Preschool Through Third 

Grade Alignment and 

Differentiated Instruction: 

A Literature Review
Preschool Through Third Grade Alignment and 

Differentiated Instruction: A Literature Review

August 2016

Prepared for:

Policy and Program Studies Service

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

U.S. Department of Education

Prepared by:

Katie Drummond

Aleksandra Holod

Marie Perrot

Antonia Wang

American Institutes for Research 

Washington, DC 20007

Michèle Muñoz-Miller

Mackson Ncube

Herb Turner

Analytica

Phoenixville, PA 19460
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. EDPEP-11-O-0089 with 

American Institues for Research. Erica Lee served as the contracting officer’s representative. This report 

contains information which references standards, curriculum, instruction and/or assessments. The U.S. 

Department of Education does not support any particular standard, curriculum, instruction or assessment. 

The reerences are for informational purposes only and for convenience to the reader. The opinions

expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education.

The inclusion of any resources shall not be construed to interpreted as an endorsement by the U.S. 

Department of Education of any organization or its business, products or services referenced herin. 

U.S. Department of Education

John B. King, Jr.

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Amy McIntosh

Delegated Duties of Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Jennifer Bell-Ellwanger

Director

August 2016

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, 

Preschool Through Third Grade Alignment and Differentiated Instruction: A Literature Review,

Washington, DC, 2016.

This report is available on the Department’s website at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html

Availability of Alternate Formats

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the 

Alternate Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via email at 

om_eeos@ed.gov.

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons

If you have difficulty understanding English, you may request language assistance services for 

Department information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available 

free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 

1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or email us at:

Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. Or write to: U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource 

Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202.

Content Contact: 

Erica Lee

Phone: 202-260-1463

Email: erica.lee@ed.gov
Contents iii Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Contents

List of Exhibits.............................................................................................................................iii

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................ vi

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... vii

Background............................................................................................................................... vii

Questions.................................................................................................................................. viii

Literature Review Methodology................................................................................................ ix

I. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1

Overview..................................................................................................................................... 2

Literature Review Methodology................................................................................................. 2

II. P–3 Alignment ........................................................................................................................ 8

Rationale ..................................................................................................................................... 8

Literature Search and Screening ................................................................................................. 8

Findings..................................................................................................................................... 10

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 20

III. Differentiated Instruction.................................................................................................... 21

Rationale ................................................................................................................................... 21

Literature Search and Screening ............................................................................................... 22

Findings..................................................................................................................................... 23

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 34

IV. Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 36

Summary of P–3 Alignment Findings ...................................................................................... 36

Summary of Differentiated Instruction Findings...................................................................... 37

References.................................................................................................................................... 38

Appendix A. Specifications for the Literature Search ........................................................... 50

Electronic Databases................................................................................................................. 50

Search Terms ............................................................................................................................ 50

Appendix B. Reference List for P–3 Alignment Literature Review...................................... 52

Quantitative Studies.................................................................................................................. 52

Mixed-Methods Study .............................................................................................................. 52

Qualitative Studies.................................................................................................................... 52

Theory and Policy Articles ....................................................................................................... 52
Contents iv Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Appendix C. Reference List for Differentiated Instruction Literature Review.................... 56

Quantitative Studies.................................................................................................................. 56

Qualitative Studies.................................................................................................................... 57

Appendix D. Coding Protocols................................................................................................... 59

Coding Protocols for Qualitative Studies ................................................................................. 59

Coding Protocol for Theory and Policy Articles ...................................................................... 62

Coding Protocol for Quantitative Studies................................................................................. 64

Appendix E. Supporting Data Tables for Rigorous Studies on Differentiated Instruction. 69
List of Exhibits iii Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Literature Review Process...............................................................................................6

Exhibit 2. Articles Resulting From Literature Search for P–3 Alignment Topic ............................8

Exhibit 3. Literature Search Results for Differentiated Instruction Topic.....................................22

Exhibit D1. Qualitative Study Protocol for PreK–3 Alignment ....................................................59

Exhibit D2. Qualitative Study Protocol for Differentiated Instruction..........................................60

Exhibit D3. Coding Protocol for Policy/Theory PreK–3 Alignment (coded in NVivo 

program)....................................................................................................................62

Exhibit D4. Coding Protocol Studies Quantitative studies (adopted from WWC Study 

Review Guide for RCTs and Comparison Group QEDs [What Works 

Clearinghouse, 2010b]).............................................................................................64

Exhibit E1. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Connor, Morrison, 

Fishman, Schatschneider, and Underwood (2007) Study.........................................69

Exhibit E2. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Connor, Piasta, Fishman,

Glasney, Schatschneider, Crowe, and Morrison (2009) Study..................................70

Exhibit E3. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Connor, Ponitz, Phillips, 

Travis, Glasney, and Morrison (2010) Study............................................................71

Exhibit E4. Self-regulation Findings for Connor, Ponitz, Phillips, Travis, Glasney, and 

Morrison (2010) Study, Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) Results...................72

Exhibit E5. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Connor, Morrison, 

Schatschneider, Toste, Lundblom, Crowe, and Fishman (2011) Study....................73

Exhibit E6. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Al Otaiba, Connor, 

Folsom, Greulich, Meadows, and Li (2011) Study...................................................75

Exhibit E7. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Al Otaiba, Connor, 

Folsom, Greulich, Meadows, and Li (2011) Study, Hierarchical Multivariate 

Linear Model (HMLM) Analysis..............................................................................76

Exhibit E8. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Al Otaiba, Connor, 

Folsom, Greulich, Meadows, and Li (2011) Study, Dynamic Indicators of 

Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). Hierarchical Multivariate Linear 

Model (HMLM) Analysis.........................................................................................77
List of Exhibits iv Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E9. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Al Otaiba, Connor, 

Folsom, Greulich, Meadows, and Li (2011) Study, Latent Literacy HMLM 

Analysis.....................................................................................................................78

Exhibit E10. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Connor, Morrison, 

Fishman, Crowe, Otaiba, and Schatschneider (2013) Study, Grade 1 

Analysis.....................................................................................................................79

Exhibit E11. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Connor, Morrison, 

Fishman, Crowe, Otaiba, and Schatschneider (2013) Study, Grade 2 

Analysis.....................................................................................................................80

Exhibit E12. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Connor, Morrison, 

Fishman, Crowe, Otaiba, and Schatschneider (2013) Study, Grade 3 

Analysis.....................................................................................................................81

Exhibit E13. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Connor, Morrison, 

Fishman, Crowe, Otaiba, and Schatschneider (2013) Study, Grades 1–3 

Analysis.....................................................................................................................82

Exhibit E14. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Neel (2006) Study, 

Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI) Analyses................................................83

Exhibit E15. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Neel (2006) Study, 

Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) Level Analysis...................................84

Exhibit E16. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Neel (2006) Study, DRA 

Percent Analysis........................................................................................................84

Exhibit E17. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Neel (2006) Study, DRA 

Comprehension Analysis..........................................................................................85

Exhibit E18. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Neel (2006) Study, DRA 

Fluency Analysis.......................................................................................................85

Exhibit E19. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Saylor (2008) Study, Spring PostTest Analyses............................................................................................................86

Exhibit E20. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Saylor (2008) Study, Two-Factor 

Analysis of Variance Change Scores........................................................................87

Exhibit E21. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Condron (2005) Study, Reading 

Gains for Grouped Versus Non-Grouped Peers........................................................88

Exhibit E22. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Condron (2005) Study, Reading 

Gains for Low-, Middle-, or High-Skill Groups Versus Non-Grouped Peers..........88
List of Exhibits v Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E23. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Condron (2008) Study, Low-Skill 

Groups Versus Non-Grouped Peers at First Grade...................................................89

Exhibit E24. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Condron (2008) Study, MiddleSkill Groups Versus Non-Grouped Peers at First Grade ..........................................89

Exhibit E25. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Condron (2008) Study, High-Skill 

Group Versus Non-Grouped Peers at First Grade ....................................................90

Exhibit E26. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Condron (2008) Study, Low-Skill 

Groups Versus Non-Grouped Peers at Third Grade .................................................90

Exhibit E27. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Condron (2008) Study, MiddleSkill Groups Versus Non-Grouped Peers at Third Grade.........................................91

Exhibit E28. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Condron (2008) Study, High-Skill 

Groups Versus Non-Grouped Peers at Third Grade .................................................91

Exhibit E29. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Eastman (2010)......................92

Exhibit E30. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Arnold (2008) Study..............................92

Exhibit E31. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Roth (2009) Study..................................93
Acknowledgments vi Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank several individuals who contributed to the completion of this literature review. 

We are grateful to AIR reviewers Eboni Howard and Kerstin LeFloch. As part of the study’s 

technical working group, we also thank Esther Buch, Margaret Burchinal, and Ellen Kisker for 

their review of the document, and Linda Espinosa and Kristie Kauerz for their input on the topics 

and design.

Although we appreciate the assistance and support of the individuals listed above, any errors in 

judgment or fact are, of course, the responsibility of the authors.
Executive Summary vii Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Executive Summary

This literature review provides a review of policies, programs, and practices that have the 

potential to help students sustain the positive effects of preschool as they progress from

kindergarten through grade 3 (K–3). The U.S. Department of Education’s Policy and Program 

Studies Service commissioned this systematic literature review, which focuses on two specific 

approaches: (1) preschool and K–3 alignment, and (2) differentiated instruction in kindergarten 

and first grade.

Background

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 (Andrews, Jargowsky, & Kuhne, 2012). Specifically, for children who may 

be at risk for academic challenges in early elementary school, attending a high-quality preschool 

can improve test scores and attendance, and it can reduce grade-level retention and placement in 

special education (Andrews et al., 2012; Barnett, 2008; Karoly & Bigelow, 2005; Reynolds, 

1993; Reynolds et al., 2007). However, some preschool program evaluations document that 

strong initial benefits may not persist into early elementary school (Lipsey, Farran, & Hofer, 

2015; Magnuson, Meyers, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2005; Manship, Madsen, Mezzanotte, & Fain, 

2013; Ramey et al., 2000; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010). 

Preschool benefits may not persist for many reasons, including lack of continuous follow-up with 

participating students, lack of family supports or involvement, or limited intensity or duration of 

the preschool program (Brooks-Gunn, 2003; Halpern, 2013; Reynolds, Magnuson, & Ou, 2006). 

The positive effects of preschool may not persist if children attend poor-quality elementary 

schools after preschool (Clements, Reynolds, & Hickey, 2004; Lee & Loeb, 1995). Without 

additional and continuous supports as children continue through the early elementary grades, 

participation in preschool cannot overcome potential challenges that children, particularly those 

at risk for poorer academic outcomes, may face. It is important to identify ways to sustain early 

cognitive, social-emotional, and academic gains in order to give all students opportunities to 

thrive academically. To explore potential ways to sustain the positive effects of preschool, this 

literature review focused on two specific topics: (1) preschool and K–3 alignment and (2) 

differentiated instruction in kindergarten and first grade. The U.S. Department of Education’s 

Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS), in collaboration with the Office of Early Learning, 

selected eight topics for preliminary searches after initial attempts to identify interventions 

specifically designed to sustain the benefits of preschool turned up low yields. Based on the 

search results (and after receiving input from multiple Department offices), PPSS recommended 

two final topics for the literature review. PPSS made final decisions about further specifications 

for the differentiated instruction section (e.g., only include research spanning grades K–1 and

exclude studies that focus exclusively on lower-achieving students).

Preschool and K–3 Alignment

The first topic focuses on approaches to align preschool and kindergarten through grade 3. 

Preschool or prekindergarten and K–3 alignment (sometimes called P–3) emphasizes 
Executive Summary viii Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

coordination among standards, curricula, instructional practices, student assessment, and teacher 

professional development between the preschool years and the early elementary school years. 

Early childhood experts assert that the effects of preschool may be sustained and investment in early 

education capitalized upon if curricula and instructional strategies from preschool through grade 3 

are well aligned (Bogard & Takanishi, 2005; Brooks-Gunn, 2003; Howard, 2008). As Reynolds and 

Temple (2008) suggest, P–3 programs may provide more continuity and better organization of 

services for students as well as enhanced school-family partnerships.

Differentiated Instruction

The second topic focuses on differentiated instruction in kindergarten and first grade. The 

premise of differentiated instruction is that teaching practices and curricula should vary to meet 

the diverse needs and skills of the individual student and to optimize students’ learning 

experiences (Tomlinson, 2000, 2001). In a differentiated instructional delivery model, student 

needs are emphasized (Stanford & Reeves, 2009), with teachers purposively adapting

instructional strategies and the focus of skill building to be responsive to individual or groups of 

students (Jones, Yssel, & Grant, 2012). One explanation for why initial benefits of preschool do

not persist as students enter elementary school is that children who make early gains in preschool 

may not have the opportunity to maintain their growth rate or learning trajectory because early 

elementary instruction may focus on students who are less prepared and have low-level skills. In 

other words, instruction may not be differentiated, and in some cases may not be rigorous 

enough, to meet and build upon the skills that some students have upon school entry (Claessens, 

Engel, & Curran, 2013; Kauerz, 2006; Lipsey, Farran, & Hofer, 2015).

For this review, studies were limited to those that involve students in kindergarten or first grade. 

Because the justification for this topic involves the use of differentiation to meet the skill levels 

of children upon their entry to elementary school, studies that focused exclusively on grades 

beyond kindergarten and first grade were excluded. Studies that included older grades (i.e., 

second and third grades) in addition to the earlier grades were retained. The review also excluded 

studies that focused exclusively on low-achieving students because of the priority on

differentiated instruction as a way to help sustain the gains children make in preschool. Studies 

that include a spectrum of achievement levels (lower achievement in addition to typical or higher

achievement) were retained. Finally, although differentiated instruction is consistent with 

response to intervention (RTI) models and multi-tiered systems of prevention or support 

(Gettinger & Stoiber, 2012), for the purposes of this review, the focus was on individualization 

of instruction that takes place within the regular classroom. This review focused only on 

interventions conducted by teachers in the classroom and not on RTI models as a whole. 

Questions

1. What approaches does the research and theoretical literature suggest for aligning

preschool through third-grade (P−3) education, and what is the quality of the research

studies?

2. What are the findings from studies of differentiated instruction for children in 

kindergarten and first grade, and what is the quality of these studies?
Executive Summary ix Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Literature Review Methodology

To gather appropriate literature, the review team conducted keyword searches related to the two 

topic areas in nine widely used education and psychology electronic databases. Additionally, for

P–3 alignment, the research team determined that articles on the topic may not be widely 

published in education and psychology journals. For this reason, the research team used

additional Internet searches, and requests to experts in the field, including our technical 

working group members, for article or intervention recommendations. For both topics, articles 

needed to be published between January 2003 and July 2014 and interventions needed to take 

place in the United States (including U.S. territories and tribal areas). Because preliminary 

searches revealed there would be few experimental or quasi-experimental studies for either topic, 

the research team conducted a broad review to catalog all available studies, and quantify and 

categorize the currently available research (Brett, Staniszewska, Newburn, Jones, & Taylor, 

2011; EPPI Centre, 2010).

All studies that used quantitative designs—including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasiexperimental designs (QEDs), and pre-test/post-test and correlational designs—were included if 

they focused on child-level developmental outcomes, such as academic outcomes (i.e., literacy, 

mathematics, science), cognitive outcomes (e.g., IQ, language), and/or social and behavioral 

outcomes for students (e.g., social-emotional, executive functioning). Child outcomes could be 

measured by standardized achievement tests, researcher- or teacher-developed assessments, postintervention class grades, student promotion to the next grade, or other measurement approaches. 

Studies that used primarily qualitative methods were included if they focused on implementation 

issues relevant to interventions for either topic. Most often, the qualitative studies were case 

studies—that is, research that seeks close examination of a single program to provide readers 

with a practical example and/or unique explanations of phenomena (e.g., Hays, 2004).

For preschool and K–3 alignment, as it became clear that the literature did not contain many 

data-based studies (and no experimental or quasi-experimental designs), the research team 

decided to include articles in this literature review that cover the theory supporting P–3

alignment and/or policy considerations relating to P–3 alignment.

For differentiated instruction, a substantial number of data-based studies emerged related to the 

topic. Therefore, theory and policy articles were not included in this literature review. For the 

subset of quantitative studies that employed a rigorous design, namely an RCT or QED, the 

research team appraised the research methods to provide more information about the quality of 

available evidence. The team used the systematic research standardsin the What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC)TM Single Study Review Protocol (WWC, 2010b) to guide its coding. 

These standards relate to the amount of confidence that can be placed in a study to demonstrate 

causal evidence and, subsequently, if a study meets standards, to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

intervention itself.

Preschool and K–3 Alignment Findings

The P–3 alignment topic includes 49 policy or theory resources, nine qualitative studies, three

quantitative studies, and one mixed-methods study. None of the quantitative studies used 

experimental or quasi-experimental designs to examine impacts of preschool and K–3 alignment 
Executive Summary x Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

interventions. Reflecting the state of the research in the field, key findings for preschool and K–3 

alignment focus on theoretical and policy considerations.

• Nearly all qualitative studies and policy and theory articles on P–3 alignment suggest 

aligning standards, curriculum, instruction, assessments, and environments across 

preschool and grades K–3.

• Numerous policy articles call for more similar teacher education and training 

requirements across preschool and elementary education job positions, and several 

qualitative studies provide examples of this practice. Authors suggest that preschool 

teachers should earn bachelor’s degrees, hold certification, and receive compensation on 

par with elementary teachers and that K–3 elementary school teachers should receive 

more training in early childhood development.

• Numerous policy articles recommend the creation of systems that link individual student 

data from public and private early childhood programs, particularly preschool programs, 

to students’ public school data so that elementary teachers have more complete and 

accessible information about students’ learning trajectories. With access to these data, 

educators could better tailor instruction to meet students’ needs. 

• Several policy articles and several qualitative studies suggest that school district 

administrators can support the implementation of P−3 initiatives through the management 

practices they put in place. Specific leadership considerations include the following: (1) 

involving early childhood education providers and grade K–3 teachers in planning P–3

initiatives, (2) implementing the planned elements of P–3 initiatives with fidelity, (3) 

specifying measurable student achievement benchmarks, and (4) holding principals and 

teachers accountable for achieving benchmarks. Two study authors also link similar 

principal management practices to implementation of P–3 initiatives.

• Several challenges must be addressed if P–3 initiatives are to be more widely 

implemented, according to the policy literature. A number of qualitative studies illustrate 

these challenges, which include the following: (1) policies that inhibit the blending of 

federal, state, and local sources of funding to support P−3 initiatives; (2) instability of 

preschool funding; (3) resistance by practitioners to integration of preschool and the K–3 

grades; and (4) the organization of elementary education classrooms, buildings, and 

enrollment.

Differentiated Instruction Findings

The differentiated instruction topic includes 21 studies, including 17 quantitative studies and 4

qualitative studies focused on students in kindergarten or grade 1. Of the 17 quantitative studies, 

7 were RCTs, 6 were QEDs, and 4 were other non-rigorous designs (i.e., descriptive and singlegroup pre-test/post-test designs) to examine the effects of differentiated instruction on 

achievement. Nearly all quantitative studies had methodological issues that diminish the level of 

confidence in the study to demonstrate causal evidence of effectiveness. Of the 21 studies, most

focused on reading instruction (14). Three studies evaluated differentiated instruction on writing 

outcomes. Four studies examined implementation of differentiated instruction in mathematics. 

The key findings summarize the results of all reviewed studies, regardless of the study design or 

the strength of the evidence.
Executive Summary xi Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

• Of the 17 quantitative studies of differentiated instruction, one RCT of the Individualized 

Student Instruction With Assessment to Instruction intervention demonstrated positive 

results on reading outcomes and had the potential to meet the criteria for strong causal 

evidence. Five RCTs of this specific intervention that did not meet the criteria for strong 

causal evidence also showed positive outcomes. 

• One RCT compared the strategies of (1) grouping students by learning style preferences 

(i.e., visual, auditory, tactile, or kinesthetic), with (2) grouping students by preintervention reading achievement. There were no discernible effects in favor of grouping 

method. This study had a methodological issue because the reliability and validity of the 

outcome measure was unclear.

• Seven other quantitative studies examined small-group differentiated instruction 

approaches for reading and showed mixed results. Among these seven (five QEDS, one 

pre-test/post-test design, and one descriptive design), none meet all criteria designed to 

evaluate whether a study strongly demonstrates causal evidence, either because of their 

research designs or because of methodological issues within the designs.

• Three other quantitative studies suggest that some students may benefit from 

collaborative, interactive writing sessions or from specific writing tools or prompts. The 

three studies included one QED that failed to appropriately demonstrate baseline 

equivalence and two single-group pre-test/post-test design studies that cannot show 

causal evidence of effectiveness due to the research design. 

• In addition to the quantitative studies, four qualitative studies provided information about 

processes and strategies for implementing differentiated instruction for mathematics but 

do not provide evidence of effects. These small studies, which focused on perceptions of 

facilitators or barriers to implementation, suggest that differentiated instruction requires 

careful planning and reflection on the part of teachers. Opportunities for peer 

collaboration and guidance by mentors, such as coaches, may be helpful to improve 

teacher practice related to differentiation.
Introduction 1 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

I. Introduction

Research shows that participation in high-quality preschool can improve young children’s 

readiness skills for elementary school, positively impacting behavioral, social-emotional, and 

cognitive outcomes (Andrews, Jargowsky, & Kuhne, 2012). Specifically, for children who may 

be at risk for academic challenges in early elementary school, attending a high-quality preschool 

can improve test scores and attendance and reduce placement in special education and gradelevel retention (Andrews et al., 2012; Barnett, 2008; Karoly & Bigelow, 2005; Reynolds, 1993; 

Reynolds et al., 2007). Studies have demonstrated that high-quality early education is related to 

other positive developmental outcomes for children, including improved language development, 

cognitive functioning, social competence, and emotional adjustment (Clarke-Stewart, Vandell, 

Burchinal, O’Brien, & McCartney, 2002; Howes, 1988; National Institute of Child Health and 

Human Development Early Child Care Research Network, 2000; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001). 

Additional long-term benefits of attending a high-quality preschool program include higher rates 

of high school completion, a greater likelihood of attending college, and increased lifetime 

earnings (Heckman, Moon, Pinto, Savelyev, & Yavitz, 2010; Karoly, Kilburn, & Cannon, 2005; 

Reynolds & Ou, 2011; Reynolds & Temple, 2008).

Because of the importance of early childhood education, the federal government supports 

preschool education through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Head 

Start program; through the U.S. Department of Education’s (the Department’s) special education 

preschool program, authorized through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B; 

and through the new Department- and HHS-administered Preschool Development Grant 

program. States and local districts also have implemented public preschool programs, many of 

which are targeted to disadvantaged children and are showing positive results (see Frede, Jung, 

Barnett, Lamy, & Figueras [2007], Gilliam & Zigler [2001], and Gormley & Phillips [2005] on 

Oklahoma’s universal preschool program in Tulsa, and Weiland & Yoshikawa [2013] on 

Boston’s public preschool). 

Importantly, research also shows that not all students who experience preschool achieve positive, 

long-term outcomes (Barnett, 2008; Lee & Loeb, 1995). Some preschool program evaluations 

document that strong initial benefits do not persist into early elementary school (Lipsey, Farran, 

& Hofer, 2015; Magnuson, Meyers, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2005; Manship, Madsen, Mezzanotte, 

& Fain, 2013; Ramey et al., 2000; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010).

Preschool benefits may not persist for many reasons, including lack of continuous follow-up with 

participating students, lack of family supports or involvement, or limited intensity or duration of 

the program (Brooks-Gunn, 2003; Halpern, 2013; Reynolds, Magnuson, & Ou, 2006). The 

positive effects of preschool may not be sustained if children attend poor-quality elementary 

schools after preschool (Clements, Reynolds, & Hickey, 2004; Lee & Loeb, 1995). Without 

additional and continuous supports as children continue through the early elementary grades, 

participation in preschool cannot overcome potential challenges that children, particularly those 

at risk for poorer academic outcomes, may face. It is important to identify ways to sustain early 

cognitive, social-emotional, and academic gains in order to give all students opportunities to 

thrive academically.
Introduction 2 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Overview

To better understand how to build on the positive effects of preschool, the Department’s Policy 

and Program Studies Service initiated a literature review, consisting of two components: 

Part 1: A systematic literature review of policies, programs, and practices that have the potential 

to aid practitioners and policymakers in helping students in kindergarten through grade 3 (K–3) 

build on the positive effects of preschool and make cognitive, social-emotional, and academic 

gains. This review focuses on two questions:

1. What approaches does the research and theoretical literature suggest for aligning

preschool through third-grade (P−3) education, and what is the quality of the research

studies?

