Evaluations of School Readiness Initiatives:

What are we Learning?

by

Elizabeth G. Brown

Catherine Scott-Little

 March 2003 
In Association with the School of Education 

University of North Carolina at Greensboro 

2003 

Written by 

Elizabeth G. Brown, Ph.D., SERVE Senior Program Specialist 

Errin M. McComb, Ph.D., SERVE Senior Program Specialist 

Catherine Scott-Little, Ph.D., SERVE Director of SERVEing Young Children and Expanded 

Learning Opportunities 

Edited by 

Donna Nalley, Ph.D., SERVE Publications Director 

Christy Casbon, SERVE Assistant Program Specialist 

Cover Design by 

Shelley Call, SERVE Graphic Designer 

Research and production of this document were supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, 

U.S. Department of Education, through the Regional Educational Laboratory at SERVE (under 

contract no. ED-01-CO-0015). The findings and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the 

position or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education. 
 i 

Acknowledgments

A number of persons were instrumental in the development of this document. The authors would 

like to thank Jean Williams for guidance on the conceptual framework for this review. Likewise, 

Jeff Valentine from the Department of Psychological Sciences, Center for Research Synthesis 

Methodology at the University of Missouri—Columbia was the lead consultant for the project 

and provided invaluable assistance in planning for the search process and analyzing the results. 

Special thanks to Dianne Rothenberg and other staff at the ERIC EECE Clearinghouse on 

Elementary and Early Childhood Education for their assistance with the literature search process. 

The authors also would like to thank the following SERVE staff for their assistance with the 

literature search process: Charles Ahearn, Lynn Amwake, Evangaline Benton, Kathleen DuffordMelendez, Laurie Joyce, Joyce Speas, and Lucy Wynn. Thank you also to Charles Ahearn for his 

work on the annotated bibliography. 

The authors are also grateful to the following persons who contributed their time and expertise 

toward reviewing the sections of the document most directly related to their expertise. Their 

comments and suggestions were invaluable toward strengthening the quality of the research and 

clarifying the meaning of the conclusions. 

Charles Ahearn, SERVE 

Laureen Cervone, The LAB at Brown University 

Richard M. Clifford, National Center for Early Development and Learning 

Pat Edwards, National Center for Community Education 

Jayma Ferguson, Indiana State Department of Education 

Beth Garriss Hardy, SERVE 

Jane Griffin, SERVE 

Gary T. Henry, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University 

Sharon K. Horn, U.S. Department of Education 

Priscilla Little, Harvard Family Research Project 

Rebecca Marcon, Department of Psychology, University of North Florida 

Martin McLaughlin, 21st Century Community Learning Center, U.S. Department of Education 

Steffen Saifer, NorthWest Regional Educational Laboratory 

Cheryl Vrooman, SERVE 
 ii 

Table of Contents

Section Page 

Acknowledgments i 

 

Evaluations of School Readiness Initiatives: What are we Learning? 1 

 Introduction 1 

 Previous Research on Early Care and Education Programs 1 

 Need for School Readiness Services and Evidence of their Impact 5 

 Evaluations of School Readiness Initiatives 6 

 Methodology 7 

 Results 10 

 Description of Programs Reviewed 10 

 Assessment of Research Design 11 

 School Readiness Outcomes Assessed and Instruments Used 14 

 Outcomes of School Readiness Programs 14 

 Effects on Child Development 14 

 School Performance 16 

 Long-Term Outcomes 17 

 The Quantity of the Program 18 

 Program Quality 19 

 Services Offered 19 

 Methods and Findings from Programs Using 20 

 Non-Experimental Design 

 Discussion and Recommendations 23 
 iii 

 Research Findings 24 

 Implications for Program Evaluation 24 

Appendix A: Data Coding Sheet 

Appendix B: School Readiness Tables 

References 
 1 

Evaluations of School Readiness Initiatives: What are we Learning? 

Introduction 

The link between quality early care/education programs and improved student outcomes is fairly 

well established. Decades of research have clearly demonstrated that high-quality early 

care/education can promote positive developmental outcomes, both while children are in 

childcare and later as they enter school. Specifically, studies (e.g., Barnett, 1995; Guralnick, 

1997; Karoly, Greenwood, Everingham, Hoube, Kilburn, Rydell, Sanders, & Chiesa, 1998) have 

found that children who received high-quality early care/education perform better on measures of 

cognitive and language development, and they are less likely to have been retained in later 

grades of school than children who did not receive high-quality care. Moreover, high-quality 

care shows positive associations with early social and emotional development (e.g., fewer 

behavior problems, greater cooperation with adults and peers, more sophisticated play). These 

findings seem to be particularly true for young children who are living in situations that place 

them at greater risk for school failure (e.g., poverty, low level of maternal education, singleparent household, and other factors that may limit their access to resources and experiences that 

enhance learning and development). Research indicates that these children are, in fact, the ones 

who benefit most from quality early childhood services. 

Encouraged by this evidence, a wide variety of school readiness programs and initiatives have 

been created. At the heart of these efforts is a belief that the early years constitute an especially 

sensitive time in children’s learning and development. Moreover, many experts believe that 

failure to provide children with the necessary resources and supports may create later problems 

that are far more difficult and costly to remedy. Head Start and Even Start represent examples of 

federal school readiness programs; however, a number of states and local districts have 

implemented school readiness programs as well. Examples include North Carolina’s Smart Start 

program, Michigan’s pre-kindergarten program, and Georgia’s lottery-funded school readiness 

program. 

The purpose of this paper is to conduct a review and synthesis of evaluation studies conducted on 

early childhood interventions, with a focus on programs that emphasize school readiness as a 

goal. This synthesis begins with an overview of the evidence regarding the effects of model early 

care and education programs and includes a discussion of the program characteristics associated 

with those findings. This literature provides an important context for understanding the actual 

subject of the synthesis, evaluations of school readiness initiatives. Following this section, the 

methodology and findings of the synthesis are presented. Implications of the findings are 

discussed in the final section. 

Previous Research on Early Care and Education Programs 

Model Early Care and Education Programs 

The positive relationship between high-quality early childcare programs and children’s 

development is one of the most consistent findings in developmental science (National Research 

Council, 2000). However, much of what is known and accepted about the effects of early 
 2 

childhood education programs comes from a small group of “model” programs. In this set of 

programs, researchers developed their own programs that allowed them to study the effects of 

exemplary practices. Typically, these programs received superior funding and were able to hire 

more highly qualified staff than typical early care and education programs. As a result, they were 

able to maintain a higher quality of care than large-scale, publicly funded programs (Barnett, 

1995). 

A recent article by Currie (2001) highlights four specific studies of model programs that stand 

out due to the rigor of the research. Each of these studies randomly assigned children to either 

treatment or control groups. In addition, none of these studies suffered from excessive attrition, 

and researchers were able to follow children at least into middle school. They include the Perry 

Preschool Project, the Carolina Abecedarian Project, the Early Training Project, and the 

Milwaukee Project. (The Infant Health and Development Project also used a randomized design 

and had low attrition, but children were only followed until age eight). 

Follow-up studies of the Perry Preschool Project continue to gain attention because of the results 

and longevity of the study. The study originally involved 123 three- and four-year-olds. The 

children were randomly assigned to either a high-quality preschool program or a no-program 

control group. The children assigned to the preschool program attended a half-day program each 

day, and their families received a weekly home visit. Classroom ratios were very low (1:6), and 

all of the preschool teachers had master’s degrees and training in child development. Data have 

been collected on children from both the treatment and control groups—annually from ages three 

through 11, ages 14–15, age 19, and age 27. Results indicated that participants in the preschool 

program had higher achievement test scores and graduation rates, as well as fewer incidents of 

criminal arrests and welfare use as reported by program participants (Schweinhart, Barnes, & 

Weikart, 1993). 

In the more recent Abecedarian Project, researchers randomly assigned 111 infants into a 

treatment group that received high-quality childcare and a control group (Campbell & Ramey, 

1994, 1995). The goal of the project was to prevent mental retardation and improve academic 

achievement when the children entered school. The children participated in their assigned groups 

for the first five years of their lives. Of the original 111 children, 92 were followed until age 15. 

At the end of the preschool intervention, there was a statistically significant IQ (seven points) 

difference between the treatment and control group (Campbell & Ramey, 1994). This difference 

was seen again at age eight and age 12. At age 15, although the children who received treatment 

continued to outscore children in the control group, the difference was no longer statistically 

significant. Other findings indicate that program participants continued to score significantly 

higher on reading and mathematics tests (at ages 8, 12, and 15). They also were less likely to 

have been retained (significantly different at ages 8, 12, and 15) or to have received special 

education services (age 15 only) (Campbell & Ramey, 1995). 

The Early Training Project began in 1962 with a group of low-income, African-American 

children (Gray, Ramsey, & Klaus, 1982). The purpose of the project was to assess the impact of 

a preschool intervention on attitudes relating to achievement and on academic performance. It 

also focused on engaging mothers in their children’s learning. The intervention program 
 3 

consisted of a ten-week summer preschool program for the two to three summers prior to the first 

grade, plus weekly home visits during the remainder of the year. Results indicated some positive 

effects on individual IQs for the first few years; however, this effect diminished over time. 

Greater impact was noted on school performance variables. For example, the number of children 

in special education was significantly smaller for the experimental group. There also was a small 

effect on the grade retention rate and an increase in high school graduation rates. In terms of teen 

pregnancy, although there was no difference between the treatment and control in the rate of 

pregnancy, girls in the treatment group were significantly more likely to return and complete 

high school than girls in the control group. 

The Milwaukee Project also was an attempt to improve cognitive development in high-risk 

families (Garber & Heber, 1977). This intensive intervention was designed for low-income, 

inner-city families with a maternal IQ below 75 and children between the ages of three months 

and six months. The six-year program offered extensive, daily, year-round educational 

programming for the child and vocational/education services to families, including job training, 

remedial education, parent counseling, and family crisis intervention. 

Results of this program suggested that children who participated in the intervention obtained 

higher IQ scores, demonstrated better problem-solving skills, and had better attitudes toward 

learning. In addition, program participants scored significantly higher on language development 

than children who did not participate in the program. 

Although “model” programs have provided the strongest evidence that early childhood education 

programs can have substantial effects on children’s lives, additional evidence is available from 

large-scale research studies. 

Evidence from Large-Scale Studies 

The Cost Quality and Outcomes in Childcare Centers Study (Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study 

Team, 1995) demonstrated that positive effects are not limited to special early intervention 

programs like the Abecedarian Project—even children in high-quality childcare programs 

benefit. The study, which began in 1993, was designed to examine the influence of care on 

children’s development during preschool and as they moved into elementary school. Initially, 

researchers recruited a stratified random sample of 401 childcare centers within four states: 

California, Colorado, Connecticut, and North Carolina. Within each center, two classrooms were 

randomly selected for observation. These observations documented the quality of services 

provided by the center and the range of costs associated with those services. 

After collecting data on the costs and quality of these programs, researchers identified 

classrooms that enrolled children who would be entering kindergarten in the fall of 1994. A total 

of 826 children were selected from 183 classrooms. Overall, the initial sample included 51% 

males and 49% females. Of these children, approximately 30% were children of color. The 

average level of maternal education was 14.2, and the average family income was $47, 753. 

Because of attrition, the number of children declined somewhat across each year so that by Year 

5, there were 418 children from 160 of the 183 classes still participating. 
 4 

Children were followed over a four-year period through the end of second grade. Controlling for 

demographic characteristics (i.e., maternal education and family income), researchers found that 

children in high-quality childcare programs performed better on measures of cognitive and social 

skills in childcare and at least through the end of second grade (the latest data point that has been 

reported). High-quality childcare seemed to have the greatest impact on children who are 

traditionally at risk of school failure (i.e., whose mothers had low education levels), and, 

conversely, when these children are enrolled in poor-quality childcare, they are at greater risk for 

doing poorly in school. 

Similar results were found in a study conducted by the National Institute of Child Health and 

Human Development (NICHD, 2001). In this study, researchers examined the effects of 

children’s experiences in childcare and their development over time. This study involved a total 

of 1364 children and their families recruited from ten sites located across the country. Beginning 

in 1991, children were enrolled at birth, and plans are to follow the children to the year 2005 

through their sixth year of school. 

Families included in the sample vary significantly with regard to economic and ethnic 

backgrounds. Approximately 76% of the families are white of non-Hispanic origin, nearly 13% 

of families are black, 6% are of Hispanic origin, 1% are Asian/Pacific Islanders/American 

Indians, and 4% are other minorities. About 10% of the mothers had less than a 12th-grade 

education, slightly over 20% of the mothers had a high school diploma, one-third had some 

college, 20% had a college degree, and 15% had a graduate or professional degree. The average 

income for families participating in the study was $37,781. Researchers used this information to 

focus on the unique contribution that childcare experiences make to children’s development—

testing the effects of early care and education programs above and beyond the contributions 

made by the family and child characteristics. 

Although the study is continuing, findings to date suggest that children in high-quality childcare 

arrangements score higher on tests of cognitive and language ability than children in lowerquality care. Children whose environments were stimulating and well organized scored higher on 

tests of vocabulary, short-term memory, and attention. Moreover, children from these 

environments got along better with peers. 

Together, these findings demonstrate the importance of high-quality care as it relates to 

children’s intellectual development and preschool skills.

Characteristics of High-Quality Early Childhood Programs 

Over time, early childhood research has shifted from “Can early childhood programs positively 

affect the development of children?” to the more refined question of “What are the specific 

features/elements that seem to generate these effects, and do variations of these features 

moderate the effect on children’s development?” 

According to Bryant and Maxwell (1996), determining the characteristics of successful programs 

can be very difficult because of the complexity of including all of the potential characteristics in 
 5 

a single study. However, several reviews of this literature seem to agree that there are certain 

aspects of program quality that lead to greater benefits for children (Barnett, 1995; ClarkeStewart, 1987; Halpern & Weiss, 1990; Phillips & Howes, 1987; Ramey & Ramey, 1992). Two 

common terms recur in the conceptualizations of program quality: (1) structural factors and (2) 

process factors. Structural factors usually refers to the way in which the program is organized or 

structured and includes variables such as: 

• Staff-to-child ratio 

• Group sizes 

• Specialized staff training in early childhood education 

Other features of program quality, called process factors, focus more on the relationships 

between children and staff and the interactions that occur around learning. Some of these 

features include having: 

• Caring, responsive teachers who care for the same group of children over a long time period 

• A curriculum that provides an opportunity to participate in a variety of developmentally 

appropriate activities 

Although it is the teacher and caregiver behaviors that form the core of children’s classroom 

experiences, many have speculated that it is the structural factors that provide the foundation that 

either hinders or enhances the quality of process in a program. That is, teachers are more likely 

to engage in appropriate caregiving practices if they are part of a program that maintains good 

structural factors, such as smaller group sizes and larger numbers of staff per children (Powell, 

1995). 

