a Head Start Bulletin a Head Start Bulletin a

HeadStart

ENHANCING HEAD START COMMUNICATION

Why Research?

Building Local Laboratories

The Head Start Impact Study

A Welcome to Commissioner

Joan E. Ohl

Issue Pull-out in

English & Spanish: 

Strategies to Promote Language and

Social Development

Estrategias que Fomentan el

Desarrollo Lingüístico y Social

bulletin

2002 Issue 74

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

■ Administration for Children and Families 

■ Administration on Children, Youth and Families

www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/hsb
The Head Start Bulletin is published six times a year by the Head Start Bureau,

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Department of Health and 

Human Services.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Tommy Thompson, Secretary

ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

Wade F. Horn, Assistant Secretary

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

John C. Allen, Director

ADMINISTRATION ON CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES

Joan E. Ohl, Commissioner

HEAD START BUREAU

Windy M. Hill, Associate Commissioner

The BULLETIN is a service of the Head Start Bureau’s Training and Technical Assistance

Branch. Its purpose is to enhance communication among the Head Start Bureau, Head Start

programs, and interested national, regional, and state organizations and agencies.

HEAD START BUREAU

JoAn Knight Herren, Chief, T/TA Branch

Brenda Jones Harden, Guest Editor

Jeff Fredericks, Managing Editor 

Carmen Bovell-Chester, Division of Program Management 

Head Start Bulletin

The Head Start Bulletin is prepared under Contract No. 105-96-2010 with PaL-Tech, Inc.

Judy David, Editor

Shannon Lewis, Assistant Editor

Aisha Mahy, Publications Assistant

Marith Schuhart, Publications Assistant

Cassandra Johnson, Graphic Designer

Head Start Bulletin

Research

Issue 74
Head Start Bulletin 1

FEATURES

3 Toward Evidence-Based Early Intervention

7 A Welcome to Joan Eschenbach Ohl

8 Child Outcomes Research and Evaluation

10 Language and Literacy for All Children

15 The Significance of Play

23 Children as Researchers

26 How a Research Process 

Affected Practitioners

28 Our Experiences as an EHS Research Site

30 Building Local Laboratories

RESOURCES

45 PULL-OUT: Strategies to Promote Language 

and Social Development

46 PULL-OUT: Estrategias que Fomentan 

el Desarrollo Lingüístico y Social

Spanish language version 

55 Resources

55 Webliography

ARTICLES

37 Evaluating Head Start Effectiveness: 

The Head Start Impact Study

38 A National Picture of Head Start: 

The FACES Study

40 Enhancing School Readiness: 

The Head Start Quality Research Consortium

43 Early Head Start Findings: 

Significant Benefits for Children and Families

47 Is There a “Fade-Out” Effect? 

49 Bringing the Best Minds to the Table: 

Head Start–University Partnerships

51 Use of Research to Advance Mental Health in Head Start

53 Growing a New Generation: 

Head Start Graduate Student Research Grants

54 Research and Evaluation Division 

of the National Head Start Association (NHSA)

page 2

Why research is important

2002 Issue 74

HeadStart

bulletin

Cover photo by D. Mentzer. Higher Horizons EHS-HS.

Page 2 photo by J. Greenberg. Okeechobee I MHS.

page 10: Language

and literacy

page 15: Play and

its significance

page 40:

Research on

school readiness
online...For more information on Head Start, visit our site at

<www2.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/hsb/>.

2 Issue 74/2002

Why should we take precious program dollars

away from participant services and put them 

into research? by Brenda Jones Harden
Head Start Bulletin 3

ALTHOUGH THE WORD “RESEARCH” CONJURES

up images of incomprehensible statistics and

obscure prose for many practitioners, the Head

Start community has historically embraced

research as an important pathway to knowledge. Research on

Head Start participants has added substantially to our understanding of the development of children from disadvantaged

backgrounds and their families. Additionally, evaluations of

Head Start and similar comprehensive preschool programs

have resulted in a wealth of data pointing to the benefits of

these programs for disadvantaged young children (e.g., Currie

& Thomas 2000; Oden, Schweinhart, & Weikart 2000;

Schaefer & Cohen 2000).

Scholars across a broad range of specialty areas have

argued for the use of research to inform policy and practice

(Smith 1990; Melton 1995; Denner et al. 1999). Policies

Why Research 

TOWARD EVIDENCE-BASED EARLY INTERVENTION

Why Research? 
4 Issue 74/2002

TOWARD EVIDENCE-BASED EARLY INTERVENTION

regarding young children and their families have benefited

immensely from developmental and evaluation research

(Woodhead 1988; Zigler & Styfco 1998). For example, evidence derived from research on Head Start suggests that for

programs to be effective, they should be long-term and of high

quality (Zigler & Styfco 1993). More specific findings (e.g.,

regarding literacy, language, and social competence) have been

documented in recent studies, including the Family and Child

Experiences Survey (FACES) and the Early Head Start Research

and Evaluation projects (see www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/core).

Despite the availability of these many strands of evidence,

scholars and policy makers have issued a call for more research

on a variety of human service programs to ensure that public

dollars are being spent in the most beneficial manner. This call

for increased program accountability and evidence-based practice has not gone unheeded by Head Start professionals. In the

last decade, a variety of initiatives have been mounted to

enhance the research capacity of Head Start and to maximize

the policy-relevant evidence emanating from programs. 

One initiative was the Roundtable on Head Start Research

(National Research Council 1996). The Roundtable Report proposed that a three-pronged research agenda be undertaken: 

1) an examination of who is being served by Head Start; 

2) the identification of ways Head Start can implement 

high-quality programs; and 

3) an evaluation of the effectiveness of Head Start. 

In addition, the Roundtable Report recommended a closer

investigation of three specific content areas: ethnic and linguistic

diversity of Head Start families; the community context affecting Head Start families such as violent environments; and the

impact of the changing economic landscape and income support

policies on Head Start families. 

Another major effort was convening the Advisory

Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation in 1999.

This group was charged with recommending the design of a

national study to evaluate the impact of Head Start on families

and children. After considerable deliberation, this Committee set

forth a framework for the impact research (U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services 1999) that included these elements: 

• random assignment,

• nationally representative sampling,

• process and outcome measurement,

• appropriate incentives for participants, and

• embedding the impact analysis within the ongoing Head

Start research agenda. 

To a large extent, the recommendations emanating from

these and other initiatives have guided Head Start’s research

endeavors—many are described in this HEAD START BULLETIN.

This issue will inform you about a variety of national and local

research efforts that are underway. These include large-scale

impact studies, developmental process studies of children and

families, and smaller-scale continuous improvement efforts.

References and Web sites are provided.

Perhaps most important, this Bulletin features Head Start

programs that have successfully engaged in research endeavors.

Several articles discuss the challenges and benefits of incorporating a research agenda into program design. Issues addressed

include staff perceptions of research, research-practice partnerships, and the use of research evidence for program improvement.

Contact information for the highlighted programs is provided. 

The overarching goal of this Bulletin is to emphasize the

value of research to the Head Start community. The articles will

provide answers to many of the questions practitioners have

about the place of research in service work, such as:

Why would I take precious program dollars away from participant services and put them into research? 

How can I wait for the results of research when the children

and families need help now? 

How can I take time from my staff’s work with children and

families to have them participate in a research project? 

Many Head Start

programs have

successfully engaged

in research

Photo by D.Mentzer. Higher Horizons EHS-HS.
Head Start Bulletin 5

Why should families, who have incredible life pressures, have

to respond to the rounds of questions that researchers ask? 

How does research directly benefit me, my participants, and

my program?

Overwhelmingly, the authors of these articles conclude that

the greatest benefit of research for Head Start is the opportunity to

use the evidence for continuous program improvement. Thus,

investing program dollars, staff efforts, and participant time in

research becomes an avenue toward enhancing the quality of the

Head Start programs for children and families. When understood,

planned, and conducted in this context, research becomes much

more than incomprehensible statistics, obscure prose, and burdens

for staff and families. It becomes a means of ensuring that children

and families receive the high-quality services they deserve. ■

Brenda Jones Harden, Guest Editor, would like to thank

Louisa B. Tarullo, Senior Research Analyst, CORE, for her assistance with this Bulletin. Without her energy, commitment, expertise, and efficiency, this issue would not have been possible.

REFERENCES

Currie, J., & D. Thomas. 2000. School quality and the longterm effects of Head Start. Journal of Human Resources 35

(4): 755-774.

Denner, J., C. Cooper, E. Lopez, & N. Dunbar. 1999. Beyond

“giving science away”: How university-community partnerships inform youth programs, research, and policy. SRCD

Social Policy Report 13 (1).

Melton, G. 1995. Bringing psychology to Capitol Hill: Briefings

on child and family policy. American Psychologist 50: 766-

771.

National Research Council. 1996. Beyond the blueprint:

Directions for research on Head Start’s families.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Oden, S., L. Schweinhart, & D. Weikart. 2000. Into adulthood:

A study of the effects of Head Start. Ypsilanti, MI:

High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.

Schaefer, S., & J. Cohen. 2000. Making investments in young

children: What the research on early care and education

tells us. Issue Brief. Washington, DC: National Association

of Child Advocates.

Smith, M. 1990. Psychology in the public interest: What have

we done? What can we do? American Psychologist 45:

530-536.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1999.

Evaluating Head Start: A recommended framework for

studying the impact of the Head Start program.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Woodhead, M. 1988. When psychology informs public policy:

The case of early childhood intervention. American

Psychologist 43: 443-454.

Zigler, E., & S. Styfco. 1993. Using research and theory to justify and inform Head Start expansion. SRCD Social Policy

Report 7 (2).

Zigler, E., & S. Styfco. 1998. Applying the findings of developmental psychology to improve early childhood intervention.

In Global prospects for education, eds. S. Paris & H.

Wellman, 345-366. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Brenda Jones Harden was a 2000–2001 Society for Research in

Child Development Fellow, Child Outcomes Research and

Evaluation (CORE), Office of Planning, Research and

Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, DHHS.

She currently serves as Assistant Professor at the University of

Maryland Institute for Child Study. T: 301-405-2580. E:

bj34@umail.umd.edu.

The greatest benefit of research for Head Start is the

opportunity to use the evidence for continuous program

improvement to ensure high-quality services.
GLOSSARY OF RESEARCH TERMS

COMPARISON GROUP: individuals

whose characteristics are similar to those

of your program participants; these

individuals do not receive any services, or

receive a different set of services than

those you are evaluating.

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT: the

process by which a program uses

information or data to make changes in

their program or specific services, with

the ultimate goal of enhancing service

delivery and program quality.

CONTROL GROUP: a group of

individuals whose characteristics are

similar to those of your program

participants, but do not receive the

program you are evaluating; individuals

are randomly assigned to either the

treatment (program) or control group.

DATA: specific information or facts that

are collected.

DATA ANALYSIS: the process of

systematically applying statistical and

logical techniques to describe,

summarize, and compare data collected.

DATA COLLECTION PLAN: a written

document describing the specific

procedures to be used to gather the

research and evaluation information or

data.

DATABASE: an accumulation of

information that has been systematically

organized for easy access and analysis,

which is usually computerized.

DESIGN: the overall plan and

specification of the approach expected 

in a particular research or evaluation

effort.

EVALUATION: a systematic method for

collecting, analyzing, and using

information to answer basic questions

about your program.

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP: a group of

individuals receiving the intervention or

services being evaluated or studied; this

group is compared to a control group.

LOGIC MODEL: a diagram showing the

logic or rationale underlying your

program; it describes the links between

program objectives, program activities,

and expected program outcomes.

METHODOLOGY (METHOD): the way in

which you find out information; it includes

the methods, procedures and techniques

used to collect and analyze information.

OUTCOME: outcomes are a result of the

program, services, or products you

provide; outcomes refer to changes in

knowledge, attitudes, abilities, or

behavior in participants.

OUTCOME EVALUATION: evaluation

designed to assess the extent to which a

program or intervention affects

participants according to specific data

elements; also known as impact or

summative evaluation.

PARTICIPANT: an individual, family,

agency, neighborhood, or community

receiving or participating in services

provided by your program; also known

as client or target population group.

POSTTEST: a test of measurement taken

after a service or intervention takes place;

it is compared with the results of a pretest

to show evidence of the effects or

changes as a result of the service 

or intervention being evaluated.

PRETEST: a test or measurement taken

before a service or intervention takes

place; it is compared with the results of a

posttest to show evidence of the effects 

or changes as a result of the service or

intervention being evaluated.

PROCESS EVALUATION: an evaluation

that examines the extent to which a

program is operating as intended by

assessing ongoing program operations

and whether the targeted population is

being served; this type of evaluation helps

program staff identify needed

interventions and/or change program

components to improve service delivery; it

is also called formative or implementation

evaluation.

RANDOM ASSIGNMENT: the assignment

of individuals in the pool of all potential

participants to either the experimental

(treatment) or control group in such a

manner that their assignment to a group 

is determined entirely by chance.

RELIABILITY: extent to which a

measurement (such as an instrument or a

data collection procedure) produces

consistent results over repeated

observations or administrations of the

instrument under the same conditions

each time.

TREATMENT GROUP: a treatment group

is composed of a group of individuals

receiving the services, products, or

activities (interventions) that you are

evaluating; also called an experimental

group.

VALIDITY: the extent to which a

measurement, instrument or test accurately

measures what it is supposed to measure.

(Adapted by Brenda Jones Harden 

from The Program Manager’s Guide to

Evaluation, ACYF, available from 

HSIPC.)

6 Issue 74/2002
lives of children and youth—be it their

health, their education or human services

needs,” as stated in her testimony before

the Senate’s Committee on Finance in

November 2001. 

Prior to joining ACYF, Commissioner

Ohl spent four years as West Virginia’s

Cabinet Secretary of the Department of

Health and Human Resources (DHHR).

As chief administrator, she emphasized

effective and efficient programs, fiscal

accountability and personnel development. She successfully implemented the

state’s welfare reform program and

numerous child care quality improvement

measures. Under her leadership, West

Virginia was recognized in 1999 and

2000 as having the highest percentage of

utilization of subsidized child care of any

State. As Secretary of DHHR, she established the Public Health Transition

Program to refocus on the provision of

basic public health services in West

Virginia. When she left West Virginia

State government, virtually all eligible

programs were receiving enhanced funding or high performance bonus funding. 

In her Senate testimony,

Commissioner Ohl expressed her commitment to the goals of ACF and ACYF:

“I will continue to work to assure that

the various levels of Federal, State and

local government work together to

ensure that a strong community-based

infrastructure delivery system is established, maintained and accountable for

its outcome. We must continue to focus

on prevention and early intervention

programs and services.”

Commissioner Ohl has a vision for

Head Start: “We need to assure the comprehensive nature of the Head Start program with special emphasis given to

ensure that children receive the EPSDT

screen and all subsequent follow up services both for their physical and behavioral health needs.” She called for special

emphasis on literacy programs to prepare children for school and for coordination of efforts with the Department of

Education. She also plans to work with

regional offices and grantees to address

under-enrollment issues and do outreach

to special populations.

Additionally, Commissioner Ohl

wants to give special attention to the

needs of our nation’s youth. She called

for “positive youth development programs” and will work extensively with

Assistant Secretary Horn on a special initiative to address teenage issues.

As a long time resident of West

Virginia, Commissioner Ohl is especially

aware of the barriers which must be

overcome for effective program and service delivery in rural states. “I will work

on initiatives which help to strengthen

programs and services for rural children

and families, as well as strengthen rural

communities.”

Commissioner Ohl’s achievements

have not gone unnoticed. Governor

Underwood honored her with the

Distinguished West Virginian Award.

The West Virginia Coalition Against

Domestic Violence commended her leadership efforts in helping to end domestic

and family violence. For her dedication

to cultivating and building health care

systems in the State, the West Virginia

Rural Health Association presented her

with its inaugural Joan E. Ohl Rural

Health Leadership Award. 

Commissioner Ohl was born in

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and raised in

Lewes, Delaware. She received an undergraduate degree from the University of

Delaware, a Master of Education degree

from the State University of Buffalo,

New York and continued her studies at

Pennsylvania State University. Married to

Dr. Ronald E. Ohl, former president of

Salem International University, she

resides in Martinsburg, West Virginia. ■

Head Start Bulletin 7

JOAN ESCHENBACH OHL is the newly appointed Commissioner of the Administration

on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) in the Administration for Children and

Families (ACF). She brings to her office over three decades of leadership experience in

the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Throughout her career, Commissioner Ohl

has “focused extensively on improving the

Joan E. Ohl, Commissioner of ACYF

Photo courtesy of ACYF.

A WELCOME TO

JOAN ESCHENBACH OHL
8 Issue 74/2002

THE CHILD OUTCOMES RESEARCH AND EVALUATION (CORE)

team in the Administration for Children and Families (ACF)

Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation collaborates with

the Head Start Bureau, other Federal agencies, and the broader

research community to conduct research and evaluation relevant to Head Start and Early Head Start programs. CORE conducts program evaluation, designs and implements research to

develop new knowledge relevant to Head Start programs and

policies, and works to build research capacity within the field.

Highlights of current research relevant to Head Start programs

and policies are described below. Detailed information on the

many research projects of CORE can be found at the Web site

<http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/core/>.

National Evaluations

The Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project is an

experimental study of approximately 3,000 families living in 17

diverse communities across the U.S. The six-year study that

began in 1996 includes: 1) an implementation study, 2) impact

evaluation with random assignment, 3) research by local universities within the 17 communities, 4) policy studies addressing

specific information needs such as child care, welfare reform,

fatherhood, and 5) activities for continuous program improvement. Initial reports of the implementation and impact studies

(Leading the Way and Building Their Futures) are available at

<http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/core/ongoing_research/ehs/

ehs_intro.html>.

The final report on child outcomes through age 3 will be

available in June, 2002. The ACYF is also funding a longitudinal

follow-up of these children prior to their entry into kindergarten.

The Head Start Impact Study is a longitudinal study, begun

in 1999, of 5,000-6,000 three- and four-year-old children from a

stratified, national sample of grantees/delegate agencies. Children

in the study will be randomly assigned to either a treatment

group (which receives Head Start services) or a comparison group

(which does not receive Head Start services). Data collection will begin in fall 2002 and continue through

spring 2006 in order to follow children through the end

of first grade. The multifaceted data collection includes

interviews with parents, direct child assessments, surveys with

Head Start teachers and child care providers, direct observations

of the quality of different care settings, observations of teacherchild interactions, and teacher ratings of children. 

The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey

(FACES) is an ongoing, longitudinal study of nationally representative samples of children and families in Head Start programs. Children are followed from entry into Head Start,

through one or two years of program participation, with

follow-up in the early school grades. Findings from FACES are

providing new insights into the characteristics, experiences, and

outcomes for Head Start children and families to support program initiatives in staff development and family literacy. The

first cohort of FACES began in 1997, with a sample of 3,200

children and families in 40 programs; a new round of FACES

was launched in fall 2000 with 2,800 children in 43 different

programs. For more information, see <http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/

programs/core/ongoing_research/faces/faces_intro.html>.

Evaluation of the Head Start/Public Schools Early

Childhood Transition Demonstration Program was designed to

assist low-income students in kindergarten through third grade

and their families to obtain support services and to promote the

The CORE team plans and conducts a broad range of research and

evaluation projects relevant to Head Start. by Carole Kuhns and

Rachel Chazan-Cohen

Photo by D. Mentzer. Higher Horizons EHS-HS.

CHILD OUTCOMES RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

Connecting research

and practice
Head Start Bulletin 9

active involvement of parents in the education of their children.

The 31 demonstration grantees participated in a national evaluation using an experimental design to study the effect of the

demonstration on children, families, the Head Start programs,

the public school systems, and the communities. For more information, see <http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/core/

pubs_reports/hs/transition_intro.html>.

Consortia and Research Partnerships

Head Start Quality Research Center (QRC) Consortium: The

first QRC consortium (1995–2000) created ongoing partnerships among ACYF, Head Start Grantees, and universities to

enhance program practices and outcomes. A new consortium

was formed in March 2001 with the award of eight new cooperative agreements. The new QRCs are developing and testing

specific program practices designed to promote school readiness

of Head Start children in the areas of literacy, social-emotional

development, parent involvement, curriculum, and assessment.

Cross-site external data collection will provide information

based on the FACES measurement battery on classroom quality,

child outcomes, family demographics, and staff qualifications.

For more information, see <http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/

core/ongoing_research/qrc/qrc.html>.

The Head Start-University Partnerships & Graduate

Student Head Start Research Grants support partnerships

between universities and Head Start/Early Head Start programs

to develop research that contributes new knowledge in children’s

development or improvement of Head Start programs. A new

round of Head Start–University partnerships will be funded in

2002, focusing on building models for the use of child outcomes

in improving local program quality and on promoting mental

health for infants and toddlers in Early Head Start. A new round

of Graduate Student grants will also be funded to help build

research capacity among young investigators, as well as to foster

mentoring relationships with more senior researchers. For more

information, see <http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/core/ongoing_research/index.html>.

