educational

Leadership, 44(6), 38-45.

Heath, S. B. (1982). Questioning at home and at school: A comparative study. In G. B.

Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in action (102-

131). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and

classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Kagan, S. L., & Garcia, E. E. (1991). Educating culturally and linguistically diverse

preschoolers: Moving the agenda. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6(34), 427-444.

Krashen, S., & Biber, D. (1988). On course: Bilingual education’s success in California.

Sacramento, CA: Sacramento California Association for Bilingual Education.

Laosa, L. M. (1984). Ethnic, socioeconomic, and home language influences upon early

performance on measures of abilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1,178-1,198.

Mangione, P. L. (Ed.). (1995). Infant-toddler caregiving: A guide to culturally sensitive care.

Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.

McCracken, J. B. (1993). Valuing diversity: The primary years. Washington, DC: National

Association for the Education of Young Children.

Morrow, L. M., & Rand, M. K. (1991). Promoting literacy during play by designing early

childhood classroom environments. The Reading Teacher, 44(6), 396-402.

Nissani, H. (1990). Early childhood programs for language minority students. Washington,

DC: The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, Occasional Paper, No. 2.

Philips, S. W. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm springs

children in community and classroom. In C. B. Cazden, V. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions

of language in the classroom (pp. 370-394). New York: Teachers College Press.

Quintero, E., & Huerta-Macias, A. (1990). All in the family: Bilingualism and biliteracy. The

Reading Teacher, 44(4), 306-312.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 65

Ramey, S. L., & Ramey, C. T. (1994). The transition to school: Why the first few years matter for a

lifetime. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(3), 194-198.

Soto, L. D. (1991). Understanding bilingual/bicultural young children. Young Children, 46(2), 30-36.

Spiegel, D. L., Fitzgerald, J., & Cunningham, J. W. (1993). Parental perceptions of preschoolers’

literacy development: Implications for home-school partnerships. Young Children, 48(5), 74-79.

Taylor, D. (1983). Family literacy: Young children learning to read and write. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.

Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning from inner-city families.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.

Teale, W. H. (1986). Home background and young children’s literacy development. In W. H. Teale &

E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 173-206). Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Publishing Corporation.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 66

ELEMENT 5

COMMUNICATION

Home, school, and community partners maintain open

communication and respect confidentiality.

Shared 

Leadership

Children 
 & 
 Families Comprehensive 

& Responsive Services

Families as 

Partners

Evaluation of 

Partnership 

Success

Appropriate 

Care & 

Education

Knowledge 

& Skill 

Development

Communication 

Culture 

& Home 

Language
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 67

ELEMENT 5 RATIONALE

COMMUNICATION

Home, school, and community partners maintain open communication and

respect confidentiality.

Home, school, and community partners should

establish and maintain communication among

each other in order to achieve early childhood

continuity. Communication is the cornerstone of

partnerships. It builds relationships and

strengthens connections among service

providers. Communication among home, school,

and community partners supports early childhood

continuity by:

• making information available to all

partners that helps identify child and

family needs;

• planning for upcoming transitions to

ensure continuity as family needs and

priorities change over time;

• allowing all partners to express their

opinions, voice their concerns and fears,

and share their dreams and hopes;

• creating a shared understanding of

policies and practices and the terms used

to explain them;

• making clear goals of individual services

and programs in the partnership; and

• making joint planning possible, along

with implementation, training, and

evaluation of collaborative services and

activities.

Communication is at the heart of family-centered

programs that effectively meet the needs of

children and their families (National Association

of State Boards of Education, 1988; Swick,

1992). Communication includes verbal and

nonverbal messages that are conveyed through

facial expressions, body movements,

environmental cues, and pauses during

conversation. In a home, school, and community

partnership, communication must occur in a

language that is meaningful and understandable

to families. To make communication with

families effective, supports may be needed, such

as an interpreter, adaptive equipment, or

feedback to assure clarity.

Another important function of communication is

to support children and families as they move

from one service to another. For example, early

childhood and elementary school teachers can

visit and exchange information about each

other’s programs to help prepare children for a

new setting. Family visits to a new setting open

up communication and prepare the family for

transitions (Kagan, 1990). Interagency meetings

or case discussions among early care and

education, health, and social service providers

can strengthen collaboration among partners.

Written documentation and records can be shared

among service providers to keep everyone fully

informed about individual children and families

and reduce the duplication of information.

Before sharing records or other information,
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 68

service providers must obtain the written consent

of families.

At all times, the confidentiality of families must

be respected. Information about children and

their families belongs to those families. Families

must be made aware of what information has

been placed in records. They must be consulted,

give their consent, and fully understand

whenever plans are made to share child and

family information or records. Care must be

taken by all partners to respect and protect the

privacy of children and families.

Communication that links care and education

services with health and social services is critical

for continuity. In the past, different service

providers have tended to make contact with one

another only in times of crisis. Kirst and Jehl

(1992) suggest that providers of different

services need time to talk, think, and plan

together so that they can support one another’s

efforts to meet the needs of young children and

their families.

Finally, communication within service agencies

is as important as communication between

service agencies. For example, in a national

study of school transitions, Logue and Love

(1992) found that only 29 percent of the schools

surveyed had similar classroom practices

between grade levels. Children often have to

adjust to a new curriculum year after year, and

may perform poorly as a result. Communication

between teachers of different grade levels can

help reduce the amount of change children

experience in school. Likewise, communication

among staff within health and social service

agencies helps create consistent relationships

with families. Families also benefit from the

consistency created by coordinated service

delivery. Service coordination is possible only

when communication between agencies

occurs routinely.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 69

COMMUNICATION

Continuity for children from birth through age eight and their

families is strengthened when home, school, and community

partners maintain open communication and

 respect confidentiality.

Indicator #1 Communication is based on a climate of respect, trust, inclusion,

and support.

Indicator #2 Families and providers of care and education, health, and social

services share information about children’s development

and progress.

Indicator #3 Written communication and records are developed with the

consent and involvement of families, and used by all providers

serving children and families.

Indicator #4 Families and providers of care and education, health, and social

services participate in communication skill development.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 70

COMMUNICATION

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Communication among

families and providers of

care and education,

health, and social

services reflects mutual

respect, support, trust,

and inclusion. Partners

regularly consult with

each other about

available resources and

work together to provide

needed services for

children and families.

Families and service

providers do not have

ongoing relationships.

Service providers have

contact with children and

families only when

providing a specific

service.

1. Communication is based

on a climate of respect,

trust, inclusion, and

support.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 71

COMMUNICATION

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Information about

children’s development

and involvement in

programs is used in all

planning to meet

children’s needs and to

arrange for changes in

services. Confidentiality

is best maintained when

families decide what and

how information is

shared.

Service providers and

families share little

information.

Confidentiality is not

consistently maintained.

2. Families and providers

of care and education,

health, and social

services share

information about

children’s development

and progress.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 72

COMMUNICATION

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Written communication,

records, and other

documentation are

always accessible to

individual families

receiving services.

Communication is shared

in ways that are

understandable to

families. Any

information in records is

collected with the

consent of the families

and serves to promote

continuity between

services.

Records are not always

accessible or useful to

families or other service

providers. When

information in records or

other written

communications are

shared, the need for

confidentiality is not

consistently addressed.

3. Written communication

and records are

developed with the

consent and

involvement of families,

and used by all

providers serving

children and families.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 73

COMMUNICATION

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

A variety of skill

development and learning

activities are available to

family members and

service providers to

enhance their

communication and

conflict resolution skills

and to help them respect

confidentiality.

Few learning

opportunities are provided

to improve

communication skills.

4. Families and providers

of care and education,

health, and social

services participate in

communication skill

development.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 74

COMMUNICATION

Resources

Correll, C. (1992). Community collaboration to support at-risk students. Contemporary

Education, 64(1), 49-50.

Kagan, S. L. (1990). Excellence in early childhood education: Defining characteristics and

next decade strategies. Policy Perspectives Series. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Kagan, S. L. (1992). Ready or not! Collaboration is fulcrum on which readiness goal rests.

The School Administrator, 49(5), 14-18.

Kirst, M., & Jehl, J. (1992). Getting ready to provide school-linked services: What schools

must do. The Future of Children, 2(1), 95-106.

Levy, J. E., Kagan, S. L., & Copple, C. (1992). Are we ready? Collaboration to support

young children and their families. Washington, DC: American Public Welfare Association

and Council of Chief State School Officers.

Logue, M. E., & Love, J. M. (1992). Making the transition to kindergarten. Principal,

71(5), 10-12.

Love, J. M., Logue, M. E., Trudeau, J. V., & Thayer, K. (1992). Transitions to kindergarten

in American schools. Final Report of the National Transition Study. Hampton, NH: RMC

Research Corporation.

National Association of State Boards of Education. (1988). Right from the start: The report

of the NASBE task force on early childhood education. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Nissani, H., & Hagans, R. (1992). The power of integrating education and human services:

Achieving the potential of the Northwest. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational

Laboratory.

Powell, D. R. (1989). Families and early childhood programs. Research Monographs, Vol.

3. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 75

Ramey, S. L., & Ramey, C. T. (1994). The transition to school: Why the first few years matter for a

lifetime. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(3), 194-198.

Swick, K. J. (1992). Teacher-parent partnerships. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary

and Early Childhood Education.

Vann, A. S. (1992). Ten ways to improve principal-parent communication. Principal, 71(3), 30-31.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 76

ELEMENT 6

KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL

DEVELOPMENT

Home, school, and community partners work together

to build their knowledge and skills and the

capacity of community services.