2. What are the findings from studies of differentiated instruction for children in 

kindergarten and first grade, and what is the quality of these studies?

Part 2: Case study descriptions of five programs that help disadvantaged students in K–3 have 

positive cognitive, social-emotional, and/or academic outcomes and may build on the positive 

effects of preschool by using policies, programs, and practices from the two topic areas above.

Research questions include the following:

3. What are the characteristics (e.g., resources, personnel, staff characteristics, training, 

setting, population served) of P–3 or differentiated instruction programs that aim to 

increase cognitive, social-emotional, or academic outcomes of students? 

4. On what research, theory, and/or experiences did the designers of these programs base 

the program structure and content? 

5. What are the challenges of implementing these programs, and how have staff and leaders 

tried to overcome these challenges?

6. How does the organization implementing the program ensure its sustainability?

The Department selected these topics as the focus of the literature review after preliminary 

literature searches revealed that there would be few results for the broader topic of the Request 

for Task Order (“interventions to sustain effects of preschool”). This report includes findings 

from the literature review and answers to the first two questions. The Department expects to 

release findings from the case studies in late 2016.

Literature Review Methodology

Various types of systematic reviews can be used to examine extant research literature on 

particular interventions or approaches to answer questions ranging from “What research exists?” 

to “What interventions work?” (see Cooper, 2010; EPPI Centre, 2010; Petticrew & Roberts, 

2006; What Works Clearinghouse [WWCTM], 2010a). The current review balanced these two 

questions. Because preliminary searches revealed there would be few experimental or quasiexperimental studies for either topic, the research team conducted a broad review to catalog all 
Introduction 3 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

available studies to quantify and categorize the currently available research (Brett, Staniszewska, 

Newburn, Jones, & Taylor, 2011; EPPI Centre, 2010).

Literature Criteria and Search Process

To gather appropriate literature, the review team conducted keyword searches relevant to the two 

topic areas in nine widely used education and psychology electronic databases (see Appendix A 

for details on keywords and databases). Searches focused on articles published between January 

2003 and July 2014, with approaches taking place in the United States (including U.S. territories 

and tribal areas). 

Preschool and K–3 Alignment

The first topic focuses on approaches to align preschool and kindergarten through grade 3. 

Preschool or prekindergarten and K–3 alignment (sometimes called P–3) emphasizes 

coordination among standards, curricula, instructional practices, student assessment, and teacher 

professional development between the preschool years and the early elementary school years. 

Early childhood experts assert that the effects of preschool may be sustained and investment in early 

education capitalized upon if curricula and instructional strategies from preschool through grade 3 

are well aligned (Bogard & Takanishi, 2005; Brooks-Gunn, 2003; Howard, 2008). As Reynolds and 

Temple (2008) suggest, P–3 programs may provide more continuity and better organization of 

services for students as well as enhanced school-family partnerships. Policy authors also suggest 

that P–3 approach may be particularly beneficial to close achievement gaps for low-income 

students, English learners, and students with behavior problems (Demanchick, Peabody, & 

Johnson, 2009; Garland, 2011; Jacobson, 2009; Rice 2008a; Severns, 2012).

Based on the preliminary searches conducted in preparation for the literature review and

consultation with a technical working group that advised on the literature review, we determined 

that articles on P–3 alignment are not widely published in education and psychology journals 

and therefore do not appear frequently in traditional database searches. For this reason, the 

research team used additional search approaches, including examination of topic-specific 

websites (e.g., Foundation for Child Development), general Internet searches, and requests to

experts in the field, including our technical working group members, for article or intervention 

recommendations. Appendix B contains references included in the P–3 review.

Differentiated Instruction

The second review topic includes research studies that focus on differentiated instruction. The 

premise of differentiated instruction is that teaching practices and curricula should vary to meet 

the diverse needs and skills of the individual student and to optimize students’ learning 

experiences (Tomlinson, 2000, 2001). It moves away from a one-size-fits-all approach to 

teaching and from the expectation that learners, themselves, must adapt to preexisting strategies 

or a set level of instruction. Instead, in a differentiated instructional delivery model, student 

needs are emphasized (Stanford & Reeves, 2009), with teachers purposively adapting

instructional strategies and the focus of skill building to be responsive to individual or groups of 

students (Jones, Yssel, & Grant, 2012). Some experts assert that differentiated instruction differs 

from typical ability grouping because teachers maintain high expectations for all students but 
Introduction 4 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

respond to student differences in their teaching (Bofferding, Kemmerle, & Murata, 2012; 

Murata, 2013).

One explanation for why effects of preschool could diminish in early elementary school is that 

children who make early gains in preschool may not have the opportunity to maintain their 

growth rate or learning trajectory because early elementary instruction may focus on students 

who are less prepared and have lower-level skills. In other words, instruction is not differentiated 

and, in some cases, may not be rigorous enough, to meet and build on the skills that some 

students have upon school entry (Claessens, Engel, & Curran, 2013; Kauerz, 2006).

In addition to the basic search criteria related to the overall topic, outcome, year of publication

and location of the intervention, we applied several additional parameters to the differentiated 

instruction studies. 

• First, we only retained studies that focused on differentiated instruction interventions, 

defined as (1) comprehensive or supplemental instructional programs or (2) clearly

defined and described practices.

• Second, studies were limited to those that involve students in kindergarten and/or first 

grade. Because the justification for this topic involves the use of differentiation to meet 

the skill levels of children upon their entry to elementary school, studies that focused 

exclusively on grades beyond kindergarten and first grade were excluded. Studies that 

included older grades (i.e., second and third grades) in addition to the earlier grades were 

retained. 

• Third, the review excluded studies that focused exclusively on lower-achieving students. 

They were excluded because justification for this topic involves the use of differentiation 

to build upon existing skills (potentially attained earlier in preschool). Studies that 

include a spectrum of achievement levels (lower achievement in addition to typical or 

higher achievement) were retained.

• Finally, although differentiated instruction is consistent with response to intervention 

(RTI) models and multi-tiered systems of prevention or support (Gettinger & Stoiber, 

2012), for the purposes of this review, the focus was on individualization of instruction 

that takes place within the regular classroom. In general, RTI models aim to (1) screen 

students to document their skill levels, (2) deliver evidence-based instruction, (3) monitor 

students’ continued progress, and (4) adjust instruction based on that monitoring 

(Metcalf, 2013). RTI models could include supplemental, pull-out instruction as 

educators provide support to students who struggle with skill development. This review 

focused only on interventions conducted by classroom teachers in the classroom and not 

on RTI models as a whole. At least 50 percent of the students needed to be general 

education students; we excluded studies that focused more exclusively on special 

education. 

Appendix C contains references included in the differentiated instruction review.
Introduction 5 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Study Types

All studies that used quantitative designs—including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasiexperimental studies (QEDs) and pre-test/post-test and correlational designs—were included if 

they focused on child-level developmental outcomes, such as academic outcomes (i.e., literacy, 

mathematics, science), cognitive outcomes (e.g., IQ, language), and/or social and behavioral 

outcomes for students (e.g., social-emotional, executive functioning). Child outcomes could be 

measured by standardized achievement tests, researcher- or teacher-developed assessments, postintervention class grades, student promotion to the next grade, or other measurement approaches.

Studies that used primarily qualitative methods were included if they focused on implementation 

issues relevant to interventions for either topic or on the outcomes named previously. Most often, 

the qualitative studies were case studies—that is, research that seeks close examination of a 

single program to provide readers with a practical example and/or unique explanations of 

phenomena (e.g., Hays, 2004).

For preschool and K–3 alignment, as it became clear that the literature did not contain many 

data-based studies (and no experimental or quasi-experimental designs), the research team 

decided to include articles in this literature review that cover the theory supporting P–3

alignment and/or policy considerations relating to P–3 alignment. For differentiated instruction, a 

substantial number of data-based studies emerged related to the topic. Therefore, theory and 

policy articles were not included in the literature review for the differentiated instruction topic. 

The nature of the case studies was quite different for the two topics. For P–3 alignment, the case 

studies focused on implementation of P–3 approaches in a specific state or district. The 

researchers tended to collect implementation data from various sources, including interviews 

with stakeholders (e.g., superintendent, board members, principals, teachers, parents), 

observations of classrooms, and extant documents. For differentiated instruction, the case studies 

were most often reports from a single school or a small set of classrooms (sometimes one 

classroom) that had implemented a differentiated instructional strategy. These studies tended to 

take a practitioner research approach (Pritchard, 2002), also called teacher research or practitioner 

inquiry (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999a), in which teachers document their own practice. As 

Ravitch (2014) explains, in an effort to improve practice and influence policy, practitioner 

research involves practitioners making structured inquiries about aspects of their practice for 

which they have questions, confusion, or challenges. 

Review Process

The research team conducted a multistage review process with each article. Research team 

coders conducted an initial screen of all manuscripts by reviewing abstracts, ensuring that 

articles met relevance requirements. In some cases, coders screened the entire manuscript to 

ensure that inclusion criteria were met. Research team members then coded all articles to 

capture key characteristics and document details of design, data, sample, analysis, and findings 

for all studies. During the coding phase, research team members removed articles from the pool 

if details of the studies indicated the studies were, in fact, not eligible for the topic. If a 

quantitative study used rigorous methodology, then coders applied additional review standards. 

Exhibit 1 summarizes the steps of this process. 
Introduction 6 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit 1.

Literature Review Process

Exhibit reads: Research team coders conducted an initial screen of manuscripts, ensuring that they met relevance requirements. 

Coders then captured key characteristics and document details of design, data, sample, analysis, and findings for all studies. For 

studies that used a rigorous design, coders appraised the research methods and data using systematic research standards to 

determine the level of evidence for the strategy or intervention being studied.

Coding Details

To code content from the policy and theory articles, the research team used NVivo 10, a 

qualitative software analysis package (QSR International, 2012). Team members drafted a 

preliminary construct code list, consisting of article elements common across several policy 

articles. The constructs were defined and coders received training to code article text according 

to the construct list. For articles with qualitative methodology, the research team documented

the aims of the intervention, study methodology, types of data collected, modes of analysis, and 

findings. Appendix D contains the coding protocols.

There were two pools of studies that used quantitative methods. 
Introduction 7 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

• The first pool included rigorous quantitative studies that used at least one comparison 

group formed using either (1) randomized methods (RCTs) or (2) nonrandomized 

methods (QEDs). Due to their potential methodological strengths in the use of a 

comparison group, these studies were reviewed for their evidence of effectiveness.

1

• The second pool included studies that did not use a comparison group; for example, 

studies with correlational and single-group pre-test/post-test designs. Because of these 

studies’ designs, they were not reviewed for evidence of effectiveness. Instead, the

coding guide was used to capture details about study goals and the author’s 

interpretations of findings.

Results from coding the first pool (rigorous quantitative studies) show that the majority of 

methodological problems identified with the RCTs and QEDs in this review are related to 

standards about attrition and baseline equivalence. Attrition refers to the percentage of 

participants who are missing a post-test measure. Baseline equivalence refers to establishing that, 

prior to the intervention, participants within the intervention and control conditions in the 

analytic sample were similar along measurable characteristics (including the outcome measure). 

Issues with either attrition or baseline equivalence can threaten the strength of a design because it 

becomes more difficult to confidently attribute the findings to the intervention rather than some 

other difference between the intervention and control conditions.

 

1 Members of the research team, who had previously been certified through the WWC, made use of the WWC 

Single Study Review Protocol (WWC, 2010b) and review standards (consistent with WWC Procedures and 

Standards Handbook 3.0; WWC, 2010a) to determine whether each study has the potential to meet the criteria for 

being a well-designed study according to the WWC. In this report, we describe studies as having the potential to 

meet WWC group design standards rather than asserting that studies do meet standards because the current review 

is not an official WWC review. 

Official reviews conducted by the WWC use author queries to request missing or incomplete information needed 

to assign a rating or calculate effect sizes. The current literature review did not use author queries because of 

limited resources. It is possible that more studies would have met evidence standards if author queries had been 

conducted.
P–3 Alignment 8 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

II. P–3 Alignment

Rationale

P–3 alignment aims to coordinate standards, curricula, instructional practices, student 

assessment, and teacher professional development between the preschool years and the early 

elementary school years. When implemented as intended, P–3 alignment policies or practices 

should provide a coherent educational experience as a student progresses from preschool through 

elementary school (e.g., Halpern, 2013) that could potentially sustain the benefits of preschool 

(Kauerz & Coffman, 2013). P–3 alignment efforts may include school-based prekindergarten 

programs and other preschool programs in public or private early care and education settings that

partner with the public school system. Because this review includes theoretical literature, the 

Key Findings section contains additional information about the components and advantages of 

aligned P–3 models as discussed in the literature.

Literature Search and Screening

At the end of the screening and coding process, 62 articles were reviewed (see Exhibit 2). There were 

two pairs of articles that contained overlapping content. In the first case, the authors reported the 

results of one quantitative study in two manuscripts—a working paper (Reynolds, Magnuson, & 

Ou, 2006) and an article in a published journal (Reynolds, Magnuson, & Ou, 2010). In the 

second case, a portion of a policy or theory article in a practitioner association resource (National 

Association of Elementary School Principals, 2011) was reprinted in a different practitioner 

journal (10 Action Steps, 2011). The final literature review includes 49 policy or theory resources, 

nine qualitative studies, three quantitative studies, and one mixed-methods study.

Exhibit 2.

Articles Resulting From Literature Search for P–3 Alignment Topic

Literature Search Results Number of Articles

Total from search 188

Total after screening 66

Total after coding 62a

Of 62 articles passing coding stage:

Policy and theory content coded for themes 49

Studies coded for methods and outcomes 13

Of 13 studies coded for methods and outcomes:

Qualitative 9

Quantitative—correlational 3

Mixed methods 1

Exhibit reads: The initial total number of articles from the P–3 literature search equaled 188. The number dropped to 66 articles 

after the screening phase and to 62 articles after the coding phase. Of these, 49 resources contributed unique policy or theory 

content that the research team coded for themes. An additional 13 resources contained unique studies that the research team 

coded for methods and outcomes; nine studies were qualitative in nature, three studies were quantitative and used a correlational 

approach, and one study used a mixed-methods approach.

a Studies failed during the coding phase if, for example, the research team discovered that authors discussed the appropriate 

continuum age and grade range but did not emphasize alignment among grades, or if the article was a book review.
P–3 Alignment 9 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

There were 49 articles from the literature search that the research team categorized as policy or 

theory, meaning the article authors did not collect or analyze of data. In general, authors of these 

articles provided explanations or definitions of P–3 alignment. The authors offered their 

perspectives of key elements or important characteristics of P–3 practices or programs and 

reviewed related literature to support their perspectives. Some policy or theory authors included 

examples of P–3 interventions and approaches, some authors advocated for increasing P–3

approaches (most often through specific policy actions), and other authors provided perspectives 

on the ways in which P–3 alignment interventions could be facilitated and/or named potential 

barriers to implementation. 

Of the 13 studies that were coded for methods and outcomes, nine used qualitative methods; 

three used quantitative, correlational methods; and one used mixed methods. Within the 

qualitative study pool, eight studies used a case-study approach to describe the planning and 

implementation of P–3 alignment at (1) the state level (Nyhan, 2011; Zellman & Kilburn, 2011), 

(2) for one or more districts (Jacobson, Jacobson, & Blank, 2012; Marietta, 2010a, 2010b; 

Marietta & Marietta, 2013a, 2013b), or (3) both state and district levels (Center for the Study of 

Education Policy, 2012). For these studies, researchers collected implementation data by 

interviewing stakeholders (e.g., the superintendent, board members, principals, teachers, 

parents), conducting observations of classrooms, or reviewing extant state or local documents 

regarding the P–3 approach. One additional qualitative study (Center for Applied Research and 

Educational Improvement, 2013) provided descriptive data from a cross-section of stakeholders 

from three districts that participated in a P–3 professional development grant.

Quantitative studies of P–3 alignment are limited, as evidenced by the small number of 

quantitative studies and the correlational nature of the analyses. One study (Brown & Bogard, 

2007) correlated six broad school characteristics2—which the authors deemed indicative of a P–3

framework—with students’ standardized mathematics and reading achievement, grade retention, 

and behavior in third grade. Using a similar approach, Reynolds, Magnuson, and Ou (2010) and 

Reynolds, Magnuson, and Ou (2006) correlated a set of student and school characteristics3that 

they considered part of the P–3 framework, with student outcomes, including reading and 

mathematics achievement, learning-related behaviors, grade retention, and special education 

placement. These correlational studies do not provide causal evidence that P–3 approaches 

improve student outcomes. Furthermore, these broad characteristics and practices only serve as 

indirect proxy variables for the P–3 approach. The variables in these studies include some 

characteristics, such as low teacher absenteeism, low teacher turnover, and low student mobility, 

which are not consistently mentioned in the literature as defining features of a P–3 approach, and 

do not include other characteristics of the P–3 approach that are defined in the policy and theory 

literature. Therefore, this review does not discuss the findings of these correlational analyses any 

further. 

 

2 The six characteristics were (1) principal leadership quality, (2) high academic standards, (3) curriculum planning 

meetings for teachers, (4) low teacher absenteeism, (5) low teacher turnover, and (6) teacher self-efficacy.

3 The characteristics included (1) whether children attended preschool before school entry, (2) inclusion of full-day 

kindergarten; rates of (3) student mobility, (4) highly qualified teachers, (5) parental involvement, (6) amount of 

reading and language instruction, and (7) average class size. 
P–3 Alignment 10 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

The mixed-methods study (Bogard, 2006) primarily took a case-study approach to examine P–3

implementation at three schools. This study also conducted analyses to correlate specific school 

and classroom characteristics or practices at those three schools (e.g., class size, adult-child 

ratios, specialized teacher training) with classroom quality data. 

Findings

Reflecting the state of the research in the field, the findings below focus on theoretical and policy

considerations. 

Alignment of Standards, Curriculum, Instruction, Assessments, and 

Environments

Nearly all qualitative studies and policy and theory articles recommend alignment of standards, 

curriculum, instruction, assessments, and environments across preschool and grades K–3 as an 

approach for providing high-quality education to students in this grade range. The policy 

literature calls for both vertical and horizontal alignment of standards, curriculum, and 

assessment (e.g., Scott-Little & Reid, 2010). Vertical alignment refers to alignment across grade 

levels, while horizontal alignment refers to alignment within grade. 

The literature points to the particular importance of establishing aligned content standards 

within the P–3 grade range.

Three qualitative studies illustrated specific alignment of content standards in the P–3 grade 

range. Two of these used a case-study approach to describe P–3 efforts in two districts in New 

Jersey (Marietta & Marietta, 2013a, 2013b). Using interview data, extant documents, and 

classroom observations, the authors document that the state developed early learning standards to

align with the state’s existing content standards for K–12. Researchers highlighted that the state 

provides lists of approved early childhood curricula and assessments that align with the state P

standards (Marietta & Marietta, 2013a). The third study (Center for the Study of Educational 

Policy, 2012) included a case study of P–3 implementation in the state of Hawaii. To gather 

information, the study authors conducted in-person interviews with state and local P–3 initiative 

stakeholders and reviewed secondary data, including documents collected during site visits and 

through Web searches. Study authors found that Hawaii’s efforts involved a school readiness 

task force that developed preschool standards and later developed broader, but aligned, early 

learning and development standards that also would align with the Common Core State 

Standards. Authors in the policy literature explained that many states that adopted the Common 

Core State Standards have aligned their early learning standards to the Common Core (Guernsey, 

Bornfreund, McCann, & Williams, 2014).

Curricula and instructional guidance for teachers must be thoughtfully aligned to 

standards across multiple grades, according to the policy literature.

As examples of this approach, three qualitative studies describe districts that aimed to align 

curricula across grades. Montgomery County, Maryland, developed its own P–12 curriculum 

framework and supported alignment through instructional guides for prekindergarten, 

kindergarten, and later grades with sample lesson plans that align with the district’s curriculum 

framework and state standards (Marietta, 2010a). District administrators in Union City, New
P–3 Alignment 11 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Jersey, worked with teachers to develop a P–12-aligned curriculum (Marietta & Marietta, 2013a). 

Farrington complex in Oahu, Hawaii, planned to implement a common, published curriculum 

across the P–3 grade span (Zellman & Kilburn, 2011).

The policy literature points to FirstSchool as a P–3 model that brings together early childhood and 

elementary education in a single school setting, with alignment of curriculum and instruction 

(Ritchie, Maxwell, & Clifford, 2007; Ritchie, Maxwell, & Clifford, 2009; New, Palsha, & Ritchie, 

2009). The developers of this model note that many children experience discontinuities in 

curriculum, instruction, classroom setting, and expectations as they move through the P–3 grades, 

especially during the transition from preschool to kindergarten (New, Palsha, & Ritchie, 2009). For 

example, although early childhood curricula generally emphasize children’s development in a 

variety of domains, curricula in the later grades place more emphasis on the acquisition of 

academic content knowledge. According to FirstSchool researchers’ observations in a sample of 

classrooms, children experience a substantial reduction in free-choice time (from 136 minutes to 16 

minutes) and an increase in whole-group time (from 76 minutes to 128 minutes) as they transition 

from prekindergarten to kindergarten (Ritchie, Clifford, Malloy, Cobb, & Crawford, 2010). To 

facilitate greater alignment, the FirstSchool model employs a curriculum framework to emphasize 

continuity of student learning goals and professional learning communities for cross-grade 

instructional planning (New, Palsha, & Ritchie, 2009; Ritchie et al., 2010). 

Districts also are implementing common assessment instruments across the P–3 grades. 

For example, Montgomery County, Maryland, developed its own diagnostic assessment of reading 

skills for the K–2 grade range (Marietta, 2010a). Red Bank, New Jersey, selected the Work 

Sampling System for the P–3 grades (Marietta & Marietta, 2013b). For the Work Sampling 

System, P–3 teachers assembled portfolios of student work and rated children’s performance in 

the areas of language and literacy, mathematics, and personal and social development, as compared 

to national expectations and state standards. Teachers shared these portfolios with parents as part of a 

summary report, which replaced traditional report cards (Marietta & Marietta, 2013b). In the 

summary report, teachers noted whether the child had made expected progress on the basis of the 

child’s initial performance. 

Another concrete approach to alignment is joint professional development and planning 

time, in which prekindergarten and K–3 teachers come together on a regular basis to focus 

on curricular and instructional planning.

The policy literature suggests that prekindergarten and K–3 teachers should receive joint teacher 

preparation and engage collaboratively in planning (e.g., Shore, 2009). Each of the nine 

qualitative studies and the one mixed-methods study mention joint professional development or 

planning time; however, the level of detail provided in these case studies varies substantially. 

Two of the more detailed studies describe Montgomery County, Maryland’s approach to P–3

(Marietta, 2010a, 2010b). The district implemented several joint professional development and 

planning activities. First, early childhood instructional specialists provided teachers with training 

on standards, curriculum, and assessment. Second, the district developed a 36-hour professional 

development program for all new P–12 teachers that covered the hallmarks of quality instruction 

and its importance in helping students reach their full potential. Preschool, Head Start, and 

kindergarten teachers also participated in supplemental sessions on early learning. As part of 
P–3 Alignment 12 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

their professional development, teachers conducted classroom observations of their peers. Third, 

the district developed an online platform for curriculum and lesson planning, which allowed 

teachers to share lesson planning ideas and link them back to state standards. To allow teacher 

release time in support of these activities, the district employed a pool of permanent substitute 

teachers. 

Teachers in Union City, New Jersey, met twice per month in cross-grade teams, in addition to 

meeting twice per week with same-grade teachers to plan instruction and receive mentoring from 

master teachers (Marietta & Marietta, 2013a). Teachers’ participation in these planning meetings 

allowed time to discuss professional development needs, curriculum implementation, 

instructional pacing, specific content that proved challenging for students, and effective 

approaches to teaching that content (Marietta & Marietta, 2013a). An example from the policy 

literature describes the Birth-to-College initiative, a collaboration between the Urban Education 

Institute at the University of Chicago and the Ounce of Prevention Fund, in which early 

childhood educators, elementary school teachers, and family support staff from three schools 

came together in birth-through-third-grade professional learning communities to foster greater 

alignment of mathematics, language, and literacy instruction (University of Chicago, Urban 

Education Institute, & Ounce of Prevention Fund, 2012).

