i

STANDARDS FOR PRESCHOOL 

CHILDREN’S LEARNING AND 

DEVELOPMENT: WHO HAS STANDARDS,

HOW WERE THEY DEVELOPED, AND

HOW ARE THEY USED?

By

Catherine Scott-Little

Sharon Lynn Kagan

Victoria Stebbins Frelow

June 2003 
 ii

STANDARDS FOR PRESCHOOL CHILDREN’S LEARNING 

AND DEVELOPMENT: WHO HAS STANDARDS, HOW 

WERE THEY DEVELOPED, AND HOW ARE THEY USED? 

In Association with the School of Education 

University of North Carolina at Greensboro 

2003 

Written for the Regional Educational Laboratory at SERVE by 

Catherine Scott-Little, Ph.D., SERVE 

Sharon Lynn Kagan, Ed.D., Teachers College, Columbia University 

Victoria Stebbins Frelow, Teachers College, Columbia University 

Edited by 

Donna Nalley, Ph.D., SERVE Publications Director 

Karen DeMeester, Ph.D., SERVE Publications 

Christy Casbon, SERVE Publications 

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), and the generous support of the A. L. Mailman Family Foundation. 

The findings and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of IES, the 

U.S. Department of Education, nor the A.L. Mailman Family Foundation. 
 iii

Acknowledgments 

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

like to thank Jean Williams for her instrumental role in launching the study. We would also like to 

thank the early childhood specialists in state departments of education, the child care administrators, 

and the Association for the Education of Young Children representatives who took the time to 

complete the interviews, send us documents, and provide us their insights on the standards 

development process. We are grateful to the respondents for their interest in this study and their 

tireless dedication to their work on behalf of families and children. Our hope is that insights 

illuminated through the comments and data provided by these respondents and analyzed in this 

report will be useful to persons involved in developing and implementing early learning standards. 

We would also like to thank the National Association for the Education of Young Children for its 

assistance in contacting respondents and disseminating the results of the research. Other SERVE 

and Teachers College staff were also instrumental in the development of this report. We would like 

to thank Lynda Hallmark, E. Glyn Brown, and Amy Lowenstein. 

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

toward reviewing the draft report. Their comments and suggestions were invaluable toward 

strengthening the quality of the research and clarifying the meaning of the conclusions. 

 

External Reviewers: 

Susan R. Andersen, Iowa Department of Education 

Sally Atkins-Burnett, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 

Barbara T. Bowman, The Erikson Institute 

Jerlean Daniel, School of Education, University of Pittsburgh 

Jayma Ferguson, Indiana State Department of Education 

Elvira Germino Hausken, U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics

Marilou Hyson, National Association for the Education of Young Children 

Internal SERVE Reviewers: 

 E. Glyn Brown, Expanded Learning Opportunities 

Kathleen Dufford-Melendez, Expanded Learning Opportunities 

Beth Garriss Hardy, Children, Families & Communities 

Wendy McColskey, Assessment, Accountability & Standards
 iv

STANDARDS FOR PRESCHOOL CHILDREN’S LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT: WHO 

HAS STANDARDS, HOW WERE THEY DEVELOPED, AND HOW WERE THEY USED? 

Table of Contents 

Section Page Number

Acknowledgments iii 

Section I: Background and Purposes of the Study 1 

Background of the Study 1 

Purposes of the Study 4 

Section II: Study Nomenclature, Methodology, and Limitations 7 

Nomenclature 7 

 The Definition of Standards 7 

 Age of Children Whose Standards Are Included in the Study 8 

 States 8 

Methodology 8 

 Content of the Telephone Protocol 9 

 Development and Refinement of the Telephone Protocol 9 

 Respondent Selection 9 

 Quality Control of Data Collection 10 

 Data Collection Processes 10 

 Respondents Providing Data for the Study 10 

 Data Analysis Procedures 12 

Limitations of This Study 13 

Section III: The Status and Characteristics of Child-Based Outcome Standards 15 

Across the Nation 

The Status of CBO Standards Within States 15 

 States With CBO Standards 15 

 CBO Standards: A Moving Target 18 

 States With Standards in Some, But Not All, Domains 18 

 States Revising Standards 18 

 States With More Than One Set of CBO Standards 19 

 States With Multiple CBO Standards That Overlap in the 19 

Age Range Targeted 

 States Developing a Second Set of CBO Standards to 20 

Address Infants and Toddlers 

 Regional Patterns 21 

Characteristics of CBO Standards 22 
 v

 Ages Addressed in CBO Standards Documents 22 

 Developmental Domains Covered in the CBO Standards 24 

 Subject Area Analysis 26 

 Linkage to K–12 Standards 30 

 Orientation of the Standards 34 

Characteristics of the CBO Standards Documents 36 

 Time Frame for CBO Standards Documents 36 

 Titles Used for CBO Standards Documents 38 

 K–12 Linkage and Nomenclature 41 

 Supplemental Materials Included in the CBO Standards Documents 41 

 Inclusion of Modifications for Children With Special Circumstances 42 

Summary of Findings Regarding States With CBO Standards 43 

Section IV: Developing Child-Based Outcome Standards 44 

Getting Started: Identifying the Impetus 44 

 The Influence of Different Approaches to Incepting CBO Standards 47 

Players in the Standards Development Process 48 

 State Departments of Education: Inceptors and Facilitators of 48 

CBO Standards Development 

 Offices of School Readiness: Facilitators of Standards Development 49 

 Other State-Level Agencies: Facilitators of Standards Development 49 

 Partners in CBO Standards Development: A Highly Inclusive Process 49 

 Pre-Existing Initiatives as Facilitators in the Development Process 51 

 The Role of Public Input 52 

 External Consultants—Partners in CBO Standards Development 52 

Orientation of the Standards: Influence of State Departments of Education 53 

 Literacy Initiatives and Their Impact on Defining CBO Standards 54 

Logistics of Developing CBO Standards 54 

Time Frame for Developing CBO Standards 55 

Documents, Theories, and Standards Consulted During CBO Standards 55 

 Development 

The Influence of Other States’ CBO Standards 57 

Funding CBO Standards Development 59 

Summary of Findings Related to the CBO Standards Development Process 60 

 

Section V: Developing Standards—The Remaining States 61 

The In-Process States 61 

 Status of In-Process States 61 

 Advanced States 62 

 Progressing States 63 

 Beginning States 65 

 Time Frame for Expected Completion of CBO Standards in In-Process 66 

 States 

 State Departments of Education: Inceptors and Facilitators of 67 

CBO Standards Development 

 Partners in Developing CBO Standards 69 
 vi

 Funding CBO Standards Development in the In-Process States 71 

Status of States Not In-Process 72 

Factors That Might Influence States That Have Not Begun a CBO 72 

 Standards Development Process 

 Practical Reasons 72 

 Political Reasons 74 

 Philosophical Reasons 75 

Observations Regarding States Without CBO Standards 75 

Section VI: Implementation of and Accountability for Child-Based 76 

Outcome Standards 

Where and How the CBO Standards Are Intended to Be Used 76 

 Programs Targeted With CBO Standards 76 

How the CBO Standards Are Intended to Be Used 79 

 Inform Curriculum and Instruction 80 

 Improve Program Quality 81 

 Improve School Readiness 81 

 Guide Instructional Assessment 82 

Non-Purposes or What CBO Standards Were Not Developed For 83 

Support for Implementation of CBO Standards 84 

 Dissemination of CBO Standards 84 

 Dissemination Methods 84 

 Agencies Responsible for Dissemination of the CBO Standards 85 

 Who Gets the CBO Standards 86 

 Supports Available to Promote the Use of CBO Standards 86 

 Training 86 

 Conferences and Workshops 87 

 Institutions of Higher Education 87 

 Train the Trainers 87 

 Technical Assistance 88 

Expectations That CBO Standards Will Be Used and the Degree to 88 

Which Programs Are Held Accountable for the CBO Standards 

 Expectations for Use of the CBO Standards 88 

 States Expecting That the CBO Standards Will Be Used in Programs 89 

 What Does “Expected” Really Mean? 89 

 States Where Implementation Is Not Required 91 

 Factors Impacting to Whom and How CBO Standards Are Applied 92 

 CBO Standards and Accountability 93 

 Curriculum Alignment 93 

 Children’s Progress on CBO Standards 94 

 CBO Standards and Child Outcome Data Directly Related 94 

 California 94 

 Maine—Early Learning Results 95 

 New Mexico 95 

 Washington—ECEAP 96 

 Program Evaluation and an Indirect Link to CBO Standards 96 
 vii

 General Data on Children’s Characteristics 97 

 Assessment Data and Program Accountability: A Thing 98 

 of the Future? 

Implications of Implementation Issues 99 

Section VII: Discussion and Recommendations 102 

The Challenge of Inconsistent Nomenclature 102 

 Recommendations 103 

The Issue of Inclusion 103 

 Recommendations 104 

The Nature of CBO Standards’ Content 104 

 Recommendations 105 

Developing CBO Standards 105 

 Recommendations 107 

Use of CBO Standards 107 

 Recommendations 110 

How We Hold the CBO Standards 111 

 Recommendations 112 

Conclusion 112 

Appendix A: Survey Protocol 113 

Appendix B: Letter to Respondents 120 

Appendix C: Developmental Dimensions Descriptions 122 

Appendix D: Child-Based Outcome Standards Documents 124 

 
 viii

List of Tables

Table 

Number 

Title Page 

Number 

II-1 List of Respondents Providing Data for the Survey 11 

III-1 Status of CBO Standards in States 17 

III-2 Ages Covered by CBO Standards 22 

III-3 National Education Goals Panel Developmental Domains 

Included in CBO Standards 

25 

III-4 Subject Areas Addressed in CBO Standards 27 

III-5 Degree of Linkage to K–12 Standards 32 

III-6 Orientation of the CBO Standards 35 

III-7 Time Frame for Completion of CBO Standards 37 

III-8 Titles for CBO Standards Documents 38 

III-9 Operational Definitions of CBO Standards Terminology 40 

IV-1 Status of States with Adopted CBO Standards 45 

IV-2 Status of States With CBO Standards Not Formally 

Adopted/Endorsed at the Time of the Interview 

46 

IV-3 Partners in the Standards Development Process 50 

IV-4 Documents, Theories, and Standards Consulted During the 

CBO Standards Development Process 

56 

IV-5 Other States’ CBO Standards Used as Resources in the 

Development Process 

58 

IV-6 Funding Sources 59 

V-1 Status of In-Process States 62 

V-2 Estimated Time Frames for Completion of CBO Standards for 

In-Process States 

67 

V-3 Lead Agency for In-Process States 68 

V-4 Partners in Developing CBO Standards 69 

V-5 Funding Sources for In-Process States 71 

VI-1 Programs Targeted With CBO Standards 77 

VI-2 Intended Purposes of CBO Standards 79 

VI-3 Dissemination Strategies for CBO Standards 85 

VI-4 Expectations for Use of CBO Standards 89 

List of Figures 

Figure 

Number 

Title Page 

Number 

III-1 Geographic Distribution of CBO Standards 21 
 1

SECTION I: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSES OF THE STUDY 

Background of the Study 

Throughout the history of early care and education, the role of standards has been 

somewhat controversial. Reviewing decades of literature and theory, some scholars have 

noted that standards, in the form of clear expectations for children, have provided an 

underpinning for early childhood curriculum and pedagogy. This school of thought often 

points to the seminal works of Froebel, Pestalozzi, and Gesell, noting that while not 

terming them standards, per se, and while differing in their goals for children, these 

theorists had definite understandings of what children should know and do that informed 

their developmental theories and expectations. 

Others, however, see history somewhat differently. They contend that while theorists may 

have implied the existence of standards for what children should know and be able to do, 

they never explicitly stated or listed them. This school contends it is recent history and, 

more specifically, the brain research coupled with the K–12 pre-occupation with 

standards that has infiltrated early care and education. As a result, there is a need for 

specification of what children can and should know and be able to do. 

However heated these debates, what both sides might agree upon is that early care and 

education has long had program standards enunciating the structural and physical 

conditions that enhance quality in early childhood programs. Unlike child-based learning 

standards, program standards are not controversial in and of themselves, except perhaps 

in their individual items. The need for program standards, for example Head Start’s 

Performance Standards, is readily acknowledged and encouraged. 

Moving from historic to more current times, the debate about the need for, and utility of, 

child-based learning standards for preschool-aged children has, in the past decade, been 

no less strident. A number of factors contribute to concerns over the development of 

standards to articulate expectations for children’s development before kindergarten entry. 

First and foremost is the nature of development at this age. Preschool children’s 

development often is uneven across developmental areas, with development in one area 

outpacing development in others. Furthermore, development often is sporadic. A child 

may make relatively little progress in one developmental area for a significant period of 

time and then suddenly master a series of skills or demonstrate more advanced 

characteristics almost overnight. Additionally, children’s development is highly 

influenced by the environment, and the environments in which children at this age find 

themselves are highly variable. Young children’s family, recreational, and educational 

environments vary widely in the type of values and characteristics they promote. 

Therefore, the skills, abilities, and characteristics children exhibit may be more of a 

function of their environment than their own abilities. All of these factors contribute to 

great individual differences between children—differences that experts in the field of 

early education say should be anticipated and valued. However, the presence of such 

individual differences between children does not lend itself well to the promulgation of 
 2

standards that tend to describe more uniform expectations for children’s development, or 

even are designed to lead toward more uniform outcomes among children. 

Additional concerns about the advent of standards for children’s learning and 

development stem from the nature of the field of early care and education. Professionals 

in the field of early care and education have long recognized the value of a child-initiated 

approach in educational settings. Classrooms have been set up to give children choices 

among centers. Teachers and caregivers have been encouraged to follow the child’s lead 

in designing curricula activities. It is possible that the introduction of standards for 

children’s learning and development might shift the balance more toward teacherdirected approaches. 

Despite these concerns, the press for child-based learning standards has grown rapidly 

and with fervor. Indeed, the National Association for the Education of Young Children 

(NAEYC) and National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments 

of Education (NAECS/SDE) have published a new position statement that will be helpful 

to states as they craft standards (2002). The position statement addresses the process that 

should be used to develop early learning standards, the content of such standards, and 

how the standards should be used. Clearly, interest in the standards issue remains intense 

for a variety of reasons. 

 

To be certain, as noted above, factors in the educational environment and in the political 

environments have hastened the urgency of the standards discourse. For the past decade, 

for example, the push to define expectations for student learning has swept the nation. 

Commonly referred to as the standards or accountability movement, state-level agencies 

and organizations across the country have been required to develop standards to define 

what children should learn in grades K–12. Almost all states have developed some type 

of standards to define what children should learn in school, and these agencies and 

organizations are designing and implementing assessment systems to measure children’s 

progress toward meeting these standards. Given this ethos, it is not surprising that calls 

for accountability have begun to characterize early care and education. 

A second impetus to the call for standards arose because of the widespread growth of 

early childhood programs in the late 1990s. In 1998–1999, for example, state spending on 

pre-kindergarten initiatives totaled approximately $1.7 billion, up approximately $1 

billion from 1992–1993 (Schulman, Blank, & Ewen, 1999). According to a recent report 

by Education Week, 39 states plus the District of Columbia operate state-funded prekindergarten programs and 21 states plus the District of Columbia provide supplemental 

funding to expand the Head Start services available in their states (Doherty, 2002). Such 

expansion was not required; it represented a voluntary expenditure of public dollars. 

Adding to the accountability press of the K–12 standards movement, came the desire on 

the part of public officials to see if the increasing dollars invested in early care and 

education were making a difference to children’s outcomes in general. 

Finally, the impetus for standards in early care and education can also be traced to 

intensifying concerns about the growing educational divide between poor and non-poor 
 3

children—the achievement gap. With early childhood education regarded as a major 

antidote, politicians and the public became increasingly concerned that early care and 

education programs were actually delivering on this hope. Hence, the press for 

accountability in early care and education has many roots. 

How are these manifesting themselves? A significant national effort to define 

expectations for children’s development prior to kindergarten entry came with the advent 

of the National Education Goals Panel (NEGP) in 1989. The importance of the early 

years for later school success was pronounced clearly and acknowledged by most of the 

nation’s educators and policymakers when the nation’s first goal was established—“All 

children will enter school ready to learn by the year 2000.” A national panel of experts 

was established to further define what it means to enter school “ready to learn.” After 

extensive reviews of the literature, the panel agreed (and received national consensus) 

that readiness attributes can be classified into five domains: (1) physical well-being and 

motor development, (2) social and emotional development, (3) cognition and general 

knowledge, (4) approaches toward learning, and (5) language and communication 

(Kagan, Moore, & Bredekamp, 1995). The work of the NEGP helped to set the stage for 

further discussion on item operationalization of these dimensions. It should be noted that 

the panel was quite clear in articulating that educators should expect a great deal of 

cultural and individual variation in children’s development at this age and should not 

expect each child to exhibit specific skills and abilities prior to kindergarten. 

In addition, the NEGP recognized that readiness was not a construct of the child alone 

and that in order for children to be ready for schools, their families and communities 

needed to support them and schools needed to be ready for them. These principles were 

embodied in the objectives that accompanied the overall goal. These objectives were as 

follows: (a) every child would have access to quality early care and education 

experiences, (b) every parent would be equipped to facilitate their child’s development, 

and (c) every child would receive the nutrition, physical experiences, and health care 

needed (NEGP, 1997). 

The next national press for addressing expectations for preschool-age children’s 

development came when Congress mandated that in 1998 Head Start programs begin 

collecting data on children’s progress on specific indicators related to language and 

literacy development. The Head Start Bureau established a Technical Work Group on 

Child Outcomes and charged the group with developing a framework for collecting data 

on children’s progress. The result was the Head Start Child Outcomes Framework, which 

includes eight developmental domains, seven Domain Elements, and 100 examples of 

more specific Indicators of children’s skills, abilities, knowledge, and behaviors. Head 

Start programs are required to collect data on children’s progress three times each year 

and to use the data for program decisions. Clearly, the Outcomes Framework articulates 

expectations for what children will accomplish while they are in Head Start and, perhaps 

more significantly, specifies requirements for assessing the progress made by groups of 

children within the program (Head Start Bureau, 2001). 
 4

Subsequently, the Bush Administration’s Good Start, Grow Smart early childhood 

initiative has called for annual assessments of all children in Head Start and the 

specification of learning standards that specify expectations for children’s development 

prior to kindergarten (Good Start, Grow Smart, 2002). In an effort to strengthen the 

impact of early care and education programs, Good Start, Grow Smart identifies several 

factors that may lessen early care and education program benefits for children. The 

initiative identifies potential areas of improvement, including the lack of alignment 

between what is expected of children prior to kindergarten and state standards for the K–

12 education system, as well as the limited efforts to evaluate early care and education 

programs on how well they have prepared children for success in school. It outlines a 

three-pronged approach to improving early care and education programs, with two of the 

three objectives related to standards for early care and education programs. One strategy 

Bush proposes to strengthen the Head Start program is to ensure that Head Start programs 

are evaluated based on their track record in helping children meet the standards 

established for early learning (i.e., the Child Outcomes Framework). Secondly, the 

initiative seeks to encourage states to develop quality criteria for early care and education 

programs, including voluntary guidelines for preschool children’s language and literacy 

development that are aligned with the state’s K–12 standards. In order to receive federal 

Child Care Development Funds (CCDF), states will have to submit a plan for how they 

will address this requirement for criteria for quality early care and education programs 

(Good Start, Grow Smart, 2002). 

Clearly, demands for standards to address what children should know and be able to do 

before kindergarten entry are becoming increasingly strong. As the demand becomes 

more ardent, recalling past eras, so do opinions regarding the viability and utility of 

standards. Arguments supporting child-based outcome standards suggest that appropriate 

assessment and learning standards are both beneficial and necessary to the field of early 

care and education, exposing the kinds of services and supports often missing in a child’s 

preschool years. This thinking emanates from two primary sources: (1) the desire to 

improve children’s performance later in school by articulating desirable elements of 

learning during the preschool years, and (2) the desire to have better articulation of what 

children are learning (or accountability) for the fiscal and human resources that are being 

invested in early care and education programs. Still, some members of the early care and 

education community maintain that standards setting is not appropriate for children of 

this young age or that such standards, if enacted, must be done so with a great deal of 

care. It should be noted, however, that while this attitude does exist, early childhood 

administrators—as the study will reveal—are recognizing the benefits of, and are 

becoming more comfortable with, child-based learning outcomes. Irrespective of 

attitudinal differences, data are unequivocal; standards are being developed and used 

every day in this nation. Our study examines them in detail, with the goal of providing 

clear information and with the caveat that such information changes daily. 

Purposes of the Study

While there is increasing recognition of the importance of early learning experiences 

prior to kindergarten entry, there is actually little consensus on what specific skills and 
 5

characteristics early care and education programs should promote during the preschool 

years. Efforts to guide early care and education programs have primarily outlined 

standards for program operations and curricula rather than specific skills expected from 

children. Without national consensus on what young children should know and be able to 

do, numerous state agencies and organizations have developed their own descriptions of 

what preschool children should learn. Thus, policymakers have responded to the 

particular educational and political climate of their states—in addition to a national push 

for more stringent accountability and a sharper delineation of outcomes—by developing 

standards for children prior to kindergarten entry. 

This study was prompted by the absence of a national report or comprehensive source of 

data delineating how individual states are responding to the need for early learning 

standards. SERVE, a Regional Educational Laboratory funded by the U.S. Department of 

Education, Institute for Education Sciences (formerly the Office of Educational Research 

and Improvement), has partnered with Dr. Sharon Lynn Kagan of Teachers College, 

Columbia University and Yale University to conduct a national study to examine early 

learning standards developed by state-level organizations. The broad purpose of the study 

is to provide data on what standards have been developed, the processes states have used 

to develop the standards, and how states are using/implementing the standards. It should 

be noted that this component of the study does not contain a thorough content analysis of 

the standards; rather, it provides a more global perspective on their content as it addresses 

the following specific research questions: 

• Which states have developed child-based outcome standards to define 

expectations for children’s learning and development prior to kindergarten 

entry, and how many sets of standards does each state have? 

• What is the nature of the child-based outcome standards that have been 

developed? What ages have been covered in the standards? To what degree 

are the standards linked to standards for the K–12 system? What 

developmental domains or subject areas have been covered? 

• What process was used to develop the standards? What was the impetus for 

developing the standards? What agency or individual took the lead in the 

process? Who was involved? How was the effort funded? 

• How are the child-based outcome standards used? How are they disseminated 

and to whom? What are the expectations for how the standards will be 

implemented? What data are collected related to the standards? 

Answers to these and other questions provide a comprehensive view of the status of 

standards for children’s learning and development prior to kindergarten entry. The goal is 

to provide a picture for how states have addressed an increasing call for child-based 

outcome standards. What follows is a discussion of data collected on child-based 

outcome standards from across the country and an attempt to draw a coherent picture of 

patterns that seem to be emerging as states enter (or do not enter) into the arena of 

standards for children younger than kindergarten age. We begin by presenting the 

methodology and conceptual framework used in the study (Section II). This is followed 

in Section III by a discussion of the characteristics of the child-based outcome standards 
 6

that have been developed by state-level organizations. Sections IV and V present the 

processes states have used to develop the standards. In Section IV, we focus on states that 

have completed their standards, and in Section V, we examine states that are still 

developing standards and states where the process has not yet begun. In Section VI, we 

examine how the child-based outcome standards are being implemented and used. The 

concluding portion, Section VII, provides a synthesis of the findings from the study and 

presents recommendations for the care and education of young children. 

References

Doherty, K. M. (2002). Early learning. Quality Counts 2002: Building blocks for success.

Education Week, 21(17), 54–56. 

Good Start, Grow Smart: The Bush Administration’s Early Childhood Initiative. (2002). 

Retrieved November 21, 2002, from the White House website: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/earlychildhood/toc.html

Kagan, S. L., Moore, E., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (1995). Reconsidering children’s early 

development and learning: Toward common views and vocabulary. Report of the 

National Education Goals Panel, Goal 1 Technical Planning Group. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Head Start Bureau. (2001, April). Head Start Child Outcomes Framework. Head Start 

Bulletin, 70, 44–50. 

The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) & The 

National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education 

(NAECS/SDE). (2002). Early learning standards: Creating the conditions for success. 

Retrieved from http://ericps.crc.uiuc.edu/naecs/position/creating_conditions.pdf

National Education Goals Panel. (1997). Special early childhood report. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Schulman, K., Blank, H., & Ewen, D. (1999). Seeds of success. Washington, DC: 

Children’s Defense Fund. 
 7

SECTION II: STUDY NOMENCLATURE, METHODOLOGY, 

AND LIMITATIONS 

Embarking on an analysis of standards at any time is a complex undertaking. Undertaking 

such an analysis when the child-based outcome standards are highly visible and 

constantly changing complicates the challenge and makes the need for explication of our 

nomenclature and method critical. In this section, we provide information about how the 

study was conducted, define the terms used throughout and the rationale for their 

selection, and discuss the limitations of the study. This section is divided into two parts: 

the first on Nomenclature and the second on Method. 

Nomenclature 

In order to effectively communicate the intentions of this study, a set of common 

definitions was developed. It should be noted, however, that terms used herein are not 

proffered as definitions for use beyond the study unless readers feel so inclined. 

 

The definition of standards. The definition of standards has received much 

attention in K–12 education, with the field often discerning between content and 

performance standards. In early care and education, however, use of the word “standards” 

has been linked to program performance standards or the inputs that lead to quality 

programs, with the most notable example being the Head Start Performance Standards. 

 

For the purposes of this study, “child-based outcome (CBO) standards” are defined as 

state-based expectations for what young children should know and be able to do prior to 

entering kindergarten. Within the field of early care and education, this type of standard 

has many different names, including early learning standards, child outcomes, 

benchmarks, and performance indicators, just to mention a few. We have selected the 

term child-based outcome standards to clearly indicate that this analysis is about child 

standards as opposed to program standards, and about outcomes rather than inputs. 

It should be noted that, despite repeated attempts to define the nature of the standards 

being considered, there was some confusion among respondents regarding the 

terminology. While this confusion reflects the state of the field, it needs to be noted as a 

factor in this study. First, and commensurate with past usage, it was not uncommon for 

respondents to think of “standards” in terms of expectations for programs, not children. 

Second, a few respondents indicated that their state did not have CBO standards. Upon 

further inquiry, we learned that such standards did in fact exist. We also learned that this 

error was often due to inconsistent nomenclature rather than a lack of accurate 

information. 

Because so much confusion about terminology exists, we found it helpful to clarify our 

definition by indicating what is not included in it. When discussing child-based outcome 

standards we are not speaking about, for example, access to services (e.g., how many 

children have access to a particular service), the nature of those services (e.g., highquality programs), or supports rendered by parents (e.g., reading to children). That is to 
 8

say, we are not studying service provision like that provided in the important Kids Count 

work or the Quality Counts edition of Education Week (September, 2001). Moreover, we 

are not speaking about social indicators, those variables typically related to the condition 

of children or families (e.g., numbers of children who live in poverty). This study focuses 

on child-based outcome standards, with the goal of explicating the nature of those 

standards and what states are doing to develop them.