Shared 

Leadership Children 
 & 
 Families Comprehensive 

& Responsive 

Services

Families as 

Partners

Evaluation of 

Partnership 

Success

Appropriate 

Care & 

Education

Knowledge 
 & Skill 


Development

Communication 

Culture 

& Home 

Language
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 77

ELEMENT 6 RATIONALE

KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL DEVELOPMENT

Home, school, and community partners work together to build their

knowledge and skills and the capacity of community services.

Collaborative early childhood services are only

as effective as the families and the service

providers who work together with them.

Continued development of providers and family

members keeps collaboration going, reduces

turnover, and can mean the difference between

children who learn and children who do not or

(cannot) learn (Arbuckle & Murray, 1989). All

adults who are responsible for the care and

education of children should jointly participate in

every aspect of building partnership competence,

including planning and evaluation.

Families and service providers from different

community agencies should participate in

learning activities together. Home, school, and

community partners need information based on

research and practice. They also need

opportunities to meet and share experiences with

one another (Kagan, 1991). Knowledge and skill

development sessions that focus on real

situations help participants appreciate one

another’s perspectives and concerns. Through

learning together, partners begin to build

relationships that foster collaboration (Bruner,

1991).

Some characteristics of effective knowledge and

skill development activities are:

Joint planning. Participants are involved in

setting goals and designing and implementing

activities.

Inclusion. All partners fully participate in

knowledge and skill development. The

knowledge and experience of the participants is

linked to information from research and practice

(Jones, 1986).

Time and support. Participants have ample

time to learn and then change practices based on

the learning experiences. The leadership of the

collaborative effort should constantly support

participants as they learn and change (Fullan,

1991).

Adult learning. Activities that support the

development of partnership competence should

be based on the principles of adult learning

(Jones, 1986). Participants should have

opportunities to engage in active learning,

discussion, joint problem solving, and hands-on

experience with materials. Learning experiences

should encourage everyone to explore ideas

creatively, experiment, and take risks.

The principal aim of knowledge and skill

development is to help all partners effectively

collaborate and create home, school, and

community linkages.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 78

KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL

DEVELOPMENT

Continuity for children from birth through age eight and their

families is strengthened when home, school, and community

 partners work together to build their knowledge and

skills and the capacity of community services.

Indicator #1 Policies and practices support a coordinated approach to

knowledge and skill development for the home, school, and

community partners and all adults who work with children

and families.

Indicator #2 Home, school, and community partners jointly plan for knowledge

and skill development activities.

Indicator #3 Knowledge and skill development are based on principles of adult

learning and promote collaboration.

Indicator #4 Knowledge and skill development sessions are meaningful,

effective, and appropriate.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 79

KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL DEVELOPMENT

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Coordinated policies and

practices exist across and

within agencies that

support ongoing

knowledge and skill

development among all

home, school, and

community partners.

Policies and practices

support full participation

of families and service

providers. For example,

child care is available for

families and release time

is provided for teachers

and caregivers.

No policies exist that

support ongoing

knowledge and skill

development.

1. Policies and practices

support a coordinated

approach to knowledge

and skill development

for the home, school,

and community partners

and all adults who work

with children and

families.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 80

KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL DEVELOPMENT

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Knowledge and skill

development planning is

done jointly by

representatives of all

partners. Interests and

needs of partners are used

to guide the process.

Planning is ongoing and

includes defining longterm goals.

Little planning for

knowledge and skill

development is done.

2. Home, school, and

community partners

jointly plan for

knowledge and skill

development activities.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 81

KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL DEVELOPMENT

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Knowledge and skill

development sessions

allow for active

participation in a variety

of learning experiences,

including:

• small group discussions,

• hands-on experience with

materials,

• collaborative problem

solving,

• time for reflection, and

• cooperative projects.

Follow-up support is

consistently provided to

participants to help them

make changes in practice

and to work

collaboratively.

Lectures are given with

little or no opportunity for

participants to contribute

their ideas or learn

cooperatively. No followup support is provided to

participants.

3. Knowledge and skill

development are based

on principles of adult

learning and promote

collaboration.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 82

KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL DEVELOPMENT

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Knowledge and skill

activities build on one

another. They focus on

real issues and problems

faced by the partners.

These activities are

designed to enhance the

partners’ capability to

connect and improve

services for children and

their families.

Topics for knowledge and

skill development do not

build on one another. One

session has little or no

relationship to the next

one. Topics are

sometimes relevant to

partners in general

without reference to the

specific issues currently

faced by the partners.

4. Knowledge and skill

development sessions

are meaningful,

effective, and

appropriate.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 83

KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL DEVELOPMENT

Resources

Arbuckle, M., & Murray, L. B. (1989). Building systems for professional growth: An action

guide. Andover, MA: The RegionalLaboratory for Educational Improvement of the

Northeast and Islands.

Bruner, C. (1991). Thinking collaboratively: Ten questions and answers to help policy

makers improve children’s services. Washington, DC: The Education and Human Services

Consortium.

Fullan, M. (with Stiegelbauer, S.). (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. E. (1987). Taking charge of

change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Jones, E. (1986). Teaching adults: An active learning approach. Washington, DC:

National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Joyce, B. (Ed.). (1990). Changing school culture through staff development. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kagan, S. L. (1991). United we stand: Collaboration for child care and early education

services. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kent, K., Austin, J., & Kaufman, B. (1989). Continuous improvement: Context and

support. In S. D. Caldwell (Ed.), Staff development: A handbook of effective practices.

Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Harding, C. K., Arbuckle, M. A., Murray, L. B., Dubea, C., & Williams,

M. K. (1987). Continuing to learn: A guidebook for teacher development. Andover, MA:

The Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands.

McIntire, R. G., & Fessenden, J. T. (1994). The self-directed school: Empowering the

stakeholders. New York: Scholastic, Inc.

Mitchell, A., Hupert, N., & Dunleavy, M. P. (1991). Five good schools. New York: Bank

Street College of Education, Research Division.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 84

National Center for Family Literacy. (1993). Underlying principles of NCFL’s family

literacy staff development opportunities. Louisville, KY: Author.

Novick, R. (1995). Restructuring schools to meet the needs of children and families.

Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Olson, T., Butler, J., & Olson, N. (1991). Designing meaningful professional development:

A planning tool. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Pink, W. T., & Borman, K. M. (1991). Community involvement and staff development in

school improvement. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood

Education.

SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education. (1994). Leadership for collaboration: A

training program. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

Williamson, G. G. (1994). Reflecting on the art of teaching. In L. Eggbeer and E. Fenichel

(Eds.), Educating and supporting the infant/family work force: Models, methods and

materials (pp. 41-45). Arlington, VA: ZERO TO THREE/National Center for Clinical Infant

Programs.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 85

ELEMENT 7

APPROPRIATE CARE AND

EDUCATION

Care and education services are developmentally

and culturally appropriate.

Shared 

Leadership Children 
 & 
 Families Comprehensive 

& Responsive 

Services

Families as 

Partners

Evaluation of 

Partnership 

Success

Appropriate 


Care & 


Education

Knowledge & Skill 

Development

Communication 

Culture 

& Home 

Language
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 86

Since the National Association for the Education

of Young Children issued its position statement

on developmentally appropriate practice

(Bredekamp, 1987), other national organizations,

state departments of education, and local child

care and education agencies throughout the

United States have adopted this concept to judge

the quality of early childhood and early primary

school programs. Developmentally appropriate

practice establishes the foundation for continuity

of care and education in settings for children

from birth through age eight.

Appropriate care and education is essential to

early childhood continuity for two main reasons.

First, young children spend much of their time in

care and education settings outside the home.

The influence of early care and education is

profound. Young children’s image of themselves

as confident, competent learners can be either

strengthened or weakened by their caregivers and

teachers. And second, practice based on what we

know about development, individual differences,

and cultural differences provides a consistent

approach to working with young children. It

offers young children continuity in the ways

adults relate to them and in the types of learning

experiences made available to them.

The definition of developmentally appropriate

practice comes from both research and practice.

Developmental research has demonstrated that

young children develop at different rates and

learn through concrete experiences with adults

and other children and materials. These findings

support the call to make early childhood and

early elementary school settings fit with the

needs, capabilities, and interests of young

children. A developmental approach revolves

around the following concepts:

1. Expectations for young children should be in line with

their developmental capabilities and home culture

experience. For example, children learn when they are

allowed to move freely rather than sitting still and

passively listening for long periods of time.

2. Programs for young children should be structured to

accommodate children of varying abilities, including

children with special needs. Because of differences in

rates of development, children of the same age often

have different interests and needs.

3. Children should be offered learning experiences that

they find challenging but not overwhelming. They

need opportunities to explore materials, solve

problems, and experiment through trial and error.

4. Children learn through making choices, being actively

involved with people and things, and reflecting on their

activity. They learn best when the activities and

materials in a care or educational setting are meaningful

to them and relate to their everyday life experiences and

home culture.

ELEMENT 7 RATIONALE

APPROPRIATE CARE AND EDUCATION

Care and education services are developmentally and culturally appropriate.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 87

5. A variety of experiences support early learning. Young

children need settings that offer them a rich variety of

materials and plenty of opportunities for collaborative

learning both with children of varying abilities

(Gaustad, 1992; Katz et al., 1990; ) and with adults.

6. Consistency among care and education, health, and

social service providers helps children adjust easily to

new settings by connecting new experiences with

familiar experiences.