Districts that contract with public and private early childhood education providers to offer 

preschool often include these providers in district-sponsored professional development to ensure 

alignment, as described in five of the qualitative studies (Marietta & Marietta, 2013a, 2013b; 

Marietta, 2010a, 2010b; Zellman & Kilburn, 2011). For example, early childhood education

home- and center-based providers may attend the same professional development sessions as 

district teachers or receive visits from district early childhood education staff or master teachers 

for training on standards, curricula, and assessment (Marietta & Marietta, 2013a, 2013b; 

Marietta, 2010b). Such shared professional development may be compulsory or voluntary, and 

incentives may be provided to encourage participation. For example, a district case study

describing a P–3 initiative in Bremerton School District in the state of Washington (Marietta, 

2010b) described a “district-endorsement” for early childhood education providers who attended 

district-sponsored professional development sessions. Providers, in turn, can use this district 

endorsement to market their early childhood education programs.

The literature suggests that, to support P–3 alignment, classroom environments should be 

similar: All classes should be small; preschool and kindergarten, in particular, should have 

similar classroom structures and environments.

Two qualitative studies provided specific case-study examples. Montgomery County, Maryland,

reduced K–2 class sizes to 15 in high-need schools, as part of P–3 reforms (Marietta, 2010a). 

Union City, New Jersey, directed kindergarten teachers to arrange their classrooms into learning 

centers, which are similar to those found in preschool classrooms, rather than in rows of desks 

(Marietta & Marietta, 2013a). The theory and policy articles also advocated for small classes 

with similar structures (e.g., Grantmakers for Education, 2006; Black, 2008; Bogard & 

Takanishi, 2005; Committee for Economic Development, 2012; Howard, 2008; Rice, 2008a; 

Rice, 2010). For example, Reynolds and Ou (2006) described the Chicago Child-Parent Centers 

(CPC) program, which attempted to create greater continuity in classroom environments for 

children participating in the program. During the preschool year, both a teacher and an aide 
P–3 Alignment 13 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

staffed classrooms, with a maximum of 17 students. During the K–3 period, participating 

students continued to experience small class sizes, with a maximum of 25 students and two staff. 

The class sizes offered through CPC were considerably smaller than typical first- through thirdgrade classrooms in Chicago, which enrolled 35–40 students with just one teacher. 

Kindergarten readiness standards and kindergarten entry assessments can serve as 

mechanisms to facilitate alignment from preschool to kindergarten.

The policy literature suggests kindergarten readiness standards and associated kindergarten entry 

assessments as a model strategy for alignment between early education and elementary education

(Tout, Halle, Daily, Albertson-Junkans, & Moodie, 2013). Kindergarten readiness standards 

provide early care and education providers with further guidance regarding the expectations 

young children will encounter at school entry, and kindergarten entry assessments provide 

kindergarten teachers with diagnostic data on individual students that they can use to plan 

instruction (Center for the Study of Educational Policy, 2012; Tout et al., 2013; Zellman & 

Kilburn, 2011). Two qualitative case studies mention the role of kindergarten entry assessments 

in alignment in the context of Hawaii’s State School Readiness Assessment (Center for the Study 

of Educational Policy, 2012; Zellman & Kilburn, 2011). Kindergarten teachers use one 

assessment to look at overall readiness of children at the classroom level and another assessment 

to measure the readiness of individual students. Aggregated information is shared publicly to 

improve the education of young children (Center for the Study of Educational Policy, 2012). The 

Center for the Study of Educational Policy (2012) describes how Pennsylvania planned to house 

kindergarten readiness assessment data in the state’s longitudinal K–12 student data system, in 

addition to integrating the state’s early childhood data system for children ages zero to five with 

the K–12 system.

According to the theory and policy literature, the ultimate goal of alignment is to ease 

children’s transitions into school and across grade levels.

Examples of specific transition practices include (1) the transfer of records from prekindergarten

to kindergarten, (2) kindergarten classroom visits for children, or (3) parent orientations prior to 

the beginning of school (Kagan et al., 2006; Tout et al., 2013). Children’s entrance into 

elementary school is an important transition in early childhood that can set the stage for future 

success or failure (Demanchick, Peabody, & Johnson, 2009; Human Capital Research 

Collaborative, 2014a; New, Palsha, & Ritchie, 2009; Tout et al., 2013). Numerous theory and 

policy articles emphasize the importance of parental involvement and communication between 

teachers and parents in the transition process (ABCs of Early Education, 2013; Goldstein & 

Bauml, 2012; Groark, Mehaffie, McCall, & Greenberg, 2007; New, Palsha, & Ritchie, 2009; 

Rice, 2008b; Tout et al., 2013). 

Authors point to the Chicago CPC program as an example of a P–3 intervention program that 

includes formal transition practices (Human Capital Research Collaborative, 2014a, 2014b; 

Reynolds & Ou, 2006). The CPC program offered early childhood education and family support 

services to low-income families, and follow-up services through third grade in order to sustain 

the effects of the preschool intervention (Human Capital Research Collaborative, 2014a, 2014b). 

CPC programs were purposely based in public schools with the aim that participating students 

would experience easier transitions as they moved from preschool to kindergarten (Human 
P–3 Alignment 14 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Capital Research Collaborative, 2014b). Specific transition practices in the CPC program 

included maintaining the same staff leadership team as children age through the program, 

supporting communication between CPC head teachers and school principals, developing a 

continuity plan, and planning for cross-grade activities (Human Capital Research Collaborative, 

2014a).

Teacher Education and Qualifications

Numerous policy articles call for establishing similar teacher education and training 

requirements across preschool and elementary education job positions, and several qualitative 

studies provide examples of this practice. Authors suggest that preschool teachers should earn 

bachelor’s degrees, hold certification, and receive compensation that is equivalent with that of 

elementary teachers. Furthermore, they suggest that K–3 elementary school teachers should 

receive more training in early childhood development.

Some authors of policy and theory articles recommend that preschool teachers should earn 

the same educational credential as elementary teachers, namely a bachelor’s degree.

Authors also argue for equal compensation for preschool teachers and elementary school 

teachers.

Three qualitative case studies describe P–3 efforts in which preschool teachers held bachelor’s 

degrees and had salary parity with their peer teachers in the K–3 grades (Marietta, 2010a; 

Marietta & Marietta, 2013a, 2013b). Two case studies document this approach in New Jersey, 

where preschool teachers in Union City and Red Bank must hold a bachelor’s degree and P–3

certification and receive the same pay as other elementary school teachers (Marietta & Marietta, 

2013a, 2013b). Both of the New Jersey districts partnered with private and nonprofit early 

childhood education programs to deliver preschool, and the teachers in these out-of-district 

programs met the same education requirements and received the same pay as teachers inside the 

district. Thus, the approach in these districts maintained consistent standards across settings. 

Another case study describes a Montgomery County, Maryland, preschool program that was part 

of a P–3 strategy to increase student achievement in later grades. The district hired only certified 

teachers with a bachelor’s degree, employing them as regular teachers who earned the same 

salary as other district teachers (Marietta, 2010a). 

The policy literature further recommends that elementary school teachers receive training in 

early childhood development (Rice, 2008a; Kauerz, 2006; Takanishi & Kauerz, 2008), although 

the qualitative studies do not provide any examples of this approach. 

The creation of P–3 teacher certification programs provides an opportunity to build a 

shared educational philosophy among early childhood educators and elementary school 

teachers of the K–3 grades, thus increasing alignment.

Two case studies and two policy articles document the development of P–3 teacher certification 

programs in New Jersey, as mandated by a Supreme Court of New Jersey ruling in an education 

equity case (Rice, 2007; Marietta & Marietta, 2013a, 2013b; Mead, 2009). Graduates of these 

training programs possess a bachelor’s degree with a P–3 endorsement. The court ruling required 

P–3 certification only for prekindergarten teachers, but the Advocates for Children of New 
P–3 Alignment 15 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Jersey recommended that all new K–3 teachers also be required to hold the P–3 certification in 

order to address the issue of alignment between prekindergarten and K–3 (Rice, 2007). Drawing 

on interviews, focus groups, and document review, two other qualitative studies highlight the 

work of Hawaii’s P–20 Partnership for Education, a working group that brings together 

representatives from early childhood, K–12, and higher education (Center for the Study of 

Education Policy, 2012; Zellman & Kilburn, 2011). The P–20 Partnership worked with 

community college and university faculty to increase course offerings in early childhood 

education, and established a P–3 graduate certificate program. Teachers at P–3 pilot sites in the 

state were encouraged to enroll in the certificate program and received full tuition scholarships 

from the P–20 Partnership. The certificate program included coursework credit hours that could 

later count toward a P–3 master’s degree, if teachers chose this pathway. 

Data-Driven Instructional Planning

Numerous policy articles recommend the creation of systems that link individual student data 

from public and private early childhood programs, particularly preschool programs, to students’ 

public school data so that elementary teachers have more complete and accessible information 

about students’ learning trajectories. With access to these data, professional development on their 

use, and cross-grade planning time, P–3 educators could better tailor instruction to meet 

students’ needs. 

The theory and policy literature recommends development of longitudinal P–12 or 

P–20 data systems that link data from public and private early care and education 

programs to public school data.

Longitudinal data systems would allow administrators and teachers to have more complete and 

accessible information about students’ learning trajectories than current approaches to collecting 

and storing student data (10 Action Steps, 2011; Hernandez, 2012; Kauerz & Coffman, 2013; 

NALEO Education Leadership Initiative, 2008; Lesaux, 2010; The Pre-K Coalition, 2011a; Rice, 

2010). One author calls on the federal government to convene a national advisory group to create 

guidelines for the development of state longitudinal data systems, and state governments to 

establish new laws and regulations that allow for data sharing while protecting student 

confidentiality (Hernandez, 2012).

The policy literature further suggests that districts may use longitudinal data systems to inform 

teacher performance evaluation (Buenafe, 2011; Guernsey et al., 2014; Kauerz, 2009; Takanishi 

& Bogard, 2007; Takanishi & Kauerz, 2008). However, Guernsey and colleagues (2014) suggest 

that caution is warranted because many early childhood assessments are formative or diagnostic 

in nature and are not validated for use in teacher evaluation. Similarly, some observation tools 

used to evaluate teachers have not been validated for early childhood settings (Guernsey et al., 

2014). Thus, several states are field testing observation tools (Guernsey et al., 2014). To address 

concerns about prekindergarten teacher performance and student outcomes, some states and 

localities are also developing or refining their quality rating and improvement systems, which 

rate the quality of early learning programs on the basis of teacher qualifications; teacher-child 

ratios; class size; and, in some cases, measures of teacher-child interactions (Buenafe, 2011; 

Guernsey et al., 2014).
P–3 Alignment 16 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

The literature emphasizes the role of student data in P–3 instructional planning and 

professional development.

To support data-driven instructional planning in P–3, the theory and policy literature calls on 

administrators and principals to provide school-wide assessment data, as well as disaggregated 

data by student subgroups (defined by demographic group, classroom, and grade level) (Kauerz 

& Coffman, 2013). These data would allow teachers to monitor student progress and address 

achievement gaps (Kauerz & Coffman, 2013). For teachers to make efficient use of assessment 

data for curricular and instructional planning, policy authors suggest that teachers need 

professional development on the assessment instruments, as well as any data systems where 

assessment data are stored, and regular cross-grade planning time with other teachers (10 Action 

Steps, 2011; ABCs of Early Education, 2013; Kauerz & Coffman, 2013; Mead, 2009; National 

Association of Elementary School Principals, 2011; Lesaux, 2010).

Two qualitative studies document such systems. A descriptive study of a P–3 professional 

development initiative in Minnesota illustrates the role of student data in professional 

development and planning (Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, 2013). 

The Urban Education Institute at the University of Chicago designed and delivered Minnesota’s 

professional development initiative to improve early literacy instruction. As part of the program, 

coaches taught teachers to administer assessments and use assessment data to plan instruction. 

Coaches and teachers had access to individual students’ scores on specific subdomains of early 

literacy related to oral language and familiarity with print. Based on the assessment data, coaches 

taught P–3 professional development workshops on specific instructional strategies and 

recommended texts for guided reading groups. For this study, the researchers conducted 54 

interviews with districts and school administrators, teachers, and literacy coaches. Participants 

reported that the initiative led to improved communication among teachers of different grades 

and improved student performance. 

A second qualitative study, drawing on interviews and document review, recounts early 

childhood teachers’ efforts at two P–3 pilot sites in Hawaii to assemble student data in the form 

of student portfolios, with information on children’s families and samples of their work to 

document learning and development (Center for the Study of Education Policy, 2012). These 

student portfolios were shared with kindergarten teachers to inform instructional planning and 

ease children’s transitions into elementary school.

Administrative Leadership

Several policy articles and qualitative studies suggest that school district administrators can 

support the implementation of P−3 initiatives through the management practices they put in 

place. Specific leadership considerations include the following: (1) involving early childhood 

education providers and K–3 teachers in planning P–3 initiatives, (2) implementing the planned 

elements of P–3 initiatives with fidelity, (3) specifying measurable student achievement 

benchmarks, and (4) holding principals and teachers accountable for achieving benchmarks. Two 

study authors also link similar principal management practices to implementation of P–3

initiatives.
P–3 Alignment 17 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

District administrators involve early childhood education providers and K–12 teachers in 

the planning of P–3 initiatives to obtain input and encourage buy-in for the initiative by 

both sets of educators.

The policy literature stresses administrators’ roles in building cross-sector collaboration and 

fostering teacher involvement to implement P–3 efforts (10 Action Steps, 2011; Kauerz, 2009; 

Kauerz & Coffman, 2013; National Association of Elementary School Principals, 2011). One 

qualitative study highlighted that the superintendent of Red Bank, New Jersey, worked with a 

committee of teachers to develop a strategic plan for the district’s early grades (Marietta & 

Marietta, 2013b). When teachers and administrators expressed reservations about overhauling 

the district’s approach to curriculum, instruction, and assessment in the P–3 grades, the 

superintendent arranged a site visit and several meetings with another district that had already 

adopted a similar approach. As a result of these meetings, the majority of teachers and 

administrators agreed the changes would be beneficial. Another case study describes an 

experience in Union City, New Jersey, where the district administrator gave teachers the 

authority to write the district’s P–12 curriculum and align it across grades. Teachers update the 

curriculum annually during a summer planning process, which includes cross-grade meetings 

(Marietta & Marietta, 2013a).

District administrators maintain high standards for P–3 initiatives by holding principals 

and teachers accountable for implementing the planned elements of the P–3 initiative. 

In Union City, New Jersey, and Montgomery County, Maryland, administrators from the central 

office conducted regular classroom visits to P–3 classrooms to observe instructional practices 

and ensure that teachers were implementing the planned curriculum (Marietta & Marietta, 2013a; 

Marietta, 2010a). In Montgomery County, prekindergarten and kindergarten teachers were 

expected to make their instructional plans and summaries of student performance data available 

for principal review during classroom observations (Marietta, 2010). Administrative guidelines 

in Union City directed principals to conduct daily walk-throughs to guide instructional planning 

and future professional development (Marietta & Marietta, 2013a). In addition, when Union City 

first adopted the P–3 approach, master teachers conducted walk-throughs to check that teachers 

had implemented the district’s plan to arrange kindergarten classrooms into learning centers that 

are similar to those of a preschool classroom (Marietta & Marietta, 2013a).

District administrators set high expectations for P–3 initiatives when they establish specific 

student achievement benchmarks and gather data to measure progress toward the 

benchmarks. 

The policy literature suggests that student achievement benchmarks are needed in order to assess 

the results of P–3 initiatives (Guernsey et al., 2014; Kauerz, 2009). Because the results of early 

education are not assessed in the same manner as the later elementary grades and beyond, district 

administrators must play a leadership role in setting student achievement benchmarks for the P–3

grade range (Kauerz, 2009; The Pre-K Coalition, 2011b). The establishment of student 

achievement benchmarks also helps principals focus on the P–3 grades rather than focusing more 

exclusively on the later grades where standardized testing occurs (Guernsey et al., 2014). One 

qualitative study described Montgomery County, Maryland, where the superintendent sought to 

ensure that students were reading proficiently by third grade and 80 percent of high school 
P–3 Alignment 18 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

students met college readiness benchmarks (Marietta, 2010a). The district implemented a 

professional development system for all P–12 teachers, regular formative assessments to track 

student progress, and teacher accountability measures. Students were assessed using Maryland’s

kindergarten readiness assessment, a district-created early literacy assessment, and multiple 

measures for mathematics to inform instructional planning and track student progress (Marietta, 

2010a, 2010b). The district established an Office of School Performance, which administered a 

peer assistance review program for the district’s P–12 teachers. Through this program, consulting 

teachers advised new teachers and struggling veteran teachers on classroom practice. At the end 

of the year, consulting teachers made employment recommendations to an oversight panel 

governed by district and union representatives.

The literature emphasizes the importance of principal leadership in implementation of P–3

initiatives.

For example, a case study of Union City, New Jersey, documents district administrators’ 

expectation that principals will implement and monitor components of the P–3 initiative 

(Marietta & Marietta, 2013a). The district central office provides principals with guidance 

describing their responsibility for distributing assessment data to teachers for cross-grade 

instructional planning, conducting daily classroom visits to observe instruction, and organizing 

regular cross-grade teacher planning meetings (Marietta & Marietta, 2013a). District 

administrators conduct school-wide assessment team visits to observe all classrooms within 

schools and hold in-person meetings with principals to discuss the results of classroom 

observations and assessments. Principals, in turn, develop specific plans to improve instruction 

in areas where student learning is weak, typically using additional teacher supports, such as 

master teachers. In addition to placing emphasis on the importance of principal leadership 

(Black, 2008; Bogard, 2006; Bogard & Takanishi, 2005; Howard, 2008; Brown & Bogard, 2007; 

Takanishi & Kauerz, 2008), the policy literature also suggests that training in early childhood 

education is important preparation that equips administrators and principals to lead the 

development of a coordinated P–3 system within their building or district (Advocates for 

Children of New Jersey, 2010; Donovan, 2010; Guernsey et al., 2014; NALEO Education 

Leadership Initiative, 2008; Rice, 2007).

Challenges

According to the policy literature, the following challenges must be addressed if P–3 initiatives 

are to be more widely implemented: (1) policies that inhibit the blending of federal, state, and 

local sources of funding to support P−3 initiatives; (2) instability of preschool funding; (3) 

resistance by practitioners to integration of preschool and the K–3 grades; and (4) the 

organization of elementary education classrooms, buildings, and enrollment.

The lack of a unified and stable funding stream is a barrier to the creation of sustainable, 

unified P–3 systems.

Four of the qualitative studies document challenges to blending funding at the district level 

(Marietta & Marietta, 2013a, Jacobson et al., 2012; Marietta, 2010a; Nyhan, 2011). One case 

study describes Montgomery County, Maryland, which funded preschool using Head Start, Title 

I, and other local funds set aside through collaboration with the Montgomery County Department 
P–3 Alignment 19 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

of Health and Human Services, County Council, and County Executive (Marietta, 2010a). The 

funding sources supporting specific preschool slots varied with children’s family income levels. 

Head Start funding supported slots for the lowest income children. Children at the higher end of 

the income spectrum were able to participate because their teachers were high school students in 

an early education internship program.

Seattle’s preschool program relied on funding and technical assistance from three different 

philanthropic foundations (Nyhan, 2011). According to the author, goals across organizations 

sometimes differed. For example, one foundation objected when the district housed a program 

for children with social-emotional needs in a P–3 school because the foundation wanted to build 

a model school. Seattle’s experience demonstrates that it can be difficult to fulfill the 

requirements and desires of multiple funders. 

The theory and policy literature further describes the funding challenges facing P–3 initiatives. 

Separate federal funding streams for preschool and elementary school have prevented easy 

utilization and combination of funds for P–3 efforts (e.g., Advocates for Children of New Jersey, 

2010; Gates Foundation, 2011; Jacobson, 2009). In addition, states have varying policies and 

practices regarding the funding and availability of preschool (Halpern, 2013; NALEO Education 

Leadership Initiative, 2008; Takanishi & Bogard, 2007; Takanishi & Kauerz, 2008), and some 

states and districts have turned to funding preschool through private monies or efforts, such as 

tax levies (Garland, 2011; Maeroff, 2003; Mead, 2009; NALEO Education Leadership Initiative, 

2008). These funding streams have varying standards and regulations, which complicate efforts 

to unite preschool and elementary school (Advocates for Children of New Jersey, 2010; 

Jacobson, 2009; Rice, 2007; Kagan & Kauerz, 2010; Maeroff, 2003; Kauerz & Coffman, 2013; 

NALEO Education Leadership Initiative, 2008; National Association of Elementary School 

Principals, 2011). To remedy these barriers, the policy literature calls on government to enable 

more seamless coordination and blending of federal and state funding streams for early 

childhood education services (10 Action Steps, 2011; King, 2006; The Pre-K Coalition, 2011a;

National Association of Elementary School Principals, 2011).

One qualitative study describes two case studies that illustrate the impact of unstable preschool 

funding on school districts that attempted to operate P–3 programs with discretionary funding 

(Jacobson et al., 2012). The school district in Evansville, Indiana, had operated a preschool

program for 13 years with Even Start funding. When Congress cut funding for Even Start in 

2011, the district could no longer maintain the preschool program and the children served were 

forced to enroll in other Head Start and early education programs outside of the school system

and the P–3 initiative. Another district in Cincinnati, Ohio, had relied on Ohio’s Early Learning 

Initiative—a state funding stream for early education supported by Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families—to fund preschool but found that it could no longer effectively operate the 

program when the state made substantial funding cuts. 

K–3 administrators, teachers, and early childhood providers may resist the idea of 

combining or aligning preschool with grades K–3 because there is a perception of 

significant philosophical differences between early childhood and elementary grade 

teachers.
P–3 Alignment 20 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

As noted earlier, while early childhood curricula generally emphasize children’s development in a 

variety of domains, some stakeholders believe that curricula in the later grades only emphasize the 

acquisition of academic content knowledge (New, Palsha, & Ritchie, 2009). Takanishi (2010) 

asserts that prekindergarten educators must shift their perspective to be more inclusive of a focus 

on early academic skills and avoid portraying K–3 education as a “skill-and-drill” experience that 

focuses only on content knowledge. K–3 educators can adopt a whole-child philosophy similar to 

early childhood teachers, and early childhood teachers can include developmentally appropriate 

coverage of content such as mathematics and science (Jacobson et al., 2012; Takanishi, 2010). 

The organization of elementary education classrooms, buildings, and enrollment also can 

be a challenge to creating P–3 models.

One qualitative study describes an example in which kindergarten teachers, who objected to 

Union City, New Jersey’s decision to rearrange their classrooms into learning centers, involved 

the local teachers union in their dispute (Marietta & Marietta, 2013a). A second study highlights 

two districts in Hawaii—Nanakuli-Wai’anae and Farrington—that arranged for preschool 

teachers to share portfolios of children’s work with their future kindergarten teachers. The 

districts learned that some kindergarten teachers had not received the portfolios because 

principals and other school staff did not know the purpose of the portfolios or who was to receive 

them (Center for the Study of Educational Policy, 2012). Finally, a third qualitative study 

describes difficulty in building connections across preschool and K–3 in a school that hosted 

Head Start programs because children left to attend kindergarten in other elementary schools 

(Jacobson et al., 2012).

Conclusion

When implemented as intended, P–3 alignment policy or practices should provide a coherent 

educational experience as a student progresses from preschool through elementary school (e.g., 

Halpern, 2013). This could potentially sustain the benefits of preschool (Kauerz & Coffman, 

2013). Extant literature, including 49 policy and theory articles, nine qualitative studies, two

quantitative studies, and one mixed-methods study, recommends alignment of standards, 

curriculum, instruction, assessments, and environments across preschool and grades K–3. 

Authors suggest that establishing similar teacher education and training requirements, and 

equivalent compensation across preschool and elementary education job positions, would 

support P–3 alignment. The literature also indicates that creating longitudinal student data 

systems that integrate prekindergarten with K–12 data, providing P–3 teacher professional 

development on data use, and offering cross-grade planning time would support the use of 

student assessment data in P–3 instructional planning. In addition, district administrators and 

principals can support the implementation of P−3 initiatives by involving teachers in the 

planning process, ensuring fidelity of implementation, measuring student achievement 

benchmarks, and holding administrators and teaching staff accountable. Within the literature, 

some authors point out challenges to P–3 alignment implementation; these include policies that 

inhibit the blending of funds, instability of preschool funding, and resistance among practitioners 

to integration of preschool and the K–3 grades.
Differentiated Instruction 21 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

III. Differentiated Instruction

Rationale

Differentiated instruction is a way to meet students’ diverse needs (Parsons, Dodman, & 

Burrowbridge, 2013) by having teachers deliver instruction through multiple modes or at 

multiple levels (Lawrence-Brown, 2004). As Tomlinson and colleagues (2003) explain, 

differentiated instruction, or “academically responsive instruction,” aims to ensure that all 

students in a classroom have equal access to quality instruction, despite their varying levels of 

skills, motivation, interests, or their heterogeneous economic, cultural, and linguistic 

backgrounds. Differentiation requires that teachers carefully plan instruction to account for the 

variation of learners in their class (Tomlinson, 1999) and make adaptations to meet student needs 

(Parsons, 2012; Parsons et al., 2013). In a differentiated instruction delivery model, there are 

various ways to be responsive to the needs of individuals or groups of students—sometimes 

referred to as individualization of content, process, or product of instruction (Anderson, 2007; 

Parsons et al., 2013; Stanford & Reeves, 2009; Tomlinson et al., 2003). For example, teachers 

could use varying instructional practices or strategies with students, change the content to be 

more complex or simplified for particular students, adapt or modify curricular resources or 

materials, or change the procedures for student evaluation (e.g., Brimijoin, 2005; Tomlinson et 

al., 2003). 