The Head Start/Early Childhood Mental Health Initiative

with NIMH awarded five research grants in 1997 as the core of

a new early childhood mental health initiative addressing prevention and treatment of children’s mental health concerns.

Research findings will assist Head Start programs in providing

prevention and intervention services that are comprehensive as

well as developmentally and culturally appropriate. For more

information, see <http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/core/

ongoing_research/acyfnimh/acyfnimh.html>.

NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Head Start

Children is a collaborative effort of ACYF and the National

Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) to

study low-income families as a sub-study of the larger prospective, longitudinal, naturalistic study of 1,200 children from 10

sites across the U.S. ACYF will explore the concurrent, longterm, and cumulative influences of early child care experiences

on the development of young children living in poverty. 

The Department of Education Early Childhood

Longitudinal Studies: Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K) is a longitudinal study of 23,000 children from 1,000 schools nationwide

who began kindergarten in Fall 1998. ACYF has verified Head

Start attendance for approximately 3,000 low-income children

in the larger sample and is linking these data with the Head

Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (see FACES above).

For more information, see <http://www.nces.ed.gov/ecls>. Birth

Cohort (ECLS-B) is a longitudinal study following a nationally

representative sample of 12,000 children born in 2001 from

birth through first grade. ACYF will supplement previously

planned analyses for the birth cohort in child development and

family functions. Enhancements include observations of child

care quality and parent-child interaction. For more information,

see <http://www.nces.ed.gov/>. 

NICHD, ASPE, ACYF, and the Ford Foundation Study of

Low-Income Fathers of Infants and Toddlers: Ten of the 17

Early Head Start Research and Evaluation sites are participating

in a longitudinal study of fathers of 24- and 36-month-old children to provide an in-depth look at the role of fathers in the

lives of their children. Findings will offer an understanding of

the strategies that Early Head Start programs use to engage

fathers. Recently, funds have been made available to contact

Continued on page 54
10 Issue 74/2002

EVIDENCE FROM RECENT RESEARCH has turned the spotlight

on early childhood as a critical time for developing skills related

to reading and writing in English-speaking children

(International Reading Association & the National Association

for the Education of Young Children 1998; Snow, Burns, &

Griffin 1998; Dickinson & Tabors 2001). At the same time, but

in what seems like a parallel universe, research has been studying the language and literacy development of young children

learning English as a second language (Tabors 1997; Tabors &

Snow 2001). But young children from English-speaking and

English-learning1 backgrounds do not exist in parallel universes. In fact, they often exist in the same universe, and that universe is often an early childhood classroom. So what can

researchers recommend to teachers who are working in the universe of the early childhood classroom with children from

diverse linguistic backgrounds? How can teachers help all children develop language and literacy abilities?

Teaching English Speakers

FIRST, LET’S THINK ABOUT the language and literacy skill areas

that research shows are important in early childhood development. Researchers have consistently identified five areas that are

related to children’s later ability to learn to read and write: 

• alphabetic knowledge,

• phonological awareness,

• book and print concepts,

• vocabulary knowledge, and

• discourse skills.

Let’s assume—as most researchers do—that the teachers

and children in the classroom are operating in the same language, and that is English. Table 1 shows what teachers can

do to help English-speaking children develop skills in these

areas and what children learn. Let’s look at each skill area in

more detail.

First, children develop alphabetic knowledge when teachers

use activities that target letter recognition. These activities range from singing the alphabet song, to identifying

the first letters in children’s names, to having children

use magnetic letters for their invented spelling.

Simultaneously, teachers can help children develop phonological

awareness by pointing out the sounds that make up words and

how those sounds relate to letters of the alphabet. Concentrating

on sounds in words that are highly familiar and important to

children—like their own names or names for objects in the

room—yields the best results. Using rhyming text in songs and

poetry also helps children understand that when one sound in a

word changes, the meaning of the word changes as well.

Book and print concepts develop when teachers talk about

how books work. Book reading can include information about

where the front and back of a book are, what kinds of information can be found on the cover (the title, the names of the

author and the illustrator), where the print is on the page, how

the print is read (top to bottom and left to right in English),

what a sentence looks like, and what different punctuation

means at the end of sentences. Including these types of information as part of the book reading process will help children begin

to understand the ins and outs of books.

Vocabulary knowledge—words, words, words, words—is

key for the development of young children’s literacy skills. The

more words children know, the more words they will have to

connect to the letters and sounds they meet in print. Teachers

help children develop their vocabulary by intentionally presentPhoto by C. Dyer. Higher Horizons EHS-HS.

LANGUAGE AND LITERACY FOR ALL CHILDREN

What can researchers recommend to teachers who are working in 

the early childhood classroom with children from diverse linguistic

backgrounds? by Patton O. Tabors

Children share what 

they know about books
Head Start Bulletin 11

ing new words as part of every activity

in the classroom; by using and explaining new words in everyday conversations; and by reading new words and

helping children understand their meanings. Children should be learning 6 to

10 new words a day in the early childhood period. In their classrooms, they

need to hear and use lots and lots of

new words. 

Finally, language usage in the classroom should also help children develop

more advanced discourse skills. What

does this mean? Discourse skills refer to

using language in structured ways to go

beyond the basics of conversation—for

example, to tell a story about a past

event, or to explain how something works, or to build a fantasy world with words. Teachers encourage the development of

these types of linguistic structures when they ask open-ended

questions like “What did you do over the weekend?” or “Why

do you think the stone sinks in the water?” or “What did your

baby do when you put her in the carriage?” But asking the

question should not be the end of the interaction, just the

beginning. Teachers need to support children’s efforts to

answer these sorts of questions, extending the conversation

over a number of turns. 

A curriculum that is built around opportunities for children

to develop their skills in these five areas will be a curriculum

that supports children’s language and literacy development.

However, this approach assumes that the teachers and the children in the classroom share English as their common language

and that these activities are being carried out in English. What

does this mean for children learning English? 

Teaching English Learners

IN FACT, MANY OF THESE VERY SAME OPPORTUNITIES are relevant for English-learning children. Let’s look at the five areas

again while thinking about how teachers can help English learners develop their language and literacy skills.

Learning about the English alphabet is clearly useful for

English-learning children. It is something that they can begin

quite early in their exposure to English. Furthermore, any activities that help English-speaking children develop phonological

awareness will also be helpful for English-learning children. In

my research, I found that English-learning children in a

preschool classroom watched English speakers to see how the

sounds of English were formed (Tabors 1997). At first, they

were most comfortable using English when they could sing or

respond to predictable or rhyming books. Consequently, teachers who emphasize “tuning in” to the sounds of English will be

helping both English speakers and English learners.

What about book and print concepts? Here teachers need to

think carefully about what English-learning children can understand in the book reading situation and plan accordingly. One

effective technique is small group book readings where information and conversational exchanges can be tailored to individuals.

As English-learning children gain more understanding of English,

they can be involved in more extensive discussions of book and

print concepts and participate in larger groups.

Developing a vocabulary in English is, of course, one of the

TABLE 1

WHAT TEACHERS DO WHAT CHILDREN LEARN

Alphabet Knowledge

Activities that target letter recognition To identify the letters of the alphabet

Phonological Awareness

Activities that emphasize the sounds that To identify the sounds that make up 

make up words words

Book and Print Concepts

Activities that show how books look and What the contents of a book are,

how they work including where the print is and where

the book starts and ends

Vocabulary Knowledge

Activities that emphasize words That there are lots and lots of words that

and their meanings are used for talking, writing, and reading

Discourse Skills

Activities that encourage telling stories, To use these more sophisticated oral 

explaining how the world works language forms building a fantasy world 
12 Issue 74/2002

LANGUAGE AND LITERACY FOR ALL CHILDREN

first tasks of English-learning children. In my research, English

learners would often pick up objects from around the classroom,

bring them over to the teacher, and ask for the English words.

By being aware of the vocabulary needs of the children and by

explaining, defining, and showing what a word means, teachers

provide a supportive language environment for all children.

Finally, we turn to discourse skills. Given that Englishspeaking children are still developing these higher level skills

during early childhood, it is not surprising that they will be the

most difficult for English learners. In my research, the Englishspeaking children used their discourse skills to the greatest

extent in the socio-dramatic play area. But it was not until the

spring of the year that any of the English learners participated

in play in this area. Apparently, they believed that they did not

know enough English to be effective participants in socio-dramatic play earlier in the school year. However, teachers who are

aware of English learners’

proficiencies and their need to

develop discourse abilities can

make sure they have extended

conversations with them, as

well as with English speakers,

that help build more sophisticated structures in English. 

In sum, many of the

same activities can be used in

early childhood classrooms to help both English-speaking and

English-learning children prepare for later literacy development

in English. Of course, teachers need to be sensitive to the proficiency level of the English learners so they can calibrate the

activities that include all the children or develop small groups

reflecting different proficiency levels. 

Teaching ALL Children

BUT ARE THESE LANGUAGE AND LITERACY activities geared

toward English the only meaningful ones in a classroom with

children from diverse language backgrounds? What about the

home languages and literacies of the English-learning children?

Couldn’t they be incorporated into the classroom as well, in

ways that would be socially useful and cognitively challenging

for all the children?

The answer is: Absolutely. And not only could activities

related to the home languages and literacies of the Englishlearning children be included, but they should be included.

Why? For two very different, but complementary reasons:

This addition to the curriculum will be socially useful. For

the English learners, the inclusion of their home languages and

literacies in the classroom curriculum allows them to be the

“experts” and builds pride in the languages and cultures of

their families. For the English speakers, the inclusion of other

languages and literacies in the classroom curriculum provides

them with insight into the capabilities of their classmates and

their classmates’ families. It also clues them into why these children may not use a lot of English in the classroom right away. 

This addition to the curriculum is also cognitively challenging: All children will benefit from comparing languages and literacies in ways that will develop metalinguistic awareness, the

ability to think about how language works.

So what would teachers need to do to include the languages

and literacies of English-learning children in an early childhood

classroom? Let’s look at Table 2, which is an expanded version

of Table 1 but now includes activities and learning that encompass the languages and literacies of English-learning children.

Although many languages use an alphabet that is the same

or similar to the one used in English (such as Spanish and

French), many other languages are alphabetic but with different

writing systems (Arabic) or are not alphabetic at all (Japanese).

Teachers can find out about the different writing systems represented among the children’s languages by asking parents or

other community members. They can share that information

with the children in interesting and appropriate ways. Labeling

objects in the classroom or writing each child’s name (using a

different color for each language) helps children see what different written languages look like. Such activities deepen their

understanding that different languages look and sound different, but they are all used to talk about the world.

Of course, as soon as different languages are brought into

the classroom, children notice that the languages have different

Photo by C. Dyer. Higher Horizons EHS-HS.
Head Start Bulletin 13

sounds. Often children can mimic the

sounds of a language before they begin

to acquire any facility in the language. I

call this “learning the tune” before

“learning the words” of the language. In

order for children to understand that

these sounds represent meaningful messages to the people who use them,

speakers of different languages (parents

or others) should come to the classroom

to read stories, sing songs, or present an

activity in their home language. If the

visitor and some of the students speak

the same language, this will give those

children a chance to be the “experts”

and help their classmates grasp what is

happening.

Introducing books written in different languages raises all children’s awareness of the different forms that books

take. Sharing books that are written in

different scripts (such as Bengali or

Chinese) or that are read from the back

to the front (such as Hebrew), and having speakers of these languages demonstrate how to read them, emphasizes the

variety of languages and literacies in the

world. If printed books are not available

or if there is enthusiasm for a parentinvolvement activity, books can be written and illustrated by parents in their

home languages. These materials can be

put into the classroom library.

Regarding vocabulary development,

children are more aware of the importance of words if they learn new names

for the objects and concepts that they

already know in one language. For the English-speaking children, this process teaches them that all languages use words asthe building blocks for communication. For the English-learning

children, they become the “experts” in providing names in their

TABLE 2

WHAT TEACHERS DO WHAT CHILDREN LEARN

Alphabet Knowledge

Activities that target letter recognition in To identify the letters of the English 

in English alphabet

Activities that target comparing alphabets That other languages have different

or writing systems in other languages alphabets or writing systems

Phonological Awareness

Activities that emphasize the sounds that To identify the sounds that make up

make up English words English words

Activities that present the sounds of That other languages have different

other languages sounds, but all languages use sounds to 

make words

Book and Print Concepts

Activities that show how books written What the contents of a book written in

in English look and how they work English are, including where the print is 

and where the book starts and ends

Activities that show how books written in That books may look quite different and

other languages look and how they work even be read in a different way if they 

are written in other languages

Vocabulary Knowledge

Activities that emphasize English words That there are lots and lots of words in

and their meanings English that are used for talking, 

writing, and reading

Activities that emphasize that there are That other languages use different

words in other languages that mean the words for the same object or concept

same thing as words in English

Discourse Skills

Activities that encourage telling stories, To use these more sophisticated

explaining how the world works, oral language forms in English

building a fantasy world using English

Activities that demonstrate that other That these or similar forms exist in other 

languages have similar forms although languages as well

they may seem a bit different
14 Issue 74/2002

LANGUAGE AND LITERACY FOR ALL CHILDREN

home language while they are acquiring new names in English.

Every time a new English word is introduced, an effort should

be made to identify that word in at least one other language.

And every time an English-learning child wants to know an

English word for an object or concept, the trade-off would 

be to find out that word in his or her home language. In this

way, everyone in the classroom (including adults) becomes 

a language learner.

Story-telling in different languages helps children learn

about discourse. This discourse form is nearly universal,

although its structure may vary from culture to culture. In order

for story-telling to be engaging in a language that some children

do not understand, it is useful to include pictures or visuals, or

to tell a known plot. Again, the children who already speak the

language of the story are the “experts” and can act as the interpreters (but not the translators) of the story for their classmates.

If they take active roles in the story-telling, they will feel even

more affirmed and involved.

Perhaps, this seems like a lot to ask. But it is possible to

start slowly and, over time, develop classroom activities with

more and more of these features. Clearly, it is critical to have

the help of parents or others who speak a variety of languages. These contacts take time to develop. But once made,

they provide invaluable opportunities for meaningful contributions by parents and the wider language community. By developing multi-language activities, the teacher can support the

languages and literacies of all children in the early childhood

classroom.

A final thought: There are, of course, early childhood classrooms with only English speakers. Does that mean that the second half of this discussion is irrelevant to those classrooms? On

the contrary. It is still possible, and valuable, to incorporate a

variety of languages and literacies into these classrooms. The

children will benefit from the opportunities to develop greater

metalinguistic awareness, a skill that will serve them well in

learning to read and write in English.

1 The term “English-learning” is used in this paper to refer to

the process of learning English by children who are not native

speakers of English. ■

REFERENCES

Dickinson, D.K., & P.O. Tabors, eds. 2001. Beginning literacy

with language: Young children learning at home and

school. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing, Inc.

International Reading Association and the National Association

for the Education of Young Children. 1998. Learning to

read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for

young children. A joint position statement of the

International Reading Association (IRA) and the National

Association for the Education of Young Children

(NAEYC). Young Children, 53 (4), 30-46.

Snow, C., M. Burns, & P. Griffin, eds. 1998. Preventing reading

difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

Tabors, P.O. 1997. One child, two languages: A guide for

preschool educators of children learning English as a second language. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing, Inc.

Tabors, P.O., & C.E. Snow. 2001. Young bilingual children and

early literacy development. In Handbook of early literacy

research, eds. S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson. New York:

Guilford Publications.

Patton O. Tabors is a Research Associate in the Harvard

Graduate School of Education. T: 617-495-3096; E:

Patton_tabors@harvard.edu.

Activities related to the home languages and literacies

of English-learning children can and should be 

incorporated into the early childhood classroom.
Head Start Bulletin 15

THE NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS STATE that all children

should have access to developmentally appropriate preschool

programs that help prepare them for school (Kagan, Moore, &

Bredekamp 1995). Effective preschool programming is designed

to protect children against environmental risks and to support

children’s mastery of developmentally relevant competencies (U.S

Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS] 1996).

Preschoolers’ development in the areas of communicative, cognitive, physical and motoric, and social-emotional functioning has

been linked to later school success (Ladd & Price 1987; Prince

1992). 

By focusing intervention across these key areas of children’s

early development, Head Start is pivotal in helping young children

prepare for school. The dual importance of promoting children’s

competency through classroom curriculum design and working in

partnership with families to ensure children’s success is emphasized in the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards

(DHHS 1997). From its formation, Head Start has targeted children’s social competence as a primary goal of intervention (Raver

& Zigler 1997). 

This article will address a specific aspect of social competence—peer play. First, we provide an overview of the theoretical

and research literature related to the significance of peer play in

promoting successful development. Second, we discuss how

quality assessment, intervention, and parent involvement can be

used to promote prosocial play behaviors in Head Start children. 

The importance of social competence

SOCIAL COMPETENCE IS DEFINED as the capacities children

possess for developing positive relationships with adults and

other children (Hart et al. 1997). It is well accepted that children’s development in all areas of functioning is influenced by

their ability to establish and maintain positive, consistent, and

primary relationships with adults and peers (Sroufe et al. 1992).

Evidence of the significance of social competence for

preschool children has been demonstrated by its ability

to predict later competence in other domains and

school adjustment (DeRosier, Kupersmidt, & Patterson

1994; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs 1999). 

Early childhood educators and researchers realize that

social competence is a complex, multifaceted area of development (Raver & Zigler 1997). It includes regulating one’s emotions, communicating effectively, taking the perspective of others, problem-solving and conflict resolution, and, of course,

developing positive peer relationships. For preschoolers, the

ability to establish and maintain effective peer relationships

requires the coordination of multiple skills across developmental domains. This emerging competence is a primary indicator

of school readiness. 

The degree to which children master the developmental

task of getting along with peers helps to determine successful

negotiation of challenges in later developmental stages.

Longitudinal research has indeed linked poor peer relations in

the early childhood years with detrimental consequences during

later developmental periods (Denham & Holt 1993; DeRosier,

Kupersmidt, & Patterson 1994). Preschoolers with difficult peer

relationships are at greater risk for numerous academic and

behavioral problems, such as poor academic achievement, retenHead Start Bulletin 15

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PLAY Photo by C. Dyer. Higher Horizons EHS-HS.

Adults can 

help guide 

peer interactions

Head Start Bulletin 15

It is essential that early childhood educators learn about new ways to

facilitate successful play experiences in their classrooms and partner with

Head Start families to promote children’s social competency. by Christy

McWayne, John Fantuzzo, and Virginia Hampton
16 Issue 74/2002

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PLAY

tion, truancy, and emotional maladjustment (Parker & Asher

1987; Hartup & Moore 1990; Kupersmidt, Coie, & Dodge

1990; Ladd & Coleman 1997). Conversely, preschoolers with

positive peer relations have a greater likelihood of experiencing

positive adjustment in kindergarten as well as positive academic

outcomes in elementary school and high school (Ladd & Price

1987; Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman 1996; Hampton 1999). 

Play as a dynamic developmental context

PLAY IS A PRIMARY CONTEXT FOR PRESCHOOLERS to acquire

and express peer social competencies (Gallagher 1993).

According to the National Association for the Education of

Young Children (NAEYC), “Play is an important vehicle for

children’s social, emotional, and cognitive development, as well

as [emphasis added] a reflection of their development”

(Bredekamp & Copple 1997). In other words, children not only

develop skills necessary for school success during peer play, but

play is a mirror for children’s current developmental capacities.

The child development theories of Piaget and Vygotsky

provide a conceptual framework for understanding the contribution of play to development. According to Piaget (1962),

children gain knowledge about the world through play and

incorporate that information into existing cognitive structures

(Creasey, Jarvis, & Berk 1998). Piaget proposed that children

progress from “practice play” (which consists of individual

sensorimotor activities) to “symbolic play” (in which children

acquire the use of symbols and experience make-believe) and

finally, to “play with rules” (during which they learn to regulate social interactions) (Nicolopoulou 1993). As children

engage in these increasingly complex activities, they adjust

their existing ways of viewing the world. Piaget also believed

that peer interactions during play provide children with

opportunities to develop higher-level cognitive skills. They

develop perspective-taking abilities when they argue or express

different viewpoints. For Piaget, cognitive development occurs

not through the medium of play itself but through the

enhancement of specific skills during peer interactions in play

(Creasey, Jarvis, & Berk 1998). The Piagetian perspective has

been influential for several decades. 