Need for School Readiness Services and Evidence of their Impact 

Despite the considerable evidence connecting quality early care and education with children’s 

success in school, many children continue to enter school unprepared. Data from the recent Early 

Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K) indicate that many 

children do not have the prerequisite skills and abilities they need to be successful in school 

(West, Denton, & Germino-Hausken, 2000; Zill & West, 2000). This study—one the largest and 

most comprehensive of its kind—was designed to describe the readiness of children as they 

entered into kindergarten. Researchers began by following a nationally representative sample of 

approximately 22,000 children from 1,277 programs. Data were collected along a number of 

dimensions of child development, including cognitive development, social/emotional 

development, and physical/psychomotor development. The results indicated that most of the 

children in the study entered kindergarten with basic skills pertaining to reading, mathematics, 

and social relationships. However, a significant percentage lagged behind their peers. For 

example, 18% of the children did not demonstrate that they were familiar with the conventions of 

print (i.e., they did not know that English print is read from left to right or where a story begins 

and ends), 34% could not identify letters of the alphabet by name, 42% were unable to count 20 

objects, and six percent could not count ten objects. 
 6 

Addressing the Need 

Given the apparent need to address children’s readiness and the evidence linking preschool 

participation with readiness, the prevalence of early childhood early intervention programs has 

increased dramatically over the past several years. In particular, states have begun to recognize 

the importance of early education in preparing children for school. A number of states and local 

districts are starting to integrate their pre-kindergarten initiatives with other early childhood 

programs—such as Head Start and childcare—to more effectively use the funds and resources 

that are available (Schulman, Blank, & Ewen, 1999). 

According to recent statistics (Education Week, January 2002), 39 states, plus the District of 

Columbia, have begun to offer their own classroom-based pre-kindergarten programs for at least 

some of their three- to-five-year-old children. This number is up from ten states in 1980. In 

addition, 21 states, plus the District of Columbia, provided substantial funds to supplement Head 

Start programs operating in their states. 

Despite these efforts to reach young children, most of these programs serve only a fraction of the 

children who could benefit from these services. Currently, most states focus their efforts on the 

neediest children—that is, children from low-income families or children with other risk factors, 

such as limited English proficiency or a teenage parent. Only three states—Georgia, New York, 

and Oklahoma—plus the District of Columbia have made preschool services available for all 

four-year-olds regardless of income of other identifiable risk factors (Education Week, January 

2002). And within these, only Georgia mandates the provision of pre-kindergarten services in all 

districts. New York and Oklahoma allow districts to choose whether or not they will use state 

funds to provide pre-kindergarten services. 

Even in these states where pre-kindergarten services are open to all who are interested, only a 

portion of the children are served. Georgia’s program serves the greatest number of four-yearolds with approximately 63,000 enrolled. When combined with Head Start enrollment, this 

figure translates into about 70% of four-year-olds in some form of publicly funded preschool. In 

contrast to Georgia, Oklahoma only serves about one-half of its four-year-olds, and New York 

serves approximately one-quarter (Education Week, January 2002). 

Beyond these state efforts, a number of local communities and districts are making a 

commitment to early childhood education. According to a recent report released by the General 

Accounting Office (GAO, 2000), local school districts are beginning to apply some of their Title 

I funds toward preschool services. A survey of 16,000 school districts from across the nation 

revealed that approximately 17% of the districts receiving Title I funds used a portion of those 

funds for preschool services during the 1999-2000 school year. Numbers indicated that 

approximately 313,000 preschool-age children were served with those funds—this represents 

about eight percent of the children who will ultimately enter public school kindergarten. 

Evaluations of School Readiness Initiatives 

At the same time that programs and agencies are increasing their investments in children’s early 

education, there also is increasing pressure to provide evidence of the effectiveness of these 
 7 

programs. Although much has been written about the effectiveness of small-scale model 

programs—and this literature has contributed much to our understanding of the benefits of early 

childhood intervention—there is little evidence to document whether these large-scale, publicly 

funded programs actually help children perform better in school. A recent survey of state-funded 

preschool programs (Ripple, Gilliam, Chanana, & Zigler, 1999) found that less than half of these 

programs had conducted an evaluation of their program’s effectiveness. This raises numerous 

questions about the effectiveness of these programs and their capability of producing significant 

benefits. 

In an attempt to answer some of these questions, Gilliam and Zigler (2001) conducted a metaanalysis of the available evaluations of state-funded preschool programs from 1977 to 1998. The 

authors concluded that, despite some of the methodological limitations of the evaluations, statefunded preschool programs might indeed help children perform better when they enter school. 

However, since this study was conducted, other states have implemented preschool programs, 

and additional work is needed to determine their effects. 

As a result, the purpose of this section of SERVE’s Expanded Learning Opportunities (ELO) 

research synthesis is to examine the effectiveness of a particular type of early care and education: 

school readiness initiatives. Rather than looking globally at the relationship between quality 

early childhood programs (which can include a variety of programs such as childcare, preschool, 

etc.) and student outcomes, the synthesis will focus on programs and initiatives designed 

specifically to prepare children for success in school. The synthesis will examine data that have 

been collected on these programs to answer the following questions: 

• What types of school readiness initiatives have been evaluated, and what research 

methodologies have been used to collect the data? 

• What are the outcomes associated with participation in school readiness programs? 

• What practices seem to best prepare children to enter school ready to learn and succeed? 

By focusing on these questions, it is hoped that this synthesis will provide a detailed, critical 

review of the methods and findings of school readiness evaluations conducted recently and that it 

will clarify recommendations for policy, practices, and program evaluation. 

The next section provides a detailed description of how the literature review was carried out and 

the process for including or excluding studies in the synthesis. 

Methodology 

Identifying the Relevant Literature 

The Literature Search. Following a process outlined by Cooper (1998), an extensive 

search of the literature was conducted to identify impact evaluations of recent school-readiness 

initiatives. To identify relevant articles and reports, a list of key words was compiled that might 

be used to describe school readiness initiatives. Search terms included: early intervention, school 

readiness, Head Start, family literacy, Even Start, pre-kindergarten, and kindergarten readiness. 
 8 

These terms were combined with key words such as outcomes, evaluation, and results to search 

specifically for studies that relate to program evaluations and child outcomes. 

The search process included both formal and informal channels of research information. 

Databases were searched, including ERIC, PsychINFO, Dissertation Abstracts International, and 

SSCI. In addition, an extensive search was conducted of the World Wide Web using the terms 

outlined above. This led investigators to a variety of websites including: Child Trends, National 

Center for Early Development & Learning, Mathematica, RAND, Southern Regional Education 

Board, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and Regional Educational Laboratory 

websites. Links from each of these sites were followed and searched thoroughly. Finally, 

relevant conference presentations were located by reviewing past conference programs and 

proceedings for the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Association for 

Childhood Education International (ACEI), Head Start Research Conference, Improving 

America’s School Act (IASA) Conferences, National Association for Elementary School 

Principals (NAESP), National Head Start Research Conference, and Society for Research in 

Child Development (SRCD). 

In addition to the literature review process, early childhood specialists in each state department 

of education were contacted regarding their state’s pre-kindergarten program. Specialists were 

contacted via meetings, listservs, and emails and asked to provide any evaluation reports that 

might document the effectiveness of their program. 

The search process was conducted between January and April 2002 and yielded a total of 53 

articles, reports, conference presentations, and dissertations disseminated between January 1997 

and April 2002. Once these reports were compiled, the research team reviewed each of the 

documents to determine its suitability for possible inclusion in the synthesis. Documents that 

failed to provide a description of a specific program or initiative or documents that did not report 

on child outcomes were immediately eliminated. A total of 32 documents were identified as 

possible candidates for inclusion in the synthesis. 

Narrowing the Pool. Selection criteria for the synthesis defined the nature of the program 

being evaluated and some basic requirements for the evaluation report. Documents/reports 

meeting the following criteria were included in the synthesis: 

• Publication date – Given the recent significant increase in the number of children served 

through school readiness initiatives and the relatively recent increase in the number of 

evaluations of such programs, the goal of this synthesis was to examine data from recently 

reported evaluations. Therefore, reports or studies published between January 1997 and April 

2002 were included in the synthesis. 

• Location of the program – Only evaluations of school readiness initiatives located in the 

United States were included. 

• Nature of the program – The program must be a publicly funded program or intervention, 

which directly targets children from birth to age five. A stated goal of the initiative is to 

enhance children’s readiness for school. In addition, programs must maintain a component of 

classroom-based services. Programs that solely used either a home visitation or parent 

education approach were not included. Neither were drop-in or childcare programs included. 
 9 

• Evidence of effectiveness – The report must present some type of child outcome data (e.g., 

achievement tests, retention, behavior problems, special education placement) indicating the 

effectiveness of the program. 

Using this set of criteria, two members of the research team carefully reviewed the remaining 

documents to determine which studies were most relevant to the research questions. Study 

abstract or executive summaries were primarily used to determine if a study met the criteria. In 

instances where the abstract did not provide sufficient information to make a determination, the 

full report was reviewed. There was 100% agreement between the coders regarding which 

studies should be retained and which ones should be eliminated from the synthesis. 

Analyzing the Literature 

Describing the Evaluations. Each of the remaining documents was coded using a detailed 

coding system designed to capture information about the nature of the school readiness program 

and the methods used to evaluate its effectiveness (see Appendix A). This included information 

about the number of children served, planned program activities/services, staff qualifications, 

etc. In terms of the evaluation of the program, coding focused on the research design, sampling 

procedures, measures/instruments, and outcome data. 

Assessing the Quality of the Research Design. In the early childhood literature, there is 

considerable variability in the quality of research that has been conducted. While experimental 

design with randomized trials represents the standard by which research is measured, early 

childhood research has often relied on less rigorous methods. This has been particularly true with 

respect to four key elements of design: 

• Identification of the comparison group 

• Initial/follow-up sample sizes 

• Attrition 

• Measure of program effects (Barnett, 1995) 

A tightly designed study allows the researcher to more confidently conclude that the results are 

due to the actual treatment/intervention rather than some other effects. 

 A careful analysis was conducted to assess the quality of the research studies included in this 

synthesis. Twenty of 32 evaluations provided child outcome data of some type and were 

included in this synthesis review. Data range from student achievement scores and report cards 

to information on children’s attitudes toward school and the need for special services. 

The type of research design was the key element in classifying studies at this stage in the 

process. Data on the design of the program reports were recorded on all 20 evaluation studies 

reporting outcome data. Studies were coded into one of four categories: pre-experimental, 

correlational, quasi-experimental, and experimental (as described in Campbell & Stanley, 1963). 

The codings were verified by an independent rater for five of the 20 studies (25%). The raters 

attained 100% agreement on ratings of the design classification. Studies employing either a 

quasi-experimental or an experimental design were deemed to have sufficient internal validity to 
 10 

place confidence in their results and were, therefore, reported separately from the preexperimental studies in the synthesis of outcome data. It is recognized that pre-experimental and 

correlational designs, although not as strong in supporting causal conclusions related to 

outcomes, can contribute to the understanding of school readiness programs. Results from 

studies classified as pre-experimental and correlational designs are discussed in the section 

following the presentation of experimental and quasi-experimental studies. 

 

Synthesizing the Evaluation Results. In order to synthesize the findings from the school 

readiness evaluations, the studies were grouped according to study design: quasi-experimental 

and experimental versus correlational or pre-experimental. From there, the program 

characteristics and evaluation findings were reviewed and patterns identified. It should be noted 

that in conducting a synthesis on the effects of a program, a quantitative meta-analysis is the 

preferable methodology. For the current synthesis, a full-blown meta-analysis was not possible 

due to limitations of the data provided in the reports. Effect sizes were calculated and presented 

for studies whenever possible; however, this was not possible for all the studies. It should also be 

noted that the data available for the synthesis were limited to publicly available study reports. It 

is recognized that several of the studies are ongoing, and additional data may have been collected 

but not publicly available at the time the synthesis was conducted. Descriptions of the study 

design and the results may, therefore, be less than ideal. The research team made every effort to 

locate and analyze the most complete data available for each report. Readers are cautioned that 

the unit of analysis for this synthesis is the documents referenced, and these may or may not 

provide a complete description of the program and/or the research or evaluation being conducted 

on the program. 

Results 

The synthesis process revealed a number of findings about the character of school readiness 

initiatives and the outcomes associated with those initiatives. The results presented in this section 

will first address the research questions outlined in the introduction. For the two questions 

related to program outcomes, the discussion will focus specifically on the nine studies coded as 

either experimental or quasi-experimental; this will be followed by a discussion of the studies 

categorized as pre-experimental or correlational. 

Research Question 1: What types of school readiness initiatives have been evaluated, and what 

research methodologies have been used to collect the data? 

Description of Programs Reviewed 

Understanding the outcomes of school readiness programs requires understanding the programs 

in which the children were enrolled. Table 1 (Appendix B) offers a brief description of the 

programs that were included in the synthesis. All of the 20 programs reviewed are ongoing largescale public early childhood education programs. Of the 20, 13 are state-funded readiness 

initiatives administered by the state department of education or another state agency such as the 

Office of School Readiness (Georgia) or the Office of Community Development (Washington). 

Four of the reports focus on federal readiness initiatives such as Head Start, Early Head Start, 
 11 

and Even Start, and three of the reports focus on local programs (e.g., those supported by federal 

Title I funding). 

Among the programs, there was some variation according to services offered, duration/intensity 

of the program, and program setting. Most of the programs operated on a nine-month 

(corresponding to school year), half-day schedule. With the exception of Early Head Start and 

Even Start, none of the programs enrolled children before the age of three, and most served 

children for one year just prior to kindergarten. 

In addition to classroom-based services, several of the programs offered a range of assistance, 

including health/dental care, home visitation, hearing/vision screenings, and parental support. 

In almost all of the studies examined, children and their families were low income, and the 

children were considered at risk for school failure. Moreover, there was considerable ethnic and 

geographic diversity across the studies reviewed. 

Assessment of Research Design 

The evaluation of programs and interventions designed to improve outcomes for children is an 

important piece of early childhood research. From these evaluations, we hope to determine if a 

program is being properly implemented and whether or not an intervention is having the intended 

effect on those served. However, being able to make a causal connection between a program and 

its outcomes calls for a well-designed evaluation with randomization. Randomization ensures 

that there are no systematic observable or unobservable differences between children assigned to 

the various treatment conditions except for the effects of the program itself. 

As illustrated in Table 2, the number of program studies using a pre-experimental design versus a 

quasi-experimental or experimental is fairly even. Among the studies utilizing a preexperimental design, most were a one-group, pre-test/post-test design or a one-group, case study 

design. Although data from these studies may begin to suggest some type of impact on children’s 

readiness, it is difficult to draw conclusions that these programs were responsible for the changes 

noted. As a result, studies using a pre-experimental design are presented separately in the 

synthesis of outcome data. 