Age of children whose standards are included in the study. In this study, we are 

examining CBO standards for children from birth to the age of school entry. In reality, 

however, the CBO standards that exist for this population are more heavily focused on 

children as they approach entry to formal school. Consequently, the bulk of our data is 

focused on standards for children ages three to five, prior to kindergarten entry. Where 

we have information on standards for younger children, we will note specific ages. 

States. While the definition of what constitutes a state seems fairly 

straightforward, it is complex in this study for several reasons. It is not simply that we 

have included the District of Columbia as a state, which we deem appropriate. Logic 

might suggest that the number of sets of standards would parallel the number of states 

that have them. Yet, equating the number of states with the number of sets of standards 

quickly reveals that no such one-to-one correspondence exists. To the contrary, our work 

revealed that while the states (including DC) were the unit of analysis, some states 

actually had more than one set of standards that were suitable for inclusion in the study. 

For this reason, sometimes the total number of states that have standards (27) differs from 

the total number of sets of standards that are included in our analysis (29). This difference 

is not an error; to be thorough and to accurately reflect the range of work in existence, if 

two sets of child-based outcome standards exist in a state, both are reported herein. As 

will be noted later, this difference, while a bit complex for this analysis, reveals some 

trenchant issues with which the field of early care and education must grapple if 

standards are to be the most effective. 

In addition to the phenomena of multiple sets of standards within a few states, we also 

had multiple informants within several states. For the most part, information provided by 

the multiple respondents within a state was consistent. In a few cases, however, 

information provided by one respondent differed from information provided by another. 

In these cases, respondents were re-contacted to verify the accuracy of information for 

the study and the standards documents themselves were analyzed to provide further 

verification of what is presented. However, this phenomena further accentuates the fact 

that even though we have treated each state as the unit of analysis to facilitate reporting, 

within states there can be multiple perspectives on standards development activities and 

even multiple standards. We are fully aware that even though we talk about states as if 

they were a single unit, there are sometimes variations within states. 

Methodology 

This descriptive study utilized data from multiple sources to gain a picture of CBO 

standards within each state. Telephone survey data were augmented by reviews and 
 9

analysis of CBO standards documents submitted by the states. Findings from the 

telephone survey and from preliminary review of the standards documents submitted by 

the states are included in this report. It should be noted that a more detailed content 

analysis of the standards will follow the publication of this document. 

It was important to collect data from multiple sources for several reasons. We wanted to 

gain as much data from as many different perspectives as possible, within a reasonable 

time frame. We had observed that states currently had a variety of CBO standards 

development activities and that the development process often unfolded rapidly within 

states. We suspected that there would be multiple perspectives and different levels of 

understanding of the process within states. We wanted to capture as full a picture of the 

process as possible. Therefore, a design using several different kinds of data sources 

(multiple telephone surveys and standards document reviews) was appropriate. 

Content of the telephone protocol. The telephone protocol was developed to learn 

about states’ efforts at developing and implementing CBO standards. Domains of inquiry 

in the protocol included: (a) the impetus for the standards, (b) the nature of the standards, 

(c) their relationship to other standards efforts, and (d) the process of their development 

including issues related to leadership, participation, and funding. We also were interested 

in how the needs of special populations were addressed in the standards, the 

developmental domains covered by the standards, and how the standards were being 

implemented. Our inquiry addressed the following categories: 

• Presence or absence of state-level CBO standards for children between the 

ages of birth and five years 

• Content areas of the standards 

• Process for developing the standards 

• Process for disseminating or implementing the standards 

• Data collection systems related to the standards 

• For states that do not have CBO standards, any plans or activities that might 

lead to the development of CBO standards 

Development and refinement of the telephone protocol. A draft protocol was 

prepared, reviewed by the research team, and then reviewed by experts within the field of 

early care and education. Revisions were made and then the protocol was piloted with 

four states. Revisions were made based on the pilot so that the protocol would meet our 

intention to create a tool that would stimulate discourse, not limit it. As a result, many of 

the questions are quite open-ended, often followed with specific probes. A copy of the 

final protocol is included in Appendix A. 

Respondent selection. Discerning who would be the best respondents to the 

survey raised additional questions. Given the cadre of early care and education leaders in 

each state and given the multiple funding streams and programs, we felt it would be 

important to gain multiple perspectives from each state. As a result, three categories of 

individuals were interviewed in each state: (a) the early childhood specialist in the state 

department of education, (b) the president of the state Association for the Education of 
 10

Young Children (AEYC), and (c) the chief Child Care Administrator in the state’s Lead 

Child Care Agency. The strategy of collecting data from these diverse sources worked 

well, in that these sources often provided quite different knowledge bases, perspectives, 

and data sources. 

 Quality control of data collection. The actual data collection was performed by 

two people: a graduate student at Teachers College, Columbia University, and a staff 

person at the National Center for Children and Families at Teachers College, Columbia 

University. Both data collectors have completed graduate-level course work in the field 

of early care and education and have extensive experience in data collection. Each took 

responsibility for different states, ensuring that appropriate contacts and follow-ups were 

made. Working under the supervision of Sharon Lynn Kagan, these individuals were 

engaged in ongoing conversations with each other regarding ways to improve the data 

collection process. 

Data collection processes. Initial contact was made through a letter to respondents 

(see Appendix B for a copy of the letter). The letter explained the purpose of the survey 

and provided a copy of the questions that would be addressed during the interview. 

Approximately two weeks after the letter was mailed to a respondent, a phone contact 

was made to schedule an appointment for the interview. During the interview, 

participants were asked to respond to a series of open-ended and closed-ended questions 

to describe any CBO standards activities in their state. The interviews were conducted 

between November 2001 and May 2002. A written summary of each interview was 

completed and either e-mailed or faxed to respondents so that they could provide 

suggested changes for the write-up and then approve the way the write-up reflected their 

conversation with the researcher. 

Respondents were asked to forward copies of CBO standards documents to the research 

team, along with any supplemental materials that might be available to support 

implementation of the standards. Materials were received from each of the states 

reporting that their state has CBO standards. Interview responses regarding the name of 

the standards, the age groups addressed, and the developmental domains and subject 

areas covered were confirmed by examination of the standards documents and any webbased materials the respondent provided. In cases where the interview responses differed 

slightly from the print or web-based document, data from the print or web-based 

materials have been reported. In cases where the interview responses differed 

substantially from the print or web-based materials, the interview respondent was recontacted to verify the accuracy of the data. 

Respondents providing data for the study. A total of 177 persons were contacted 

as potential respondents for the survey. Seventy-seven persons were able to provide data 

regarding CBO standards in their state. The remainder either indicated that their states did 

not have CBO standards or that they were not informed sufficiently to answer the 

questions about their states’ CBO standards. Table II-1 provides a summary, by role 

category, of persons who provided data for the survey. The observation that the early 

childhood specialists within state departments of education were typically the persons 
 11

who could provide information about the CBO standards and the development process is 

one important observation to note. Fifty of the 77 respondents who were able to answer 

questions about the CBO standards in their states were early childhood specialists in state 

departments of education. In contrast, a total of 100 persons who were contacted were 

unable to provide data for the study. Only 12 of the non-respondents were early 

childhood state specialists; 48 were child care administrators in departments of human 

services, and 40 were AEYC representatives. These data suggest that early childhood 

specialists in state departments of education are, as a whole, the group with the greatest 

amount of information about the CBO standards in their states. 

Table II-1 

List of Respondents Providing Data for the Survey

State Early 

Childhood 

Specialist 

Child Care 

Administrator 

AEYC 

Representative 

Alabama X 

Alaska X X X 

Arizona X 

Arkansas X X 

California X 

Colorado X X 

Connecticut XXX* 

Delaware X X 

Florida X X 

Georgia XX* X X 

Hawaii X X 

Idaho X X 

Illinois XX* X 

Indiana X 

Iowa X X 

Kansas X 

Kentucky X 

Louisiana XX* X 

Maine X X 

Maryland X 

Massachusetts X X 

Michigan X 

Minnesota X X 

Mississippi X 

Missouri X 

Montana X 

Nebraska X 

Nevada X X 
 12

State Early 

Childhood 

Specialist 

Child Care 

Administrator 

AEYC 

Representative 

New 

Hampshire 

X 

New Jersey X X 

New Mexico X 

New York X 

North Carolina X 

North Dakota X 

Ohio X X 

Oklahoma X 

Oregon X 

Pennsylvania X 

Rhode Island X 

South Carolina X 

South Dakota X 

Tennessee X 

Texas X 

Utah X 

Vermont X 

Virginia X 

Washington X X 

Washington, 

DC 

 X 

West Virginia X X 

Wisconsin X 

Wyoming X 

Total Number 

of Respondents 

Providing Data 

50 13 14 

* Multiple respondents within the same category from the same state

Data analysis procedures. Quantitative and qualitative data analysis techniques 

were used to extract themes or commonalities among the states. For the quantitative 

analysis, two primary strategies were used: (1) counts of the number of CBO standards 

that exhibited the specific characteristics examined or the numbers of respondents who 

reported a given response, and (2) ratings of CBO standards on various scales that were 

developed to describe the nature of the standards (such as the degree to which the 

standards were linked to the K–12 standards). 

In each of the cases when a rating scale was used, ratings were defined as explicitly as 

possible and then the CBO standards were rated by two independent raters. Both of the 

data coders had extensive educational training in the fields of early care and education, 

one with a doctoral degree and the second with graduate-level training. For each of the 
 13

rating scales, the coders carefully studied the elements of the particular characteristic to 

be coded and discussed criteria for particular ratings. Following this training period, the 

coders rated the CBO standards included in the study for each of the respective scales. 

Reliability for the ratings was established by comparing the results from the two raters. In 

all cases, the two raters achieved agreement on all but one or two of the cases (reliability 

rates of 94% or better). In cases where the two raters disagreed on a particular rating, 

consensus was achieved on the appropriate rating and the agreed-upon rating was used as 

the data within the study. 

Qualitative analytic methods were used to analyze responses to the open-ended interview 

questions. Recognizing the interplay between qualitative and quantitative methods 

(Strauss & Corbin, 1998), the research team studied the interview responses carefully, 

looking for emerging patterns, themes, and categories. A coding system was developed, 

and data were sorted according to “families of codes” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p. 171). 

As a particular theme was identified, the team looked for consistency across multiple 

respondents within a state and then evidence of the theme in respondents’ answers across 

multiple states. Wherever possible, charts were developed and interview quotes provided 

to illustrate the finding. In cases where direct quotes from respondents are used to 

illustrate a point, the quote has been separated from the narrative text and indented. In all 

instances, these quotes are direct quotes from respondents. Quotes have not been 

attributed to individual respondents, other than to identify the respondents’ home state. 

Limitations of This Study 

There are several factors that impact the data collected and the conclusions drawn for this 

study. Although fairly obvious, the research team felt it necessary to state that results 

from this study are only as good as the data provided by respondents. As described 

above, there seems to be considerable confusion about the definition of CBO standards, 

and knowledge about CBO standards within some states may be limited. We have 

attempted to collect data from as many of the persons likely to know about CBO 

standards within a state as possible. Still, we may have missed someone who is 

knowledgeable about a CBO standards initiative within a particular state and/or been 

unsuccessful in explaining the purpose of the study and collecting accurate data on CBO 

standards from respondents. At the same time, data provided by respondents heavily 

involved in the development of CBO standards may be somewhat biased by their role 

within the process. Additionally, data were collected from persons who, for the most part, 

are in administrative positions. Therefore, while respondents have provided data on 

implementation of the standards, the data are second-hand knowledge of how the 

standards are actually being used. Clearly, the study is limited to respondents’ unique 

perspective and level of knowledge about CBO standards. 

A second limitation of the study is that the process of developing and using CBO 

standards is a “moving target.” In all cases, we have collected data at a specific point in 

time. The interviews were conducted between November 2001 and May 2002. Thus, the 

data we report reflect where the states were at the time of their interviews. Because the 

process is a “moving target,” many states may have moved beyond the point where they 
 14

were at the time of the interview. For example, CBO standards that are reported as being 

under development may now be final, or plans for how to use standards may have been 

revised. Consequently, we fully acknowledge that in some cases data included in this 

report may be out of date by the time the report is completed. 

A final limitation of this study is the unintended masking of state variability both in terms 

of the CBO standards themselves and the process used to develop the CBO standards. 

Each state is truly unique in how it has approached CBO standards. In searching for 

patterns or themes, however, the research team found it necessary to classify states along 

certain elements. In doing so, we may have unintentionally minimized the uniqueness of 

a particular state’s CBO standards or process. 

Despite the caveats discussed above, the data contained in this report provide a rich 

picture of what is going on in the states relative to CBO standards. We now turn to an 

analysis of the CBO standards themselves—where states are in the process of developing 

CBO standards, what the CBO standards are like, and features of the CBO standards 

documents. 

References 

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to 

theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. 

Quality counts 2002: Building blocks for success—state efforts in early childhood 

education. (2002, January 10). Education Week, 21(17). 

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and 

procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
 15

SECTION III: THE STATUS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILD-BASED 

OUTCOME STANDARDS ACROSS THE NATION 

As a starting point for this inquiry, it is necessary to be clear about the status and nature 

of the CBO standards themselves. Discussion in this chapter, therefore, begins with a 

look at the states that have developed standards, focusing on where the states are in their 

process. This discussion is followed by an examination of the characteristics of CBO 

standards—the ages covered, developmental domains addressed, and other features of the 

standards themselves. Finally, we examine characteristics of the CBO standards 

documents (e.g., completion dates, titles, and nomenclature used). 

The Status of CBO Standards Within States 

Data indicate that there is wide variation in the status of CBO standards within states. 

Some states have completed a CBO standards development process, while others have 

not begun to study the issue. Within states that have CBO standards, some are revising 

their current standards while others already have or are developing a second set of CBO 

standards for their state. This section outlines where each state was in the CBO standards 

development process at the time of data collection. 

States With CBO Standards 

It is clear that CBO standards are increasingly common across the nation. Data from the 

survey revealed that over half the states have developed some type of document to 

describe their expectations for children’s learning prior to kindergarten entry. Survey data 

revealed that 27 states had standards addressing at least one developmental domain or 

content area for some age range prior to kindergarten entry. Two of the 27 states—Maine 

and Washington—have two separate sets of CBO standards that were applicable for 

children before they enter kindergarten. Therefore, the total number of CBO standards 

documents available for review in this study was 29. As noted in Section II, development 

of these standards for many states is a “moving target,” and the data here reflect where 

the state was in the process at the time of the survey interview. In many cases, states may 

have had additional developments since the time of the survey and might, indeed, be 

misclassified as to their current status. Please be aware that these categories reflect data 

from interviews conducted between November 2001 and May 2002. 

In order to present findings about the CBO standards, the research team developed a 

typology for classifying the status of CBO standards within states. Using data from the 

surveys and the standards themselves, the research team identified criteria to reflect 

important milestones in the process of developing CBO standards. While this typology is 

useful for describing the status of CBO standards within states, it should not be 

interpreted to imply that the research team sees the development of standards as 

unfolding in a linear, four-step process. Rather, the typology should be viewed as a 

means to frame the discussion of the status of CBO standards within states. The 

following four categories constitute the classification schema used to describe the status 

of CBO standards in each state: 
 16

Operational Definitions for the Status of CBO Standards Within States 

I. Have standards that have been officially adopted or endorsed: At the 

time of the interview, the state’s CBO standards had been finalized and 

adopted or endorsed formally by a governing body or governmental 

agency. For purposes of this study, the most common governing bodies to 

adopt or endorse a CBO standards document were state boards of 

education. Typically, the adoption/endorsement was noted within the 

document itself. 

II. Have standards that have not been officially adopted or endorsed: The 

state had standards but the respondent(s) indicated that the document had 

not, at the time of the interview, been officially adopted or endorsed by a 

governing body or governmental agency. 

III. Have standards in process: Respondents indicated that a CBO standards 

document was not published and available for review but that the state had 

an initiative in place to develop CBO standards. An official work group 

had been formed to study the issue and develop recommendations and/or 

CBO standards. 

IV. Do not have CBO standards and are not (at the time of the interview) 

in the process of developing CBO standards: Respondents indicated 

that the state did not have CBO standards and that there was not an official 

work group formed to study the issue or develop recommended CBO 

standards. 

After examining both the responses on the survey and data from the CBO standards 

themselves, the research team used a consensus process to determine each state’s 

classification. Table III-1 shows how each state was classified on the typology. 
 17

Table III-1 

Status of CBO Standards in States 

Category I 

Have standards 

that have been 

officially adopted 

or endorsed 

Category II 

Have standards 

that have not been 

officially adopted 

or endorsed 

Category III 

Standards in 

process 

Category IV 

No CBO standards 

Arkansas 

Connecticut 

Florida 

Georgia*** 

Illinois 

Maine*, *** 

Maryland 

Massachusetts*** 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

New Jersey** 

New Mexico 

New York 

South Carolina*, *** 

Texas 

Utah** 

Vermont*** 

Washington*** 

California 

Colorado* 

Louisiana 

Missouri* 

Ohio** 

Oklahoma 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

Arizona 

Delaware 

Hawaii 

Indiana 

Kentucky 

Nevada 

North Carolina 

Oregon 

Tennessee 

Virginia 

Washington, DC 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

Alabama 

Alaska 

Idaho 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Montana 

Nebraska 

New Hampshire 

North Dakota 

South Dakota 

West Virginia 

* Standards developed to address limited number of developmental/subject areas 

 and standards addressing additional developmental/subject areas in process 

** Current standards under revision 

*** Two sets of standards in place and/or being developed

As shown in Table III-1, 19 states have standards that have been officially adopted or 

endorsed by government boards or agencies (Category I). An additional eight states 

reported that they have standards for at least one developmental domain but that the 

standards had not been officially adopted or endorsed at the time of the survey interview 

(Category II). Although not officially adopted, these states had a CBO standards 

document that had been published and was available for review as part of this study. 

In addition to the states that have CBO standards in place, another 12 states and the 

District of Columbia reported efforts to develop standards for children’s learning prior to 

kindergarten entry (Category III). Although there was wide variation regarding where 

each was in the process of developing CBO standards (see Section VI for details), in each 

state an official work group had been formed to develop CBO standards. Some states had 

just begun to study the issue, and others were moving toward or had draft CBO standards. 
 18

States with draft CBO standards documents were classified as “in process” if they had a 

document that they considered incomplete and unavailable for review. 

Finally, a total of 11 states did not have CBO standards and did not have a process 

underway to develop them (Category IV). As described in Section VI, these states had a 

variety of early childhood initiatives underway. They also reported a variety of reasons 

for not having or developing CBO standards. 

Clearly, CBO standards are common among states. At the point in time when the “inprocess” states finish their work, a total of 39 states plus the District of Columbia will 

have CBO standards to define what they think is important for children to know and be 

able to do prior to entering kindergarten. 

CBO Standards: A Moving Target 

A closer look at states within the four categories reveals that the CBO standards 

development process is, indeed, a moving target. The four categories used in Table III-1, 

while accurate, oversimplify the diversity of ways the process and the content of the 

standards are evolving. 

States With Standards in Some, But Not All, Domains

Four states (see states with * in Table III-1) reported that they have CBO standards for 

one or more areas of development and are in the process of developing additional 

standards to address additional developmental/subject areas. For example, South Carolina 

reported that CBO standards for mathematics had been completed and adopted by the 

State Board of Education and that the state was in the process of developing language 

arts, science, fine arts, and social studies CBO standards. Likewise, Colorado had CBO 

standards addressing reading, writing, and math, with standards addressing 

social/emotional competence, science, and art in the development process. Maine (Early 

Learning Results) and Missouri also had standards in place to address certain domains or 

content areas and were in the process of developing additional standards. While some 

states chose to develop standards across all domains at once, these states chose to address 

domains consecutively and, at the time of the interviews, were still in the process of 

completing standards for all the domains for which they expected to have standards. We 

have counted them as having standards, since one or more domains were finalized, even 

though they are still in the standards development process. 

States Revising Standards 

As noted in Table III-1, several states that have standards in place were in the process of 

revising them (states with ** in Table III-1). Three states with CBO standards in place 

fall into this category—New Jersey, Ohio, and Utah. Utah reported “guidelines” that are 

recommended benchmarks for three- to five-year-olds. The respondent indicated a 

process was underway to develop standards that will be broader than the current CBO 

standards and provide expectations for skills and abilities that children should develop. 
 19

Ohio was in the process of developing academic content standards for preschool children 

to replace the current competency-based CBO standards that are applied to children ages 

three through grade twelve. New Jersey’s current CBO standards were also being revised. 

States With More Than One Set of CBO Standards 

Six states—Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Vermont, and Washington—

either had two sets of CBO standards or had one set of CBO standards and an initiative to 

develop a second set of CBO standards (see states with *** in Table III-1). These states 

vary in the reasons for having/developing two sets of standards and also vary in the 

degree of potential overlap between the standards. 

States with multiple CBO standards that overlap in the age range targeted. Four 

states had/were developing standards that overlap in the age range for which they were 

developed. Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Washington all had CBO standards that 

overlap, although Washington’s situation is somewhat different from the other three 

states. 

Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont each had one set of standards that included standards 

for pre-kindergarten-age children with their K–12 standards. In these three states, 

respondents reported that efforts were underway to develop a second set of standards to 

better articulate CBO standards for children younger than kindergarten age. In Maine the 

K–12 standards are called Learning Results, and they include CBO standards for prekindergarten through second grade. Maine’s Early Learning Results are being developed 

to provide CBO standards specifically for children ages birth through five who are 

receiving special education services. At the time of the interview, several sections of the 

Early Learning Results had been completed and work was proceeding on the domains 

that had not been covered. Therefore, both of these sets of standards have been included 

in this study for purposes of analysis. 

Respondents from Vermont and Massachusetts also reported that there was a group in 

each of their states working on CBO standards specifically for preschool-age children, 

although the documents were not available for review at the time of the interview. In both 

of these cases, pre-K standards exist but are part of a continuum of pre-K through K–12 

standards. For example, Vermont’s Framework of Standards and Learning Opportunities 

defines behaviors, skills, and knowledge expected of young children but is not broken 

down into specific age ranges. These standards cover pre-K through grade four with one 

group of standards. An Early Childhood Work Group had been formed to develop 

standards that would more specifically address expectations for children prior to 

kindergarten entry. Massachusetts has standards that cover pre-K through second grade. 

It is developing Early Childhood Program Standards that include CBO standards for 

three- and four-year-olds specifically. 

It appears that in these three states (Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont), pre-K 

standards were added on to standards for kindergarten and later grades, with limited 

specificity regarding the pre-K year. Given the increasing numbers of preschool-age 
 20

children served within school buildings, it is logical that states might want standards for 

preschool-age children and that the standards might be incorporated into standards for 

later grades. However, the early childhood community within these states seems to have 

begun marshalling resources to develop CBO standards more in line with the unique 

developmental status of young children and perhaps more specific to this age. It seems 

that the standards covering pre-K to second grade (or in one case, fourth grade) did not 

provide the specificity needed to adequately outline expectations or guide curriculum 

decisions for preschool-age children. Perhaps as a recognition of the increasing 

importance of such CBO standards, these states have now embarked on a process to 

develop CBO standards that apply specifically to preschool-age children. 

Washington has two sets of standards, one developed by the Children’s Services Unit 

Office of Community Development as part of the evaluation for the Early Childhood 

Education and Assistance Program (ECEAP) and the other developed by the Office of 

Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). ECEAP primarily serves children who are 

four years old from high-poverty backgrounds. The CBO standards that have been 

developed are outcomes that are being measured as part of the program evaluation. The 

second set of Washington standards, developed by the OSPI, address reading, writing, 

and communication domains for children ages birth through five years. This second set of 

CBO standards was developed as a resource to help adults working with children prior to 

kindergarten entry know how best to promote children’s language and literacy 

development. For purposes of this study, both sets of CBO standards have been included 

in the analysis. In the charts and discussions, we have noted which of the sets of 

standards was being addressed. 

In each of these states that have (or are developing) two sets of standards, there is some 

overlap in the ages of children addressed by the standards. Although further analysis will 

be necessary to examine the content of the standards for similarities and dissimilarities, 

there does appear to be potential for confusion within the field. This raises some critical 

questions. In school-based pre-kindergarten programs, will the CBO standards being 

developed specifically for pre-kindergarten children replace the pre-kindergarten CBOs 

that are part of the K–12 standards? Are expectations for four-year-olds in one set of 

CBO standards different from those in the other? Would programs using one set of CBO 

standards (such as the ECEAP CBO standards in Washington) find continuity or 

discontinuity between the CBO standards if they wanted to use the second set (the OSPI 

standards) as a resource? 

States developing a second set of CBO standards to address infants and toddlers. 

Two states—South Carolina and Georgia—reported that they were in the process of 

developing a second set of CBO standards to cover infants and toddlers. In both cases, at 

the time of the interviews, CBO standards existed for programs serving pre-kindergartenage children, and separate programs that served infants and toddlers were in the process 

of developing CBO standards. South Carolina had standards to define what children in 

the school-based pre-kindergarten program should learn and was in the final phases of 

developing standards for children under the age of three who were part of the state’s 

family literacy and parent education program. At the time of the interview, while Georgia 
 21

had CBO standards for its pre-kindergarten program—developed by the Office of School 

Readiness—the Georgia Early Learning Initiative (GELI), which serves children under 

the age of three, was in the process of developing CBO standards. 

Again, this phenomenon of multiple sets of standards would seem to support the notion 

that states recognize the importance of having CBO standards that are specifically geared 

to the age or characteristics of children the particular program is serving. In each of these 

cases, CBO standards are being developed by a program for its particular population. 

Although similar to the phenomena described earlier, where states are revising current 

standards or developing a second set, in these cases, multiple early childhood programs, 

each serving a different age population, are developing their own standards. 

Regional Patterns 

As seen in Figure III-1, it is clear that most of the states within the country have (or will 

have) CBO standards for children prior to kindergarten entry. It does appear that CBO 

standards may be more common for states in the east, south, and southwest. States 

without CBO standards appear to be concentrated within the nation’s upper-middle 

section. 

Figure III-1 

Geographic Distribution of CBO Standards 
 22

Characteristics of the CBO Standards 

Having looked at which states have standards, we now examine characteristics of the 

standards themselves, looking first at the age ranges targeted by the standards, followed 

by other properties of the standards, such as the developmental domains covered, the 

linkage of the standards to the state’s K–12 standards, the developmental orientation of 

the CBO standards, and how children with disabilities were included in the CBO 

standards. 

Ages Addressed in CBO Standards Documents 

The research team was interested in what ages of children states have targeted with their 

CBO standards. Have states targeted children just entering kindergarten? In the preschool 

years? Infants and toddlers? We found that the majority of CBO standards developed by 

states have been designed to address a fairly broad age range rather than one specific age 

or point in time, such as entry to kindergarten (see Table III-2). Respondents from 17 

states indicated that their states’ standards are for children between the ages of three and 

five. Standards in six additional states (Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, 

Rhode Island, and Washington—ECEAP) are specifically designed to describe 

expectations for children at the completion of pre-K or the beginning of kindergarten. 