One explanation for why preschool effects diminish in early elementary school is that children 

who make early gains in preschool may not have the opportunity to maintain their rate of 

learning because early elementary instruction is oriented to students with the lowest level skills 

and therefore does not capitalize on the skills that some students have upon school entry (Kauerz, 

2006). As students make the transition to elementary school, it appears to be important that the 

content and instruction they encounter is challenging enough. Using the Early Childhood 

Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K) teacher survey and child achievement data, 

Claessens et al. (2013) analyzed the relationship between content coverage and end-ofkindergarten reading and mathematics achievement. The study was not focused on 

differentiation, but researchers found that when kindergarteners, whether they attended preschool 

or not, have more exposure to advanced content and less exposure to basic content, there are 

larger achievement gains. However, exposure to basic content is much more frequent.

In practice, differentiation and providing more challenging instruction for some students may be 

difficult for teachers. Survey and observational data have shown that teachers generally make 

few adjustments to instructional and curricular practice to address the needs of advanced learners 

in a regular classroom (e.g., Archambault et al., 1993; Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & 

Salvin, 1993).
Differentiated Instruction 22 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Literature Search and Screening

After the screening and coding process, the review included 21 studies: 17 quantitative studies

and four qualitative studies (see Exhibit 3).

Exhibit 3.

Literature Search Results for Differentiated Instruction Topic

Literature Search Results Number of Articles

Total from database search 506

Total after initial screening 71

Total after full text screen, removing studies that only focus on a low-achievement group 68

Total after coding 21

a

Of 21 studies coded for methods and outcomes:

Quantitative:

Descriptive 1

Quasi-experimental 6

Randomized controlled trial 7

Single-group pre-test/post-test 3

Qualitative 4

TOTAL 21

Exhibit reads: The initial total number of articles from the differentiated instruction literature search equaled 506. The number 

dropped to 71 articles after an initial screening phase and to 68 articles after another screening that removed studies that only 

focused on a low-achievement group. There were 21 studies that passed the coding phase. Of these, four studies were qualitative in 

nature. There were 17 quantitative studies. Of these, one used a descriptive approach, six used a quasi-experimental approach, 

seven used a randomized controlled trial, and three were a single-group pre-test/post-test design.

a Studies failed during the coding phase if, for example, the research team discovered during a more detailed reading that the study 

did not use an approach consistent with our definition of differentiated instruction or if the study sample did not meet criteria.

Thirteen studies used RCT or QED designs and were eligible for the full evidence of 

effectiveness review. Four quantitative studies used other designs that were not eligible for the 

full review, although coders still captured descriptive information about these studies using the 

additional characteristics and structured abstract sections of the coding guide. These four studies 

are included in the following findings, but with less confidence in the attribution of effects to the 

intervention. Further information on the quantitative analyses for the 13 studies eligible for 

evidence of effectiveness review can be found in Appendix E.

Four studies used qualitative designs and were not eligible for the full review. Reviewers 

captured research design and findings information on these studies using the additional 

characteristics and structured abstract sections of the coding guide. These studies focused on 

processes and strategies for implementing differentiated instruction for mathematics instruction 

and on researcher perceptions of factors that facilitate or hinder implementation. These studies 

are described in this report to provide additional insight into differentiated instruction 

implementation. 
Differentiated Instruction 23 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Findings

A total of 21 studies met screening criteria for inclusion in this review, including 17 quantitative 

studies and four qualitative studies. Of the 17 quantitative studies, seven used RCTs, six used 

QEDs , and four used other non-rigorous designs (i.e., descriptive and single-group pre-test/posttest designs) to examine the effects of differentiated instruction on achievement for students in 

kindergarten or grade 1. However, most of these studies have methodological issues that 

diminish the level of confidence in the study to demonstrate causal evidence of effectiveness.

The studies included in this review examined a variety of content areas. Most of the studies (14) 

that met screening criteria for topic relevance focused on reading instruction (seven RCTs, five 

QEDs, and two quantitative studies with other designs). Three studies (one QED and two singlegroup pre-test/post-test studies) evaluated the impact of differentiated instruction on writing 

outcomes. Four qualitative studies examined implementation of differentiated instruction in 

mathematics.

In the studies reviewed for this report, differentiated instruction practices and programs were 

offered as individualized or group instruction. In individual, child-level differentiation, teachers 

differentiated instruction based on an individual student’s specific needs. Instruction may have 

occurred individually, in a small-group setting, or in a whole-classroom setting, but the lesson 

planning aimed to address individual student needs rather than the needs of a group. In 

differentiation for groups of children, researchers divided students into small groups of children 

who were similar along a specific dimension and differentiated instruction was based on the 

perceived overall needs of the group.

Individualized Differentiated Instruction on Reading

The intervention package, Individualized Student Instruction with Assessment to 

Instruction, demonstrated positive effects on reading outcomes in six RCTs. One substudy 

in one of the RCTs has potential to meet WWC research standards for strong casual 

evidence.

The intervention package examined by these six studies contains two main components—

Individualized Student Instruction (ISI) and Assessment to Instruction (A2i). These tools provide 

training and professional development to teachers on how to individualize literacy instruction in 

the classroom using the recommendations and planning strategies provided by A2i Web-based 

software. ISI and A2i aim to improve a teacher’s ability to differentiate reading instruction based 

on individual students’ needs. The A2i software uses students’ literacy outcome scores on the 

Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (Letter-Word Identification and Picture 

Vocabulary subtests) to develop strategies that teachers then use to differentiate instruction in the 

classroom. The A2i software also uses the scores to divide students into smaller groups based on 

their skills and needs. In this way, small-group instruction also can be used in the classroom 

based on ongoing student achievement information. A description of the body of research on the 

ISI and A2i bundled intervention follows.

Connor and colleagues have produced five reports on studies that used an RCT design. Based on 

a review of the published articles, the authors have produced four of these five reports based on 
Differentiated Instruction 24 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

the same RCT sample of 10 Florida schools in grades 1–3 (Al Otaiba et al., 2011; Connor, 

Morrison, Fishman, Schatschneider, & Underwood, 2007; Connor et al., 2009; Connor et al., 

2010) and one report based on an independent randomization of a different sample of teachers in 

grades 1–3 in north Florida (Connor et al., 2013). All five studies have methodological issues 

that are discussed later in this section. Hence, most of the findings described below should be 

interpreted with caution.

The goal of Connor, Morrison, Fishman, Schatschneider, and Underwood (2007) was to assess 

whether Individualized Reading Instruction (using A2i)4had an effect on students’ reading 

achievement relative to other types of small-group reading instruction. To answer this question, 

the researchers randomly assigned schools to either an intervention condition or a control 

condition. All teachers were expected to dedicate time for a daily 90-minute reading block. In the 

intervention condition, teachers received training on planning and implementing Individualized 

Reading Instruction using A2i. In the control condition, teachers were expected to use small 

groups as suggested by school policies. The outcome measure used was a test of students’ 

language and literacy skills, the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. The findings 

showed that the intervention group achieved stronger reading growth relative to students in the 

control group. Students in the intervention group exhibited reading growth that was an average 

of 2.63 points higher than the reading growth for students in the control group (see Exhibit E1).

The authors did not report effect sizes, standard deviations, or sample sizes by group.5

Connor and colleagues (2009) investigated the implementation of the ISI intervention to 

determine if teachers who received the intervention individualized instruction closer to the A2i

recommendations than comparison group teachers. The study also investigated whether 

intervention students had greater reading growth than comparison students across different levels 

of precision between observed instruction and A2i-recommended instruction. In this study, 10

schools were randomly assigned to either the intervention condition, where schools received 

training on how to individualize literacy instruction using A2i, or the control condition, where 

schools were put on a waitlist to receive the training the following year. The district required all 

of the schools in the study to provide a two-hour language instruction block, with 45 minutes 

devoted to small-group instruction. Authors measured reading outcomes using the WoodcockJohnson's Letter Word Identification, Passage Comprehension, and Picture Vocabulary subtests.

The authors reported that intervention teachers individualized instruction closer to the A2i

recommendations than comparison teachers. The authors also reported that when students spent 

more time engaging in teacher/child-managed, meaning-focused instruction, both their passage 

comprehension skill growth and their letter word reading growth were greater. However, the 

authors did not find statistically significant effects on reading outcomes when testing the 

interaction between the treatment condition and the precision with which the observed 

instruction matched the A2i-recommended instruction (see Exhibit E2).

 

4 Between 2007 and 2009, the researchers changed from using the term Individualized Reading Instruction to the 

term Individualized Student Instruction (ISI). The intervention appears to be the same but with a different label.

5 The review of this study only relied on information reported in the published article. 
Differentiated Instruction 25 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Connor and colleagues (2010) continued their investigation of the ISI intervention with the goal 

of investigating whether ISI use in classrooms contributed to growth in student self-regulation, as 

measured by the Head Toes Knees Shoulders (HTKS) task. The findings showed no main effect 

of the intervention on self-regulation growth; there was no significant effect on their HTKS score 

gains from fall to spring, controlling for initial fall literacy scores. However, the authors did find 

that the average difference in self-regulation between the intervention and comparison groups 

increased as the classroom teachers’ use of A2i increased. In other words, there was an 

interaction between amount of A2i use and student self-regulation outcomes. Overall, the authors 

concluded that self-regulation may be malleable during the early years of school and that 

focusing on the classroom environment in ways that increase self-regulation may be helpful for 

student success and academic achievement (see Exhibits E3 and E4). 

Connor and colleagues conducted another school-level RCT on ISI and A2i in 2011. The goal of 

this study was to determine if there were interactions between child characteristics and 

instruction type that caused outcome variation. The study asked two student-level research 

questions. The first question evaluated the main effect of individualizing literacy instruction 

using A2i recommendations compared to “business-as-usual” literacy instruction. The second 

question investigated the difference in impact for children with different background 

characteristics. In particular, the authors measured differences based on reading skills, school 

socioeconomic status, and special education status. The measure used for language and literacy 

skills was the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Intervention students demonstrated 

greater and statistically significant gains in Letter Word Identification subtest scores than did 

students in the control condition. The authors also found that the intervention may be less

effective for students receiving special education. Finally, the authors found that there was a 

greater impact on scores for students with lower pre-intervention scores (students at the 25th

percentile) than for students with higher pre-intervention scores (students at the 75th percentile; 

(see Exhibit E5).

Al Otaiba and colleagues (2011) investigated the ISI intervention in a kindergarten sample (ISI-K).

The authors aimed to determine the effect of ISI and A2i on kindergarten students’ reading 

scores. For the kindergarten outcomes, the authors measured reading scores using the following 

measures: Woodcock-Johnson III Letter Word Identification, Woodcock-Johnson III Word 

Attack, AIMSweb’s Letter Sound Fluency, Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills

(DIBELS) Phoneme Segmenting Fluency (to measure phonemic awareness), and DIBELS 

Nonsense Word Fluency (to measure phonics and decoding). The intervention and comparison 

classrooms had a common professional development program from the Florida Progress 

Monitoring and Reporting Network, which included a daylong workshop on response to 

intervention and individualized instruction, training on material and games, and interpreting 

student data. The intervention group also received training and ongoing professional 

development on using the A2i software. The authors reported a large overall positive effect on 

literacy outcomes (see Exhibits E6 through E9) and stated that individualizing instruction can 

lead to stronger student literacy outcomes at the end of kindergarten within a diverse group of 

students.

Because Connor et al. (2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011) and Al Otaiba et al. (2011) used RCT 

designs for these studies, the literature review research team reviewed them for evidence of 

effectiveness, which revealed some methodological issues. In all five studies, the authors did not 
Differentiated Instruction 26 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

report the level of attrition (i.e., the percentage of students in the sample who were missing a 

value for the outcome). If this percentage was high, it may put into question the similarity

between groups created by random assignment prior to the delivery of differentiated instruction.

In Connor et al. (2007 and 2009) and Al Otaiba et al. (2011), the authors did not report enough 

baseline data (sample sizes, means, and standard deviations) to show whether the two groups 

were equivalent prior to the intervention. The analytic sample for the Connor et al. 2010 study 

was found to be unequal on academic measures prior to the intervention. These differences 

between the groups prior to the delivery of differentiated instruction may serve as an alternative 

explanation to differentiated instruction for the differences between groups on the outcome. 

Finally, the authors did not report sample sizes for the fall and spring assessment data in the 

Connor et al. 2011 study, making it impossible to determine whether the baseline data presented 

in the study represent the analytic sample. For these reasons, the reported estimates for these five 

studies should be interpreted with caution.

In 2013, Connor and colleagues examined the ISI and A2i intervention once again, with four 

purposes: (1) to determine whether previous single-grade studies and the algorithms used by the 

A2i software to make differentiated instruction recommendations could be replicated; (2) to 

investigate if the effect of ISI accumulates as students receive more years of the intervention; 

(3) to investigate if ISI has a larger effect on grade 3 student outcomes than for grade 1 or 2; and 

(4) to investigate if ISI can affect students who have previously received less effective literacy 

instruction (see Exhibits E10 through E13 for specific data). This study used multiple study 

designs, and the literature review team considered results from different designs separately.

First, there was a longitudinal design, which followed students from grades 1–3. The measures 

used for this portion of the study were the Letter-Word Identification and Passage 

Comprehension subtests from the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. The authors 

found that students who spent more time in intervention classrooms made larger gains on a 

standardized reading measure than comparison students. For this analysis, the authors created 

factor scores using Letter-Word Identification and Passage Comprehension subtest scores from 

the Woodcock-Johnson III. This portion of the study was reviewed as a QED because the 

students were not assigned randomly to the intervention and comparison conditions. Because the 

study did not clearly report baseline data, it was impossible to determine whether the groups 

were equivalent at baseline and therefore whether the intervention was responsible for the effects 

found. Author-reported findings should therefore be interpreted with caution.

Second, Connor et al. (2013) used a within-grade design for first-grade, second-grade, and thirdgrade effects. This design also used the Letter-Word Identification and Passage Comprehension 

subtests from the Woodcock-Johnson III. Authors followed a group of students from first grade 

to third grade and randomly assigned teachers to conditions at the start of each grade. The

authors found that first-grade, second-grade, and third-grade students in the intervention 

condition scored significantly higher than their control condition counterparts in Letter-Word 

Identification and Passage Comprehension. Authors generated these results from well-designed 

cluster RCTs with low attrition, and the researchers accounted for the clustering of students 

within schools. Findings for the within-grade portion of the 2013 study can therefore be 

confidently attributed to the ISI and A2i bundled intervention. This design has the potential to 

meet WWC standards for strong casual evidence.
Differentiated Instruction 27 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Small-Group Differentiated Instruction on Reading

One RCT study compared the strategy of grouping students by learning style preferences 

(i.e., visual, auditory, tactile, or kinesthetic) with the strategy of grouping students by preintervention reading achievement. There were no discernible effects between the two

strategies. 

Eastman (2010) conducted a student-level RCT with the goal of investigating reading instruction 

utilizing learning style preferences of first-grade students. Eastman defined learning style 

preferences as the ways in which learners prefer to approach learning tasks according to four 

categories: visual, auditory, tactile, or kinesthetic. She viewed the strategy of grouping students 

based on these preferences as a means to minimize the potential stigma of being in a “lowability” group while still capitalizing on homogeneous small-group instruction. The intervention 

was conducted as an afterschool program for a group of 45 students in a Midwestern school. 

Intervention students were placed into groups based on these learning styles and provided with 

afterschool reading instruction, customized to their learning style. Comparison students were 

placed into groups based on reading level and received afterschool reading instruction not based 

on learning style. Achievement was measured using running record reading assessments to 

provide a total number of reading errors. With this assessment, students read a passage while 

teachers record miscues and errors in order to give insight into the students’ reading strategies. 

The author reported that small-group reading instruction based on learning style had no 

discernable effect on reading achievement relative to small-group reading instruction based on 

reading level (see Exhibit E29). The literature review research team reviewed the RCT for 

evidence of effectiveness, during which a methodological issue was uncovered. The outcome 

was not a standardized test and therefore does not have established reliability or validity; the 

authors did not provide additional evidence related to reliability and validity. Therefore, findings 

should be interpreted with caution. 

In three studies (two QEDS and one pre-test/post-test design), the instructional approaches 

placed students in homogeneous groups based on their reading achievement. Authors 

reported mixed effects of differentiated instruction for reading outcomes, analyzing

students with higher and lower initial skills together. 

In a study of differentiated instruction, Neel (2006) sought to assess the impact of small-group 

differentiated instruction on reading outcomes. In a QED, the author assigned students to small 

groups based on prior academic achievement and performance. In the intervention condition, grade 

1 teachers provided one hour of supplemental small-group instruction to students on literacy 

comprehension, written composition, and word study and language. Grade 1 teachers in the 

comparison condition provided whole-class instruction on the same topics as usual, without 

students being placed into small groups based on achievement. The author measured outcomes 

using the Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI) and the Developmental Reading Assessment 

(DRA). Neel (2006) found that the percentage of students who developed the ability to detect final 

sounds as measured by the TPRI at post-test was higher among intervention students (93 percent) 

than comparison students (82 percent). No other subscales of the TPRI yielded statistically 

significant results. There also was no statistically significant impact of the intervention on DRA 

student scores (see Exhibits E14 through E18). Neel concluded that, overall, contextually modified, 

developmentally appropriate literacy instruction in small groups did not produce statistically 

significant and higher achievement relative to the comparison condition. 
Differentiated Instruction 28 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Because Neel (2006) used a QED design, the research team reviewed the study for evidence of 

effectiveness, during which some methodological issues were uncovered. The author did not 

report the analytic sample’s baseline data (sample sizes, means, and standard deviations) for

testing whether the two groups were equivalent along these dimensions prior to the intervention. 

Instead, the authors provided baseline data for a different sample. Furthermore, all of the 

intervention students came from a single school and all comparison students came from a 

different school. This represents a confounding variable that makes it impossible to disentangle 

any treatment effects from the effects of belonging to the treatment school. For these reasons, the 

study findings should be interpreted with caution.

The goal of the study by Saylor (2008) was to evaluate the effect of differentiated instruction 

delivered through small ability groups on emergent literacy skills, including phonological, 

phonemic, and phonic skills. To do this, Saylor used a QED with students non-randomly 

assigned to the intervention and comparison conditions. In her study, kindergarten students in the 

intervention condition were divided into groups based on their areas of academic need, as 

determined by their scores on one general measure—the Georgia Kindergarten Assessment 

Program-Revised (GKAP-R)—and two literacy measures—the DIBELS and Basic Literacy Test.

These instruments also served as the pre-test and post-test measures. For the intervention, 

teachers used differentiation strategies for literacy instruction for 60 minutes daily during 

language arts for three months. Comparison data came from the same three teachers’ classrooms

in the year before the intervention was implemented.

Saylor reported that the students in the intervention condition improved by an average of 13.49 

points on the DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) subscale, whereas the students in the 

comparison condition improved by an average of 6.0 points (see Exhibits E19 and E20). The 

difference was found to be statistically significant. There were no findings reported for the Initial 

Sound Fluency subscale of the DIBELS. The study had a methodological flaw in terms of 

standards for a well-designed QED; the use of a control group from a year prior to the treatment 

group year is considered methodologically inappropriate because time is a confounding factor 

that may have an effect on outcomes that cannot be eliminated by the study design. For this 

reason, the positive effect found for the LNF subscale of the DIBELS should be interpreted with 

caution.

In another study, Menzies, Mahdavi, and Lewis (2008) were interested in approaches to improve 

the reading performance of 42 grade 1 students from a small urban elementary school in southern 

California. The goal of the study was to assess whether student performance levels improved 

over time, and if improvement rates differed depending on students’ initial skill level. Authors 

assessed achievement using the following measures: the DRA Test of Early Reading Ability–

Revised (TERA-R), and DIBELS. Using a single-group pre-test/post-test design, they evaluated 

differentiated instructional practices by placing students into smaller groups according to their 

performance level (the authors labeled students as “at risk,” “typically performing,” and 

“proficient”). The first group (at risk) focused on phonemic awareness for students who 

struggled in this area. The second group (typically performing) emphasized decoding and 

fluency but did not include direct phonemic work. The third group (proficient) used guidedreading techniques that varied depending on the text. Teachers also received additional support 

through collaboration with other teachers and access to a literacy coach. 
Differentiated Instruction 29 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

The authors found that students’ post-test reading scores were higher and statistically significant 

compared with pre-test reading scores across all three groups. The authors also examined the 

scores for students in each of the groups separately; these findings are reported below in the

subsequent section. For the main effect, the authors concluded that students achieved positive 

reading gains from experiencing small-group differentiated instruction and that 90 percent of the 

sample was reading at grade level by the end of the year. The authors also observed that gains 

were substantial relative to previous school years. The literature review research team did not 

review Menzies, Mahdavi, and Lewis (2008) for evidence of effectiveness because it did not 

include a comparison group. Data are not presented in Appendix E due to the design of the study. 

Findings should be interpreted with caution as the substantial gains in student reading scores may 

or may not be due to the intervention. 

Three additional studies and one of the aforementioned studies analyzed ability grouping, 

examining results for students with different pre-intervention skills separately. Results 

from the three QED studies suggest that ability grouping can benefit students with higher 

initial reading skills, with less benefit to students with lower initial skills. One descriptive 

study suggests that students with medium- and lower-skill reading levels benefit, but 

students with higher initial skills do not.

A set of studies also tested the degree to which students in various achievement groups receive 

varying benefit from differentiated instruction. First, using data from the Early Childhood 

Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten (ECLS-K) data set and correlational analyses, Condron (2005, 

2008) evaluated the effectiveness of skill-based grouping and curriculum differentiation. The 

author compared the reading improvement of first- and third-grade students whose teachers used

skill-based grouping to differentiate instruction with students whose teachers did not use skillbased grouping. The ECLS-K sample used by Condron (2005) included 21,260 students who 

began kindergarten in the fall of 1998. Condron found that for this sample of students, lowability first-grade students taught in homogeneous groups experienced less gain on reading 

outcomes (letter recognition, beginning sounds, ending sounds, sight comprehension of words, 

and comprehension of words in context) than a comparison group of students who were not 

taught in a classroom using ability grouping. Using the same sample, Condron (2008) found that, 

by third grade, students placed in the low-skill groups still gained fewer reading skills than their 

non-grouped peers; however, first- and third-grade students placed in high-skill groups 

demonstrated greater reading gains as compared with their non-grouped peers (see Exhibits E21 

through E28). Because these studies used QED designs, they were reviewed for effectiveness. 

This review found that, in both studies, the author did not provide sufficient evidence that the 

groups were similar prior to the delivery of differentiated instruction. Without this evidence, it is 

difficult to determine whether the differences between groups on the outcome can be attributed 

to the intervention, pre-existing differences between the groups, or both. For this reason, the 

study findings should be interpreted with caution.

A study by Hong and colleagues (2012) also used the same sample of ECLS-K national data to 

investigate the impact of ability grouping on academic outcomes but did not include a nongrouped comparison condition. The authors’ goal was to challenge the belief that homogeneous 

ability groupings benefit high-ability students at the expense of low-ability students. The 

researchers explored the effect of homogeneous ability grouping (at various student performance 

levels) on three outcomes: (1) students’ literacy scores, (2) students’ approaches to learning, and 
Differentiated Instruction 30 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

(3) students’ internalizing behavior problems. These outcomes were measured using a 

kindergarten literacy assessment, which the study authors did not describe in depth. The authors 

reported that students at all three ability levels (low, medium, and high) demonstrated similar 

growth on their overall literacy score. Within subdomains, students at different initial 

performance levels improved on different skills. For example, within the subdomains of sight 

words and comprehension of words in text, high-ability students demonstrated greater growth 

relative to medium- and low-ability students. Within the subdomain of learning beginning 

sounds and ending sounds, medium-ability students demonstrated greater growth than high- and 

low-ability students. Within the learning letter recognition subdomain, low-ability students 

demonstrated the greatest growth. 