Table 2: Research Design Used to Collect Outcome Data 

Evaluation 

Study 

PreExperimental 

Design 

QuasiExperimental 

Design 

Experimental

Design 

Does Head Start help Hispanic children? (Currie & Thomas, 

1999)

 X 

2000 – 2001 Head Start/ECAP Outcomes Report – State of 

Delaware (Gamel-McCormick, M., Cummings, M., Cornwell, 

J., & Kersteter, P.G., 2001)

X 

Building their futures: How Early Head Start programs are 

enhancing the lives of infants and toddlers in low-income 

families. (Love, J. Kisker, E., Ross, C., Schochet, P., BrooksGunn, J., Boller, K., Paulsell, D., Fuligni, A., & Berlin, L., 2001)

 X 
 12 

Evaluation 

Study 

PreExperimental 

Design 

QuasiExperimental 

Design 

Experimental

Design 

An investment in children and families: Year 7 longitudinal 

study report. (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 

1999) 

 X 

National Evaluation of The Even Start Family Literacy 

Program (Tao, F., Gamse, B., & Tarr, H., 1998)

X 

Pre-K Longitudinal Study: Findings from the 1999-2000 

School Year (Henry, G., Gordon, C., Mashurn, A., & Ponder, 

B., 2001)

X 

Head Start FACES: Longitudinal findings on program 

performance, third progress report (Zill, N., Resnick, G., 

Mckey, R., Clark, C., Pai-Samant, S., Connell, D., VadenKiernan, M., O’Brien, R., & D’Elio, M. January 2001)

X 

Illinois Pre-kindergarten Program for Children At-Risk of 

Academic Failure: FY 2000 Evaluation Report (Illinois State 

Board of Education, 2001)

X 

Four-Year-Old At-Risk Program: Final Evaluation

(Martinez, S., 2002)

X 

Kentucky Preschool Project (Hemmeter, M. L., 2000) X 

 Educational transitions in early childhood, middle 

childhood, and early adolescence: Head Start vs. public 

school pre-kindergarten graduates (Marcon, 2000)

 X 

Children entering school ready to learn: School readiness 

baseline information. School year 2001-2002 (Maryland State 

Department of Education, 2002)

X 

Points of light: Third year report of the Michigan School 

Readiness Evaluation (Xiang, Z., Schweinhart, L., Hohmann, 

C., Smith, S., Storer, E., & Oden, S., 2000)

 X 

Pre-kindergarten program product evaluation report, 1999-

2000, School District of Michigan, Saginaw (Kurecka, P. & 

Claus, R., July 2000)

X 

School entry assessment project: Report of findings 

(Pfannenstiel, J., 2001)

X 

Head Start’s impact on school readiness in Ohio: A case 

study of kindergarten students (Cogswell, S., Lochtefeld, S., 

Skaggs, A., & Walker, J., 1998)

 X 

2000 kindergarten survey report: Readiness to learn (Oregon 

Department of Education, 1999)

X 

Chicago Child-Parent Center Program (Reynolds, A., 

Temple, J., Robertson, D., & Mann, E., 2001)

 X 

A six-county study of the effects of Smart Start childcare on 

kindergarten entry skills (Maxwell, K., Bryant, D., MillerJohnston, S., 1999)

 X 

Kindergartner’s skills in Smart Start counties in 1995: A 

baseline from which to measure change. (Maxwell, K., 

Bryant, D., Keyes, L., & Bernier, K., July 1997)

X 

Total by Design Type 11 8 1 
 13 

Experimental design was used in only one of the studies—the Early Head Start study conducted 

by Mathematica (see Table 3, Appendix B). In this study, children and families were randomly 

assigned to either a treatment group or a control at the time the intake was conducted. 

Consequently, all families were eligible for Early Head Start. This type of comparison group 

(i.e., waitlist comparison) provides a good test of a program’s effectiveness because children and 

their families are both eligible to receive services and motivated to apply for the program. Those 

assigned to the treatment group received the full range of Early Head Start services, including 

child development and education services, healthcare screenings/treatment, family support 

services, and family involvement activities. Those assigned to the control group were not 

allowed to receive Head Start services until their children reached the age of three, although they 

were eligible to receive other services within the community. The researchers also attempted to 

control for non-response bias in their design. Therefore, the experimental design used in this 

study yields the highest degree of confidence in the causal relationship between the early 

childhood program and the reported outcomes. 

Eight of the studies used a quasi-experimental design to gauge the impact of programs on student 

outcomes. In most instances, a non-equivalent control group was used (see Table 3, Appendix 

B). Typically, studies compared program participants with a group of non-program participants 

and attempted to control some of the potential bias by matching the two groups on related 

variables (e.g., race, gender, economic differences). This type of comparison—comparing 

children who received a particular intervention with children who did not—is methodologically 

the best for answering the question of whether a particular intervention had an impact on 

participants. However, as noted in a recent symposium on wide-scale early childhood assessment 

systems (Scott-Little, Brown, and Dufford-Melendez, 2001), school readiness programs are 

finding it increasingly difficult to locate comparison groups with non-served children. As 

services for pre-kindergarten children have expanded, the population of totally unserved children 

has decreased. A large proportion of preschool-age children are being served in some type of 

program, be it a school readiness program or childcare. Therefore, many programs have begun to 

compare children in one program with children in another program. Although not ideal from a 

pure methodological standpoint, it was determined that these studies can contribute to our 

understanding of the child outcomes associated with participation in school readiness programs, 

and studies with this type of research design have, therefore, been included in this analysis. The 

Smart Start (Maxwell, Bryant, & Miller-Johnston, 1999), Washington, DC Public Schools 

(Marcon, 2000), Chicago Child-Parent Center Program (Reynolds, Temple, Robertson, & Mann, 

2001), Ohio Head Start (Cogswell, Lochtefeld, Skaggs, & Walker, 1998), and Currie & Thomas 

(1999) included comparisons of children participating in multiple types of services, as well as 

children who did not participate in a school readiness intervention in some of the studies. Please 

see the annotated bibliography that accompanies this report for further details about the 

methodologies utilized in each of the studies. 

Research Question 2: What are the outcomes associated with participation in school readiness 

programs? 

To examine the outcomes and effects of the programs included in this synthesis, data regarding 

measures, outcomes variables, statistical analyses, and effects were coded and summarized. 

Studies using experimental or quasi-experimental designs will be reviewed first, followed by 
 14 

studies using other designs. Table 4 (Appendix B) presents an overview of the instruments used 

and the outcomes assessed. 

School Readiness Outcomes Assessed and Instruments Used 

Outcomes were categorized into three major areas: child development, school performance, and 

long-term outcomes. Each area was then subdivided into domains (see Table 4, Appendix B). 

For example, the area of child development includes five domains: children’s overall 

development, language/literacy skills, logic/math skills, child health/physical development, and 

social/emotional development. The area of school performance focuses on academic 

achievement test results, retention, special services (e.g., special education referral, 

speech/language services), attendance, and school adjustment/attitude. Long-term outcomes 

included two domains: dropout rate and arrest record. 

All but two of the programs, Marcon (2000) and Reynolds et al. (2001), conducted assessment in 

the area of child development. Six of the nine programs focused on school performance 

outcomes, and only one program (Reynolds et al., 2001) examined long-term outcomes. Six of 

the programs reviewed assessed child outcomes in two areas—usually child development and 

school performance. A closer examination of the specific domains indicates that measures of 

language/literacy skills were the most commonly used. After language/literacy, children’s social 

development, child health/physical development, and logic/math skills were the domains most 

commonly assessed. 

In terms of instruments used, a wide variety of tests and procedures were employed among the 

11 studies. Many of these are well-known, psychometrically valid instruments such as the 

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT), the Woodcock-Johnson, the Bayley Scales of Infant 

Development, and the Social Skills Rating Scale (SSRS). However, others were relatively 

unknown, locally developed instruments with little data regarding their validity or reliability, 

such as Student Behavioral Form (Washington State’s ECEAP). 

Outcomes of School Readiness Programs 

Effects on Child Development 

As noted above, the area of child development focused on outcomes related to children’s overall 

development, language/literacy skills, math/logic, child health/physical development and social 

development. These areas are central to children’s overall development and learning. 

Before examining the data on child outcomes, it is necessary to consider the strengths and 

limitations of the research design and methodologies used within this group of studies. As noted 

above, some of the studies included less than ideal comparison groups because children in at 

least one of the comparison groups had not been randomly assigned and had experienced some 

type of preschool services. In addition, some of the studies (Marcon, 2000; Cogswell et al., 1998) 

did not take steps to assess whether families who selected one type of program or another (or 

who received no services) were comparable. Attrition was another issue in a few of the studies, 

particularly those that followed children over longer periods of time (Marcon, 2000; Xiang, Z., 

Schweinhart, L., Hohmann, C., Smith, C., Storer, E., & Oden, S., 2000). Typically, there was no 
 15 

reported analysis of how subjects who dropped from the program or study differed from those 

who did not. It is acknowledged that our analysis for this review is limited to publicly available 

reports and may, therefore, not present a complete picture of each of the research projects. In 

short, even though these studies have utilized the relatively rigorous designs for examining 

causal relationships between program interventions and child outcomes, we must be cautious in 

interpretations of the results. Given these considerations, we now turn to a description of the 

results reported in the quasi-experimental and experimental studies. 

Language/Literacy Skills. Literacy and language development are key areas in children’s 

ultimate success in school. Many experts believe children’s early experiences with oral language 

development, their interest in books, and efforts to “write” or draw with scribbles begin to build 

a strong foundation for reading success. 

Among the program studies reviewed for this synthesis, measures of children’s language/literacy 

skills focused primarily on children’s knowledge and understanding of print, their ability to 

recognize letters and identify sounds, and their ability to comprehend. Eight of the nine programs 

with experimental or quasi-experimental research designs measured the effects of the program on 

language and literacy skills. Three of those programs found significant effects for program 

participants. For example, small positive effects were noted in the Early Head Start (EHS). This 

study found that, at 24 months, children in EHS programs were using a larger number of words, 

and they were more likely to use grammatically complex phrases and sentences than were 

children in the control group (Love, Kisker, Ross, Schochet, Brooks-Gunn, Boller, Paulsell, 

Fuligni, & Berlin, 2001). Currie & Thomas (1999) also found benefits for Hispanic children 

attending Head Start. Participation in Head Start had a positive effect on children’s performance 

on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). A third study evaluating the impact of a state 

pre-kindergarten program (Michigan School Readiness Program) found significant results in 

language/literacy for kindergarten children (d = .33). 

Math/Logic. In addition to language/literacy, several of the programs included in this 

review examined children’s knowledge and understanding of math. Typically, math/logic skills 

center around one’s ability to understand numbers/shapes, solve mathematical operations, and 

identify solutions to problems. Of the nine programs reviewed, four included some measure of 

children’s knowledge and skills with numbers. Only one of the programs (Currie & Thomas, 

1999) collecting data on children’s early math skills reported significant findings. According to 

Currie & Thomas (1999) Hispanic children who participated in Head Start scored higher on 

measures of math/logic than their siblings who attended other preschools or who did not attend 

preschool at all. 

Social Relations. Although the focus of most readiness initiatives has been on children’s 

cognitive development and school success, recent reviews (Peth-Pierce, 2000) affirm the 

importance of children’s social/emotional development in determining school success. 

Generally, children’s social skills are conceptualized along two dimensions—prosocial behavior 

and problem behavior (Meece, 1997, as cited in West, Denton, & Germino-Gausken, 2000). 

Prosocial behavior tends to refer to behaviors that facilitate interaction such as sharing, turntaking, and cooperating with others. In contrast, problem behaviors (e.g., fighting, arguing) tend 

to interfere with good social relationships. Of the nine programs reviewed, six included some 
 16 

measure of children’s social competence, and five reported significant differences between 

groups of children. In one of the studies, effects were found for kindergarten children (Michigan 

School Readiness Program). For example, students who had participated in the Michigan School 

Readiness Program scored significantly higher on the social relations subscale than students who 

had not participated in the program (d = .30). Looking at slightly younger children, preliminary 

results of the Early Head Start study indicated that, at two years of age, children participating in 

Early Head Start programs display lower levels of aggression as reported by parents. 

Two of the state pre-kindergarten programs found significant results in favor of the comparison 

groups (Ohio Head Start and Washington), while one program found no differences between 

groups on measures of social competence (Smart Start). 

Child Health/Physical Development. Children’s physical health and well being are 

important precursors for success in school. Children who are healthy, alert, and energetic are 

able to give their full attention to learning in school (National Education Goals Panel, 1997). 

Moreover, how well children are able to perform the typical motor skills/coordination for their 

age may influence how well they do in school. For example, children with poor fine motor skills 

will have difficulty holding a pencil, which will, in turn, affect their ability to print letters and 

words. 

Of the nine program studies reviewed, five included some measure of children’s physical 

health/development. Two of the studies (Smart Start and Michigan School Readiness Program) 

reported significant differences between groups of children with small to moderately sized 

positive effects noted for children who participated in the program (d = .29 and d = .29, 

respectively). Another two programs (Early Head Start and Washington’s ECEAP) found no 

difference between children on measures of physical development/health. 

School Performance 

School outcomes were measured by attendance, rates of grade retention, school adjustment, 

special services referrals/placement, and performance on standardized achievement tests. 

Attendance. Three of the program studies documented school attendance as a measure of 

school performance. Two of the three programs reported no significant difference between the 

program group and comparison group for kindergarten attendance (Ohio Head Start and 

Washington’s ECEAP). The third program (Michigan School Readiness Program) study found 

higher first-grade attendance rates for program attendance, although the effect was very small (d 

= .07). 

Retention. Retention is another key variable in determining children’s success in school. 

Statistically significant effects on grade retention were found in three of the five studies that 

reported collecting relevant data (Currie & Thomas, 1999; Reynolds et al. 2001; Xiang et al., 

2000). A fourth study (Marcon, 2000) found no significant difference between the program 

participants and a comparison group. The fifth study reported collecting retention data; however, 

findings for this information were not described in the document (Washington’s ECEAP). 
 17 

School Adjustment. Looking next at adjustment and attitude toward school, one of the 

two program studies that collected data (Washington’s ECEAP) found no significant difference 

between program participants and the comparison group. The second study (Michigan School 

Readiness Program) found that grade 2 teachers rated MSRP students significantly higher in 

interest in schoolwork than children who had not participated in the program (d = .14). 

Special services referral/placement. Children’s placement and referral to special 

education services was another variable for determining the benefits of early intervention. 

Special education services may be measured in several ways. For example, programs may simply 

document whether a child has been referred for special services. Alternatively, programs may 

focus on the number of years children receive special services or the number of special services 

that children participate in. Of the nine programs reviewed, three (Washington’s ECEAP; 

Marcon, 2000; Reynolds et al., 2001) included a measure indexing the receipt of special services. 

For example, Marcon (2000) found that special education placement of Head Start vs. pre-K 

graduates did not differ in either third or fourth grades. In terms of long-term effects, Reynolds et 

al. found that children with extended program participation experienced lower rates of special 

education placement (13.5% vs. 20.7%) at age 18. 

Achievement tests. Finally, only one program used achievement tests to evaluate its 

effectiveness. Such tests tend to focus on academic accomplishments and are a measure of what 

has been taught in school. In a study conducted by Marcon (2000), children enrolled in the public 

pre-K program scored higher on the language portion of the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills 

(CTBS) than did children enrolled in the local Head Start program. 

Long-Term Outcomes 

Of the studies included in this review, only one, Reynolds et al. (2001), has continued to follow 

children beyond the formal school years. The most recent evaluation of the Chicago Child-Parent 

Center focused on the long-term effects of this program—school dropout, high school 

completion, criminal arrests, grade retention, and special services. The results of this study 

indicated that at age 20, children who had participated in the preschool intervention had higher 

rates of high school completion and lower rates of school dropout. Participation in both 

preschool and school-age intervention were significantly associated with lower rates of retention 

and special education services at age 18. 

Research Question 3: What practices seem to best prepare children to enter school ready to 

learn and succeed?

The third question driving this synthesis focuses on program effects associated with particular 

program features. That is, are there particular programs or constellations of services that are 

more effective than others? To answer this question, we began by examining results both within 

and across programs. Ideally, one would try to associate particular child effects with specific 

program features. However, none of the experimental and quasi-experimental studies provided 

this type of analysis. Rather, details about the program are provided but are not considered as 

variables for comparisons of child effects. Another factor that limits our ability to draw 

conclusions is the fact that the programs examined did not differ substantially from one another 
 18 

on several key program variables, such as the intensity of services. Finally, process features of 

program quality (such as teacher-child interactions) typically were not reported. We know from 

the general early childhood education literature that process features can have a tremendous 

impact on child outcomes associated with early childhood programs. Therefore, it was difficult 

to answer the third research question—“Which practices best prepare children for success in 

school?”—from the studies that have been conducted. However, some preliminary implications 

from the data or findings are presented in the discussion below in order to shed some light on the 

current state of research within wide-scale publicly funded preschool programs and illuminate 

areas in need of further research. 