Table III-2 

Ages Covered by CBO Standards 

State Infant/ 

Toddler 

3–5 End of 

Pre-K/ 

Kindergarten 

Entry 

Comments 

Arkansas X 

California X X X Are part of continuum of 

birth through 14 years 

Colorado X 

Connecticut X 

Florida X X Pre-K and K, with ages 

broken down (i.e., 3-yearolds, 4-year-olds, and 5-

year-olds) 

Georgia X 

Illinois X 

Louisiana X All 4-year-olds and 3- to 5-

year-olds with disabilities 

Maine 

Learning Results 

Early Learning 

Results 

X 

X 

X 

X Pre-K to 2 

0–5 years for Special Ed. 
 23

State Infant/ 

Toddler 

3–5 End of 

Pre-K/ 

Kindergarten 

Entry 

Comments 

Maryland X Part of pre-K to K Content 

Standards 

Massachusetts X X Part of pre-K to twelfth 

grade (pre-K to 2 for most 

subject areas; pre-K to 4 for 

history and social science) 

Michigan X X Pre-K to second grade 

Minnesota X Approximately 4 years old 

Mississippi X 4-year-olds 

Missouri X 

New Jersey X 

New Mexico X X Part of Focused Portfolios 

assessment system that 

covers birth through 5 years 

New York X 4-year-olds 

Ohio X 

Oklahoma X 

Pennsylvania X X Pre-K to second grade but 

“through pre-K” and pre-K 

to K” are broken out 

Rhode Island X 

S. Carolina X Pre-K to second grade but 

have the pre-K separated 

out 

Texas X 

Utah X 

Vermont X X Pre-K to fourth grade 

Washington 

ECEAP 

OSPI X X 

X Continuum of birth through 

5 years (OSPI) 

Total 4 24 12 

While the research team was interested in CBO standards that have been developed for 

children prior to kindergarten entry, an interesting finding was that a number of states’ 

CBO standards for preschool-age children extend upward into later grades. For Florida 

and Maryland, pre-K and kindergarten standards are together. In Florida, standards are 

articulated by age level (three-year-olds, four-year-olds, and five-year-olds). The 

Maryland document presents pre-K standards separately from kindergarten standards. 

Five states (Maine—Learning Results, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and 

South Carolina) have standards that cover pre-K through second grade. In Pennsylvania 

and South Carolina, there are specific standards for pre-K that are presented separately 
 24

from standards for the other grades. In Maine, Massachusetts, and Michigan, the 

standards are labeled pre-K through second grade, without any distinction between the 

age/grade levels. Finally, Vermont’s CBO standards cover the widest age range—from 

pre-K through grade four—and do not break out specific standards for pre-K. 

As discussed above, states with broad standards incorporating pre-K into K–12 standards 

seem to be moving toward developing more specific standards for preschool-age 

children. Three states where pre-K CBO standards are blended with K–12 standards—

Maine (Learning Results), Massachusetts, and Vermont—have initiatives to develop 

standards specifically for children younger than kindergarten entry. Michigan’s CBO 

standards document presents descriptive information about child development for 

children in the age ranges of three–five, five–seven, and seven–nine. However, the 

document presents indicators for specific learner outcomes in pre-K through second 

grade. According to our survey data, there has been discussion in Michigan about 

developing CBO standards that would address four-year-old children specifically rather 

than indicators for pre-K through second grade. 

Standards for infants and toddlers are much less common. Four states (California, Maine, 

New Mexico, and Washington—OSPI) reported CBO standards that include children 

ages birth through 36 months. Maine—Early Learning Results, New Mexico, and 

Washington—OSPI have standards for infants and toddlers that have been developed as 

part of a continuum of standards covering birth through five years. Maine has developed 

Birth to Five Early Learning Results to cover special education for children ages birth 

through five years. Washington’s OSPI program has standards that address children ages 

birth through five, and New Mexico’s Focused Portfolio system includes ages birth 

through five. California’s Desired Results have been developed for state-funded 

programs serving children from birth through age 14. 

Three additional states reported that they were in the process of developing standards for 

children under age three. South Carolina and Georgia reported that they were in the 

process of developing standards for infants and toddlers (described above), and an Illinois 

respondent noted plans to develop CBO standards for children under age three.

Developmental Domains Covered in the CBO Standards 

One of the first areas of interest for the research team was the degree to which the 

National Education Goals Panel’s five dimensions of readiness were covered in CBO 

standards. Respondents were asked to indicate which of the dimensions were included in 

their standards. In addition, we examined the actual documents to determine which 

developmental domains were addressed, using the National Educational Goals Panel’s 

developmental domain descriptions as indicators for what is included in each domain (see 

Appendix C for a description of each of the five developmental domains). For purposes 

of this analysis, the domain could be a separate sub-category within the CBO standards or 

could be covered through items included under a subject area with a title that was 

different from the domain. For instance, approaches to learning might be covered under 

standards developed for science. 
 25

As shown in Table III-3, all states except South Carolina and Missouri have developed 

standards that include more than one domain (and both Missouri and South Carolina have 

CBO standards in process to address at least one additional domain). Seven of the states 

have standards that address all five developmental domains. Eleven states report that their 

standards cover four of the domains, and seven states report that their standards cover 

two or three of the domains. 

Table III-3 

National Education Goals Panel Developmental Domains Included in CBO Standards 

State Physical 

Health 

Cognition Approaches 

to Learning 

Social/ 

Emotional 

Language 

Arkansas X X X X X 

California X X X X X 

Colorado X X 

Connecticut X X X X 

Florida X X X X X 

Georgia X X X X 

Illinois X X X X 

Louisiana X X X X 

Maine 

Learning Results 

Early Learning 

Results 

X 

X 

X 

IP X 

X 

X 

Maryland X X 

Massachusetts X X 

Michigan X X X X 

Minnesota X X X X X 

Mississippi X X X X 

Missouri IP IP IP IP X 

New Jersey X X X X 

New Mexico X X X X 

New York X X 

Ohio X X 

Oklahoma X X X X X 

Pennsylvania X X 

Rhode Island X X X X X 

South Carolina X IP 

Texas X X X X 

Utah X X X X 

Vermont X X X X X 

Washington 

ECEAP 

OSPI 

X X 

X 

X X 

X 

Totals 20 27 7 19 28 

Note: IP = In process (at the time of the interview, the state was actively working on CBO standards 

addressing this domain) 
 26

Language is the most common domain to be included in these CBO standards. All of the 

states except South Carolina (and it has language CBO standards in process) addressed 

this domain. Cognition was also very commonly included in the CBO standards. Only 

Missouri and Maine (Early Learning Results) had not developed CBO standards for 

cognition at the time this study’s data were collected (and, again, these states had 

standards addressing these domains in process). Physical health was the next most 

commonly addressed domain, with 20 of the 29 CBO standards documents including this 

domain. 

The data seem to indicate that the approaches to learning domain is the domain least 

likely to be addressed in the CBO standards. Of the 29 sets of CBO standards, only 7 

include approaches to learning. The social/emotional domain is the next least likely 

domain to be addressed, with 10 sets of standards (Colorado, Maine—Learning Results, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and 

Washington—OSIP) not covering social/emotional development. 

Subject Area Analysis 

Examination of the standards by content area provides a more detailed look at what 

subject areas are addressed by the CBO standards documents. For purposes of this 

analysis, subject area titles used within the CBO standards document itself were used to 

decide whether a particular subject area was addressed by the CBO standards document. 

However, in determining whether approaches to learning, self-help, and social-emotional 

development were addressed, the research team examined individual items to determine 

if they were related to those particular subjects. In these cases, the description provided 

by the National Educational Goals Panel (see Appendix C) served as an operational 

definition for the area. As shown in Table III-4, states have addressed a number of 

different subject areas in their standards. Although no state has developed standards to 

address all of these subject areas, the median number of subject areas addressed within 

the CBO standards documents was 8, with a range from 1 subject area (South Carolina) 

to 11. Arkansas, Maine—Learning Results, Michigan, Texas, and Vermont topped the list 

with standards to address 11 subject areas. 
Table III-4 

Subject Areas Addressed in CBO Standards

 27

State Language/ 

Communication 

Literature Math Physical/ 

Motor/ 

Health 

Social/ 

Emotional 

Science Cognition/ 

General 

Knowledge 

Art/ 

Aesthetic/ 

Creative 

Approach Social 

Studies 

SelfHelp Other 

Arkansas X X X X X X X X X X Nutrition 

California X X X X X X 

Colorado X X X IP 

Connecticut X X X X X X X X X 

Florida X X X X X X X X X X 

Georgia X X X X X X X X 

Illinois X X X X X X X X Foreign language 

Louisiana X X X X X X X X X 

Maine 

Learning Results Early Learning Results 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X 

IP 

X 

IP 

X X 

LR: Career Preparation Modern & Classical Languages Technology 

Maryland X X X X X 

Massachusetts X X X X X X Technology 

Engineering 

Michigan X X X X X X X X X X Nutrition 

Minnesota X X X X X X X X X X 

Mississippi X X X X X X 

Missouri X X IP IP IP IP IP

New Jersey X X X X X X X X X World languages 

New Mexico X X X X X 

New York X X 
 28

State Language/ 

Communication 

Literature Math Physical/ 

Motor/ 

Health 

Social/ 

Emotional 

Science Cognition/ 

General 

Knowledge 

Art/ 

Aesthetic/ 

Creative 

Approach Social 

Studies 

SelfHelp Other 

Ohio X X X X X X Foreign language 

Oklahoma X X X X X X X X X 

Pennsylvania X X X 

Rhode Island X X X X X X X X 

South Carolina IP IP X IP IP 

Texas X X X X X X X X X X Technology 

applications 

Utah X X X X X X X X 

Vermont X X X X X X X X X Technology 

Civic/social responsibility 

Washington 

ECAP OSPI 

X X 

X X 

X 

IP 

X* X 

IP 

X 

Total States 

Addressing this 

Area 

28 28 24 20 19 19 11 17 7 14 5 

Note: IP = In Process * Indicators are for health screenings and services children should receive. 
 29

As noted, language and literacy are the most common subject areas to be addressed. CBO standards 

in all states except South Carolina covered these subject areas, and in South Carolina CBO 

standards to address language and literacy were in process. Given the current emphasis at the 

federal level on early literacy skills and research that suggests that literacy is a key element of later 

school success, the frequency with which states have addressed language and literacy is 

understandable. It is interesting to note, however, that the CBO standards did vary in how they 

approached these subject areas. Some states broke them into two separate domains, while others 

included literacy under the language domain. Some states had separate domain sections for several 

elements of language and/or literacy, while other states included just a few items about one or the 

other domains. Though the exact approach for including these domains varied, it is clear that states 

have found it important to address children’s language and literacy development in CBO standards. 

This analysis shows that there has been a marked increase in the number of CBO standards 

addressing language and literacy. In a recent national study of state-level standards for children’s 

literacy development, Neuman, Celano, Greco, & Shue (2001) found that 15 states had mandated 

standards for literacy and 16 states had unmandated guidelines for early care and education 

programs related to literacy. Of the 31 states with standards (mandated or unmandated), only 14 

states reported some form of CBO standards for emergent literacy. In contrast, our data (collected 

less than a year later) indicate that 28 out of the 29 sets of CBO standards addressed language and 

literacy development. Neuman et al. report that an additional 11 states had standards for children’s 

literacy development that focused solely on program or curriculum requirements/guidelines, without 

addressing standards for child outcomes. Finally, three states had adopted the Head Start program’s 

performance standards, which are federal standards that address both child outcomes and program 

requirements for literacy development. It seems that as states have moved toward developing CBO 

standards, the language and literacy domain has been considered one of the most important domains 

to address. While states may have first developed program standards for this subject area, there has 

been a marked increase in the number addressing child outcomes through CBO standards. 

Mathematics is the second most common subject area to be included within CBO standards. All but 

five sets of CBO standards (Maine—Early Learning Results, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, 

and Washington—OSPI) have standards for children’s mathematics development. Nineteen of the 

CBO standards address children’s physical development, motor development, and/or general health 

status. On the other end of the spectrum, only five sets of CBO standards (Connecticut, Georgia, 

Michigan, Texas, and Washington—OSPI) address self-help skills. In each of these cases, there is 

not a section titled “self-help skills.” Rather, the state developed one or more items addressing selfhelp skills and incorporated them into a related domain. 

Although approaches to learning and social/emotional development are not traditionally considered 

subject areas in K–12 standards, they are addressed in CBO standards. As noted, 19 states included 

CBO standards addressing children’s social/emotional development and 7 addressed approaches to 

learning. In trying to assess whether approaches to learning were addressed in a particular set of 

standards, we looked for sections of standards titled approaches to learning (or something similar) 

and also looked within different subsections (such as mathematics or science) for individual items 

consistent with the NEGP definition of approaches to learning. Clearly, a limited number of states 
 30

have addressed this dimension of readiness. Perhaps this is a reflection of the nature of the domain. 

Characteristics such as curiosity may be harder to describe within a CBO standard. An alternative 

explanation for this finding is that the approaches to learning domain is less likely to be included in 

K–12 standards, so states that linked their preschool CBO standards closely to K–12 standards may 

have had difficulty justifying CBO standards that addressed this domain. While states more 

frequently addressed the social/emotional development, the dimension was not addressed in 10 sets 

of standards. It is possible that this dimension also does not lend itself to CBO standards or that it 

has not been included because it is less likely to be addressed in K–12 standards. 

Data indicate that eventually state CBO standards will address additional subject areas. Several of 

the states with CBO standards covering a limited number of subject areas are working to extend 

their CBO standards to other content areas. Missouri and Washington’s OSPI program currently 

only have standards to address language and literacy, but these states are developing standards for a 

number of additional subject areas. South Carolina’s pre-K program standards currently address 

only math, but standards are in process to address language arts, science, social studies, and the arts. 

In summary, it appears that most of the states that have developed CBO standards have taken a 

relatively holistic view of the child and addressed a good number of developmental domains and 

subject areas. This is, however, simply a tally of what areas were addressed and gives no 

information as to the content of the standards. Further analysis will be necessary to determine just 

how these subject areas have been addressed within the CBO standards. 

Linkage to K–12 Standards 

As discussed above, the research team hypothesized that the degree to which CBO standards were 

linked to K–12 standards might impact the nature of the CBO standards. Therefore, survey 

respondents were asked to comment on the linkage between their states’ CBO standards and K–12 

standards. Overall, respondents indicated that the CBO standards are strongly linked to standards 

for kindergarten and later grades. When asked, “To what extent are the early learning standards 

linked to or modeled after standards developed for your state’s K–12 system?” respondents from 

each of the 27 states indicated that the CBO standards for children from birth through age five were 

in some way related to the K–12 standards. According to respondents, the way in which and the 

extent to which their CBO standards were linked varied, ranging from actually being incorporated 

into the K–12 standards to using a similar format or including similar subject areas. However, every 

respondent indicated that his or her state’s CBO standards were based on, consistent with, or in 

some way linked to the state’s K–12 education standards. 

In order to analyze the degree to which the CBO standards in each state were linked to the state’s 

K–12 standards, the interview data and the actual CBO standards documents were examined. A 

three-point scale was developed to rate the CBO standards according to the degree of linkage to K–

12 standards, with evidence of linkage found within the standards document being the most 

important factor in how a set of CBO standards was classified. 

The degree of K–12 linkage for each set of CBO standards was categorized according to the 

following criteria: 
 31

Operationalization of K–12 Linkage 

Direct Linkage: The CBO standards are directly linked to K–12 standards within the same 

document, either by being incorporated into the K–12 standards or incorporating the K–12 

standards into the preschool CBO standards. States typically approached this in one of two 

ways, by including the actual K–12 standards in the CBO standards document or by 

providing reference numbers for K–12 standards to show how individual CBO standards 

related to specific K–12 standards. States using either approach (including the actual 

standards or providing reference numbers for K–12 standards) have been rated as directly 

linked. 

Moderate Linkage: The development process for the CBO standards gave significant 

consideration to the K–12 standards, with efforts to develop CBO standards items that were 

directly related to items or areas of the K–12 standards. 

Minimal Linkage: The respondent reported that efforts were made to develop CBO 

standards that are consistent with, or specify skills that were generally related to (or 

precursors of), skills included in the K–12 standards. Examples include using a similar 

format for the CBO standards or similar developmental domains or content areas. 

Table III-5 shows that 15 of the 29 CBO standards were rated as “directly linked” using the criteria 

above. Illinois, Maine—Learning Results, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Vermont have K–12 standards that extend downward to include 

pre-kindergarten. In these states, the age range typically addressed in the K–12 standards is pre-K to 

second grade. However, Maryland’s CBO standards combine only pre-K and kindergarten within 

the same document. Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, and New Jersey have CBO standards documents 

that are separate from the K–12 standards but include K–12 standards in their CBO standards. 

Typically the kindergarten standards are included in the CBO standards. Colorado includes the 

actual language from the K–12 standards in its standards for preschool. Florida, Louisiana, and New 

Jersey include reference numbers for the K–12 standards (rather than the actual kindergarten 

standards) and other early childhood standards, such as the Head Start Outcomes Framework. 
 32

Table III-5 

Degree of Linkage to K–12 Standards

State Direct 

Linkage 

Moderate 

Linkage 

Minimal 

Linkage 

Arkansas X 

California X 

Colorado X 

Connecticut X 

Florida X* 

Georgia X 

Illinois X 

Louisiana X* 

Maine 

Learning Results 

Early Learning Results 

X 

 

X 

Maryland X 

Massachusetts X 

Michigan X 

Minnesota X 

Mississippi X 

Missouri X 

New Jersey X* 

New Mexico X

New York X 

Ohio X 

Oklahoma X 

Pennsylvania X 

Rhode Island X 

South Carolina X 

Texas X 

Utah X 

Vermont X 

Washington 

ECEAP 

OSPI X 

 

X 

Total 15 7 7 

*Includes reference number for K–12 standards rather than actual standards themselves 

The middle group of CBO standards—those classified as moderately linked in Table III-5—

exhibited some degree of linkage to K–12 standards within the document, but the connection 

between particular CBO standards and specific K–12 standards was not explicit. Rather, the 

respondents described how the state’s CBO standards used the same broad categories of 
 33

development as the K–12 standards or how the developers of the CBO standards carefully analyzed 

the K–12 standards and worked to make the CBO standards consistent with the K–12 standards. In 

short, the process for developing the CBO standards, more than the actual CBO standards 

themselves, was linked to the K–12 standards.

The CBO standards in the third category—those rated as minimally linked—demonstrated less 

evidence within the actual documents of how the CBO standards related to the K–12 standards. 

Given that the documents did not provide evidence of a linkage between K–12 education standards 

and CBO standards, the research team turned to data from the surveys. Survey respondents in these 

states typically did not describe how particular elements of the K–12 standards were included or 

taken into account when the CBO standards were developed (criteria used to define “moderately 

linked states”). However, even in these states survey respondents were unanimous in pointing out 

that their CBO standards were related to the K–12 standards. It seems that these states wanted to 

make the point that skills and characteristics that children develop prior to entering kindergarten 

make a contribution to their success later in school but that the CBO standards for preschool-age 

children should have a separate identity (or perhaps be qualitatively different) from K–12 standards. 

A respondent from Minnesota notes, 

The Early Childhood Indicators [of Progress] are not modeled on K–12 

standards because the K–12 standards are more akin to “expectations.” Rather, 

the Early Childhood Indicators are ways to help ensure that children make 

progress in domain areas that will later support the learning standards expected in 

K–12. The Early Childhood Indicators are designed to help young children 

eventually reach these later benchmarks. 

The fact that all respondents indicated that their states’ CBO standards were related to the K–12 

standards indicates that linkage to the K–12 standards is important. However, the ways the linkages 

are conceptualized differ. The sets of standards rated as “minimally linked” may be seen as setting 

early childhood apart from expectations for older children while, at the same time, trying to show 

the connection between what children learn and how they develop before kindergarten and how 

they progress in school. CBO standards rated as “directly linked” made the connection to K–12 

standards more explicit, showing the correspondence between specific CBO standards and specific 

K–12 standards. In all states, the CBO standards are seen as paving the way for what children need 

to know and be able to do in order to be successful in meeting the K–12 standards. However, states 

have varied in how they have approached this linkage to K–12 standards and whether they see their 

CBO standards as a downward extension of the K–12 standards or as unique from (but contributing 

to children’s success on) the K–12 standards. 

In order to determine the extent to which linkage to K–12 standards might be related to 

characteristics of CBO standards, the research team conducted a series of analyses. One analysis 

examined the relationship between K–12 linkage and the number of subject areas addressed within 

the CBO standards. It did seem that CBO standards more directly linked to K–12 standards include 

a greater number of subject areas. As stated above, the median number of subject areas addressed 

within CBO standards documents was eight. The range was from one to 11. All of the states that 

included the greatest number of subject areas in the CBO standards (Maine—Learning Results, 
 34

Michigan, Texas, and Vermont) except one (Arkansas) had standards that were rated as directly 

linked to the K–12 standards. Arkansas’ CBO standards were rated as moderately linked to K–12 

standards. It seems that when early childhood standards are directly tied to (or correspond directly 

with) K–12 standards, a broader range of subject matter is addressed, including subjects that might 

be considered non-traditional within early care and education (such as technology and career 

preparation). The four states that include foreign language as part of their CBO standards—Illinois, 

Maine, New Jersey, and Ohio—provide examples of this phenomenon. In each of these states, the 

CBO standards are directly linked to the K–12 standards. Perhaps one effect of closely tying CBO 

standards to K–12 standards is that the traditional early childhood domains are expanded to include 

“non-traditional” subject matter. 

Orientation of the Standards 

In an attempt to better understand the general orientation of the standards, a broad scan was 

conducted, and standards with particularly heavy emphasis on academic content—as well as 

standards with heavy emphasis on developmental processes—were noted. The research team 

examined the degree to which the CBO standards focused on children’s behavior and growth versus 

the degree to which the standards focused on knowledge or academic content that was expected. 

Using data from this broad scan, the research team classified the CBO standards as “primarily 

developmental” or “primarily academic.” The ratings were operationally defined as follows: 

Operationalization of CBO Standards’ Orientation 

Primarily developmental: The majority of items were deemed to be oriented 

toward developmental processes, children’s growth, and/or children’s behaviors. Examples 

include items that refer to a child’s growing ability to express emotions, understand the 

world around him/her, or coordinate fine and gross motor movements. 

Primarily academic: The majority of items within the CBO standards emphasized 

facts or content children are expected to know. Items that indicated expectations that 

children name body parts, recognize letters, or classify and sort materials according to 

various criteria, such as length or color, are examples of items classified as academic. 

In order to establish a process for rating the child-based outcome standards documents, the research 

team examined a set of sample items and came to agreement on how the set would be rated—

primarily developmental or primarily academic. The general definitions used in these sample ratings 

were then used to operationalize subsequent ratings of the child-based outcome standards. Two 

members of the research team then rated each set of standards independently and classified the 

standards document as either primarily developmental or primarily academic based on the 

orientation of the standards items. A child-based outcome standards document was rated as 

primarily developmental if the majority of the items were developmentally oriented, and the 

document was rated as primarily academic if the majority of the items were seen as having an 

academic orientation. The independent raters differed on the ratings for only two CBO standards 

documents (an interrater agreement rate of 93.1%). In the cases of these two, consensus was 
 35

achieved on how the documents should be rated, and the agreed-upon rating was used for the 

purposes of analysis. 

This analysis of the CBO standards was designed to provide data about the general orientation of 

the CBO standards rather than the actual content of the standards. Once again, this is not a detailed 

analysis of the content of the standards. Rather, this is a categorization of the orientation of the 

standards documents as a whole. Table III-6 indicates the rating that was given to each CBO 

standards document. 

Table III-6 

Orientation of the CBO Standards 

State Primarily 

Academic 

Primarily 

Developmental 

Arkansas X 

California X 

Colorado X 

Connecticut X 

Florida X 

Georgia X 

Illinois X 

Louisiana X 

Maine 

Learning Results 

Early Learning Results 

X 

X 

Maryland X 

Massachusetts X 

Michigan X 

Minnesota X 

Mississippi X 

Missouri X 

New Jersey X 

New Mexico X 

New York X 

Ohio X 

Oklahoma X 

Pennsylvania X 

Rhode Island X 

South Carolina X 

Texas X 

Utah X 

Vermont X 

Washington 

ECEAP 

OSPI 

 

X 

X 

Total 10 19 
 36

The analysis indicated that almost all of the CBO standards had a mix of developmentally and 

academically oriented standards. When looking at the primary emphasis overall, however, we noted 

that the majority of the CBO standards documents developed for children under age five were 

categorized as primarily developmental. Nineteen of the CBO standards were classified as primarily 

developmental, while 10 standards documents were classified as primarily academic. 

We were interested in whether CBO standards that were more directly linked to K–12 standards 

were more likely to have an academic orientation. Since K–12 standards typically are more 

academic in nature, we hypothesized that states whose preschool CBO standards were closely 

linked to the K–12 standards might have more academically oriented CBO standards. Of the 15 sets 

of CBO standards categorized as “directly linked” to K–12 standards (i.e., have the K–12 standards 

within the preschool standards or the preschool standards within the K–12 standards), nine 

(Louisiana, Maine—Learning Results, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

South Carolina, and Vermont) were categorized as having primarily academic CBO standards. The 

remaining six (Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and Washington—OSPI) had 

CBO standards that were directly linked to the K–12 standards but had a primarily developmental 

orientation. Examining the question from another angle, when you look at the states categorized as 

primarily academic, all but one (Georgia) fall into the category of “directly linked” to the K–12 

standards. Therefore, it does seem that CBO standards that are directly linked to the K–12 standards 

may be more likely to have an academic orientation, although a number of “directly linked” states 

did have CBO standards with a developmental orientation. 

Characteristics of the CBO Standards Documents 

Having examined the nature of the standards, we now turn to characteristics of the CBO standards 

documents themselves—when were they finalized, what titles are used for important elements of 

the CBO standards, what subjects are addressed, and what types of supplemental materials are 

included in the documents. 

Time Frame for CBO Standards Documents 

The process of developing CBO standards can be long and complex, with multiple drafts being 

developed. It is, therefore, difficult to pinpoint just when a set of standards is “complete.” We have 

attempted to collect data on the time frame within which each of the states completed its CBO 

standards document. For purposes of the study, we have operationally defined the “completion” 

date for CBO standards as the date when the document was officially adopted/endorsed or, in cases 

when this information was not available, when the document was published. For states working on 

developmental domains sequentially, the “completion” date reflects when the first in their series of 

documents addressing various developmental domains was complete. 

As the data in Table III-7 show, CBO standards are a relatively new phenomenon. A few pioneer 

states (Michigan, Texas, Vermont, and Washington) had standards covering preschool-age children 

prior to 1996. The preponderance (18 out of 29 sets of standards) have CBO standards that were 

finalized in 2000 or later. It is interesting to note that several of the states with pre-K CBO standards 

incorporated into the K–12 standards (Maine, Michigan, Ohio, and Vermont) were some of the first 

to be completed (1999 or before), and the very first state to have pre-K standards—Texas—revised 
 37

its standards in 1999. Likewise, Washington’s ECEAP standards first completed in 1988 were 

revised starting in 1996 and finalized in 1999. 