The authors also found that for the outcome of teacher reports of student approaches to learning, 

high-ability students performed the best, followed by medium-ability and then low-ability 

students. For the internalizing behavior problems outcome, the authors reported that low-ability 

students had the most internalizing problems, followed by medium- and then high-ability 

students. Data are not presented in Appendix E due to the design of the study (it did not include a 

comparison group). The study was not reviewed for evidence of effectiveness, and findings 

should be interpreted with caution.

As noted earlier, Menzies, Mahdavi, and Lewis (2008) also analyzed the effect of small-group 

differentiated instruction on students at different performance levels (low, typical, and 

proficient). The authors reported that students in the proficient group showed statistically 

significant growth from pre-test to post-test, as did the lowest performing group. However, the 

rate of growth for the lowest performing group of students was less than the typically performing 

group. The authors explained that this finding was likely due to their substantially lower pre-test 

scores. Again, because the authors’ study did not include a comparison group, the findings 

cannot be confidently attributed to the intervention, and data are not presented in Appendix E. 

Combining Individual and Small-Group Differentiated Instruction on Reading

One QED study found a greater percentage of growth in listening comprehension for 

students who received combined individual and small-group instruction relative to students 

who did not receive differentiated instruction. 

A QED by Arnold (2008) investigated whether the Certified Learning Kindergarten (CLK) 

intervention had an impact on the academic development of kindergarten students, as measured 

by the Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI). The CLK is an intervention that identifies a 

child’s learning deficits and then customizes the curriculum to address those deficits. The CLK 

utilizes three different modes of instruction: group-oriented instruction, independent workbook 

instruction, and individual computer instruction. The program has a software management 

system that helps assign a student’s daily schedule. By the end of the school year, student scores

in the intervention condition grew 41 percent on the TPRI screening section compared with 40

percent growth for students in the comparison condition. In the listening comprehension section

of the TPRI, CLK students showed 20 percent growth compared with 13 percent growth for 

comparison students (see Exhibit E30). The authors did not report statistical significance.
Differentiated Instruction 31 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Because this was a QED, the research team reviewed the study for evidence of effectiveness, 

during which some methodological issues were uncovered. Specifically, the review found that 

groups were nonequivalent on listening comprehension before the intervention, and because the 

screening section falls into the same domain as listening comprehension, both analyses are 

considered nonequivalent at baseline. This means that a large portion of the difference found at 

post-test may have been due to the differences found prior to the intervention. For these reasons, 

findings from this study should be interpreted with caution.

Writing Programs and Practices

Three studies (one QED and two single-group pre-test/post-test designs) suggest that some 

students may benefit from collaborative, interactive writing sessions or from specific 

writing tools or prompts.

Roth (2009) conducted a QED to examine whether Interactive Writing, a dynamic and unscripted 

approach to writing instruction for primary grades, could improve the independent writing of 

first-grade students who attended low-income, urban public schools. In Interactive Writing, 

teachers work collaboratively with a student one-on-one to create a writing passage. Because 

teachers focus on individual students, they can customize their work with students based on 

individual needs. The intervention group was compared with a business-as-usual group. Roth 

measured writing improvement using two outcome measures: the Writing Samples subtest of the 

Woodcock-Johnson III and a researcher-developed writing prompt rubric containing 10 

subscales. The writing prompt required students to respond to two prompts: (1) write and draw 

about something you do with your family and (2) write and draw a story about someone you 

know. 

Roth found that Interactive Writing was an efficient daily practice to improve the quality of 

students’ independent writing, although findings differed across the two measures used. Students 

in the Interactive Writing group outperformed students in the comparison group. Lower initial 

reading scores predicted greater gains in writing when assessed with the writing prompt; 

however, higher initial reading scores predicted greater gains in writing when assessed with the 

Writing Samples subtest (see Exhibit E31). Because the authors used a QED design, the research 

team reviewed the study for evidence of effectiveness, during which some methodological issues 

were uncovered. Although Roth tested for baseline equivalence between the groups, equivalence 

was not appropriately established for the outcome measure, making it impossible to conclude 

whether the impact was due to the intervention or to some other underlying difference between 

the two conditions. Therefore, all findings should be interpreted with caution.

Geisler and colleagues (2009) examined the effects of differentiating instruction for a group of 

five high-performing African-American students in a split first-/second-grade classroom. The 

authors described that the five students in the classroom are the only ones receiving the 

instructional strategies in order to build on their higher skills; in this way, those strategies 

represent differentiated instruction relative to the regular instruction that the remaining students 

in the classroom are receiving. However, the study did not collect data for a comparison group 

(e.g., a “business-as-usual” condition in which students did not receive the differentiated 

instruction). The two instructional strategies used with the high-achieving group were “selfcounting” and a “synonym list,” and were presented in a two-part intervention. Self-counting 

involved students counting the words they wrote in their writing samples after each writing 
Differentiated Instruction 32 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

session, assisted by the teacher or researcher, and recording the number of total words as well as 

the number of different words written during the first three minutes of the writing session. This 

strategy was designed to help students develop an awareness of their writing output in order to 

encourage them to write more. In the second part of the intervention, teachers added use of the 

synonym list, which involved giving the students a list of synonyms for words most commonly 

used in first-grade writing (e.g., “big” can be replaced by “large,” “huge,” “enormous,” “giant,” 

and “gigantic”) to encourage students to use more complex words in their writing. 

The authors found that, on average, the number of different words used increased from pre-test 

to post-test during the first part of the intervention (self-counting only). All five students also 

increased in their number of total words written during the first phase. During the second phase, 

the introduction of the synonym list, one student decreased in the number of total words and one 

student increased only slightly. The other three students increased more substantially in their 

total number of words. The authors used a final outcome measure, Generalization Probes, which 

involved students completing a writing task without explicit use of the two strategies. The 

authors found that all five students wrote a greater number of total words and a greater number 

of different words in each successive Generalization Probe. The authors suggest that the skills 

students learned during the intervention sessions were beginning to generalize to overall writing 

performance. There are multiple methodological issues with this study. Because of the extremely 

small sample size used in this study and the lack of a comparison group, it is impossible to 

confidently attribute the findings to the intervention; therefore, all findings should be interpreted 

with caution. Data are not presented in Appendix E.

In another single-group pre-test/post-test design study, Case-Smith and colleagues (2011)

examined the impact of Write Start, a handwriting intervention, on handwriting legibility as well 

as speed and writing fluency. This intervention used a co-teaching model in which occupational 

therapists and teachers collaborated to develop and implement Write Start, a 12-week classroomembedded intervention for first graders, with particular attention paid to individual students’

needs. The teaching staff, therefore, conducted differentiation at the individual level during each 

writing session. Handwriting legibility and speed were assessed using the Evaluation Tool of 

Children’s Handwriting–Manuscript and the Minnesota Handwriting Assessment. Writing 

performance was measured using the Writing Fluency and Writing Samples subtests from the 

Woodcock-Johnson III. 

During the 12-week period of the intervention, students’ legibility scores progressed from a 

mean of 62 percent to 87 percent. The score of 87 percent indicated that, on average, students 

achieved legible handwriting that an audience can read without effort. On the six-month followup, measurement legibility was maintained. The students also made improvements in 

handwriting speed; the average time required to write the alphabet decreased from greater than 3 

minutes to 1 1/2 minutes. Case-Smith et al. (2011) concluded that when Write Start is

implemented with high fidelity by trained occupational therapists and teachers, it can lead to 

significant gains in handwriting legibility, speed, and writing fluency. Because this study used a 

single-group pre-test/post-test design, the research team did not review it for evidence of 

effectiveness. Also, because the study did not have a comparison group, it is not possible to rule 

out alternative explanations for the observed gains on writing measures. Data are not presented 

in Appendix E.
Differentiated Instruction 33 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Differentiated Instruction Strategies in Qualitative Case Studies

In addition, four qualitative studies met criteria for the literature review. These studies focused 

almost entirely on processes and strategies for implementing differentiated instruction for 

mathematics instruction and on researcher perceptions (who, in two practitioner inquiry studies, 

were the teachers themselves) of factors that facilitate or hinder implementation. None of these 

studies reported student outcome data; therefore, the studies are used here to provide additional 

insight into differentiated instruction implementation rather than as evidence of effects. 

Opportunities for peer collaboration and guidance by mentors, such as coaches, may be 

helpful to improve teacher practice related to differentiation.

The four math studies focused on practices at the kindergarten (Bofferding, Kemmerle, & 

Murata, 2012; Ensign, 2012), first-grade (Holden, 2007), or combined first- and second-grade 

(Kobelin, 2009) level. In two of the studies, researchers and coaches facilitated differentiated 

instruction by bringing teachers together to collaborate and share practices. In the first study, 

Bofferding, Kemmerle, and Murata (2012) focused on three kindergarten teachers who engaged 

in a lesson study approach in which the teachers (a) met together to plan a lesson, (b) observed

each other’s teaching, and (c) reflected together on student learning. The study reported on 

approaches to teaching students particular math standards relating to students’ understanding of 

part-whole relations in combining numbers to make 10. The teachers met four times to consider 

their kindergarten students’ current level of thinking and to plan aspects of instruction that might 

need to be individualized or differentiated among students. Each teacher eventually taught the 

content, with the others observing, using instructional materials and strategies to allow students 

to access problems in different ways. Some students used concrete manipulatives to solve 

problems; others used an activity sheet that guided students to keep them on task by limiting 

their exploration of number concepts to only 10. Students who quickly found one solution to 

problems were challenged to find all solutions and to be more strategic in their approach. Study 

authors reported that the lesson study approach, which purports to develop teachers’ “researcher 

lens” on their own practice (Choksi & Fernandez, 2004, cited in Bofferding, Kemmerle, & 

Murata, 2012), was successful in helping teachers better understand and tailor instruction for 

individual student thinking.

Ensign (2012) reported on a single kindergarten teacher’s practices related to differentiation in 

the context of a district that funded school- and district-based math coaches as well as increased 

math professional development funding for coaches and teachers. Developing effective 

differentiated teaching strategies, and allowing teachers to observe colleagues who competently 

instruct at multiple levels, became a key component of the coaches’ work. The kindergarten 

teacher featured in the study developed a choice system to ensure that all students were actively 

engaged. Following a short whole-group lesson, students chose from an array of math games and 

activities that focused on various math standards. While students worked on their own and at 

their own level, the teacher focused on instructing individuals or small groups and conducted 

performance assessments. As part of the broader coaching and professional development 

initiative in the district, video of model teachers was used for professional development by 

coaches. The broader initiative allowed teachers release time to observe and debrief with model 

teachers and to attend intensive trainings on differentiation, as well as professional development 

hours to work with a coach to develop differentiation strategies in their own classrooms. 
Differentiated Instruction 34 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Teachers formed a book club to read and discuss strategies for differentiation. The authors 

conclude that coaches played a critical role in increasing and improving differentiated instruction 

for math.

In the other two math studies, the authors reported on trial-and-error attempts at implementing 

differentiated instruction in their own classrooms. In one study (Holden, 2007), the teacherresearcher implemented differentiated instruction in her own first-grade classroom by providing 

flexible math problems in which blanks can be filled in to adapt problems to varying levels of 

difficulty and using different math strategies. The teacher created a form to document the 

problems students solved and their strategies. The teacher reflected that the approach can be used

to better scaffold students, or to move students progressively toward stronger understanding, in 

their problem solving. According to the author, the approach helped record growth over time and 

organize small groups of students working at the same level. 

In another study (Kobelin, 2009), the teacher-researcher learned to implement differentiated 

approaches because there were varying skills in her mixed-age first- and second-grade 

classroom. As one method for differentiation, the teacher used open-ended tasks that have no 

single answer or method to determine an answer. Working independently or with the teacher or 

peers, students can be challenged to solve problems in more than one way and to find more 

complex solutions. As a second method, the teacher used student-paced, tiered tasks developed 

to address multiple, specific skill levels. In the last method, the teacher planned “spiralingscaffolded tasks” in which students at different levels or different grades address the same 

concept (e.g., time) but at varying levels of complexity and with different teacher modeling or 

coaching. Like the teacher in Ensign (2012), the teacher in Kobelin (2009) utilized a combination 

of short, whole-group lessons with subsequent instruction periods involving student choice and 

independence with math activities, especially for those who were more advanced. The teacherresearcher emphasized that math is very challenging to differentiate, that differentiation in math 

is less common compared with reading, and that publishers of math curricular materials do not 

generally provide plans and materials to facilitate differentiation; therefore, she needed to learn

effective differentiation practices through experimentation.

Conclusion

Overall, the findings from the 17 quantitative studies in the literature review suggest that 

differentiated instruction delivered individually or in small ability-based groups may have an 

impact on reading and writing outcomes for students in kindergarten and first grade. It is critical 

to note that, based on the information in the published studies, only one of the 17 studies from 

the quantitative study pool had the potential to meet evidence standards as a well-designed and 

well-implemented RCT (the within-grade, first-grade study published in Connor et al., 2013). 

This suggests that further research on differentiated instruction interventions for early elementary 

students would be strengthened by more rigorous RCTs and QEDs that are careful to establish 

baseline equivalence between the intervention and comparison groups and, for RCTs, are vigilant 

about reporting attrition data.

The four qualitative studies provide information about processes and strategies for stakeholders 

who may seek to implement differentiated instruction for mathematics, but these studies do not 

provide evidence of effects. The qualitative studies suggest that differentiated instruction may be 
Differentiated Instruction 35 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

difficult to implement and requires careful planning and reflection on the part of teachers. 

Opportunity and time for teachers to carefully plan, reflect, and collaborate with peers on 

differentiated instruction practice and to receive guidance by mentors, such as coaches, may be 

helpful to improve teacher practice related to differentiation. These implementation 

recommendations have not been empirically validated and therefore require further research.
Conclusion 36 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

IV. Conclusion

Reflecting the state of the research in the field, key findings for preschool and K–3 alignment 

focus on theoretical and policy considerations, while findings for differentiated instruction 

summarize the results of quantitative studies.

Summary of P–3 Alignment Findings

The overarching goal of P–3 alignment policy and practices is to provide a coherent educational 

experience for students as they progress from preschool through elementary school that could 

potentially sustain the positive effects of preschool. Findings from the literature—including (1) 

49 policy or theory resources; (2) nine qualitative studies, most of which used a case study approach;

(3) two quantitative studies; and (4) one mixed-methods study—reveal a widely held 

recommendation for alignment of standards, curriculum, instruction, assessments, and 

environments across preschool and grades K–3 as an approach for providing high-quality 

education to students in this grade range. Currently, there is very little extant research that 

empirically supports this recommendation, suggesting that outcomes of P–3 alignment initiatives

require further research.

The literature provides recommendations for stakeholders who seek to implement and design 

P−3 initiatives. These include the following:

 Consider establishing similar teacher education and training requirements across 

preschool and elementary education job positions.

 Create systems that educators can use to better tailor instruction to meet students’ 

needs. Such systems would link individual student data from public and private early 

childhood programs to students’ public school data. Support implementation of P−3 

initiatives through the management practices district administrators put in place.

Administrators should consider:

o Involving early childhood education providers and grade K–3 teachers in planning 

P–3 initiatives.

o Establishing procedures to ensure implementation fidelity of P–3 elements.

o Specifying measurable student achievement benchmarks.

o Holding principals and teachers accountable for achieving benchmarks.

 Consider and find solutions to challenges to P−3 initiatives, including: policies that

inhibit the blending of various sources of funding, instability of preschool funding, 

resistance by practitioners to integration of preschool and the K–3 grades, and the 

organization of elementary education classrooms, buildings, and enrollment.

These implementation recommendations also have not been empirically validated and therefore 

require further research.
Conclusion 37 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Summary of Differentiated Instruction Findings

Educators propose that differentiated instruction is a way to meet students’ diverse needs by 

having teachers deliver instruction through different means or customizing instruction for 

different performance levels so that all students have access to instruction that will address and 

match their various skills, motivation, interests, and/or backgrounds. In terms of sustaining the 

effects of preschool, authors suggest that differentiated instruction may be a way to maintain the 

growth rate or learning trajectory of children who make early gains in preschool as they enter 

elementary school (e.g., Kauerz, 2006; Tomlinson et al., 2003).

Overall, the findings from the 17 quantitative studies in the literature review suggest that 

differentiated instruction delivered individually or in small ability-based groups may have an 

impact on reading and writing outcomes for students in kindergarten and first grade.

Furthermore, the evidence suggests that potential effects may differ depending on the preintervention skills of the students, in particular for differentiated instruction delivered in small 

groups. The evidence shows mixed results—two studies suggest that ability grouping can benefit 

students with higher initial reading skills, with less benefit to students with lower initial skills. 

One study suggests that students with medium- and lower-skill reading levels benefit, but 

students with higher initial skills do not. It is critical to note that only one of the 17 studies from 

the quantitative study pool had the potential to meet WWC evidence standards as a welldesigned and well-implemented RCT (the within-grade, first-grade study published in Connor et 

al., 2013). This suggests that differentiated instruction interventions for early elementary students 

require further research that uses well-designed RCTs and QEDs. For example, RCTs should be 

careful to report sample sizes for attrition calculations and both RCTs with high attrition and 

QEDs should be careful to establish baseline equivalence between the intervention and 

comparison groups’ analysis sample.

The four qualitative studies provide information about processes and strategies for stakeholders 

who may seek to implement differentiated instruction for mathematics, but these studies do not 

provide evidence of effects. The set of very small qualitative studies suggest that differentiated 

instruction may be difficult to implement and requires careful planning and reflection on the part 

of teachers. Opportunity and time for teachers to carefully plan, reflect, and collaborate with 

peers on differentiated instruction practice and to receive guidance by mentors, such as coaches, 

may be helpful to improve teacher practice related to differentiation. These implementation 

recommendations have not been empirically validated and therefore require further research.
References 38 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

References

ABCs of early education: Listening, asking, sharing, engaging. (2013). American Teacher, 97(5), 

6–7. 

10 action steps. (2011). Principal, 91(2), 9. 

Advocates for Children of New Jersey. (2010). Linking learning: The PreK–3rd path to school 

success. Newark, NJ: Author. 

Al Otaiba, S., Connor, C. M., Folsom, J. S., Greulich, L., Meadows, J., & Li, Z. (2011). 

Assessment data-informed guidance to individualize kindergarten reading instruction: 

Findings from a cluster-randomized control field trial. Elementary School Journal, 111(4), 

535–560. 

Anderson, K. M., (2007). Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing School

Failure, 51(3), 49–54.

Andrews, R. J., Jargowsky, P., & Kuhne, K. (2012). The effects of Texas’s pre-kindergarten

program on academic performance (CALDER Working Paper No. 84). Washington, DC: 

National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data on Educational Research. 

Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Zhang, W., & Emmons, 

C. L. (1993). Classroom practices used with gifted third and fourth grade students. Journal 

for the Education of the Gifted, 16(2), 103–119.

Arnold, A. M. P. (2008). The influence of respecting the individual child's learning system on 

early academic development. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 89250452. 

Barnett, W. S. (2008). Preschool education and its lasting effects: Research and policy 

implications. Boulder, CO, & Tempe, AZ: Education and the Public Interest Center & 

Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/PB-BarnettEARLY-ED_FINAL.pdf

Bofferding, L., Kemmerle, M., & Murata, A. (2012). Making 10 my way. Teaching Children 

Mathematics, 19(3), 164–173. 

Bogard, K. L. (2006). Testing a P–3 approach to education in three urban public schools.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, A1589044. 

Bogard, K., & Takanishi, R. (2005). P–3: An aligned and coordinated approach to education for 

children 3 to 8 years old. Social Policy Report, 19(3), 1–23.
References 39 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Brett, J., Staniszewska, S., Newburn, M., Jones, N., & Taylor, L. (2011). A systematic mapping 

review of effective interventions for communicating with, supporting and providing 

information to parents of preterm infants. BMJ Open, 1, 1–11. Retrieved from 

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000023.full?sid=70e87115-3b80-4c26-8a42-

fe26c7a60928

Brimijoin, K. (2005). Differentiation and high-stakes testing: An oxymoron? Theory Into

Practice, 44(3), 254–261.

Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). Do you believe in magic? What we can expect from early childhood 

intervention programs. Social Policy Report, 17(1), 3–14.

Brown, B. V., & Bogard, K. (2007). Pre-kindergarten to 3rd grade (P–3) school-based resources 

and third grade outcomes. CrossCurrents, 5 (2007-27). Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Buenafe, A. Q. (2011). Pre-K as a school turnaround strategy. Washington, DC: Pew Center. 

Case-Smith, J., Holland, T., & Bishop, B. (2011). Effectiveness of an integrated handwriting 

program for first-grade students: A pilot study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 

65(6), 670–678. 

Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. (2013). Education & learning 

program: PreK–3 professional development. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,

College of Education & Human Development.

Center for the Study of Educational Policy. (2012). From birth to graduation and beyond: 

Aligning best practices in educational systems to improve learning outcomes. Normal, IL: 

Illinois State University. 

Claessens, A., Engel, M., & Curran, F. C. (2013). Academic content, student learning, and the 

persistence of preschool effects. American Educational Research Journal,

0002831213513634.

Clarke-Stewart, K. A., Vandell, D. L., Burchinal, M., O’Brien, M., & McCartney, K. (2002). Do 

regulable features of child-care homes affect children’s development? Early Childhood 

Research Quarterly, 17(1), 52–86.

Clements, M. A., Reynolds, A. J., & Hickey, E. (2004). Site-level predictors of children's school 

and social competence in the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Early Childhood Research 

Quarterly, 19, 273–296.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999a). The teacher research movement: A decade

later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999b). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher 

learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.
References 40 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Committee for Economic Development. (2012). Unfinished business: Continued investment in 

child care and early education is critical to business and America’s future. Washington, DC: 

Author. 

Condron, D. J. (2005). Stratification, skill grouping, and learning to read in first grade. ProQuest 

Dissertations and Theses, 305399562. 

Condron, D. J. (2008). An early start: Skill grouping and unequal reading gains in the elementary 

years. The Sociological Quarterly, 49, 363–394. 

Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Crowe, E. C., Al Otaiba, S. A., & Schatschneider, 

C. (2013). A longitudinal cluster-randomized controlled study on the accumulating effects of 

individualized literacy instruction on students’ reading from first through third grade.

Psychological Science, 24(8), 1408–1419. 

Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B. J., Schatschneider, C., & Underwood, P. (2007).

Algorithm-guided individualized reading instruction. Science, 315, 464–465.

Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Schatschneider, C., Toste, J. R., Lundblom, E., Crowe, E. C., & 

Fishman, B. (2011). Effective classroom instruction: Implications of child characteristics by 

reading instruction interactions on first graders’ word reading achievement. Journal of 

Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(3), 173–207. 

Connor, C. M., Piasta, S. B., Fishman, B., Glasney, S., Schatschneider, C., Crowe, E.,...Morrison, 

F. J. (2009). Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of child x instruction 

interactions on first graders’ literacy development. Child Development, 80(1), 77–100. 

Connor, C. M., Ponitz, C. C., Phillips, B. M., Travis, M. Q., Glasney, S., & Morrison, F. J. 

(2010). First graders’ literacy and self-regulation gains: The effect of individualizing student 

instruction. Journal of School Psychology, 48(5), 433–455.

Cooper, H. M. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (4th ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Demanchick, S. P., Peabody, M. A., & Johnson, D. B. (2009). Primary project: Fifty years of 

facilitating school adjustment. Blending play therapy with cognitive behavioral therapy: 

Evidence-based and other effective treatments and techniques (pp. 219–235). Hoboken, NJ: 

Wiley. 

Donovan, L. F. (2010). Linking learning: Building quality kindergarten in New Jersey. Newark, 

NJ: Advocates for Children of New Jersey. 

Eastman, V. L. (2010). Small group instruction: Reading instruction utilizing learning style 

preferences and the reading achievement of first grade students. ProQuest Dissertations and 

Theses, 305186345. 

Ensign, J. (2012). Teacher-initiated differentiation. Teaching Children Mathematics, 19(3), 158–

163. 
References 41 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

EPPI Centre. (2010). EPPI-Centre methods for conducting systematic reviews. Retrieved from 

http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=hQBu8y4uVwI%3D&tabid=88

Frede, E., Jung, K., Barnett, W. S., Lamy, C. E., & Figueras, A. (2007). The Abbott Preschool 

Program Longitudinal Effects Study (APPLES). New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for 

Early Education Research. 