The Quantity of the Program 

It has long been held that the more program children experience, the greater the benefit. When 

we look at program dosage, there are three general elements of dosage that must be considered—

age at entry, intensity, and follow-through. See Table 1 (Appendix B) for a summary of these 

features from each of the programs included in the review.

 

Age at entry. It has been suggested that the earlier an intervention begins, the greater the 

benefit to children and families; however, evidence of this is often confounded by other timing 

variables such as duration and intensity (Bryant & Maxwell, 1996). To some extent, this may 

depend on the program’s goal or expected outcome. That is, if the goal is to improve the parentchild relationship, then early entry into a program focusing on parental sensitivity/responsiveness 

may help create a stable and secure attachment relationship. In contrast, a program focusing on 

early literacy and reading skills may not initiate treatment until children are age four. 

Studies included in the synthesis typically began serving children at about the same age. With the 

exception of the Early Head Start program, children entered the program at age three or four and 

exited at age five, just prior to kindergarten. This limited variation in the age of entry meant that 

it was difficult to discern any specific effects associated with serving children at an earlier age. 

Perhaps as Early Head Start follows children into later years, and other studies of programs that 

begin during infancy are conducted, data will emerge to allow an analysis of program effects by 

the age of child entry. 

Intensity. Intensity typically reflects the amount of time that is actually spent in direct 

contact with the program. That is, how many hours per day, how many days per week, and how 

many weeks per year. Again, many believe that the greater the intensity, the more lasting the 

benefit. Moreover, there is some speculation that there is some minimal level of intensity that 

must be met before program benefits are apparent. 

Looking across the programs included, most served children part day for at least four days per 

week. Only one program (Washington’s ECEAP) allowed children to be served less than four 

days per week (minimum of three days/ten hours per week). At least three of the programs 

(Marcon, 2000; Reynolds et al., 2001; Love et al., 2001) allowed children to be served, at least 

part-day, five days per week. To gain a better understanding of the relationship between program 

intensity and child outcomes, it will be necessary to examine programs that serve children full-
 19 

day and also full-year, as well as the part-day, part-year programs examined in studies included 

in this synthesis. 

Duration or follow-through. In this case, follow-through refers to the length of time that a 

child has spent in a school readiness program, plus services provided once the child enters 

school. Among the studies reviewed in this synthesis, the Chicago Child-Parent Center 

(Reynolds et al., 2001) perhaps demonstrates the best example of this program feature. The 

Chicago Child-Parent Center (CPC) is a school-based early intervention program that provides 

comprehensive educational and family support services to disadvantaged families beginning in 

preschool (ages three or four) and extending into early elementary school (second or third grade). 

Evaluations of the CPC have consistently found that children who participate in this program 

score better on measures of school achievement and motivational development. Moreover, 

participation also is associated with higher levels of parent involvement (Reynolds et al., 2000). 

Other evaluations of the CPC (Fuerst & Fuerst, 1993) have found that children who participated 

in the program for at least four years have higher eighth-grade achievement scores and higher 

rates of high school graduation than do children with no participation. 

Program Quality 

Beyond intensity and duration, there are structural factors related to program quality that seem to 

produce better child outcomes. For example, programs that maintain smaller groups of children 

and lower staff-child ratios are associated with better social and cognitive outcomes. Moreover, 

programs that employ staff with higher levels of training and education tend to be associated 

with more positive cognitive and social outcomes. 

Looking first at child-teacher ratio and group size, research supports the view that small class 

size and low teacher-child ratio contribute to benefits for young children (Frede, 1995). Almost 

all of the studies reviewed for this synthesis maintained some standard for ensuring that children 

were served in small groups with adequate access to caregivers (see Table 1, Appendix B). In 

fact, most of the programs maintained group sizes and ratios that were consistent with those 

recommended by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). 

In terms of teacher qualifications, again the literature supports the importance of highly qualified 

staff who understand the importance of child development and have the training needed to apply 

that knowledge as they work with young children. Of the programs reviewed, five (Ohio Head 

Start, Michigan School Readiness Program, Kentucky Preschool Program, Marcon (2000), and 

Washington State’s ECEAP) required that teachers have earned a bachelor’s degree and obtained 

a teaching certificate in early childhood education. Another four programs (local or federal Head 

Start programs) required that the lead teacher in each class have earned a Child Development 

Associate (CDA) credential or an associate’s degree (AA). 

Services Offered 

Finally, there is some evidence that successful programs provide children with enhanced services 

such as home visits, family support, health care/screening, and supplemental activities for 

families. Several of the documents reviewed (Love et al., 2001; Cogswell, 1998; Currie & 
 20 

Thomas, 1999; Marcon, 2000) were evaluations of Head Start programs (i.e., federally funded 

and state expansions of Head Start services). Unlike many other programs that provide services 

to children, Head Start has a broader mission that requires programs to provide a comprehensive 

set of services, including educational, health (i.e., medical, dental, and mental health), 

nutritional, and family support services. However, other programs offered supplemental services 

as well. For example, the Michigan School Readiness Program provided home visits by staff, 

parent education classes, and scheduled family events. Washington’s ECEAP program provides 

families with case management services, access to support groups, and home visits by staff. 

Finally, the Chicago Child-Parent Center provided families with comprehensive health, 

education, and family services (Reynolds et al., 2001). It seems possible that these more 

comprehensive programs might yield greater benefits in terms of child outcomes. However, data 

from the studies included in this review did not address this issue directly. 

Methods and Findings from Programs Using Non-Experimental Design 

As previously mentioned, there were 11 program reports/articles that did not use a comparison 

group (see Tables 5 and 6, Appendix B). Although our ability to draw causal conclusions is 

limited, these pre-experimental studies can contribute to our understanding of school readiness 

interventions. Many of these studies collected more data on the implementation of the programs 

and some of the quality variables that were noted as lacking in the experimental and quasiexperimental studies described above. Researchers and evaluators conducting these studies have 

most likely selected the particular design for a specific reason or reasons. For example, the preexperimental designs usually are more practical for programs. In addition, the purpose of the 

research may lend itself to a pre-experimental design that focuses more on program 

implementation than comparison of child effects. Finally, the pre-experimental studies may be 

exploratory in nature, providing critical information to inform future research questions for 

experimental or quasi-experimental research. In short, these studies can make a valuable 

contribution to the literature. What follows is a review of the 11 studies that utilized preexperimental or correlational research designs. The methods and findings from these studies are 

summarized. Readers can find additional details about these studies in the Annotated 

Bibliography that accompanies this report. 

In most instances, the data collection methods in these studies were primarily a one-group, pretest/post-test design. Most commonly, a pretest was administered to a group of children who had 

participated in the pre-kindergarten program, and a post-test was administered to see what 

changes had taken place during the time they were in enrolled in the program. A large number of 

these reports relied on checklists, teacher ratings, or teacher survey results to estimate program 

impacts. These ratings usually focused on three domains of development: cognitive, 

social/emotional, and physical development. For example, an evaluation study of North 

Carolina’s Smart Start initiative (Maxwell, Bryant, Keyes, & Bernier, 1997) asked 858 

kindergarten teachers to rate incoming kindergarten students on their pre-academic and social 

skills. According to the teachers surveyed, approximately 18% of kindergartners were not ready 

at the beginning of the year to participate successfully in school. A survey also was conducted 

among kindergarten teachers in Oregon (Oregon Department of Education, 1999). Using the 

Kindergarten Readiness Survey, teachers were asked to rate children’s skills as they entered 

school. More than 900 kindergarten teachers rated children’s development along various 
 21 

dimensions of readiness including language usage, approach to learning, cognition/general 

knowledge, social/emotional development, and motor development. Results from this survey 

indicated that approximately 65% of children met all of the readiness dimensions. When 

researchers examined children’s readiness in the context of prior care experiences, they found 

that 88.6% of children who attended preschool were deemed “ready” on at least five of the 

readiness dimensions. This is in contrast to 69.7% of children who attended Head Start and 

52.6% of children who attended the Early Childhood Special Education program. 

Similar percentages of children’s readiness were found in a report of the Missouri School Entry 

Assessment Project (Pfannenstiel, 2001). A random sample of Missouri schools (10%) was 

selected for participation in an evaluation of children’s readiness. From these schools, all 

kindergarten teachers were designated as participants, as were the children in their classrooms. 

Using the School Entry Profile, teachers were asked to rate children’s preparedness for 

kindergarten. Overall, approximately 29% children were rated as “above average” in their 

preparedness for school, 21% were rated “below average,” and 50% were rated as “average.” 

Differences also were noted according to prior preschool experiences. Children who were in 

home-based care during the pre-kindergarten years performed lowest among kindergartners 

assessed, scoring lower on all domains. Children who attended preschool (e.g., Early Head Start, 

Head Start, and public preschools) and children who attended childcare programs scored average 

or slightly above average on all scales. The highest-performing children were those who 

participated in Parents as Teachers, plus some form of preschool. These children scored 

significantly higher on all domains of the School Entry Profile. 

Two of the programs reviewed relied on elements of the Work Sampling System (Meisels, 

Jablon, Marsden, Dichtelmiller, & Dorfman, 1994) to measure children’s readiness for school. 

The Work Sampling System is an assessment tool that was originally designed to improve 

teaching and instructional strategies; however, some states have adapted the instrument for use in 

determining what skills and abilities children bring with them at kindergarten entry. In 2002, the 

Maryland State Department of Education collected baseline information on incoming 

kindergarten students (Maryland State Department of Education, 2002). Results indicated that 

almost half (49%) of the students were rated “full readiness” by their teachers. Forty-four percent 

were rated as “approaching readiness,” and seven percent were rated at the “developing 

readiness” level. In terms of children’s previous care experiences, children who had participated 

in the “non-public nursery” program (i.e., preschool programs with an education focus) were 

rated “more ready” than children who participated in other forms of care. In contrast, children 

who were in family childcare or informal care with a relative were rated “less ready” than 

children in other forms of care. 

Evidence from another school readiness initiative also seems to suggest that early childhood 

programs can have a positive impact on students’ entry into kindergarten; however, it also raises 

questions about the sustainability of those effects. Evaluation of Kansas’ Four-Year-Old At-Risk 

Program found that preschool experience was related to children’s proficiency at the beginning 

of the kindergarten year in all domains of the Work Sampling System Checklist (Martinez, 

2002). Students with preschool experience were still at a slight advantage in the spring of the 

kindergarten year; however, by the first grade, there were no statistically significant differences 

in proficiency ratings between children with and without preschool experience. 
 22 

Four of the studies coded as pre-experimental (Head Start/FACES study, Even Start Study, 

Illinois, Delaware, and Saginaw, Michigan) included direct measures of student performance. 

Looking first at the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (Zill, Resnick, McKey, 

Clark, Pai-Samant, Connell, Vaden-Kiernan, O’Brien, & D’Elio, 2001), this study involved a 

nationally stratified random sample of 3200 children and their families. The FACES child 

assessment consisted of a series of tasks designed to assess children’s skills as they enter 

kindergarten. Direct assessments of children’s cognitive development included measures such as 

the PPVT-III (receptive language skills), the Story and Print Concepts, the Phonemic Analysis 

Task from the Test of Language Development III (phonemic awareness), and subtests of the 

Woodcock-Johnson (letter-word identification, problem-solving, and dictation). In addition, 

information was gathered from parents and teachers to assess children’s social/emotional 

development. Results found that children in Head Start showed significant gains in vocabulary, 

writing skills, and social skills. However, little or no change was noted in other areas of 

development, such as letter recognition and problem behaviors. 

The evaluation of another federal program also found positive gains among the children served. 

Results from the national evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy program (Tao, F., Gamse, 

B., & Tarr, H., 1998) indicate that participation in an early literacy project may promote 

educational gains for young children. Focusing on a sub sample (10%) of children who 

participated in the universe study, researchers used a statistical model to predict children’s 

growth on the Preschool Language Scale (PLS-3) and the Pre-school Inventory (PSI). They 

concluded that children who remain in Even Start for longer periods of time will grow at a faster 

rate than those who do not remain in Even Start. 

To evaluate early childhood programs in Delaware, researchers randomly selected children and 

families from local Head Start programs, as well as the state-funded Early Childhood Assistance 

Program (Gamel-McCormick, Cummings, Cornwell, & Kersteter, 2001). A total of 495 children 

were assessed in September and again in May with an approved instrument selected by the 

program. Standard scores were established to compare children’s achievement in each of the 

following domains: cognitive, communication, physical, and social/emotional. Results indicate 

that children showed significant skill development in all four areas of development. On average, 

children demonstrated a 27.7% increase in cognitive skills, a 33.9% increase in communication 

skills, a 20.8% increase in physical skills, and a 26.1% increase in social/emotional skills. 

In the only evaluation of a local program, researchers in Saginaw, Michigan, assessed more than 

300 children who participated in the Saginaw Pre-kindergarten Program (Kurecka & Claus, 

2000). Using the Pre-Kindergarten Saginaw Objective Reference Test (PK-SORT), researchers 

examined student achievement on a posttest-only basis. The PK-SORT includes 31 items dealing 

with both psychomotor and cognitive program objectives. It is administered to students on a oneto-one basis. Findings indicated that the majority of students attained all of the cognitive 

objectives and three of the four psychomotor objectives. The area of lowest attainment was 

expressive language/semantics (83.8%), while the area of expressive language/labeling 

demonstrated the highest level of attainment (98.7%). 
 23 

Two of the programs reviewed have continued to follow students over time and included more 

long-term measures of student success: student retention (Georgia) and student achievement 

(Illinois). The Georgia study represents an evaluation of the Georgia Pre-kindergarten Program 

that was established in 1993 (Henry, Gordon, Mashurn, & Ponder, 2001). The evaluation, which 

was initiated in 1996, was designed to follow a probability sample of pre-kindergarten children 

into their elementary school years. Results indicate that, at the end of their second-grade year, 

82% were deemed ready for the third grade, according to their second-grade teachers. More than 

half (56.1%) of the students were judged to be “extraordinarily good” to “good” in their 

preparation for the third grade. Students gained the most in math, science, and language arts. 

Although little change was noted in social behaviors, students’ attitude toward learning and 

independence increased significantly during the year. The study also included a look at the 

relationship between teacher characteristics and child outcomes. Overall, students of teachers 

who believed in and practiced child-centered methods of instruction out-performed others during 

pre-K and kindergarten. Also, student outcomes varied according to the credentials and 

experience level of the teachers. 

With regard to the Illinois Pre-kindergarten Program, results seem to suggest that early childhood 

programs may also have a positive effect on student grades—particularly for those students who 

may have been considered at risk for school failure (Illinois State Board of Education, 2001). 

Focusing on a sample of children who had previously participated in the program, researchers 

found that approximately 55% of third-grade students who participated in the program “met” or 

“exceeded” the standards in writing, while 75% “met” or “exceeded” the standards in 

mathematics (results based on the Illinois Standards Achievement Test). In eighth grade, 41% of 

the students “met” or “exceeded” the standards in mathematics, while percentages in writing and 

science were 64% and 72%, respectively. 

This review of the pre-experimental studies clearly illustrates that researchers use a variety of 

methods to assess the effects of a program on children’s well-being and development. Some 

studies selected teachers from a representative sample of schools and asked them to rate 

children’s readiness on various domains. Others focused on a sample of children attending a set 

of classrooms or programs and selected them for observation or assessment. While there are 

obvious shortcomings to the pre-experimental design, such studies tend to be more practical as 

compared to the experimental design, which is often more difficult and expensive to implement. 

However, if a researcher chooses to employ a pre-experimental design, he/she must take 

additional care to test for and use control variables to minimize the differences between children 

in various groups. 