Table III-7 

Time Frame for Completion of CBO Standards

State Completion/ 

Finalization 

Date* 

Arkansas 1999 

California 2001 

Colorado 2000 

Connecticut 1999 

Florida 2002 

Georgia 1996 

Illinois 2000 

Louisiana 2002 

Maine 

Learning Results 

Early Learning Results 

1997 

1999 

Maryland 2002 

Massachusetts 2001 

Michigan 1992 

Minnesota 2000 

Mississippi 2001 

Missouri 2001 

New Jersey 2000 

New Mexico 2000 

New York 2002 

Ohio 1999 

Oklahoma 1996 

Pennsylvania 2001 

Rhode Island 2002 

South Carolina 2001 

Texas 1985/1999 

Utah 2000 

Vermont 1993 

Washington 

ECEAP 

OSPI 

1988/1999 

2000 

* The date when the document was officially adopted/endorsed 

 or, in cases when this information was not available, when the document was published.

These data suggest that within the past five years CBO standards for preschool-age children have 

become increasingly common. Furthermore, the fact that 12 additional states had standards in 
 38

process at the time of the interviews suggests that by the close of the year 2003 almost 40 states 

could have CBO standards in place. 

Titles Used for CBO Standards Documents 

States have used a variety of titles to identify their early learning standards. As seen in Table III-8, 

the titles for the documents vary greatly. Titles that include the words “standards,” “benchmarks,” 

and/or “frameworks” are relatively common. Nine states have documents that include CBO 

standards but have titles that imply the standards are for the program (such as “content standards,” 

“curriculum standards,” “program standards”), usually because both program and CBO standards 

are included in the same document. Some states (such as California’s Desired Results and 

Colorado’s Building Blocks) have unique titles for their early learning standards. Clearly there is 

great variation in what states have called their CBO standards documents. 

Table III-8 

Titles for CBO Standards Documents

State Title of the Document 

Arkansas Arkansas Early Childhood Education Framework: Benchmarks with 

Strategies/Activities for Three- and Four-Year-Old Children 

California Desired Results for Children and Families 

Colorado Building Blocks to Colorado’s Content Standards 

Connecticut The Connecticut Framework: Preschool Curricular Goals and 

Benchmarks 

Florida Florida School Readiness Performance Standards 

Georgia Georgia Pre-kindergaren Program Learning Goals 

Illinois Illinois Early Learning Standards 

Louisiana Louisiana Standards for Programs Serving Four-Year-Olds 

Maine Learning Results 

Birth to Five Early Learning Results 

Maryland MSDE Representative Examples Manual: Pre-kindergarten and 

Kindergarten Content Standards 

Massachusetts Massachusetts Curriculum Framework Pre-K–12 

Michigan Early Childhood Standards of Quality for Pre-kindergarten through 

Second Grade 

Minnesota Minnesota Early Childhood Indicators of Progress: A Resource Guide 

Mississippi Mississippi Pre-Kindergarten Curriculum 

Missouri Missouri Pre-K Literacy Standards 

New Jersey Early Childhood Education Program Expectations: Standards of 

Quality 

New Mexico Preschool Developmental Milestones Chart 

New York Early Literacy Guidance Pre-kindergarten–Grade 3 

Ohio Performance Objectives for Ohio’s Model Competency Based (subject 

area)* Education Program Pre-K–3 
 39

State Title of the Document 

Oklahoma Developmental Learning Skills 

Pennsylvania Early Childhood Learning Continuum Indicators 

Rhode Island Rhode Island Early Learning Standards 

South Carolina South Carolina Mathematics Curriculum Standards 

Texas Pre-kindergarten Curriculum Standards 

Utah Utah Early Childhood Standards (Guidelines) 

Vermont Vermont’s Framework of Standards and Learning Opportunities 

Washington 

OSPI 

ECEAP 

A Framework for Achieving the Essential Academic Learning 

Requirements in Reading, Writing, Communication (Birth to 5 Years) 

Washington State’s Early Childhood Education and Assistance 

Program’s Outcomes Selected for New Evaluation Design 

* Ohio has developed a separate document for each of the subject areas addressed in its standards. 

When the nomenclature given to the individual CBO standards themselves (rather than the 

standards document as a whole) is examined, “indicators” and “standards” are the most common 

titles used. Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, South Carolina, 

Utah, and Vermont refer to the descriptions of skills/knowledge children should develop as 

“standards.” “Indicators” is the term used by California, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Missouri, and Pennsylvania. Other terms used for the individual standards include “benchmarks” 

(Arkansas, Illinois, Mississippi), “milestones” (New Mexico), “learning goals” (Georgia, Rhode 

Island) or “goals” (Texas), “suggested characteristics” (Washington—OSPI), “outcomes” 

(Washington—ECEAP), “program goals” (Connecticut), “early competencies” (New York), 

“expectations” (New Jersey), and “developmental skills” (Oklahoma). 

This wide variation in the terms used to label CBO standards is indicative of the limited agreement 

in the field about nomenclature that should be applied to standards for early learning and 

development. Another indicator of the limited consensus on terminology is the wide range of 

operational definitions provided as part of the standards documents. As noted in Table III-9, states 

have developed a variety of definitions for similar terms. The table includes the operational 

definitions that were provided as part of the standards documents analyzed for this project. 
 40

Table III-9 

Operational Definitions of CBO Standards Terminology 

Term State Definition Included in the CBO Standards Document 

Benchmark Arkansas A level of performance that can be supported through 

observations, descriptions, and documentations of a child’s 

performance or behavior and by samples of a child’s work. 

Some educators may also refer to these as “learner outcomes.” 

Benchmark Mississippi What children should know and be able to do. 

Desired result California A condition of well-being for children and families. 

Essential 

knowledge 

Vermont What students should know; includes the most important and 

enduring ideas, issues, dilemmas, principles, and concepts 

from the disciplines. 

Essential skills Vermont What students should be able to do; ways of thinking, 

working, communicating, and investigating. 

Examples Missouri Observable behaviors that children may exhibit in their 

literacy development. 

Expectations Rhode Island Examples of typical four-year-old behavior that demonstrate 

competence in relation to each Learning Goal. 

Indicator California Defines a desired result more specifically so that it can be 

measured. 

Indicator Missouri Milestones toward the development of competencies. 

Developmental 

profile indicator 

Louisiana Specifies what most pre-kindergarten children should be able 

to do by the end of their preschool experience. 

Performance 

indicator 

Maine Describes what students should know and be able to do from 

one level to the next to demonstrate attainment of a content 

standard; defines in more specific terms the stages of 

achievement, or checkpoints, toward meeting the content 

standard. 

Learning goal Rhode Island Categories of knowledge and skills within each 

[developmental] domain. 

Standards Vermont Identifies the essential knowledge and skills that should be 

taught and learned in school; also identifies behaviors and 

attitudes related to thinking, working, communicating, and 

investigating. 

Content standard Maine Broad descriptions of the knowledge and skills that students 

should acquire. 

Content practice 

standard 

Louisiana Describes the broad outcomes that children should achieve in 

a high-quality preschool experience. 

Process standard Missouri Competencies in the process of literacy development. 

Most of the definitions include some reference to expectations for what children will learn and/or be 

able to do. Some states use one term (such as “standards”) to address a broad expectation for 

children’s development and a second term (such as “indicators”) to provide more specific 

descriptions of skills related to the broad concept. The CBO standards include a variety of titles for 
 41

the documents and their contents, and how states have operationally defined each of the elements 

within the CBO standards documents also varies. 

Perhaps equally as interesting as the definitions provided in the state documents, is the number of 

states that did not provide operational definitions. Of the 27 states with CBO standards, only eight 

provided operational definitions of the terms that were used. Other states used titles for the 

document and the descriptions of children’s development and learning but did not provide 

operational definitions for the terms used. 

K–12 Linkage and Nomenclature 

Given the wide variation in the nomenclature used to describe CBO standards and the general lack 

of consensus about definitions of terms described above, we were interested in whether there were 

particular patterns that might be associated with the words that states have used to describe their 

CBO standards. We conducted a series of analyses to see whether particular titles chosen for the 

CBO standards documents might be associated with characteristics of the CBO standards 

themselves. The first of these analyses examined whether the nomenclature used as titles for the 

documents was associated with the degree to which the CBO standards were linked to the K–12 

standards. 

In order to determine if the CBO standards rated as having closer linkages with the K–12 standards 

might be more likely to be called “standards,” states that included the word “standards” in the title 

of their CBO standards documents were compared with states that did not include the word 

“standards.” Documents that contained the word “standards” were more likely to be rated as closely 

linked to the K–12 standards. Of the 13 documents with the word “standards” in the title, nine were 

rated as “directly linked” and three were rated as “moderately linked” to K–12 standards. Only one 

state (Utah) with the word “standards” in the title was considered to have CBO standards that were 

minimally linked to its K–12 standards. It is interesting to note that the title of the document [Utah 

Early Childhood Standards (Guidelines)] and the survey respondent clearly communicated that 

these “standards” are “guidelines” rather than requirements. States that did not use the word 

“standards” in their title were relatively evenly divided across the categories of linkage to the K–12 

standards. Of the 16 sets of CBO standards that did not use the word “standards” in their title, six 

were minimally linked, four were moderately linked, and six were directly linked to the K–12 

standards. 

Supplemental Materials Included in the CBO Standards Documents 

In an effort to emphasize that CBO standards are not the “responsibility” of children, a number of 

states included in their standards documents descriptions of the educational experiences that should 

be provided to help children achieve the standards. For some states, such as Connecticut and 

Minnesota, these supplemental materials consisted of a general description of what early childhood 

programs should provide. Minnesota went further to describe what policymakers, parents, and the 

community can do to facilitate children’s acquisition of the skills and knowledge described in the 

CBO standards. Other states, such as Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, and 

Mississippi, provided specific suggestions for instructional strategies that would help children 

achieve a particular standard. Michigan, New Jersey, and New York included the program standards 
 42

with their CBO standards. Finally, Missouri developed two separate manuals to accompany its early 

literacy standards—one for parents and one for early care and education providers—to describe 

practices that support children’s early literacy development. A significant number of states took 

great care to provide adults with the information they need to promote children’s development of 

the skills and abilities outlined in their CBO standards. 

Inclusion of Modifications for Children With Special Circumstances 

When asked how children from a wide range of developmental levels (such as children with 

disabilities or children learning English as their second language) are included in the CBO 

standards, respondents from all 27 states reported that their CBO standards applied to all children, 

including preschool children with disabilities, English language learners, and children from other 

special circumstances. For example, a respondent from Illinois reported: 

One of the key players from a school district is involved with special needs children so we 

wanted to make sure that the standards are appropriate for this group of children. 

A respondent from California echoed the state’s intent that the CBO standards be used with all 

children: 

Special education is using our state’s standards (with accommodations) 

as per federal mandate. 

Respondents appeared to be keenly aware of requirements for inclusion of children with disabilities, 

reporting not only the need to make their states’ CBO standards available to all children but also the 

need to provide a continuum of services with appropriate adaptations and modifications. A 

respondent from New Mexico reported that the state’s standards are: 

Easily incorporated into individual family plans (IFPs) and family support 

plans and are being used in all of the systems because they are based on commonly accepted 

developmental milestones. 

Similarly, a respondent from New Jersey reported, “Educators will need to personalize learning for 

each child and honor the differences in all children.” And finally, a respondent from Colorado 

reported: 

We do not have special documents for special education. The state has a very 

specific and definite philosophical framework of what it means by all children. 

States have worked to provide guidance on how to use CBO standards with children with 

disabilities. In California, an initiative has been funded to look specifically at how the Desired 

Results system can accommodate children with disabilities. Maine’s Early Learning Results are 

designed for use in programs serving children with disabilities. However, when the CBO documents 

were examined, relatively few addressed specific strategies on how children with disabilities should 

be included when the CBO standards are implemented at the classroom level. Louisiana’s CBO 

standards document is an example of a document that provides general suggestions for how to 
 43

accommodate children with disabilities. The Louisiana document provides the following guidance 

for accommodations: “Simplify a complicated task by breaking it into smaller parts or reducing the 

number of steps.” There are not, however, specific suggestions for how this should be done for 

specific standards items. In general, teachers and others implementing the CBO standards will find 

relatively little guidance on how the standards apply for children with disabilities. 

Perhaps more telling was the lack of guidance related to children from families whose primary 

language is not English. The CBO standards developed by the Texas Education Agency specifies 

that “for students whose first language is other than English, the native language serves as the 

foundation for English language acquisition. Specific guidelines for the language and literacy 

development of pre-kindergarten children whose home language is not English in English-only 

settings appear . . . in each domain [of the Language and Early Literacy Development section].” 

Most other state CBO standards documents were silent as to how to apply the standards with 

English language learners. Some respondents spoke of plans to translate their states’ CBO standards 

documents into languages other than English. However, the data collected for this study suggest that 

states have not extensively addressed how these CBO standards apply for English language 

learners. 

Overall, one might conclude that the CBO standards documents—and the persons who have helped 

develop them—are committed to including all children, but, by and large, additional guidance and 

support is necessary in order for programs to know exactly what types of accommodations to make. 

Summary of Findings Regarding States With CBO Standards 

CBO standards are becoming increasingly common. Over half of the states in the country have 

them. Most have been developed since 1998. Of the states that do not have CBO standards, over 

half were in the process of developing them. The linkage of the CBO standards to the K–12 

standards seems to be an important factor in what CBO standards are like, with CBO standards that 

are more directly linked to the K–12 standards being more likely to be categorized as “primarily 

academic” and less likely to address developmental areas such as approaches to learning or socialemotional development. We now turn from examination of which states have CBO standards and 

what they look like to the inquiry about how the CBO standards were developed and how they are 

used. 

References

Neuman, S. B., Celano, D. C., Greco, A. N., & Shue, P. (2001). Access for all: Closing the book 

gap for children in early education. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 
 44

SECTION IV: DEVELOPING CHILD-BASED OUTCOME STANDARDS 

Developing CBO standards for our nation’s youngest children is viewed by many as an essential 

component of our early care and education system. And, as we have seen, states are heavily 

engaged in the process. Yet, very few data exist on how standards have been and are being 

developed throughout the nation. Who is involved in setting the standards? How long does it take? 

What was the impetus? What lessons can be learned from those states already completing 

standards? 

This section of the report examines just these issues, focusing on how state-level agencies have 

been engaged in the process of developing CBO standards. In order to most thoroughly assess these 

issues, the discussion in this section focuses exclusively on states identified as currently having 

standards. These states include those listed in Table III-1– in columns I and II (Categories I and II, 

respectively). Category I includes states that have standards that have been officially adopted or 

endorsed, and Category II includes states that have developed standards that have not been 

officially adopted or endorsed. Important lessons about the development of standards emerge from 

both groups. In a subsequent section, we also analyze the lessons learned from Category III states 

(listed in column III of Table III-1), which were in the process of developing standards at the time 

of the interviews (see Section V). 

Focusing on states that had published CBO standards (Categories I and II), in this section the 

following questions are discussed: 

• How did the process get started? 

• Was there a mandate to develop standards and, if so, from whom? 

• Who was involved in developing the standards? 

• How did the process unfold? 

• How was the effort financed? 

Getting Started: Identifying the Impetus 

The research team began its investigation of the process of standards development by exploring 

what prompted states to engage in this activity. Specifically, respondents in our study were asked to 

indicate whether the process of developing standards resulted from a “formal legislative mandate, 

departmental order, or a more informal recognition of a need for such a document.” Tables IV-1 and 

IV-2 provide data representing how Category I and Category II states responded to this particular 

query. Specifically, Table IV-1 represents states that have standards that have been officially 

adopted or endorsed (19 states) while Table IV-2 represents states that have standards that have not

been officially adopted or endorsed (eight states). These two tables identify what precipitated the 

process and who “led” the effort. In addition, Table IV-1 identifies state-level organizations or 

departments responsible for “adopting” their states’ CBO standards.
 45

Table IV-1 

Status of States with Adopted CBO Standards 

Have standards that 

have been officially 

adopted or endorsed 

Impetus Lead 

Agency 

Adopted/Endorsed 

By 

 Arkansas I DHS BOE 

Connecticut SRL DOE BOE 

Florida SRL OSR Florida Partnership for School 

Readiness Board 

Georgia SRL OSR OSR 

Illinois I DOE BOE 

Maine 

 Learning Results 

 Early Learning Results 

L 

L 

DOE 

DOE 

Legislature 

Legislature 

Maryland D DOE BOE 

Massachusetts L DOE BOE 

Michigan I DOE BOE 

Minnesota I CFL CFL 

Mississippi I DOE BOE 

New Jersey L DOE BOE 

New Mexico L OCD OCD 

New York D DOE DOE 

South Carolina I DOE BOE 

Texas I DOE BOE 

Utah I DOE BOE 

Vermont I DOE BOE 

Washington 

 ECEAP 

 OSPI 

L 

L 

DOC 

DOE 

CSU 

OSPI 

D: departmental order 

I: informal recognition 

L: state legislation 

BOE: State Board of Education 

CFL: Department of Children and Family Learning 

CSU: Children Services Unit 

DHS: State Department of Human Services 

DOE: State Department of Education 

OCD: Office of Child Development 

OSPI: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction 

OSR: State Office of School Readiness 

SRL: state school readiness legislation 
 46

Table IV-2 

Status of States with CBO Standards Not Formally

Adopted/Endorsed at the Time of the Interview 

Have standards 

that have not 

been officially 

adopted or 

endorsed 

Impetus Lead 

Agency 

California D DOE 

Colorado I DOE 

Louisiana D DOE 

Missouri I DOE 

Ohio L DOE 

Oklahoma I DOE 

Pennsylvania I DOE 

Rhode Island I DOE 

D: departmental order 

I: informal recognition 

L: state legislation 

DOE: state department of education 

Data from the survey revealed that nine of the 27 states that have standards began the development 

process in response to legislation passed in their state. As shown in Table IV-1, eight of these nine 

states (Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Maine—Learning Results and Early Learning Results, 

Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Washington—ECEAP and OSPI) have officially 

adopted or endorsed standards, whereas Ohio’s standards (as shown in Table IV-2) are not officially 

adopted or endorsed. Based on these preliminary observations, there appeared to be some 

correlation between the impetus for the standards and the level of their adoption. This finding 

prompted the research team to examine the nature of legislative mandates. 

As seen in Table IV-1, three states (Connecticut, Florida, and Georgia) responded to state school 

readiness legislation. Maine (Learning Results and Early Learning Results) responded to a directive 

from the state legislature to develop long-range educational goals and standards for school 

performance. Similarly, Massachusetts responded to legislation mandating education reform and 

state-funded preschool programs. New Jersey responded to a legislative mandate following the 

Abbott Court Decision to deliver full-day preschool services for three- and four-year-olds in 30 

specified districts. Washington (ECEAP and OSPI) responded to legislation specifically mandating 

pre-kindergarten standards, and New Mexico responded to “accountability” legislation. Ohio (as 

shown in Table IV-2) also responded to legislation mandating pre-kindergarten standards. Unlike 

the other eight states with adopted CBO standards, Ohio’s CBO standards were not formally 

adopted or endorsed at the time of the interview. 

In addition to respondents citing state legislative mandates as the primary impetus for developing 

CBO standards, four states (California, Louisiana, Maryland, and New York) identified 

departmental orders from their state departments of education as the primary impetus. Two of these 
 47

states (Maryland and New York) have standards that are officially adopted while two do not 

(California and Louisiana). 

Finally, data revealed that over half of the remaining states with CBO standards (14) responded to 

yet another kind of impetus—a more informal recognition of a need for such standards. Leaders 

within the early childhood field (especially within the state department of education) began the 

process without a mandate simply based on the premise that CBO standards would be helpful and/or 

might be necessary in the future. Respondents from a couple of states indicated that an “order” was 

imminent, and thus actively began the process of defining and developing CBO standards. In these 

cases, stakeholders from the early childhood community felt that it was more beneficial to be 

proactive and start the CBO standards development process than to be in a position of having to 

respond to a mandate from the legislature or governor. 

States where respondents indicated that the process was begun based on an informal recognition of 

the need for CBO standards include Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. As 

shown in Table IV-1, nine of these 14 states (Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, 

South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Vermont) have officially adopted standards. Eight of these nine 

states responded to an informal request by their state departments of education to begin the process 

of developing standards while Arkansas responded to an informal request by Arkansas’ Department 

of Human Services. Table IV-2 illustrates that five states (Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma, 

Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island) that have standards that have not been officially adopted 

responded to an informal request by their state departments of education. 

Data from the survey revealed that the impetus for the standards (e.g., legislative mandates, 

departmental orders, and a more informal recognition of a need) did indeed influence the standards 

development process. The degree to which these three different initiation points influenced the 

adoption of CBO standards, however, prompted further investigation. 

 The influence of different approaches to incepting CBO standards. Table IV-1 indicates that 

of the 19 states with officially adopted standards, eight states responded to legislative mandates, two 

states responded to departmental orders, and nine states responded to a more informal recognition of 

a need for standards. Based on the data, one might deduce that the two most influential impetuses 

among states with officially adopted standards are state legislative mandates and a more informal 

recognition of a need for developing CBO standards. Yet the degree to which these two approaches 

influenced the adoption process is not apparent. A comparison of the different approaches used by 

states with officially adopted standards to those used by states without adopted standards (Tables 

IV-1 and IV-2) presents a different perspective. 

As shown in Table IV-1, eight of the nine states responding to state legislative mandates have

officially adopted standards, while one state does not (as illustrated in Table IV-2). In another 

words, 89% of the states responding to legislative mandates have officially adopted standards. This 

finding suggests that legislative mandates not only encourage states to engage in the process of 

developing CBO standards but also enhance the prospect of standards being officially adopted or 

endorsed. 
 48

In contrast, as shown in Table IV-1, nine of the 14 states responding to a more informal recognition 

of a need for developing CBO standards have officially adopted standards, while five states do not 

(as illustrated in Table IV-2). In other words, 64% of the states responding to this impetus have 

officially adopted standards. This finding suggests that in gaining formal recognition of the 

standards a more informal recognition of a need for developing CBO standards is influential—yet 

not as influential as state legislative mandates. Finally, the degree of influence of a departmental 

order on the formal adoption of standards is less clear, as just 50% of the states that began with a 

departmental order have standards that are officially adopted or endorsed. 

Players in the Standards Development Process 

Respondents in the study were asked several general questions regarding the participation of 

individuals and state-level agency personnel in the standards development process. The research 

team sorted the survey data into three categories—inceptor, facilitator, and partner. Some of the 

players, assuming multiple functions and roles in the development process, appear in more than one 

category. The three categories are defined as follows: 

 Inceptor—an individual or group responsible for initiating or introducing the standards 

 development process at the state level. Traditionally, this group is viewed as the “visionary” 

 in this effort. 

 Facilitator—an individual or group responsible for “making the process happen.” 

 Partner—an individual or group involved in the process. 

State departments of education: Inceptors and facilitators of CBO standards development. 

As shown in Tables IV-1 and IV-2, 22 of the 27 states with CBO standards cited state departments 

of education as the “lead agency” in the standards development process. In addition, respondents in 

the 22 states reported the active participation of early childhood specialists located within state 

departments of education. This makes sense in light of the nation’s growing concern with student 

learning and accountability and its efforts to have education be more driven by increasing 

accountability. Given this ethos, a critical function of state departments of education is facilitating 

the development of performance standards and assessment systems for all students, including young 

children. 

Data from our study revealed that early childhood staff within state departments of education often 

assumed multiple roles and functions in the standards development process. In other words, in 

addition to serving as facilitator or lead agent in the process, some individuals within state 

departments of education—particularly state early childhood specialists—also assumed 

responsibility for incepting or initiating the development of CBO standards. For example, six of the 

eight states responding to legislative mandates (Connecticut, Maine—Learning Results and Early 

Learning Results, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Washington—

ECEAP and OSPI) cited state departments of education as both inceptors and facilitators of the 

standards development process. 
 49

Offices of school readiness: Facilitators of standards development. Survey data in Table IV1 indicate that in response to readiness legislation introduced by state governors, two states with 

officially adopted standards (Florida and Georgia) created offices of school readiness (OSR). 

Independent of state departments of education, OSRs focus primarily on the programs for 

preschool-age children. 

Florida and Georgia’s OSR took initiative and facilitated the development of state-level CBO 

standards. Connecticut also responded to school readiness legislation; however, respondents 

indicated that the State Department of Education was responsible for both incepting and facilitating 

the development of CBO standards. Connecticut’s school readiness initiative is a joint effort 

between the State Department of Education and the State Department of Social Services and is not 

housed in a separate office created to manage a single readiness program. 

Other state-level agencies: Facilitators of standards development. Although the 

preponderance of states identified state departments of education as the “lead agent” or primary 

facilitator in the standards development process, as shown in Table IV-1, five states (Arkansas, 

Minnesota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Washington—ECEAP) identified other state-level 

agencies. For example, Arkansas identified its State Department of Human Services, Minnesota 

identified the Department of Children, Families, and Learning (Minnesota does not have a state 

department of education), and Washington—ECEAP identified the Department of Children. 

Partners in CBO standards development: A highly inclusive process. In addition to some 

state-level agencies and departments serving as facilitators in the standards development, 

respondents indicated that some state-level agencies and departments also served as partners. For 

example, as shown in Table IV-3, 10 of the 27 states reported the active engagement of state 

departments of social services and human services. Included in this category are Louisiana’s 

Department of Health and Hospitals, Michigan’s Department of Public Health, Missouri’s 

Departments of Health and Mental Health, and Vermont’s Department of Mental Health. Table IV3 also illustrates that 10 of the 27 states with standards identified departments of special education 

as active partners in the standards development process. In addition, data revealed the participation 

of local school districts and higher education (including state and community colleges). 
 50

Table IV-3 

Partners in the Standards Development Process 

State Local 

School 

Districts 

Dept. of Social 

Services/Human 

Services 

Dept. of 

Special 

Education 

Higher 

Education 

Parents External 

Consultants 

Other 

Arkansas X X X X 

California X X 

Colorado X X X X X Business 

Connecticut X X X 

Florida X X X X X Library assoc./ 

business 

Georgia X Public health 

Illinois X X X 

Louisiana X X X 

Maine 

Learning Results 

Early Learning 

Results 

X 

X 

 

Child dev. 

service sites 

Maryland X X X 

Massachusetts X 

Michigan X X X X X State reading 

assoc. 

Minnesota X X X X Community 

agencies 

Mississippi X X X 

Missouri X X X Literacy grant 

program/PAT 

New Jersey X X X X Advocacy 

groups/Lucent 

Tech. 

New Mexico X 

New York X X X 

Ohio X X Dir. of State’s 

Literacy Init. 