However, Piaget’s theory has been criticized for not giving

adequate attention to social and cultural issues in development

(Corsaro & Schwarz 1991). Vygotsky’s theory of development

(1978) has received increasing support because of its emphasis

on the social and cultural aspects of play. Vygotsky proposed

that children’s competencies are affected by the cultural practices and beliefs conveyed through social interactions and communication (Rogoff 1993). Through interactions with more

knowledgeable adults and peers, children learn about cultural

norms. When engaging in pretend play, children must work

together to develop rules to govern the activity in these imaginary situations (Goncu 1993). In Vygotsky’s theory, pretend

play provides children with the opportunities to learn implicit

rules of social behavior, according to their cultural group’s

norms. He also spoke about the “zone of proximal development,” which referred to both children’s individual abilities to

accomplish and create as well as their capabilities to grow and

extend when confronted with the ideas of older and wiser peers.

Therefore, he considered play the “source of development” during early childhood (rather than just a conduit of development),

because it enables children to internalize social rules, acquire

cognitive processes, and advance their competencies.

Photo by J. Greenberg. Okeechobee II MHS.
Head Start Bulletin 17

Developmental contributions of peer processes

ADDING TO THESE EARLIER THEORIES, developmental and educational psychologists have now proposed specific ways socialization experiences with peers influence student’s academic

engagement (Birch & Ladd 1996; Wentzel 1999). With the

recent emphasis on school readiness for Head Start children,

these models are particularly relevant. One of these models

posits that peer relationships affect school accomplishment

through motivational processes (Wentzel 1999), indicating that

peer relationships may establish and define the significance of

learning and academic achievement and provide the motivation

for children to succeed in school. Specifically, positive interactions with peers help children develop the motivation to engage

in prosocial behaviors, such as being cooperative and willing to

ask for help, that lead to academic success (Wentzel 1999). For

example, as young children develop their attitudes toward

school, the quality of their relationships with peers can affect

whether they like or dislike school. Acceptance from peers helps

children want to be involved in classroom activities, whereas

peer conflict and rejection can suppress children’s motivation

(Birch & Ladd 1996). Children who experience rejection by

peers have lower levels of interest in school and are more likely

to drop out of school, which suggests that negative peer relationships contribute to decreased motivation to succeed in school

(Wentzel & Asher 1995; Hymal et al. 1996). Because these influences are proposed to occur as early as the preschool years (children’s first experience with school and a structured learning

environment), children’s primary peer context—free play—

becomes ever more important as an opportunity for learning and

development.

In addition, important associations exist between interactive peer-play behavior and the emergence of other competencies indicative of school readiness, such as early literacy skills,

approaches to learning, and self regulation (Fisher 1992;

Shonkoff & Phillips 2000; Fantuzzo & McWayne 2002). School

readiness skills such as literacy are reflected and enhanced in

play activities such as story-telling (Pellegrini & Galda 1993).

The complex skills necessary to establish and sustain effective

play interactions with peers also require children to exercise

self-control. For example, preschoolers who have difficulty controlling their emotions during play (e.g., crying, having a

tantrum, or becoming angry) have a more difficult time making

and keeping friends. Other behaviors significant to the learning

process, such as cooperation, attention, and persistence, are also

learned during play interactions among peers (Bredekamp &

Copple 1997; Creasey, Jarvis, & Berk 1998). 

Not only does effective peer interaction enhance development across domains of functioning, but the emergence of cognitive, linguistic, and socioemotional competencies contributes to

successful peer interactions. With increasingly advanced cognitive

skills, children develop perspective-taking abilities helpful for

engaging in collaborative activity, solving interpersonal problems,

and developing empathy (Frost 1992; Goncu 1993). Advances in

linguistic skills enable children to improve their communication

with peers and make their own point of view known. To establish

effective play with peers, children need a repertoire of social

skills—they must recruit playmates, enter the peer group, gauge

other children’s responses, and negotiate play activities (Creasey,

Jarvis, & Berk 1998). Positive peer relationships are also

enhanced by children’s ability to regulate their emotions so they

can maintain cooperation during interpersonal conflicts. 

Children learn

to cooperate

during play
18 Issue 74/2002

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PLAY

Implications for early childhood practice

THUS, THEORY AND RESEARCH TELL us that peer play is a significant context for children’s early development. However, this

knowledge must be translated into educational practice to be

meaningful for early childhood teachers and the families of

Head Start children. In this next section, we discuss three areas

of the Head Start Program Performance Standards relevant to

children’s play interactions: 1) partnerships between Head Start

staff and families; 2) classroom curriculum design; and 3)

assessment and intervention. 

Communication and partnership between staff and families.

Early childhood educational programs for children from highrisk environments recognize the critical role of the family in laying the foundation for success in school (Garcia Coll, Meyer &

Brillon 1995; Slaughter-DeFoe & Brown 1998). There have

been increasing mandates to involve parents in the specific early

childhood learning experiences of their children, causing a

reconfiguration of parents’ roles within early childhood programs (Cochran 1993; Powell 1998). Head Start has, from its

inception, been a two-generational program and now requires

parental involvement in all aspects of the program’s implementation (i.e., program planning, curriculum development, and

daily classroom activities) (DHHS 1997). Therefore, Head Start

teachers are not only required to share their observations of

children’s development with parents but are also expected to

obtain information relevant to children’s classroom functioning

from parents. This information exchange can occur in various

ways—while parents serve as volunteers in the classroom, during parent-teacher conferences, or during home visits.

The Head Start Program Performance Standards specifically require that teachers and staff provide opportunities for parents to increase their child observation skills so that they may

contribute information as equal partners in their children’s educational process (DHHS 1997; Slaughter-DeFoe & Brown

1998). Volunteering in the Head Start classroom offers a perfect

opportunity for parents to observe their children in free play

activities. Indeed, a recent study conducted with Head Start

children and families suggests that as parents increase their

understanding and ability to facilitate peer play, children’s academic success actually increases (Lamb Parker et al. 1999). 

An essential aspect of information exchange is the development of a common language. The ability to communicate with

the same words that have shared meaning helps parents and

teachers understand the child’s functioning and be partners in the

child’s learning (Fantuzzo & Hampton 2000). A common language also facilitates opportunities for teachers to learn more

about children’s culture. Discussions about children’s play experiences at home and in the neighborhood allow teachers to learn

about cultural customs and how they are manifested in children’s

play. This information can include the specific games and activities that children engage in, who teaches the children to play

games, and the meaning of these games and activities within their

cultural context (Mize & Abell 1996; Fantuzzo & Hampton

2000). Recognition of the cultural aspects of children’s play has

the potential to strengthen the partnership between teachers and

families (because teachers are explicitly valuing important aspects

of culture) and to communicate to families the importance of

bringing cultural traditions into school and celebrating them.

Knowledge about children’s play at home can help teachers plan

curricula and interventions that best meet children’s needs

(Fantuzzo & Hampton 2000).

Indeed, gathering and sharing information serves as the

basis for developing useful interventions to develop children’s

social competency in both home and school settings (Fantuzzo,

Mendez, & Tighe 1998; Powell 1998). Play provides a perfect

context for helping

adults get more

involved in children’s

developmental

progress. During

play, teachers and

parents can observe

children’s emergent

competencies as well

as identify areas

needing extra assistance. For example, if

Photo by J. Greenberg. Okeechobee II MHS.
Head Start Bulletin 19

parents and teachers observe that a child acts differently around

peers in the home and in the classroom, they can discuss these

differences and how to promote competencies in both settings.

Children’s play, therefore, gives adults insights into children’s

development and opportunities to support the development of

new strategies for social interaction (NAEYC 1996). 

Informing the curriculum. The development of an age-appropriate curriculum involves recognizing realistic and attainable goals

for children to provide optimum learning experiences (NAEYC

& NAECS/SDE 1991). Because developmental domains are

interrelated, educators should use these interrelationships to

organize children’s learning experiences in ways to promote optimal development within a domain and across them.

Furthermore, recognition of the connections across developmental domains is useful for curriculum planning appropriate to the

wide age range in many preschool classrooms (NAEYC 1996). 

Based on findings from research, the early childhood curriculum should promote play to enhance social development

and to facilitate learning in other domains (NAEYC &

NAECS/SDE 1991; DHHS 1997). Decisions about the best

ways to facilitate these multiple competencies should be made

at the classroom level, based on children’s individual needs

(Bredekamp & Rosegrant 1992). Teachers can help children

enhance their cross-domain competencies by providing thematic

organization for play; offering appropriate props, space, and

time; and extending and elaborating on children’s ideas (Levy,

Wolfgang, & Koorland 1992). Therefore, child-initiated,

teacher-supported play is an essential component of developmentally appropriate practice.

Screening, assessment, and intervention. Members of the

National Education Goals Panel emphasized that data collection plans should include input from families, teachers, and the

children themselves (Kagan, Moore, & Bredekamp 1995).

Head Start mandates procedures for screenings and assessments of children’s social functioning to identify strengths and

needs. In fact, the Head Start Performance Standards call for

screenings of children’s social skills within 45 days of the time

when they enter the program (DHHS 1997). The Standards

also indicate that the screening should occur in collaboration

with families to obtain multiple perspectives on children’s

behavior and development. Ongoing assessments of children’s

progress are needed to identify any areas of need that may

arise. Therefore, both parents and staff should contribute

information to the assessments based on their observations of

children’s functioning over time. Similarly, the NAEYC and

NAECS/SDE (1991) position statement indicates that assessments should include observations by parents and teachers in

naturally occurring contexts. Clearly, play is a primary context

where useful observations can be made. 

To meet these guidelines and standards, early childhood

programs need culturally sensitive and scientifically sound

assessment instruments that identify children’s strengths and

needs in natural contexts. Some rating scales and observational

methods meet these rigorous assessment criteria and are useful

in identifying children experiencing difficulty during peer play.

Furthermore, when parents and teachers use valid and reliable

instruments, a common language is created, and the information exchange between home and school is stimulated.

Information from these instruments can also provide a way

to guide interventions and to evaluate treatment outcomes. As

Head Start strives to enhance children’s social competencies,

interventions must be developed for children with peer difficulties. The development of these interventions must be guided by

scientifically valid methods of identifying those children. 

The development of an assessment tool followed by an

intervention to help children experiencing difficulties in peer

play was undertaken jointly by Head Start staff, parents, and

university researchers (Fantuzzo, Coolahan, & Weiss 1997).

First, observations of children’s free play were videotaped and

coded by both research assistants and Head Start parents to

ensure cultural sensitivity. Next, salient peer play behaviors

from the videotapes were transformed into individual questions

(or items) to form a rating instrument. This instrument was

developed in collaboration with teachers and parents to describe

a range of peer play interactions. Items were designed to differentiate children who demonstrated positive peer relationships
20 Issue 74/2002

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PLAY

from those who were less successful with peers. 

Three types of play interactions were observed and formed

the basis of the rating scale: 

• interactive peer play behaviors include creative, cooperative, and helpful behaviors that facilitate successful peer

play interactions (e.g., sharing toys, helping to settle peer

conflicts, disagreeing without fighting);

• disruptive peer play behaviors include aggressive and antisocial play behaviors (e.g., grabbing toys, having a

tantrum, and starting fights or arguments with other children during play);

• disconnected peer play behaviors include hovering outside

of a play group, needing help from the teacher to join play,

and rejecting the invitations of other children. These children were typically more withdrawn and avoidant, and

their behaviors often impeded active participation in play. 

Both a teacher version and a parent version of the rating

scale were constructed and tested to make certain they held up

to rigorous scientific standards. It was expected that information from home and school would be shared. 

The rating scales were then used in a peer play intervention. The intervention consisted of three tasks: (1) selecting

resilient peers, called Play Buddies, and the children with poor

peer play skills, called Play Partners; (2) establishing collaborations with teachers to set up Play Corners for play interactions

between the Play Buddy and Play Partner; and (3) identifying

and training parent volunteers, called Play Supporters, to support the positive play interaction of the children in the Play

Corner. The rating scales assisted with the identification of Play

Buddies with high interactive peer play skills and Play Partners

with highly disruptive and/or disconnected peer play behaviors.

Observations were made of their play interactions. Indeed, with

the help of their more resilient peers, the lower functioning Play

Partners learned to engage in interactive and successful peer

play (for a more detailed description of the intervention and the

evaluation, see Fantuzzo, Coolahan, & Weiss 1997).

Given the salience of the developmental challenge of prosocial play for preschool-aged children, it is essential that early

childhood educators learn about new ways to facilitate successful play experiences in their classrooms. Head Start children

would benefit immensely from the integration of peer play

interventions into their daily experiences. In addition, the

importance of early peer play to later school success highlights

the need to partner with Head Start families in order to maximize children’s development and learning at home and school

(NRC & Institute of Medicine 2000). ■

REFERENCES

Birch, S. H., & G.W. Ladd. 1996. Interpersonal relationships in

the school environment and children’s early school adjustment: The role of teachers and peers. In Social motivation:

Understanding children’s adjustment, eds. J. Juvonen & K.

Wentzel, 199-225. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bredekamp, S., & T. Rosegrant. 1992. Reaching potentials

through appropriate curriculum: Conceptual frameworks

for applying the guidelines. In Reaching potentials:

Appropriate curriculum and assessment for young children,

vol.1, eds. S. Bredekamp & T. Rosegrant. Washington, DC:

National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Bredekamp, S., & C. Copple, eds. 1997. Developmentally

appropriate practice in early childhood programs.

Washington, DC: National Association for the Education

of Young Children. 

Cochran, M. 1993. Public child care, culture, and society:

Interactive peer play in the preschool years is associated

with school readiness– the development of early 

literacy skills, approaches to learning, and self regulation.
Head Start Bulletin 21

Crosscutting themes. In International handbook of child

care policies and programs, ed. M. Cochran, 627-658.

Westport, CT: Greenwood. 

Corsaro, W. A., & K. Schwarz. 1991. Peer play and socialization in two cultures. In Play and the social context of

development in early care and education, eds. S. Scales, M.

Almy, A. Nicolopoulou, & E. Ervin-Tripp, 234-254. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Creasey, G. L., P.A. Jarvis, & L.E. Berk. 1998. Play and social

competence. In Multiple perspectives on play in early childhood education: Inquiries and insights, eds. O. N. Saracho

& B. Spodek, 116-143. Albany, NY: State University of

New York Press.

Denham, S. A., & R. W. Holt. 1993. Preschoolers’ likeability as

cause or consequence of their social behavior.

Developmental Psychology 29 (2): 271-275.

DeRosier, M., J. B. Kupersmidt, & C. J. Patterson. 1994.

Children’s academic and behavioral adjustment as a function of the chronicity and proximity of peer rejection.

Child Development 65: 1799-1813.

Fantuzzo, J., K. Coolahan, & A. Weiss. 1997. Resiliency partnership-directed intervention: Enhancing the social competencies of preschool victims of physical abuse by developing

peer resources and community strengths. In Rochester symposium on developmental psychopathology: The effects of

trauma on the developmental process, vols. 8 & 9, eds. D.

Cicchetti & S. L. Toth, 463-490. Rochester, NY: University

of Rochester Press. 

Fantuzzo, J., J. Mendez, & E. Tighe. 1998. Parental assessment

of peer play: Development and validation of the parent version of the Penn Interactive Peer Play Scale. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly 13 (4): 655-672.

Fantuzzo, J., & V. Hampton. 2000. Penn Interactive Peer Play

Scale: A parent and teacher rating system for young children. In Play diagnosis and assessment, eds. K. GitlinWeiner, A. Sandgrund, & C. Schaefer, 599-620. New York:

Wiley.

Fantuzzo, J., & C. McWayne. 2002. The relationship between

peer play interactions in the family context and dimensions

of school readiness for low-income preschool children.

Journal of Educational Psychology 94 (1): 1-9.

Fantuzzo, J., J. Mendez, & E. Tighe. 1998. Parental assessment

of peer play: Development and validation of the parent version of the Penn Interactive Peer Play Scale. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly 13 (4): 655-672.

Fisher, E. P. 1992. The impact of play on development: A metaanalysis. Play & Culture 5: 159-181.

Frost, J. L. 1992. Play and playscapes. Albany, NY: Delmar.

Gallagher, T. M. 1993. Language skill and the development of

social competence in school-age children. Language,

Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 24: 199-205.

Garcia Coll, C. T., E. C. Meyer, & L. Brillon. 1995. Ethnic and

minority parenting. In Handbook of parenting: Biology

and ecology of parenting, vol. 2, ed. M. Bornstein, 189-

209. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 

Goncu, A. 1993. Development of intersubjectivity in the dyadic

play of preschoolers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly

8: 99-116.

Hampton, V. 1999. Validation of the Penn Interactive Peer Play

Scale (PIPPS) for urban kindergarten children. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation. Philadelphia, PA: University of

Pennsylvania.

Hart, C. H., S. F. Olsen, C. C. Robinson, & B. L. Mandleco.

1997. The development of social and communicative competence in childhood: Review and a model of personal,

familial, and extrafamilial processes. Communication

Yearbook 20: 305-373.

Hartup, W. W., & S. G. Moore. 1990. Early peer relations:

Developmental significance and prognostic implications.

Early Childhood Research Quarterly 5: 1-17.

Hymal, S., C. Comfort, K. Schonert-Reichl, & P. McDougall.

1996. Academic failure and school dropout: The influence

of peers. In Social motivation: Understanding children’s

school adjustment, eds. J. Juvonen & K. Wentzel, 313-345.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kagan, S. L., E. Moore, & S. Bredekamp, eds. 1995.

Reconsidering children’s early development and learning:

Toward common views and vocabulary. Washington, DC:
22 Issue 74/2002

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PLAY

National Education Goals Panel.

Kupersmidt, J. B., J. D. Coie, & K. A. Dodge. 1990. The role of

poor peer relationships in the development of disorder. In

Peer rejection in childhood, eds. S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie,

274-305. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ladd, G. W., S. H. Birch, & E. S. Buhs. 1999. Children’s social

and scholastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres of

influence? Child Development 70 (6): 1373-1400.

Ladd, G. W., & C. C. Coleman. 1997. Children’s classroom

peer relationships and early school attitudes: Concurrent

and longitudinal associations. Early Education &

Development 8 (1): 51-66.

Ladd, G. W., B.J. Kochenderfer, & C. C. Coleman. 1996.

Friendship quality as a predictor of young children’s early

school adjustment. Child Development 67: 1103-1118.

Ladd, G. W., & J. M. Price. 1987. Predicting children’s social

and school adjustment following the transition from

preschool to kindergarten. Child Development 58: 1168-

1189.

Lamb Parker, F., A. Y. Boak, K. W. Griffin, C. Ripple, & L.

Peay. 1999. Parent-child relationship, home learning environment, and school readiness. School Psychology Review

28 (3): 413-425.

Levy, A. K., C. H. Wolfgang, & M. A. Koorland. 1992.

Sociodramatic play as a method for enhancing the language

performance of kindergarten age students. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly 7 (2): 245-262.

Mize, J., & E. Abell. 1996. Encouraging social skills in children: Tips teachers can share with parents. Dimensions of

Early Childhood 24 (3): 15-23.

National Association for the Education of Young Children.

1996. NAEYC Position Statement: Principles of child

development and learning that inform developmentally

appropriate practice. Developmentally appropriate practice

in early childhood programs serving children from birth

through age 8. Available online at

<www.naeyc.org/resources/position_statements/dap3.htm>.

National Association for the Education of Young Children, &

National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in

State Departments of Education. 1991. Guidelines for

appropriate curriculum content and assessment in programs serving children ages 3 through 8. Young Children

46: 21-38.

Nicolopoulou, A. 1993. Play, cognitive development, and the

social world: Piaget, Vygotsky, and beyond. Human

Development 36: 1-23.

Parker, J. G., & S. R. Asher. 1987. Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk?

Psychological Bulletin 102: 357-389.

Pelligrini, A. D., & L. Galda. 1993. Ten years after: A reexamination of symbolic play and literacy research. Reading

Research Quarterly 28 (2): 163-175.

Piaget, J. 1962. Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New

York: Norton.

Powell, D. R. 1998. Reweaving parents into the fabric of early

childhoods programs. Young Children 53 (5): 60-67. 

Prince, C. 1992. Reactions to the Goal 1 Technical Planning

Subgroup report on school readiness. Washington, DC:

National Education Goals Panel.

Raver, C. C., & E. F. Zigler. 1997. Social competence: An

untapped dimension in evaluating Head Start’s success.

Early Childhood Research Quarterly 12: 363-385.

Rogoff, B. 1993. Children’s guided participation and participatory appropriation in sociocultural activity. In

Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific

environments, eds. R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Shonkoff, J. P., & D. A. Phillips, eds. 2000. From 

neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early 

childhood development. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

Slaughter-Defoe, D., & E. Brown. 1998. Educational intervention and the family: The Chicago tradition in policy and

practice. National Head Start Research Quarterly, 1 (4):

39-111.