Garland, S. (2011). Pre-K–grade 3 continuum gets sharper focus. Education Week, 30(22), 7–7. 

Gates Foundation. (2011). Early learning in Washington state. Seattle, WA: Author. 

Geisler, J. L., Hessler, T., Gardner, R., & Lovelace, T. S. (2009). Differentiated writing 

interventions for high-achieving urban African American elementary students. Journal of 

Advanced Academics, 20(2), 214–247. 

Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. C. (2012). Curriculum-based early literacy assessment and

differentiated instruction with high-risk preschoolers. Reading Psychology, 33(1–2), 11–46.

Gilliam, W. S., & Zigler, E. F. (2001). A critical meta-analysis of all evaluations of state-funded

preschool from 1977 to 1998: Implications for policy, service delivery and program 

evaluation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(4), 441–473.

Goldstein, L. S., & Bauml, M. (2012). Strategies and suggestions for pre-K-grade 3 teachers in 

public school contexts. Young Children, 67(3), 96–103. 

Gormley, W. T., & Phillips, D. (2005). The effects of universal pre-K in Oklahoma: Research 

highlights and policy implications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University. Retrieved from 

http://www.crocus.georgetown.edu/reports/CROCUSworkingpaper2.pdf

Grantmakers for Education. (2006). Making the most of our investments: How P–3 alignment 

can close the achievement gap from the start. Portland, OR: Grantmakers for Education. 

Groark, C. J., Mehaffie, K. E., McCall, R. B., & Greenberg, M. T. (Eds.) (2007). Evidence-based 

practices and programs for early childhood care and education. Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Corwin.

Guernsey, L., Bornfreund, L., McCann, C., & Williams, C. (2014). Subprime learning: Early 

education in America since the great recession. Washington, DC: New American 

Foundation.

Halpern, R. (2013). Tying early childhood education more closely to schooling: Promise, perils 

and practical problems. Teachers College Record, 115(1), 1–28. 

Hays, P. A. (2004). Case study research. In K. deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for

research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences (pp. 217–234). Mahwah, 

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
References 42 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Heckman, J. J., Moon, S. H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P. A., & Yavitz, A. (2010). The rate of return 

to the High Scope Perry Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1), 114–128.

Hernandez, D. J. (2012). PreK–3rd: Next steps for state longitudinal data systems. PreK-3rd 

policy action brief no. eight. New York, NY: Foundation for Child Development. 

Holden, B. (2007). Preparing for problem solving. Teaching Children Mathematics, 14(5), 290–295. 

Hong, G., Corter, C., Hong, Y., & Pelletier, J. (2012). Differential effects of literacy instruction 

time and homogeneous ability grouping in kindergarten classrooms: Who will benefit? Who 

will suffer? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 69–88. 

Howard, M. (2008). Early care and education: The progress of education reform (Vol. 9, No. 1).

Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. 

Howes, C. (1988). Relations between early child care and schooling. Developmental Psychology, 

24(1), 53.

Human Capital Research Collaborative. (2014a). 2013–2014 Midwest Child-Parent Center 

expansion: Program guidelines and requirements. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. 

Human Capital Research Collaborative. (2014b). Child-Parent Centers fact briefs: Demystifying 

“fade-out” effects. Minneapolis, MN: Author.

Jacobson, L. (2009). On the cusp in California: How PreK–3rd strategies could improve 

education in the golden state. Washington, DC: New America Foundation. 

Jacobson, R., Jacobson, L., & Blank, M. J. (2012). Building blocks: An examination of the 

collaborative approach community schools are using to bolster early childhood development.

Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools, Institute for Educational Leadership. 

Jones, R. E., Yssel, N., & Grant, C. (2012). Reading instruction in tier 1: Bridging the gaps by

nesting evidence‐based interventions within differentiated instruction. Psychology in the

Schools, 49(3), 210–218.

Kagan, S. L., Carroll, J., Comer, J. P., & Scott-Little, C. (2006). Alignment: A missing link in 

early childhood transitions? Young Children, 61(5), 26–32.

Kagan, S. L., & Kauerz, K. (2010). Governance and transition. In S.L. Kagan & K. Tarrant 

(Eds.), Transitions for young children: Creating connections across early childhood systems

(pp. 243–265). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. 

Karoly, L. A., & Bigelow, J. H. (2005). The economics of investing in universal preschool 

education in California. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Karoly, L. A., Kilburn, M. R., & Cannon, J. S. (2005). Early childhood interventions: Proven 

results, future promise. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved from 

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG341
References 43 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Kauerz, K. (2006). Ladders of learning: Fighting fade-out by advancing P–3 alignment. 

Washington, DC: New America Foundation Early Education Initiative. 

Kauerz, K. A. (2009). The early childhood and elementary education continuum: Constructing an 

understanding of P–3 as state-level policy reform. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 

304870194. 

Kauerz, K., & Coffman, J. (2013). Framework for planning, implementing, and evaluating 

PreK–3rd grade approaches. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, College of Education. 

King, J. (2006). Closing the achievement gap through expanded access to quality early 

education in grades P–3. Washington, DC: New America Foundation Early Education 

Initiative. 

Kobelin, M. (2009). Multi-age made me do it: A teacher tackles differentiation in math 

instruction. Schools: Studies in Education, 6(1), 10–22. 

Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated instruction: Inclusive strategies for standards-based 

learning that benefit the whole class. American Secondary Education, 34–62.

Lee, V. E., & Loeb, S. (1995). Where do Head Start attendees end up? One reason why 

preschool effects fade out. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(1), 62–82.

Lesaux, N. (2010). Turning the page: Refocusing Massachusetts for reading success. 

Springfield, MA: Strategies for Children. 

Lipsey, M. W., Farran, D. C., Hofer, K. G. (2015). A randomized control trial of a statewide 

voluntary prekindergarten program on children’s skills and behaviors through third grade.

Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Peabody Research Institute.

Maeroff, G. I. (2003). Universal pre-kindergarten: State of play (Working Paper Series). New 

York, NY: Foundation for Child Development. 

Magnuson, K., Meyers, M. K., Ruhm, C. J., & Waldfogel, J. (2005). Inequality in children's 

school readiness and public funding. Focus, 24(1), 12–18.

Manship, K., Madsen, S., Mezzanotte, J., & Fain, G. (2013). Evaluation of the stretch to 

kindergarten program: 2012 findings. San Mateo, CA: American Institutes for Research.

Marietta, G. (2010a). Lessons for PreK–3rd from Montgomery County Public Schools: An FCD 

case study. New York, NY: Foundation for Child Development. 

Marietta, G. (2010b). PreK–3rd: How superintendents lead change. PreK–3rd policy action 

brief, No. 5. New York, NY: Foundation for Child Development. 

Marietta, G., & Marietta, S. H. (2013a). PreK–3rd’s lasting architecture: Successfully serving 

linguistically and culturally diverse students in Union City, New Jersey. New York, NY: 

Foundation for Child Development. 
References 44 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Marietta, G., & Marietta, S. H. (2013b). The promise of PreK–3rd: Promoting academic 

excellence for dual language learners in Red Bank Public Schools. New York, NY: 

Foundation for Child Development. 

Mead, S. (2009). Education reform starts early: Lessons from New Jersey: PreK–3rd reform 

efforts. Washington, DC: New America Foundation. 

Menzies, H. M., Mahdavi, J. N., & Lewis, J. L. (2008). Early intervention in reading: From 

research to practice. Remedial & Special Education, 29(2), 67–77. 

Metcalf, T. (2013). What’s your plan? Accurate decision making within a multi-tier system of 

supports: Critical areas in tier 1. RTI Action Network.

Murata, A. (2013). Diversity and high academic expectations without tracking: Inclusively 

responsive instruction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 312–335.

NALEO Education Leadership Initiative. (2008). Latino legislative hearing on pre–K & the 

early grades Washington, DC: Author. 

National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2011). Building & supporting an aligned 

system: A vision for transforming education across the pre-K–grade three years. Alexandria, 

VA: Author.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD] Early Child Care Research 

Network [ECCRN]. (2000). Characteristics and quality of child care for toddlers and 

preschoolers. Applied Developmental Science, 4(3), 116–135.

Neel, J. L. (2006). The effects of differentiated developmentally appropriate instruction of first 

grade learners. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 304912978. 

New, R., Palsha, S., & Ritchie, S. (2009). Issues in PreK–3rd education: A FirstSchool 

framework for curriculum and instruction (Issue 7). Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham 

Child Development Institute. 

Nyhan, P. (2011). The power of PreK–3rd: How a small foundation helped push Washington 

State to the forefront of the PreK–3rd movement. New York, NY: Foundation for Child 

Development. 

Parsons, S. A. (2012). Adaptive teaching in literacy instruction: Case studies of two teachers. 

Journal of Literacy Research, 44, 149–170.

Parsons, S. A., Dodman, S. L., & Burrowbridge, S. C. (2013). Broadening the view of 

differentiated instruction: differentiation shouldn't end with planning but should continue as 

teachers adapt their instruction during lessons. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(1), 38.
References 45 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Peisner‐Feinberg, E. S., Burchinal, M. R., Clifford, R. M., Culkin, M. L., Howes, C., Kagan, S. 

L., & Yazejian, N. (2001). The relation of preschool child‐care quality to children's cognitive 

and social developmental trajectories through second grade. Child Development, 72(5), 

1534–1553.

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practice guide. 

Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Pritchard, I. A. (2002). Travelers and trolls: Practitioner research and institutional review boards.

Educational Researcher, 31(3), 3–13.

QSR International. (2012). NVivo 10 [computer software]. Doncaster, Australia: Author.

Ramey, S. L., Ramey C. T., Phillips, M. M., Lanzi, R. G., Brezausek, C., Katholi, C. R., & 

Snyder, S. (2000). Head Start children’s entry into public school: A report on the National 

Head Start/Public School Early Childhood Transition Demonstration Study. Birmingham, 

AL: University of Alabama at Birmingham, Civitan International Research Center.

Ravitch, S. M. (2014). The transformative power of taking an inquiry stance on practice:

Practitioner research as narrative and counter-narrative. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban 

Education, 11(1), 5–10.

Reynolds, A. J. (1993). One year of preschool intervention or two: Does it matter? Early 

Childhood Research Quarterly, 10, 1–33.

Reynolds, A., Magnuson, K., & Ou, S. (2006). P–3 education: Programs and practices that 

work in children’s first decade. New York, NY: Foundation for Child Development.

Reynolds, A. J., Magnuson, K. A., & Ou, S. (2010). Preschool-to-third grade programs and 

practices: A review of research. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 1121–1131.

Reynolds, A. J., & Ou, S. (2011). Paths of effects from preschool to adult well-being: A 

confirmatory analysis of the Child-Parent Center Program. Child Development, 82(2), 555–

582.

Reynolds, A. J., & Temple, J. A. (2008). Cost-effective early childhood development programs 

from preschool to third grade. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 109–139.

Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Ou, S., Robertson, D. L., Mersky, J. P., Topitzes, J. W., & Niles, 

M. D. (2007). Effects of a school-based early childhood intervention on adult health and 

well-being: A 19-year follow-up of low-income families. Archives of Pediatric and 

Adolescent Medicine, 161(8), 730–739.

Rice, C. (2007). Building strong rungs to build sturdy ladders: The status of preschool–3rd 

grade systems in New Jersey. Newark, NJ: Association for Children of New Jersey. 

Rice, C. (2008a). Developing an advocacy strategy for New Jersey’s P–3 agenda inside and out. 

Newark, NJ: Association for Children of New Jersey.
References 46 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Rice, C. (2008b). Seizing the opportunity: Building P–3 systems in New Jersey’s school districts. 

Newark, NJ: Association for Children of New Jersey. 

Rice, C. (2010). Linking learning: Congress should follow New Jersey’s lead on early learning. 

Newark, NJ: Advocates for Children of New Jersey. 

Ritchie, S., Clifford, R. M., Malloy, W. W., Cobb, C. T., & Crawford, G. M. (2010). Ready or 

not? Schools’ readiness for young children. In S. L. Kagan & K. Tarrant (Eds.), Transitions 

for young children: Creating connections across early childhood systems (pp. 161–184). 

Baltimore, MD: Brookes. 

Ritchie, S., Maxwell, K., & Clifford, R. (2009). What is FirstSchool? Issues in PreK–3rd 

Education (Issue 1). Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute.

Ritchie, S., Maxwell, K., & Clifford, R. M. (2007). FirstSchool: A new vision for education. In 

R. Pianta, M. J. Cox, & K. L. Snow (Eds.), School readiness and the transition to 

kindergarten in the era of accountability (pp. 85–96). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. 

Roth, K. (2009). Interactive writing: Investigating the effectiveness of a dynamic approach to 

writing instruction for first graders. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 304894167. 

Saylor, A. R. (2008). The impact of differentiated instruction on emergent literacy skills with 

kindergarten students. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 304390344. 

Scott-Little, C., & Reid, J. (2010). Aligning the content of early childhood care and education to 

promote effective transitions. In S. L. Kagan & K. Tarrant (Eds.), Transitions in the 

early years: Creating a system on continuity (pp. 109–133). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Severns, M. (2012). Starting early with English language learners: First lessons from Illinois.

Washington, DC: New America Foundation. 

Shore, R. (2009). The case for investing in preK–3rd education: Challenging myths about school 

reform. New York, NY: Foundation for Child Development. 

Stanford, B., & Reeves, S. (2009). Making it happen: Using differentiated instruction, retrofit 

framework, and universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 5(6), 6.

Takanishi, R. (2010). Children of 2020: Creating a better tomorrow. In V. Washington & J. 

Andrews (Eds.), Pre-K–third grade: A paradigm shift (pp. 28–31). Washington, DC: Council 

for Professional Recognition.

Takanishi, R., & Bogard, K. L. (2007). Effective educational programs for young children: What 

we need to know. Child Development Perspectives, 1(1), 40–45.

Takanishi, R., & Kauerz, K. (2008). P inclusion: Getting serious about a P–16 education system.

Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 480–487. 
References 47 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

The Pre-K Coalition. (2011a). Ensuring America’s future: Policy statements and 

recommendations from national education organizations. Washington, DC: Author.

The Pre-K Coalition. (2011b). The importance of aligning pre-K through 3rd grade.

Washington, DC: Author. 

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 

Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. ERIC Digest. 

Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.).

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, 

K.,...Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, 

interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. 

Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2–3), 119–145.

Tout, K., Halle, T., Daily, S., Albertson-Junkans, L., & Moodie, S. (2013). The research base for 

a birth through age eight state policy framework (2013-42). Bethesda, MD: Child Trends.

University of Chicago, Urban Education Institute, & Ounce of Prevention Fund. (2012). Building 

a birth-to-college model: Professional learning communities. New York, NY: Authors.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

(2010, January). Head Start Impact Study: Final report. Washington, DC: Author.

Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a prekindergarten program on children’s

mathematics, language, literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child

Development, 84(6), 2112–2130.

Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T. J. (1993). The classroom

practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(2), 120–146.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2010a). Procedures and standards handbook, version 3.0. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for 

Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved from 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook

.pdf

What Works Clearinghouse. (2010b). WWC single study review protocol for group design 

studies that estimate average intervention effects, version 2.0. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for 

Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved from 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/ssr_protocol_v2.pdf
References 48 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Zellman, G. L., & Kilburn, R. M. (2011). Hawai'i P–3 initiative: Findings from the first year of 

the evaluation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
APPENDIX A. SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 

LITERATURE SEARCH
Appendix A 50 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Appendix A.

Specifications for the Literature Search

Appendix A provides additional details on the parameters of the literature search to complement 

information presented in the text of the report.

Electronic Databases

The research team used the following core list of electronic databases to search for both topics:

1. Academic Search Premier

2. Dissertation Abstracts

3. EconLit

4. Education Full Text

5. Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)

6. JSTOR

7. Professional Development Collection

8. PsycINFO

9. Sociological Abstracts

Search Terms

The research team utilized the following terms for searches on the P–3 alignment topic:

“pre-K-grade three” OR “pre-K through third” OR “PreK-3

rd” OR “P–3” OR “Pre-K-3rd” OR 

“ages 3 through 8” OR “ages 3-8” OR “age 3 to age 8” OR “pre-kindergarten through third 

grade” OR “pre-kindergarten through grade three” OR “preschool through third grade” OR 

“preschool through grade three” OR “preschool-grade three” OR “preschool through third” OR 

“preschool-3

rd” OR “preschool-3”

The research team utilized the following terms for searches on the differentiated instruction 

topic:

(“differentiat*” OR “individualiz*”) AND (kindergarten* OR “grade 1” OR “first grade”) 
APPENDIX B. REFERENCE LIST FOR P–3

ALIGNMENT LITERATURE REVIEW
Appendix B 52 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Appendix B.

Reference List for P–3 Alignment Literature Review

Quantitative Studies

Brown & Bogard (2007).

Reynolds, Magnuson, & Ou (2006).

Reynolds, Magnuson, & Ou (2010).

Mixed-Methods Study

Bogard (2006). 

Qualitative Studies

Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement (2013). 

Center for the Study of Educational Policy (2012).

Jacobson, Jacobson, & Blank (2012).

Marietta (2010a). 

Marietta (2010b). 

Marietta & Marietta (2013a). 

Marietta & Marietta (2013b). 

Nyhan (2011). 

Zellman & Kilburn (2011). 

Theory and Policy Articles

“ABCs of early education: Listening, asking, sharing, engaging” (2013). 

“10 action steps” (2011). 

Advocates for Children of New Jersey (2010).

Bogard & Takanishi (2005). 

Buenafe (2011). 

Committee for Economic Development (2012). 
Appendix B 53 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Demanchick, Peabody, & Johnson (2009). 

Donovan (2010). 

Garland (2011). 

Gates Foundation (2011).

Goldstein & Bauml (2012). 

Grantmakers for Education (2006). 

Groark, Mehaffie, McCall, & Greenberg (Eds.) (2007). 

Guernsey, Bornfreund, McCann, & Williams (2014). 

Halpern (2013). 

Hernandez (2012). 

Howard (2008). 

Human Capital Research Collaborative (2014a).

Human Capital Research Collaborative (2014b). 

Jacobson (2009). 

Kagan, Carroll, Comer, & Scott-Little (2006). 

Kagan & Kauerz (2010). 

Kauerz (2006). 

Kauerz (2009). 

Kauerz & Coffman (2013). 

King (2006). 

Lesaux (2010). 

Maeroff (2003). 

Mead (2009). 

NALEO Education Leadership Initiative (2008). 

National Association of Elementary School Principals (2011). 
Appendix B 54 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

New, Palsha, & Ritchie (2009). 

The Pre-K Coalition (2011a). 

The Pre-K Coalition (2011b). 

Rice (2007). 

Rice (2008a). 

Rice (2008b). 

Rice (2010). 

Ritchie, Clifford, Malloy, Cobb, & Crawford (2010). 

Ritchie, Maxwell, & Clifford (2007). 

Ritchie, Maxwell, & Clifford (2009). 

Scott-Little & Reid (2010). 

Severns (2012). 

Shore (2009). 

Takanishi (2010). 

Takanishi & Bogard (2007). 

Takanishi & Kauerz (2008). 

Tout, Halle, Daily, Albertson-Junkans, & Moodie (2013). 

University of Chicago, Urban Education Institute, & Ounce of Prevention Fund (2012). 
APPENDIX C. REFERENCE LIST 

FOR DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION 

LITERATURE REVIEW
Appendix C 56 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Appendix C. Reference List for Differentiated Instruction 

Literature Review

Quantitative Studies

Rigorous Designs (Analyzed for Potential to Meet WWC Design Standards)

Randomized Controlled Trials

Study that has the potential to meet WWC evidence standards without reservations. 

Connor, Morrison, Fishman, Crowe, Otaiba, & Schatschneider (2013).

6

Studies that do not appear to meet WWC evidence standards. 

Al Otaiba, Connor, Folsom, Greulich, Meadows, & Li (2011). 

Connor, Morrison, Fishman, Schatschneider, & Underwood (2007). 

Connor, Morrison, Schatschneider, Toste, Lundblom, Crowe, & Fishman (2011). 

Connor, Piasta, Fishman, Glasney, Schatschneider, Crowe ... Morrison (2009). 

Connor, Ponitz, Phillips, Travis, Glasney, & Morrison (2010). 

Eastman (2010). 

Quasi-Experimental Designs

Studies that do not appear to meet WWC evidence standards. 

Arnold (2008). 

Condron (2005). 

Condron (2008). 

Neel (2006). 

Roth (2009). 

Saylor (2008). 

 

6 This study presented multiple research designs. Only the within-grade design for first-grade effects has the 

potential to meet WWC evidence standards without reservations.
Appendix C 57 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Non-Rigorous Designs

Descriptive

Hong, Corter, Hong, & Pelletier (2012). 

Single-Group Pre-Test/Post-Test

Case-Smith, Holland, & Bishop (2011). 

Geisler, Hessler, Gardner, & Lovelace (2009). 

Menzies, Mahdavi, & Lewis (2008). 

Qualitative Studies

Bofferding, Kemmerle, & Murata (2012). 

Ensign (2012). 

Holden (2007). 

Kobelin (2009).
APPENDIX D. CODING PROTOCOLS
Appendix D 59 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Appendix D. Coding Protocols

Coding Protocols for Qualitative Studies

Exhibit D1. Qualitative Study Protocol for PreK–3 Alignment

Topic of Interest Instructions for Coder

Citation Insert the citation of the article/study. 

Citation # Insert the internal Study ID number of the article/study. 

Name of Program(s) If applicable, insert the name of the program(s) that is the focus of the study or article.

Program Funding Source(s)

Insert any reference the author(s) makes to program funding source. This may include 

federal, state, local, or private funding sources. Also note in this section any information 

related to efforts to sustain PreK–3 alignment once funding is no longer available.

Resource Orientation Insert the general reason for studying this topic, e.g., why the author(s) explains they 

decided to undertake the article/study. 

Geographical Location If provided, insert the name of the city(s) and state(s) where the study was conducted.

Setting If provided, include where the authors collect their data (i.e., classroom, school, etc.)

Purpose of Study: Summary of Research Questions/Objectives Provide the research questions and/or focal area of the study/article. 

Sample Size and Participants Include number of participants in study.

Qualitative Methods Used Include methods authors used in study (i.e., interview, observation, etc.)

Definition of PreK–3 Alignment 

Provide the authors' definition of PreK–3 alignment. For example, do they see this as PD 

between or among teachers from different grade levels? Do they define this as leadership? 

Is it curricula alignment?

Why PreK–3 Alignment is Important If authors describe the potential benefits of PreK–3, include here.

Description of PreK–3 Alignment Include the alignment of elements the author describes, e.g., alignment between: PD for 

preK–3 teachers, instruction and curricula; leadership and PD, etc.

Examples of PreK–3 Alignment

Examples of PreK–3 Programs: Include any examples of PreK–3 programs that author(s) 

references, e.g., Head Start, early childhood education centers, Chicago Parent Child 

Centers, Follow Through.

Key Elements of PreK–3 Alignment

Provide the core features the author(s) describes as key to the implementation of PreK–3

alignment. These may include common definitions; integrated family support services; 

structural features, etc.

Key Considerations for Implementing PreK–3 Alignment

Capture constructs author(s) identifies as key component for implementing PreK–3

alignment. Constructs may include leadership, joint PD, teacher quality, etc. and other 

elements that relate to curricula, instruction, ECE/school settings, and 

management/leadership.
Appendix D 60 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Topic of Interest Instructions for Coder

PreK–3 Alignment Challenges and Opportunities

PreK–3 Alignment Challenges: Provide a description of any obstacles or barriers to PreK–3

alignment that the author(s) discusses 

PreK–3 Alignment Opportunities: Provide the description of any opportunities or 

circumstances that lend themselves to PreK–3 alignment that the author(s) discusses.

Discussion of Outcomes Include any outcomes that came about as a result of a program/ intervention in the article 

(e.g., increased reading proficiency for ELL students).

Summary of Findings/Conclusions Provide key findings. 

Describe Any Study Limitations (Noted by Author(s) Include any study limitations the author mentions. 

Reviewer's Comments on Study Limitations

Describe in the Annotation text box any problems or issues you note with the study or article. 

This may include, but is not limited to, the weakness of the study design, the quality of the 

methodology, etc. 

Reviewer General Comments This section is for any questions or comments reviewers have for discussion with project 

team and during interrater reliability. 

Exhibit D2. Qualitative Study Protocol for Differentiated Instruction

Topic of Interest Instructions for Coder

Citation Insert the citation of the article/study. 

Citation # Insert the number of the article/study.