Oklahoma X X 

Pennsylvania X X 

Rhode Island X X X X X Dept. C,Y, &F 

South Carolina X X State 

Legislature 

Texas X X 

Utah X X 

Vermont X X X X X Business 

Washington 

ECEAP 

OSPI X 

 

X 

X X 

X 

Total 25 10 8 17 11 11 

Specifically, as shown in Table IV-3, 24 of the 27 states reported the involvement of local school 

districts (as distinct from state boards of education) in developing CBO standards. Personnel from 
 51

these local school districts represented public preschool and kindergarten programs, as well as 

school district administrators responsible for programs K–12. In view of CBO standards linkage to 

programs serving older, school-age children, this finding is not surprising. Illinois’s State Division 

of Early Childhood created an early learning standards project team comprised of eight people 

including representation from four school districts. The Division reported that some school districts 

“had already started to develop something on their own that [we] liked.” 

Other partners in the development of CBO standards included representatives from higher education 

and parents. As shown in Table IV-3, 17 of the 27 states reported the participation of higher 

education, including teacher educators. Eleven states (California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington—ECEAP) 

reported the involvement of parents in developing CBO standards. In addition to parent 

participation, Missouri reported the active involvement of parent organizations. Specifically, 

Missouri invited the participation of the organization Parents as Teachers (PAT) in developing its 

CBO standards. 

Pre-existing initiatives as facilitators in the development process. Respondents from all 27 

states with CBO standards reported that standards development was not an isolated process. In other 

words, a climate or expectation for working collaboratively on a variety of early childhood 

education issues had already been cultivated, thus the call for developing CBO standards at the state 

level fell on fertile ground. In many states, a statewide early childhood commission, statewide 

partnerships, and other avenues for early childhood work already existed. Data revealed that these 

pre-existing early childhood initiatives facilitated the standards development process. 

As a result of school readiness legislation in Florida, Georgia, and Maryland, partnerships were 

already in place to engage in the standards development process. Florida’s Readiness Partnership 

Board represented a cross-section of partners including business and education. Georgia’s Office of 

School Readiness programs includes partners from all the state’s current early learning initiatives 

including Head Start, public health, and four-year-old programs. When Maryland’s Department of 

Education expressed a need to articulate outcome standards for children entering kindergarten, the 

department joined with partners already established from Maryland’s Model for School Readiness. 

A respondent in Pennsylvania noted that the process of developing CBO standards was a 

partnership, with the department of education working collaboratively with other state-level 

organizations. The Partnership for Educational Excellence Network (PEEN) is a partnership 

between Pennsylvania’s State Department of Education and the Pennsylvania Association of 

Intermediate Units. These intermediate units are educational entities funded by the state that work 

directly with school districts. 

In Arkansas, the process to develop CBO standards was initiated by the Arkansas Early Childhood 

Commission. Established in 1991, the Commission consisted of a broad-based constituency of statelevel agencies. Thus in 1996, when the state first began to explore the issue of standards 

development for young children, a pre-existing commission was already in place. Based on its 

ongoing relationship, the Commission was well positioned to create task forces to engage in the 

activity of standards development. 
 52

Respondents noted that these collaborations or partnerships were often enriched with the 

involvement of early childhood colleagues—both as individuals and as groups. For example, Maine 

prevailed on an established network, the New England Early Childhood Special Education 

Coordinators, to help guide and support its standards development process. According to one 

respondent: 

We have been meeting on a regular basis for the past 10 years and have routinely shared 

projects and documents. The group has found the culture of New England to be similar 

across the states, thus we work together toward providing support in our respective efforts. 

In sum, data revealed that respondents from most states described the standards development 

process as highly inclusive and requiring the input and advice from a broad spectrum of 

stakeholders both inside and outside the “early childhood community.” Representatives from the 

early childhood community typically included administrators and practitioners from Head Start, 

public and private preschools, child care, and representatives from state AEYCs. 

The role of public input. In some states public forums were held inviting even broader input 

on the standards development process. For example, Vermont reported that its development process 

consisted of 40 community focus forums including parents, teachers, school administrators, school 

board members, and community members. Vermont’s standards document, Vermont’s Framework 

of Standards and Learning Opportunities, boasts that the standards were “worked on by over 4,000 

Vermonters!” 

In addition to public forums, respondents consistently extolled the benefits of focus groups. Often 

described as facilitating the rigorous “back and forth” process of articulating and reviewing states’ 

CBO standards, focus groups provided an essential feedback loop for standards developers to 

incorporate comments and reactions from the broader community. According to New Jersey’s 

standards document, Early Childhood Education Program Expectations: Standards of Quality 

(2000): 

Three regional focus groups were convened allowing stakeholders 

additional opportunities to provide feedback. The task force reported 

considering all comments in preparing the final document. 

The use of focus groups and other avenues to gather input from the broader community is indicative 

of standards developers’ intentions to have their CBO standards development process be inclusive 

of the wider community. Data revealed that states consistently viewed the CBO standards 

development process as a shared responsibility. Minnesota’s standards document succinctly 

captures the spirit of collaboration endemic to the standards development process: 

[F]amily members, teachers and caregivers, community members, 

and policymakers each recognize the importance of this shared responsibility 

and accountability in order to achieve positive outcomes for children. 

External consultants: Partners in CBO standards development. As shown in Table IV-3, 

respondents from nine of the 27 states with standards reported the involvement of external 
 53

consultants. These states include Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, 

New Mexico, Texas, and Vermont. External consultants tended to be either state or national experts 

in early care and education with expertise in areas such as assessment, accreditation, and standards 

development. 

The degree to which consultants were involved in the development of CBO standards, however, 

varied across states. Data revealed that in six of the nine states with external consultants (Arkansas, 

Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Texas, and Vermont), respondents described consultants as 

“partners” in the process, guiding and coordinating the standards development process. In 

California, Georgia, and New Mexico, respondents reported that external contractors were 

responsible for most of the writing of the CBO standards, and hence played a more central role in 

the development process. In these cases, external consultants served more as “lead agents” than did 

external consultants in the other six states. 

Orientation of the standards: Influence of state departments of education. Since state 

departments of education focus on K–12 students’ academic achievement, one might logically 

hypothesize that standards incepted by state departments of education might be more academically 

oriented than those incepted and developed by other state-level agencies or departments. In view of 

our nation’s current political climate of accountability for students’ learning, the issue of 

“developmental versus academic” is worth explicating, in particular, as it relates to who incepted 

these CBO standards. To better understand this issue, the research team used the rating scale 

described in Table III-5 to classify the orientation of states’ CBO standards. 

As shown in Table III-5, 19 of the CBO standards were rated as primarily developmental, while 10 

state standards documents were classified as primarily academic. Using the state rather than the 

CBO standards document as the unit of analysis, the table also shows that 18 (Arkansas, California, 

Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maine—Early Learning Results, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and 

Washington—ECEAP and OSPI) of the 27 states have standards primarily developmental in 

orientation, while 10 states (Georgia, Louisiana, Maine—Learning Results, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Vermont) have standards that 

are primarily academic in orientation. Note that Maine has two sets of standards—one rated as 

developmentally oriented (Early Learning Results) and the other rated as academically oriented 

(Learning Results), and Washington has two sets of standards that are both developmentally 

oriented. In other words, 64% of these states have standards primarily developmental in orientation, 

while 36% of the states with standards have an academic orientation. 

Regarding the orientation of CBO standards incepted by state departments of education, data 

revealed that nine of the 10 states with CBO standards rated as primarily academic in orientation 

identified state departments of education as incepting the standards (Georgia’s standards were 

incepted by Georgia’s Office of School Readiness), while 15 of the 18 states categorized as having 

standards with a primarily developmental orientation also identified state departments of education. 

The remaining three states (Arkansas, Minnesota, and New Mexico) identified other state-level 

agencies as incepting their states’ CBO standards. In other words, 90% of the states’ CBO standards 

rated as primarily academically oriented were incepted by state departments of education, and 83% 

of CBO standards considered primarily developmentally oriented were also incepted by state 
 54

departments of education. In view of the data, it is clear that state departments of education did 

indeed play an important role in both incepting and developing CBO standards. Yet the degree to 

which state departments of education directly influenced the orientation of CBO standards beckons 

further investigation.

Literacy initiatives and their impact on defining CBO standards. In light of our nation’s 

growing push for early literacy, the research team identified those states developing standards out of 

divisions of “literacy” (not including family literacy programs) primarily located within state 

departments of education. This investigation was based on the assumption that a literacy focus may 

result in early learning standards that are primarily academic in orientation. 

As shown in Table IV-4, data from the survey revealed only two of the 27 states developed 

standards out of their “literacy” divisions: Mississippi (Office of Reading, Early Childhood, and 

Language Arts) and New York (Division of Early Literacy). Returning to Table III-5, Mississippi’s 

early learning standards are described as primarily developmental in orientation while New York’s 

are primarily academic. In fact, New York’s standards document underscores an explicit emphasis 

on literacy: 

The New York State Education Department has adopted the national 

reading goal that all children will be able to read independently and 

well by the end of grade three. To support this goal, the Department has 

undertaken a number of initiatives related to early literacy. This 

document, Early Literacy Guidance: Pre-kindergarten–Grade 3, 

builds on and enhances previous English language arts documents 

of the Department. 

Thus, based on this finding, one cannot hypothesize that departments focusing on literacy 

necessarily produce early learning standards that are more academically oriented. 

Further investigation of the literacy issue and its correlation to primarily academic or cognitively 

oriented standards prompted the research team to identify which of the 27 states included “literacy 

interests” apart from departments of literacy in the development of their CBO standards. States 

including representatives from the literacy community (not family literacy) in the development of 

their standards included Connecticut (library associations), Michigan (state reading association), 

Missouri (literacy grant program), and Ohio (director of Ohio’s literacy initiative). It is interesting 

to note that Connecticut, Michigan, and Missouri have standards that are primarily developmental in 

orientation, while Ohio’s are primarily academic. Again, based on this finding, one cannot 

hypothesize that participants expressing “literacy interests” in the standards development process 

necessarily produce early learning standards that are primarily academic in orientation. 

Logistics of Developing CBO Standards 

In addition to looking at who was involved, the research team was also interested in collecting data 

on the logistics of the CBO standards development process—how long it took, what materials were 

used as a basis for decision, and how the process was funded. In the following section, data gleaned 
 55

from both the interviews and the CBO standards documents themselves are presented to provide 

more detailed information about the development process. 

Time frame for developing standards. Respondents in our study reported that the standards 

development process ranged from four months (Ohio) to five years (Maine – Early Learning 

Results). Data revealed that 15 of the 27 states with CBO standards developed their standards 

within one to two years. Specifically, 10 of the 27 states (Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, 

Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Washington—

ECEAP) developed their standards in one year, while five states (Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New 

Mexico, and Pennsylvania) developed their standards in two years. 

Data also revealed that the term “time frame” had different interpretations. For example, some 

respondents suggested that “time frame” encompassed the time it took to define and implement 

CBO standards, while others interpreted “time frame” as representing exclusively the development 

process. Respondents in Georgia indicated: 

 The process took about one year—from the time of conceptualization 

 to implementation. 

Similarly, a respondent in Arkansas reported that the state’s CBO standards took three years to 

develop and one year to “roll it out statewide and develop a train-the-trainer program.” In addition, 

a respondent in New Mexico reported: 

 This effort has taken about two years to date. We expect 

 the pilot to take at least another two or three years. 

Finally, a respondent in Maine—Early Learning Standards reported: 

 The Department of Education developed one domain at a time 

and then the various child development service (CDS) sites refined 

each domain. In addition, they used some regional child development staff. 

The process has taken five years, one year for each domain. The physical domain, however, 

was developed two years in a row. 

Documents, theories, and standards consulted during CBO standards development. The 

research team was interested in identifying what theories, approaches, standards, and other 

documents were consulted in the CBO standards development process. Table IV-4 indicates that 

states consulted a myriad of materials when asked, “Are your state-level agency/organization’s 

early learning standards based on a particular view, theory of learning, conceptual framework, 

and/or research base?” Specifically, states developing CBO standards consulted developmental 

theories, national early childhood standards, NEGP’s dimensions of readiness, and Head Start’s 

Performance Standards, as well as assessment tools and curricula. 
 56

Table IV-4 

Documents, Theories, and Standards Consulted During the CBO Standards Development Process 

State NEGP Head 

Start 

Developmental 

Theorists 

NAEYC’s 

DAP 

Assessment 

or 

Curricula 

State’s 

Own 

Standards 

K–12 

National 

Standards/ 

Framework 

Arkansas X X X X X 

California X X X X X 

Colorado X X X X 

Connecticut X X X X X X 

Florida X X X X X X 

Georgia X X X X 

Illinois X X X 

Louisiana X X X X X 

Maine 

Learning Results 

Early Learning Results

 X X X 

Maryland X X X 

Massachusetts X X X 

Michigan X X X 

Minnesota X X X X X 

Mississippi X X X 

Missouri X X X X 

New Jersey X X 

New Mexico X X X 

New York X 

Ohio X 

Oklahoma X X 

Pennsylvania X X X X 

Rhode Island X X X X 

South Carolina X X X X X 

Texas X 

Utah X X X 

Vermont X X X X X 

Washington 

ECEAP 

OSPI 

X X 

X 

X 

X X 

X 

X 

Total 7 9 20 21 12 28 4 

Table IV-4 illustrates that 22 of the 27 states consulted the work of developmental theorists, and 20 

of the respondents specifically referenced NAEYC’s document, Developmentally Appropriate 

Practice in Early Childhood Programs. Seven of the 27 states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, 

Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington—ECEAP) reported consulting NEGP’s 

developmental domains, and seven of the states (Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Rhode 
 57

Island, Vermont, and Washington—ECEAP and OSPI) consulted Head Start’s Performance 

Standards. Not surprisingly, all 27 states consulted their own states’ standards for K–12, while three 

states (Maryland, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina) consulted other national frameworks or 

standards—in particular math and science standards. Thus, as Table IV-4 reveals, although states 

may not have directly modeled their early learning standards on another theory or assessment tool, 

participants in the standards development process did, in fact, consult other materials and “best 

practices.” 

Another important dimension of this discussion is how other materials, approaches, and theories 

influenced the orientation of states’ early learning standards. Of the seven states reporting the 

consultation of NEGP’s developmental domains, six (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, 

Minnesota, and Washington—ECEAP) produced CBO standards rated as primarily developmental. 

Of the seven states where respondents indicated standards developers consulted Head Start’s 

Performance Standards, three (Louisiana, Maine, and Vermont) produced primarily academically 

oriented standards. These findings are not surprising in light of the developmental orientation of 

both these national early learning standards. In addition, three states (Maryland, Pennsylvania, and 

South Carolina) reported consulting national K–12 standards. Each of these states developed CBO 

standards that are primarily academic in orientation.

The influence of other states’ CBO standards. The research team was also interested in the 

degree to which CBO standards developers consulted other CBO standards documents. As shown in 

Table IV-5, 18 of the 27 states with CBO standards reported reviewing other states’ early learning 

standards, while 10 states reported not reviewing other states’ early learning standards. Washington 

has two sets of standards: ECEAP consulted other states’ standards, while OSPI did not. Ohio’s 

standards document, Connections...An Early Childhood Education Curriculum Framework for 

Continuity, noted that their standards 

began as the British Columbia Ministry of Education Primary Program 

that was adapted and reorganized by the Iowa and Nebraska Departments 

of Education. 

Similarly, Louisiana’s Standards for Programs Serving Four-Year-Old Children reported that its 

Guiding Principles are modeled directly after Connecticut’s. In most cases, however, other states’ 

standards and documents were used as points of reference and consulted for general content 

purposes but not for purposes of direct alignment and modeling. 
 58

Table IV-5 

Other States’ CBO Standards Used as Resources in the Development Process 

State Did not

consult 

other 

states’ 

standards 

Consulted 

other 

states’ 

standards 

Consulted 

International 

Standards 

Arkansas X 

California X 

Colorado X 

Connecticut X X 

Florida X 

Georgia X 

Illinois X 

Louisiana X 

Maine 

Learning Results 

Early Learning 

Results

 X 

Maryland X 

Massachusetts X 

Michigan X X 

Minnesota X 

Mississippi X 

Missouri X 

New Jersey X 

New Mexico X 

New York X 

Ohio X X 

Oklahoma X 

Pennsylvania X 

Rhode Island X 

South Carolina X 

Texas X 

Utah X 

Vermont X 

Washington 

ECEAP 

OSPI X 

X 

Total 10 18 3 

Connecticut’s Preschool Curriculum Framework & Benchmarks for Children in Preschool 

Programs was identified by six states (Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Rhode Island, and 

Vermont) as a state CBO standards document that was consulted during the development process. 
 59

Four respondents (Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, and Rhode Island) cited Minnesota’s Early 

Childhood Indicators of Progress: A Resource Guide. Three respondents (Florida, Louisiana, and 

Maryland) cited California’s Desired Results for Children and Families as a useful resource. In fact, 

Florida described California’s Desired Results as “the most advanced in terms of process and 

thinking.” 

Respondents from a few states indicated that developers within their states had looked beyond the 

United States for examples of CBO standards. Connecticut, Michigan, and Ohio consulted British 

Columbia’s early learning standards. In addition, Michigan consulted New Zealand’s early learning 

standards. 

Funding CBO standards development. As demonstrated in Table IV-6, a variety of funding 

sources were used to finance states’ CBO standards, including federal funds, state dollars, and 

private dollars such as grants from foundations or corporations. Twenty-three of the 27 states 

reported receiving funding from state agencies and departments, in particular state departments of 

education. Specifically, respondents reported the use of “state dollars” (which may overlap with 

federal dollars, including Title I and Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG) funds). 

In addition to state department of education funds, four states (California, Colorado, Minnesota, and 

Rhode Island) reported using CCDBG funds. Interestingly, these states’ CBO standards were rated 

as primarily developmental in orientation. Furthermore, data revealed that utilization of other 

federal funds, including IDEA, Title I, Even Start, and Special Education, also yielded CBO 

standards rated as primarily developmental. This was true in Connecticut, Maine, and Missouri. The 

exception is Louisiana. Although Louisiana used federal funding, including Special Education and 

Title I, in addition to some state early childhood development funds, the state’s CBO standards were 

rated as primarily academic in orientation. 

Table IV-6 

Funding Sources 

State Federal: 

CCDBG 

Federal: 

IDEA 

Federal: 

Other 

State Private Notes 

Arkansas X AECC 

California X X 

Colorado Title 1, Even 

Start 

Connecticut X X 

Florida X X Readiness 

Partnership 

Board 

Georgia 

 

 X 

Illinois X 

Louisiana Spec. Ed; Title 

I

X X 

Maine 

Learning Results 

Early Learning Results

 X X 
 60

State Federal: 

CCDBG 

Federal: 

IDEA 

Federal: 

Other 

State Private Notes 

Maryland X 

Massachusetts X 

Michigan X 

Minnesota X X 

Mississippi X 

Missouri Some Head 

Start funds 

X 

New Jersey X 

New Mexico X 

New York X no 

special $ 

 

Ohio X 

Oklahoma X 

Pennsylvania PEEN State 

legislature 

Rhode Island X X 

South Carolina X 

Texas X 

Utah X 

Vermont 

Washington 

ECAP 

OSPI

 

X 

X 

 

Total 3 2 3 24 4 

AECC – Arkansas Early Childhood Commission 

PEEN - Partnership for Educational Excellence Network 

 

New York, Utah, and Vermont reported that no specific money was earmarked for this effort. These 

states’ respondents reported that the process of convening and developing standards was viewed as 

“part of their job,” and fiscal support came from the general operating budgets of their respective 

departments of education. 

Summary of Findings Related to the CBO Standards Development Process 

States with CBO standards consistently reported that defining and developing standards is an 

inclusive process, requiring teamwork and consensus-building both inside and outside the early 

childhood community. In most instances, the standards development process began with a 

“visionary,” an individual or state-level agency responsible for incepting the standards. The inceptor 

typically partnered with other organizations and opened the process to input from different 

constituencies. The leadership role of state departments of education figures prominently in our 

discussion, particularly in states with officially adopted or endorsed standards. Having looked at the 

CBO standards development process for states that had CBO standards in place, we now turn to a 

discussion of the developmental process in states that were working toward CBO standards at the 

time of the interview. 
 61

SECTION V: DEVELOPING STANDARDS—THE REMAINING STATES 

In the previous section of this report, we discussed states that had completed their standards. In this 

section, we turn to two different groups of states; first, those states that have made a commitment to 

standards and are currently in the process of developing them, and second, those states that, at the 

time of the study, had not embarked on the process. We examined these in-process states for several 

purposes. First, we were interested in discerning if the patterns established in the states where the 

standards have been completed differ from those within states that are currently developing CBO 

standards. For example, were they motivated by the same forces? Did their work evolve with 

similar foci and emphases? Did they relate to departments of education in similar ways? How were 

the standards related to K–12 standards? Second, we were interested to see if the in-process states 

learned from the states that have completed their work. Was the process streamlined? Did the inprocess states adapt or adopt pre-existing standards? 

For the second group of states—those where standards are not in evidence—we were anxious to 

learn what factors might have led them not to focus on standards development, what if anything 

might have motivated them to develop CBO standards, and what other early childhood initiatives 

were evidenced in these states. 

The In-Process States 

As noted in Section III, 12 states plus Washington, DC report efforts currently underway to develop 

standards for children’s learning prior to kindergarten entry. As shown in Table V-1, these inprocess states include Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, 

Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Recall that in-process states were defined 

as those where a CBO standards document was not available for review but where the state has an 

initiative in place to develop CBO standards—an official work group has been formed to study the 

issue and develop recommendations and/or CBO standards. 

Status of In-Process States 

As one might expect, the 13 in-process states are at very different stages in their standards’ 

development efforts. In view of the wide variability, the research team created a continuum to 

further classify the states. The criteria for each of the three categories within the continuum follow. 

Categories of In-Process States’ Status 

A. Advanced States. States that are “furthest along” in developing CBO standards. These 

states did not have a finalized draft available for review but are in the very final stages of 

developing a document. 

B. Progressing States. States that are “far along” in developing CBO standards. The 

progressing states have been engaged in the CBO standards development process and have 

made progress toward a draft document. They were, however, not in the final stages of 

completing their document.
 62

C. Beginning States. States that are at the “very beginning” phase of developing CBO 

standards. The states categorized as “beginning states” were engaged in the first phase of 

conceptualizing and defining CBO standards.

Table V-1 

Status of In-Process States 

Advanced Progressing Beginning 

Arizona Kentucky Delaware 

Indiana Nevada Hawaii 

Washington, DC Tennessee North Carolina 

Wyoming Virginia Oregon 

 Wisconsin 

 

Advanced states. As shown in Table V-1, Arizona, Indiana, Washington, DC, and Wyoming 

are the furthest along in developing CBO standards. At the time of the interview, Arizona had 

developed and finalized CBO standards, titled Early Childhood Education Standards, in four 

developmental domains including language and literary, math, social/emotional, and physical. In 

addition to these standards, Arizona respondents reported that the state is currently engaged in 

developing CBO standards for science and the arts. They intend to publish these standards as a 

group and to have them available for programs in July, 2003. Arizona reported:

 Drafts of the standards have gone to 13 focus groups across the 

 state. We have received input from parents to educators. Next 

we need to go to an editor and have them translated [into Spanish] 

and then have them printed. 

At the time of the interview, Indiana was also very close to completing its CBO standards and 

having its document available to the public. Entitled Foundations for Young Children to the Indiana 

Academic Standards, this document representing six content areas—language arts, math, science, 

social studies, physical education and health, and visual arts and music—has been finalized and 

piloted in 50 diverse locations around the state. Referring to the standards as Foundations, a 

respondent from Indiana reported: 

The Foundations have been piloted in public special needs preschool 

classrooms, Head Start classrooms, faith-based preschools, family 

day care, center-based care, and also with parents. We would like to see 

the Foundations made available to and used in any situation where an adult (and not just a 

teacher or parent) is interacting with a three-, four-, or young five-year-old. 

Data revealed that the standards development process for states categorized as “advanced” was 

similar in many respects to states with CBO standards. For example, the process was characterized 

as highly inclusive and states reported their CBO standards linking to K–12 standards, as well as 
 63

school readiness initiatives. In addition, the content areas of standards were broadly defined and 

appeared to include a broad range of developmental domains. 

Similar to responses from individuals in states with CBO standards, respondents from Arizona and 

Indiana described their processes as highly inclusive and embracing input from a variety of 

stakeholders, including parents. In addition, both states broadly conceived their states’ standards to 

include content areas beyond literacy and mathematics. Data also revealed that, consistent with 

states having CBO standards, Indiana and Arizona reported that their CBO standards are linked to 

K–12; however, Indiana wanted to create a more “user-friendly document”: 

The state legislature had mandated K–12 standards, and we felt that we needed a more userfriendly document. We (Division of Prime Time and the Division of Exceptional Learners) 

started to develop the foundations. (We felt if we didn’t begin designing the foundations, the 

state legislature would eventually mandate standards.) 

A respondent from the District of Columbia also reported that the content area of its standards is 

broadly defined to include language and early literacy, mathematics, science, social studies, fine 

arts, health and safety, personal and social development, physical development, and technology 

applications and world languages. The CBO standards have been developed for three- to five-yearolds and are based on the National Education Goals Panel conception of school readiness. 

Washington, DC’s process for developing CBO standards was highly inclusive. It has had a “draft” 

document since 2000, and at the time of the data collection, the CBO standards had yet to be 

formally named. 

Similar to Washington, DC, Wyoming’s standards were still unnamed at the time of the interview, 

yet the state had made significant progress in the CBO development process. Wyoming’s early 

learning standards are similar to the eight content areas used in Head Start. Respondents from 

Wyoming reported that they used Head Start’s Outcome Frameworks as they “link[ed] best with our 

state’s K–12 standards.” In addition, Wyoming expressed a linkage to school readiness outcomes 

especially for programs targeting children at risk and children with disabilities. 

As with the other in-process states, Wyoming’s process for defining and developing CBO standards 

was highly inclusive: 

 The Council [Wyoming Early Childhood Development Council] 

 started the process through the Early Care and Education Committee. 

 We decided that the department of education would lead up the effort for 

 the Early Learning Standards Task Force. We created a task force 

representing early childhood interests in all areas of the state, and in all 

the state’s agencies. 

Progressing states. As noted in Table V-1, Kentucky, Nevada, Tennessee, and Virginia have 

been classified as progressing states. Each is progressing, however, in slightly different ways. 

Kentucky is working on an initiative to develop two sets of standards. Specifically, Kentucky 

reported developing learning indicators for children from birth to age four, in addition to standards 
 64

for children ages four to five (the pre-K year before entering kindergarten). These latter CBO 

standards will be directly linked to the state’s K–12 standards. The Kentucky Department of 

Education convened a work group to develop standards, benchmarks, a developmental continuum 

for each benchmark, and example behaviors for each step within the developmental continuum for 

children ages four to five. At the time of the interview, however, none of these documents were 

available for review: 

 At the very least, the standards and benchmarks, if not the 

 developmental continuum, will be completed by June [2002]. 

 The completed sections will then be given to those state early 

 childhood professionals who volunteer to review them. Nationally 

 recognized early childhood experts will also be asked to review 

 the document. 