Discussion and Recommendations 

The recent increase in the amount of funding available for pre-kindergarten services indicates 

that many states, agencies, and local communities are making a commitment to early childhood 

care and education and to evaluation of the programs. A previous study published by Gilliam & 

Zigler (2001) found 13 state evaluations of child outcomes. Just five years later, this review 

yielded an additional eight evaluations of school readiness initiatives, as well as updated reports 

from seven studies included in Gilliam & Zigler (2001). In addition, there were numerous other 

local and federal evaluations. At the same time that programs and agencies are expanding their 
 24 

commitment to early childhood services, there is a strong push to demonstrate the value and 

effectiveness of these services. 

Research Findings 

Results from this synthesis indicate that wide-scale school readiness interventions can have 

moderate effects on child outcomes. Perhaps the strongest evidence comes from results 

associated with data collected on children’s social-emotional development, with the largest 

number of studies reporting children in school readiness programs having more positive social 

development than children in comparison groups. Positive results were also reported for 

children’s language/literacy, mathematical thinking, and physical/health development and for 

student outcomes such as better attendance or fewer referrals for special services once the 

children entered school. Limitations in the research designs and the data reported in the 

documents examined in this synthesis, however, warrant caution when interpreting results. In 

general, most of the results can be characterized as small to moderate, and in each of the child 

outcomes examined, some studies reported positive results while others reported no significant 

differences. 

Relative to particular features of program quality, it was difficult to discern whether specific 

program features are associated with positive participant outcomes. Studies that used 

experimental and quasi-experimental designs typically did not examine relationships between 

specific program features and child outcomes. Some of the most informative data relative to 

features of program quality come, perhaps, from the pre-experimental studies. For example, the 

evaluation study of Georgia’s Pre-kindergarten Program noted significant differences in teacher 

effectiveness that related, not only to teacher training, but also to the number of years of 

experience (Henry et al., 2001). Specifically, the effectiveness of pre-kindergarten teachers who 

held a CDA declined as their years of experience increased. A similar decline was noted among 

teachers who had obtained a college degree, but who had not obtained certification. Interestingly, 

certified teachers were rated as less effective early in their careers; however, their effectiveness 

increased or remained constant as they gained experience. The authors speculate that perhaps 

certified teachers receive more effective training that allows them to put their knowledge to 

better use as they acquire more experience. Clearly, there is still much to learn about the 

relationship between features of program quality and outcomes for children. 

Implications for Program Evaluation 

Accountability for public spending is a factor driving many of the program evaluations that have 

been put into place. However, properly evaluating the effectiveness of a program or initiative can 

be challenging, and there is not yet a standard approach to conducting the evaluation. 

Among the reports reviewed, there was considerable variation in the design of the programs, the 

overall objectives defined, and the services offered. Evaluation of these divergent programs is 

further complicated by the variation in the need for data and purposes for evaluations. Different 

stakeholders—community representatives, practitioners, policymakers, researchers, and 

families—may have different levels of need with regard to evaluation results. What satisfies one 

stakeholder may be inadequate for another (National Governor’s Association, 2000). 
 25 

In general, most of the programs reviewed demonstrated that they are beneficial to children, 

particularly low-income children; however, it is clear that many of these efforts must be 

accompanied by more carefully designed studies to ensure that we have a complete 

understanding of how these programs work and what their benefits are. For example, only one of 

the studies reviewed (Love et al., 2001)—a study of the Early Head Start program—used a 

randomly assigned control group. The remainder used less rigorous comparison groups such as 

matched program-eligible non-attendees or program eligible non-attendees who did not attend 

any other program. Moreover, some evaluations, such as Ohio Head Start (Cogswell et al., 1998) 

and Currie & Thomas (1999), used multiple comparison groups. The type of comparison group 

used can have a tremendous effect on the validity of the findings and how the findings are 

interpreted (Gilliam & Zigler, 2001). Gilliam, Ripple, Zigler, and Leiter (as cited by Gilliam & 

Zigler, 2001) suggest that it may be unfair to test the effectiveness of a program by comparing 

outcomes of children who have not participated in a similar program. This may bias the study 

toward positive results. In contrast, however, Schweinhart (1999) maintains that it is almost 

impossible to compare the effectiveness of Head Start, public pre-kindergarten programs, and 

preschool childcare programs because they serve very different populations. Head Start serves 

primarily poverty-level families, and while income may be a consideration for public prekindergarten programs, it is usually one of several factors determining entry into the program. In 

terms of preschool childcare, enrollment into this type of program often hinges on the families’ 

need for care so parents can work outside the home. Not only does this increase family income, 

but it also makes it extremely difficult to randomly assign children who need care to an unserved 

control group. Although it may not always be possible (or even desirable taking ethical concerns 

into consideration) to conduct randomized trials, these types of studies are the most effective for 

determining if the difference in outcomes is due to program intervention (Karoly et al., 1998). 

Assuming one can establish an appropriate sample, it is then important to continue to follow 

those subjects across time in order to capture both long-term and short-term effects. As seen 

among studies of model programs (Campbell & Ramey, 1994; Schweinhart et al., 1993), there is 

evidence suggesting that early childhood programs may help buffer children against later 

problems such as delinquency or antisocial behaviors, as well as help promote later achievement 

(i.e., higher rate of graduation and lower dropout rate) (Yoshikawa, 1995; Reynolds et al., 2001). 

Unfortunately, following subjects over time often results in losses due to attrition. Attrition rates 

for studies included in this synthesis ranged from approximately 17% to more than 50%. Without 

an analysis of how the participants who dropped from the study compare with those who 

continued, our ability to draw conclusions from the research is limited. 

In addition to designing more rigorous evaluations, researchers and program evaluators must also 

give attention to the methods and instruments used to monitor change in young children. The 

recent push toward accountability places further burden on both the assessment instrument and 

those responsible for collecting the data to accurately and fairly capture the effects of a program. 

As noted earlier, a potential problem with several of the studies was the use of tests with little 

known validity or reliability. However, this also calls into question the role of teachers and 

educators in the data collection process. In instances where teacher judgment of student learning 

is a key element of performance assessment, some researchers (Hoge & Coladario, 1989) have 

expressed concerns about the validity and reliability of teacher assessment, particularly in high-
 26 

stakes situations. However, others (Meisels, Bickel, Nicholson, Xue, Atkins-Burnett, 2001; 

Schweinhart, in press) maintain that teachers can collect data that is both reliable and valid. 

These issues highlight the need to collect data in a consistent and standardized way that permits 

comparisons across classrooms or programs. 

Another issue affecting the selection and use of assessment measures is the nature of children’s 

development. As asserted by the National Education Goals Panel (1995) and reaffirmed in a 

recent report issued by the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2000), 

children’s readiness is multidimensional. Moreover, young children’s development is often 

sporadic and uneven. Consequently, researchers and evaluators must be careful to select 

instruments that capture children’s full range of developments, as well as instruments that are 

reliable and valid. A recent article by Zaslow & Halle (in press) concludes that work is needed to 

strengthen assessments of certain dimensions of school readiness. The authors specifically 

mention the need to create better measures of children’s social/emotional development. Current 

measures, particularly those measuring positive aspects of young children’s social/emotional 

development, are limited by psychometric problems. 

Beyond research design and instrumentation issues, researchers and program evaluators must 

also look at program quality and the dynamics that occur within the classroom. One cannot fully 

understand child effects without first considering the quality of the program. If a program fails to 

demonstrate positive results, absent a measure of quality, it is difficult to determine whether the 

results are due to a poorly designed program model or a poorly implemented program model 

(Gilliam & Zigler, 2001). With the exception of the Head Start/FACES study (Love et al., 2001) 

and the Michigan School Readiness Evaluation (Xiang et al., 2000), none of the programs used 

quality as a means to better understanding their findings. Other program evaluations such as 

Georgia’s (Henry et al., 2001) surveyed an element of quality, namely teacher beliefs/attitudes; 

however, there was not a separate measure of program quality. One benefit of examining 

program quality and child outcomes would be to determine if there are specific program aspects 

that should be the focus of more intense technical assistance or in-service training. 

Although this synthesis just begins to touch on some of these issues, the programs reviewed help 

provide some insight. For example, the evaluation of the Chicago Child-Parent Center (Reynolds 

et al., 2001) suggests that the range of services and the extent to which these services are able to 

follow and support children as they enter school may be an important program factor. Moreover, 

these studies also seem to suggest that while it may be useful to intervene before the age of three, 

preschool and school-age interventions can also be effective. 

There continue to be a number of unanswered questions about program design, and clearly, more 

research is needed. For example, at what point is it best to initiate services—infancy or 

preschool? Does the level of intensity make a difference, and if so, do the same levels benefit all 

children? What types of services or combination of services yield the best outcomes? These are 

just a few of the questions that the early childhood community struggles to answer, and 

evaluations are an important means for understanding how investments in early childhood 

initiatives will pay off. 
 1 

Appendix A 

ELO Research Synthesis 2002 

Data Coding Sheet 

REPORT IDENTIFICATION 

1. Synthesis Strand: ____ Early Childhood ____ School-age 

2. Report Code #: __________________ 3. Publication Date: ____________________ 

4. Source of Report (Select one) 

_____ a. Journal article (refereed) _____ e. Organization or agency report (published) 

_____ b. Journal article (non-refereed) _____ f. Organization or agency report (internal) 

_____ c. Conference presentation _____ g. Personal communication 

_____ d. Thesis or dissertation 

5. Peer Review Process 

_____ Peer reviewed _____ Not peer reviewed _____ Unknown 

*************************************************************************** 

PROGRAM OR INTERVENTION INFORMATION 

Type of Program (Select all that apply): 

School Readiness: 

_____ Head Start 

_____ Pre-K or other school readiness program 

 _____ Even Start/Family literacy 

 _____ Other: __________________________ 

Transition:

_____ Transition to kindergarten 

 _____ Transition between grade levels 

_____ Transition to/from after-school 

_____ Transition beyond high school 

_____ Other: __________________________ 

School-age:

_____ After-school 

_____ 21st Century Community Learning Center 

_____ Instructional Support Programs (Tutoring, Voyager, homework help, etc.) 

_____ Extended School Time 

 ___ Extended day ____ Extended Year ____ Summer School ____ Year-round 

 _____ Learning Centers (such as Sylvan) 

 _____ Technology assisted learning 

 _____ Other: __________________________ 

 
 2 

Characteristics of Program/Intervention Participants: 

Student Characteristics: 

Grade Race (indicate the percentage) 

_____ a. Preschool children 

_____ b. Elementary _____ a. White 

_____ c. Middle school _____ b. African-American 

_____ d. High school _____ c. Hispanic 

_____ e. Parents _____ d. Other (specify): _____________ 

_____ f. Other _____ e. Not specified 

 

Gender (indicate the percentage) Economic level (indicate the majority) 

_____ a. Female _____ a. Poverty 

_____ b. Male _____ b. Non-poverty 

_____ c. Not specified _____ c. Not specified 

 _____ d. Mixed 

Special population (specify): ___________________________________________ 

Setting (location of program) Setting 

_____ a. School _____ a. Rural 

_____ b. Community-based _____ b. Urban 

 ____ Faith-based _____ c. Suburban 

 ____ Non-faith-based 

_____ c. Mixed 

_____ d. Not specified 

Name of City(ies): _____________________________________________________ 

Name of State: ________________________________________________________ 

Profile of Program/intervention: 

_____ Number of children served/enrolled/involved (describe whether this is planned, 

observed, average, etc.) _____________________________________ 

_____ Number of hours of operation 

_____ Duration of program (number of years in operation) 

Source of funding 

_____ a. Public 

_____ b. Private 

_____ c. Fee-based/for profit 

_____ d. Mixed 

 
 3 

************************************************************************* 

EVALUATION STUDIES INFORMATION 

Type of Evaluation: 

_____ a. Formative 

_____ b. Implementation 

_____ c. Summative 

_____ a. Internal Source of funding for evaluation: ___________________ 

_____ b. External 

Research Design

Design Type: 

_______ Pre-experimental 

_______ One group or case study 

_______ One-group pretest-posttest design 

_______ Survey 

_______ Other:________________________________________ 

_______ Correlational 

_______ Quasi-experimental 

 _______ Nonequivalent control group, post-test only 

 ____ Matching _____ No matching 

 Matched on: 

 _______ Nonequivalent control group, pre-test/post-test 

 _____ Matching _____ No matching 

 Matched on: 

 

_______ Time series 

 _______ Cohort study 

 _______ Other: ______________________________________ 

_______ Experimental (with random assignment) 

 _______ Post-test only control group 

 _______ Pre-test post-test control group 

 _______ Other 

Sampling: 

_____ Random 

_____ Judgment or convenience 

_____ Sampling procedure unknown 

If random assignment used, _____ students randomly assigned 
 4 

 _____ Classes randomly assigned 

 _____ Schools randomly assigned 

 _____ Other: ______________________ 

Sample 

Total N: ____________ 

Sample Size: 

Treatment: _______________________________ 

Control: __________________________________ 

Attrition or Response Rate: 

In treatment group: ____________________________________ 

In control group: _______________________________________ 

Excessive? _____ Yes _____ No 

Gender: _____ % Female 

Mean Age: _____________ SD Age: __________ 

Multiple grades? ______ Yes _____ No 

Race: ______ Percentage minority _____ Not specified 

 

Treatment/Intervention 

Independent variable: describe how the independent variable was administered: 

Description of intervention: 

Characteristics of intervention: 

 Adult:child ratio: _________ 

 Education of adults (staff or volunteers): 

 _____ High school 

 _____ Some college 

 _____ College grads 

 _____ College plus 

 Specialized training for adults in program: 

 ____ No 

 ____ Yes 

 Please describe: 
 5 

 Length of intervention per week (hours): 

 Duration of program per year (months): 

 More than one year for average participants? ____ No _____ Yes 

Number of years: _____ 

 Program quality/model implementation validated? ___ Yes ____No 

 If yes, how? 

 Families involved in program? ____ Yes ____ No 

 If yes, describe how: 

 Any variation in treatments among study groups: 

 

Control group: 

 ______ No treatment 

 ______ Placebo 

 ______ Treatment delayed 

Potential problems with control group 

____ Control group from different time period 

 ____ Control group from a different grade 

 ____ Multiple grades combined 

 ____ Control group pre-existing or convenient 

 _____ Other: ______________________________________ 

Theory 

 ______ Specified: _________________________________________ 

 ______ Inferred: __________________________________________ 

 ______ None 

Measurement of Dependent Variables 

Type of Dependent Variable Measure (Check All That Apply): 

 _____ Written measure completed by subject ____ Informal 

 _____ Verbal ____ Standardized 

 _____ Behavioral 

 _____ Interpersonal judgment 

 _____ Program/School records 

 

Reliability established: _____ Yes ______ No 

 Type of reliability measures: 
 6 

Same data collected for treatment and control group? _____ Yes _____ No 

Results (Include effect sizes if available) 

Outcome measure Positive 

effect 

No 

effect 

Neg. 

effect 

Comments (include whether 

results statistically 

significant) 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

g. 

Other results: specify 

______________________________________________________________ 

Statistical analysis 

Pre-test means: ______ Yes _______ No 

 

 Post-test means: ______ Yes _______ No 

 Pre-test standard deviations: ____ Yes ____ No 

 Post-test standard deviations: _____ Yes _____ No 

 

 Significance tests: ______ Yes _____ No 

 Type of inference test: ____ F ____ t _____ Other: _________________ 

Does the report include program/intervention recommendations? 

 _____ Yes _____ No 

Does the report include recommendations for further evaluations/research? 

 _____ Yes _____ No 

***************************************************************************** 

Coder: ______KDM _____ GB _____ EM _____CSL Other: __________ 

Date: ______________ 
1 

Appendix B: School Readiness Tables 

Table 1: Program Characteristics of Quasi-experimental and Experimental Evaluations 

School Readiness 

Initiative 

Funding 

Source 

Age of Participants Duration Intensity Class Size/Ratio Teacher Qualifications 

Michigan School Readiness Evaluation (2000) 

Michigan State Department of Education 

Entry: 4 years old Exit: 5 years old 

Minimum of 30 weeks (300 hours; 120 days) 

Minimum of four days at 2.5 hours per day 

Class Size: 18 per session; 36 per teacher Ratio: 1:8 (Seeds of Success)

School district: MI elementary certificate with EC endorsement 

Agency: 

4 years formal training in child development (may include CDA or AA in child development) 

Early Head Start (2001) 

ACYF/DHHS Birth – 3 years old Maximum of three 

years 

Center-based 

(full day/full year; minimum of six hours per day) Home-based Mixed approach 

Ratio: 1: 4 Lead teachers have to have at least a CDA, and 

assistants have to have a high school diploma or GED. 

ECEAP (State of Washington) 

Washington State Office of Community Development 

Entry: 3 or 4 years old Exit: 5 years old 

One to two years Center-based (minimum 

of three days at 10 hours per week) Home-based (weekly, 90 visits plus peer group experience for children) Mixed approach 

Class size: 18 (24 in school setting) Ratio: 1:6 (Seeds of Success) 

Teachers must have BA in early childhood education or child development and a minimum of 2 years experience in a child care, pre-k, or kindergarten setting. 

Currie & Thomas (1999) 

National Science Foundation grant 

Children age 5 in NLSY 

Head Start participants one to two years 

Center-based Home-based Mixed approach 

4- and 5-year-olds, no more than 20 3-year-olds, no more than 17 

Lead teachers have to have at least a CDA, and assistants have to have a high school diploma or GED. 

Six-County Smart Start Evaluation 

North Carolina Partnership for Children 

Varies depending on program and agency 

Varies depending on program and agency 

Varies depending on program and agency 

No state pre-K regulations on ratios or class size 

No state pre-K regulations on teacher qualifications 

Ohio–Head Start Report (1998) 

Legislative Office of Equal Opportunity 

Entry: 4 years old Exit: 5 years old 

Typically one year Head Start 

130−135 days per year 3 1⁄2 hours per day Family services  (N = 452) Title I preschool 

4- and 5-year-olds, no more than 20 3-year-olds, no more than 17 

Head Start 

CDA certificate with 1 year experience 

Title I preschool 

Teaching certificate in early childhood 

education or early childhood specialist; 

licensing valid OH [?] pre-K associate’s 
2 

School Readiness 

Initiative 

Funding 

Source 

Age of Participants Duration Intensity Class Size/Ratio Teacher Qualifications 

145−150 days per year 2 1⁄2 hours Limited family services (N = 261) Unknown (N = 517) 

certificate with four courses in child 

development. 

Washington, DC Public Schools (Marcon, 2000) 

District of Columbia Public Schools 

4 years old September to June 

(corresponds to regular school year) 

Full school day, five days per week 

Class Size: 

Public School Preschool Program – 20 District-funded Head Start – 20 

Ratio: 

Public preschool – variable Head Start – 1:10 

Head Start lead teachers have to have at least a CDA, and assistants have to have a high school diploma or GED. Public school teachers must be certified. 

Chicago ChildParent Center (Reynolds, 2001) 

Title I/ESEA Entry: 3 years old 

Exit: 9 years old (Data on 20-yearolds) 

Typically four to six years 

Comprehensive health, education, and family services; preschool (half- or full-day); kindergarten (half- or full-day) 

Kentucky Preschool Program 

Kentucky Department of Education 

Entry: 3 or 4 years old Exit: 5 years old 

One to two years Classroom-based 

Minimum of four days per week, three hours per day 

Maximum class size: 20 Ratio: 10:1 

Preschool teacher with certification in Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education, or preschool associate with a CDA or AA who is supervised by a preschool teacher. 

NR = not regulated Additional Sources: Schulman, K., Blank, H., & Ewen, D. (1999). Seeds of Success. Washington, DC: Children’s Defense Fund.
3 

Table 3: Design Characteristics of Quasi-experimental and Experimental Evaluations 

School Readiness 

Initiative 

Research 

Design 

Sample Size Comparison Group Type of Measure Outcomes 

Michigan School Readiness Evaluation (2000) 

Quasi-experimental Total N = 1,252 

Cohort 1: 

Treatment Group = 351 Control Group = 272 Cohort 2:

Treatment Group = 214 Control Group = 415 

Program eligible nonattendees (matched on age and SES) 

• COR (Kg) • SRRS (Kg., 1st and 2nd) 

• School records 

• MSRP group scores significantly higher on 5/6 COR 

subscales than comparison group (kindergarten). 

• Kindergarten teachers rated MSRP kids higher on retaining 

learning and ready to learn. 

• Grade 1 teachers rated MSRP higher in attendance. • Grade 2 teachers rated MSRP higher in interest in school and 

physical abilities. 

Early Head Start (2001) 

Experimental Total N = 3,001 

Treatment Group = 1,513 Control Group = 1,488 

Program eligible nonattendees who were placed on a waiting list for Head Start 

• Bayley MDI • Bayley BRS • MacArthur CDI • CBC – Aggression subscale • Structured Play 

A year or more after enrollment, EHS 2-year-olds outperformed control group on cognitive, language, and social-emotional indicators. 

ECEAP (State of Washington) 

Quasi-experimental Total N = 1358 Program eligible nonattendees who were matched 

on some variables (age, gender, ethnicity) 

• Parent Int. Form • Adolescent Self-Report Inv. • Student Info Form • Student Behavior Form • School Archival Record 

Search 

Parent Report 

• Families not receiving public assistance (PA) rated child’s 

health better. 

• No PA kids enjoy school more. • No PA kids show better academic progress. • No PA kids are more sociable and have higher self-esteem. • No difference indicated on school adjustment. 

Teacher Rating 

No PA kids show better academic progress. 

Currie & Thomas (1999) 

Quasi-experimental Total N = 750 Siblings who attended either 

another preschool program or had no preschool experience 

• PPVT • PIAT – Math • PIAT – Reading • Grade repetition 

Controlling for maternal fixed effects

Positive effect on PPVT, PIAT-Math, and retention. Mexican-origin benefit most from Head Start, Puerto Rican children the least. 

Six-County Smart Start Evaluation 

Quasi-experimental Total N = 508 

Treatment Group = 214 Control Group = 294 

Comparison group of classmates who had attended non-Smart Start centers or family child care. Controlled for poverty and gender. 

• Kindergarten Teacher 

Checklist (KTC) 

• PPVT-III • SSRS 

Children in direct subgroup had higher ratings on KTC. Only slight difference on PPVT-III, and no difference on the SSRS. 

Ohio–Head Start Report (1998) 

Quasi-experimental Total N = 1,230 

Head Start = 452 Title I pre-K = 261 Unknown = 517 

Title I preschool students and students whose preschool experiences were unknown. Controlled for gender, race, and poverty levels. 

• Receptive language • Expressive language • Auditory memory • Visual memory • Visual discrimination • Fine motor • Gross motor • Social competency • Attendance rate 

Literacy Readiness

• Title I higher on receptive language and auditory memory 

than Head Start or unknown. 

• Title I higher than unknown on visual memory. • Title I higher than Head Start on visual discrimination and 

fine motor. 

• Title I higher than Head Start on social competency. • No difference on attendance rates. 
4 

School Readiness 

Initiative 

Research 

Design 

Sample Size Comparison Group Type of Measure Outcomes 

Educational transitions in early childhood, middle childhood, and early adolescence: Head Start vs. public school pre-kindergarten graduates (Marcon, 2000) 

Quasi-experimental Total N = 288 Head Start vs. public pre-K 

attendees. Controlled for economic differences. 

• Retention • Special education placement • CTBS scores • DCPS 

No significant difference in grade retention or special education placement. 

Pre-primary grades

Number skills P>H All other subject areas, P=H 

Primary grades 

GPA - P>H Reading P>H Language P>H All other subject areas P=H 

Upper Elementary 

P=H 

Reynolds (2001) Quasi-experimental Total N = 1,539 

Treatment Group = 989 Control Group = 550 

Participated in other early childhood program such as full-day kindergarten and Head Start. Matched on age of entry, eligibility for and participation in government funded programs, neighborhood, and family poverty. 

• High school completion • Juvenile arrests • Violent arrests • School dropout 

Among those involved in program there was: • Higher rate of high school completion • Lower rate of dropout • More years of education • Lower rate of juvenile arrests 

• Lower rate of multiple arrests • Lower rate of grade retention • Lower rate of special education 

Kentucky Preschool Program 

Quasi-experimental 1996−1997 Evaluation

• 226 preschool 

children 

• 1,897 children 

from previous cohorts 

1997−1998 Evaluation841 children 

Program eligible nonattendees • Battelle Developmental Inventory 

• Letter Identification and 

Concepts about Print Test (Clay, 1992) 

• Social Skills Questionnaire 

1996−1997 Evaluation

Among 226 preschool children, those who attended KPP were rated higher on readiness than children who were eligible but did not attend. 1997−1998 EvaluationRe-analyzed data from previous evaluations to look for differences according to race and gender. With regard to race, no difference with one exception. White children had fewer behavior problems than black children. In terms of gender, at-risk males made greater gains than at-risk females in large-muscle development and cognitive development. In the disabilities group, females made more progress than males in receptive communication. 1997−1998 Evaluation also looked at cumulative findings:

Children with greatest gains are most behind at beginning of school year. Children who attend KPP continue to do as well as peers in both social and academic skills at least through the fourth grade. 
5 

Table 4: Instruments Used and Outcomes Assessed Among Quasi-Experimental and Experimental Designs 

School Readiness Initiative

Instruments Used Child Development School Performance Long-Term 

Outcomes 

Overall 

Dev. 

Language/ 

Literacy 

Logic/ 

Math 

Child 

Health/ 

Physical 

Dev.

Social 

Dev. 

Achievement

Tests

Retention School 

Adjustment/ 

Attitude 

Special 

Services 

Attendance Drop-out Arrest 

Record 

Michigan School Readiness Evaluation 

COR (Kg) School Readiness Rating Scale (Kg., 1st & 2nd) 

School records Child Development Rating (CDR) 

◆ ◆ ◆

◆

◆◆◆ ◆

◆◆

◆◆◆

Kentucky Preschool Program 

Battelle Developmental Inventory Letter Identification and Concepts about Print Test (Clay, 1992) 

◆ ◆

◆

◆ ◆

Early Head Start (2001) 

Bayley MDI MacArthur CDI Structured play Parent interview 

◆

◆

◆

◆

ECEAP (State of Washington) 

Parent interview form Adolescent Self-Report Inventory Student information form Student behavior form School archival record search 

◆ ◆ ◆

◆ ◆

◆

◆

◆ ◆

◆◆

◆◆

Currie & Thomas 

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Peabody Individual 

Achievement Test Math

◆

◆
6 

School Readiness Initiative

Instruments Used Child Development School Performance Long-Term 

Outcomes 

Overall 

Dev. 

Language/ 

Literacy 

Logic/ 

Math 

Child 

Health/ 

Physical 

Dev.

Social 

Dev. 

Achievement

Tests

Retention School 

Adjustment/ 

Attitude 

Special 

Services 

Attendance Drop-out Arrest 

Record 

Achievement Test – Math Peabody Individual Achievement Test – Reading Grade repetition 

◆

◆

Six-County Smart Start Evaluation 

Kindergarten Teacher Checklist (KTC) PPVT—III Social Skills Rating Scale 

◆◆

◆ ◆

◆

Ohio–Head Start Report (1998)

Literacy readiness Social competency Attendance rate 

◆

◆

◆

Educational transitions in early childhood, middle childhood, and early adolescence (Marcon, 2000) 

Retention Special education placement CTBS scores Report cards 

◆◆

◆

◆

Reynolds (2001) 

High school completion Juvenile arrests Violent arrests School drop-out Retention Special education 

◆

◆

◆◆

◆◆
7 

Table 5: Program Characteristics of Pre-Experimental Evaluations 

School Readiness 

Initiative 

Funding 

Source 

Age of Participants Duration Intensity Class Size/ 

Ratio 

Teacher Qualifications 

Maryland State Board of EducationSchool Year 2001−2002 

Maryland State Board of Education 

Pre-k and kindergarten Varies according to 

program 

Varies according to program 

Varies according to program 

Varies according to program 

Even Start Family Literacy Program 

Second National Evaluation (1998) 

U.S. Department of Education 

Entry: 2 years old Exit: 5 years old (Average age = 4.2) 

Average time in program = 10 months 

Under age 5, average 12.5 times per month 

Most Even Start services are provided in conjunction with other programs such as Head Start or centerbased child care 

Paid instructors

51% - BA 24% - MA Aides

4% - Did not complete high school 73% - Diploma or GED 12% - AA 10% - BA or higher 

Kansas State Department of EducationFour Year-Old At-Risk Program: Final Evaluation (2002) 

Kansas State Department of Education 

Entry: 4 years old Exit: 5 years old 

One year Minimum of 2.5 hours 

per day or 465 hours per year 

Local decision Teachers must have 

certification in early childhood or elementary education. 

Missouri’s School Entry Assessment Project 

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 

Average school age entry – 5.8 

One to two years Minimum of 3 hours 

per day, five days per week. 

Class size: 20 Ratio: 1:10 

Non-public school teachers must have a CDA or an AA degree. Public school teachers must have an AA or BA in early childhood. 

Kindergartners’ Skills in Smart Start Counties in 1995: A Baseline from Which to Measure Change. Maxwell, Bryant, Keyes, & Bernier (1997) 

North Carolina Partnership for Children 

Varies depending on program and agency 

Varies depending on program and agency 

Varies depending on program and agency 

NR NR 

GeorgiaApplied Research Center 

Georgia Office of School Readiness 

4 years olds At least 180 days 6.5 hours/5 days per 

week 

Class size: 20 Ratio: 1:10 

Teachers must have CDA, teacher certification in early childhood, a BA, or a vocational early childhood education degree. 

2000 Kindergarten Survey ReportOregon 

Department of Education 

Oregon Department of Education 

Assessed in kindergarten year 

 Class size: 

3-year-olds: 17 4-year-olds: 20 

Ratio: 

Teachers must have CDA or BA with specialization in early childhood. 
8 

School Readiness 

Initiative 

Funding 

Source 

Age of Participants Duration Intensity Class Size/ 

Ratio 

Teacher Qualifications 

3-year-olds: 17:2 4-year-olds: 10:1 

2000− 2001 Head 

Start/ECAP Outcomes ReportState of Delaware 

Early Childhood Assistance Program (ECAP) State of Delaware, Interagency Resource Management Committee 

Head Start (3 and 4 years olds) ECAP programs 

One year Minimum of 4 days 

per week, for 4 hours per day. 

Class Size: DE allows up to 20 children per pre-K class, but recommends 17 Ratio: 10 to 1 

Teachers must have CDA or BA with specialization in early childhood education 

Saginaw, Michigan Entry : 4 years old 

Exit: 5 years old 

Minimum of 30 weeks (300 hours; 120 days) 

Minimum of 4 days per week, 2.5 hours per day 

Class Size: 18 per session; 36 per teacher Ratio: 1:8 (Seeds of Success)

School district

Michigan elementary certificate with EC endorsement 

Agency 

4 years of formal training in child development (may include CDA or AA in child development) 

Head Start/FACES ACYF/DHHS Entry: 3 or 4 years old 

Exit: 5 years old 

One to two years Center-based 

(4 or 5 days per week for a minimum of 3.5 hours to a maximum of 6 hours per day) 4-day program: 128 days per year 5-day program: 160 days per year Home-based Mixed approach 

Class size: 4- and 5-year-olds, no more than 20 3-year-olds, no more than 17 

Lead teachers have to have at least a CDA and assistants have to have a high school diploma or GED. 