Name of Differentiated Instruction Program(s) If indicated, insert the name of the program(s) that is the focus of the study or article.

Differentiated Instruction Program Funding Source(s)

Insert any reference the author(s) makes to the program funding source. This may include 

federal, state, local, or private funding sources. Also note in this section any information 

related to efforts to sustain Differentiated Instruction once funding is no longer available.

Resource Orientation Insert the general reason for studying this topic, e.g., why the author(s) decided to undertake 

the article/study. 

Geographical Location If provided, insert the name of the city(s) and state(s) where the study was conducted.

Setting If provided, include where the authors collect their data (e.g., classroom, school, etc.)

Purpose of Study: Summary of Research Questions/Objectives Provide the research questions and/or focal area of the study/article. 

Sample Size and Participants Include number of participants in study.

Qualitative Methods Used Include methods authors used in study (e.g., interview, observation, document review, etc.)

Definition of Differentiated Instruction

Provide the authors' definition of Differentiated Instruction. For example, do they see this as 

PD between or among teachers with students on different academic levels? Do they define 

this as classes broken down by levels across different school subjects (e.g., math, literacy)? 

Is it differentiation between classes (i.e., students divided up by levels in different 

classrooms) or differentiation within classes (differentiation that occurs at different times of 

the day, or by pairing students of different levels such that all can work on the same subject 

at the same time but using differentiated materials?)
Appendix D 61 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Topic of Interest Instructions for Coder

Why Differentiated Instruction is Important If authors describe the potential benefits of Differentiated Instruction, include them here.

Description of Differentiated Instruction Include the Differentiated Instruction the author describes, e.g., differentiated instruction for:

math/literacy, between classrooms, within classrooms.

Examples of PreK–3 Differentiated Instruction Include any examples of Differentiated Instruction programs that author(s) reference.

Key Elements of Differentiated Instruction

Provide the core features the author(s) describes as key to the implementation of 

Differentiated Instruction. These may include scaffolding behaviors, sequenced lessons, 

sequenced activities, letter and word study, quality curriculum, formative assessment, etc.

Key Considerations for Implementing Differentiated Instruction Capture constructs author(s) identifies as key components for implementing Differentiated 

Instruction. Constructs may include leadership, PD, teacher quality, etc.

Differentiated Instruction Challenges and Opportunities Provide a description of any obstacles/ barriers to Differentiated Instruction or circumstances 

that lend themselves to Differentiated Instruction that the author(s) discusses.

Discussion of Outcomes

Provide discussion of outcomes. Include any outcomes that came about as a result of a 

program/ intervention in article (e.g., increased reading proficiency for ELL students, 

academic outcomes, etc.)

Summary of Findings/Conclusions Provide key findings.

Describe Any Study Limitations (Noted by Author(s) Include any study limitations the author mentions. 

Reviewer's Comments on Study Limitations Describe any problems or issues you note with the study or article. This may include, but is 

not limited to, the weakness of the study design, the quality of the methodology, etc. 

Reviewer General Comments This section is for any questions or comments reviewers have for discussion with project 

team and during interrater reliability. 
Appendix D 62 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Coding Protocol for Theory and Policy Articles

Exhibit D3. Coding Protocol for Policy/Theory PreK–3 Alignment (coded in NVivo program)

Node/Definition/Coding Instructions Sub-nodes/Definition/Coding Instructions

1. PreK–3 Alignment. Refers to a P–3

policy, program, or practice designed to 

improve U.S. children’s early learning from 

preschool to third grade by aligning 

standards, curriculum, assessment, or 

professional development across these 

grades.

a. Examples of PreK–3 Programs: Include any examples of PreK–3 programs that author(s) reference, e.g., Head 

Start, early childhood education centers, Chicago Parent Child Centers, Follow Through. 

1. PreK–3 Alignment. b. Setting of Program(s): Please include the setting of each program that is mentioned in the article, if applicable

1. PreK–3 Alignment. c. Definition of PreK–3 Alignment: Provide the authors' definition of PreK–3 Alignment. For example, do they see 

this as PD between or among teachers from different grade levels? Do they define this as leadership? Is it 

curricula alignment?

1. PreK–3 Alignment. d. Key Elements of PreK–3 Alignment: Provide the core features the author(s) describe as key to the implementation of 

PreK–3 alignment. These may include common definitions; integrated family support services; structural features, etc. 

i. Common definitions (Include examples of definitions the article provides on the PreK–3 topic, i.e., a 

definition for what PreK–3 alignment entails)

ii. Integrated family support services(If any, include specific supports for students' families) 

iii. Structural features: Include author's reference to aspects of PreK–3 program environment (e.g., the number 

of children per adult, the size of the class, the education and the training teacher, the presence or absence 

of a school-age program, the wages paid to teaching staff, teacher turnover rate, enrollment, etc.) 

iv. Curricular Alignment Across Grades: Provide ways in which the curriculum is aligned, such as using 

curricular materials (textbooks, programs) that are consistent from year to year 

v. Preschool Onsite at Elementary School: Preschool is in the same building as elementary school; considered 

a part of the school 

vi. Full Day Kindergarten: Kindergarten that has a morning and afternoon component and students attend both 

vii. Consistent Learning Environment Across Grades: Include any factors that help maintain consistency across 

grades (e.g., keeping small class sizes, using the same behavior management reinforcements and 

punishments across grade levels)

viii. Coordination Among Teachers: Teachers communicate between grade levels to ensure that curriculum is 

well aligned from year to year and tailored to the right academic level based on incoming student data (i.e., 

if incoming Kindergarten class did poorly on letter-sound recognition in PreK, Kindergarten teacher takes 

this into account before jumping into more difficult concept)

ix. Small Class Size: Code if article explicitly mentions small class size or says fewer than 20 students.

x. Gov't Leaders Support and Funds: Provide and funding or support from Government Leaders, such as 

grants or political advocacy in favor of cause

xi. Smooth Transitions: Provide information on how school promotes smooth transitions between grade levels 

(e.g., summer programs that prevent summer slide for at-risk students)

xii. Other: Provide any other key elements
Appendix D 63 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Node/Definition/Coding Instructions Sub-nodes/Definition/Coding Instructions

1. PreK–3 Alignment. e. Key Considerations from Implementing PreK–3: Capture constructs author(s) identify as key components for 

implementing PreK–3 Alignment. Constructs may include leadership, joint PD, teacher quality, etc.—elements that 

relate to curricula, instruction, ECE/school settings, and management/leadership.

i. Leadership: Provide if authors mention leadership as a key component to successful PreK–3 alignment 

(e.g., strong principal leadership) 

Dedicating time for teacher, staff collaboration: Provide if authors mention dedicating time for teachers and 

staff collaboration as a leadership strategy 

Leader Support: Provide information on leadership support, if author provides 

ii. Joint PD: Provide if authors mention PD as a key consideration (e.g., PD on lesson planning techniques to 

ensure successful implementation of curriculum)

iii. Comprehensive Early Childhood education: Provide mention of holistic early childhood education as a key 

consideration, e.g., developmentally appropriate practices 

Balance Academic and Developmental: Provide information on how academic and developmental needs 

are balanced (i.e., finding the right balance between play and academics, creating academic goals that are 

realistic and meet child's cognitive stage)

Scale Up Proven Strategies: Provide, if relevant, how proven strategies are emphasized to maximize child's 

success

iv. Partnerships with families: Provide information on family involvement as a key consideration, (e.g., 

consistent parent teacher communication about student progress

v. Data sharing across ages: e.g., teachers sharing student data for student's new teacher to have a grasp of 

student's strengths and weaknesses

1. Data focus: Provide, if relevant, how data is used and implemented

vi. Teacher education & Degree requirements: Provide expected degree for role (e.g., teachers need a 

Master's in ELL education or equivalent work experience in order to be hired)

vii. Funding Solutions: Provide sources of funding or funding strategies that enabled implementing PreK–3

program

viii. Increase system cohesion: e.g., improved cohesion within school system, both hierarchical (i.e., 

communication between principal to teachers) and subject related (i.e., integrating subject areas to 

maximize student learning, such as reinforcing learning goals between subjects)

Break Down Separate Systems: Provide, if relevant, how separate systems are broken down to create a 

more cohesive system (see viii. Description)

Training on Alignment: Provide information, if relevant, on what training is made available to increase and 

improve alignment efforts

ix. Cultural Responsiveness: Provide if/how school takes into account students' backgrounds, e.g., if parents 

do not speak English, have a translator on hand/ reports and other materials translated in order to promote 

home school communication
Appendix D 64 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Node/Definition/Coding Instructions Sub-nodes/Definition/Coding Instructions

1. PreK–3 Alignment. f. PreK–3 Alignment Challenges: Provide the description of any obstacles or barriers to PreK–3 alignment the 

author(s) discusses. 

x. Private PreK Wary of Public Schools: Provide, if relevant, Private PreKs being hesitant and/or 

uncooperative about merging with public schools

xi. Leaders do not see PreK in purview: e.g., lack of efforts or incentive on behalf of political figures to 

push/advocate for Pre-K–3 alignment

xii. Principal resistance: Provide any reason why Principal objects to PreK–3 alignment, if applicable

xiii. Funding Barriers: Provide barriers to PreK–3 alignment related to/ caused by inadequate funding

xiv. Knowledge of providers,: e.g., education or professional development providers have received that enable 

them to perform their role successfully

1. PreK–3 Alignment. g. PreK–3 Alignment Opportunities: Provide the description of any opportunities or circumstances that lend 

themselves to PreK–3 alignment that the author(s) discusses. 

Summary: This section summarizes 

that outcomes discussion and 

findings/conclusions of the study/article. 

It also captures whether the article may 

be described as advocating a particular 

policy or theory.

a. Advocacy Position or Statement: Indicate whether author states their position on the issue (does the author 

explicitly state/strongly suggest being in support or against a position or statement anywhere in the article?). 

Coding Protocol for Quantitative Studies

Exhibit D4. Coding Protocol Studies Quantitative studies (adopted from WWC Study Review Guide for RCTs and 

Comparison Group QEDs [What Works Clearinghouse, 2010b])

Stage 1: Preliminary Screening for Descriptive Mapping Review

Short Response Supporting Information, 

Concerns, or Questions Pages

Overview

Intervention name: Name of the intervention(s) reviewed in this SRG. Note if 1 name for multiple 

versions or multiple names for 1 product

Initial Screening

Topic Area: Does the study focus on content that meets the definition for one of the three 

topics?

Yes/No
Appendix D 65 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Short Response Supporting Information, 

Concerns, or Questions Pages

Focus: Is the intervention a program, product, policy, or practice as defined by the study's topic 

area?

Yes/No Select a Focus: 

Program

Product

Policy

Practice

Time: Is the publication date in a target publication year? Yes/No Insert Publication Date

Age or Grade Range: Does the study fit the age or grade range as specified in the review 

protocol?

Yes/No Insert Age or Grade Range

General Education: Does article fit the target sample as laid out in the study design? Yes/No Describe Sample

Location: Does the study examine sample members in a location specified for the review 

protocol?

Yes/No Insert State, Territory, or 

Tribal Area

Outcomes: Does the study address at least one academic or cognitive outcome? Yes/No Describe Outcomes

Screening Result: Does the study meet the screening criteria for the topic? Briefly explain if the 

study does not qualify.

Yes/No If the study does not qualify, 

please provide a full 

explanation here

Coding for Descriptive Mapping Review

Design: What type of design is used to conduct the study (e.g., randomized controlled trial, 

quasi-experimental, regression discontinuity, single-case, case study, descriptive, correlational, 

theory, policy, ethnography, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, mixed methods, 

observational)? Select Yes in the Short Response column if the study used a randomized 

controlled trial or a quasi-experimental design, otherwise select No.

Yes/No Select Design:

Randomized trial

Quasi-experiment

Regression Discontinuity

Single-case

Case study

Descriptive

Correlational

Sample Characteristics: Describe the sample characteristics of the study (e.g., gender, ethnicity, 

socioeconomic status)

Describe Sample 

Characteristics 

Effectiveness: Does the study examine the effect of an intervention? Yes/No Describe Intervention

Study Comparison Group: Does the study use a comparison group? Yes/No Describe Comparison 

Condition

Findings: Briefly describe the main findings reported in the study. Describe Findings

Screening for Evidence of Effectiveness Review

Does the study meet the screening criteria for the effectiveness review?

To meet the criteria the study must (1) use an RCT or QED design, (2) be an effectiveness

study, and (3) use a comparison group?

Yes/No If the study does not meet screening 

criteria for the effectiveness review, 

please provide a full explanation here
Appendix D 66 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Stage 2: Quality of Evidence for the Effectiveness Review (if the study passes Stage 1)

Short Response Supporting Information, 

Concerns, or Questions Pages

Design Details

How are the intervention and comparison groups formed? Select Design:

RCT

Cluster RCT

QED

Is the study free of factors that are confounded with either group? Yes/No

Is there at least one relevant outcome that meets review requirements? Yes/No

Is there at least one outcome, sample, or time point with low attrition at the cluster and subcluster 

level?

Yes/No/NA

Is evidence of baseline equivalence provided for at least one analytic sample, including statistical 

adjustment for characteristics relevant to equating the groups as given in the protocol, if needed?

Yes/No/NA

Is the study free of other data or analytical issues that would affect the rating? Yes/No

What is the highest rating of an analysis in the study given current information?

If more than one disposition code is appropriate, please copy and paste this row and select the 

additional disposition code(s). 

Select Rating:

Meets GDS 

without 

reservations

Meets GDS with 

reservations

Does not meet 

GDS

Select DNMGDS Disposition 

Code:

The measures of effectiveness 

could not be attributed solely to 

the intervention

The eligible outcomes did not 

meet WWC requirements

Equivalence of the analytic 

intervention and comparison 

groups prior to the intervention 

was necessary and not 

demonstrated

Explanation for Rating Disposition: If the study is rated Does Not Meet Group Design Standards, 

please provide a full explanation for the selected disposition code(s). 

If additional information is needed to complete the review, provide detail on the necessary 

information and how the rating could change

If the rating may differ across study analyses, detail the rating for each sample, outcome, and time 

period combination, as necessary
Appendix D 67 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Stage 3: Study Details (if the study passes Stage 2)

Short Response Supporting Information, 

Concerns, or Questions Pages

Did the authors present effect sizes? If so, how were they computed? Yes/No

Are estimates presented for subgroups in protocol? Yes/No

In summary, describe ...

Setting of the study (e.g., location, classrooms, courses, schools)

Study design 

Sample sizes (e.g., students, classrooms, teachers, schools)

Sample characteristics in protocol (e.g., race, gender, free/reduced lunch)

Intervention condition as implemented in the study (including number of days/weeks/months, 

number of sessions, time per session)

Comparison condition as implemented in the study

Describe all eligible outcomes reported and how they were measured

Are there outcomes that do not meet review requirements? If yes, provide the domain and a brief 

description of the reason why. Yes/No

Are there any outcomes that are not eligible for review? If yes, provide a brief description and the 

reason why. Yes/No

Support for implementation
APPENDIX E. SUPPORTING DATA TABLES FOR 

RIGOROUS STUDIES ON DIFFERENTIATED 

INSTRUCTION
Appendix E 69 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Appendix E. Supporting Data Tables for Rigorous Studies

on Differentiated Instruction

Exhibit E1. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Connor, Morrison, Fishman, Schatschneider, and 

Underwood (2007) Study

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable

Intervention 

assignment 

sample

Comparison 

assignment 

sample

Intervention 

group

Comparison 

group

Hedge’s

g

Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Site-level sample 

size NR NR NR NR NR NR

Student-level 

sample size NR NR NR NR NR NR

WJ III Language 

and Literacy, 

Adjusted Mean 

Difference 

NR NR NR NR - 2.63 NR NR NR

NR=not reported. WJ=Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement.

NOTE: The randomized controlled trial (RCT) study had a total sample size at random assignment of 10 schools, 47 teachers and 616 first-graders. Authors did not present sample sizes by condition and 

did not discuss attrition. The authors did not report overall baseline means and standard deviations. They reported an adjusted mean difference with 95% CI = 0.37 to 4.90.

SOURCE: Connor, Morrison, Fishman, Schatschneider, and Underwood (2007).
Appendix E 70 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E2. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Connor, Piasta, Fishman, Glasney, Schatschneider, Crowe, 

and Morrison (2009) Study

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable

Intervention 

assignment 

sample

Comparison 

assignment 

sample

Intervention 

group

Comparison 

group

Hedge’s 

g

Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Site-level sample size 5 5 5 5 5 5

Student-level sample 

size NR NR NR NR NR NR

Treatment condition x 

DFR interaction for 

amount of teacher/

child-managed, codefocused instruction on 

reading outcomes, 

HLM level-1 

coefficient

NR NR NR NR - -0.28 NR NR >.05

Treatment condition x 

DFR interaction for 

slope of teacher/

child-managed, codefocused instruction on 

reading outcomes, 

HLM level-1 

coefficient

NR NR NR NR - 2.59 NR NR >.05

Treatment condition x 

DFR interaction for 

the amount of childmanaged, meaningfocused instruction on 

reading outcomes, 

HLM level-1 

coefficient

NR NR NR NR - 0.25 NR NR >.05

NR=not reported.

NOTE: This RCT study included a first-grade sample. The results in this study compared whether the intervention group individualized instruction closer to the A2i recommendations than the 

comparison group did. The study also compared reading growth in the intervention versus the comparison group while taking the distance from recommendation (DFR) into consideration. The DFR is 

the absolute value of the difference between the observed amount of time that a child receives a type of instruction and the amount of time that the A2i software recommends that a child should receive 

the type of instruction. The study presented means and standard deviations for fall and spring assessment data, but these data were not presented by assignment condition so they cannot be used for 

assessing overall treatment effects. The intervention group receives training and professional development on the A2i software and the comparison group does not. The outcome measures in this table 

are Woodcock Johnson standard scores; however, it is not clear from the published article whether these effects were for Letter Word Identification, Passage Comprehension, or Picture Vocabulary.

SOURCE: Connor et al.(2009).
Appendix E 71 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E3. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Connor, Ponitz, Phillips, Travis, Glasney, and Morrison

(2010) Study

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable

Intervention 

assignment 

sample

Comparison 

assignment 

sample

Intervention 

group

Comparison 

group

Hedges’ 

g

Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Site-level sample 

size 5 5 5 5 5 5

Student-level 

sample size NR NR 201 244 201 244

WJ III Letter-Word 

Reading, 

Unadjusted Mean 

Difference

NR NR 404.5

(28.04)

415.59

(32.47) -0.36 -5.02 23.71 26.44 NR

WJ III Picture 

Vocabulary, 

Unadjusted Mean 

Difference

NR NR 475.88

(10.39)

481.86

(10.47) -0.57 -4.58 9.73 11.05 NR

WJ III Passage 

Comprehension, 

Unadjusted Mean 

Difference

NR NR 447.35

(20.26)

451.76

(21.32) -0.21 -3.28 15.15 15.7 NR

Head-ToesKnees-Shoulder, 

Unadjusted Mean 

Difference

NR NR 30.60

(8.96)

32.74

(5.99) -0.29 -1.11 6.18 5.07 NR

NR=not reported. WJ=Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement.

NOTE: The authors reported unadjusted means and standard deviations for the first-grade sample in this RCT study. Authors did not report individual p-values for mean differences. None of the mean 

differences for the findings were statistically significant. Random assignment occurred at the school level and the analysis used student-level data.

SOURCE: Connor, Ponitz, Phillips, Travis, Glasney, and Morrison (2010).
Appendix E 72 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E4. Self-regulation Findings for Connor, Ponitz, Phillips, Travis, Glasney, and Morrison (2010) Study, Hierarchical 

Linear Modeling (HLM) Results 

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable

Intervention 

assignment 

sample

Comparison 

assignment 

sample

Intervention 

group

Comparison 

group

Hedges’ 

g

Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Site-level sample 

size 5 5 5 5 5 5

Student-level 

sample size NR NR 201 244 201 244

Head-ToesKnees-Shoulders, 

HLM Adjusted 

Mean Difference

NR NR 30.60

(8.96)

32.74

 (5.99) -0.29 -0.002 NR NR .247

Head-ToesKnees-Shoulders, 

Fall SelfRegulation x A2i 

Use, HLM 

Adjusted Mean 

Difference

NR NR 30.60

(8.96)

32.74

 (5.99) -0.29 -0.001 NR NR <.001

NR=not reported. 

NOTE: In this RCT study with a first-grade sample, authors calculated mean difference using a level-2 HLM coefficient, where level-1 is the student level and level-2 is the classroom level (standard 

error of the coefficient=0.002). At the student level, the model controlled for fall test scores in Woodcock-Johnson (WJ) III Letter-Word subtest, WJ II Picture Vocabulary subtest, and Head-ToesKnees-Shoulders. At the classroom level, the model controlled for percentage of students’ low socioeconomic status (SES). The fall self-regulation x A2i software use interaction is a student level x 

classroom level interaction where fall self-regulation is a student level variable and A2i is a classroom level variable (standard error of the interaction coefficient=0.0002).

SOURCE: Connor, Ponitz, Phillips, Travis, Glasney, and Morrison (2010).
Appendix E 73 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E5. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Connor, Morrison, Schatschneider, Toste, Lundblom, Crowe, 

and Fishman (2011) Study

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable

Intervention 

assignment 

sample

Comparison 

assignment 

sample

Intervention 

group

Comparison 

group

Hedges’ 

g

Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Teacher-level 

sample size NR NR NR NR NR NR

Student-level sample 

size NR NR NR NR NR NR

WJ Letter-Word W 

score, Unadjusted 

mean difference

NR NR 417.41

(29.64)

417.61

(32.01) - 3.66 24.98 27.45 NR

WJ Letter-Word 

standard score, 

Unadjusted mean 

difference

NR NR 107

(16) 

108

(15) - 0 14 14 NR

WJ Vocabulary W, 

Unadjusted mean 

difference

NR NR 481.39

(9.23) 

481.59

(14.87) - NR NR NR NR

WJ Letter-Word 

Main Effect, HLM 

adjusted mean 

difference

NR NR NR NR - 7.84 NR NR .021

WJ Letter-Word 

Treatment x fall 

reading, HLM 

adjusted mean 

difference

NR NR NR NR - -0.07 NR NR .236

WJ Letter-Word 

Treatment x fall 

vocabulary effect , 

HLM adjusted mean 

difference

NR NR NR NR - -0.11 NR NR .550

WJ Letter-Word 

Treatment x special 

education status, 

HLM adjusted mean 

difference

NR NR NR NR - -4.30 NR NR .575
Appendix E 74 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E5. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Connor, Morrison, Schatschneider, Toste, Lundblom, Crowe, 

and Fishman (2011) Study (Continued)

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable

Intervention 

assignment 

sample

Comparison 

assignment 

sample

Intervention 

group

Comparison 

group

Hedges’ 

g

Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

WJ Letter-Word 

Treatment x SES, 

HLM adjusted 

mean difference

NR NR NR NR - -0.09 NR NR .234

WJ Letter-Word 

for students with 

lower fall reading 

(W=393), Cohen’s 

d

NR NR NR NR - 0.59 NR NR NR

WJ Letter-Word 

for students with 

stronger fall 

reading (W=435), 

Cohen’s d

NR NR NR NR - 0.41 NR NR NR

WJ Vocabulary for 

students with 

lower fall reading 

(W=474), Cohen’s 

d

NR NR NR NR - 0.54 NR NR NR

WJ Vocabulary for 

students with 

stronger fall 

reading (W=487), 

Cohen’s d

NR NR NR NR - 0.45 NR NR NR

NR=not reported. WJ=Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement.

NOTE: Authors used a first-grade sample. All sample sizes are listed as not reported because the original study did not present sample sizes clearly.

SOURCE: Connor, Morrison, Schatschneider, Toste, Lundblom, Crowe, and Fishman (2011).
Appendix E 75 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E6. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Al Otaiba, Connor, Folsom, Greulich, Meadows, and Li (2011) 

Study

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable

Intervention 

assignment 

sample

Comparison 

assignment 

sample

Intervention 

group

Comparison 

group

Hedges’ 

g

Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

School-level 

sample size 7 7 NR NR NR NR

Student-level 

sample size NR NR NR NR NR NR

WJ Letter Word 

standard score, 

unadjusted mean 

difference

NR NR 95.53

(12.23)

97.27 

(13.52) - -1.03 13.88 14.77 NR

WJ Word Attack 

standard score, 

unadjusted mean 

difference

NR NR 96.37

(22.14)

98.86

(21.94) - -0.09 13.82 13.95 NR

AIMSweb Letter 

Sound Fluency, 

unadjusted mean 

difference

NR NR 8.15

(9.61)

9.98

(10.26) - 3.14 17.42 14.26 NR

DIBELS Phoneme 

Segmenting 

Fluency, 

unadjusted mean 

difference

NR NR NR NR - 12.13 22.97 15.61 NR

DIBELS Nonsense 

Word Fluency, 

unadjusted mean 

difference

NR NR NR NR - 2.51 24.66 23.04 NR

NR= not reported. WJ=Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement. DIBELS=Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. 