In essence, developmentally appropriate practice

aims to strengthen the inclinations of all young

children to learn. Rather than setting children

apart from each other, adaptations, including

adding structure to the learning setting, are made

for children who need special support. A

developmentally appropriate approach is flexible

to allow for negotiation with families and to

build cultural connections between the home and

care and education settings.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 88

APPROPRIATE CARE AND

EDUCATION

Continuity for children from birth through age eight and their

families is strengthened when care and education services

are developmentally and culturally appropriate.

Indicator #1 Children receive age and developmentally appropriate care and

education.

Indicator #2 Learning experiences allow children to work, learn, and grow at

their own rate and developmental level.

Indicator #3 The environment is flexible and includes age, developmentally, and

culturally appropriate activities that support active learning.

Indicator #4 Children are engaged in learning through play, exploration, and

child-initiated, hands-on activities that are supported by

adult guidance and encouragement.

Indicator #5 Children’s progress is assessed through developmentally

appropriate methods.

Indicator #6 Care and education assessment practices relate directly to the needs

of individual children, including their special needs, and are

reviewed as the children grow.

Indicator #7 Policies and practices promote continuity of care and education as

children progress through various early childhood settings and

services.

Indicator #8 Adult learning opportunities support cross-agency implementation

of services that reflect understanding of child and family

development.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 89

APPROPRIATE CARE AND EDUCATION

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Children explore and

play in environments

that are richly supplied

with age appropriate

materials and toys.

Children are actively

engaged in problem

solving and learning.

There is a balance

between children

choosing their activities

and adults guiding their

learning.

Children are confined, sit

passively, or are left alone

for long periods of time.

They have little or no

interaction with adults.

Children do not have

opportunities to play and

enjoy themselves in safe

places with other children.

1. Children receive age

and developmentally

appropriate care and

education.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 90

APPROPRIATE CARE AND EDUCATION

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Learning experiences

relate to all

developmental areas –

physical, social,

emotional, and

intellectual – and are

meaningful to children’s

lives. Children have

many opportunities to

learn according to their

own developing

capabilities. Projects and

activities reflect the

children’s interests and

support learning and

creativity through play.

All children in the same

environment tend to

participate in the same

activities in the same way

at the same time,

regardless of age or

individual developmental

stage.

2. Learning experiences

allow children to work,

learn, and grow at their

own rate and

developmental level.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 91

APPROPRIATE CARE AND EDUCATION

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Adults organize the

environment to promote

children’s safety and

learning. The entire

learning environment is

organized into areas with

appropriate, accessible

materials and activities.

Interactive activities and

materials relate to the

children’s culture,

language, interests, and

level of development.

Materials are modified to

allow for use by children

with special needs.

No activity areas are

defined. Many visible

materials are not

accessible for children’s

use. Materials are not

adapted for use by

children with special

needs and do not reflect

cultural and language

diversity.

3. The environment is

flexible and includes

age, developmentally,

and culturally

appropriate activities

that support active

learning.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 92

APPROPRIATE CARE AND EDUCATION

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Children participate in

individual and small

group age and

developmentally

appropriate play and

activities. Adults provide

guidance and

encouragement. Children

spend a significant

amount of time pursuing

their interests through

active exploration.

Adults interact

respectfully with children

and encourage their

involvement in the

environment.

Children have little

opportunity to choose the

activities in which they

participate or play and

work with each other.

Adults direct whole group

activities. Quiet, isolated

play and work time

predominate.

4. Children are engaged in

learning through play,

exploration, and childinitiated, hands-on

activities that are

supported by adult

guidance and

encouragement.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 93

APPROPRIATE CARE AND EDUCATION

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Children’s physical,

social, emotional, and

intellectual development

is assessed through

observation and samples

of children’s activities.

When appropriate,

children play an active

role in documenting their

progress, and parents are

included in assessment

activities. Assessment

practices are sensitive to

the children’s home

culture and language

experiences.

Standardized tests and

developmental screenings

with no observations are

used as the primary

means of assessing

children’s progress.

Assessments do not

include input from parents

and do not take into

consideration the home

environment.

5. Children’s progress is

assessed through

developmentally

appropriate methods.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 94

APPROPRIATE CARE AND EDUCATION

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

The results of the variety

of assessments are used

to plan to meet the needs

of individual children,

individualize learning

experiences and

materials, and identify

and pursue new learning

goals.

Assessment practices and

tests do not have a

meaningful relationship to

children’s learning

experiences.

6. Care and education

assessment practices

relate directly to the

needs of individual

children, including their

special needs, and are

reviewed as the

children grow.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 95

APPROPRIATE CARE AND EDUCATION

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Policies and practices

ensure that children

participate in groups of

children of varying

developmental levels and

receive personalized

attention. Policies exist

across agencies and

programs to create

connections and smooth

the movement of children

and their families from

one setting or service to

another.

Policies separate children

and services and isolate

age groups. Standardized

tests or screening

instruments are used to

determine placement of

children. Children with

special needs are

separated from other

classmates. Retention or

special placement of

children in “transitional”

or “developmental”

classes is an accepted

practice at the primary

level.

7. Policies and practices

promote continuity of

care and education as

children progress

through various early

childhood settings and

services.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 96

APPROPRIATE CARE AND EDUCATION

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Families and providers of

care and education,

health, and social

services have

opportunities to

exchange information

and learn more about:

• child and family

development,

• care and education

practices that support

children and families,

and

• assessment practices

and planning for

learning.

Few adult learning

opportunities are offered

to families. Service

providers have few or no

opportunities to address

the topics of child and

family development, care

and education, and

assessment practices.

8. Adult learning

opportunities support

cross-agency

implementation of

services that reflect

understanding of child

and family

development.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 97

APPROPRIATE CARE AND EDUCATION

Resources

Arter, J. A. (1990). Portfolios in instruction and assessment. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional

Educational Laboratory.

Barbour, N., & Seefeldt, C. (1993). Developmental continuity across preschool and primary grades:

Implications for teachers. Wheaton, MD: Association for Childhood Education International.

Bredekamp, S., & Rosegrant, T. (Eds.). (1992). Reaching potentials: Appropriate curriculum and

assessment for young children. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young

Children.

Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs

serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of

Young Children.

California Department of Education. (1988). Visions for infant/toddler care: Guidelines for

professional caregiving. Sacramento, CA: Author.

Fillmore, L. W. (1990). Language and cultural issues in the early education of language minority

children. In S. L. Kagan (Ed.), The care and education of America’s young children: Obstacles and

opportunities (pp. 30-47). The 90th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part 1.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Gaustad, J. (1992). Nongraded education: Mixed-age, integrated and developmentally appropriate

education for primary children. Oregon School Study Council Bulletin, 35(8).

Katz, L., Evangelou, D., & Hartman, J. A. (1990). The case for mixed-age grouping in early childhood.

Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Kostnelnik, M. J. (1992). Myths associated with developmentally appropriate programs. Young

Children, 47(4), 17-23.

McAffee, O., & Leong, D. (1994). Assessing and guiding: Young children’s development and learning.

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Meisels, S. J. (1993). Remaking classroom assessment with the work sampling system. Young

Children, 38, 34-40.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 98

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1988). Position statement on standardized

testing of young children 3 through 8 years of age. Washington, DC: Author.

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (1992). Meeting children’s needs (video and

guidebook). Oak Brook, IL: Author.

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and Evanston Community Television (ECTV). (1993).

Research and practice: A view inside strategic classrooms: Program I the elementary years (video and

guidebook). Oak Brook, IL: Author.

Sameroff, A., & McDonough, S. C. (1994). Educational implications of developmental transitions. Phi

Delta Kappan, 76(3), 188-193.

Shepard, L. A. (1994). The challenges of assessing young children appropriately. Phi Delta Kappan,

76(30), 206-212.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 99

ELEMENT 8

EVALUATION OF

PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS

Home, school, and community partners document their

efforts and use evaluation information to improve policies,

programs, and practices.

Shared 

Leadership Children 
 & 
 Families Comprehensive 

& Responsive 

Services

Families as 

Partners

Evaluation of 


Partnership 


Success

Appropriate 

Care & 

Education

Knowledge 

& Skill 

Development

Communication Culture & Home 

Language
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 100

ELEMENT 8 RATIONALE

EVALUATION OF PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS

Home, school, and community partners document their efforts and use evaluation

information to improve policies, programs, and practices.

Collaborative partnerships that provide early

childhood services commonly aim to: (1) foster

the healthy growth and development of young

children, and (2) strengthen families so that they

can better meet every family member’s needs

and create nurturing environments for children.

Evaluation allows home, school, and community

partners to judge whether their efforts are

meeting their goals. The purpose of evaluation is

to help partners sharpen their understanding of

where they started their effort and where they are

going with it, rather than measure it against an

outside standard.

Evaluation activities range from formal, carefully

designed approaches to informal ones that

depend on information gathered as part of

providing services. Common to every program

evaluation is the definition of indicators to assess

the effectiveness of policies and practices. For

example, participant ratings may be one indicator

used to judge whether services are responsive to

the needs of home, school, and community

partners.

The evaluation of efforts to foster continuity for

young children and their families should

focus on:

Policies and practices. Home, school, and

community partners develop policies and

practices that either link services over time and

respond to child and family needs, or create

discontinuity. Partners need to collect data that

help them determine the impact of their policies

and procedures (Blalock, 1990).