Illinois Pre-kindergarten Program (2000) 

Early Childhood Block Grant 

Entry: 3 or 4 Exit: 5 

1 – 2 years Programs typically 

serve children four days each week. Staff development or parent involvement activities are held on the fifth day 

Class size: 20 Ratio: 10:1 

Teachers must have a teaching certificate in early childhood education 

NR = not regulated Additional Sources: Schulman, K., Blank, H., & Ewen, D. (1999). Seeds of Success. Washington, DC: Children’s Defense Fund. 
9 

Table 6: Design Characteristics of Pre-Experimental Evaluations 

School Readiness 

Initiative 

Research Design Sample Size Type of Measure Outcomes 

Maryland State Board of EducationSchool Year 2001-2002 

Pre-experimental 1,900 kindergarten teachers rated 

each student in their classrooms 

• Demographic information • Work Sampling System 

Composite Scores for Students in Prior Care: 

• Child care center – 45%, full readiness • Family child care – 45%, full readiness • Head Start – 43%, full readiness • Home/Informal care – 39%, full readiness • Non-public nursery – 67%, full readiness* • Pre-kindergarten – 47%, full readiness (* = significant) 

Even Start Family Literacy ProgramSecond National Evaluation (1998) 

Pre-experimental Sample study included Even Start 

participants in 57 sites. 

• Preschool Inventory (PSI) • Preschool Language Scales 

(PLS – 3) 

Used a statistical growth model to predict children’s growth on PSI and PLS-3. Concluded that children who remain in Even Start for longer periods of time will grow at a faster rate than those who do not remain in Even Start. 

Kansas State Department of EducationFourYear-Old At-Risk Program: Final Evaluation (2002) 

Pre-experimental One-third of 2,097 students served 

during the 2000−2001 preschool year were selected and observed fall and spring 

Work Sampling Developmental Checklist 

Most growth occurred in Mathematical Thinking. Least growth occurred in Physical Development. Children with only 1−2 risk factors began and ended the year with higher ratings than children with more than two. This was particularly true for ESL children and children with developmental delays. 

Missouri’s School Entry Assessment Project (draft, 2002) 

Pre-experimental (cross-sectional survey) 

Sample of approximately 3,100 kindergarteners from 68 schools 

School Entry Profile (65 items across seven domains: symbolic development, communication, mathematical/physical knowledge, working with others, learning to learn, conventional knowledge, physical development) 

Overall, 30% were rated as above average, 22% below average, and about 50% were rated as average. 

Pre-Kindergarten Experience: 

• Children who were home-based during preschool years 

perform lowest, particularly true for children in poverty. 

• Children who participated in PAT plus preschool score 

higher in almost every domain. 

Kindergartners’ Skills in Smart Start Counties in 1995: A Baseline from Which to Measure Change. Maxwell, Bryant, Keyes, & Bernier (1997) 

Pre-experimental survey 

Sample from 43 Smart Start counties. Included 858 kindergarten teachers rating 3,782 students 

• Kindergarten Teacher 

Checklist 

• General School Readiness 

Survey 

18% of kindergarteners were “not ready” for school. Children who attended organized child care prior to school scored significantly better than children who did not attend child care. 

Georgia – Applied Research Center 

Pre-experimental – 4th

year of longitudinal study of pre-K participants 

Original sample of 3,639 students from 203 pre-K classrooms Children currently entering third grade (ratings on 2,407) 

• Twenty-four skill areas gleaned 

from Georgia Quality Core Curriculum (QCC) 

• Retention • Readiness for third grade 

• Greatest gains in math, science, and language arts. 

Significant gains were also noted in attitude toward learning and asserting independence. Respect for authority declined. 

• 90% progressed to second grade and were on grade level. • 57% were judged good to extraordinarily good in terms of 

readiness for third grade. Add average readiness, and the number jumps to 82%. 
10 

School Readiness 

Initiative 

Research Design Sample Size Type of Measure Outcomes 

2000 Kindergarten Survey ReportOregon 

Department of Education 

Pre-experimental – survey of kindergarten teachers (70% response rate) 

985 kindergarten teachers from 1,411 schools (1,172 public, 239 private) rated a total of 18,427 students Teachers surveyed in November, 2000 

Oregon Kindergarten Readiness Survey (physical well being, language usage, approach to learning, cognition/general knowledge, social/emotional development, and motor development) 

65% of public school children met all readiness dimensions, and 80% of private school children met all dimensions. 

Percent meeting 5 or more readiness dimensions: 

88.6% of children who attended preschool 69.7 % of children who attended Head Start 52.6% who attended Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) 

2000−2001 Head Start/ECAP Outcomes ReportState of Delaware 

Pre-experimental Children assessed in September 2000 and May 2001 while they were in program. 

495 randomly selected children from 13 programs 

Sites selected from list of approved 

instruments: 

• Carolina Developmental 

Profile 

• Child Development & 

Learning Checklist 

• Class Progress Chart • Creative Curriculum • LAP-D • Work Sampling System 

Using the assessment instrument chosen by the site, standard scores were established in four domains: cognitive, communication, physical, and social/emotional development. Results show significant gains in all domains: Cognitive skills – 27.7% Communication – 33.87% Physical skills – 20.37% Social/emotional – 26.09% 

Saginaw, Michigan Pre-experimental 

Post-test only at end of preschool year. 

309 children from 13 sites Pre-kindergarten Saginaw Objective 

Reference Test (31 items focusing on cognitive and psychomotor objectives) 

• Pre-k students attained 9/9 cognitive objectives. • Expressive language – semantics showed lowest attainment 

(83.8%) 

• Expressive language – labeling showed greatest level of 

attainment (98.7%) 

Head Start/FACES Pre-experimental Sample stratified by three variables: 

• Region of the country • Urbanicity • Percentage of minority families 3,200 children in original sample 

• PPVT – III • Story/Print Concepts • Woodcock-Johnson (3) • Social Awareness Tasks • Teacher Report • Parent Report • McCarthy Draw-a-design • COR • Color Names/Count • Phonemic Analysis Task • ECLS-K General Knowledge • Direct Observation 

• Significant gains in vocabulary and writing • Little progress on letter recognition, math, and book 

knowledge 

• Improvement in social skills, but little change in problem 

behavior 

• Greatest gains among lowest children 

Illinois Pre-kindergarten Program (2000) 

Pre-experimental Teacher Survey 

Cohort Longitudinal Study 

• Pre-kindergarten Student 

Record 

• Illinois Standards Achievement 

Test (ISAT) 

• Teacher rating 

Teacher Survey 

FY 2000, 80% of children were ranked average/above average in kindergarten readiness. Cohort Study (1994−1995 pre-k) 

Kindergarten: 

Reading − 79.5% (average or above) Math – 81.6% Language – 81.1% Behavior – 82% 
References 

* Denotes document reviewed for the synthesis 

* Barker, N. C. (1998). Can specialized after-school programs impact delinquent behavior 

among African-American youth? Child welfare and juvenile justice. Proceedings of the 

Tenth Annual Research Conference, A System of Care for Children’s Mental Health: 

Expanding the Research Base, Tampa, FL, 2–7. 

Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school 

outcomes . The Future of Children, 5(3), 25–50. 

Beck, E. L. (1999). Prevention and intervention programming: Lessons learned from an afterschool program. The Urban Review, 31(1), 107–4. 

Beckett, M., Hawken A., Jacknowitz A. (2001). Accountability for after-school care: Devising 

standards and measuring adherence to them. Rand Corporation. Retrieved from 

www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1411/. 

Beuhring, T., Blum, R. W., & Rinehart, P. M. (2000). Protecting teens: Beyond race, income, 

and family structure. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Adolescent Health. 

* Bissell, J., Ashurst, J., & Jones, P. (2001). Los Angeles Unified School District After School 

Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnerships Program: An evaluation of four agencies 

and supplemental report. Irvine, CA: University of California, Irvine Department of 

Education and Research Support Services. 

* Bissell, J., Dugan, C., Ford-Johnson, A. & Jones, P. (2002). Evaluation of the YS-CARE After 

School Program for California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids

(CalWORKS). Irvine, CA: Department of Education, University of California-Irvine. 

* Bissell, J. S., & Malloy, J. (2002). Evaluation of California’s After School Learning and Safe 

Neighborhoods Partnerships Program: 1999−2001. Preliminary report. Department of 

Education, University of California-Irvine. 

Boruch, R. F. (1997). Randomized experiments for planning and evaluation: A practical guide. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Boruch, R. F. (1998). Randomized controlled experiments for evaluation and planning. 

Handbook of applied social research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Brown, P. (1995). The role of the evaluator in comprehensive community initiatives. In J. P. 

Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, & C .H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to 

evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts (pp. 201–225). 

Washington, DC: Aspen Institute. 
Bryant, D. M,. & Maxwell, K. (1997). The effectiveness of early intervention for disadvantaged 

children. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), The effectiveness of early interventions (pp. 23–46). 

Baltimore, MD: Brookes. 

Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. 

Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for 

research. Chicago: Rand McNally. 

Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1994). Effects of early intervention on intellectual and 

academic achievement: A follow-up study of children from low-income families. Child 

Development, 65, 684–698. 

Campbell, R. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high risk AfricanAmerican students in middle adolescence: Positive effects of early intervention. 

American Educational Research Journal, 32, 743–772. 

Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J .A. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (1998). 

Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of 

positive youth development programs. Retrieved May 24, 2001, from 

http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/PostivieYouthDev99/index.htm 

Ceprano, M. A. (1995). Strategies and practices of individuals who tutor adult illiterates 

 voluntarily. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39(1), 56–64. 

Chung, A. M., de Kanter, A., & Kugler, M. R. (2000, Spring). Measuring and evaluating 

child and program outcomes. School-age Review, 26–32. 

Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1987). In search of consistencies in child care research. In D. A. Phillips 

(Ed.), Quality in child care: What does research tell us? (pp. 105–120). Washington, DC: 

National Association for the Education of Young Children. 

* Cogswell, S. H., Lochtefeld, S. S., Skaggs, A. V., Walker, J. P. (June 1998). 

Head Start’s impact on school readiness in Ohio: A case study of kindergarten students. 

Columbus, OH: Legislative Office of Education Oversight. This report is available at 

www.loeo.state.oh.us. 

Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J., & Kulik, C .C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta 

analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237–248. 

Condravy, J. (1995). Tutors learning about learning: An assessment. Research and Teaching in 

Developmental Education, 11(2), 43–56. 
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for 

field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 

Cook, T. D., & Shadish, W. R. (1994). Social experiments: Some developments over the past 

fifteen years. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 545–581. 

Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (3rd edition). Applied 

social research methods series, Volume 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 

Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study Team. (1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child 

care centers: Public report (2nd edition). Denver: CO: University of Colorado. 

Currie, J. (2001). Early childhood education programs. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(2), 

213–238. 

* Currie, J., & Thomas, D. (1999). Does Head Start help Hispanic children? Journal of Public 

Economics, 74(2), 235–262. 

Dryfoos, J. G. (1998). A look at community schools in 1998: Occasional paper #2 (ED423034). 

New York: National Center for Schools and Communities. 

Education Week (2002). Quality counts 2002: Building blocks for success, 21(17). 

Fashola, O. S. (1998). Review of extended-day and after-school programs and their effectiveness

(Report No. 24). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students 

Placed At Risk. 

Finn-Stevenson, M., Desimone, L., & Chung, A. (1998). Linking child care and support 

services with the school: Pilot evaluation of the school of the 21st century. 

New Haven, CN: The Yale University Bush Center in Child Development and Social 

Policy. Retrieved on October 9, 2002, from www.yale.edu/21c/resource/read/eval.html. 

* Foley, E. M., & Eddins, G. (2001). Preliminary analysis of Virtual Y After-School Program 

participants’ patterns of school attendance and academic performance: Final evaluation 

report program 1999−2000. New York, NY: National Center for Schools and 

Communities, Fordham University. 

Frede, E. (1995). The role of program quality in producing early childhood program benefits. 

The Future of Children, 5(3), 115–132. 

Fuerst, J. S., & Fuerst, D. (1993). Chicago experience with an early childhood program: The 

special case of the Child Parent Center program. Urban Education, 28, 69-96. 

* Gamel-McCormick, M., Cummings, M. E., Cornwell, J. R., & Kersteter, P. G. (2001). 

2000-2001 Head Start/ECAP outcomes report: State of Delaware.
Garber, H., & Heber, F. R. (1977). The Milwaukee Project: Indications of the effectiveness of 

early intervention and preventing mental retardation. In P. Mittler (Ed.), Research to 

practice in mental retardation, vol. I: Care and intervention (pp. 119–127). Baltimore: 

University Park Press. 

Gaskins, J., & Roeger, E. (1995). Using process recording to train tutors in the writing center and 

peer responders in the classroom. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 

11(2), 57–69. 

* Gaynor, F. K., & Horowitz, J. E. (1998). Evaluation of the 4-H After-School Activity Program 

(ASAP) 1997–1998. San Francisco, CA: WestED. 

General Accounting Office. (September 2000). Title I preschool education. More children served 

but gauging effect on school readiness difficult. GAO/MEHS-00-171. 

Gilliam, W. S. (2000). On over-generalizing from overly-simplistic evaluations of complex 

social programs: In further response to Goodson, Layzer, St.Pierre and Bernstein. Early 

Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 66-71. 

Gilliam, W. S., & Zigler, E. (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. 

Graesser, A. C., Bowers, C., & Hacker, D. J. (1997). An anatomy of naturalistic tutoring. In K. 

Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and 

issues (pp. 145–183). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. 

Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Questions asked during tutoring. American 

 Educational Research Journal, 31, 104–137. 

* Gray, K., Roole, B., & Whitaker, G. P. (1999). How after-school programs help students do 

better. Popular Government, Summer 1999. 

Gray, S., Ramsey, B., & Klaus, R. (1983). The Early Training Project 1962−1980. In The 

Consortium for Longitudinal Studies (Ed.), As the twig is bent. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum, 

33–70. 

Grossman, J. B., Price, M. L., Fellerath, V., Jucovy, L. C., Kotloff, L. J., Raley, R., & Walker, K. 

E. (2002, June). Multiple choices after school: Findings from the extended-service 

schools initiative. Philadelphia, PA: Public Private Ventures. 

Guralnick, M. J. (Ed.). (1997). The effectiveness of early intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. 

Brookes. 

Halpern, R., & Weiss, H. (1990). Family support and education programs: Evidence from 

evaluated program experience. In Helping families grow strong: New directions in public 
policy: Papers from the Colloquium on Public Policy and Family Support (pp. 111–129). 

Chicago, IL: Family Resource Coalition. 

* Hamilton, L. S., & Klein, S .P. (1998). Achievement test score gains among participants in the 

foundations school-age enrichment program. Rand Project Memorandum (PM-858-

EDU), September 1998. 

Head Start Bureau. (2002). Research and statistics website. Retrieved on October 9, 2002, from 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/research

Heinsman, D. T., & Shadish, W. R. (1996). Assignment methods in experimentation: When do 

nonrandomized experiments approximate answers from randomized experiments? 

Psychological Methods, 1, 154–169. 

* Hemmeter, M. L. (2001). Kentucky preschool program. 2000 Review of research on the 

Kentucky Educational Reform Act. Retrieved from www.kier.org/preschool.html.

* Henry, G. T., Gordon, C. S., Mashurn, A., & Ponder, B. D. (2001). Pre-k longitudinal study: 

Findings from the 1999−2000 school year. A publication of the Applied Research Center 

at Georgia State University. Available at www.arc.gsu.edu/publications.htm#pre-kreports.

 

Hock, M. F. (1999). The strategic tutoring series: The MATH strategy. Lawrence, KS: 

University of Kansas, Center for Research on Learning. 

Hock, M. F., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2000). Strategic tutoring. Lawrence, KS: Edge 

Enterprises. 

* Hock, M. F., Pulvers, K. A., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2001). The 

effects of an after-school tutoring program on the academic performance of at-risk 

students and students with LD. Remedial and Special Education, 22(3), 172–186. 

Hock, M. F., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1995). Training strategic tutors to enhance 

learner independence. Journal of Developmental Education, 19, 18–26. 

* Hoffman Clark & Associates. (July, 2001). San Diego After School Regional Consortium: 

Academic indicator report. 1999−2000. 

Hoge, R. D. & Coladario, T. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A 

review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 59, 297–313. 

Howrigan, G. A. (1988). Evaluating parent-child interaction outcomes of family support and 

education programs. In H. B. Weiss & F. H. Jacobs (Eds.), Evaluating family 

programs (pp. 95–130). New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 
* Huang, D., Gribbons, B., Kyung, S. K., Lee, C., & Baker, E. V. (2000). A decade of results: 

The impact of LA’s BEST after-school enrichment program on subsequent student 

achievement and performance. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation. 

* Hudley, C. (1999). Problem behaviors in middle childhood: Understanding risk status and 

protective factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of The American Educational 

Research Association in Montreal, Canada. 

* Illinois State Board of Education (2001). Illinois pre-kindergarten program for children at 

risk of academic failure: FY 2000 evaluation report. Available at 

www.isbe.net/research/pdfs/atrisk.pdf

* Kaiser, M., & Lyons, M. (2001). Woodcraft rangers: State of California After School Learning 

and Safe Neighborhoods Partnerships Program with the Los Angeles Unified School 

District. Annual evaluation report. 1999−2000. Los Angeles, CA: Lodestar 

Management/Research, Inc. 

Karoly, L. A., Greenwood, P. W., Everingham, S. S., Hoube, J., Kilburn, M. R., Rydell, C. P., 

Sanders, M., & Chiesa, J. (1998). Investing in our children: What we know and don’t 

know about the costs and benefits of early childhood interventions. Washington, DC: 

Rand Corporation. 

Kubisch, A. C., Weiss, C. H., Schorr, L. B., & Connell, L. P. (1995). Introduction (pp. 1–21), 

In J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. H. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to 

evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts. Washington, DC: 

Aspen Institute. 

* Kurecka, P., & Claus, R. N. (July, 2000). Pre-kindergarten program product evaluation 

report, 1999−2000: An approved report of the Department of Evaluation, Testing, and 

Research, School District of Saginaw, Michigan. 

* Lamare, J. (1997). Sacramento START: An evaluation report. Sacramento, CA: Sacramento 

California Neighborhoods Planning and Development Services Department. 

Lepper, M. R., Drake, M. F., & O’Donnell-Johnson, T. (1997). Scaffolding techniques of expert 

human tutors. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: 

Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 108–144). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. 

* LoSciuto, L., Hilbert, S., Fox, M., Porcellini, L., & Lanphear, A. (1999). A two-year evaluation 

of the Woodrock youth development project. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19(4), 488–

518. 

* Love, J. M., Kisker, E. E., Ross, C. M., Schochet, P. Z., Brooks-Gunn, J., Boller, K., Paulsell, 

D., Fuligni, Allison S., & Berlin, L. J. (June, 2001). Building their futures: How Early 

Head Start programs are enhancing the lives of infants and toddlers in low-income 

families, Volume I: Technical report, 1-306. Available at 
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/core/ongoing_research/index.html

* Marcon, R. (2000). Educational transitions in early childhood, middle childhood, and 

early adolescence: Head Start vs. public school pre-kindergarten graduates. 

Report presented at the Fifth National Head Start Research Conference, 

Washington DC 

Marshall, N. L., Coll, C. G., Marx, F., McCartney, K., Keife, N., and Ruh, J. (1997). Afterschool time and children’s behavioral adjustment. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43(3), 497–

514. 

* Martinez, S. (2002). Four-year-old at risk program: Final evaluation. Retrieved from 

www.ksde.org/pre/atriskpreschool.doc. 

* Maryland State Department of Education. (2002). Children entering school ready to learn: 

School readiness baseline information. School year 2001- 02 by state and county. 1–14. 

Available at www.msde.state.md.us/Special_ReportsandData/

* Maxwell, K., Bryant, D., Keyes, L., & Bernier, K. (July 1997). Kindergartner’s skills in Smart 

Start counties in 1995: A baseline from which to measure change. Available at 

http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~SmartStart/.

* Maxwell, K., Bryant, D., & Miller-Johnson, S. (1999). A six-county study of the effects of 

Smart Start child care on kindergarten entry skills. The Frank Porter 

Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. 

Available at http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~SmartStart/.

McArthur, D., Stasz, S., & Zmuidzinas, M. (1990). Tutoring techniques in algebra. Cognition 

and Instruction, 7, 197–244. 

Meece, J. L. (1992). Personal social and moral development. In J. L. Meece (Ed.), Child and 

Adolescent Development (pp. 320–379). New York: McGraw Hill. 

Meisels, S., Bickel, D., Nicholson, J., Xue, Y., & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2001). Trusting teachers’ 

judgments: A validity study of a curriculum-embedded performance assessment in 

kindergarten to grade 3. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 73–95. 

Meisels, S. J., Jablon, J. K., Marsden, D.B., Dicmelmiller, M.L., & Dorfman, A. B. (1994). 

The Work Sampling System. Ann Arbor, MI: Rebus. 

Miller, B. M. (1995). Out-of-school time: Effects on learning in the primary grades. Wellesley, 

MA: Center for Research on Women, National Institute on Out-of-School Time. 

Miller, B. (2001, April). The promise of after-school programs. Educational Leadership, 

58(7), 6–12. 
The National Education Goals Panel. (1997). Getting a good start in school. Washington, DC: 

National Education Goals Panel. 

National Governor's Association (2000). Issue brief: Evaluating statewide, communitybased initiatives for young children. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from 

http://www.nga.org/cda/files/001221CHILDINIT.pdf. 

National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. (2001). The NICHD study of early 

child care. Retrieved from www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/early_child_care.htm. 

National Institute on Out-of-School Time. (2000). Measuring what matters: Meeting the highstakes accountability challenge on our own terms. After School Issues, 1, National 

Institute on Out-of-School Time. 

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: 

The science of early childhood development. Committee on Integrating the Science of 

Early Childhood Development. In J. P. Shonkoff & D. A. Philllips (Eds.), Board of 

Children, Youth, and Families, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and 

Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

* Northwest Regional Laboratory, Child and Family Program. (1998). An investment in 

children and families: Year 7 longitudinal study report. Can be requested from 

http://www.ocd.wa.gov/info/csd/waeceap/Longitudinal_Studies/default_longitudinal_study.html

* O’Donnell, J., & Michalak, E. A. (1997). Inner-city youths helping children: After-school 

programs to promote bonding and reduce risk. Social Work in Education, 19(4), 231– 

442. 

* Oregon Department of Education. (1999). 2000 kindergarten survey report: Readiness to 

learn. Retrieved from www.ode.state.or.us/stusvc/EarlyChild. 

Peth-Pierce, R. (2000). A good beginning: Sending America’s children to school with the social 

and emotional competence they need to succeed (Monograph). Bethesda, MD: The Child 

Mental Health Foundations and Agencies Network. 

Pettit, G. S., Laird, R. D., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Patterns of after-school care in 

middle childhood: Risk factors and developmental outcomes. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 

43(3), 515–538. 

* Pfannestiel, J. (2001). School entry assessment project: Report of findings. Missouri 

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 

Phillips, D. A. & Howes, C. (1987). Indicators of quality in child care: Review of research. In 

D.A. Phillips (Ed.), Quality in child care: What does research tell us? (pp. 1–19). 

Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. 
* Phillips, R. S. (1999). Intervention with siblings of children with developmental disabilities 

from economically disadvantaged families. Families in Society: The Journal of 

Contemporary Services, 569–577. 

* Pierce, K. M., Hamm, J. V., & Vandell, D. L. (1999). Experiences in after-school programs 

and children’s adjustment in first-grade classrooms. Child Development, 70, 756–767. 

Posner, J. K., & Vandell, D. L. (1994). Low-income children’s after-school care: Are there 

beneficial effects of after-school programs? Child Development, 65, 440–456. 

Powell, D. (1995). Enabling young children to succeed in school. Washington, DC: American 

Educational Research Association. 

Powell-Smith, K. A., Stoner, G., Shinn, M. R., & Good III, R. H. (2000). Parent tutoring in 

reading using literature and curriculum materials: Impact on student reading 

achievement. School Psychology Review, 29(1), 5–28. 

* Prenovost, J. (2001). A first-year evaluation of after school learning programs in four urban 

middle schools in the Santa Ana Unified School District. Doctoral dissertation, 

University of California, Irvine and Los Angeles. 

Ramey, S. L. & Ramey C. T. (1992). Early educational intervention with disadvantaged children: 

To what effect? Applied & Preventive Psychology, 1, 131–140. 

* Reisner, E. R., White, R. N., Brimingham, J., & Welsh, M. (2001). Building quality and 

supporting expansion of after-school projects: Evaluation results from the TASC afterschool program’s second year. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc. 

* Reisner, E. R., Russel, C., Welsh, M., Brimingham, J., & White, R. N. (2002). Supporting 

quality and scale in after-school services to urban youth: Evaluation of program 

implementation and student engagement in the TASC after-school program’s third year. 

Reynolds, A. J. (2000). Success in early intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers. 

Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 

* Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A.. Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2001). Long-term effects of 

an early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15-

year follow-up of low-income children in public schools. Journal of the American 

Medical Association, 285(18), 2339–2346. 

Ripple, C. H., Gilliam, W. S., Chanana, N., & Zigler, E. (1999). Will fifty cooks spoil the broth? 

The debate over entrusting Head Start to the states. American Psychologist, 54, 327–343. 

Rodriguez, E., Hirschl, T., Mead, J., and Goggin, S. (1999). Understanding the difference 4-H 

clubs make in the lives of New York youth: How 4-H contributes to positive youth 

development. Retrieved from www.cce.cornell.edu/youth/4h/news/final_report.html. 
Roth, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Murray, L., & Foster, W. (1998). Promoting healthy adolescents: 

Synthesis of youth development program evaluations. Journal of Research on 

Adolescence, 8, 423–459. 

Schinke, S., Cole, K. C., & Poulin, S. R. (1998). Evaluation of Boys and Girls’ Club of 

America’s Educational Enhancement Program. Atlanta, GA: Author. 

* Schinke, S. P., Cole, K. C., and Poulin, S. R. (2000) Enhancing the educational achievement of 

at-risk youth. Prevention Science, 1(1), 51–60. 

Schulman, K., Blank, H., & Ewen, D. (1999). Seeds of success: State pre-kindergarten 

initiatives 1998−1999. Washington, DC: Children’s Defense Fund. 

Schweinhart, L. (in press). Issues in implementing state preschool program evaluations. Special 

report on wide-scale early childhood assessment systems. Greensboro, NC: SERVE. 

Schweinhart, L. J. (1999). The three types of early childhood programs in the U.S. Paper 

presented for the National Invitational Conference on Early Childhood Learning: 

Programs for a New Age, Alexandria, Virginia, November 29−December 1, 1999. 

Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V., & Weikart, D. P. (1993). Significant benefits: The High/Scope 

Perry Preschool study through age 27 (Monographs of the High/Scope Educational 

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

Foundation. 

Scott-Little, C., Brown, G., & Dufford-Melendez, K. (December 12−14, 2001). Notes from the 

Assessing the State of State Assessment Symposium. Unpublished manuscript. 

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental 

designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. 

Shadish, W. R., & Ragsdale, K. (1996). Random versus nonrandom assignment in controlled 

experiments: Do you get the same answer? Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 

64, 1290–1305. 

* Tao, F., Gamse, B., & Tarr, H. (1998). National evaluation of the Even Start family literacy 

program: 1994−1997 Final report. 

Tierney, J., Grossman, J. B., and Resch, N. (1995). Making a difference: An impact study of Big 

Borthers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. 

* Trousdale, D. (2000). First year evaluation of an after-school program for middle school youth. 

ERS Spectrum, Summer 2000. 
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). 21st Community Learning Centers background. 

Retrieved on October 9, 2002 from www.ed.gov/21stcclc/. 

* University of Nevada, Reno Cooperative Extension Service. (June, 1999). Reducing delinquent 

behavior and improving academic achievement in after-school programs. Retrieved 

March 2, 2001, from www.cyfernet.org. 

* Urban School Initiative. (1999). Urban School Initiative school age care project: 1998−99 

school year evaluation report. Columbus, OH: Ohio Departments of Human Services and 

Education. 

Vadasy, P. F., Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K., & O’Connor, R. E. (1997). The 

effectiveness of one-to-one tutoring by community tutors for at-risk beginning readers. 

Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 126–137. 

Walker, K. E., Grossman, J. B., Raley, R., Fellerath, V., & Holton, G. I. (2000, December). 

Extended-service schools: Putting programming in place. Philadelphia, PA: 

 Public Private Ventures. 

Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1990, April). Preventing reading failure with one-to-one tutoring: 

A best evidence synthesis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American 

Educational Research Association, Boston. 

Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for 

comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In J. P. Connell, 

A. C. Kubisch, L. H. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating 

community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts (pp.65–92). Washington, DC: 

Aspen Institute. 

West, J., Denton, K, & Germino-Gausken, E. (February, 2000). America’s kindergartners: 

Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, kindergarten class of 1998−99, 

fall 1998 (NCES 2000-070). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

* White, R. N., Reisner, E. R., Welsh, M., & Russel, C. (2001). Patterns of student-level change 

linked to TASC participation based on TASC projects in Year 2. Washington, DC: Policy 

Studies Associates, Inc. 

* Witt, P. A., & King, T. (2001, July). Fort Worth after-school program: “A diamond in the 

rough.” College Station, TX: Texas A&M University. 

Wortman, P. M., & Bryant, F. B. (1985). School desegregation and black achievement: An 

integrative review. Sociological Methods and Research, 13(3), 289–324. 

* Xiang, Z., Schweinhart, L., Hohmann, C., Smith, C., Storer, E., & Oden, S. (2000). Points 

of light: Third year report of the Michigan school readiness evaluation. Ypsilanti, MI: 

The High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. 
Yoshikawa, H. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on social outcomes and 

delinquency. The Future of Children, 5(3), 51–75. 

Zaslow, M., & Halle, T. (in press). Statewide school readiness assessments: Challenges and next 

steps. Special report on wide-scale early childhood assessment systems. Greensboro, NC: 

SERVE. 

Zill, N., & West, J. (2000). Entering kindergarten: A portrait of American children when they 

begin school. Condition of Education 2000 (NCES 2000-062). Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Statistics. 

* Zill, N., Resnick, G., McKey, R. H., Clark, C., Pai-Samant, S., Connell, D., Vaden-Kiernan, 

M., O’Brien, R., & D’Elio, M. A. (January, 2001). Head Start FACES: Longitudinal 

findings on program performance, third progress report. Available at 

www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/core/ongoing_research/hs/impact_intro.html