Sroufe, A. L., R. G. Cooper, G. B. DeHart, M. E. Marshall, &

U. Bronfenbrenner, eds. 1992. Child development: Its

Continued on page 57
Head Start Bulletin 23

THERE IS ONGOING DEBATE as to what role technology should

play in the classroom. The concerns become ever greater when

researchers discuss early childhood education. We are exploring

the possibilities for the Classroom of the Future by partnering

with students and teachers at The Center for Young Children in

College Park, Maryland and Yorktown Elementary School in

Bowie, Maryland. 

The aim of this five-year National Science Foundation funded project is to foster innovation in both the development and

use of new educational technologies. Research in the area of

educational technologies generally focuses on the impact technologies can have on children and teachers, as opposed to the

impact that children and teachers can have on the development

of new technologies. We believe both the impact of the teachers

and students and the impact of the technologies are critical to

our understanding of how technology shapes our learning environments. It is not enough to think about how many desktops or

laptops should be brought into the classroom or how we can

train teachers to use them. We need to ask broader questions:

Why should technologies be integrated into the curriculum?

How can children and teachers share what they know about

their technology needs? How can we change technology to support educational experiences in the classroom? How does the use

of technology change our learning environments?

The goals of the Classroom of the Future Project

fall into two categories: technological and educational.

Therefore, we expect the outcomes of our research will

include a better understanding of the input and output

devices necessary for children to use technology which

is not relegated to the desktop, as well as a method 

to effectively use these technologies in the classroom. 

Our team anticipates developing new “embedded”

technologies that can be a seamless part of any physical object in schools. Children’s activity patterns will

be supported with technologies that suggest active

exploration, experimentation, and play. In regards to

educational impact, we expect to understand how

technology can support learning even in early childhood education environments. We will explore what technology infusion

methods need to be developed by kindergarten teachers in a

technology-rich learning environment.

Young children are often called natural scientists. The baby drops her rattle

off the edge of the high chair to see what happens; the toddler plays in the

sand box and puts sand in his mouth to discover its taste; the preschooler

wonders “Why is the car red? Where does the sun go at night?” in an

effort to figure out how the world works. Children are inclined to be curious,

explore, ask questions, and search for answers. These very same qualities

describe adult researchers, too. A study on educational technologies at the

University of Maryland has enlisted kindergarten children as design

partners. Their drawings and comments are important pieces of research

data; their ideas are helping to shape the research process. Maybe you,

too, can think of ways to involve children as active participants in

your next research investigation.–Editor

CHILDREN AS RESEARCHERS

http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/kiddesign/cof.shtml

Figure 1. 
24 Issue 74/2002

Background

TECHNOLOGY IS BECOMING A VISIBLE PART of children’s lives.

From classroom settings to home use, computers are now a part

of how children learn, play, and communicate. A recent national

survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation of over 1,000 children

ages two to seven revealed that 62% of children have computers

at home. According to the National School Boards Foundation,

the most common reason parents cite for buying home computers is their children’s education. Our schools are even being

judged based on the ratio of students to computers. This ratio

has been used to determine the ability of schools to provide

“quality” education. Computers are an important part of children’s lives, even those young enough to attend pre-school.

What is not as clear is when children should have access to

these technologies. Educators are also questioning what technologies children should explore. Many doubt whether placing

a computer “box” on a desktop is an appropriate way to spend

time with a young active child. According to the National

Association for the Education of Young Children, educators

should study the effects of technology and use technology if it

can benefit children.

There is a clear mandate from the education community to

question what technologies get made and how they are used

with children. At the same time, technologists need to question

what educational strategies their teaching tools promote. Today

there is an emphasis placed on learning models that support the

active construction of knowledge and skills. There has been a

shift from educational environments which support the passive

acquisition of isolated facts, to environments in which the learner actively explores the world and constructs their own internal

models of understanding. From an early age, children physically

explore by building with blocks, digging in sandboxes, and

drawing new ideas. Activities such as these support the development of skills which include: creative problem-solving, collaborative learning, expressive design, and conceptual abstraction. 

Goals

* Understand the unique needs of young children (ages 3-6)

in learning environments.

* Develop new technologies in partnership with children and

teachers.

* Develop strategies for teaching in a technology-infused

early childhood education environment.

* Understand the impact these technologies can have on

young children and their early childhood educators.

* Understand when technology is an appropriate catalyst for

early childhood education.

* Develop innovative technologies that fully support user

needs by involving the user in the design process....

Current Work

OUR RESEARCH BEGAN in January of 2001. Since that time, we

have observed all of the classrooms at the CYC and the four

kindergarten classrooms at Yorktown Elementary School. Our

goal has been to understand the activity patterns of the children

and teachers and to understand how they use technology. We

have conducted two sets of interviews at the CYC and one set

of interviews at Yorktown. In addition, we have had several

meetings with the teachers at both schools. Together we have

discussed new approaches to integrating technology into the

curriculum. Our team introduced software applications that the

teachers can use with their classes. We are now analyzing the

data we have collected.

CHILDREN AS RESEARCHERS

Figure 2.

Figure 3.
Head Start Bulletin 25

We began a six-week-long pilot design team with a group

of six five-year-old children at the CYC. Based on this experience, we believe that children as young as five years old can be

partners in the design of new technologies. 

During these sessions, we tested current technology, wrote

and sketched notes, and built low-tech prototypes. The goal of

this pilot program was not to build any new technology but to

see if the children could view themselves as design partners. We

were particularly interested to see if children could take an

active role in the group by expressing their thoughts on the

design process and on the technologies they tested. Working

with younger children made it necessary to adapt the design

process that we use with our seven- to eleven-year-old partners. 

Kindergarten Design Partner Activities

AN EXAMPLE [OF A] DESIGN ACTIVITY we did with the kindergarten team is a re-design of MusicBlocks. MusicBlocks is a toy

that enables very young children to create their own compositions by manipulating and rearranging physical blocks. First,

each child used MusicBlocks and decided what she/he liked and

didn’t like about it. Then, each child sketched what they

thought MusicBlocks should be like in the future. [See Figure 1

for] sticky notes one child made detailing what she liked and

didn’t like about MusicBlocks.

[Figures 2 and 3] are sketches that two five-year-old children made in their journals. Their drawings show what the children would like the “Music Blocks of the future” to be like.

Our kindergarten team also worked with robots as a design

exercise. First they played with our robot that helps children tell

stories and then they played with ToyMax’s commercial R.A.D.

robot which can pick up and move small objects. Again, we

wrote sticky notes about what we did and did not like about the

robots. Then the children made sketches of what they would like

their robots to be able to do in the future, which the adults

annotated. Below are two children’s...annotations.

“These are two robots

dancing.” [Figure 4]

“It does anything that

you do.” [Figure 5]

Design Process with

Kindergartners

WORKING WITH THE

KINDERGARTEN DESIGN

partners at the CYC taught us that our design methods had to

be adapted to fit the unique needs of kindergartners. For example, we made design tasks easier for the kindergarteners by asking them to write only two sticky notes with their likes and dislikes, as opposed to three that our seven to twelve year-old

design partners write. We have found it most effective when the

kindergarten children drew on the sticky notes and the adults

transcribed the children’s descriptions of their drawings. We

also adapted the design process for young children by asking

them to sketch their ideas with pen and paper before they built

low tech prototypes. This helped them to focus on the design

process. It is challenging for kindergartners to stay focused,

[and] therefore, we met for only two hours a week (our lab

design team meets for three hours a week). ■

For more information, contact Allison Druin, Assistant Professor,

Department of Human Development, University of Maryland, College

Park. T: 301-405-2790; E: allisond@umaics.umd.edu.

Copyright University of Maryland. Reprinted with permission from

University of Maryland. Kids Design the Future. Further Reproduction

is prohibited without express permission from the copyright holder.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.
26 Issue 74/2002

RESEARCH IS A DYNAMIC PROCESS, affecting both researchers

and participants (Wagner 1997; Howard, Lewkowicz, &

Dickinson in press). Issues affecting the relationship are both

internally and externally imposed. Internally, agencies have

other bodies to which they must report (e.g., internal review

boards, boards of directors); externally, agencies must offer

proof of efficacy (e.g., research results or child outcome measures) to funding agencies or peer-reviewed journals. External

constraints are particularly

important for agencies that

provide Head Start services

because they use government

resources. Therefore, accountability is critical. 

First, we will describe the

research process—including its

frustrations—that brought us

together: a nonprofit agency

that offers Head Start services

and the research consortium

whose specific goal was to

study Head Start quality. Then, we will focus on how we 

problem-solved and what we learned from our collaboration.

The Research Partners

COMMUNITIES UNITED, INC. (CUI) provides child care services,

including Head Start, to 11 communities in the greater Boston

area. Founded in 1970 by a group of parents, volunteers, and

town officials, CUI’s expressed goal is to provide comprehensive education, health, and social services to economically disadvantaged children and their families. Additionally, CUI is

the lead agency for five Community Partnerships for Children

(CPCs), a statewide effort to provide child care coverage for

working parents whose incomes are too high to qualify for

Head Start, yet too low to cover child care costs.

In 1995, CUI and the New England Quality Research

Center (NEQRC) began a five-year collaboration

examining the efficacy of Head Start programs. The

NEQRC was part of a larger Head Start Quality

Research Center (QRC) Consortium that included the High

Scope Educational Foundation (Ypsilanti, Michigan), Georgia

State University, and the Frank Porter Graham Child Study

Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

QRCs were funded by the Administration on Children, Youth

and Families (ACYF) to respond to questions about the quality

of Head Start programs nationwide. 

The NEQRC itself was part of the Education Development

Center’s (EDC) Center for

Children and Families. In

addition to EDC, its local

research partners included the

Massachusetts Society for the

Prevention of Cruelty to

Children, Harvard University,

and Boston College. The primary goal of the NEQRC was

to examine children’s language, literacy, and social

development related to Head

Start services. Not surprisingly, this overarching research agenda corresponded directly to the

interests of the individual members of the NEQRC. 

The Stated Goals

AS A DIRECT SERVICE AGENCY, CUI was primarily interested in

the provision of high quality services to children and families in

their programs. While CUI staff appreciated the need for

research that illuminated the issues affecting the national Head

Start population, their primary concern was the children in their

care. CUI staff were willing to contribute to generalizable

research findings, but a more pressing need was to better understand their classrooms and children. They wanted to learn specific information that could substantially improve the lives of

the children in their programs. CUI staff are direct-care

providers, a role that is necessarily time- and labor-intensive

The research process brought frustrations, but mostly benefits, for the Head

Start program. by Corinne Lewkowicz and Stacy Dimino

The classroom

environment is

assessed as part of

the program’s selfevaluation

Photo courtesy of Communities United, Inc.

HOW A RESEARCH PROCESS AFFECTED PRACTITIONERS
Head Start Bulletin 27

and, therefore, leaves little time to participate in research that is

not directly connected to their immediate work.

CUI senior management articulated their goals for quick

data turnaround and classroom- and child-specific data. There

were two compelling reasons: CUI faced both internal (i.e., the

Board of Directors) and external (i.e., the Head Start Bureau)

pressures to document the efficacy of its programs, and staff

members wanted to respond to situations and/or needs that

became evident during data collection. However, CUI’s goals

were incompatible with the nature of the research process.

Data turnaround is necessarily slow. Plus, the requirements of

a large sample for statistical analyses and of participant confidentiality preclude the sharing of site- or child-specific information. 

These disparate goals, not surprisingly, led to frustrations

for both sides (Howard, Lewkowicz, & Dickinson in press).

CUI was frustrated with the length of time required for data

analyses and with the lack of program-specific findings.

Furthermore, as the research process evolved, and in response

to questions posed by various agencies (e.g., funding agencies,

the Department of Education), CUI management had an even

greater need for tools that could answer program-specific

questions. As one manager said, “Sometimes it felt as if we

were just having data extracted with nothing gained except

broadly helping Head Start.” EDC, in turn, was frustrated by

the research constraints that made it impossible to respond to

CUI’s pressing needs. 

CUI Takes the Initiative

IN RESPONSE TO THESE FRUSTRATIONS, CUI made several adaptations in the research process. The agency identified methods

and tools that allowed it to collect and analyze data for internal program evaluation and for reports to external agencies.

In short, CUI became more independent in terms of defining

and executing an internal research process that would address

its needs.

One of CUI’s first steps was to adopt The Early Childhood

Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R) for programwide assessment (Harms, Clifford, & Cryer 1998). The

NEQRC had introduced this Scale as an overall measure of

classroom quality. But concerns arose when CUI management

was not able to identify individual classroom performance on

the ECERS-R. When one classroom scored significantly lower

than others, its identity could not be revealed by EDC due to

confidentiality restrictions. Therefore, CUI could not target support to a classroom in great need and improve its service to

children and families. CUI concluded that the Scale, when used

by EDC for research purposes, was only useful as a very general

measure of overall program quality. 

CUI management was also concerned about the “snapshot”

nature of the Scale and its scoring system. EDC used only the

language and literacy subscale of the ECERS-R; other aspects of

the classroom environment were not scored. However, CUI

thought the “full classroom picture” was needed to assess program quality. 

EDC staff responded to CUI’s concerns by training CUI

staff in administering the ECERS-R in its entirety. The Scale is

now used by CUI as part of its annual program self-evaluation.

All aspects of the classroom environment are assessed, and data

on individual classrooms are available to CUI management. It is

now possible to track classroom and program quality from year

to year and to point to areas of strengths as well as priority

Continued on page 56

Photo courtesy of Communities United, Inc. 

Head Start children 

enjoy mixing playdough 
28 Issue 74/2002

OUR PROGRAM BEGAN when a small but passionate group of

inner-city Denver parents and educators joined together to stop

the spiraling decline of their community and to provide their

young children with a more promising future. This dedicated

group successfully closed down a crackhouse located across the

street from the local elementary school. They reclaimed and

renovated the vacated building, transforming it into the Family

Star Montessori Infant/Parent Education Center.

In April 1996, Dr. Robert Emde visited our center and witnessed something in the Montessori experience—delivered by this

grassroots organization—that amazed him. He observed a twoand-a-half-year-old child concentrating on a bead-stringing activity for 20 uninterrupted minutes. Other children were involved in

a variety of activities with pleasurable concentration. All this took

place in the midst of a neighborhood troubled by violence and

drug abuse. This contrast sparked Dr. Emde’s curiosity and

heightened his interest in understanding the socio-emotional as

well as the cognitive impacts on children in this program who

were eligible for Early Head Start (EHS). Thus, Family Star

became an Early Head Start site, and Dr. Emde’s team at the

University of Colorado became its research partner.

Our Early Head Start program is now located in

northwest Denver, serving a largely Latino population

of 75 children and pregnant women. We hire women

from surrounding neighborhoods. For many, this is their first

opportunity for professional development. Family Star Early

Head Start provides a dual language Montessori approach. The

marriage of Montessori and Early Head Start has made a significant impact on our program design and comprehensive services. Our organizational structure includes family service and

education teams, an infant mental health specialist coordinating

disabilities services, a health/nutrition coordinator, a male

involvement outreach coordinator, and a special projects coordinator developing family literacy. We also provide ongoing

forums for all staff that are designed to maintain communication and promote staff development. 

During the first months, we spent time building a relationship with our university-based researcher partners. We visited the

university lab used for family visits and learned about the different assessments and measures for the local and national research.

In turn, our research partners conducted focus groups in our

community, under the direction of Dr. Paul Spicer, in order to

review their research measures for cultural appropriateness.

Community input helped the research team make their lab protocols more respectful of Latinos and the Montessori approach.

These modifications ranged from changing language (e.g., using

the words “free time” rather than “play time,” “materials” in

place of “toys”) to changing the pace and formality of the lab

visit in order to make families feel more comfortable.

Initial Challenges with Research 

WE FACED MANY CHALLENGES as we entered the unexplored

territory of mounting an Early Head Start research study. For

research purposes, we had to recruit within narrow age spans to

accommodate the flow of children between classrooms.

Furthermore, all children had to be enrolled before the age of

12 months. This meant that ongoing re-forecasting was necessary when monthly enrollment projections were not met.

Initially, community agencies and parents expressed conToddlers play

together in Early

Head Start

Photo courtesy of HSNRC.

Family Star faced many challenges as we entered the unexplored territory

of mounting an Early Head Start research study. by Terry J. Hudgens,

Lereen D. Castellano, Paul Spicer and Robert Emde

OUR EXPERIENCES AS AN EHS RESEARCH SITE
Head Start Bulletin 29

cern about the random assignment process that is necessary for

rigorous research studies (i.e., the applicant stands a 50%

chance of being assigned to the comparison group rather than

the program). In order to address this concern, Councilwoman

Deborah Ortega hosted an orientation for northwest Denver

community representatives. Twenty-six people attended to present their questions and concerns. Through this venue, we

addressed their concerns and informed them of the potential

long-term benefits of the study for children and families.

Several other recruitment issues captured our attention during the start-up phase of the study. Initial recruitment was interrupted while we awaited a corrected Spanish version of the

HSFIS application and enrollment forms. Family Star staff and

researchers worked together to prepare the new edition.

Disability recruitment was another frustration because many

young children with special needs were assigned to the comparison group. However, through the coordinated problem-solving

of research and program staff, we resolved many of these thorny

recruitment issues in ways that were mutually acceptable.

Programmatic Benefits of Research

THE RESEARCH PARTNERSHIP benefited our program in several

ways. Dr. Emde helped us acquire an infant mental health specialist through The Harris Infant Mental Health Program at the

University of Colorado. The multiple benefits of having an onsite mental health manager were immediately evident. Mary

Ervoline was an experienced social worker who helped us

address socio-emotional issues both in the classroom and with

Early Head Start families.

The research partners also had “hands-on” contact with

the staff. Dr. Jon Korfmacher met with teachers and co-designed

a daily activity feedback form. He also provided Ages and

Stages Questionnaire training. Co-facilitated by Drs. Emde and

Spicer, a theory of change discussion allowed staff to share their

impressions of families’ experiences at Family Star Early Head

Start. Members of the research team attended various meetings

and functions as true Family Star supporters. They also helped

us identify additional funding sources for our growing program.

Our Continuous Improvement Team—the Center for

Human Investment in Policy at the University of Colorado at

Denver—met with us regularly. They helped us identify areas of

need and plan next steps. Together, we developed a continuous

improvement matrix based on program objectives and activities

in child, family, and staff development and community building.

Our Continuous Improvement Team also conducted the Infant

and Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS) twice a year,

helped create our database tracking system, identified technology needs, and was vital to the success of our planning process.

Their support and guidance have been invaluable.

The Early Head Start Research Consortium meetings, held

twice a year, brought researchers and program directors from all

the EHS research sites together. As we enter the final phase of

data gathering, the research consortium meetings are taking on

new importance. The results of the study, already released in an

interim report, are quickly becoming a reality. Plans for a longitudinal study of the children who participated in the EHS evaluation have crystallized. They will be followed up before and after

they enter school. Of course, we are eager to see how they fare.

Today, Family Star Early Head Start is in a unique position.

In a mere four years, we have become a community focal point

for innovation in education, child advocacy, parent involvement, and neighborhood development. We recently purchased

our building and are mounting a capital campaign to raise more

than a million dollars in renovation funds. Our vision is to have

a remodeled facility ready to serve children, birth through age

six, in a blended program in a few years. We now embrace

research as a necessary ingredient for expansion, continuous

program improvement, and maintaining quality services for the

families and children we serve. ■

Terry J. Hudgens is Director of Family Star Early Head Start. T:

303-477-7827; E: terry@familystar.net. Lereen D. Castellano is

Executive Director of Family Star. T: 303-477-7827; E:

lereen@familystar.net. Paul Spicer is an Assistant Professor in the

Dept. of Psychiatry at the U. of Colorado Health Sciences Center.

T: 303-315-9256; E: paul.spicer@uchsc.edu. Robert Emde is a

Professor in the Dept. of Psychiatry, U. of Colorado Health

Sciences Center. T: 303-315-7311; E: Bob.Emde@UCHSC.edu.
30 Issue 74/2002

THE GREAT LEGACY of the Head Start program springs from

many sources, such as its role as a national laboratory for early

childhood research. Like any national policy or programmatic

initiative, the early childhood research that has been a constant

in Head Start has required the commitment and investment of

local programs. Many Head Start policy-makers, administrators, and practitioners at the local level have been convinced

that the blending of practice and research knowledge has

incredible potential to produce programs of the highest quality

(Denner et al. 1999; Zigler & Styfco 1998, 2000). The goal of

this article is to delineate the important lessons that can be

learned from the integration of research and practice in Head

Start programs.

Because of our belief that practitioner input has been essential to the success of any research effort, we began the process

of writing this article through consultation with the field.

Nominated by regional office staff and Training /Technical

Assistance (T/TA) providers, Head Start programs from across

the nation were selected that had successfully engaged in the

research enterprise. We particularly sought out programs that

were not part of a national research project. Program administrators were asked to respond to a series of questions about the

“what,” “who,” “how,” and “why” of their research endeavors. Their answers follow. Based on the work conducted in

these local programs, we then highlight the key lessons regarding research. 

How do we begin the research process?

Identifying a “theory of change.” Prior to planning the

research project, a program should identify its “theory of

change.” Put simply, a program’s theory of change reflects its

goals, related outcomes, and the practices it will implement to

achieve these outcomes. Programs can learn from the efforts of

the Early Head Start research sites, each of which identified the

theory of change that guided their work during the initial phases of the project. A “logic model” or type of flow chart that

connects the goals of the program, the specific services

that follow from the goals, and the potential benefits

for families and children that result from each service

is a concrete way to represent the theory of change. Table 1

offers a snapshot of an abbreviated logic model based on current Head Start Performance Measures.

Ensuring staff and family participation. Just as national initiatives cannot be implemented without local program buy-in,

administrative-level decisions at the program level cannot be

carried out unless front-line staff and managers are willing to

support them. Thus, research projects should be conducted with

the full participation of all staff and parents. Most of the programs surveyed obtained staff buy-in through an emphasis on

accountability to funding sources. The Community Services for

Children Head Start program in Allentown, Pennsylvania, experienced the gradual evolution of staff buy-in regarding research.

In the beginning, staff perceived the research as extra work.

With continuing feedback about the results of the research, they

have begun to see the benefits of their efforts. Additionally, the

amount of work assigned staff was purposely limited by streamLocal programs are increasingly implementing their own reserach

initiatives. by Brenda Jones Harden and Danielle Rock

BUILDING LOCAL LABORATORIES

Goals Objectives Services Outcomes

TABLE 1

Develop

children’s

literacy 

Children will

know/

appreciate the

function of

books 

Teacher will read

to children &

describe book

concepts; children

will have

opportunity to

explore books 

Children will

show interest in a

specific book,

will engage in

pretend reading,

will ask to be

read to and

know book

content 

Promote

children’s

socialemotional

development

Children will

exhibit ageappropriate

self-control 

Teacher will model

self-regulation, will

encourage child to

express emotion

verbally, will

provide peer

experiences for

children to learn

empathy, will set

appropriate limits,

will be responsive

to children’s

emotional needs

throughout day 

Children will

increase their

use of words to

express negative

emotion instead

of the body, their

capacity to think

about the needs

of others, their

compliance with

rules, and their

ability to be

calm in times of

frustration 
lining data-gathering procedures and making them user-friendly

and by assigning the bulk of study tasks to the researchers. 

Other programs devoted staff administrative and professional development meetings to discussing staff perceptions of

research, ideas about how the research should be implemented,

and strategies for how to balance their involvement in the

research and their work with program participants. Policy councils and parent committees are similarly used by programs to

enhance parent and community investment in the research. The

Tri-County Child and Family Development Council Head Start

program in Evansdale, Iowa, goes one step farther and gives

parents ready and full access to all the data they collect. 

Devising research questions. An important first step in any

research endeavor is to outline relevant research questions. It is

often helpful if a research consultant is engaged at this point.

Programs should ask themselves what it is they want to know—

for example, do they want to conduct an assessment of the

needs and resources of the participant population or to determine what services are working for which participants? These

research questions should be jointly developed by practitioners

and researchers and made concise and measurable. Some programs want to answer policy-relevant questions, such as the

Northern Delaware Early Head Start’s interest in knowing the

effectiveness of their partnerships with community-based child

care programs. In the Bedford-Fulton Head Start program in

Pennsylvania, administrators were interested in the capacity of

staff to deliver services. Their research questions, and subsequently the evidence to answer those questions, led the program

to alter the content and process of staff supervision and training. Other programs are interested in learning more about participant children’s developmental processes. The A.W.A.R.E.,

Inc. Early Head Start program in Butte, Montana, is considering research projects assessing attachment and emotion expression in infants. 

How do we implement the research project?

Identifying an external partner. Although many programs

engage in research efforts on their own, it is much more likely

that research will be conducted effectively if the program chooses an external research partner. Research conducted in partnership with external experts generally has more credibility in

terms of its methodology and its findings. Local universities and

independent research firms are an excellent source of potential

individuals who can partner with the program to conduct

descriptive or evaluative research. The majority of the programs

surveyed for this article opted to devote a portion of the programmatic budget to a research consultant. For example, the

Head Start Child and Family Development Program of

Hastings, Nebraska, has used the same university-based

research partner for more than a decade. They have jointly conducted several policy-relevant studies (e.g., inclusion, state early

childhood procedures), as well as evaluation of programmatic

initiatives (e.g., family transition and empowerment). 

Establishing a method for conducting the research. With the

technical assistance of the research partner, a rigorous methodology for answering the program’s research questions should be

selected. This process includes identifying measures that are participant- and program-friendly. In other words, these measures

should be easy to administer and should have been used with the

cultures of the Head Start program’s participants. Using measures

that have been standardized (i.e., already tested with appropriate

populations) is always preferable to creating new measures. 

The Columbia University Head Start program in New York

City is using several standardized measures to assess participant

Head Start Bulletin 31

Building together in

Head Start

Photo by D. Mentzer. Higher Horizons EHS-HS.
32 Issue 74/2002

BUILDING LOCAL LABORATORIES

children’s development, including such assessments as the

Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery - Revised

(Woodcock & Johnson 1990), Child Behavior Checklist

(Achenbach 1991), Social Skills Rating Scale (Gresham &

Elliott 1990), and the Developmental Test of Visual Motor

Integration (Beery 1982). An important aspect of their use of

these measures is to reflect upon their cultural appropriateness

with immigrant and other families from minority groups.

Many Head Start programs use previously established measures to assess the child development environment. The Early

Childhood Environment Rating Scale - Revised Edition

(ECERS-R; Harms, Clifford, & Cryer 1998) is a very popular

measure used for this purpose in national and local research

studies. The Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Public Schools Head

Start program recently employed their research partner to

observe and rate 80 classrooms using the ECERS-R. The results

were shared with the teachers and pointed to the need for more

developmentally appropriate activities and materials. The

research led to improvements in the classroom environments.

Similarly, the procedures used for collecting the information

should be rigorous. Some programs use technologically sophisticated ways to collect data. For example, the Upper Des Moines,

Iowa, Opportunity Head Start uses video cameras in each classroom to support assessments of the environment. Programs may

elect to use program staff, research staff, or both to collect data.

The Bedford-Fulton Head Start program in Pennsylvania uses

Family Development Specialists to collect family data and a contract employee to conduct the child assessments. 

Despite the importance of collecting a wide range of data,

data collection should not create an undue burden on the program. Interviews that last several hours are difficult for the participants and the staff involved. The literacy levels of parents

need to be considered as well. It is unfair to the parent, and also

potentially problematic for the research, if the parent has to

read questions that may be too complex. Many researchers opt

to read all the questions to all parents to avoid asking parents

about their ability to read. 

Some programs have decided to provide incentives to families who participate in research. This is not always necessary; in

some programs, receipt of services requires participation in the

research. This issue is much more complex when control or

comparison groups, who do not receive services, are utilized.

Conventional thinking is that these families should be provided

some incentive or remuneration for their time. If not, the participation rate needed for study viability may not be obtained. At

the very least, staff and families should be recognized for their

willingness to participate in the research effort. For example, in

the Upper Des Moines Opportunity Head Start program in

Iowa, staff are recognized with corsages and monetary rewards.

Feedback about the research is given to staff through reflective

supervision and peer mentoring. Similar strategies can be used

to provide recognition and support to parent participants in the

research process.

Handling and analyzing data. A difficult but essential task

of the research process is managing, analyzing, and summarizing data. Many programs rely on HSFIS or other data management systems to store aggregate data (e.g., statistics on the number of children in center-based care, the number of families

receiving home visits, etc.). The Drake University Head Start

program in Iowa has employed an information technology specialist to collect and manage aggregate data for the program.

The Philadelphia Head Start program, which is part of the

Adult-child interaction is

key to children’s learning

and development

Photo courtesy of HSNRC.
Head Start Bulletin 33

Philadelphia Public Schools, has access

to data files that the school system maintains. This allows the program to engage

in follow-up research by assessing the

academic skills and functioning of former Head Start children.

For more specific research efforts,

the program should devise a way to

maintain the data in a confidential manner. Protection of the confidentiality of

research participants cannot be overemphasized. Questionnaire and videotape

data should be kept in locked cabinets in

rooms that are not used by program participants. Identifying information should

not be on any of the data, if possible.

Families should voluntarily agree to be

part of the study and sign a research consent form, different from the program

service participation form. If a research partner is used, often the

research project has to be evaluated by an Institutional Review

Board (IRB) to make certain that the rights of research participants are protected.

It is beneficial for programs if the data analysis is performed by someone with statistical expertise. For large-scale

Head Start studies, statistical consultants and staff persons are

hired to guide and complete data analyses. However, for most

program-level studies, the research consultant often has sufficient expertise to conduct the necessary analyses. Data for the

Community Services for Children Head Start program in

Allentown is managed and analyzed by its research partners at

the Pennsylvania State University. They provide written feedback annually to the program, which, in turn, contributes to

program planning. 

How do we make the research meaningful 

to our program? 

Using program evaluation. A major goal of many Head Start

studies is to evaluate program effectiveness. Although many

scholars and advocates argue that the benefits of Head Start

have been clearly documented (see Zigler & Styfco 1998; 2000;

Oden, Schweinhart, & Welkart 2000; Schaefer & Cohen 2000),

critics of the program still question its benefits to families and

children. To derive credible results from an effectiveness study,

programs should not just assess how participant children and

families progress over time. A comparison or control group

should also be utilized. Evaluations of programs with a randomly selected control group (i.e., eligible participants are randomly

placed in a group that receives Head Start services or a group

that does not receive services) are generally far too expensive for

individual programs to conduct. Large-scale impact studies are

often funded to use this methodology. In some instances, local

private or public funders have assisted local programs in conducting such evaluations.

In the main, individual programs interested in conducting rigorous evaluations of effectiveness elect to use a comparison group

that comprises individuals who are similar to the ones receiving

Head Start (e.g., similar ages, ethnic backgrounds, income levels,

etc.). Each of these groups is assessed prior to the time when the

• make an administrative commitment to incorporating research into your program

• identify a theory of change (i.e. link goals, services, and outcomes)

• ensure staff and family participation; obtain their “buy-in”

• outline the questions you want to have answered by research

• identify an external research partner (e.g. University researcher)

• establish a methodology for conducting the research

• ensure that the methods are credible in the research community

• select program-friendly and participant-friendly assessment tools

• establish procedures that are less burdensome to staff and participants

• provide incentives to staff and participants (concrete or psychological)

• create a data management system

• obtain support for data analysis and summary (e.g., use research partner)

• make the research meaningful for Head Start service delivery

• evaluate the effectiveness of specific aspects of your program or as a whole

• link research with the Head Start Program Performance measures and the Outcomes

Framework

• work toward continuous improvement of your program

STEPS TO BUILDING A LOCAL HEAD START 

PROGRAM OF RESEARCH
34 Issue 74/2002

BUILDING LOCAL LABORATORIES

Head Start group receives services and again, when services are

terminated for the Head Start group (pre- and post-test design).

The state-funded home-based Early Head Start program of the

Tri-County Child and Family Development Council in Iowa is

comparing Head Start preschoolers who had received Early Head

Start services to Head Start preschoolers who did not. 

The research project of the Head Start program in the

Kankakee School District, Illinois, evolved into a comparisongroup design evaluation. The program initiated a local “impact”

project in which they followed children through the third grade.

They were interested in evaluating whether Head Start children

had a more successful school experience (i.e., scored at or above

the 50th percentile on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills). After two

years of using a simple pre-test/post-test design, the program

determined that the study would be more beneficial if it incorporated a comparison group. With the support of a research network that includes the regional T/TA providers and the

University of Cincinnati Evaluation Services Center, this Head

Start program initiated and implemented a rigorous evaluation

design (i.e., comparison group pre-test/post-test follow-up). 

Focusing on performance measures and outcomes.

Effectiveness research dovetails with the Head Start Bureau’s

current emphasis on performance measures and outcomes. Two

Information Memoranda, ACYF-IM-HS-00-03 and ACYF-IMHS-00-18, provided guidance to programs for assessing outcomes and performance-based standards pertaining to the new

Head Start legislation, as well as Head Start Bureau policy. The

goal of this initiative is to incorporate child outcome data into

program self-assessment and continuous improvement.

Outcomes have to be evaluated in eight domains—language

development, literacy, mathematics, science, creative arts,

social-emotional development, approaches to learning, and

physical health and development. A research partner can be

extremely beneficial to programs as they endeavor to meet the

requirements of this mandate. 

For example, the Youth in Need Head Start program, in

concert with researchers at Washington University in St. Louis,

has created a checklist of nearly 30 outcome domains and is

currently gathering tools to assess each domain. The Eagle

County Head Start program received a Colorado Children’s

Trust grant to hire a researcher who has developed a tool to

measure children’s and families’ progress toward reaching outcomes identified by the program and the Head Start Bureau.

Many programs have integrated research efforts regarding

Head Start outcomes with their state and local early childhood

outcomes initiatives. In Philadelphia, the school district’s efforts

on early literacy and Head Start’s emphasis on literacy outcomes

led to a citywide task force on early literacy that developed strategies for tracking children’s progress toward literacy outcomes.

The Sacramento Employment and Training Agency Head

Start program in California has made great strides in the outcomes area as well. With the assistance of a research partner, they

developed a framework reflecting the Federal Head Start Bureau

outcomes and state-mandated outcomes for preschool programs.

An important component of their work was a pilot study with

teaching staff that tested their use of a detailed measurement tool

with specific indicators in multiple developmental domains. In

Baltimore, St. Bernardine’s Head Start is working with Head Start

programs across Maryland to develop a statewide outcomes

framework that blends with the national outcomes framework.

The evaluation of programs’ progress toward achieving the outcomes has been identified as a priority.

Ensuring continuous improvement. Finally, researchers in

Head Start place a high value on the programmatic implications of the research they conduct. In other words, the

research is not meaningful unless it informs the development

of a high-quality Head Start program. This exploration of the

Local programs provide

evidence that research 

can be used to inform 

program improvement and

outcome achievement.
Head Start Bulletin 35

implications of the research evidence is an essential component of the process that is often referred to as continuous program improvement. Through research evidence about the

needs of families or the effectiveness of specific services, Head

Start programs can continually modify and progress toward

the goal of enhancing the development of children and families. Continuous improvement was central to the research initiatives of several Head Start programs. In Illinois, the

Kankakee Public School’s Head Start program developed a

self-assessment tool as part of their research effort. The findings were used to identify technical assistance needs and led to

changes in the delivery of program services. In the Eagle

County Early Head Start program (Colorado), a survey of

participant families led to modifications in the parent-child

group socialization. The Community Services for Children

Head Start program in Pennsylvania restructured several staff

positions based on feedback received from programmatic

research. In the Philadelphia Public Schools Head Start, evidence from the research precipitated modifications in the curriculum. Specifically, the program began to integrate more

ALSM Children's Services

Debra Mock / Leah Pepple

231 South Juliana Street

Bedford, PA 15522

(814) 624-3200

A.W.A.R.E. Inc. EHS 

Tom Richards

237 East Mercury Street 

Butte, Montana 59701 

(406) 782-0455

trichards@aware-inc.org

Columbia University Early Head

Start 

Dr. Carmen Rodriguez 

601 West 168th Street

Suite 42

New York, NY 10032

(212) 923-5237

cr14@columbia.edu

Community Services for Children

(w/ Penn State University)

Paula Margraf

1520 Hanover Ave.

Allentown, PA, 18109

(610) 437-6000

Drake University Head Start

Georgia Sheriff 

3206 University Avenue

Des Moines, IA 50311

(515) 271-1854

Eagle County EHS

Rosie Moreno 

P.O. Box 660

Eagle, CO 81362

(970) 328-8827

Head Start Child & Family

Development, Inc.

Belinda Rinker / Deb Ross

123 Marian Road

Hastings, NE 68901

(402) 462-4187

b_rinker@alltel.net

Debross@alltel.net

Kankakee County Head Start

Mary Marx

Evaluation Services Center

University of Cincinnati

P. O. Box 210105

Cincinnati, OH 45221-0105

513-556-3750

marxml@ucmail.uc.edu

Kankakee County Head Start

Rebecca McBroom

Proegler School

710 North Chicago Avenue

Kankakee, IL 60901-2174

(815) 933-0773

becky-mcbroom@k111.k12.il.us

Northern Delaware Early 

Head Start 

Dr. Martha Buell

316 Allison Hall

Newark, DE 19716

(302) 831-0584

Philadelphia Public Schools 

Head Start

Jennifer Plummer-Davis

Stevens Administration Building

1301 Spring Garden Street

Philadelphia, PA 19123

(215) 351-7060

Sacramento Employment and

Training Agency

Joann Ingman

1122 Del Paso Blvd.

Sacramento, CA 95815

916 263-3884

JOANN@headstart.seta.net

St. Bernardine’s Head Start 

Angela Ligon 

3814 Edmondson Avenue

Baltimore, MD 21229

(410) 233-4500

ALigonad@aol.com

Tri-County Child and Family

Development Council

Kim Young Kent 

P.O.Box 3338

Evansdale, IA 50707

(319) 235-0383

Upper Des Moines 

Opportunity, Inc.

Julie Edwards

216 Sixth Avenue East

Spencer, IA 51301

712-264-8859

For further information about local programs’ experiences with research, contact the following contributors to

this article. 
36 Issue 74/2002

BUILDING LOCAL LABORATORIES

math, science, and the arts into the curriculum.

Toward an evidence-based Head Start program 

CONSISTENT WITH ITS PRACTICE for more than 35 years, Head

Start continues to remain on the cutting-edge of research in early

childhood development and education. Building on the largescale national studies and the work of research partners, local

programs are increasingly implementing their own research initiatives. These efforts are leading to the improved quality of

Head Start programs

across the country and to

increased knowledge about

the development of lowincome children. 

It is our hope that

local programs planning

to conduct research use

the lessons learned from

their colleagues and highlighted in this article.

These lessons include

strategies such as establishing a theory of change, obtaining staff and family buy-in,

devising measurable research questions, employing a rigorous

research design, selecting culturally appropriate and established

measures, and developing high-quality data management and

analyses strategies. Most important, these local programs provide evidence that research can be used to inform program

improvement and outcome achievement. As we move toward a

new phase in the history of early education and care, the continued integration of research and practice in Head Start can

only bolster its position as the premier early childhood program for poor children in the nation. ■

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T. 1991. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist

4-18, 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont,

Department of Psychiatry.

Beery, K. 1982. Revised administration, scoring, and teaching

manual for the Developmental Test of Visual Motor

Integration. Cleveland, OH: Modern Curriculum Press.

Denner, J., C. Cooper, E. Lopez, & N. Dunbar. 1999. Beyond

"giving science away": How university-community partnerships inform youth programs, research, and policy. SRCD

Social Policy Report 13 (1).

Gresham, F., & S. Elliott. 1990. Social Skills Rating System.

Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Harms, T., R. Clifford, & D. Cryer. 1998. Early Childhood

Environment Rating Scale. Revised. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Oden, S., L. Schweinhart, & D. Weikart. 2000. Into adulthood:

A study of the effects of Head Start. Ypsilanti, MI:

High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.

Schaefer, S., & J. Cohen. 2000. Making investments in young

children: What the research on early care and education

tells us. Issue Brief. Washington, DC: National Association

of Child Advocates.

Woodcock, R., & M. Johnson. 1990. Woodcock-Johnson

Psychoeducational Battery. Revised. Allen, TX: DLM

Teaching Resources.

Zigler, E., & S. Styfco. 1998. Applying the findings of developmental psychology to improve early childhood intervention.

In Global prospects for education, eds. S. Paris & H.

Wellman, 345-366. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association. 

Zigler, E., & S. Styfco. 2000. Pioneering steps (and fumbles) in

developing a federal preschool intervention. Topics in Early

Childhood Special Education 20 (2): 67-70.

Brenda Jones Harden was a 2000–2001 Society for Research in

Child Development Fellow, Child Outcomes Research and 

Evaluation (CORE), Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, DHHS. She

currently serves as Assistant Professor at the University of 

Maryland Institute for Child Study. T: 301-405-2580; 

E: bj34@umail.umd.edu. Danielle Rock is a student at 

University of Maryland, College Park. T: 718-922-2006; 

E: darock2002@yahoo.com. 

Photo by C. Dyer. Higher Horizons EHS-HS.
Head Start Bulletin 37

and gross motor skills, and physical

well-being? In addition, how does Head

Start affect the lives of the families of

children enrolled in the program?

The second goal of the study is to

determine under which conditions Head

Start works best and for which children.

To meet this goal, the study will examine

various factors that could affect the

impact of the Head Start program. These

factors will include

• differences among children attending Head Start;

• differences in children’s home environments; 

• the different types of Head Start

programs available (home or centerbased, quality indicators such as

staff ratio, curriculum, part- versus

full-day programs, one versus two

years exposure); and 

• the availability and quality of other

child care and preschool programs

in a particular area.

The National Head Start Impact

Study is a longitudinal study that will

involve approximately 5,000-6,000

three- and four-year-old children across

an estimated 75 nationally representative

grantee/delegate agencies in communities

where there are more eligible children

and families than can be served by the

program. Participating children will be

randomly assigned to either a treatment

group (which receives Head Start services) or a comparison group (which

does not receive Head Start services).

Every effort will be made to minimize

the burden on individual programs and

to avoid significantly changing typical

enrollment and recruitment procedures.

Data collection is scheduled to begin

in Fall 2002 and continue through 2006,

following children through the Spring of

their first grade year. It includes twice

yearly in-person interviews with parents,

in-person child assessments by independent assessors, annual surveys with care

providers and teachers, direct observations

of the quality of different care settings,

and teacher ratings of children.

Data collection will include 

the following:

• individual child data in the areas

related to school readiness, such as

physical well-being and motor development, social and emotional development, approaches to learning, language usage and emerging literacy,

cognition and general knowledge;

• information pertaining to parenting

practices, family resources and risk

factors, demographic and socioeconomic data, and family structure;

• information on the structure,

process, and quality of Head Start,

child care, and school settings

through first grade; and

• community-level data relating to the

availability and means of formal and

informal family support services.

Currently, the project staff are

engaged in multiple, preliminary activities to prepare for study implementation.

A field test of various measures and procedures is being conducted with a small

number of grantees. Several work

groups, which include research experts

and representatives from Head Start programs, are meeting to plan various

aspects of the study. They are reviewing

measurement selection, strategies to

address community and service inputs

beyond Head Start, and variations in

recruitment/enrollment practices across

different communities. Programs that

have been selected to participate in the

study have been contacted so that program and research staff can work jointly

to streamline the study procedures to

best match each program’s recruitment

and enrollment practices and timelines,

and discuss other related issues. 

Policymakers, administrators, and

B Y MICHAEL L OPEZ

EVALUATING HEAD START EFFECTIVENESS

THE HEAD START IMPACT STUDY

THE CONGRESSIONALLY MANDATED NATIONAL HEAD START IMPACT STUDY has

two primary goals. The first is to determine, on a national basis, how Head Start

affects the school readiness of children participating in the program as compared to

children not enrolled in Head Start. Does Head Start improve children’s cognitive

development, communication skills, fine 

Photo by C. Dyer. Higher Horizons EHS-HS

Continued on page 55
38 Issue 74/2002

cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development of Head Start children;

the characteristics, well-being, and

accomplishments of families; the

observed quality of Head Start classrooms; and the characteristics and opinions of Head Start teachers and program staff. 

A random sample of 3,200 children

and families in 40 Head Start programs,

who are representative of the national

Head Start population, were studied at

entry into the program in Fall 1997,

assessed in the Spring at the completion

of one or two years of Head Start, and

followed up in the Spring of their 

kindergarten and first grade years.

Because Head Start is committed to regular, ongoing accountability measurement

and program improvement, a new,

national cohort of FACES was launched

in Fall 2000.

The FACES study provides answers

to some of the most pressing questions

concerning Head Start children, their families, and the programs themselves.

Findings from the first FACES study show

that although students begin the Head

Start program at a great disadvantage

compared to non-poor children, Head

Start narrows the gaps between disadvantaged students and all other children and

their families in numerous ways. 

Does Head Start Enhance Children’s

Development and School Readiness?

• Head Start narrows the gap between

disadvantaged children and all children in vocabulary and writing skills

during the program year.

• The children who score lowest on

cognitive measures at the beginning

of the Head Start year show greater

gains than those who score higher at

the beginning.

• Language-minority children show

gains in school readiness skills and in

their knowledge of English by the

end of the Head Start year.

• Head Start graduates show gains in

social skills, including improvements

in peer interaction and complex play.

• Although children in the FACES

1997 study did not show growth in

letter recognition or book and print

concepts, children studied in 2000-

2001 did progress during the

program year.

• The small number of Head Start children with problem behaviors showed

a decrease in hyperactivity, but not in

other areas.

• Children leaving Head Start are

“ready to learn.” In kindergarten,

Head Start graduates made substantial gains in word knowledge, letter

recognition, math skills, and writing

skills relative to national norms.

Does Head Start Strengthen Families

as the Primary Nurturers of Their

Children?

• Most parents were active in their

Head Start program.

• Across all households, family activities with Head Start children

increased slightly over the year.

• The majority of Head Start parents

reported reading to their children at

least three to five times a week.

• The majority of parents were very

satisfied with the services their children received.

• Head Start parents reported important accomplishments during the

Head Start year, such as slightly

increased income and employment

and decreased welfare dependence.

• Head Start parents cited Head Start

staff as an important source of support in rearing their children.

B Y L OUISA B . TARULLO , NICHOLAS ZILL, RUTH HUBBELL-MC KE Y, GARY RESNICK , AND THE FACES RESEARCH T EAM

A NATIONAL PICTURE OF HEAD START

THE FACES STUDY

AS THE NATION’S PREMIER EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAM that serves more

than 950,000 young children and their families each year, Head Start is leading the

way in accountability for program outcomes and services. To enhance its accountability efforts, Head Start launched the Head Start Family and Child Experiences

Survey (FACES) in 1997. FACES is an ongoing, national, longitudinal study of the

The observed quality

of Head Start 

classrooms related 

to child outcomes:

Better teacher-child

language interaction

was linked to better

children’s vocabulary.
Head Start Bulletin 39

• Fathers appeared to play an important and positive role in the lives of

children. When fathers were more

supportive of the mothers in raising

the children, children showed more

positive social behavior and less

problem behavior.

Does Head Start Provide Children

with High Quality Child

Development Services?

• Observed quality in Head Start classrooms continues to be consistently

good in both the 1997 and 2000

studies.

• Class size and child:adult ratios

exceeded the requirements of the

Head Start Program Performance

Standards and the National

Association for the Education of

Young Children (NAEYC) accreditation standards.

• Most Head Start teachers have good

teaching qualifications, but not as

good as teachers in public schools.

• In classrooms rated higher in learning environment materials, children

spent more time in simple interactive

play or pretend play. They spent less

time in non-interactive play.

• The observed quality of Head Start

classrooms was linked to child outcomes (e.g., the better the teacherchild language interaction, the higher

children’s vocabulary scores).

How Is Head Start Addressing These

Issues ?

Evidence from the FACES study has highlighted areas of Head Start program quality and staff development that need

improvement. The following initiatives

have been designed to address these

needs.

• Head Start has launched a Family

Literacy Initiative to train programs to implement best practices

in literacy development for children

and families.

• Head Start is working to ensure

that a majority of teachers obtain

associate’s or bachelor’s degrees in

early childhood education over the

next few years. Funding has been

earmarked for collaboration with

higher education faculty and for

teacher training and increased staff

compensation.

• Head Start conducted a National

Leadership Institute in December

2000, focusing on educational services in language development, literacy, mathematics, science, and socialemotional development. 

• Head Start is requiring every local

program to build an outcomes-based

system to assess child development

and learning and to use this information to individualize curriculum and

teaching and to guide continuous

program improvement.

• Head Start is launching a major initiative concentrated on improving literacy-focused classroom practice, to

be implemented in Summer 2002.

The FACES study is conducted by

Westat, Xtria, Inc. and the CDM Group

Inc. (with Abt Associates Inc. in 1997-

2000) and directed by the Child

Outcomes Research and Evaluation team

in the ACF Office of Planning, Research

and Evaluation. The full report, Head

Start FACES: Longitudinal Findings on

Program Performance (3rd Progress

Report), is available at

<http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/core/o

ngoing_research/faces/faces_intro.html>. ■

Louisa B. Tarullo is a Senior Research

Analyst, Child Outcomes Research and

Evaluation (CORE), Office of Planning,

Research and Evaluation, ACF, DHHS.

E: lbtarullo@acf.hhs.gov. Nicholas Zill is

Vice-President of Child and Family

Studies at Westat. Ruth Hubbell-McKey is

Vice-President of Research and Program

Services at Xtria, Inc. Gary Resnick is

Senior Studies Director of Child and

Family Studies at Westat.

Higher Horizons Early

Head Start-Head Start

Photo by D. Mentzer
40 Issue 74/2002

IN LATE FEBRUARY 2002, Head Start Quality Research Centers

(QRC) Consortium members gathered in Washington, D.C. for

their fourth quarterly meeting. This group of eight Head StartUniversity partnerships was funded in March 2001 for a five-year

period, but some programs had participated in the first cohort of

QRCs (1995–2000). This particular gathering was special

because all Head Start program partners were invited to attend

and share their experiences. What was it like to have an

intervention launched in their programs? What were their

experiences as research sites in partnership with a local

university or research institution and with an external research

firm collecting cross-site data? Just as the partners had willingly

opened their doors to the research process, they also warmly

shared their experiences and recommendations for continued

successful partnership.

1. Program Diversity

The research sites vary along a number of dimensions: size of

Head Start program (12-165 classrooms); variety of curricula;

some with NAEYC accreditation, some with program of

excellence and program of achievement status; teaching staff with

C.D.A., A.A., B.A. degrees; unionization; single purpose and

community action agency offering multiple programs; numbers of

school districts involved; urban-rural locations;, poor-affluent

communities.

2. Experience with Research Studies

Five partners are experienced; three are new; four have staff

funded by research grants.

3. Program Partner’s Motivation for Collaboration

■ Research is important for the survival of programs.

■ Researchers are a resource for learning how to improve

program quality.

■ In-house program evaluation skills are gained that can be used

even after the researchers are gone.

■ Partners have access to new measures and tools.

4. Observations and Recommendations

■ Good collaboration is about negotiating, engaging in

dialogue, demonstrating give and take, and establishing trust.

■ It takes time and is an ongoing task to establish trust, arrive at

a comfort level, and develop an efficient research process. 

■ The implementation model needs to be individualized to match

program needs.

■ It is important to involve staff at every level from the

THE HEAD START QUALITY

RESEARCH CENTERS CONSORTIUM is

another component of Head Start’s

mission to promote the school readiness of participant children. In 2001, a

second cohort of Quality Research

Centers (QRC) was funded for the

next five years. Cooperative agreements were awarded to eight academic

research teams who have partnerships

with local Head Start programs. The

projects are designed to improve child

outcomes in the areas of literacy,

social-emotional development, and

other domains of school readiness

through enhancements to curriculum,

teacher training and mentoring, parent

involvement, and assessment practices.

Research teams will implement and

evaluate their interventions with Head

Start program partners in an initial

site, then replicate the successful interventions in additional sites. A crosssite data collection effort using measures from the Head Start FACES

Study (see Tarullo, Zill, HubbellMcKey, and Resnick, pp. 38-39) has

been launched in order to build on the

body of evidence about the developmental processes and progress of Head

B Y L OUISA B. TARULLO

ENHANCING SCHOOL READINESS

THE HEAD START QUALITY RESEARCH CONSORTIUM

PROGRAM EXPERIENCES AS RESEARCH PARTNERS

by Gayle Cunningham, Stacy Dimino, and Carole Kuhns
Head Start Bulletin 41

beginning of the collaboration.

■ More than one year of staff training is needed.

■ Scheduling is important to reduce overlapping data collection

in classrooms.

■ Ongoing communication between program staff and parents

helps increase parent involvement.

■ Involving parents from the beginning of the study (Policy

Council, Parent Orientation) is essential.

■ Parent cooperation is increased by involving family workers.

■ Scheduling parent interviews is time consuming.

■ Parents need to be informed about the content of the parent

interview.

■ It is helpful when researchers have a background in early

childhood practices and programs.

5. Cross-Site Data Collection

■ Data collection staff (from Westat, Inc. and Xtria, Inc.) are

adaptable, gracious, and supportive of program staff. 

■ Some sites need more bilingual data collection staff. 

6. Overall Program Partner Experiences

■ The partners’ reactions to the research experience: positive,

fortunate, interested, excited, elated, fun.

■ Partners appreciate the opportunities to exchange and share

information with other program partners and researchers.

Gayle Cunningham is the Executive Director of the Jefferson

County Committee for Economic Opportunity. 

Stacy Dimino is Executive Director of Communities United. 

Carole Kuhns is a Society for Research in Child Development

Fellow, Child Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), Office

of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children

and Families, DHHS. E: ckuhns@acf.hhs.gov.

Start children across the country.

The Quality Research Centers, their

research topics, and the principal investigators are as follows:

Using Assessment to Improve School

Readiness and Head Start Program

Quality Columbia University, New York:

Sharon Lynn Kagan and Jeanne BrooksGunn

In partnership with programs in

Stamford and Waterbury, Connecticut, the

research team will implement an innovative observational assessment system for

Head Start children, classrooms, and programs. The researchers will provide the

supports and resources necessary to use

the assessment data to improve classroom

and program practice and child outcomes.

A key feature is collaboration with the

Connecticut Department of Education on

school readiness outcomes. 

A Systematic Approach to Fostering

Language and Literacy Development

Education Development Center,

Massachusetts: David Dickinson

Collaborating with programs in

Waltham and Boston, Massachusetts, the

researchers will develop and assess a sysPhoto courtesy of HSNRC.
42 Issue 74/2002

ENHANCING SCHOOL READINESS

temic version of the Literacy

Environment Enrichment Program,

enabling programs to create their own

self-improvement programs with a focus

on language and literacy development.

The intervention features intensive 

professional development activities

involving both Quality Improvement

Center staff and mentor teachers from

the Head Start programs.

Achieving Head Start Effectiveness

Through Intensive Curriculum Training

High/Scope Educational Research

Foundation, Michigan: Lawrence

Schweinhart

This intervention, based in programs

in Oakland County, Michigan, will provide intensive training in the use of the

evidence-based High/Scope curriculum

framework. The evaluation of the intervention will include verification that the

curriculum is being implemented appropriately in Head Start classrooms.

Supporting Children’s Individualized

Learning in Head Start

Quality Counts Inc., Georgia: Martha

Abbott-Shim and Richard Lambert

Continuing their collaboration with

programs in Jefferson County, Alabama,

and Gainesville, Georgia, and adding

new partners in Jackson and Brunswick,

Georgia, the research team plans to

implement a mentoring intervention.

This intervention supports individualized

learning experiences for children in Head

Start that have been shown to promote

classroom quality and children’s school

readiness.

Evidence-Based Emergent Literacy

Approaches for Head Start

State University of New York at Stony

Brook, New York: Janet Fischel

Through a partnership with a

grantee in Suffolk County, Long Island,

New York, this intervention will compare leading curricula used in Head Start

programs that aim to enhance emergent

literacy and language skills in terms of

improved classroom practice and child

outcomes.

Socioemotional Interventions to Enhance

School Readiness University of North

Carolina, North Carolina: Donna Bryant,

Janis Kupersmidt, and Ellen PeisnerFeinberg

Working with programs in Person

County and Roxboro, North Carolina,

the research team will implement an evidence-based intervention program to

reduce disruptive behavior and improve

classroom functioning. Moving from a

very intensive intervention provided by

clinical consultants and tested via the

Head Start Mental Health Research

Consortium, this modification will develop and evaluate a self-sustaining, program-based intervention suitable for dissemination through the Training and

Technical Assistance network.

Head Start Adaptation of “First Step to

Success”: Preparing Children for SocialEmotional Success at School University of

Oregon, Oregon: Hill Walker, Edward Feil,

Annemieke Golly, and Herbert Severson

In partnership with grantees in Lane

County and other grantees in Oregon,

the team proposes to adapt the “First

Step to Success” early intervention

kindergarten program to help preschoolers at risk for school problems become

better prepared for the social and emotional challenges of school.

The Companion Curriculum: Connecting

Head Start Parents and Teachers to

Promote Early Learning and

Development University of South Carolina,

South Carolina: Julia Mendez, and Jean

Ann Linney

Based on the premise that enhancing parent involvement is crucial to

preparing children for school, this

research team is working with programs

in Columbia, South Carolina and surrounding counties to implement a

home-based learning curriculum for

parents and children, supplemented by

parent-child learning corners within

individual classrooms. 

For more information, see <http://

www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/core/

ongoing_research/qrc>. ■

Louisa B. Tarullo is a Senior Research

Analyst, Child Outcomes Research and

Evaluation (CORE), Office of Planning,

Research and Evaluation, Administration

for Children and Families, DHHS. E:

lbtarullo@acf.hhs.gov. 
Head Start Bulletin 43

By 2001, EHS is more than 650 programs serving some 55,000 children and

families. 

EHS has benefited from a rigorous

national evaluation. At the same time

that ACYF funded the very first EHS

programs, they also began the national

evaluation. The EHS Research and

Evaluation Project was conducted by the

EHS Research Consortium1 led by

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. and

the Center for Children and Families at

Columbia University. Seventeen EHS

programs participated in the study,

which consisted of five components: an

impact study, an implementation study,

local research, special policy studies, and

continuous program improvement. 

Impact of Early Head Start on

Children and Families

THE IMPACT STUDY involved about

3,000 children and their families in the

17 sites. Half were randomly chosen to

receive EHS services, while the other half

were randomly assigned to a control

group that did not receive EHS, although

they were free to avail themselves of

other services in the community. Families

and children were assessed when the

children were 14, 24, and 36 months

old. Families were also interviewed

about their service use at 6, 15, and 26

months after enrollment and at the time

they exited the program. 

Early findings show that EHS has

favorable impacts across a wide range of

child and parent outcomes. Although

these impacts are generally modest in

size, the pattern of positive findings

across a wide range of key domains

important for children’s well-being and

future development is promising. 

Selected key impacts on children

and families2:

• EHS children performed significantly better than their randomly

assigned control group peers on cognitive, language, and social-emotional development indicators. 

• EHS parents demonstrated more

supportive and less punitive parenting, provided more stimulating

home environments, and read to

their children more. 

• EHS parents were more likely than

control parents to participate in

education and job training. Early in

their program history, they reported

lower levels of parenting stress and

family conflict. Families enrolled in

EHS were also less likely to experience a subsequent birth during the

two years after enrollment.

• Overall impacts varied by programs’

achievement of “full implementation,” as measured in the implementation study. Programs that fully

implemented key aspects of the

Head Start Program Performance

Standards had larger impacts on

families’ use of services, children’s

development, parenting, and family

development than programs that

never implemented them completely.

• Those programs that adopted a

mixed approach to providing services (both center-based and homebased services) achieved the

strongest and broadest pattern of

impacts for children and families.

• EHS had some impacts on most

types of families with diverse circumstances, although patterns of

impacts varied.

Early Implementation of 

EHS Programs

IMPLEMENTATION DATA were collected

through three rounds of site visits, surveys of program staff, and observations

in EHS centers. The study tells the story

of the 17 research programs’ development through their early years. 

Selected key findings from the

B Y RACHEL CHAZAN -C OHEN , HELEN H. RAIKES , E STHER KRESH , J OHN M. L OVE , ELLEN ELIASON KISKER , JUDITH J ERALD,

AND THE EARLY HEAD START RESEARCH C ONSORTIUM Photo courtesy of HSNRC.

Babies enjoy seeing their reflections

EARLY HEAD START FINDINGS

SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

EARLY HEAD START (EHS) IS A TWO-GENERATION PROGRAM designed to provide

high-quality child and family development services to low-income pregnant women and

families with infants and toddlers. The program also focuses on staff development and

has a commitment to community partnerships. In 1995, EHS began serving children

and families in 68 programs nationwide. 
44 Issue 74/2002

ENHANCING SCHOOL READINESS

implementation study2:

• Evolving Program Approaches: In

the early years of program existence, these 17 programs chose various models of service delivery in

order to meet the unique needs of

children and families in their community. There was a notable

increase in “mixed approach” programs, those that provide a mixture

of both home-based and centerbased services.

• Progress in Overall Implementation

of Key Head Start Performance

Standards: One-third (6) of the programs were early implementers,

becoming fully implemented within

one year of serving families.

Another one-third (6) of the programs became fully implemented in

the third year of serving families.

The remaining 5 programs were

incomplete implementers. They did

not achieve ratings of “fully implemented” during the evaluation period, even though they all made

strides in particular program areas

and, in fact, showed a number of

strengths.

• Quality of Child Development

Services: Quality of both home- and

center-based child development services was generally good and

improved over time. ■

Rachel Chazan-Cohen is a Senior

Research Analyst, Child Outcomes

Research and Evaluation (CORE),

Office of Planning, Research and

Evaluation, Administration for Children

and Families, DHHS. E:

rccohen@acf.hhs.gov. Helen H. Raikes is

a Society for Research in Child

Development Visiting Scholar, Child

Outcomes Research and Evaluation

(CORE), Office of Planning, Research

and Evaluation, Administration for

Children and Families, DHHS. Esther

Kresh is a Senior Research Analyst,

Child Outcomes Research and

Evaluation (CORE), Office of Planning,

Research and Evaluation,

Administration for Children and

Families, DHHS. John M. Love is a

Senior Fellow at Mathematica Policy

Research, Inc. Ellen Eliason Kisker is a

Senior Researcher at Mathematica

Policy Research, Inc. Judith Jerald is the

Coordinator of Early Head Start in the

Head Start Bureau. T: 202-205-8074; E:

jjerald@acf.hhs.gov.

1. The findings reported here are based on research conducted as part of the national Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project funded by the

Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under contract 105-95-1936 to Mathematica Policy Research,

Princeton, NJ, and Columbia University’s Center for Children and Families, Teachers College, in conjunction with the Early Head Start Research Consortium. The consortium consists of representatives from 17 programs participating in the evaluation, 15 local research teams, the evaluation contractors, and ACYF/ACF. Research institutions in the consortium (and principal researchers) include ACYF/ACF (Rachel Chazan-Cohen, Esther Kresh, Helen Raikes, Louisa Tarullo, and Judith Jerald); University

of Arkansas (Robert Bradley, Mark Swanson, and Leanne Whiteside-Mansell); University of California, Los Angeles (Carollee Howes and Claire Hamilton); Catholic

University of America (Shavaun Wall); University of Colorado Health Sciences Center (Robert Emde, Jon Korfmacher, JoAnn Robinson, and Paul Spicer); Columbia

University (Lisa Berlin, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and Alison Fuligni); Harvard University (Catherine Ayoub, Barbara Alexander Pan, and Catherine Snow); Iowa State

University (Carla Peterson); University of Kansas (Jane Atwater, Judith Carta, and Jean Ann Summers); Mathematica Policy Research (Kimberly Boller, Ellen Eliason

Kisker, John M. Love, Diane Paulsell, Christine Ross, Peter Schochet, and Welmoet van Kammen); Medical University of South Carolina (Richard Faldowski); Michigan

State University (Hiram Fitzgerald, Tom Reischl, and Rachel Schiffman);University of Missouri—Columbia (Mark Fine, Jean Ispa, and Kathy Thornburg); New York

University (Mark Spellmann and Catherine Tamis LeMonda); Utah State University (Lisa Boyce and Lori Roggman); University of Washington School of Education

(Eduardo Armijo and Joseph Stowitschek); and University of Washington School of Nursing (Kathryn Barnard and Susan Spieker).

2. The reports can be found at <http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/3rdLevel/ehstoc.htm> or

<http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/core/ongoing_research/ehs/ehs_intro.html>.

Copies can be ordered at <http://www.headstartinfo.org/> or 703-683-2878.
STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE LANGUAGE

AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

A HEAD START BULLETIN PULL- OUT Issue 74

Head Start Bulletin 45

The Head Start Child Outcomes Framework (2000) specifies learning outcomes in 8 Domains of learning and

development, including language, literacy, and social and emotional Domains. It also includes Congressionally

mandated Domain Elements and Indicators in language, literacy, and numeracy on which programs must collect and

analyze data. The Framework guides Head Start programs in their ongoing assessment of the progress and

accomplishments of children and in their continuous program improvement. Research-based teaching strategies

associated with the learning outcomes are described in The Head Start Leaders Guide to Positive Child Outcomes

(in press 2002). These tips for practioners are excerpted from the Guide. 

ADULTS CAN PROMOTE LISTENING AND UNDERSTANDING, SPEAKING AND COMMUNICATING:

■ Model good listening such as maintaining eye contact and expressing interest in the speaker.

■ Use children’s interests to identify new words, such as locomotive, caboose, pick-up truck. 

■ Read to children and talk about the book before reading it, asking children to predict from the title or cover what

the story will be about or what might happen next.

■ Participate in play to get it going if children have difficulty, or to extend it to include more language interaction. For

instance, the teacher may enter the restaurant and pretend to be a customer, “Could I see a menu please. I’d like to

order dinner.”

■ Get in the habit of giving children plenty of time—five seconds or so—to respond to a question or conversational

comment. The simple act of providing “wait time” increases children’s verbal responses, especially for children who

tend to speak less often.

■ Plan in-depth projects with children to investigate questions or topics of interest that expand vocabulary and provide

opportunities for extended discussion and different points of view.

(Refer to the Guide, Domain 1: Language Development)

ADULTS CAN PROMOTE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT BY USING PEERS TO INCREASE A CHILD’S PARTICIPATION:

■ If a child doesn’t know how to select an activity or game from the computer menu, pair the child with another child

who is familiar with operating the computer. Let the peer show the other how to select an activity from the computer

menu.

■ If a child is watching two children play and seems to want to join them, ask the two children to invite the other to

join them.

■ If a child doesn’t know when and where to line up during the transition to the playground, pair the child with

another child who knows the routine and follows directions. Ask the children to find their partner and hold their

partner’s hand when lining up.

■ If a child is learning to use English words or sign language to request food items at snack or mealtime, have another

child hold the requested food (such as a plate of crackers). The child will need to request the crackers from the friend

instead of always making requests of adults.

■ If a child is a reluctant talker during group activities, give the child a turn to talk after another child who is

particularly talkative. This gives the reluctant child ideas about what to say.

(Refer to the Guide, Supporting the Individual Child: Adaptations for Individual Differences and 

Children with Special Needs, and Domain 6: Social & Emotional Development.)
ESTRATEGIAS QUE FOMENTAN

EL DESARROLLO LINGÜÍSTICO Y SOCIAL

El Marco sobre Resultados del Niño en Head Start (2000) detalla los resultados del aprendizaje en 8 Dominios de

aprendizaje y desarrollo, incluidos los Dominios de lenguaje, lecto-escritura, y aquellos en el área social y

emocional. También incluye los Elementos e Indicadores en lenguaje, lecto-escritura y conceptos numéricos bajo

mandato del Congreso, y en base a los cuales los programas deben recopilar y analizar datos. Este Marco sirve

como guía para los programas de Head Start para su evaluación continua del progreso y logros de los niños, y para

el mejoramiento continuo de su programa. En la Guía para Líderes de Head Start sobre Resultados Positivos del

Niño (que se publicará en 2002) se describen estrategias de enseñanza fundamentadas en la investigación y que se

relacionan con los resultados del aprendizaje. A continuación se plantean algunos consejos extraídos de la Guía, y

dirigidos a los profesionales: 

LOS ADULTOS PUEDEN FOMENTAR EL ESCUCHAR Y COMPRENDER, EL HABLAR Y COMUNICARSE:

■ Modele buenos hábitos para escuchar y prestar atención, tales como mantener contacto con la vista y expresar

interés en la persona que habla.

■ Utilice aquellas áreas de interés para los niños para identificar palabras nuevas, tales como locomotora, furgón,

camioneta. 

■ Léales a los niños y converse sobre el libro antes de comenzar a leer. Pídales que a partir del título o de la cubierta

del libro predigan de qué se va a tratar la historia, o qué va a pasar después. 

■ Participe en el juego para incentivarlo y darle vida si los niños tienen dificultad en hacerlo, o amplíelo para poder

incluir una mayor interacción verbal. Por ejemplo, el maestro puede entrar al restaurante y pretender ser un cliente,

“¿Podría ver un menú por favor? Me gustaría pedir algo de comer”.

■ Adquiera el hábito de darle tiempo a los niños (unos cinco segundos), para que respondan a alguna pregunta o

hagan un comentario de la conversación. El simple hecho de darles un “tiempo de espera” aumenta las respuestas

verbales de los niños, particularmente de aquellos que tienden a hablar menos. 

■ Planifique los proyectos a fondo con los niños para hacer preguntas o averiguar temas de interés que amplíen su

vocabulario, y les dé oportunidades para conversar más extensamente y para entregar distintos puntos de vista. 

(Consulte la Guía el Dominio 1: Desarrollo Lingüístico)

LOS ADULTOS PUEDEN FOMENTAR EL DESARROLLO SOCIAL, UTILIZANDO A SUS COMPAÑEROS DE TRABAJO PARA

AUMENTAR LA PARTICIPACIÓN DE UN NIÑO:

■ Si un niño no sabe cómo seleccionar una actividad o juego en el menú de la computadora, siéntelo con otro niño

que esté familiarizado con ella. Deje que el compañero le muestre al niño cómo seleccionar la actividad que desea

en el menú de la computadora. 

■ Si una niña está observando cómo juegan otras dos niñas y parece estar interesada en jugar con ellas, pídale a las

niñas que la inviten a jugar. 

■ Si un niño no sabe cuándo y dónde ponerse en fila mientras salen al patio de juego, ubíquelo junto a otro niño que

conozca la rutina y siga instrucciones. Dígales a los niños que ubiquen a su compañero(a) y se tomen de la mano

cuando tengan que ponerse en la fila. 

Si un niño está aprendiendo a usar palabras en inglés o lenguaje por signos para pedir alimentos durante la merienda

o a la hora de comer, pídale a otro niño que retenga la comida que el niño ha pedido (por ejemplo: un plato con

galletas). El niño tendrá que pedirle las galletas a su amigo en vez de pedírselas a los adultos. 

Si un niño no habla mucho durante las actividades en grupo, déle la oportunidad para que hable después de algún

niño que sea particularmente bueno para hablar. Esto le dará ideas al niño más callado sobre qué decir. 

(Consulte la Guía: Adaptaciones para las diferencias individuales: 

niños con necesidades especiales y niños superdotados y el Dominio 6: Desarrollo social y emocional).

46 Issue 74/2002

HOJA DESPRENDIBLE DEL BOLETÍN DE HEAD START Número 74
Schools Early Childhood Transition

Demonstration Program was conducted

in 31 sites. The purpose was to provide

comprehensive, Head Start-like services

to children as they moved through the

early grades of elementary schools.

Schools participating in the study were

assigned to a Transition Demonstration

group, which received additional supports and staff through project funds, or

to a Comparison group, which did not

receive extra funds. A total of 7,515 former Head Start children and families

were enrolled in the Transition

Demonstration Program in 1992–93 and

1993–94 when they entered kindergarten. The children and families were

interviewed and assessed each year until

the end of third grade. Thousands of

other children and families, however,

benefited from the Transition

Demonstration Program because supports and educational enhancements

were offered to all children and families

in the participating schools. 

Although each site implemented

programs that were tailored to local

needs and conditions, all were required

to implement central components related

to family support, parent involvement,

health and nutrition, and academic

enhancements to promote continuity in

children’s educational experiences. Each

site also established Governing Boards

comprising at least 51% former Head

Start parents. They were also required to

hire Family Service Coordinators to

assist families and promote parent

involvement. Other key components

included: promoting the inclusion of

children with disabilities in regular classrooms; addressing cultural and linguistic

diversity; and developing individualized

transition plans for each child. 

Evaluation Design

AN EVALUATION of the Early Childhood

Transition Demonstration Program was

conducted to provide information about

its implementation and its impact on

children, families, schools, and communities. The results are informative.

From the start, local sites varied

tremendously in terms of the willingness

of their schools and communities to

enact major changes (that is, providing

Head Start-like services). Their previous

experience in conducting large-scale,

multi-prong, school-based partnership

programs also varied. Not surprisingly,

the majority of local programs showed 

a combination of strengths and weaknesses. Their implementation of 

different components also fluctuated

over the years.

An interesting and unanticipated

feature of the most successful sites was

that they tended to have the most competition from local Comparison schools.

That is, the Comparison schools, which

usually were in the same district, often

launched programs similar to the

Transition Demonstration Program.

These same sites also demonstrated

widespread local commitment to improving the school adjustment of former

Head Start and other low-income children, as well as increasing parent

involvement and improving family 

well-being. 

Key Findings

THE EVALUATION REVEALED few statistically significant differences for outcomes

between the Demonstration and

Comparison groups. There are several

possible explanations. First, the

Demonstration and Comparison conditions in many sites were very similar,

Head Start Bulletin 47

IS THERE A “FADE-OUT” EFFECT?

RESULTS FROM THE NATIONAL HEAD START/PUBLIC SCHOOLS EARLY CHILDHOOD 

TRANSITION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION

BY MARY BRUCE WEBB AND THE TRANSITION EVALUATION CONSORTIUM

IS THE “FADE-OUT” EFFECT INEVITABLE? Research following a large sample of Head

Start children through the first years of elementary school strongly suggests that Head

Start children can continue to make rapid academic progress once they enter school

and ultimately can achieve at national norms in reading and math.

The National Head Start/Public 

Photo courtesy of Michigan MHS.
with Comparison schools often finding

additional funding to implement programs similar to those in Demonstration

schools. Second, the quality of program

implementation was not uniformly high

across sites.

Although the evaluation did not

reveal significant differences between

the two groups, it provided a unique

opportunity to examine the performance of a large, diverse, geographically dispersed group of Head Start children and families over the first four

years of school. The children in both

conditions had very good outcomes,

perhaps reflecting the commitment of

the participating school systems to promote the achievement of all the children

in their care. 

Combining the data from the

Demonstration and Comparison groups,

important findings emerge. 

The former Head Start children

showed good academic progress in reading and math, with the largest gains

made in the first two years. Although

they entered kindergarten substantially

below national averages on the

Woodcock-Johnson Tests of

Achievement, they made rapid progress

during the first years of school. Their

performance was at the national average

by the end of the second and third

grades.

In terms of receptive language skills

or vocabulary knowledge (as measured

by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary

Test), the children’s gains continued but

were less dramatic. Their scores

remained lower relative to national

norms than their scores in reading and

math did. 

Teachers’ ratings of children’s academic abilities corresponded moderately

well with their standardized test scores

on the individually administered assessments. However, teacher ratings of overall academic achievement were somewhat lower than children’s tested scores

in reading and math. 

Parents consistently rated their children’s school adjustment as very positive

from the Spring of kindergarten through

the end of third grade. 

The children overwhelmingly reported having positive early school experiences. The vast majority liked school,

valued doing well, tried hard, reported

getting along well with teachers and

peers, and said they learned a lot from

their teachers. 

Beginning at entry into kindergarten

and continuing through the first four

years in school, the former Head Start

children showed positive social and

behavioral adjustment. They performed

at national norms on the Social Skills

Rating Scale, based on ratings by both

teachers and parents.

Income and self-sufficiency

increased over time among the former

Head Start families.

More than 85% of the families

reported being covered by health insurance when the children entered kindergarten. Families generally were satisfied

with the health care they received.

Mental health needs are an important consideration for Head Start families. About 40% of caregivers reported

depressive symptoms as the children

entered kindergarten. Although some of

these caregivers may have been reporting

transient symptoms, about 19% of caregivers still reported continuing, chronic

depressive symptoms four years later

when the study ended. ■

Mary Bruce Webb is a Senior Research

Analyst, Child Outcomes Research and

Evaluation (CORE), Office of Planning,

Research and Evaluation, Administration

for Children and Families, DHHS. E:

mbwebb@acf.hhs.gov.

48 Issue 74/2002

IS THERE A “FADE-OUT’ EFFECT?

An interesting and unanticipated 

feature of the most successful

Transition sites was that they tended

to have the most competition from

local comparison schools.
partnerships with Head Start programs

in their communities. Applications for

the most recent discretionary research

grants announcement, due on May 3,

2002, are targeted in two areas: 1) developing and testing models that use child

outcomes to support continuous program improvement in local Head Start

programs, and 2) supporting the development of infant-toddler mental health

in Early Head Start programs.

The objectives of these awards are

to improve the quality and effectiveness

of Head Start services through the acquisition of new knowledge and to test the

application of theory-driven, evidencebased interventions in Head Start settings. The five most recent Partnership

grants reflect these objectives.

Nutrition Education Aimed at

Toddlers (NEAT)

Michigan State University: Mildred Omar

This project is aimed at promoting toddler development and self-regulation by

improving toddler feeding practices.

Specifically, the NEAT project will

include an intervention consisting of two

components: 1) in-class structured lessons

on child development, feeding, food,

nutrition, mealtime, and parenting practices; and 2) in-home structured reinforcement of these lessons. The evaluation of the program will explore whether

NEAT: 1) improves parents’ feeding attitudes, knowledge, confidence, and behavior; 2) positively influences toddler food

consumption; and 3) positively influences

toddler growth and health.

Building Early Head Start

Relationships: What Benefits

Children and Parents?

Purdue University: James Elicker

This project is designed to evaluate the

effectiveness of Early Head Start services,

focusing on interpersonal relationships

that develop between staff and families

within the program. Specifically, this

project will: 1) assess and describe the

relationships that develop between Early

Head Start staff, children, and parents;

2) examine staff-family relationships in

several Early Head Start service delivery

models and in relation to variations in

staff and family characteristics; and 3)

determine if higher quality staff-family

relationships are associated with better

outcomes for Early Head Start children

and parents. 

A Multi-Site, Multi-Method

Partnership for Improving Florida

Head Start Children’s School

Readiness 

University of Miami: Daryl Greenfield

Head Start Bulletin 49

BRINGING THE BEST MINDS TO THE TABLE

HEAD START–UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS

B Y E STHER KRESH

A CENTRAL GOAL OF THE HEAD START RESEARCH MISSION is to expand the cadre of

research scholars who conduct state of the art, practitioner-relevant research with

Head Start programs across the country. In keeping with this goal, the Head Start

Bureau initiated the Head Start-University Research Partnerships. This initiative provides financial support to university and research institute faculty who form multi-year Photo courtesy of HSNRC.
The purpose of this project is to develop direct child assessments of children’s

“approaches to learning.” Researchers

will attempt to create an empirically

validated conceptualization of children’s

“approaches to learning” and determine

the role of these approaches in promoting school readiness. A statewide data

system will be established so that data

can be compared across domain, informant, and center. Based on these data, a

classroom-based intervention to promote enhanced approaches to learning

will be implemented that will be evaluated using a randomized control design. 

Teaching Attachment-Based

Interventions for Head Start Dyads

University of Virginia: Robert Marvin

This project extends earlier clinical and

empirical work on attachment by developing an extensive manual for a brief,

small group intervention protocol—the

Circle of Security (COS).

The COS is a 20-week

intervention focusing on

strengthening child-parent

attachment security. In

addition, this project will

empirically test whether the

COS protocol can be successfully taught to and

implemented by supervised,

community-based mental

health service providers.

Other products of the project include a set of suggested procedures for creating

similar mental health-Head

Start partnerships and a dissemination plan for the

manual.

Building Social

Communication Skills

During Peer Interactions

Vanderbilt University: Ann

Kaiser

The goals of this study are to: 1) develop and test a multi-component intervention to teach peer-directed, pragmatic

communication skills to children at risk

for language and behavior problems; 2)

determine the effects of this intervention

on the development of language, pragmatics, social behavior, and play in children with identified language and

behavior problems; and 3) determine the

effects of this intervention on children

who represent a range of early language

and social skills. The intervention will

include the following components: 1)

the use of story books to provide specific models of language, pragmatics, and

conversation to be used during free play;

2) corresponding thematic materials to

support peer interactions and provide an

opportunity to role play and practice

specific pragmatic skills; and 3) an

advanced Play/Organizer/Play/ Review

sequence to structure children’s opportunities to acquire, practice, and integrate

their skills for talking with peers. 

For further information on the Head

Start-University Research Partnerships

program, see <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/

programs/core/ongoing_research/

funding/funding.html>. ■

Esther Kresh is a Senior Research Analyst,

Child Outcomes Research and

Evaluation (CORE), Office of Planning,

Research and Evaluation, Administration

for Children and Families, DHHS. E:

ekresh@acf.hhs.gov. 

50 Issue 74/2002

HEAD-START-UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP

Photo by D. Mentzer. Higher Horizons EHS-HS.
(Yoshikawa & Knitzer 1997).

Understanding the complex set of mental

health issues and needs of the Head Start

community will have a far-reaching

impact on program practice as well as on

state and national policy. 

Questions about mental health that

research can answer

CRITICAL RESEARCH TOPICS have been

identified from recent reports and journal articles. Addressing these topics will

deepen our understanding of the mental

health needs of young children and their

families and improve our services to

them. Among the critical questions that

research should address are—

• How do the social and emotional

well-being of young children and the

related risks develop over time? 

• What are the prevalence rates of

mental health problems within the

population of low-income young

children?

• What are the types, availability, and

accessibility of mental health services for Head Start children and

their caregivers?

• How do different types of mental

health interventions affect the emotional and behavior problems of

Head Start children and families?

What types of interventions are beneficial for children and families with

various types of mental health problems? 

• What measures can best assess

young children’s mood and behavior

in a developmentally and culturally

appropriate manner?

Recent Federal and national efforts

for young children’s mental health

research 

RESPONDING TO THE URGENT NEED to

understand children’s social and emotional development and to develop the

appropriate assessment and intervention

strategies, several Federal and national

initiatives focus on research and mental

health. The initiatives are broad and represent diverse strategies. 

1. In September 2000, the Surgeon

General Dr. David Satcher convened

the conference, Children’s Mental

Health: Developing a National

Agenda, to address the mental

health needs of our nation’s children. Research had a major voice in

determining some of the conference

goals: Specifically, the goals related

to the development, dissemination,

and implementation of science-based

mental health services (both prevention and treatment). Head Start centers are ideal settings for developing

and trying out new screening instruments and innovative interventions

and for adapting interventions and

models to a real-world setting.

2. A collaboration among federal agencies and private foundations—the

Child Mental Health and Agencies

Network (FAN)—issued a monograph, A Good Beginning: Sending

America’s Children to School with

the Social and Emotional

Competence They Need to Succeed

(Peth-Pierce 2000). This document

reviewed the existing research and

Federal policies related to the social

and emotional competence of children’s school readiness. Specifically,

it presented research about the

social and emotional risks and protective factors that predict early

school success or problems. It also

summarized selected Federal policies

that may improve children’s chances

of success in their transition to

school. Head Start and Early Head

Start were cited for their role in

improving the risk status of lowincome children. Nevertheless, the

monograph concluded that there are

Head Start Bulletin 51

USE OF RESEARCH TO ADVANCE

MENTAL HEALTH IN HEAD START

B Y R HONDA C. B OYD AND MICHAEL L OPEZ

THE FULL RANGE OF MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES experienced by low-income children

and their families has not been widely researched. As a result, there are huge gaps in

the knowledge base that only high quality research studies can fulfill. Head Start 

provides an ideal national laboratory for addressing and studying the mental health of

low-income children and families 

Photo by D. Mentzer

Higher Horizons EHS-HS
gaps between the Federal policies

and practices and the research

knowledge. The policies and practices need to become more aligned

with research findings. Thus, Head

Start can greatly benefit from new

research to improve its delivery of

mental health services.

3. The National Research Council and

the Institute of Medicine, with the

support of numerous public and private agencies, issued a report, From

Neurons to Neighborhoods (2000).

Child development research from

birth to kindergarten entry was thoroughly reviewed. The report recognized the role of research in preventing and treating conditions from

infancy to the early years of life. It

recommended that researchers collaborate to understand critical issues,

such as pathways that lead some children to engage in risky behavior and

others to exhibit more competent

behavior, as well as to translate

research findings into interventions in

different types of settings. Head Start

could be used as a national laboratory to better understand important

pathways of social and emotional

development and to test new, evidence-based interventions.

4. A collaboration between the

Administration on Children, Youth

and Families and the National

Institute of Mental Health has led to

the creation of the Head Start Mental

Health Research Consortium. The

Consortium consists of five sites

around the country that conduct

research on mental health issues,

assessment, screening, intervention,

and prevention in Head Start centers

(see Kuhns and Chazan-Cohen, pp.

8-9). Collaborative mental health

research initiatives, such as this

Consortium, can be extremely valuable to Head Start programs because

additional mental health resources

and support are provided.

Furthermore, Head Start is put on

the frontier of new, exciting knowledge development that has the potential of enhancing the mental health of

young children. 

Taken together, these various

Federal initiatives nicely illustrate the

pressing need for new, high quality

developmental and mental health

research in early childhood settings

such as Head Start. These initiatives

also suggest ways that research can

proceed. Head Start should openly

embrace emerging research knowledge

and support new studies within its centers. Not only will Head Start children,

families, and programs benefit directly

from research, but the policy implications can positively impact all lowincome children and families across the

country. 

For more information on mental

health issues, see the Child Mental

Health Head Start Bulletin, Issue 73. ■

REFERENCES

Peth-Pierce, R. 2000. A Good Beginning:

Sending America’s Children to School

with the Social and Emotional

Competence They Need to Succeed.

Bethesda, MD: Child Mental Health

Foundations and Agencies Network

(FAN). 

Shonkoff, J. P., & D. A. Phillips, eds.

2000. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

Yoshikawa, H., & J. Knitzer. 1997.

Lessons from the field. New York:

National Center for Children in

Poverty. 

Rhonda C. Boyd was a 2000-2001

Society for Research in Child

Development Fellow, Child Outcomes

Research and Evaluation (CORE),

Office of Planning, Research and

Evaluation, Administration for Children

and Families, DHHS. She currently

serves as Instructor at the University of

Pennsylvania, Children’s Hospital of

Philadelphia. T: 215-590-3945. E:

rboyd@mail.med.upenn.edu. Michael

Lopez is Lead Senior Social Science

Research Analyst, Child Outcomes

Research and Evaluation (CORE),

Office of Planning, Research and

Evaluation, Administration for Children

and Families, DHHS. E:

milopez@acf.hhs.gov.

52 Issue 74/2002

MENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH

Photo by C.Dyer. Higher Horizons EHS-HS.
Head Start Bulletin 53

GROWING A NEW GENERATION

HEAD START GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH GRANTS

B Y BRENDA J ONES HARDEN AND MICHAEL L OPEZ

AS PART OF ITS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT and research capacitybuilding efforts, the Head Start Bureau provides financial support

to doctoral-level students to implement research projects in local

Head Start programs. Students who are selected are working

toward professional careers in research. They are awarded the

grants based on external evaluations of their proposal’s research

design and evidence of a partnership with a designated Head

Start program.

Each student must be mentored by a faculty member who has

a history of empirical work with issues, populations, or

interventions relevant to Head Start. A strong emphasis is placed

on supporting the mentor-student relationships that will help foster

the intellectual and professional development of the next

generation of researchers. For it is these researchers who will

advance the scientific knowledge base needed to improve services

for Head Start children and families. Grants are awarded on a

one- or two-year basis. They range between $10,000 to $20,000

per year. Award recipients attend one or two annual meetings in

which their research projects are discussed with their peers, their

mentors, and Federal research staff.

The content areas of the research projects can be wideranging but should reflect Head Start priorities (for example,

topic areas in the latest announcement are school readiness,

children’s mental health, strengthening fatherhood, and healthy

marriages). The topics and recipients of the most recent set of

grantees (Fiscal Year 2001) are:

“Assessment of Curriculum Practices in Head Start” 

Graduate Student Scholar: Stacey Storch

Faculty Mentor: Janet Fischel

Institution: State University of New York at Stony Brook

“The Relationship between Contextually Relevant

Assessment of Emotional and Behavioral Adjustment in

Head Start and Children’s Social Adjustment and

Academic Achievement in Primary Grades”

Graduate Student Scholar: Rebecca Bulotsky

Faculty Mentor: John Fantuzzo

Institution: University of Pennsylvania

“Parents’ Emotional Awareness and Childrearing

Practices: Implications for Low-Income Children’s SocialEmotional Competence”

Graduate Student Scholar: Rebecca Cortes

Faculty Mentor: Mark Greenberg

Institution: Pennsylvania State University

“Describing and Defining Dads: A Father’s Role in

Promoting Head Start Children’s School Readiness”

Graduate Student Scholar: Jason Downer

Faculty Mentor: Julia Mendez

Institution: University of South Carolina

“Mothers’ Self-Efficacy as a Protective Factor for Secure

Attachments for Low-Income Children”

Graduate Student Scholar: Hilary Abigail Raikes

Faculty Mentor: Ross Thompson

Institution: University of Nebraska-Lincoln

“Children’s Aggressive Behavior in a Head Start Sample:

Its Relation to Maternal Factors and Children’s Attachment

Representations”

Graduate Student Scholar: Ann Stacks

Faculty Mentor: Holly Brophy-Herb

Institution: Michigan State University

For further information on the Head Start Graduate Student

Research Grants program, contact Michael Lopez at

milopez@acf.hhs.gov or see <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/

programs/core/ongoing_research/hs/grad/intro.html>.

Brenda Jones Harden was a 2000–2001 Society for

Research in Child Development Fellow, Child Outcomes

Research and Evaluation (CORE), Office of Planning, Research

and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families,

DHHS. She currently serves as Assistant Professor at the

University of Maryland Institute for Child Study. T: 301-405-

2580. E: bj34@umail.umd.edu. Michael Lopez is Lead Senior

Social Science Research Analyst, Child Outcomes Research

and Evaluation (CORE), Office of Planning, Research and

Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, DHHS. 

E: milopez@acf.dhhs.gov
54 Issue 74/2002

RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DIVISION

OF THE NATIONAL HEAD START ASSOCIATION (NHSA)

B Y GREGG POWELL AND K OMAL V OHRA

these fathers again prior to their children’s entry into kindergarten. For more information, see <http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/

programs/core/ongoing_research/father/father_intro.> ■

Carole Kuhns is a Society for Research in Child Development

Fellow, Child Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE),

Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration

for Children and Families, DHHS. E: ckuhns@acf.hhs.gov.

Rachel Chazan-Cohen is a Senior Research Analyst, Child

Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), Office of

Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for

Children and Families, DHHS. E: rccohen@acf.hhs.gov.

Continued from page 9, CORE

by Greg Powell and Komal Vohra

THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY of the Research and Evaluation Division

is to address the needs of the Head Start community in the area of

research and evaluation. The R and E Division serves as a liaison

between Head Start and other organizations involved in research

related to Head Start and early childhood development. It

maintains files on pertinent research in the area of child and family

development. Findings are shared with the Head Start community

through sessions at NSHA Conferences, speaking engagements,

and publications, including NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice

Journal for the Early Intervention Field. Additionally, the R and E

Division uses data and research on Head Start to formulate

position papers for the association and briefs to use in advocacy

efforts. The primary goal and objectives of the R and E Division, as

set by the NHSA Board, are as follows:

GOAL: Provide leadership and advocacy for the development of

applied research that will provide accurate information about the

Head Start Program and support the delivery of high quality

services to the Head Start community.

Objectives:

■ To produce an annual plan to educate the Head Start

community by broadly disseminating latest research and

other findings on successful early child development

strategies.

■ To develop and implement a plan to assist state associations

in identifying a pool of qualified consultants to assist local

programs and associations in using research in their

planning, implementation, and staff development.

■ To produce and disseminate a report on identifying

successful models in Head Start grantee relationships and

governance models.

■ To increase its linkages with at least five additional

organizations and institutions in the research community. 

■ To conduct a yearly assessment to determine the research

needs of the Head Start community.

■ To prepare and disseminate an annual research agenda to

promote topics identified as important to the successful

operations of Head Start programs.

In addition, the R and E Division has embarked on efforts 

■ To track research on Head Start and keep NHSA members

informed of results.

■ To develop a process for identifying problems, concerns, and

areas of interest to local programs.

■ To conduct and/or encourage research in specified areas to

obtain detail needed for formulating policy

recommendations.

■ To develop and disseminate position statements based on

research findings.

■ To provide local program staff and members with

appropriate training and technical assistance on research

findings, implications, and utilization.

The NHSA Dialog includes peer-reviewed articles, readers’

questions and professionals’ responses, and Research Track

proceedings. Recent issues focus on topics relevant to the Head

Start community such as school readiness (January 2001) and

community-university research partnerships (June 2002).

Gregg Powell is Director of the Research and Evaluation

Division at the National Head Start Association. T: 703-739-

7558; E: cgpowell@nhsa.org.

Komal Vohra is on the staff of the NHSA Research and

Evaluation Division.
ARTICLES/NEWSLETTERS

“RESEARCH IN REVIEW” 

A regular column in Young Children,

the bimonthly publication of the

National Association for the Education

of Young Children. The article is

designed to familiarize early childhood

practitioners with research and

implications for practice. 

Order from NAEYC, T: 800-424-2460. 

CHILD POVERTY NEWS & ISSUES 

The newsletter of the National Center for

Children in Poverty. It contains articles

about issues relevant to the Center’s goal

of identifying and promoting strategies

that prevent child poverty in the United

States and that improve the lives of lowincome children and their families,

particularly among children under age

six. Published seasonally. 

Order from NCCP, T:212-304-7561.

Available online: http://cpmcnet.

columbia.edu/dept/nccp/main3.html 

THE EVALUATION EXCHANGE 

Published by the Harvard Family

Research Project. Designed as an

ongoing discussion among evaluators,

program practitioners, funders, and

policymakers, the newsletter highlights

innovative methods and approaches to

evaluation, emerging trends in evaluation

practice, and practical applications of

evaluation theory. Available free of

charge, 3-4 times per year.

Order from HFRP, T: 617-495-9108.

Available online: http://

www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/eval.html

HANDBOOKS

W.K. KELLOGG FOUNDATION

EVALUATION HANDBOOK 

Provides guidance in planning,

implementing, and utilizing project

evaluations for accountability and

program improvement. Although the 

Kellogg handbook is written for its

grantees, the information is widely

applicable. Available online: 

http:// ww.wkkf.org/pubs/Pub770.pdf

Head Start Bulletin 55

RESOURCES WEBLIOGRAPHY

The following Web sites about research and evaluation are recommended

as further resources for teachers, parents, and administrators

http://www.eval.org/EvaluationLinks/links.htm

THE AMERICAN EVALUATION ASSOCIATION offers a comprehensive list of links

to evaluation resources. 

http://ericae.net/ftlib.htm

ERIC/AE FULL TEXT INTERNET LIBRARY provides links to some of the best full-text

books, reports, journal articles, newsletter articles and papers on the Internet that

address educational measurement, evaluation, and learning theory. The materials

focus primarily on education. 

http://www.innonet.org/resources/overview.cfm

INNONET (INNOVATION NETWORK) is a nonprofit organization that supports

participatory evaluation and offers an online resource center with free information

on evaluation, including definitions and tools. It provides links to logic models

and data collection. 

researchers at the Federal level continue to integrate their ideas

to shape this research effort in ways that not only answer legislatively mandated questions, but also benefit program quality.

Moreover, the essential input of program staff and advocates

has been sought on multiple levels of the planning and implementation process to ensure that the programmatic “voice” is

heard. For this project, as it has done for countless others, the

entire Head Start community is coalescing to seize the opportunities and meet the challenges of an initiative that has important

implications for the future of Head Start.

The Head Start Impact Study is being implemented by the

ACF Child Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE) team

and the Head Start Bureau through a contract awarded to

Westat in collaboration with the Urban Institute, American

Institutes for Research, and Decision Information Resources. ■

Michael Lopez is Lead Senior Social Science Research Analyst,

Child Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), Office of

Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for

Children and Families, DHHS. E: milopez@acf.hhs.gov. 

Continued from page 37, Impact Study
56 Issue 74/2002

areas for continuous improvement.

CUI also adopted another research tool first introduced by

NEQRC. The Head Start program decided to use the SelfRegulation Scale (SRS), a 10-item measure, to rate children’s

social competence and task mastery (Bronson 1999). It was

developed in response to a desire for a brief, easily completed

scale that measures some of the same constructs assessed by

NEQRC with the much longer Bronson Social and Task Skill

Profile: Teacher Version (Bronson 1996).

At present, the shorter Scale (SRS) is completed for each

child as part of the initial screening and again, at the end of the

year. It is used by CUI for two main reasons: 1) to identify

potential themes for classroom curricula, and 2) to identify specific children needing further intervention. The developer of the

scale, Dr. Martha Bronson, has been and is actively involved in

discussions with CUI staff regarding the best use of the tool.

These two instruments, adopted from the original versions

used in the research design, provide CUI with useful information. The results are used internally to identify needs and areas

of strength and to suggest topics for in-service trainings. The

results are also used externally. For funding agencies, CUI has

proof of self-evaluation with widely accepted tools. Furthermore,

funders increasingly rely on the ECERS-R to examine program

quality. By using this Scale on a yearly basis, CUI ensures program quality in a manner directly comparable to other agencies. 

Lessons Learned

CUI’S PARTNERSHIP WITH EDC has led to changes within the

agency. A copy of all data collected by CUI staff is kept on-site

in order to answer agency-specific questions in a timely manner.

Additionally, CUI has access to a research consultant, as well as

appropriate statistical packages, to assist in data analysis. CUI

now requests feedback from studies in which it participates and

uses this information to improve the agency’s services. For

example, CUI recently participated in a large-scale pilot study

conducted by the Massachusetts Department of Education

(DOE). School systems, child care agencies, aftercare programs,

family child care providers, and parents answered questions

regarding the availability of and need for child care services.

CUI requested and received a copy of their data from the DOE

and has used them to obtain needs-related information for grant

applications. 

In sum, what are the lessons CUI staff learned from their

research collaboration with the NEQRC? 

• They learned the necessity of clearly identifying each

organization’s research goals and methods. 

• They learned the importance of identifying benefits of participating in the research process, both general and specific. 

• They learned the necessity of identifying demands that

will be made on staff and how best to assist staff with

these demands (including, but not limited to, the use of

tools added after the research had begun). 

• They gained a greater sense of the time required for data

collection and analysis and what expectations are realistic. 

• They learned the difference between research purposes:

that is, national research that feeds into policy analysis

and national program evaluation versus in-house

research that guides internal program improvement and

informs practice. 

The collaboration between these two partners, while at

times difficult, was generally successful. In fact, the CUI managers think the research process was a “great learning experience and now we feel quite savvy about research.” The Policy

Council is eager for reports on how the program is doing and

for evidence of positive change. They have come to appreciate

how research investigation and data collection can lead to program improvement.

Recently, CUI identified an important research agenda

around language and literacy. Although the ECERS-R scores

were showing overall improvement in the classroom environments, the teaching of language and literacy needed to be

strengthened in the program. CUI agreed to participate in

another national Head Start research investigation with EDC

that addressed these educational concerns. A classroom observation tool (ELLCO) developed by EDC was used to collect

baseline data. EDC and CUI co-wrote a teacher training program. After one year of in-service training, changes are evident

in the classrooms. According to a CUI administrator, “The

Continued from page 27, Effects of Research Process

Continued on page 57
Head Start Bulletin 57

nature and course. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book

Company. 

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1996. Trends

in the well-being of America’s children and youth: 1996.

Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Planning and Evaluation. 

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1997.

Program performance standards for the operation of Head

Start programs by grantee and delegate agencies, 45 CFR

Part 1304, Federal Register, 61, 57186-57227. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of

higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Wentzel, K. R. 1999. Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships: Implications for understanding

motivation at school. Journal of Educational Psychology

91 (1): 76-97.

Wentzel, K. R., & S. R. Asher. 1995. Academic lives of neglected, rejected, popular, and controversial children. Child

Development 66: 754-763.

Christy McWayne is a doctoral candidate in the Psychology in

Education Division in the Graduate School of Education at the

University of Pennsylvania. T: 215-898-9842; E:

cmcwayne@dolphin.upenn.edu. John Fantuzzo is Diana Riklis

Professor in the Graduate School of Education at the University

of Pennsylvania. T: 215-898-4790; E: johnf@gse.upenn.edu.

Virginia Hampton is a Postdoctoral Associate in the Graduate

School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania. T: 215-

898-5005; E: ghampton@gse.upenn.edu.

Continued from page 22, Significance of Play

teachers are doing more intentional teaching around language

and literacy.” Post-training results from the ELLCO and teacher

and parent surveys show positive gains. EDC will no longer be

formally involved in CUI’s literacy initiative, but CUI is prepared to continue on its own to provide training and evaluate

change in its educational program.

EDC is now taking the lessons it learned in the research

collaboration with CUI and applying them to its work with

another Head Start agency, Action for Boston Community

Development (ABCD). EDC’s work with CUI in the area of language and literacy will be expanded in ABCD to include more

classrooms and more instruments and will be conducted over a

longer time period. There is no doubt that both CUI, the Head

Start agency, and EDC, the research organization, benefited in

ways that ultimately improved their organizational effectiveness

and translated into improved services for Head Start children

and their families. ■

REFERENCES

Bronson, M. B. 1996. The Bronson Social and Task Skill

Profile: Teacher version. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston

College. 

Bronson, M. B. 1999. Self-Regulation Scale. Chestnut Hill, MA:

Boston College. 

Harms, T., R. M. Clifford, & D. Cryer. 1998 . Early Childhood

Environment Rating Scale. Revised. New York: Teacher’s

College Press.

Howard, C., C. J. Lewkowicz, & D.K. Dickinson. In press.

Both sides now: An examination of the relationship

between researchers and Head-Start practitioners. NHSA

Dialog: A Research to Practice Journal for the Early

Intervention Field.

Wagner, J. 1997. The unavoidable intervention of educational

research: A framework for reconsidering researcher-practitioner cooperation. Educational Researcher 26 (7): 13-22.

Corinne Lewkowicz is a Research Consultant for Communities

United, Inc. T: 781-736-7890; E: lewkowicz@aol.com. Stacy

Dimino is Executive Director of Communities United. T: 781-

736-7890; E: sdimino@communitiesunitedinc.org.

Continued from page 56, Effects of Research Process
U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services

ACF/ACYF/HSB

Washington, DC 20201

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for private use $300

Why Research? ■ Building Local Labs ■ The FACES Study ■ Bilinugual Parent/Teacher Pull-out