Services. The outcomes that result from

collaboratively designed services indicate

whether the partners are achieving their

objectives. Outcomes related to providing

continuity may include data on the immunization

of children, the level of family involvement in

different care or education programs, children’s

adjustment to a new care or educational setting,

or children’s developmental progress.

Building an evaluation component into a

collaborative effort helps home, school, and

community partners continually clarify their

objectives and understand their accomplishments

and shortcomings. Information from the

evaluation can be used to fine-tune services and

set priorities for action. It also aids in

communicating about the collaborative services

to everyone in the community as well as to key

organizations, such as government agencies and

private foundations.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 101

EVALUATION OF

PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS

Continuity for children from birth through age eight and their

families is strengthened when home, school, and community

partners document their efforts and use evaluation information

to improve policies, programs, and practices.

Indicator #1 Partners jointly develop indicators of success.

Indicator #2 Partners conduct community assessments.

Indicator #3 Partners make known community assessment findings throughout

the community.

Indicator #4 Partners routinely review the availability, accessibility, and

flexibility of community services for young children and families.

Indicator #5 Partners review the effects of existing federal, state, and local

policies and practices on children and families.

Indicator #6 Partners refine their efforts.

Indicator #7 Partners work together to build their evaluation skills.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 102

EVALUATION OF PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Partners do not work

together to assess their

efforts.

1. Partners jointly develop

indicators of success.

Partners jointly identify

indicators of success and

define how they will be

used to measure progress

in improving services for

young children and

families. The indicators

may focus on:

• how well the

partnership works,

• how services for

young children and

their families have

improved, and

• how the community

has changed as a result

of the partnership’s

efforts.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 103

EVALUATION OF PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Partners do not conduct

community assessments.

Individual agencies may

conduct assessments, but

do not gather such

information in

collaboration with other

partners.

Partners regularly conduct

assessments across agencies

and organizations. These

assessments consist of

gathering, analyzing, and

reporting information

related to improving

continuity for young

children and their families.

Attention is given to, for

example, how well services

address the cultural,

linguistic, and other

characteristics of children

and families. Community

assessment information is

used to review progress of

the partnership and improve

services.

2. Partners conduct

community assessments.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 104

EVALUATION OF PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Community assessment

reports are shared

regularly with partners

and the broader

community. Follow-up

meetings are conducted

to gather feedback from a

wider audience about

implications of the

findings for children and

families in the

community.

Partners do not make

known community

assessment findings.

3. Partners make known

community assessment

findings throughout the

community.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 105

EVALUATION OF PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

4. Partners routinely

review the availability,

accessibility, and

flexibility of

community services for

young children and

families.

Partners do not review the

accessibility and

availability of community

services.

Partners review

community assessments

and other information to

examine the match

between family needs and

services available from

private and public sources

in the community. When

gaps in services are

identified, the partnership

investigates linkages,

funding opportunities,

and other options to

improve services for

children and families in

the community.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 106

EVALUATION OF PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Partners routinely review

federal, state, and local

policies and practices that

affect the coordination of

services. Partners

determine whether

mandates for children

with special needs are

being met. Partners use

their knowledge of the

community’s needs and

services as a basis for

advocating for policies

that are responsive to

family needs and

preferences.

Partners do not review

existing policies and

practices.

5. Partners review the

effects of existing

federal, state, and local

policies and practices

on children and

families.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 107

EVALUATION OF PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Partners use information

from community

assessments and other

sources to improve the

processes of the

partnership. Consensus

and collaborative

problem solving are used

by the partnership to:

• monitor the quality and

consistency of

communication between

and among partners,

• link partners,

• review participation and

representativeness of

partners,

• resolve interpersonal

conflicts, and

• address service delivery

issues.

Partners do not review or

refine their efforts.

6. Partners refine their

efforts.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 108

EVALUATION OF PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS

PRACTICES IN NEED

OF CHANGE

Rate how similar your community partnership’s practice is to the above description of effective practice:

1 Not similar 2 Somewhat similar 3 Similar 4 Very similar

Reasons for the rating:

YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’S PRACTICE

Partners do not have

opportunities to build their

skills.

7. Partners work together

to build their evaluation

skills.

Partners regularly

participate in activities to

build their understanding

of the skills needed to

evaluate partnership

activities, and to conduct

and review community

assessments.

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 109

Resources

Blalock, A. B. (Ed.). (1990). Evaluating social programs at the state and local level.

Kalamazoo, MI: WE Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

Cortez, A. (1992). Site-based decision-making: Implications for evaluation. Intercultural

Development Research Association Newsletter, 19(8), 1-3.

Gomby, D. S., & Larson, C. S. (1992). Evaluation of school-linked services. The Future of

Children, 2(1), 68-84.

Knapp, M. S. (1995). How shall we study comprehensive, collaborative services for

children and families? Educational Researcher, 24(4), 5-16.

Melaville, A., Blank, M., & Asayesh, G. (1993). Together we can: A guide for crafting a

profamily system of education and human services. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education.

Miller, P. (1993). Building villages to raise our children: Evaluation. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard Family Research Project.

Rivest, M., & Yuan, Y. Y. T. (1990). Preserving families: Evaluation resources for

practitioners and policy makers. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Rossi, P. (1992). Strategies for evaluation. Children and Youth Services Review, 41(1 & 2),

167-191.

Sanders, J. R. (1992). Evaluating school programs: An educator’s guide. Newbury Park,

CA: Corwin Press.

Weiss, H. B., & Jacobs, F. H. (1988). Evaluating family programs. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine

De Gruyter.

Young, N., Gardner, S., Coley, S., Schoore, L., & Bruner, C. (1994). Making a difference:

Moving to outcome-based accountability for comprehensive service reforms. Resource Brief

No. 7. Falls Church, VA: National Center for Services Integration.

EVALUATION OF PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 110

Accessible: Services and programs are easily obtainable for all children and families,

including those with special needs.

Activity areas: Also called interest areas or learning centers, these are collections of

materials focused on a topic, subject, or activity (for example, art, writing, block

construction, dramatic play, discovery). Activity areas have clear boundaries but are not

rigid; children may combine materials across areas, and move freely between areas to follow

their interests (Berry & Mindes, 1993).

Anti-bias training: Training that builds acceptance, tolerance, and celebration of

diversity.

Assessment: An estimate of what the caregiver/teacher wants individual children to be

able to do or understand. Assessment occurs in the context of a care/educational environment

and reflects all children’s growth. Observations, videotapes, journals, conferences, and taped

readings are examples of appropriate assessment. This type of assessment is frequently openended, and judgment is required to evaluate the level of growth and performance (American

Association of School Administrators, 1992).

Care and education: Historically, child care and early education evolved as distinct

services with different goals and sometimes different approaches to child development. The

definition of developmentally appropriate practices (Bredekamp, 1987) and the evolution of

the National Association for the Education of Young Children’s accreditation program united

the fields of care and education. In this document, these terms together refer to services that

nurture the development, learning, and well being of young children and their families. Care

and education programs include child care centers, private and public preschool programs,

kindergartens, and primary grade schools (Bredekamp, 1987; Kagan, 1991a).

Child-initiated, hands-on learning: This type of learning occurs when children have

many opportunities to initiate their own purposeful activities, and when children are entrusted

with responsibility for them. The adult’s role is to guide children as they make decisions,

rather than make decisions for them (Hohmann, 1983).

Children: All children, from birth to age eight, including those with special needs.

GLOSSARY
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 111

Cognitive/cognition: Mental activities such as thinking, reasoning, remembering, and

perceiving. The process by which the seemingly random information presented by the

environmental and social stimuli around a person is organized into meaningful units for

memory and ultimate action (Singer & Revenson, 1978).

Collaboration: Organizational and interorganizational structures where resources, power,

and authority are shared and where people are brought together to achieve common goals that

could not be accomplished by a single individual or organization independently (Kagan,

1991b).

Collaborative learning: This type of learning occurs when pairs of children or small

groups carry out a project or activity together and learn from one another.

Community: A neighborhood, city, county, catchment area, school attendance area, or

service district (not necessarily a political jurisdiction).

Community assessment: A process whereby information about a community’s needs,

resources, and assets is gathered and analyzed systematically to guide actions taken within

the community. The purpose of the assessment is to obtain the best available information

about needs, resources, and assets in order to avoid taking action based on faulty information,

biases, or misperceptions. Community assessment is both a product, offering important

information about the community and its residents’ strengths and needs, and a process

whereby community members understand community needs and become invested in working

for change (Bruner, Bell, Brindis, Chang, & Scarbrough, 1993).

Comprehensive services: Services and activities of community and partnership

providers that make available a broad set of services to meet the needs of all children and

families.

Confidentiality: The act of protecting the privacy of persons who have provided

information about themselves or about whom information has been gathered.

Conflict resolution: Clearing up or solving problems, disagreements, conflicts, or

differences of opinion.

Consensus: A form of group decision making in which all opinions are heard and a

collective decision is made. Consensus requires acceptance from group members that the

agreed-upon decision is the best that can be made at the time and that everyone will assume

responsibility for supporting it.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 112

Continuity: A principle of development that has three major properties: (1) agreement

that young children learn differently from older children and adults, and that parents are at the

center of early care and education; (2) agreement that early childhood pedagogy goes beyond

the cognitive domain and includes the social, emotional, and health domains; and (3)

consistency between and among services for young children and families (Kagan, 1991a).