NOTE: In this RCT study with a kindergarten sample, the study authors did not report sample size information clearly enough to calculate attrition or establish baseline equivalence.

SOURCE: Al Otaiba, Connor, Folsom, Greulich, Meadows, and Li (2011).
Appendix E 76 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E7. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Al Otaiba, Connor, Folsom, Greulich, Meadows, and Li (2011)

Study, Hierarchical Multivariate Linear Model (HMLM) Analysis

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable

Intervention 

assignment 

sample

Comparison 

assignment 

sample

Intervention 

group

Comparison 

group

Hedges’ 

g

Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

School-level 

sample size 7 7 7 7 7 7

Student-level 

sample size NR NR 305 251 305 251

WJ Letter Word zscore, HMLM 

adjusted mean 

difference

NR NR NR NR - 0.20 1.08 0.88 .022

WJ Word Attack zscore, HMLM 

adjusted mean 

difference

NR NR NR NR - -0.02 0.98 1.03 .749

AIMSweb Letter 

Sound Fluency zscore, HMLM 

adjusted mean 

difference

NR NR NR NR - 0.05 0.99 1.01 .545

WJ=Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement. 

NOTE: In this RCT study with a kindergarten sample, the study authors did not report sample size information clearly enough to calculate attrition or establish baseline equivalence.

SOURCE: Al Otaiba, Connor, Folsom, Greulich, Meadows, and Li (2011).
Appendix E 77 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E8. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Al Otaiba, Connor, Folsom, Greulich, Meadows, and Li (2011) 

Study, Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). Hierarchical Multivariate Linear Model (HMLM) Analysis 

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable

Intervention 

assignment 

sample

Comparison 

assignment 

sample

Intervention 

group

Comparison 

group

Hedges’ 

g

Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

School-level 

sample size 7 7 7 7 7 7

Student-level 

sample size NR NR 303 245 303 245

DIBELS Phoneme 

Segmenting 

Fluency z-score, 

HMLM adjusted 

mean difference

NR NR NR NR - 0.58 1.10 0.75 .000

DIBELS Nonsense 

Word Fluency zscore, HMLM 

adjusted mean 

difference

NR NR NR NR - 0.11 1.03 0.96 .223

NR=not reported. 

NOTE: In this RCT study with a kindergarten sample, the study authors did not report sample size information clearly enough to calculate attrition or establish baseline equivalence.

SOURCE: Al Otaiba, Connor, Folsom, Greulich, Meadows, and Li (2011).
Appendix E 78 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E9. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Al Otaiba, Connor, Folsom, Greulich, Meadows, and Li (2011)

Study, Latent Literacy HMLM Analysis

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable

Intervention 

assignment 

sample

Comparison 

assignment 

sample

Intervention 

group

Comparison 

group

Hedges’ 

g

Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

School-level 

sample size 7 7 7 7 7 7

Student-level 

sample size NR NR NR NR NR NR

Latent Literacy, 

HMLM coefficient NR NR NR NR - 0.33 NR NR .002

Latent Literacy, 

HMLM adjusted 

model for Cohen’s 

d using standard 

deviation =1

NR NR NR NR - 0.52 NR NR NR

NR=not reported. HMLM=Hierarchical Multivariate Linear Model. 

NOTE: Authors randomly assigned seven schools to the intervention condition and seven schools were randomly assigned to the comparison condition. The study did not report enough information on 

the kindergarten sample to calculate attrition. 

SOURCE: Al Otaiba, Connor, Folsom, Greulich, Meadows, and Li (2011).
Appendix E 79 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E10. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Connor, Morrison, Fishman, Crowe, Otaiba, and 

Schatschneider (2013) Study, Grade 1 Analysis

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable

Intervention 

assignment 

sample

Comparison 

assignment 

sample

Intervention 

group

Comparison 

group

Hedges’ 

g

Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Teacher-level 

sample size NR NR NR NR NR NR

Student-level 

sample size 258 210 NR NR 258 210

WJ Letter-Word, 

Cohen’s d from 

HLM adjusted 

mean differences, 

grade 1

258 210 NR NR - 0.32 NR NR .016

WJ Passage 

Comprehension,

Cohen’s d from 

HLM adjusted 

mean differences, 

grade 1

258 210 NR NR - 0.36 NR NR .016

NR=not reported. WJ=Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement. HLM=Hierarchical Linear Model.

In this RCT study, authors randomly assigned teachers to treatment and comparison conditions. Both contrasts in this table have the potential to meet WWC Group Design Standards without 

reservations. The authors reported the assignment and analysis sample sizes as 28 teachers.

SOURCE: Connor, Morrison, Fishman, Crowe, Otaiba, and Schatschneider (2013).
Appendix E 80 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E11. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Connor, Morrison, Fishman, Crowe, Otaiba, and

Schatschneider (2013) Study, Grade 2 Analysis

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable

Intervention 

assignment 

sample

Comparison 

assignment 

sample

Intervention 

group

Comparison 

group

Hedges’ 

g

Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Teacher-level 

sample size NR NR NR NR

Student-level 

sample size 305 263 NR NR 305 263

WJ Letter-Word, 

Cohen’s d from 

HLM adjusted 

mean differences, 

grade 2

305 263 NR NR - 0.44 305 263 .022

WJ Passage 

Comprehension, 

Cohen’s d from 

HLM adjusted 

mean differences, 

grade 2

305 263 NR NR - 0.44 305 263 .022

NR=not reported. WJ=Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement. HLM=Hierarchical Linear Model. 

NOTE: In this RCT study, authors randomly assigned teachers to treatment and comparison conditions. Cohen’s d is a standardized mean difference. The contrasts in this table did not report the 

information needed to test for baseline equivalence. The contrasts in this table have the potential to meet WWC Group Design Standards without reservations. The authors reported the assignment and 

analysis sample sizes as 49 teachers.

SOURCE: Connor, Morrison, Fishman, Crowe, Otaiba, and Schatschneider (2013).
Appendix E 81 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E12. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Connor, Morrison, Fishman, Crowe, Otaiba, and

Schatschneider (2013) Study, Grade 3 Analysis

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable

Intervention 

assignment 

sample

Comparison 

assignment 

sample

Intervention 

group

Comparison 

group

Hedges’ 

g

Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Teacher-level 

sample size NR NR NR NR NR NR

Student-level 

sample size 295 246 NR NR 295 246

WJ Letter-Word, 

Cohen’s d from 

HLM adjusted 

mean differences, 

grade 3

295 246 NR NR - 0.25 295 246 .032

WJ Passage 

Comprehension, 

Cohen’s d from 

HLM adjusted 

mean differences, 

grade 3

295 246 NR NR - 0.06 295 246 .032

NR=not reported. WJ=Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement. HLM=Hierarchical Linear Model. 

NOTE: In this RCT study, authors randomly assigned teachers to treatment and comparison conditions. Cohen’s d is a standardized mean difference. The contrasts in this table did not report the 

information needed to test for baseline equivalence. The contrasts in this table have the potential to meet WWC Group Design Standards without reservations. The authors reported the assignment and 

analysis sample size as 40 teachers.

SOURCE: Connor, Morrison, Fishman, Crowe, Otaiba, and Schatschneider (2013).
Appendix E 82 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E13. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Connor, Morrison, Fishman, Crowe, Otaiba, and

Schatschneider (2013) Study, Grades 1–3 Analysis

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable

Intervention 

assignment 

sample

Comparison 

assignment 

sample

Intervention 

group

Comparison 

group

Hedges’ 

g

Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Teacher-level 

sample size NR NR NR NR NR NR

Student-level 

sample size NR NR NR NR NR NR

Reading Factor 

Score, Cohen’s d 

from crossclassified random 

effects growthcurve model, 

grades 1-3,

comparing three 

years of treatment 

vs. three years of 

control

NR NR NR NR 0.60 NR NR <.001

NR=not reported. WJ=Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement. HLM=Hierarchical Linear Model. 

NOTE: In this RCT study, authors randomly assigned teachers to treatment and comparison conditions. Cohen’s d is a standardized mean difference. The Reading Factor Score, Cohen’s d from crossclassified random effects growth-curve model, grades 1–3, comparing three years of treatment versus three years of control contrast was reviewed as a QED due to non-random placement of students 

into conditions. The contrasts in this table did not report the information needed to test for baseline equivalence. The authors reported a total analytic sample size of 95 teachers and 882 students.

SOURCE: Connor, Morrison, Fishman, Crowe, Otaiba, and Schatschneider (2013).
Appendix E 83 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E14. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Neel (2006) Study, Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI)

Analyses

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable Intervention group Comparison group Hedges’ g Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Student-level sample size 80 86 83 85

TPRI, Blend Words Task 1, 

Percentage

78.8%

(40.87)

82.6%

(49.88) - 0% - - -

TPRI, Blend Words Task 1, 

Percentage

60%

(48.99)

46.5%

(49.88) - 4.6% 18.63 27.44 .206

TPRI, Detecting Initial Sounds, 

Percentage

42.5%

(49.43) 

15.1%

(35.80) - 5.7% 31.04 37.12 .289

TPRI, Detecting Initial Sounds, 

Percentage

42.5%

(49.43) 

15.1%

(35.80) - 5.7% 31.04 37.12 .289

TPRI, Detecting Initial Sounds, 

Percentage

42.5%

(49.43) 

15.1%

(35.80) - 5.7% 31.04 37.12 .289

TPRI, Detecting Final Sounds, 

Percentage

46.3%

(49.86)

11.6%

(32.02) - 10.4% 25.85 38.08 .041

TPRI, Initial Consonant 

Substitution, Percentage

96.3%

(18.88)

100%

(0) - 0% - - -

TPRI, Final Consonant 

Substitution, Percentage

90.0%

(30.00)

94.2%

(23.37) - 0% - - -

TPRI, Middle Vowel 

Substitution, Percentage

78.8%

(40.87%)

82.6%

(37.91) - 0% - - -

TPRI, Initial Blending 

Substitution, Percentage

53.8%

(49.86)

53.5%

(49.88) - 1.2% 10.89 15.30 .574

TPRI, Blends in Final Position, 

Percentage

50.0%

(50.00)

37.2%

(48.33) - 1.1% 18.63 21.16 .723

NOTE: In this quasi-experimental (QED) study with a first-grade sample, the authors did not establish baseline equivalence on the analytic samples.

SOURCE: Neel (2006).
Appendix E 84 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E15. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Neel (2006) Study, Developmental Reading Assessment

(DRA) Level Analysis

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable Intervention group Comparison group Hedges’ g Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Student-level sample size 80 85 84 86

DRA Level, Raw Score 6.69

(4.78)

5.19

(3.29) - -0.12 1.56 1.62 NR

NR=not reported. 

NOTE: In this QED study with a first-grade sample, the authors did not establish baseline equivalence on the analytic samples.

SOURCE: Neel (2006).

Exhibit E16. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Neel (2006) Study, DRA Percent Analysis

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable Intervention group Comparison group Hedges’ g Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Student-level sample size 79 85 83 73

DRA, Percent 95.56

(3.63)

94.46

(3.08) - 0.27 2.24 2.27 NR

NR= not reported. DRA=Developmental Reading Assessment.

NOTE: In this QED study with a first-grade sample, the authors did not establish baseline equivalence on the analytic samples.

SOURCE: Neel (2006).
Appendix E 85 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E17. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Neel (2006) Study, DRA Comprehension Analysis

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable Intervention group Comparison group Hedges’ g Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Student-level sample size 79 85 83 72

DRA, Comprehension 14.44 

(5.10)

11.51

(2.57) - 4.61 2.70 2.23 NR

NR=not reported. DRA=Developmental Reading Assessment.

NOTE: In this QED study with a first-grade sample, the authors did not establish baseline equivalence on the analytic samples.

SOURCE: Neel (2006).

Exhibit E18. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Neel (2006) Study, DRA Fluency Analysis

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable Intervention group Comparison group Hedges’ g Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Student-level sample size 28 4 83 63

DRA, Fluency 69.14%

(24.84)

93.50%

(39.57) - 19.41% 31.23 22.69 NR

NR=not reported. DRA=Developmental Reading Assessment.

NOTE: In this QED study with a first-grade sample, the authors did not establish baseline equivalence on the analytic samples.

SOURCE: Neel (2006).
Appendix E 86 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E19. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Saylor (2008) Study, Spring Post-Test Analyses

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable Intervention group Comparison group Hedges’ g Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Site-level sample size 3 3 3 3

Student-level sample size 41 39 41 39

GKAP-R Scores 64.63

(24.71)

52.56

(24.46) - 4.34 19.53 20.98 NR

BLT, Scores 17.46

(7.60)

15.21

(6.28) - 2.65 10.25 8.87 NR

DIBELS Initial Sound Fluency 

Scores

16.59

(8.72)

14.54

(10.31) - NR NR NR NR

DIBELS Nonsense Word 

Fluency Scores

33.68

(14.82) 

33.00

(14.74) - 8.17 14.68 14.23 NR

DIBELS Phoneme Segmenting 

Fluency Scores

25.07

(19.50)

16.23

(15.53) - 12.43 19.55 22.25 NR

NR=not reported. GKAP-R=Georgia Kindergarten Assessment Program – Revised. BLT=Basic Literacy Test. DIBELS=Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills.

NOTE: In this QED study with a kindergarten sample, the authors used a prior-year cohort as the comparison group, which is not an acceptable QED design, based on WWC standards.

SOURCE: Saylor (2008).
Appendix E 87 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E20. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Saylor (2008) Study, Two-Factor Analysis of Variance Change Scores 

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable Intervention group Comparison group Hedges’ g Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Site-level sample size 3 3 3 3

Student-level sample size 41 39 41 39

GKAP-R, F-statistic 64.63

(24.71)

52.56

(24.46) - 4.93 NR NR .03

BLT, F-statistic 17.46

(7.60)

15.21

(6.28) - 0.09 NR NR .76

DIBELS Initial Sound Fluency, 

F-statistic

16.59

(8.72)

14.54

(10.31) - NR NR NR NR

DIBELS Nonsense Word 

Fluency, F-statistic

33.68

(14.82) 

33.00

(14.74) - 10.58 NR NR <.01

DIBELS Phoneme Segmenting 

Fluency, F-statistic

25.07

(19.50)

16.23

(15.53) - 1.05 NR NR .31

NR=not reported. GKAP-R=Georgia Kindergarten Assessment Program – Revised. BLT=Basic Literacy Test. DIBELS=Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills.

NOTE: In this QED study with a kindergarten sample, the authors used an analysis of variance (ANOVA) F-test to test the winter to spring change score between treatment and comparison groups. This 

study used a prior-year cohort as the comparison group, which is not an acceptable QED design, based on WWC standards.

SOURCE: Saylor (2008).
Appendix E 88 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E21. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Condron (2005) Study, Reading Gains for Grouped Versus NonGrouped Peers

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable Intervention group

Comparison 

group

Hedges’ g Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Student-level sample size NR NR 3374 1579

IRT Reading Scale Score, 

Regression Coefficient NR NR - 0.27 NR NR >.05

NR=not reported. IRT= Item Response Theory. 

NOTE: In this QED study using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten (ECLS-K) data set, the author created an IRT Reading Scale Score, including measures of letter 

recognition, beginning sounds, ending sounds, sight comprehension of words, and comprehension of words in context. The author analyzed a sample of 668 schools.

SOURCE: Condron (2005).

Exhibit E22. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Condron (2005) Study, Reading Gains for Low-, Middle-, or High-Skill 

Groups Versus Non-Grouped Peers

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable Intervention group Comparison 

group

Hedges’ g Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Student-level sample size NR NR NR NR

IRT Reading Scale Score, LowSkill Group vs. Non-Grouped, 

Regression Coefficient

NR NR - -1.22 NR NR <.05

IRT Reading Scale Score, 

Middle-Skill Group vs. NonGrouped, Regression Coefficient

NR NR - 0.76 NR NR >.05

IRT Reading Scale Score, HighSkill Group vs. Non-Grouped, 

Regression Coefficient

NR NR - 0.91 NR NR <.05

NR=not reported. IRT=Item Response Theory.

NOTE: In this QED using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten (ECLS-K) data set, the author created an IRT Reading Scale Score, including measures of letter recognition, 

beginning sounds, ending sounds, sight comprehension of words, and comprehension of words in context.

SOURCE: Condron (2005).
Appendix E 89 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E23. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Condron (2008) Study, Low-Skill Groups Versus Non-Grouped Peers 

at First Grade

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable Intervention group Comparison group Hedges’ g Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Student-level sample size 2219 4718 2219 4718

IRT Reading Scale Score, 

Unadjusted Mean Difference

31.53

(8.57)

38.97

(13.11) - -14.42 15.39 20.11 <.001

IRT= Item Response Theory.

NOTE: In this QED study using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten (ECLS-K) data set, the author used imputed data for students with missing outcomes or pre-test scores. 

Baseline equivalence could not be tested on the analysis sample due to the author’s use of imputed outcome and pre-test scores.

SOURCE: Condron (2008).

Exhibit E24. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Condron (2008) Study, Middle-Skill Groups Versus Non-Grouped 

Peers at First Grade

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable Intervention group Comparison group Hedges’ g Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Student-level sample size 3380 4718 3380 4718

IRT Reading Scale Score, 

Unadjusted Mean Difference

36.45

(9.81)

38.97

(13.11) - -3.89 16.41 20.11 <.001

IRT=Item Response Theory.

NOTE: In this QED study using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten (ECLS-K) data set, the author used imputed data for students with missing outcomes or pre-test scores. 

Baseline equivalence could not be tested on the analysis sample due to the author’s use of imputed outcome and pre-test scores.

SOURCE: Condron (2008).
Appendix E 90 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E25. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Condron (2008) Study, High-Skill Group Versus Non-Grouped Peers 

at First Grade

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable Intervention group Comparison group Hedges’ g Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Student-level sample size 3308 4718 3308 4718

IRT Reading Scale Score, 

Unadjusted Mean Difference

46.44

(15.48)

38.97

(13.11) - 11.74 19.42 20.11 <.001

IRT=Item Response Theory.

NOTE: In this QED study using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten (ECLS-K) data set, the author used imputed data for students with missing outcomes or pre-test scores. 

Baseline equivalence could not be tested on the analysis sample due to the author’s use of imputed outcome and pre-test scores.

SOURCE: Condron (2008).

Exhibit E26. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Condron (2008) Study, Low-Skill Groups Versus Non-Grouped Peers 

at Third Grade

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable Intervention group Comparison group Hedges’ g Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Student-level sample size 1436 6873 1436 6873

IRT Reading Scale Score, 

Unadjusted Mean Difference

58.42

(15.94)

70.95

(19.56) - -13.65 18.64 18.59 <.001

IRT=Item Response Theory.

NOTE: In this QED study using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten (ECLS-K) data set, the author used imputed data for students with missing outcomes or pre-test scores. 

Baseline equivalence could not be tested on the analysis sample due to the author’s use of imputed outcome and pre-test scores.

SOURCE: Condron (2008).
Appendix E 91 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E27. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Condron (2008) Study, Middle-Skill Groups Versus Non-Grouped 

Peers at Third Grade

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable Intervention group Comparison group Hedges’ g Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Student-level sample size 2067 6873 2067 6873

IRT Reading Scale Score, 

Unadjusted Mean Difference

64.82

(16.41)

70.95

(19.56) - -4.28 17.18 18.59 <.001

IRT= Item Response Theory.

NOTE: In this QED study using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten (ECLS-K) data set, the author used imputed data for students with missing outcomes or pre-test scores. 

Baseline equivalence could not be tested on the analysis sample due to the author’s use of imputed outcome and pre-test scores.

SOURCE: Condron (2008).

Exhibit E28. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Condron (2008) Study, High-Skill Groups Versus Non-Grouped Peers 

at Third Grade

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable Intervention group Comparison group Hedges’ g Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Student-level sample size 2634 6873 2634 6873

IRT Reading Scale Score, 

Unadjusted Mean Difference

79.43

(19.37)

70.95

(19.56) - 7.62 15.59 18.59 <.001

IRT= Item Response Theory.

NOTE: In this QED study using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten (ECLS-K) data set, the author used imputed data for students with missing outcomes or pre-test scores. 

Baseline equivalence could not be tested on the analysis sample due to the author’s use of imputed outcome and pre-test scores.

SOURCE: Condron (2008).
Appendix E 92 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E29. Attrition, Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Eastman (2010)

Baseline 

measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline 

measure

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable

Intervention 

assignment 

sample

Comparison 

assignment 

sample

Intervention 

group

Comparison 

group

Hedges’ 

g

Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Student-level sample 

size 27 27 23 22 23 22

Total Number of 

Errors on Running 

Record Reading 

Assessment,a Mean 

Difference

27 27 6.48

(3.84)

6.68

(4.02) - 0.55 3.11 3.48 0.583

a The outcome was not a standardized test and therefore does not have established reliability or validity; the authors did not provide additional evidence related to reliability and validity. 

NOTE: In this RCT study with a first-grade sample, the author used a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA; F=.306). Baseline equivalence could not be tested because the baseline measure does not 

have evidence of reliability or validity.

SOURCE: Eastman (2010).

Exhibit E30. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Arnold (2008) Study

Baseline measure 

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable Intervention group Comparison group Hedges’ 

g

Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Site-level sample size 5 16 5 16

Student-level sample size 94 289 94 289

TPRI Screening, Percent 

Growth

43%

(49.51)

48%

(49.96) -0.12 1% 49.18 48.99 NR

TPRI Listening Comprehension, 

Percent Growth

45%

(49.75)

56%

(49.64) -0.27 7% 40.00 33.63 NR

NR=not reported. TPRI=Texas Primary Reading Inventory.

NOTE: In this QED study with a kindergarten sample, the baseline data represent the percentage of proficient students whereas the effect size represents the difference between the percentage growth in 

the intervention group versus the percentage growth in the comparison group.

SOURCE: Arnold (2008).
Appendix E 93 Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

Exhibit E31. Baseline Characteristics and Findings for Roth (2009) Study

Baseline measure

(standard 

deviation)

Baseline 

measure

(standard 

deviation)

Findings Findings Findings Findings

Variable Intervention 

group

Comparison 

group

Hedges’ g

Mean 

difference

Intervention 

standard 

deviation

Comparison 

standard 

deviation

p-value

Student-level sample size 48 53 48 53

Writing Prompt Ideas, Gain 

Score 

2.07

(0.59)

2.28

(0.74) -0.31 0.55 0.64 0.66 <.001

Writing Prompt Organization, 

Gain Score

1.70

(0.75)

2.08

(1.01) -0.42 0.74 0.81 0.87 <.001

Writing Prompt Word Choice, 

Gain Score

1.94

(0.50)

2.17

(0.64) -0.40 0.50 0.61 0.68 <.001

Writing Prompt Sentence 

Fluency, Gain Score

1.90

(0.62)

2.20

(0.82) -0.41 0.50 0.64 0.68 <.001

Writing Prompt Spelling, Gain 

Score

2.08

(0.69)

2.70

(0.85) -0.79 0.91 0.64 0.59 <.001

Writing Prompt Spelling of HighFrequency Words, Gain Score

2.38

(0.79)

2.77

(0.78) -0.49 0.68 0.82 0.76 <.001

Writing Prompt Capitalization, 

Gain Score

1.61

(0.45)

1.88

(0.62) -0.49 0.34 0.72 0.64 <.05

Writing Prompt Punctuation, 

Gain Score

1.43

(0.48)

1.76

(0.51) -0.66 0.29 0.74 0.74 <.05

Writing Prompt Spacing, Gain 

Score

1.36

(0.74)

1.42

(0.74) -0.08 0.23 0.76 0.69 >.05

Writing Prompt Handwriting, 

Gain Score

2.40

(0.76)

2.35

(0.72) 0.07 0.58 0.85 0.74 <.001

Writing Prompt, Cohen’s d 1.89

(0.47)

2.16

(0.59) -0.50 1.3 0.42 0.49 <.0001

WJ Writing Sample, Cohen’s d 6.83

(3.88)

10.95

(5.89) -0.81 0.98 4.85 4.75 <.0001

WJ=Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement. 

NOTE: In this QED study with a first-grade sample, the author collected pre-test data to serve as baseline measures. In the findings columns, standard deviations reflect the gain score.

SOURCE: Roth (2009).
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation 

for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov