U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Results in Brief:

Case Studies of Schools Implementing Early Elementary Strategies: 

Preschool Through Third Grade Alignment and Differentiated Instruction

December 2016

Research shows that participation in a high-quality preschool can improve young children’s readiness skills for elementary school, 

positively influencing behavioral, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes. However, some preschool program evaluations 

document that some initial benefits may not persist into early elementary school. To explore how educators might build on and 

sustain the positive effects of preschool, this study examined two types of strategies that preliminary literature searches revealed 

as promising practices to support children’s learning in early elementary school: (1) aligning instruction from preschool through 

grade 3 (referred to as P–3 alignment) and (2) differentiated instruction. The P–3 alignment strategy emphasizes coordination 

among standards, curricula, instructional practices and environments, student assessment, and teacher professional development 

between the preschool years and the early elementary school years. The differentiated instruction strategy focuses on teachers 

varying their pedagogical practices to meet the diverse needs and skills of individual students. 

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. What approaches did the five programs use to

implement P–3 alignment?

2. In programs that implemented differentiated

instruction, what approaches did staff use?

3. What were the goals of the five programs?

4. What changes in student and teacher outcomes did

staff attribute to their programs?

5. What were the challenges of implementing these

programs, and how did staff and leaders try to

overcome these challenges?

DESIGN

The five programs included in the study were purposively 

selected based on their approaches to P–3 alignment and 

differentiated instruction and their geographic diversity. 

The programs were the Boston Public Schools (BPS), 

Chicago Child–Parent Centers (CPC), Early Works, 

FirstSchool, and Sobrato Early Academic Language (SEAL) 

program. Data—collected between November 2015 and 

January 2016—included interviews with 93 program staff, 

observations of program activities selected by principals, 

and review of program documents at nine schools. 

Findings are based largely on self-reports of staff interviewed 

and limited classroom and activity observations. While 

findings are not generalizable to other schools that use the 

two studied strategies, policymakers and administrators 

may use the findings to inform their own efforts to use P–3 

alignment or differentiated instruction by considering how 

these five sites implemented these strategies, the 

challenges they faced, and the steps they took to overcome 

those challenges. 

HIGHLIGHTS

 All five case study programs aligned instruction across

grades by aligning or coordinating standards, curricula,

instructional practices, and professional development;

three sites also used aligned assessments.

 Common elements of P–3 programs included the use

of professional learning communities (PLCs), coaches,

parent engagement, and play-based or studentinitiated learning.

 Although only one site was explicitly nominated for the

study for its differentiated instruction approach,

teachers in all five programs reported using strategies

to accommodate students’ different skill levels,

including modifying assignments, adapting learning

materials, providing different levels of support, or

using small-group instruction.

 All five programs focused on increasing students’

vocabulary, oral language, and social-emotional skills.

 Staff in four programs reported that they had observed

improvement in students’ vocabulary or oral language

skills, social-emotional development, and engagement

or attendance, as well as increased parent involvement

after implementing their programs.

 Staff in all five programs reported that guiding

teachers to change their practices in the context of P–3

alignment (e.g., incorporating student-initiated

learning) was a challenge, and staff in all five programs

reported concerns about funding sustainability.
COMMON APPROACHES TO P–3 ALIGNMENT 

All five case study programs aligned instruction across 

grades by coordinating and aligning standards, curricula, 

instructional practices, and professional development; 

three sites also used aligned assessments. This finding is 

consistent with the elements that policy and theory 

articles—identified through the study’s literature review—

suggested aligning between preschool and third grade. 

Common elements of P–3 programs included the use of 

PLCs, coaches, parent engagement, and play-based or 

student-initiated learning. 

 Teachers reported that PLCs support consistent 

instructional practices and aligned curricula across 

preschool through grade 3 by providing teachers the 

opportunity to coordinate lessons and strategies. 

 All programs used instructional coaches to help 

teachers understand standards, align the curriculum 

with earlier or later grades, align instructional practices 

across and within grades, and adjust instructional 

practices to match the program model. 

 To provide additional continuity for children’s learning 

across grades P–3, all five programs took a proactive 

approach to engaging parents by creating a welcoming 

environment, conducting home visits, providing 

resources for families, or involving parents in children’s 

education at home.

 Building on practices used in their preschool programs, 

kindergarten through third grade teachers in four 

programs reported focusing on student-initiated and 

play-based learning. 

COMMON APPROACHES TO DIFFERENTIATED 

INSTRUCTION

Although only BPS was nominated for its differentiated 

instruction approach, teachers in all five programs reported 

differentiating instruction. Teachers frequently 

implemented differentiation by starting a lesson with wholegroup instruction and later using small-group instruction 

(during which students are divided into small groups of 

about two to six students). Staff described implementing 

center-based activities during small-group instruction in 

which students worked on similar activities. 

Teachers in all five programs used homogenous groupings and 

teachers in four programs used heterogeneous groupings 

when differentiating instruction. For an example of 

homogenous grouping, a FirstSchool first grade teacher 

described that she groups her students by their academic 

level and that the groups of students with a higher level of 

comprehension will receive more challenging criticalthinking questions. 

For an example of heterogeneous grouping, a SEAL 

elementary teacher explained that she pairs students with a 

high level of English proficiency with students who have a 

low level of English proficiency, to help the students with a 

low English proficiency level complete their work in English.

Staff in all five programs reported that having extra adult 

support staff in the classroom enabled them to provide 

differentiated instruction to more students. Baldwin Early 

Learning Academy in BPS—the program that was 

nominated for differentiated instruction—employs teaching 

aides that receive training similar to the training that fulltime teachers receive on the curriculum. At least two 

personnel are in every classroom throughout the day.

Instructional coaches trained teachers in all five programs 

to differentiate instruction and group students. This finding 

is consistent with the literature review’s findings that 

differentiated instruction requires careful planning, which 

may be facilitated by coaches. 

GOALS OF PROGRAMS 

All five programs focused on increasing students’ 

vocabulary, oral language, and social-emotional skills. In

addition to these common goals, BPS focused on increasing 

students’ math skills and SEAL focused on increasing social 

studies and science knowledge.

PROGRAM OUTCOMES AND SUCCESSES 

Staff in four programs reported that they had observed 

improvement in students’ vocabulary or oral language 

skills, social-emotional development, and engagement or 

attendance, as well as improvement in parent involvement 

after implementing their program. Initial evaluations or 

outcome studies from CPC, Early Works, and SEAL support 

many of these perceived changes.

CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED 

Staff in all five programs reported that guiding teachers to 

change their practices (e.g., incorporating studentinitiated learning) can be difficult. Teachers and principals 

suggested addressing this challenge through in-depth 

teacher training, staff voice in choosing to implement new 

practices, additional classroom resources, and effective 

leadership. 

Staff in all five programs reported concerns that 

sustaining staffing levels required for faithful 

implementation of the program design after external 

funding support ends would be a challenge. BPS and CPC 

staff reported investigating other federal grants or Social 

Impact Bonds to continue funding portions of the program. 

Earl Boyles braided existing funding sources for Oregon’s 

public preschool to support their preschool program.