Continuity implies similarity of experiences for young children and families, not identical

experiences from one service setting to another. Continuity refers to connections in services

and service systems for young children and families at any given time (horizontal continuity)

and over time (vertical continuity).

Cooperation: An understanding among groups and/or agencies that allows each group or

agency to assist in fulfilling an identified need while still retaining its autonomy, resources,

leadership, and established system of service delivery (Kadel, 1992).

Coordination: Commonly regarded as a prerequisite for collaboration, coordination

“entails efforts to smooth relationships among organizations and often results in specific

modifications in the way agencies operate” (Kagan, 1991b).

Cross-cultural: A focus on two or more cultures.

Cultural diversity: Representation of all people and groups within a community. For

example, diversity refers to the full range of ethnicity, cultural heritage, national, tribal,

religious, and linguistic backgrounds, and preferences of people within a community.

Cultural frames: Ways that a person views the world and everyday situations based on

her or his family values, cultural beliefs, preferences, and rules for living. Programs and

services should be designed to reflect the cultural diversity and learning styles of families and

children.

Culturally appropriate: Care and education activities that are in harmony with cultural

beliefs, values, and learning styles and preferences. These activities affirm the value of

culture, as well as maintain the integrity of diverse cultures.

Culture: The customs, beliefs, social norms, values, and material traits of a racial, ethnic,

religious, or social group.

Curriculum: A framework for organizing the various areas of learning and growth in a

care and education program.

Data: Information that is gathered and used to answer questions. There are two types of

data: (1) qualitative, which describes perceptions or observations about process, operations,

or outcomes; and (2) quantitative, which measures the number of participants or activities

related to process, operations, or outcomes. It is especially important to use developmentally

appropriate methods when collecting information from young children.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 113

Developmentally appropriate: This concept has two dimensions: age and individual

appropriateness. It is possible for activities to be age appropriate but not developmentally

appropriate, and vice versa. Activities planned for children should consider both age and

development, and should be responsive to the needs of individuals.

(1) Age appropriateness means that activities are designed to meet the child at her or

his chronological age. For children without physical, mental, or emotional disabilities,

researchers have identified predictable milestones of growth and development that occur in

children during the first nine years of life. These predictable changes occur in physical,

emotional, social, cognitive, and aesthetic development. Knowledge of the typical

development of children within this age span provides a framework for preparing the learning

environment and planning appropriate experiences.

(2) Individual appropriateness takes into account each child’s uniqueness. Each child

has an individual pattern and timing of growth, with her or his own personality, learning style,

and family/cultural background. This concept also recognizes the impact that chronological

age has on children with disabilities. Activity plans and adults’ interaction with children

should be responsive to all individual differences. Learning for young children results from

the child’s interactions with materials, ideas, and people. When these experiences match the

child’s developing abilities, and also challenge the child’s interest and understanding, learning

will take place (Connecticut State Department of Education, 1990).

Documentation: Written record of activities. This document refers to the information or

data that describe the status of activities and the process of describing the status of activities.

Early intervention: Services that occur early in a child’s life to support both the child and

the family, enhance development, and prevent problems.

Effective practice: In this document, policies and activities that support the development

of home, school, and community partnerships strengthen early childhood continuity for young

children and their families.

Element: A broad area of concern that must be addressed to ensure continuity for young

children and families. This Framework presents eight Elements that strengthen continuity for

children and families.

Evaluation: Systematic collection and analysis of program-related data that can be used to

understand how a program delivers services as well as the consequences of its services for

participants (Weiss & Jacobs, 1988).

Family(ies): Any individual(s) or group(s) who assume primary responsibility for nurturing

a child. “Families are big, small, extended, nuclear, multi-generational, with one parent, two

parents, and grandparents....A family can be as temporary as a few weeks, as permanent as

forever. We become part of a family by birth, adoption, marriage, or from a desire for mutual

support....Our families create neighborhoods, communities, states, and nations” (New Mexico

Task Force on Children, Youth, and Families, 1991) (see Element 3 Rationale).
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 114

Feedback: Information that is shared as a result of a formal or informal evaluation. The

purpose is to aid planning and decision making concerning knowledge and skill development

and program improvement (Loucks-Horsley, et al., 1987).

Framework: A structure or system for organizing and understanding ideas or concepts.

Gender expectations: Expectations that are held regarding acceptable behavior for

females and males.

Home culture: A system of values, beliefs, ways of communicating, and standards that

guide a family’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Hernandez, 1989).

Home language: Language spoken in the home by family members (see Family).

Home, school, and community partnership: An effort that involves families,

school staff, and community representatives as equal partners working interdependently to

plan, implement, and assess: (a) coordinated comprehensive services (educational, social

welfare, health, mental health), and/or (b) academic support services (tutoring, training,

mentoring) to increase children’s school success and improve the functioning of their families

and communities (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1991) (see Partnership).

Inclusion: The act of taking in as part of a whole. In relation to continuity of services,

inclusion refers to all partners participating in all activities. As it relates to children with

special needs, inclusion refers to children receiving services in the least restrictive

environment where they are involved in activities and programs with non-disabled peers.

Indicator: A number, statistic, or observable condition that people have agreed to use as

evidence that a certain reality exists or that certain outcomes have (or have not) been

achieved.

Individualized: See Developmentally Appropriate.

Knowledge and skill development: Refers to a wide range of learning opportunities

for all partners. These learning opportunities may be offered to a group or individual

(Loucks-Horsley et al., 1987; National Staff Development Council, 1986). Knowledge and

skill development activities often include families and community members relating stories

of cultural values or experiences.

Leadership team: The group of people within an organization or in a partnership whose

responsibility may include implementing change, setting policies and procedures, and making

recommendations for action. The leadership team ideally consists of a representative from

each level or group within the organization or partnership and includes parent representation.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 115

Learning environment: Includes the physical space (indoors and outdoors),

furnishings, equipment, and arrangements, as well as the activities, materials, and special

events available to young children. Socialization experiences and interaction with adults and

other children that are available to young children also make up the learning environment

(Bredekamp, 1987).

Learning styles: Young children’s approaches toward learning, including: openness to

new tasks and challenges, curiosity, task persistence and attentiveness, a tendency for

reflection and interpretation, and imagination and invention (Goal 1 Technical Planning

Group, 1993).

Linguistically diverse: A community in which multiple languages or communication

systems are used.

Linkages: The connections made between partners to strengthen continuity and smooth

transitions for children and families. The term also refers to the agreements between or

among agencies that make collaboration work.

Outcomes: Changes in behavior, circumstances, knowledge, skills, or abilities that occur

as a result of a program or services (Brizius & Campbell, 1991).

Parent involvement: Any of a variety of activities that allow parents to participate in the

education of their child at home or at school (Chavkin & Williams, 1985). The inclusion of

parents and families in planning, designing, and implementing services to support children’s

development and learning.

Partners/partnerships: Two or more people or groups, including parents, coming

together to share a common purpose. A partnership can include representatives of the home

(parents and other family members), school (teachers, Head Start directors, school

administrators, caregivers, and other educators), and community (health and human service

providers, business representatives, higher education, and other community members) (see

Shared Leadership).

Planning process: The series of steps or stages followed by a group to identify how it

will carry out its work. In a collaborative effort, the planning process is locally generated

and includes broad citizen involvement. The process includes developing a shared vision

with common goals and establishing a leadership team that implements an action plan

(Melaville, Blank, & Asayesh, 1993).

Policy(ies): A set of actions undertaken by the executive branch of government either at

the direction of the chief executive (president, governor, or mayor) or through legislative

action (Brizius & Campbell, 1991). The guidelines or principles of action by which an

organization or partnership operates.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 116

Portfolio: A purposeful collection of a child’s work that demonstrates to the child, family,

and/or others how the child is developing in given domain(s). The collection of work

includes: (1) a child’s participation in selection of the portfolio content, (2) criteria for

selection, and (3) evidence of child self-reflection (Arter, 1990).

Practice: The methods used to provide care and education, health, and social services to

children and families. Practices emerge in four components of programs and services:

curriculum/services, adult-child interaction, relations between home and providers, and

assessment of children’s and families’ development, learning, health, and overall functioning

(Bredekamp, 1987).

Principles of adult learning: Conditions that support adult growth and change,

including opportunities to try out new practices, personal support, and challenges. Optimum

learning opportunities relate to the person’s role with children, careful and continuous guided

reflection, and discussion over time, usually done with others (Jones, 1986; Loucks-Horsley

et al., 1987; Sparks, 1992).

Progress: Positive change over time.

Provider: An agency, care, or educational entity that serves young children and families.

Readiness: A wide range of abilities and experiences that influence children’s early

learning and development. Five dimensions involved include: physical well-being and

motor development, social and emotional development, approaches toward learning,

language usage, and cognition and general knowledge (Goal 1 Technical Planning Group,

1993).

Resources: Assets, including staff, materials, funds and expertise, available to support an

effort (Melaville, Blank & Asayesh, 1993).

Responsive: The ability to take action that appropriately and effectively addresses the

needs, requests, suggestions, or concerns of young children and their families.

Service setting: The environment or context where young children and/or their families

receive some type of service. Examples include health services, parent education,

transportation services, child care, etc.

Shared leadership: A condition under which the leadership is broadly spread throughout

a partnership. It represents a holistic property shared to some degree by all persons and

groups involved in a collaboration (Kagan, 1994). A formalized process through which the

responsibility for decisions and outcomes is shared among representatives of all groups and

agencies participating in a team effort to reach a common goal.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 117

Staff: Any person employed by a program or service provider who contributes to the

program or service provider’s work or contact with young children and families.

Standardized test: An instrument composed of empirically selected items that have

definite instructions for use, adequately determined norms, and data reliability and validity

(National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1988).

Systemic: A way of thinking about a system as a whole. A comprehensive approach that

involves all aspects of a system.

Transferred: Taken or sent from one program to another.

Transition: The process of moving from one care and education, health, or social service

to another. The process of moving from one setting, to another, for example, from home to

preschool or school.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 118

References

American Association of School Administrators. (1992). The non-graded primary: Making

schools fit children. Arlington, VA: Author.

Arter, J. A. (1990). Portfolios in instruction and assessment. Portland, OR: Northwest

Regional Educational Laboratory.

Berry, C., & Seefelt, C. (1993). Planning a theme-based curriculum. Glenview, IL: Good

Year Books.

Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood

programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association

for the Education of Young Children.

Brizius, J. A. & Campbell, M. D. (1991). Getting results: A guide for government

accountability. Washington, DC: Council of Governors’ Policy Advisors.

Bruner, C., Bell, K., Brindis, C., Chang, H., & Scarbrough, W. (1993). Charting a course:

Assessing a community’s strengths and needs. Resource Brief No. 2. New York: National

Center for Service Integration.

Chavkin, N. F. & Williams, D. L. Jr. (1985). Executive summary of the final report: Parent

involvement in education project. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development

Laboratory.

Connecticut State Department of Education. (1990). The teacher’s ongoing role in creating

a developmentally appropriate early childhood education program. Hartford, CT: Author.

Goal 1 Technical Planning Group. (1993). Reconsidering children’s early development and

learning: Toward shared beliefs and vocabulary. Draft report to the national education goals

panel. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.

Hernandez, H. (1989). Multicultural education: A teacher’s guide to content and process.

Columbus, OH: Merrill.

GLOSSARY
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 119

Hohmann, M. (1983). A study guide to young children in action. Ypsilanti, MI: High/

Scope Press.

Jones, E. (1986). Teaching adults: An active learning approach. Washington, DC:

National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Kagan, S. L. (1994). Leadership: Rethinking it—making it happen. Young children, 49(5),

50-54.

Kagan, S. L. (1991a). Moving from here to there: Rethinking continuity and transitions in

early care and education. In B. Spodek & O. Saracho (Eds.), Yearbook in early childhood

education. Vol. 2 (pp. 132-151). New York: Teachers College Press.

Kagan, S. L. (1991b). United we stand: Collaboration for child care and early education

services. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kadel, S. (1992). Interagency collaboration: Improving the delivery of services to

children and families. Tallahassee, FL: SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Harding, C. K., Arbuckle, M. A., Murray, L. B., Dubea, C., & Williams,

M. K. (1987). Continuing to learn: A guidebook for teacher development. Andover, MA:

The Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands.

Melaville, A., & Blank, M. (1991). What it takes: Structuring interagency partnerships to

connect children and families with comprehensive services. Washington, DC: Institute for

Educational Leadership.

Melaville, A., Blank, M., & Asayesh, G. (1993). Together we can: A guide for crafting a

profamily system of education and human services. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1988). Position statement on

standardized testing of young children 3 through 8 years of age. Washington, DC: Author.

National Staff Development Council. (1986). The Journal of Staff Development, 7(1).

Singer, D. G., & Revenson, T. A. (1978). A Piaget primer: How a child thinks. New

York: Plume.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 120

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (1991). Directory of partnership programs,

resources, and councils. Austin, TX: Author.

Sparks, D. (1992). The keys to effective staff development. Principal, 71(3), 43-44.

Weiss, H. B., & Jacobs, F. H. (Eds.). (1988). Evaluating family programs. Hawthorne, NY:

Aldine de Gruyter.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 121

USING THE FRAMEWORK:

A GUIDE FOR PARTNERSHIPS

Overview

Throughout the Framework’s development there were numerous occasions when

practitioners used and reviewed the document in a variety of settings. Field work and

validation efforts by Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) staff, presentations and

workshops at conferences and symposia, and review and feedback from our national

associations’ partners yielded comments and questions that guided the Laboratories’ work on

the Framework. From these many sources the most frequent request was for illustrations and

guidance about how the Framework might be used by home, school, and community

partnerships. Professionals working with young children and their families repeatedly asked

for suggestions of strategies partnerships could use to examine the issues related to continuity

in their community. This Guide, “Using the Framework: A Guide for Partnerships,”

responds to these requests. It is designed to help families, schools, community agencies, and

interested professionals effectively work together around issues of continuity and transition.

Other legitimate uses for the Framework exist; however, the growing interest in and

experimentation with collaborative efforts have led us to prepare this Guide that home,

school, and community partnerships can use as a tool to strengthen continuity for young

children and families in their community. The audience for this Guide as well as the

Continuity Framework consists of members of a home, school, and community partnership.

These documents can help partnerships develop a common base of knowledge about

effective early childhood practices and learn strategies to improve continuity for young

children and their families.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 122

This Guide consists of the following sections:

Defining a Home, School, and Community Partnership offers ideas about who to involve in

partnerships that aim to strengthen continuity and smooth transitions in early childhood.

Guiding Principles for Partnership identifies five principles to guide a partnership’s use of

the Framework.

Uses of the Framework illustrates how partnerships might use the Framework as a tool to

improve continuity and smooth transitions for young children and their families. It presents

vignettes that illustrate a range of potential uses of the Framework by partnerships and offers

tips and points to consider when exploring continuity for young children and their families.

Defining a Home, School, and Community Partnership

In this Guide the term partnership is defined as a diverse group of representatives of the

home, school, and community who agree to work together to improve continuity for young

children and their families. The composition of home, school, and community partnerships

will vary from community to community because of many factors, including the geographic

context of the community (rural, urban, or suburban) and the community’s needs and

resources. Effective partnerships aim for representation of all people in the community who

have a stake in the healthy development of young children and their families:

• parents, representatives of parent groups, grandparents, and other family members;

• child care, preschool, nursery school, Head Start, and Even Start staff;

• school personnel (teachers, district and building administrators, teacher assistants,

secretaries, custodians, bus drivers, lunchroom staff);

• health and social service providers, including mental health providers;

• child care resource and referral agency representatives;

• local chamber of commerce, business, and industry representatives;

• representatives of local government, libraries, park districts, etc.;
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 123

• representatives of local nonprofit agencies, such as United Way;

• local and county university-affiliated training and technical assistance providers

such as county extension;

• representatives of religious organizations;

• representatives of existing community councils, such as the Local Interagency;

• coordinating councils for young children with disabilities, housing project tenant

councils;

• child welfare and child protective services agency providers; and

• local media representatives.

Partnerships should not duplicate or work at cross-purposes with existing entities. Therefore,

people interested in developing partnerships may want to investigate existing groups to

assess the need for a new partnership. Partnerships can operate under a variety of names,

including advisory boards, advisory councils, Local Interagency Coordinating Councils,

coalitions, task forces, and school improvement teams. The best vehicle for addressing

continuity and transition issues may be a spin-off from an existing entity. The most common

shortcoming of existing groups is likely to be insufficient diversity of membership. If an

existing partnership decides to address continuity, it should consider inviting new partners to

join the group to ensure diverse representation. Improvements in continuity result from the

investment and commitment of many people who work as partners to support young children

and their families. Some of the most important partners will be parents. It is important to

invite wide parent participation so that they are not intimidated by an overwhelming number

of government employees, school administrators, etc.

Guiding Principles for Partnership

The Framework can be used in a wide variety of settings and for many purposes. Partnerships

must feel free to use and tailor the Framework in ways that are most helpful to them. The

Framework can range from being a central organizing tool for exploring continuity, to one of
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 124

many resources that support a broader investigation of community needs. This Guide offers

examples of long-term, ongoing applications of the Framework, as well as short-term uses. All

of these applications will become more effective when guided by the following principles:

1. Families are central partners. Partnerships’ efforts to improve continuity depend on an

atmosphere of respect for families. Partnerships that effectively create continuity build upon

the strengths of families and respond to their needs and preferences. Partnerships must involve

parents in ways that recognize their knowledge of the community, and draw upon their

particular knowledge and insights about their children. Feedback from families is critically

important to help partnerships identify the strengths and weaknesses in current continuity

efforts and to use this information to strengthen continuity for young children and families in

the future.

2. The partnership reflects broad representation. Discussion of continuity requires the

involvement of families and providers of care and education, health, and social services. It also

must include representatives from the business community, the private sector, religious groups,

and others who are concerned about the needs of young children and their families. When

partnerships recognize the interrelationships of all services, including education, they see the

benefits of working together to support the development of young children and families. A

partnership’s efforts to improve continuity is enriched when its membership is broad and

diverse. Such representation helps partnerships identify new strategies that a less diverse group

may overlook. Broad representation also brings together resources to support comprehensive

and flexible approaches that address the complex problems faced by families today.

3. All partners need to “buy in” to the process of using the Framework. A partnership’s

exploration of early childhood continuity needs to engage partners in meaningful ways.

Partners need to examine how concerns about continuity relate to the community’s services for

young children and their families. These discussions help diverse groups recognize their

common goals for children and families. As a result, partners are more likely to be willing to

take risks, learn from each other, and actively work to strengthen continuity for young

children and families.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 125

4. Change takes time and is an evolving process. The Framework is intended to be used as

part of the ongoing work of partnerships. The Framework presents a vision and approach for

partnerships to adopt and refine over time. Improvements in continuity result from the longterm commitments and the efforts of many concerned individuals working together. The

Framework can help partnerships identify and try out new ways to address the needs of young

children and their families.

5. The Framework is strictly a tool for exploring continuity and transition. While the

Framework offers many insights about professional growth, it should not replace existing

tools for staff evaluation. The Framework is not intended to be used to evaluate the

effectiveness of individual programs. The effective practices described in the Framework

are goals to work toward, not measures of service effectiveness. Properly used, the

Framework promotes adoption of all the effective practices, and should not place partners in

the role of judging each other. Finally, the effective practices in the Framework become

meaningful only when considered against the community’s needs and preferences. Factors

such as geographic context, community resources, and the partnership’s mission and goals

play critical roles in determining what is best for a particular community.

Uses of the Framework

As described earlier, there are many ways to use the Continuity Framework. This section

focuses on three potential uses of the Framework that emerged frequently from the RELs’

work with home, school, and community partnerships: building partnerships, planning for

continuity, and promoting change. A discussion of each use opens with a description of how

that particular use of the Framework supports partnerships’ efforts to improve continuity for

young children and their families. Vignettes then highlight how the Framework can contribute

to the partnerships’ efforts to improve continuity. The discussion closes with a list of tips and

things to consider when working to improve transitions and continuity for young children and

their families.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 126

Use #1: Building Partnerships

Use of the Framework supports two aspects of building partnerships. First, the Framework

identifies a broad range of people who are critical to involve as partners to improve continuity

for young children and their families. The Framework can provide the needed impetus for

getting these diverse individuals together and helping them see themselves as important

partners in the process. Second, partners can use the Framework to develop positive working

relationships among themselves. Partners can use the Framework to discuss beliefs and

practices that support or hinder relationships and communication. As partners learn about

their similarities and differences, they build a common understanding about issues that

influence continuity for young children and their families. Partners also develop a common

language for discussing continuity. Through this process, partners strengthen relationships

among themselves and, as a result, often agree to work together to support early

childhood continuity.

Potential Goals

When using the Framework as a tool for building partnerships, members can address a

number of goals, including the following:

• Become better informed about what continuity is, why it is important, and what it

takes to create continuity for young children and their families.

• Create a climate for relationships to develop and grow among members of

the partnership.

• Develop a common language and shared understanding of what terms mean.

Examples of Uses

Several vignettes suggest how the Framework helps build partnerships.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 127

Story 1:

At its first three meetings, a transition planning team uses the Framework to

have small group discussions about the elements of early childhood continuity.

Each small group reflects diverse perspectives. For example, one small group

is composed of a Head Start teacher, a public school teacher, a nurse's

assistant from the community health center, and a parent. Another small group

includes a WIC program coordinator, an assistant principal, a Head Start

teacher's aide, and a parent.

The small groups proceed element by element. Participants take turns sharing

their responses to several questions: What does this element mean to you?

How do the elements and its indicators relate to your school's or agency's work

and/or to the experiences of children and families in the community? From this

discussion, a number of common concerns emerge. The small groups

summarize their findings and share them with the whole group.

Story 2:

At their first meeting, a Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies coalition agrees to

post a list of all the terms people identify as confusing. People identify terms

from the Framework, program descriptions, other resources, and partner’s

remarks. The group spends time at the next few meetings reviewing the list

and discussing what the terms mean. At first the task seems very timeconsuming and counterproductive. Later, however, the group feels that the

process actually improved their communication. The process helped them to

better understand each other before they defined how they would work

together.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 128

Story 3:

A school improvement team uses the Framework to explore how well it

addresses the first element, Families as Partners. The group is interested in

increasing parent involvement in school activities. Partners follow a three-step

process. First, each individual thinks about the school’s current practices for

each indicator. Each partner uses the scale for each indicator and lists

reasons for their rating. Partners then form small groups and share their

perceptions with several other partners. As a third step, partners report back

to the large group about small group discussions. The team then reflects on

what they have learned from this exercise. They summarize common points of

view as well as differences. The team uses the information to develop an

outreach plan to involve parents in a variety of meaningful roles on campus.

Story 4:

A newly formed Regional Council for Children with Special Needs uses the

Framework to learn more about continuity for all children and families in the

community. They discuss terms such as transition, continuity, and outcomes

until they arrive at common understandings. The partnership then works in

small groups to develop scenarios that reflect what strong continuity would

look like in their community. They use two settings for the scenarios: a child’s

day and a child’s experience across the preschool and early elementary years.

Small groups share their results with the large group. The partnership

summarizes the main features of continuity that emerge from the scenarios.

Tips and Points to Consider

When using the Framework to build partnerships, here are some tips and points to consider:

• Ensure that all discussions reflect a parent voice by creating active roles for

parents, such as having a parent and a professional jointly chair the partnership.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 129

• Discuss the partnership’s decision-making process early in its development.

Trying to come to agreement on everything is difficult and may not be productive.

Identify how the group will use consensus, delegation, and voting. Consider

forming subcommittees to think through the issues that the partnership will

address. The subcommittee can make recommendations for action to the entire

partnership.

• Consider holding partnership meetings in different locations such as those

represented by the partners’ agencies, schools, or organizations. Allow time on the

agenda for a tour of the facility. The host partner also can share information about

the school or agency, such as policies and procedures for securing services for

children with special needs. This information can facilitate a richer understanding

of the community’s services and how they contribute to continuity.

• Invest time early in the partnership’s development to define terms, outline

 communication mechanisms, and clarify decision-making processes. Don’t worry

if group members seem to be taking too much time discussing how they will work

 together. Often this investment pays off in the long run. Partnerships that do not

spend time discussing these issues usually have to go back and deal with them at a

later time.

• Provide opportunities for people from various agencies, organizations, and schools

to share with the group how a particular element affects their work place.

Discussion can identify similarities among agencies, organizations, and schools. It

also can help partners understand some of the common challenges they face.

• Maintain partners’ ongoing knowledge of each other’s practices and services by

having everyone routinely share print documents, such as newsletters or brochures

and/or video information.

• Be aware that some words are provocative; they carry controversial messages in

certain settings or with certain people. Examples vary by setting, but might

include the words outcomes, stakeholders, and developmentally appropriate
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 130

practices. Work to identify such terms early on so that the partnership chooses

words that are acceptable to use in its work together.

• Identify strategies that your partnership feels comfortable using to become familiar

with continuity. For example, you may want to have small groups learn about

current practices at social agencies and report their findings to the partnership. Or,

the partnership may want to spend time at partnership meetings focusing on

particular elements and their implications for schools.

• Consider developing products that will help new members learn quickly and easily

about the work of the partnership. Examples include a list of terms the partnership

agrees to use and their meanings and quarterly summaries of progress. These

products also support partners’ shared understanding about agreements they make

to work together.

• Aim to keep a balanced representation of parents, school staff, and service

providers active in the partnership. Additional recruitment of partners is often

necessary over time. Also, consider expanding membership to obtain expertise

that may be needed to implement certain priorities.

Use #2: Planning for Continuity

A partnership can also use the Framework to determine a course of action to strengthen

continuity for young children and their families. Partners can use the Framework as a

resource to identify steps in a planning process and to envision policies and practices that

support continuity. A partnership usually begins its planning process by developing a shared

vision about continuity to guide its direction and the selection of priorities for action. Partners

also assess the community’s current resources and identify gaps in services and duplication of

effort. The assessment provides insights about how much continuity or discontinuity young

children and their families experience. Partners use this information to identify specific ways

to improve continuity.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 131

Potential Goals

When using the Framework as a tool for planning, members can address a number of goals,

including the following:

• Develop a shared vision and direction for the partnership’s work together.

• Guide the process of developing meaningful goals for young children and

their families.

• Gather information to study and assess a community’s present level of continuity.

• Identify gaps in services, duplication of services, and ways to improve existing

services.

Examples of Uses

Several vignettes suggest how the Framework helps partnerships plan for continuity.

Story 1:

People establish a partnership to improve the quality of care and education

services for young children in the community. The Framework is one of many

resources that the partnership uses to learn about effective care and education

services. Members spend time at several meetings reviewing the element on

Appropriate Care and Education. From this and other discussions, partners

identify the strengths and weaknesses of current child care practices in the

community. One of the weaknesses they identify is that many environments

are not well designed for young children. The partnership works closely with

existing resources in the community to develop a plan to improve child care

environments. The plan outlines several strategies for improving children’s

learning environments. The local Head Start program and a preschool

program in the elementary school volunteer to serve as pilot sites for

implementing the strategies.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 132

Story 2:

A Special Needs Program Council uses the Framework as a resource to guide

its development of a shared vision. Partners participate in an exercise in

which they consider the question, What would our community look like if it

were fully responsive to the needs of all children and families? Partners

respond to the question individually and then share responses with the group.

By sharing insights about partners’ individual and collective ideas, their vision

begins to emerge. Partners then work together to develop a written vision

statement that captures the richness of individual and collective perspectives.

They review and refine the draft statement at several meetings until the

partnership is pleased with the vision statement. They share the vision

statement with the school PTA, the superintendent, and directors of local

health and social service agencies. The partnership also arranges to have the

statement published in the local newspaper.

Story 3:

A Governor’s Task Force is developing recommendations for improving the

quality of child care in the state. Three subcommittees use the Framework as

one of many resources that guide their work. The subcommittees seek ideas

from experts in the field, at public hearings, and from written resources to

compare the state’s current practices with effective practices identified in the

Framework and other sources. Each subcommittee prepares a summary of its

findings and drafts recommendations for legislative action. The task force

reviews and approves the recommendations. Child advocacy groups and

legislators use the recommendations to craft a legislative agenda to effect the

system changes needed to improve child care services.

Tips and Points to Consider

When using the Framework as a tool for planning, here are some tips and points to consider:
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 133

• Strengthen the partnership’s plans to conduct a needs assessment by seeking out

people in the community who are skilled in this activity. Examples include

graduate students, city planners, and community college and university staff.

Invite these people to attend partnership meetings and offer tips to the partnership

about how to conduct a needs assessment. With luck, they may agree to help

partners with their effort.

• Don’t rely on casual opinion as a major source of information about the school

district and community services. Personal experiences and perceptions are

valuable, but must be balanced with concrete and written information from

reliable sources. For example, examine data from partners’ agencies, district

offices, and organizations as well as that available from state or county sources.

• Use a variety of approaches to understand information about school and

community resources. For example, written information often becomes more

meaningful when partners talk to the report developers and staff who were

involved in the effort.

• Don’t ignore areas where information about resources is sketchy or lacking.

Consider forming a subcommittee of partners who volunteer to do additional fact

finding to identify resources not well known to the partnership.

• Keep in mind that diverse groups tend to have diverse opinions. The partnership

is more likely to be effective when partners strive to understand where its

members agree and disagree. They can then respond to these differences with

respect and sensitivity. This approach helps ensure that the group benefits from

many perspectives.

• Remember that some people express themselves better in nonverbal ways. When

developing a shared vision, consider using alternatives such as pictures, images,

and color to support other expressions of partners’ ideas.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 134

• Draw upon the Framework’s effective practices as a source of ideas when

selecting priorities for action. The effective practices break the Elements into

manageable pieces of information and explain their importance in supporting

continuity.

• Remember that conflicts or differences of opinion are not necessarily negative.

Differences can be a stimulant for creativity and growth. It helps to acknowledge

differences. For example, if differences about vision exist between consumers

and providers, ask, “What does that mean for the partnership’s work together?”

• Recognize that all priorities cannot be addressed immediately. Consider starting

with relatively easy tasks or activities. This approach will help to solidify the

partnership as it experiences small successes. Keep in mind that success often

breeds success.

• Begin planning for assessing progress at the outset of the partnership’s work

together. When partners regularly check the course of their work, they can better

determine if their efforts are making a difference. This approach also helps

partners make changes mid-stream so their outcomes are more likely to be met.

Use #3: Promoting Change

This use of the Framework refers to a partnership’s efforts to inform the development and

implementation of policies and practices that create connections between families with young

children and child care providers, preschool program staff, school staff, and community

service providers. Partners can use the Framework to guide the implementation of new

practices, and conduct knowledge and skill development opportunities for staff and families.

Partners can also use the Framework to advocate for new policies, and to reflect on

partnership progress. Building Partnerships and Planning for Continuity usually define the

starting points for Promoting Change. The changes can involve the partnership directly, or the

partnership can support the change efforts of others in the community. Some changes,
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 135

especially those involving policies, occur at state and federal levels. Promoting change helps

partners bring about improvements in continuity and reap the benefits of working

collaboratively.

Potential Goals

When using the Framework as a tool for promoting change, partnerships can address a

number of goals, including the following:

• Guide the development and implementation of policies and practices that

promote continuity.

• Assess the progress of a partnership in improving continuity.

• Build the knowledge and skills of partners, as well as the broader community of

parents and staff, involved with young children and their families.

Examples of Uses

Several vignettes suggest how the Framework helps partnerships promote change.

Story 1:

A family support program selects two elements of the Framework as its priority

concerns for the coming year. The program director organizes monthly

workshops for all staff, participating families, and community service providers.

Sessions vary to keep them interesting and inexpensive. For example, one

month a guest speaker works with the group. Another month, group members

watch a video and discuss its implications for their work. After six months,

members feel empowered by their work together and always look forward to

the monthly sessions. Staff feel that they are more effective in their work with

children and families. Parents feel that they are better parents and more

aware of how community resources can support their children.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 136

Story 2:

A community partnership uses the Framework to design a child development

project for parents of preschool children. As partners review the Framework,

they recognize its emphasis on actively involving parents, and thus, ask four

parents from the community to help them plan and implement the project. The

parents have many good ideas about how to make the information relevant to

other parents of the community. They offer to co-present sessions on good

nutrition so that the session reflects the food preferences of the community.

Each parent also volunteers to bring a friend, who also has a preschool child,

to the sessions. Twenty parents and their preschoolers attend the program.

Partners summarize the outcomes of the project for future reference. They

make particular note of the benefits of having actively involved parents in

planning and carrying out the project.

Story 3:

A statewide children’s advocacy group is committed to improving the quality of

child care throughout the state through legislative action. The group reviews

the Framework and other resources to learn about effective practices for

quality child care. After several months of intense work, the group decides to

focus on one critical issue to present this session of this state legislature:

state support and regulations of early childhood training. A subcommittee of

the advocacy group drafts legislative recommendations that describe the issue

and desired action. They suggest that the legislature direct the state

education agency, the higher education agency, and health and human

services agencies to work together to design an early care and education

career development system. Several advocacy group members work closely

with a legislator and her legislative aides to ensure sponsorship of the

legislation. The advocacy group works to educate and gain support for the

proposed legislation throughout its review. Parent members of the group

present testimony that brings the issues alive for the legislators. They pass

the proposed legislation during the next session.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 137

Tips and Points to Consider

When using the Framework as a tool for promoting change, here are some tips and points

to consider:

• Review the Framework to identify areas in which partners feel they need

knowledge and skill development. Use the Framework to persuade decision

makers of the importance of these issues for the partners’ work together. Advocate

for joint training of all partners regarding these issues.

• Help partners build their knowledge and skills about continuity through regular

knowledge and skill sessions. Time and resources are often scarce. Because

partnership meetings offer easy access to most partners, consider devoting a

portion of the meeting to knowledge and skill development. Sessions can be

structured as simple one-session skill building exercises or ongoing discussions,

depending on the needs and preferences of partners.

• Consider using the Framework to help parents learn about the importance of

continuity early in their child’s life. Various community education opportunities

might be suitable. Examples include child birth sessions, perinatal classes, and

child development classes. The Framework helps explain the importance and

benefits of continuity for their child. It also suggests how providers and parents

can work together to help children adjust easily to care and education and other

services.

• Be aware that personal stories from parents can be powerful tools of persuasion.

For example, such stories provide testimony to support policy change. They can

also help illustrate the success of continuity efforts in securing funding for

partnership efforts.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 138

• Find ways to inform state and federal legislators about the partnership’s work.

Develop personal relationships by writing letters and meeting with them. Select a

team that reflects the diversity of the partnership yet shares common concerns. Have

the team meet with legislative aides and share their concerns about the need and

importance of continuity for children and families in the community.

• Remember that partners generally have greater interest in one activity or aspect of the

partnership’s work. Form subcommittees to encourage partners to participate in work

that most interests them. Divide the work into manageable pieces and respect each

partner’s limitations of time and expertise.

• Gather information beyond partnership activities to document improvements in

continuity for children and families. The partnership needs to identify and describe the

differences that its actions made for children and families in the community.

• Give the partnership permission to be less than perfect. Valuable lessons emerge from

identifying what didn’t work. Discuss and write down what the partnership would do

differently next time and use the information to plan future efforts.

• Keep the partnership on track by being honest and frank.

Summary

The uses suggested in this Guide are ideas that partnerships can use to focus on early childhood

continuity for children and their families. Some uses draw upon the entire Framework, while

others focus on one or two Elements. Partnerships can tailor their use of the Framework to meet

their specific needs and circumstances. It is essential, however, that partnerships approach use of

the Framework guided by a complete picture of continuity. All eight Elements are important.

Even when using only parts of the Framework, partnerships need to keep the big picture of

continuity in mind. For example, partnerships can discuss how the uses they undertake relate to

all eight Elements of the Framework. These discussions can ensure that partnerships maintain a

comprehensive view of continuity while moving forward in small steps.
November 1995 Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages Page 139

This Guide is one resource among many to help partnerships address the needs of young

children and families in their community. The resources listed at the end of this Guide can help

partnerships learn more about how to work collaboratively. Each Element of the Framework

also lists resources that may be useful to partners who are interested in learning more about

topics related to early childhood continuity.

Resources on Collaboration

Bruner, C. (1991). Thinking collaboratively: Questions and answers to help policy-makers

improve children’s services. Washington, DC: Education and Human Services Consortium.

Kunesh, L., & Farley, J. (1993). Integrating community services for young children and their

families. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

Marzke, C., & Both, D. (1994). Getting started: Planning a comprehensive services initiative.

Resource brief 5. Washington, DC: National Center for Service Integration.

Melaville, A., Blank, M., & Asayesh, G. (1993). Together we can: A guide for crafting a

profamily system of education and human services. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Education.

Molloy, P., Saavedra, N., Williams, D., Rodriguez, C., Tucker, B., & Lee, G. (1995). Building

home, school, community partnerships: The planning phase. Austin, TX: Southwest

Educational Development Laboratory.

SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education. (1994). Leadership for collaboration.

Tallahassee, FL: Author.

Winer, M., & Ray, K. (1994). Collaboration handbook. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H.

Wilder Foundation.