In Nevada, the legislature mandated one indicator related to young children’s achievement 

outcomes—that 70% of children attending Even Start programs will increase their score on the 

Preschool Language Score III (PLSIII). The Nevada Department of Education has led a process 

whereby the state has developed strategies to adopt the language indicators on the PLSIII for 

programs receiving state funds. At the time of the interview, respondents indicated that Nevada was 

now looking at developing CBO standards across developmental domains. The Department of 

Education has taken the lead in the development process to date, although additional input from 

other stakeholders was described as “ideal” for efforts to develop CBO standards for other 

developmental domains. 

Tennessee reported that efforts are underway to develop CBO standards for three- and four-year-old 

children, with the state department of education taking the lead. As in some of the states with CBO 

standards in place, the process will begin with a limited number of developmental domains: 

The lead agency is the State Department of Education. Our family literacy consortium is 

working directly on developing these early learning standards. We are not working on 

standards for infants and toddlers. The department of education only serves three to fours in 

our preschool effort. We have just revised our reading and math standards K−8 and are now 

working on doing the same research-based standards for three- and four-year-olds. We are 

primarily looking at emergent reading and math—as we are getting pressure to look at these 

two areas first—yet we are also looking at other domains of development such as 

social/emotional development. 

Tennessee described the standards development process as highly collaborative and inclusive: 

 We are collaborating with Head Start, Tennessee Education Association, 

 Tennessee’s AEYC, and Even Start. We are interested in creating 

 a seamless program between early childhood and elementary. 

Similarly, respondents from Virginia described the process for developing CBO standards as highly 

inclusive: 
 65

This effort is happening out of the state’s Department of Instruction. 

We are in the process of asking three specialists from different universities 

to look at our plan for their comment and review. And as they see fit, they will be adding 

and deleting. Next, we will bring their recommendations to a panel of 20 early childhood 

educators representing different programs, including Head Start, public schools, and 

Virginia’s Pre-school Initiative for at-risk four-year-olds. This group will help to write 

specific activities for teacher instruction addressing what at-risk four-year-olds will need to 

know in the classroom. 

Data revealed that the standards development process for “progressing” states is in some ways 

similar to that of “advanced” states. For example, with the exception of Nevada, both categories of 

states reported the standards development process as highly collaborative and inclusive. In contrast 

with advanced states, however, progressing states tended to describe their CBO standards as 

beginning with a more narrow focus in terms of the developmental domains that will be covered. It 

is interesting to note, however, that similar to states with CBO standards, both categories of inprocess states reported that their development processes include efforts to ensure that the CBO 

standards are linked to the K–12 education standards. 

Beginning states. As illustrated in Table V-1, Delaware, Hawaii, North Carolina, Oregon, 

and Wisconsin are at the beginning or conceptual stage of the standards development process. 

Delaware reported that it has taken steps toward developing CBO standards; at the time of the 

interview, however, the state appeared to have more of an interest in developing program standards: 

Discussion about early learning standards has been introduced by the 

department of education, but not extensively. Current interest is with program standards. A 

draft of program standards has been developed. 

Another respondent from Delaware reported: 

We are about to enter into a contract with a consultant to establish performance indicators 

for preschool over the next year [2002]. Initially, these standards will be just for four-yearolds. The state department of education will fund this initiative with some money from 

Special Education. We hope that this process will be completed by the end of 2002. 

Similarly, Hawaii is still in the discussion phase of the standards development process. Respondents 

in both Delaware and Hawaii reported that their states were interested in developing program 

standards prior to developing child-based outcome standards. A respondent in Hawaii reported: 

Hawaii has focused on developing program standards for its pre-kindergarten population 

three to five. Their School Readiness Task Force, however, is responsible for developing the 

“standards” component of the “Pre-Plus” Program and, toward that end, has convened a subcommittee that is charged with developing early learning standards—child outcomes—for 

children ages three to five years of age. The Task Force intends to use the child outcomes 

developed by the sub-committee to help analyze childcare settings and to help determine 

weaknesses in childcare curricula and programs. 
 66

North Carolina is also at the beginning stages of this process and is planning to develop CBO 

standards, in addition to program quality standards, for pre-kindergarten programs beginning in 

September, 2002: 

The Department of Public Instruction will have the lead in the process. They anticipate that 

the process will include input from a variety of stakeholders within the state, including early 

childhood programs, higher education, and the K–12 community. They will convene a statelevel committee to work on the standards and use a focus group process to collect input from 

stakeholders in the community. The program standards will likely build upon program 

standards developed for the new More at Four pre-K program. The standards would apply to 

the More at Four program, as well as all state-funded pre-kindergarten programs. 

A respondent in Oregon reported that the process of developing CBO standards is occurring within 

the context of developing and measuring children’s school readiness skills based on the National 

Education Goals Panel’s document, Ready to Learn Goals: 

 In the past seven months [since May, 2001] the department of education 

has been developing a very preliminary draft that is intended to align 

early childhood standards with Oregon’s content and curriculum standards, 

and particularly with the benchmarks for math and literacy in the third grade. 

At the time of the interview, Oregon reported having adopted Head Start’s Outcome and 

Performance Standards; however, the state is currently moving beyond the conceptualization phase 

and into development: 

At this time, preschool standards for state-funded preschools use the 

Head Start Outcome and Performance Standards. But there is definitely discussion “on the 

table,” across the state, and across agencies to develop statewide preschool benchmarks and 

appropriate assessment tools. 

Finally, an individual from Wisconsin reported that it is considering conceptualizing CBO standards 

as part of the Indicators Project. Wisconsin is one of 14 states participating in this project funded by 

the Ford and Packard Foundations to develop school-age readiness indicators. Although the grant is 

not focusing on state-level CBO standards, Wisconsin suggested that the Indicators Project will 

provide an opportunity to at least think about the process: 

We are just starting on this process. Rhode Island is the lead state on this grant. It is too 

early, however, to see how this is going to work. We are also not sure if the indicators will 

be child-based outcomes. 

Time Frame for Expected Completion of CBO Standards in In-Process States 

Respondents were asked to project when their states might complete their current CBO standards 

development processes. Table V-2 shows the projected time frames that were provided. 
 67

Table V-2 

Estimated Time Frames for Completion of CBO Standards for In-Process States 

State Expected 

Completion/ 

Finalization 

Date 

Arizona 2003 

Delaware 2002 

Hawaii ND 

Indiana 2002 

Kentucky 

 Birth – 4 

 Pre-K: 4 – 5 

2002 

2002 

Nevada ND 

North Carolina ND 

Oregon ND 

Tennessee ND 

Virginia 2002 

Washington, DC ND 

Wisconsin ND 

Wyoming 2002 

ND – no date reported 

As indicated in Table V-2, respondents from five of the 12 in-process states expected that their 

states would finalize CBO standards documents by the end of 2002. These states include Delaware, 

Indiana, Kentucky, Virginia, and Wyoming. Arizona respondents projected that their CBO 

standards would be completed in 2003. Respondents in the remaining six states (Hawaii, Nevada, 

North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, and Wisconsin) plus Washington, DC indicated that while the 

process of developing CBO standards was underway, they could not project expected dates of 

completion. For example, Washington, DC reported that its CBO standards have been in draft form 

for two years and could not predict when they would be available to the public. These data suggest 

that within a relatively short period of time, the majority of states will have CBO standards in place. 

State Departments of Education: Inceptors and Facilitators of CBO Standards Development 

Data revealed that nine of the 13 in-process states (Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky 

(Pre-K), Nevada, Oregon, Tennessee, and Wyoming), or 69%, identified state departments of 

education as “lead agents” or facilitators in defining and developing CBO standards. (Hawaii, 

however, described the development process as a partnership, with two distinct entities—Hawaii’s 

Department of Education and the School Readiness Task Forcetaking the lead.) As shown in 

Tables IV-1 and IV-2, 22 of the 27 states with standards, or 81%, reported state departments of 

education as the lead agent responsible for facilitating the standards development process. Based on 

this analysis of in-process states, it appears that similar to states with CBO standards, state 
 68

departments of education continue to assume primary responsibility in promoting the development 

of state-level CBO standards. 

Similar to states with CBO standards, respondents of in-process states described their state 

departments of education as both inceptors and facilitators in the standards development process. 

Recalling that, inceptors are defined as an individual or group responsible for initiating or 

introducing the standards development process at the state-level, and facilitators are defined as 

“lead agents.” Simply put, state departments of education were viewed as both visionaries and 

agents who made this process happen. 

Table V-3 

Lead Agency for In-Process States 

State Lead 

Agency 

Arizona DOE 

Delaware DOE 

Hawaii DOE/SRTF 

Indiana DOE 

Kentucky 

 Birth – 4 

 Pre-K: 4 – 5 

OG 

DOE 

Nevada DOE 

North Carolina DPI 

Oregon DOE 

Tennessee DOE 

Virginia DOI 

Washington, DC OM 

Wisconsin DWFD 

Wyoming DOE 

DOE: State Department of Education 

DOI: State Department of Instruction 

DPI: State Department of Public Instruction 

DWFD: State Department of Work Force Development 

OG: Office of the Governor 

OM: Office of the Mayor 

SRTF: School Readiness Task Force 

Respondents in Hawaii, Kentucky, and Wyoming, however, reported their state initiatives had been 

initiated in their governors’ offices. Based on the data, one can hypothesize that some state 

governors’ staff not only served as lead agents in the development process but also as inceptors. 

Hawaii reported that the School Readiness Task Force is comprised of both the State Department of 

Education and the Office of the Governor. In Wyoming, an early childhood council was created out 

of the governor’s office: 
 69

A council was put together called the Wyoming Early Childhood 

Development Council. The council is a governor’s appointed 

group including the state’s department of education, department 

of family services, department of health, as well as other 

representatives from other early childhood groups in the state 

including Head Start. 

Kentucky (Birth−4), however, presents a different scenario. The governor’s office assumed the role 

of lead agent, while the “inspiration” to develop CBO standards emanated from the state department 

of education: 

The Governor’s Office for Early Childhood is the lead agency for the Birth−4 work group. 

The creation of this initiative within the executive branch was inspired by the Kentucky 

Department of Education convening a work group to discuss developing standards and 

benchmarks for children age four to five. 

In Washington, DC, the Office of Early Childhood Development is located within the Office of the 

Mayor. Hence, staff members in the Mayor’s Office were responsible for both incepting and 

facilitating the process. Specifically, a respondent from the Office of Early Childhood Development 

reported: 

The process was started as a result of the Mayor’s designation of the Office of Early 

Childhood Development as the lead agency to develop appropriate standards and materials 

to ensure that children enter school ready to learn. 

Partners in Developing CBO Standards 

Data revealed that a wide variety of individuals and agencies were involved in the standards 

development process. These individuals or groups were reported as “partnering” with the state’s 

lead agent or agency. 

Table V-4 

Partners in Developing Standards 

State Local 

School 

Districts 

Dept. of 

Social 

Services/ 

Human 

Services 

Dept. of 

Special 

Ed. 

Higher 

Education 

Parents External 

Consultants 

Other 

Arizona X X Family literacy 

Delaware X 

Hawaii X X Business 

statewide 

partnership 

Indiana X X X X X 

Kentucky X X 

Nevada X X 
 70

State Local 

School 

Districts 

Dept. of 

Social 

Services/ 

Human 

Services 

Dept. of 

Special 

Ed. 

Higher 

Education 

Parents External 

Consultants 

Other 

North 

Carolina 

X X X 

Oregon X 

Tennessee X Even Start 

Virginia X X 

Washington, 

DC 

X X X 

Wisconsin Information not 

reported 

Wyoming Dept. of 

Health; 

Dept. of 

Family 

Services 

 

Total 8 1 3 7 3 2 

As shown in Table V-4, the process of developing CBO standards tended to be highly participatory, 

involving partners both inside and outside the early childhood community. Similar to states with 

developed CBO standards, lead agents of in-process states tended to seek partners representing a 

broad spectrum of stakeholders. Arizona reported: 

It was critically important that the team be diverse—geographically and programmatically—

as it was hoped that the process would not only strengthen but also help to de-fragmentize 

the early childhood community. 

Respondents reported that representatives from the early childhood community typically included 

administrators and practitioners from Head Start, public and private preschools, child care, and 

representatives from states’ AEYCs. In addition, as shown in Table V-4, participation also included 

the involvement of state departments (other than state departments of education), including 

departments of social services, departments of human services, and departments of special 

education. In addition, data revealed the participation of local school districts, higher education, and 

parents. 

In this group of in-process states, local school districts were cited as important partners in the 

standards development process. As shown in Table V-4, 7 of the 13 states, including Washington, 

DC, reported local school districts as active participants in the process of developing and reviewing 

draft documents of the states’ child-based outcome standards. In view of the link between early 

learning standards and K–12, this finding is not surprising. 

Finally, as discussed earlier, most of the states reported building on existing K–12 initiatives to 

better prepare their states’ preschool children to meet the K–12 standards. 
 71

Funding CBO Standards Development in the In-Process States 

Similar to states that have developed CBO standards, as demonstrated in Table V-5, a variety of 

funding sources were used to develop states’ CBO standards, including federal funds, state dollars, 

and private dollars. Seven of the 12 states plus Washington, DC reported funding from state 

agencies and departments, in particular state departments of education. As noted in the prior section, 

although respondents reported the use of “state dollars,” these dollars may in fact overlap with 

federal dollars, including Title 1 and Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG) funds. North 

Carolina expected to receive funding from the state, in addition to Title I money for this process. 

Table V-5 

Funding Sources for In-Process States

State Federal: 

CCDBG 

Federal: 

IDEA 

Federal: 

Other 

State Private Other 

Arizona Even Start X 

Delaware Spec. Ed. 

Hawaii School Readiness 

Task Force 

volunteering time 

Indiana Spec. Ed. X X 

Kentucky X 

Nevada DOE staff 

volunteering time 

North Carolina Title 1 X 

Oregon X 

Tennessee DOE staff 

volunteering time 

Virginia X State Pre-School 

Initiative 

Washington, DC X Office of Early 

Childhood 

Development 

Wisconsin X 

Wyoming X Telecommunications 

network 

Total 0 0 4 7 2 

Respondents in Hawaii, Nevada, and Tennessee reported that no specific money was earmarked for 

their states to develop CBO standards. Respondents in these states reported that individuals 

involved in the process of defining and developing CBO standards were doing so as part of their job 

responsibilities. Participating in this process was viewed as something extra, yet something they 

wanted to do. Specifically, a respondent from Tennessee reported: 

There is no direct funding for this effort. The early childhood 

community is very committed to this effort, and everyone is 

giving of their own time. 
 72

In addition, a respondent from Hawaii reported: 

 There is no early childhood outcomes “initiative” at this time. The 

School Readiness Task Force and sub-committee are comprised 

of volunteers from the represented agencies and organizations. 

Wyoming reported that its state department of education had not earmarked funds to develop CBO 

standards; however, the state department of education paid for some of the follow-up conference 

costs: 

 No funds were earmarked to develop the early learning standards. 

People participated in this initiative through WEN (Wyoming Equality Network), a 

telecommunication network linking all public high schools 

throughout the state. The video processing is free, and the main 

site is at the department of education. Through this process we 

were able to link up groups of people throughout the state. 

Data revealed that in-process states received the preponderance of their funding to develop CBO 

standards from state departments of education. It is interesting to note, however, that the process of 

defining and developing CBO standards often depended on the good will of state-level staff, in 

addition to other members of the early childhood community—both individuals and organizations. 

Status of States Not In Process 

As shown in Table III-1 of the study, 11 states (Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, 

Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and West Virginia) are categorized as not 

having CBO standards and not currently engaged in the process of developing CBO standards. Data 

from respondents revealed a variety of reasons for not having CBO standards or being in the 

process of developing them, with the range including practical, political, and philosophical 

rationales. Data also indicated that, while not involved in the CBO standards development process, 

these states did have a variety of early childhood initiatives underway. This is important, given the 

data from states with CBO standards that indicate pre-existing early childhood initiatives often laid 

the groundwork for the standards development process. The following vignettes illustrate the 

reasons these states have not engaged in the CBO standards development process and the kinds of 

early childhood initiatives in which these states are currently involved. 

Factors That Might Influence States That Have Not Begun a CBO Standards Development Process 

In an effort to discern what factors might have influenced states that have not begun a CBO 

standards development process, the research team studied the responses to the question about 

whether any CBO activities had been initiated in an attempt to extract themes that might account for 

the absence of CBO standards development activities. Three primary themes emerged: practical 

reasons for not having begun a CBO standards process, political reasons, and philosophical reasons. 

Practical reasons. Several states without standards indicated that they are indeed doing 

work in the standards area but at the time of the interview had not gotten very far in the process. 
 73

Others focused on a different kind of standards, most notably program standards. Both groups 

indicated that these foci were prerequisites to developing child-based outcome standards. For 

example, Alabama reported that in spite of its “fragmented system,” it has taken some steps toward 

articulating a definition of early learning standards: 

[T]he articulation of a state definition of early learning standards is still in process. 

There is still not a concerted, organized effort where all departments have a single, 

simple definition for standards for all children. State subsidized childcare is handled 

by the Department of Human Resources. The Department of Education handles 

kindergarten. Then we have a separate department for children’s affairs. We have 

three separate streams although they are all talking to each other.

Data in the survey revealed that six of the 11 states reporting no CBO standards (Alaska, Iowa, 

Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, and West Virginia) indicated an interest in and process for developing 

program standards. For example, Alaska reported that it is currently exploring ways to define and 

develop preschool program standards. Respondents reported that the state has not begun the process 

of developing CBO standards from birth through preschool; however, there are standards for 

school-age children, in addition to kindergarteners: 

The Department of Education and Early Development in Alaska has 

developed the Kindergarten Developmental Profile to assess how “prepared” 

children are once they have entered kindergarten. In the conception and design 

of the Kindergarten Developmental Profile, both Even Start indicators and 

Head Start child outcomes were considered. 

Kansas reported having developed program and readiness standards but not CBO standards: 

Kansas has an early childhood readiness task force that started two 

years ago. As a group, we have defined standards in relation to the 

community, school, family, and child by looking at indicators of 

conditions of readiness such as poverty level, health, parenting, and 

opportunities for children, etc. We have prepared a definition of 

readiness and the guiding principles tie to our program standards 

called “Early Childhood Quality Standards.” 

Data revealed that three states (Nebraska, North Dakota, and West Virginia) reported an interest in 

implementing Head Start’s Performance Standards at the state level. North Dakota reported: 

North Dakota’s Head Start Collaboration has assumed 

responsibility in developing preschool measures and is currently 

working with the state’s Head Start Association. Our next step is 

to develop measures for children from birth through age three. 

West Virginia has been focusing on developing program standards for four-year-olds in addition to 

implementing Head Start’s Performance Standards: 
 74

[N]ew legislation...mandates program standards for four-year-olds....The 

new standards will be for curriculum, preparing students, attendance, and 

personnel. 

Finally, some states have placed their priorities for their efforts elsewhere. A respondent from 

Montana reported that the state is currently working on its accreditation system through a tieredreimbursement system for child care providers serving state subsidized children. Perhaps these 

states will at some point begin working on CBO standards, but for now, their energy seems focused 

on other elements of promoting quality early childhood programming and instruction. 

Political reasons. Some states offer sound political reasons for not becoming engaged in the 

development of CBO standards. In these states, most often strong local control prevails, and there is 

strong sentiment against state intrusion into local affairs generally. The lack of CBO standards may 

be a manifestation of that commitment to local control. Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota are 

good examples of this. A respondent from Iowa reported: 

Iowa is historically a state that has strong local control. I do not think 

we will ever have mandated statewide early learning and developmental 

standards for children. In Iowa, we do have program accreditation 

standards and requirements for teachers’ certification program 

standards...“outcomes” cannot be mandated for state-funded early childhood 

programs....[They]would have to be voluntary. 

And from North Dakota: 

 As North Dakota is a county and locally driven state, any effort to 

 define early learning standards will probably have to come from our 

 early childhood advocates at the grass roots level. If, however, advocates 

 came to the governor requesting that the state begin to explore this 

 issue, then perhaps the early childhood community would respond 

 favorably to a “top-down” initiative. 

Similarly, South Dakota attributes its lack of state-level CBO standards to the fact that it is a locally 

controlled state: 

There is a group of us that have been meeting informally to discuss early 

childhood issues, and in particular preschool for all of South Dakota’s 

children. We have talked a little about the standards issue but are currently 

looking at a universal preschool for everyone and are trying to come up 

with a position statement. In South Dakota, we have no mandatory 

attendance, even until first grade. Some schools have a Title I 

preschool.... We are a local controlled state. 

Clearly the political climate and degree of local control within a state can impact the state’s decision 

whether or not to pursue the development of CBO standards. 
 75

Philosophical reasons. Some states are against standards for deep-seated philosophical 

reasons related to the potential negative consequences that standards might evoke. With respect to 

the philosophical disposition of some states, Nebraska reported: 

We have no right to measure child outcomes until the proper systems 

supports are in place. The state has no plans to go beyond where we are. 

We continue to invite people to look at Head Start’s performance 

standards and invite others to look at good assessment tools. 

A respondent from Idaho reported that at one time a task force was convened to look at developing 

preschool standards, but the results were “inconclusive.” At the time of the interview, Idaho’s 

Department of Education was working on school-age state standards for K–12, but not for 

preschool. 

A respondent in New Hampshire reported, “the State of New Hampshire is not currently involved in 

defining early learning.” In addition, the respondent stated: 

Our public schools don’t seem to recognize the role that social and emotional 

development plays in learning and reading readiness (three to five years of age). 

Observations Regarding States Without CBO Standards 

Data revealed that the standards development process for in-process states in many ways mirrored 

the process for states with published standards. For example, as shown in Table V-1, a 

preponderance of in-process states reported the dual function of state departments of education—as 

both inceptors and lead agents in the development of state-level CBO standards. In addition, similar 

to states with standards, most in-process states reported a highly inclusive standards development 

process with a variety of stakeholders represented in the effort, including early childhood, higher 

education, and the K–12 community. State-level committees were assembled to develop the 

standards and focus groups to collect input from the various stakeholders. In sum, states categorized 

as furthest along in developing CBO standards tended to report a similar process to those states 

classified with published CBO standards. 

States classified as having no standards, however, present an equally interesting story. Although 

these states are not currently involved in developing CBO standards, they are involved in a variety 

of other early childhood initiatives and activities. Given their focus on other early childhood 

initiatives and their tendency toward local control, the process of developing CBO standards may or 

may not be on the horizon for them. One factor—the Good Start, Grow Smart requirement that 

states develop voluntary early learning guidelines for child care providers—could perhaps lead 

these states to begin a CBO standards development process in the near future. 
 76

SECTION VI: IMPLEMENTATION OF AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

FOR CHILD-BASED OUTCOME STANDARDS 

Once the standards are developed and adopted, to have value for children, they must be 

implemented. The distance between development of standards and their actual use in programs is 

often a long, arduous road. Such is certainly the case with the implementation of the CBO 

standards. As noted, CBO standards vary tremendously in terms of the nature of the standards, the 

different ages of children to whom they apply, and the process by which they were developed. The 

implementation or use of the CBO standards is no less diverse. Nonetheless, examining how CBO 

standards are used is critical to understanding how standards are being manifest in the early care 

and education field. 

In organizing this chapter, we have elected to focus on several themes, all related to different 

aspects of implementation and use of the standards. Implementation is a multi-faceted process that 

takes into consideration whether or not the states require adherence to the standards and who is and 

is not required to implement them. It also relates to the stated or intended purposes of the standards, 

and how people become acquainted with and are prepared for the implementation of the standards. 

Finally, we also examine how programs are being held accountable for using the CBO standards. 

This chapter is therefore organized by the following themes: where and how CBO standards are 

intended to be used, the support that is provided to promote the use of the CBO standards, and the 

extent to which and how programs are held accountable for using the CBO standards. 

Where and How the CBO Standards Are Intended to Be Used 

The survey asked respondents to indicate where the CBO standards were intended to be used and 

the intended purpose for which the CBO standards were designed to be used. Data indicate that 

states have developed the CBO standards to be used primarily in publicly funded preschool 

programs, but they hope they will be used in other programs and for a wide variety of purposes. 

Programs Targeted With CBO Standards 

One of the first and most significant questions about the implementation of the standards is, “Where 

were the standards designed to be used?” As shown in Table VI-1, the answer clearly is that the 

standards have been developed for state-funded pre-kindergarten programs. Looking at both survey 

responses and the actual standards document for information about which programs were targeted, 

the research team determined that 22 of the 29 sets of standards were for the states’ publicly-funded 

early care and education programs, which in most cases are the states’ publicly funded prekindergarten programs (typically located, at least in part, in public schools) or school readiness 

programs. This finding is consistent with the earlier finding that the state departments of education 

were typically the lead agency in developing the standards. In fact, of the 22 standards developed 

for state-funded preschool programs, the state departments of education were the lead agency for 

17. In these cases, the state education agencies developed the CBO standards for the prekindergarten programs that they administer. 
 77

Table VI-1 

Programs Targeted With CBO Standards 

State Primary Target Program 

Arkansas State-funded pre-kindergarten programs 

California All state-subsidized child care programs 

Colorado Adult education and Even Start programs required; other statefunded early childhood programs expected to use them 

Connecticut Early childhood programs across the state 

Florida State-funded preschool programs 

Georgia State-funded Office of School Readiness programs 

Illinois State-funded preschool programs 

Louisiana Public school pre-kindergarten programs 

Maine Each regional child development site that implements IDEA for 

children ages 0−5 

Maryland Public school pre-kindergarten programs 

Massachusetts 

Learning Results 

 Early Learning 

 Results

School-based pre-kindergarten programs 

All state-funded preschools or preschools participating in the 

state preschool programCommunity Partnership for Children 

Michigan State-funded Michigan School Readiness Program 

Minnesota Available to all early childhood programs in the state 

Mississippi Public pre-K funded with Title I funds 

Missouri Available to any early childhood care and education program in 

the state 

New Jersey Pre-kindergarten programs in Abbott districts 

New Mexico State-funded pre-kindergarten programs 

New York Public school pre-kindergarten programs 

Ohio State-funded preschool programs 

Oklahoma State-funded pre-kindergarten programs 

Pennsylvania School-based pre-kindergarten programs 

Rhode Island Early childhood programs across the state 

South Carolina All school-based programs serving children ages 3−5 

Texas School-based pre-kindergarten programs 

Utah Early childhood programs and parents across the state 

Vermont School-based pre-kindergarten programs 

Washington 

 ECEAP 

 OSPI 

ECEAP early childhood programs 

Preschool programs within the state 

There were a few exceptions to the general pattern of the standards being developed for statefunded early care and education programs. Respondents from Colorado report that their state’s 

family literacy and Even Start programs were the target programs for the CBO standards. Colorado, 

however, expects that the CBO standards will be used in other state-funded early childhood 
 78

programs. Connecticut, Minnesota, Missouri, Rhode Island, Utah, and Washington—OSPI have 

broader target audiences for their standards. They report that the standards were developed for use 

in all early childhood programs across the state, including state-funded pre-kindergarten, private 

child cares programs, Head Start programs, and family child care homes, as well as parents in 

several cases. The intention in these states was to create a document that would be applicable in a 

wide array of settings, rather than one particular program. 

As noted in Section III, four states have standards that are applicable for infants and toddlers: 

California, Maine—Early Learning Results, New Mexico, and Washington—OSPI. In each of these 

states, the infant-toddler CBO standards are part of a continuum that covers birth through age five 

(or in the case of California, age 14). The pattern of the CBO standards being targeted at publicly 

funded programs is evident for this age range as well. In California, the CBO standards are 

applicable for publicly funded child care programs serving infants and toddlers (as well as older 

children). In Maine, the Early Learning Results were developed for publicly funded programs 

providing special education services, and in New Mexico and Washington, the standards are also 

applicable to publicly funded programs serving infants and toddlers, as well as preschool-age 

children. 

While only six states report that their standards were developed with the intention of having them 

used in early childhood programs across the state, the majority of states that developed standards for 

particular pre-kindergarten programs report that they hope the CBO standards will be used by other 

programs. States that developed the standards for particular programs typically planned to make 

their CBO standards available to other programs and early care and education settings. Respondents 

often mentioned that the standards were also disseminated to other settings, that training was 

provided for other programs, and that they hoped that teachers in settings outside of the publicly 

funded pre-kindergarten programs would use them. 

One respondent from Ohio notes, 

It is essential that all of our state-funded programs receive this information. The 

majority of children, however, are not within state-funded programs, but private 

preschool and family childcare. We need to get information out to these folks as 

well. 

Respondents consistently echoed a theme that indicated their states were, at minimum, making the 

standards available to Head Start, private, for-profit and non-profit, family child care, and other 

programs within the state. In some cases, such as Louisiana and Missouri, training and other 

resources, such as guidebooks, are also provided for programs other than the publicly funded prekindergarten programs. 

A few states (Georgia, Maine, Maryland, New York, and South Carolina) did not mention an 

intention to have the standards used in other programs. It should be noted, however, that the 

interview protocol simply asked where the standards were used and did not explicitly ask if the 

standards were available in other settings, so respondents may not have thought to provide that 

information. 
 79

How the CBO Standards Are Intended to Be Used 

The intended purposes of the CBO standards refer to the goals that the state hopes to achieve or 

how the state plans for the CBO standards to be used. The intended purposes, as reported by the 

participants and noted in the introduction sections of the standards documents, broke down into four 

broad, and somewhat overlapping, categories: (1) informing curriculum and instruction, (2) 

improving program quality, (3) improving children’s school readiness, and (4) providing a basis for 

instructional assessment (Table VI-2). A few words about the categories are in order. First, states 

often offered multiple purposes, and in some cases, the survey respondent may have emphasized 

particular purposes while the actual standards document discussed the same or other purposes. 

Second, references to intentions to improve student’s performance in the K–12 educational system 

are included in the school readiness category. Finally, a particular purpose had to be mentioned by 

at least two states to be created. There may have been other purposes mentioned by only one state 

that are not reflected in the table. 

Table VI-2 

Intended Purposes of CBO Standards 

Intended Purposes 

State 

Inform 

Curriculum 

& 

Instruction 

Improve 

Program 

Quality 

Improve 

School 

Readiness 

Provide a 

Basis for 

Instructional 

Assessments 

Arkansas X X X X 

California X X X X 

Colorado X X 

Connecticut X X 

Florida X X 

Georgia X X 

Illinois X 

Louisiana X X X 

Maine 

Learning Results 

Early Learning Results 

X 

X 

 

X X 

Maryland X 

Massachusetts X X 

Michigan X X X 

Minnesota X X 

Mississippi X 

Missouri X X X 

New Jersey X X X 

New Mexico X X 

New York X X 
 80

Intended Purposes 

State 

Inform 

Curriculum 

& 

Instruction 

Improve 

Program 

Quality 

Improve 

School 

Readiness 

Provide a 

Basis for 

Instructional 

Assessments 

Ohio X X 

Oklahoma X X 

Pennsylvania X X X 

Rhode Island X X X X 

S. Carolina X X 

Texas X X 

Utah X 

Vermont X X 

Washington 

ECEAP 

OSPI 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Total 29 11 13 14 

Inform Curriculum and Instruction 

Each of the 27 states indicated that at least one of the intended purposes of the CBO standards was 

to inform curriculum and instruction. The intention, in these cases, is that teachers would use the 

standards as a guide for planning curriculum—that teachers would plan activities and experiences to 

address the skills and characteristics included in the standards. A quote from the Washington—

OSPI document entitled A Framework for Achieving the Essential Academic Learning 

Requirements in Reading Writing Communication Birth to 5 Years illustrates how one state 

articulated this purpose of improving instruction: 

This document is designed to assist early care and education providers in planning 

and implementing early learning opportunities that will help prepare young children for later 

success in meeting the essential academic learning requirements in reading, 

writing, and communication....The frameworks are intended to guide you [teachers 

and others] as you develop curriculum and activities for the children in your care. 

The focus is on being intentional as you provide early experiences—in school, the 

community, or at home—that lay the foundation for success as children encounter 

our state’s public school curriculum. 

Notes one respondent from Connecticut: 

 

These are curriculum embedded benchmarks, and we would hope that the user 

would recognize where children are in their learning and development and adjust 

curricula to further help children along. The standards help teachers to see if their 

individual curriculum is supporting the standards.... This work is not meant to be 

exclusionary, or to measure progress of teachers, but to keep teachers informed so 

as to adjust their instructional design and curriculum. 
 81

Another from Louisiana noted: 

 The standards are used as a resource and guide for pre-K teachers for designing 

curricula and lesson plans and for program standards. There will be a coding 

system on all pre-K lesson plans that corresponds to the standards. School 

principals and directors must keep a record of the lesson plans, and state 

supervisors and superintendents will use this coding system to determine that the 

standards were used as a guide when the lesson plans were prepared and that 

teachers are “teaching from the standards.” 

As noted in Section III, some states went further in their efforts to influence curriculum and 

instruction. In addition to articulating CBO standards, these states provided examples of activities 

and instructional strategies that support the particular CBO standard. For example, Arkansas 

provides a two-column chart, with the developmental benchmark listed in the first column and 

teaching strategies to support the benchmark described in the second column. Likewise, Mississippi 

provides “suggested teaching strategies” for its benchmarks and also provides guidance on informal 

assessment related to the benchmarks. Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, and New York also provide 

suggested teaching strategies for each CBO standard. While states have varied in how explicitly 

they have linked CBO standards to curriculum and instruction, it clearly is an important intended 

purpose for each of the documents. 

Improve Program Quality 

Many of the respondents and the CBO standards documents indicated that one intended purpose of 

the CBO standards was to improve the overall quality of early childhood programs. Closely aligned 

with the reported purpose of improving curriculum and instruction, respondents who mentioned this 

purpose were describing a broader purpose of improving the quality of programs overall, above and 

beyond the instruction that takes place within classrooms. In most instances, this purpose was 

reflected in a general statement about the importance of improving overall program quality or the 

mention of the importance of the CBO standards for making programmatic decisions based on how 

well teachers were using the CBO standards and children were progressing on the indicators. 

Respondents may have had in mind an objective of enhancing training for teachers, increasing the 

level of professionalism among programs, and/or using the standards as a tool to provide indications 

of overall quality of the programs. For example, both California and Michigan reported plans to use 

their states CBO standards for teacher training and professional development. Massachusetts states 

that the CBO standards “are to assist programs in self-evaluation.” For 11 of the 29 sets of 

standards, either the survey respondents or information included in the CBO standards documents 

indicated that one of their purposes for the CBO standards was to improve overall program quality. 

Improve School Readiness 

For 13 of the CBO standards, a stated purpose was to improve children’s readiness for school or to 

increase the likelihood that children will have opportunities to learn skills that are important for 

later success in school before they start kindergarten. While it is possible that, like improving 
 82

curriculum and instruction, this purpose was an intention of all states, the purpose was explicitly 

noted for only 13 of the sets of standards. 

Missouri’s CBO standards document states: 

The standards are broad descriptions of what most children should know and be 

able to do by the time they enter kindergarten...resulting in all children entering 

school ready to succeed. 

The CBO standards of Colorado, Pennsylvania, Texas, and New Jersey indicate that one purpose of 

the CBO standards is to further align the pre-kindergarten curriculum with the K–12 standards and, 

therefore, improve children’s readiness for school. This is illustrated in the following quote from the 

New Jersey CBO standards document: “These expectations/standards will support and prepare 

young children to meet New Jersey’s Core Curriculum Content Standards.” Pennsylvania’s CBO 

standards are to “provide continuity and prepare young students to reach the Pennsylvania 

Academic Standards...by the end of third grade.” 

Guide Instructional Assessment 

In 13 states, one of the intended purposes of the CBO standards was to support or provide guidance 

for instructional assessments that are conducted at the classroom level. Respondents in the states 

often stated that the articulation of child outcomes in the CBO standards would hopefully guide 

teachers in the skills and characteristics they choose to assess in their classrooms. While no state has 

indicated that CBO standards are to be used in decisions about children’s placement or enrollment 

in kindergarten, many states do hope that teachers will use the CBO standards as a basis for 

informal assessments that can guide their curriculum planning. States do, however, vary in the 

degree to which this expectation is formalized and the amount of support they provide for teachers 

in using the CBO standards to guide instructional assessments. 

In California, Maine—Early Learning Results, New Mexico, and Washington—ECEAP, the CBO 

standards are actually part of an assessment system. These states most formally and explicitly 

require that the CBO standards be used for assessment. In these cases, teachers are expected to 

collect assessment data on children’s progress toward the CBO standards and then to use the data to 

inform their instructional practices. The curriculum should be individualized to support children in 

their development based on the results of the assessment. Data from teacher assessments in these 

states are also reported and aggregated at the program level (see the section on accountability for 

further information). 

Other states have taken a more indirect route to supporting classroom instruction through the CBO 

standards. Minnesota’s CBO standards document states that one purpose of the document is to 

“provide a direction for authentic assessment of young children. The indicators can be used to help 

teachers and caregivers define the kinds of things they want young children to do and know. Once 

those are articulated, teachers and caregivers next need to consider how to collect evidence of 

children’s learning in appropriate ways.” The document then goes on to describe principles and 

examples of authentic assessment. Missouri, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, and 
 83

Washington—OSPI also intend for the CBO standards to guide classroom assessments. A 

respondent from Louisiana notes: 

[I]n terms of individual assessment, it has not been mandated how the parishes will 

use the standards to aid in children’s assessment. Some may use a simple 

checklist, others may use a more elaborate, tiered-system of “not yet mastered,” 

“mastery,” or “approaching mastery” when assessing children’s development and 

acquisition of the skills outlined in the standards. 

While the mechanics of how CBO standards support classroom instruction have not been specified 

in these states, the general idea is that once the CBO standards define characteristics, knowledge, 

and abilities that are important, teachers will choose to assess children based on the defined 

characteristics outlined in the CBO standards. 

Two states have provided resources within the CBO standards document specifically to support 

classroom assessment. Arkansas has created a developmental rating scale to accompany its Early 

Childhood Education Framework (its CBO standards). The document states that the rating scale is 

to be used by teachers as a practical way of documenting each child’s development, a tool to 

develop a “complete picture of individual children in order to plan a program,” and a strategy to 

document children’s skills and behaviors so the information can be shared with support staff and 

parents. The document states that the rating scale is not intended as a means of comparing one 

child’s program with another or assessing children’s readiness to enter kindergarten. Furthermore, 

the document stresses that informal teacher observations are the preferred method for collecting 

data related to the Early Childhood Education Framework. Mississippi’s CBO standards document 

provides guidance on how teachers might assess specific CBO standards. CBO standards that a 

teacher should be able to observe naturally throughout the day and record with anecdotal records are 

noted. For other CBO standards, the document suggests that informal assessments may be more 

appropriate to gauge where a child is relative to the specific indicator. In these cases, the CBO 

standards document provides guiding questions for the teacher to think about as she is assessing a 

child, as well as suggested tasks that might be used to determine whether a child has mastered the 

specific skill described in the CBO standards. 

Non-Purposes or What CBO Standards Were Not Developed For 

In addition to articulating the intended purpose for the CBO standards, several CBO standards 

documents specified the purposes for which the documents were not intended. Typically, these 

“non-purposes” related to decisions about child placements and/or use as a curriculum. The 

Washington—OSPI document states, “These learning frameworks are not intended for use as a 

group of individual screening tools to place children in programs or to make determinations of 

readiness for school. They are not intended to be used as an assessment checklist nor as an 

evaluation tool to make high-stakes decisions about children’s program placements.” Rhode Island 

CBO standards state that the document “SHOULD NOT be used to: assess the competence of 

young children; mandate specific teaching practices or materials; determine rewards or penalties for 

educational personnel; prohibit children from entering kindergarten; or exclude groups of children 

because of disabilities or home language.” 
 84

The intention that the CBO standards not be used as a curriculum was evident in Florida’s 

statement: “The standards should be used only as a guide and not an absolute for all children...The 

standards are not a curriculum in and of themselves; rather they can be used to guide decisions 

about curriculum, materials, and the classroom environment.” Missouri and New Jersey echo these 

sentiments and suggest strongly that the CBO standards developed in their states not be used as a 

curriculum. States seem to have attempted to define the intended purposes and non-purposes of their 

CBO standards. 

Support for Implementation of CBO Standards 

Dissemination of CBO Standards 

Once developed, the standards need to be disseminated. Dissemination issues include determining 

(a) the method of dissemination, (b) what agency is responsible for dissemination and for bearing 

the cost, (c) and to whom the CBO standards will be disseminated. 

Dissemination Methods 

Every state with CBO standards has compiled them into a printed document, and several methods 

were employed to inform providers and the public about the existence and content of these 

documents. The most popular form of dissemination was through the mail, usually to any program, 

provider, or individual who requested a copy (See Table VI-3). Colorado, however, would only 

provide a copy of its CBO standards document to individuals after they had received training on 

how to use the standards. By limiting dissemination of the CBO standards, Colorado intended to 

ensure that individuals using the CBO standards have received training that is relatively consistent 

across the state. This strategy is designed to maximize the likelihood that the CBO standards will be 

fully understood and implemented appropriately by persons using them. 

Standards were distributed to providers through a systematic, mass mailing by seven states: 

Connecticut, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas. Connecticut 

mailed 10,000 documents to programs throughout the state and printed an additional 5,000 

documents. Michigan mailed copies of its CBO standards to over 1,000 preschools and additional 

elementary schools. Typically, states expected that, after their initial mass mailings, programs 

would make and distribute their own copies to teachers, staff, administrators, parents, and any other 

individual who wished to have a copy. All six states indicated that they would mail single copies of 

the standards upon request; none, however, planned a second major distribution. 

More “non-traditional” methods of disseminating the CBO standards include providing 

downloadable versions of the CBO standards on a website (19 states), developing a video 

demonstrating the CBO standards (California, Illinois, Mississippi, Utah), preparing “toolkits” or 

guidebooks on the CBO standards (Missouri, Pennsylvania), and producing informational posters 

(Missouri). Connecticut has established demonstration classrooms in lab schools where the CBO 

standards are modeled. 
 85

Table VI-3 

Dissemination Strategies for CBO Standards 

State Mass 

Mailing 

Mail by 

Request 

Posted on the 

Web 

Video 

Arkansas X 

California X X X 

Colorado X 

Connecticut X X 

Florida X X 

Georgia X X 

Illinois X X X 

Louisiana X X X 

Maine X 

Maryland X 

Massachusetts 

 Learning Results 

 Early Learning Results 

 

X 

X 

 

Michigan X X 

Minnesota X X X 

Mississippi X X X 

Missouri X X X 

New Jersey X X 

New Mexico X 

New York X X 

Ohio X X 

Oklahoma X X 

Pennsylvania X 

Rhode Island X 

South Carolina X X X 

Texas X X X 

Utah X X X 

Vermont X 

Washington 

 ECEAP 

 OSPI 

 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Total 7 27 19 4 

Agencies Responsible for Dissemination of the CBO Standards 

In all of the states, the state agency that took the lead in developing the CBO standards was also the 

agency responsible for their distribution. As noted in previous sections, this is typically the state’s 

department of education. The funding for the printing and distribution of the CBO standards, 

however, was sometimes supplemented by money from other agencies or programs—for example, 
 86

Missouri and Mississippi both used Head Start collaboration funds in conjunction with the funds 

supplied by the state department of education. See Appendix D for a complete listing of the CBO 

standards and information that can be used to obtain copies of the CBO standards. 

Who Gets the CBO Standards 

 

There was a prevalent attitude among the states to make the CBO standards available to as many 

programs and individuals as possible. This is consistent with the data reported above on the 

intended audience for the standards. Even in states with a specific program for which the CBO 

standards were designed wanted their CBO standards to be used in a wide variety of settings. 

Dissemination strategies seem to have been consistent with this desire to have other programs use 

the CBO standards. In addition to disseminating the CBO standards within the programs where their 

use is required, states reported sharing the document with a wide variety of programs and 

individuals, including Head Start, private child care programs, and family child care settings. States 

that developed their CBO standards for the general early care and education systems in their states 

(rather than for specific programs) also reported widely disseminating the CBO standards 

documents. For example, Connecticut, Minnesota, and Missouri each undertook mass mailings to 

disseminate their CBO standards to providers across the state. States have also elected to post their 

CBO standards on the Internet to make them available to a wide audience in a cost-efficient way—

18 out of the 29 sets of standards are reportedly available on the Web. 

 

Supports Available to Promote the Use of CBO Standards 

Another critical element in the implementation process is ensuring that people working with young 

children are trained both on the content of the CBO standards and how to use them. States have 

devised a variety of strategies to provide support for programs as they use the CBO standards. 

Training involves an introduction to the CBO standards and guidance on how to implement them. 

Training is critical if the CBO standards are to be effective. Technical assistance, on the other hand, 

often takes place after initial training has occurred. Technical assistance refers to having the 

ongoing support of an individual or agency that is an expert on the CBO standards available to 

answer questions or to help problem-solve once the CBO standards have been implemented to 

ensure that implementation stays “on track.” 

Training 

In addition to making the document available through the avenues described above, each of the 

states reported that some type of training is available to explain the CBO standards or give guidance 

on how they are used. The training opportunities varied, but the most frequently described strategies 

were to provide information on the CBO standards through conferences and workshops, 

incorporating CBO standards into teacher preparation programs in institutions of higher education, 

and training trainers to work with programs. What follows is a description of some of the training 

opportunities described by respondents when asked, “How do persons (teachers, administrators, 

parents) know about the early learning standards?” 
 87

Conferences and Workshops 

A number of states described either holding conferences related to the CBO standards or providing 

sessions on the CBO standards as part of other early childhood conferences in their states. 

California hosts an annual conference to provide training to service providers using the Desired 

Results system and has also presented on the CBO standards at numerous other conferences within 

the state. They have used the four-year development process to inform providers about the CBO 

standards and gain feedback along the way. Colorado held a statewide “kick-off” conference to 

introduce the CBO standards to approximately 1,000 early childhood educators. Following the kick 

off conference, a series of “train the trainer” sessions have been held to build a network of trainers 

who can deliver training on the CBO standards at the local level. Service providers must attend one 

of the trainings offered by a trained trainer to receive a copy of the document. 

In Connecticut, the Bureau of Early Childhood Education models the CBO standards in workshops 

and seminars for different constituencies. Minnesota provides 12 one-day regional workshops 

throughout the year on the CBO standards, reaching approximately 1,000 early childhood staff. 

Likewise, Mississippi provides frequent trainings and workshops on the CBO standards. Both New 

Jersey and Ohio report that training on how to use or implement CBO standards is incorporated into 

regular professional development opportunities provided throughout the year. 

Other states report providing training on CBO standards as a part of broader conferences or 

meetings. Georgia provides annual training for Office of School Readiness providers, including 

information on the CBO standards. South Carolina reports holding four early childhood conferences 

per year and an annual meeting for principals. The CBO standards are incorporated into these 

training opportunities. Missouri provides training on its CBO standards at the annual Missouri 

Association for the Education of Young Children conference. States are making training available 

on the CBO standards both through stand-alone training opportunities and by incorporating training 

on the CBO standards into other early childhood professional training events. 

Institutions of Higher Education 

A number of states have enlisted the help of institutions of higher education to provide pre-service 

training on the CBO standards as part of their teacher preparation. Arkansas, Connecticut, 

Michigan, and New Jersey mentioned that teacher education programs in their states are 

incorporating the CBO standards into their courses to promote understanding of the CBO standards. 

In Arkansas, early childhood education students at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville study 

the CBO standards as part of their teacher preparation courses. In Connecticut and Michigan, 

preschool education programs in the college and university system use the CBO standards as part of 

their courses. States have made efforts to infuse their CBO standards into teacher preparation 

programs as a means of reaching a wider audience. 

Train the Trainers 

Arkansas, Colorado, and Pennsylvania have used a “train the trainer” model to provide support for 

their CBO standards. Individuals receive training on the CBO standards and then are expected to 
 88

train local program staff. In Colorado, the CBO standards are only disseminated to programs and 

individuals who have completed training led by one of its team of trainers. 

Technical Assistance 

Ongoing technical assistance was provided by a number of the states. The methods of technical 

assistance most commonly reported were phone support by the department that developed the CBO 

standards and mentor teachers. State specialists receive phone calls from programs and individuals 

with specific questions about the CBO standards and provide quite specific assistance in this 

manner. 

Rhode Island has established a system of mentors to assist programs in using the CBO standards. In 

Rhode Island, Resource and Referral centers train mentor teachers to provide support and 

professional development to teachers in the pilot programs that are using the CBO standards. New 

Mexico also utilizes the state’s Resource and Referral agencies to provide training on the CBO 

standards, although the training is provided directly to program staff rather than through mentor 

teachers. 

Finally, Florida schedules three technical assistance forums per year (that include CBO standards 

and other issues) and posts technical assistance papers on its website for programs to access. States 

have developed a variety of mechanisms for providing technical assistance to support programs in 

utilizing the CBO standards. 

Expectations That CBO Standards Will Be Used and the Degree to Which Programs 

Are Held Accountable for CBO Standards 

Expectations for Use of CBO Standards 

Although much time and energy is invested in standards development, dissemination, and training, 

less is known about the expectations for use of the standards. The research team was also interested 

in learning whether programs were expected/required to use the CBO standards or whether the CBO 

standards were voluntary. To what extent and how are programs held accountable for using them? 

Culling data from both the interviews and the actual standards documents, we rated each state’s 

CBO standards as either “expected” or “voluntary.” Data indicated that the majority (21 of 29) of 

the state CBO standards were expected to be used in programs. Only eight—Connecticut, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and Washington−OSPIwere rated as 

voluntary CBO standards. 
 89

Table VI-4 

Expectations for Use of CBO Standards 

States With CBO Standards That Are 

Expected/Required to Be Used by Programs 

States With Voluntary CBO Standards 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Florida 

Georgia 

Illinois 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

 —Learning Results 

 —Early Learning Results 

Michigan 

Mississippi 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York 

Ohio 

Pennsylvania 

South Carolina 

Vermont 

Washington—ECEAP 

Connecticut 

Minnesota 

Missouri 

Oklahoma 

Rhode Island 

Texas 

Utah 

Washington—OSPI 

States Expecting That the CBO Standards Will Be Used in Programs 

The 20 states expecting or requiring that their CBO standards be used—Arkansas, California, 

Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts (Learning Results 

and Early Learning Results), Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, and Washington−ECEAP are geographically diverse, 

east to west, north to south. The one common element is that in each of the states where the CBO 

standards were rated as “expected,” the target program was a publicly funded program. No state has 

required that CBO standards be used in a program that is not publicly funded. Intuitively, this 

finding makes sense—states can only require standards be used in programs that they are funding. 

What does “expected” really mean? Rating CBO standards as expected or voluntary is a 

deceptively simple dichotomy. Examining the expected CBO standards more closely reveals a great 

deal of variance in exactly what “expected” means. Words used to describe the expectation that 

certain programs use the CBO standards ranged from “mandated,” to “required,” to “suggested,” to 

“expected.” Expecting CBO standards to be used might mean that the state had provided training to 
 90

all teachers within the targeted program or that use of the CBO standards was a stipulation of the 

program’s funding. The degree of expectation tied to the CBO standards varies from state to state 

and, within states, can vary from program to program. 

In four states where the CBO standards are part of assessment systems, the CBO standards will 

eventually be required as a stipulation of program funding. The accountability requirements are 

being phased in. California, for example, will require the use of the Desired Results CBO 

standards/assessment system in all state-subsidized programs. As the state developed the system, 

programs were trained and encouraged to use the CBO standards. Beginning in July 2002, programs 

were required to use them to complete child assessments. New Mexico has similar expectations for 

state-funded programs. Notes a respondent from New Mexico, “Expectations come with funding. 

The staff in these programs is asked to use this system of observation and recording as part of their 

program.” Programs using the Early Learning Results CBO standards in Maine will eventually be 

required to report the number of children who demonstrate the behaviors and characteristics that are 

described in the CBO standards. Washington—ECEAP CBO standards were developed as part of a 

program evaluation design. Programs are expected to use the CBO standards as a basis for their 

program activities and to demonstrate progress on the CBO standards indicators. 

Other states have less stringent expectations that their standards will be used. Many respondents 

stated that the CBO standards are used within the target program and described efforts to ensure that 

the CBO standards are understood and used but stopped short of stating that programs were required 

to use the CBO standards. Michigan, for example, described its CBO standards as “recommended” 

and noted that the state is prohibited from implementing unfunded mandates and would, therefore, 

have to pay any costs associated with implementing the CBO standards if they were required. 

In some states, there are differential requirements or different levels of expectations for different 

publicly funded programs. In New Jersey, for instance, the CBO standards are “required” in all 30 

Abbott districts and are “encouraged” in other school districts. A respondent from Colorado notes 

that the state’s CBO standards are required for family literacy and adult education programs. 

However, they “are not mandated [for other programs], but if various programs are not using them 

(in particular state funded programs), DOE needs to know why. Instead of being mandated, 

programs are asked to consider them.” 

In addition to the level of “expectation” associated with the CBO standards, states also vary in how 

they are implementing and monitoring the requirements that the CBO standards be used. California 

reported, “We are in the process of trying to rollout the standards and require the use of the 

instrument. This will need to be accomplished through regulations.” At the time of our data 

collection, it seemed that a number of states plan to require that their CBO standards be used in the 

target programs, but there were few monitoring systems in place to determine whether the CBO 

standards were actually being used. Therefore, one might question whether CBO standards are 

actually required. Data from the interviews indicate, however, that states are thinking about how 

they will ensure that the CBO standards are used and that the monitoring of how CBO standards are 

used will be phased in over time. 
 91

States Where Implementation is Not Required 

We noted above that in 21 of the 29 sets of CBO standards, the state expects that the CBO standards 

will be used in at least one program. But what about the remaining eight states? As with most 

elements of CBO standards, the answer varies from state to state. 

This group of states tended to use the adjective “voluntary” to describe standards, although the 

intention is certainly that the CBO standards will be used. Missouri, for example, responded that 

“the standards are not required for any program but will be available to any early childhood 

care/education program, including parents, in the state,” and its CBO standards document includes 

recommendations for educators, policymakers, the community, and families. Connecticut too has 

made its standards widely available within the state and seems to be counting on the usefulness of 

the document itself to encourage programs to actually use it. Programs conduct self-evaluations on 

components of the state’s school readiness legislation, and the CBO standards support this process. 

Likewise, Minnesota has made its CBO standards widely available and has provided extensive 

training across the state. Minnesota’s CBO standards document states, “[T]he Minnesota 

Department of Children, Families & Learning does not mandate its [the CBO standards] use in any 

prescribed way. Rather, it is meant to be a resource guide for family members, teachers and 

caregivers, community members, and policymakers to use in ways that are supportive of young 

children’s development.” In these three states, hopes that the voluntary CBO standards will be used 

seem to rest on including a wide range of stakeholders in the development process, targeting a wide 

range of early childhood programs, and developing ample resources to provide support and 

assistance in implementing the CBO standards. 

Oklahoma indicated that its standards were developed as a response to teachers rather than a 

mandate; therefore, the CBO standards were not required. The respondent noted that the CBO 

standards are “voluntary guidelines and not state mandates.” Furthermore, 

The Department of Education led this effort [to develop the CBO standards] and it was 

based on a need expressed by the teachers. We have a mandated curriculum for K–12. As 

pre-k grew, the teachers needed something.... No one had to adopt or endorse it or send it 

through the Department of Education for approval. We are interested in local school districts 

having choice.... They are intended to be used by state pre-k programs (public schools). 

They can be used by others, including Head Start and private child care. 

Likewise, Rhode Island seemed to indicate that its standards would not be required but were 

developed as a response to a need within the field and, therefore, would be used by a wide range of 

programs. 

Two states—Texas and Utah—indicated the voluntary nature of their CBO standards was related to 

the political and policy context within their states. Texas commented that since the requirement for 

standards is legislatively mandated only for K–12 (in fact, Texas law does not require a child to 

enter formal schooling until the age of six), pre-K standards could not, therefore, be required. Utah 

currently does not have a state-funded pre-kindergarten program. The Utah CBO standards 

document states that the CBO standards are “not a mandate, but a set of guidelines for parents and 

teachers who want more direction in working with three- and four-year-old children.” The state is, 
 92

however, looking to the future when a state-funded pre-kindergarten program might be possible and 

has developed “recommended” CBO standards as a foundation for future efforts to develop a prekindergarten curriculum. The CBO standards currently are a resource for any program within the 

state, and the Office of Education does not monitor programs to see if the guidelines are being 

implemented. 

Factors Impacting to Whom and How CBO Standards Are Applied 

The data clearly indicate that CBO standards are not required universally and are not enacted 

uniformly within states. Our analysis indicates that the use of standards is required in a sub-set of 

early care and education programs, and typically these are programs that are heavily publicly 

supported. Despite their different names, the programs tend to serve at-risk populations, including 

children from low-income families or families where English is not the dominant language or those 

at-risk due to disability. This observation brings up important questions related to the use of CBO 

standards. If one were to compare this phenomenon to the implementation of K–12 standards, the 

contrast becomes quite obvious. In K–12 education, states do not differentially require the use of 

standards because in most states, a rationale for instituting standards was so that expectations for all

children would be more even. So, why is there such a consistent pattern of partial “requirement” for 

the use of standards in early care and education? Is this because standards for young children are a 

newer phenomenon and have not yet had time to be fully “required”? Or is there something deeper, 

more endemic that is influencing (and potentially may continue to influence) the degree to which 

standards for young children are being required? 

Our respondents provided helpful insights as to why states have not developed CBO standards that 

are universally required. First, they noted that even though young children are receiving increased 

policy attention, they are still regarded somewhat differently from older children. Young children, 

while increasingly seen as competent learners, are still regarded as somewhat “innocent.” Indeed, in 

sentiment and law, young children remain an integral part of the family. Unlike older children, they 

do not belong to society; their schools and caring institutions do not act in loco parentis. 

This thinking is manifest with regard to standards. One respondent, for example, discussed the 

opposition of both the state and the public to requiring standards for young children because such a 

requirement was perceived as “overstepping the boundaries” of the state into the realm of the family 

and family choice. Not a new theme in early care and education, there has been reluctance for the 

public to intervene in the lives of young children except in times of social crises, such as the Great 

Depression and World War II (Cahan, 1989). It may also be the case that the early childhood 

education field, itself, has been reluctant to develop CBO standards for philosophical reasons. 

Young children have historically been viewed by early childhood educators as qualitatively 

different from older children, and their development has been described as episodic, sporadic, and 

highly impacted by the environment (Shepard, Kagan, & Wurtz, 1998). Therefore, the very nature 

of early childhood development may not be seen as lending itself to “standards.” 

Additionally, states may be reticent to implement standards for preschoolers statewide for very 

practical reasons. First, standards for young children are very new, so moving slowly with a partial, 

almost pilot-like, strategy makes sense. It gives states the opportunity to work through some of the 

implementation issues. Second, states may not have the resources, either fiscal or human, to actually 
 93

implement standards statewide. Indeed, a respondent from Michigan cited the high cost to the state 

as a primary reason that required standards are limited to its Michigan School Readiness Programs 

(MSRP). In an era of constrained resources, this reason is not to be overlooked. While a complete 

explanation for why states have developed CBO standards and then applied them only to particular 

programs, or made them completely voluntary, would require additional exploration, it is safe to say 

that decisions about to whom and how CBO standards will be applied are based upon a complex set 

of factors that seem to lead to partial implementation and less than mandatory requirements. 

CBO Standards and Accountability 

The standards movement within the K–12 education system, for the most part, is associated with 

increased accountability. Many K–12 standards are intended to hold schools and teachers 

accountable for teaching certain content and, at select gateway years, to hold students accountable 

for learning the specified content. As discussed above, in the case of 21 of the 29 CBO standards, 

programs are expected to use the CBO standards. We now turn to the degree to which programs 

with these expected standards are actually held accountable for the standards. The research team 

sought to discern the degree to which the CBO standards are to be used for accountability purposes, 

either for program accountability or for holding students accountable for knowing certain content. 

The answer to the later is that none of the CBO standards are being or are intended to be used to 

make accountability decisions for children—no state reported that its CBO standards would be used 

to make promotion or placement decisions about children. 

That being said, the accountability uses of CBO standards for program decisions presents a much 

more complex picture of how CBO standards are or will eventually be used to hold programs 

accountable. States appeared to take two different approaches to holding programs accountable for 

using the CBO standards: 1) alignment of curriculum with the CBO standards or 2) evidence that 

children are learning skills and developing characteristics consistent with those outlined in the CBO 

standards. 

Curriculum Alignment 

Two states report that programs will be held accountable for using the CBO standards in designing 

their curriculum and/or their programming—Illinois and Louisiana. In Illinois, for instance, a 

respondent indicated, “In the 2003 funding year, state-funded pre-kindergartens are required to 

align curriculum with the early learning standards.” Louisiana is developing a coding system for 

programs to use to document their use of the CBO standards in curriculum planning. Notes a 

respondent, “School principals and directors must keep a record of the lesson plans, and state 

supervisors and superintendents will use this coding system to determine that the standards were 

used as a guide when the lesson plans were prepared and that teachers are ‘teaching from the 

standards.’” While there is no formal penalty at this time for programs that do not document use of 

the CBO standards in curriculum planning, plans call for the coding system to be used on a regular 

basis to determine if programs are using the CBO standards. Thus, while the most frequently cited 

purpose for developing the CBO standards was to improve curriculum and instruction, only two 

states have systems to hold programs accountable for using the CBO standards in curriculum 

planning. 
 94

Children’s Progress on CBO Standards 

The second strategy for holding programs accountable for using the CBO standards is to examine 

the degree to which children in the programs are developing skills and characteristics described in 

the CBO standards. This type of program accountability, as it is commonly understood, means that 

programs or schools are held accountable not only for implementing standards but also for 

children’s performance outcomes. In the K–12 system, the consequence for programs that do not 

measure up by way of student achievement is usually a reduction in funding. It appears from the 

survey data that no state was implementing this type of accountability system at the time of the 

interviews but that several states were poised to implement such a system. 

We turn now to examine how states propose to collect data that could be used to determine 

children’s progress on CBO standards and, therefore, to hold programs accountable for child 

outcomes. States seem to have approached a CBO standards accountability system and data 

collection for the purpose of determining whether children enrolled in programs were meeting the 

CBO standards in one of three ways: 1) a model where accountability for the CBO standards and 

data collection are directly related, 2) a model where program evaluation data are collected and the 

CBO standards are an important part of the program implementation, and 3) general data on 

children’s readiness for school are collected and the CBO standards may be a factor in promoting 

the progress of children enrolled in programs using the CBO standards. 

CBO Standards and Child Outcome Data Directly Related 

In four states—California, Maine—Early Learning Results, New Mexico, and 

Washington−ECEAP—the CBO standards are actually the basis for a data collection system, and 

programs are, therefore, going to be evaluated in some way based on the performance of children 

within their programs. It is important to note that none of these states had implemented their 

accountability systems at the time of the interview. They were each in the process of developing and 

testing the system. Although they each had developed a slightly different system, the common 

denominator in the “directly related” accountability states was that the CBO standards and the data 

collection mechanism were one and the same: CBO standards were developed for the purpose of 

collecting data on the degree to which children in the program exhibited the skills and 

characteristics described in the CBO standards. What follows is a brief description of each state’s 

CBO standards and accountability system. 

California. In California, the Desired Results system will be used to determine the degree to 

which children within state subsidized child care programs are progressing toward the CBO 

standards. The general premise behind the system is that results of the programs should be used to 

gauge the effectiveness of state subsidized programs and whether or not the programs are providing 

quality care and learning experiences for children that prepare them for success in school. 

According to the survey respondent, the administration decided to “first start with results and not 

program standards. [The department] then developed program standards based on the ‘Desired 

Results.’” The Department established four child-related Desired Results for programs, and then the 

CBO standards and assessment instruments that include indicators related to these Desired Results 

were articulated. Teacher observation tools based on developmental milestones for each age span, 

family surveys, and measures of program quality were developed. The result is called the Desired 
 95

Results System and Developmental Profile. All state subsidized child care programs will be 

required to use the instrument. The state has begun a four-year phase-in period. Beginning in July 

2002, programs were required to begin using the instrument. Once the program is phased in, 

children will be assessed at specific points in time (according to age) and data from the assessments 

will be used to make program adjustments and “assess program results.” The system will not be 

used to make decisions about individual children, but it can be used as a basis for referrals for 

further evaluations in cases where children are not progressing on the indicators. 

Maine—Early Learning Results. Maine’s Early Learning Results CBO standards articulate 

child outcomes for children birth through five who are enrolled in the state’s special education 

programs. The CBO standards are linked to the state’s K–12 standards and are presented in a format 

that is consistent with the K–12 standards. Outcomes have been developed to identify important 

measures of program performance, and then indicators have been provided for use as a measure of 

program performance toward the outcome. For example, one program outcome in the physical 

domain is that “all children eligible for and receiving services for physical development in the 

Contractor’s catchment area, by the age of 5, will demonstrate the ability to discriminate by taste, 

smell, texture, sound, and light.” Corresponding indicators have been developed that describe how 

children might demonstrate this outcome by age three and then by age five. Individualized Family 

Service Plans (IFSPs) written for children within the special education program are required to be 

consistent with the outcomes included in the Early Learning Results CBO standards. 

The state is developing the CBO standards for specific domains and expects to have the CBO 

standards adopted when all domains have been developed. Although the data collection process is 

still being developed, when fully implemented, programs will report the number of children who 

attained each outcome and indicator, as well as how long the children have been receiving services, 

to the Department of Education. 

New Mexico. In New Mexico, the Focused Portfolio assessment system is being used to 

define and collect data on the state’s CBO standards. The Focused Portfolio system is a framework 

for authentic assessment through observation and documentation of performance against accepted 

developmental milestones. The milestones are articulated in a developmental milestone chart and 

are the state’s CBO standards. The impetus for the system came from a legislative mandate for 

accountability and outcomes-based budgeting of state-funded programs. The Office of Child 

Development wanted to use an authentic assessment system for early childhood programs and 

needed a way to quantify data from the assessments. The Focused Portfolio system was adopted as a 

developmentally appropriate assessment system that could provide quantifiable data on children’s 

progress. Based on their observations and samples of children’s work, teachers report on children’s 

progress toward the milestones. Parents are also asked to provide data on their child’s progress. 

State-funded pre-kindergarten programs must use the system. A database is being developed that 

will aggregate data on individual children at the program level. The data will then be used to gauge 

how effective programs are in helping children meet the developmental milestones. Although 

programs are currently using the Focused Portfolios, it is expected that two or three additional years 

will be needed to provide training and develop the database. The system will not be fully 

operational before 2004 or 2005. 
 96

Washington—ECEAP. Washington’s Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program 

(ECEAP) developed outcomes and indicators as a part of its program evaluation design. These CBO 

standards are known as the ECEAP Performance Standards and are intended to be used to collect 

data and make judgments about the effectiveness of programs. They are the basis for a program 

evaluation. A series of indicators providing a specific description of the skills and characteristics 

expected within each outcome were developed. When the system is finalized, teachers will utilize 

direct assessments and observations to collect data on children, and families will be asked to 

complete a questionnaire to provide data on children. Although no individual child outcome data 

were being collected at the time of the interview, program data, such as demographics and 

immunization rates, were being collected. According to one respondent, the state was also piloting 

the use of a social and emotional norm-referenced assessment tool (the DECA) “to gauge 

effectiveness of early childhood programming and the growth of children in this domain as they 

enter and leave ECEAP.” The Department was in the process of awarding an evaluation contract 

that would include collecting data on the outcomes and indicators, but plans for both the pilot 

project using the DECA and the evaluation have been put on hold due to budget short falls. 

The common thread between these four states is that the CBO standards are part of an 

accountability system where data will be collected on children’s progress toward the CBO 

standards. Although none of these states have plans to use the data to make decisions about 

individual children, they do intend to use the data to gauge programs’ effectiveness in helping 

children make progress on the indicators included in the CBO standards. These states potentially 

may have some of the highest accountability requirements related to CBO standards, particularly if 

they eventually begin making funding decisions based on how children within the programs are 

progressing on the CBO standards. 

Program Evaluation and an Indirect Link to CBO Standards 

Four states—Florida, Georgia, Michigan, and Ohio—expect programs to use their CBO standards 

and collect program evaluation data that are logically, but not directly, linked to use of the CBO 

standards. In these states, the assumption is that the CBO standards are an important part of the 

program design and are, therefore, contributing to how programs are performing on the evaluation. 

Georgia developed its CBO standards, known as Learning Goals, when the Office of School 

Readiness’ universal pre-kindergarten program was first established to articulate the child-based 

outcomes the program would promote. Programs are expected to implement activities that facilitate 

children’s progress toward the Learning Goals. A longitudinal evaluation of the program is being 

conducted by the Applied Research Center at Georgia State University. Data are being collected on 

a variety of program quality measures, as well as child outcome measures, from a sample of 

children enrolled in the program. The measures are related to the CBO standards (Learning Goals) 

but are not a direct measure of whether children are meeting the Learning Goals established for the 

program. Similar to Georgia, Michigan’s School Readiness Program is conducting a longitudinal 

program evaluation that includes data on child outcomes from a sample of children. The state’s 

CBO standards are consistent with the data being collected, but the child outcome measures are not 

a direct reflection of the CBO standards. 
 97

Ohio and Florida are in the process of developing assessment systems that are more directly aligned 

with the state’s CBO standards. Ohio has developed the Indicators of Success Project to collect data 

on child outcomes and to determine if children in the program are demonstrating progress while 

they are enrolled. Data are collected on children’s progress in the language and literacy, 

mathematics, and social development domains. State-funded preschool programs are required to 

document children’s progress using the Galileo assessment tool and to report aggregate data 

annually to the state (in addition to program performance data such as teacher and child attendance 

rates, teacher and child turnover rates, and teacher credentials). In the Galileo system, teachers 

record children’s progress along a developmental path of sequenced items based on their naturalistic 

observations of whether or not individual children have demonstrated the capabilities described in 

the items. According to a survey respondent, the items included in the Galileo assessment are 

“aligned” or “linked” to the state’s CBO standards. At the state level, the data are used to see 

whether groups of children are making gains on the various indicators. While the system prohibits 

the data from being used to make decisions about placements for individual children, plans call for 

the program-level data to eventually be used as a basis for program funding decisions. 

Florida is developing an assessment system to provide child outcome data. A Standards and 

Measures Outcome Work Group has developed CBO standards, established a framework for 

assessment, and developed a plan for uniform screening for children entering kindergarten. These 

three tasks were mandated by the legislature, and the Work Group was also charged with 

developing plans for how they would be carried out. According to a survey respondent, the Work 

Group made specific recommendations for assessment instruments that “were consistent with 

performance standards.” The survey respondent indicated that the uniform assessment system 

would be implemented in the 2002 school year to provide data that will give “a sense of how 

standards are being met or achieved” in the school readiness programs. The system will collect data 

on children as they enter kindergarten and will include a direct assessment of children’s knowledge 

and skills, as well as teacher observations, parent questionnaires, and a health form to be completed 

by the child’s parents and physician. The Department of Education will establish a data warehouse 

for the direct assessment data and will perhaps include the other forms of data that are going to be 

collected on children as they enter kindergarten. 

These states are collecting data on children’s characteristics that are related to the CBO standards 

but not a direct reflection of the CBO standards. In the case of Ohio and Florida, the relationship 

between the data collected and the CBO standards appears to be more direct and perhaps more 

informative as to whether children are exhibiting characteristics described in the CBO standards. 

General Data on Children’s Characteristics 

Finally, two states are developing or implementing assessment systems to collect general 

information on children’s readiness when they enter school. Maryland is implementing an 

assessment system to collect data on children’s characteristics as they enter kindergarten. 

Maryland’s Model for School Readiness (MMSR) program uses the Work Sampling System to 

collect baseline data on children who have recently entered kindergarten. Teachers rate children on 

indicators of particular areas of development, and the data are reported to the state by domain. Data 

are also collected on children’s experiences prior to entering kindergarten. These baseline data 

provide a sense of the skills and characteristics of all children entering kindergarten and are 
 98

intended to be used for planning purposes at the state and local level. While the data collected as 

part of the MMSR may be consistent with the state’s CBO standards, the link between CBO 

standards and child outcomes is relatively weak, and, in fact, the purpose of the data collection is 

not to document children’s progress toward specific goals or CBO standards but to provide 

information on potential gaps in service. 

Minnesota is developing a similar system to collect data on children’s status as they enter school. At 

the time of the interview, the state was developing plans to collect data on a pilot sample of children 

entering kindergarten using select Work Sampling Indicators completed by kindergarten teachers. 

Data will also be collected on whether children participated in preschool programs so that findings 

on children’s skills and abilities might be linked to preschool attendance. Data will also be collected 

on the “readiness” of schools that the kindergarteners enter. The respondent reported that the state 

expected to conduct a pilot of the system in the fall of 2002. 

Assessment Data and Program Accountability: A Thing of the Future? 

Based on the states described above, one can conclude that no state is at this time holding programs 

accountable for children’s progress toward skills and characteristics included in the state’s CBO 

standards. California, Florida, MaineEarly Learning Results, New Mexico, Ohio, and 

WashingtonECEAP report that they are in the process of developing systems whereby assessment 

data from children enrolled in the program will be used to make decisions about programs. Survey 

data indicate that these states may be joined by other states in the future. 

Of the 19 states where respondents indicated that programs are not currently held accountable for 

the CBO standards and a data collection system is not currently in place or under development, 11 

respondents indicated that they anticipate that such a system is at least a possibility in the future. 

These states included Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington—OSPI. The responses ranged from states that 

have concrete plans in place for data collection systems to respondents who indicated that there was 

no system at this point in time but it was a possibility in the future. 

 

Illinois represents one state where plans are underway for an assessment system, but the system is 

too new to determine how the data will be used systematically. State-funded pre-kindergarten 

programs are required to align their curriculum with the state’s CBO standards in the 2003 funding 

year. The state is developing the Illinois Early Learning Work Sampling System that will provide 

performance data on child outcomes. Classroom teachers are being trained to use the Work 

Sampling System to collect data on children’s progress. While this assessment system is in the early 

stages of implementation and currently there is no systematic way of aggregating the data at the 

state level, it is likely that a data management system will be developed. 

Arkansas is looking at the possibility of conducting a longitudinal study, and Rhode Island is 

considering the possibility of developing an assessment system. Utah has considered plans to 

collaborate with a university to collect data in the future, but the planning process has not been 

funded. It seems that there is a general recognition that CBO standards may someday be associated 

with greater levels of accountability and data collection in these states, although the degree to which 

plans are underway to develop such a system varies widely. One respondent noted, “No decisions 
 99

are based on early learning standards now. We are in a state of flux as we watch what occurs on the 

national scene.... Currently we are working to build capacity that may lead to accountability 

decisions related to curriculum use or recommended teaching strategies.” 

Implications of Implementation Issues 

 

As with our findings on the characteristics of the CBO standards and the processes states have used 

to develop CBO standards, our analysis of the data indicates that the use of CBO standards also 

varies widely from state to state. Two common denominators are that most of the CBO standards 

were developed for publicly funded early care and education programs and that all states intended 

for the CBO standards to improve instruction within the classrooms. However, states vary 

tremendously in how they are disseminating the CBO standards, the support they are providing, and 

the degree to which programs are held accountable for using the CBO standards. Data from the 

survey do indicate that it is possible in many states that programs may someday be held accountable 

for using the CBO standards and demonstrating child outcomes consistent with the CBO standards. 

California, New Mexico, Maine, and Washington seem to be moving further toward holding 

programs accountable for using the CBO standards. 

The increasing likelihood that states will develop large-scale assessment systems and that these 

systems may be related to CBO standards brings forth a number of issues that need to be addressed. 

First, it is unclear at this point what the full implications of having CBO standards are for early 

childhood programs. Most states that have developed CBO standards have limited experience 

implementing them. At the same time, issues related to large-scale assessment systems for children 

of this age loom large. Development at this age does not lend itself to standardized expectations or 

assessments. Preschool-age children’s development is uneven and often occurs in spurts. 

Furthermore, it is highly impacted by the child’s experiences, which vary tremendously from child 

to child (National Research Council, 2001; Shepard, Kagan, & Wurtz, 1998). Finally, the field is 

somewhat limited in the assessment instruments available to capture information about the various 

developmental domains. While there has been progress in some domains (such as cognition and 

language), we lack credible and fair instruments to document children’s abilities in other domains, 

such as social-emotional development (Kagan, Moore, & Bredekamp, 1995; Scott-Little, Kagan, & 

Clifford, 2003). 

Consistency between the purpose of the assessment and the purpose of the CBO standards, 

alignment of particular items on the assessment with indicators described in the CBO standards, and 

alignment of the curriculum with both the CBO standards and the assessment are immediate issues 

that must be addressed as states move toward assessment systems that are related to CBO standards. 

First, it is essential that states be clear on the purpose for implementing CBO standards and the 

assessments that they use. In some cases, it may be difficult to find or develop assessments that 

match the purpose for which the CBO standards have been developed. If standards are to be used to 

guide instruction, corresponding assessments for use in planning learning experiences are needed. 

There are examples of authentic assessments that can be used to guide instruction (for instance, the 

Work Sampling System, by Meisels et al., 1994, and High/Scope Child Observation Record by the 

High/Scope Foundation, 1992). However, we have little information on whether these instructional 

assessments align with the CBO standards that have been developed. If CBO standards are to be 

used to determine a program’s effectiveness in helping children obtain designated skills and 
 100

characteristics, there may be fewer options for valid and reliable instruments. Assessments to 

determine program accountability are relatively new in the field of early childhood education, and 

much work is needed to develop practical, valid, and reliable sources of data. Finally, screening 

assessments to identify children with potential disabilities are more widely available, but the 

purpose does not correspond with the purpose of CBO standards. Programs may be tempted to use 

data from screening instruments for other purposes, such as verifying whether children are making 

progress on skills and characteristics described in CBO standards documents. Careful consideration 

will be necessary to articulate clearly the purpose of the CBO standards and then select or develop 

assessments that are appropriate for the intended purpose. 

Given that a state may have CBO standards and an assessment system that were both developed for 

the same purpose, our attention next must turn to how individual items or indicators within the CBO 

standards and the assessment align. Are the descriptions of skills and characteristics described in the 

CBO standards document consistent with the items contained within the assessment? In states, such 

as New Mexico, where the CBO standards and the assessment instruments were developed together 

and, indeed, are in many ways one and the same, consistency may not be difficult. However, in 

states where assessments are developed separately from CBO standards, a great deal of analysis will 

be necessary to gauge the degree to which there is consistency. For instance, do the assessment and 

the CBO standards address the same developmental domains? Within domains, are specific skills 

and characteristics articulated the same way in both and at about the same developmental level? 

Finally, and perhaps more importantly, the implementation of CBO standards and corresponding 

assessment systems brings into focus the need to examine the curriculum and daily activities 

children experience in early childhood programs. Assessment is an essential part of curriculum 

planning and intervention (National Research Council, 2001; Meisels & Atkins-Burnett, 2000; 

Shepard, Kagan & Wurtz, 1998), and presumably CBO standards are also linked to the curriculum. 

Nevertheless, we know little about the interplay between CBO standards, assessment, and the daily 

activities of children. At one extreme, one might imagine a situation where teachers pay little 

attention to CBO standards and their corresponding assessments. In this situation, the curriculum 

and daily activities may or may not address the skills and characteristics articulated in the CBO 

standards. At the other extreme, teachers might take CBO standards (and/or their corresponding 

assessments) and attempt to turn them into the classroom curriculum, i.e. “teaching to the test.” It 

stands to reason that neither of these extremes is beneficial for children or for the programs in which 

they are enrolled. Ideally there would be an appropriate alignment between curriculum, CBO 

standards, and assessment. However, our knowledge of how to bring about this type of alignment is 

limited, and we know less about potential impact of standards/assessment/curriculum alignment on 

children and programs. Presumably a great deal of professional development and support will be 

needed to assist teachers in implementing standards, assessments, and curricula activities that are 

consistent and support each other. Further research will be needed to guide practitioners and 

policymakers as states move toward assessments that correspond to CBO standards. 

The issues of how CBO standards are used and the degree to which programs are held accountable 

for CBO standards seem to be emerging. Further research will be necessary to determine the degree 

of consistency between the CBO standards’ intended purposes and their actual uses, as well as the 

strategies that states develop to hold programs accountable for using the CBO standards. 
 101

References

Cahan, E. (1989). Past caring: A history of U.S. preschool care and education for the poor, 1820-

1965. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty. 

High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. (1992). Manual of the High/Scope Child 

Observation Record for ages 21⁄2−6. Ypsilanti, ME: High/Scope Press. 

Kagan, S. L., Moore, E., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). Reconsidering children’s early development and 

learning: Toward common views and vocabulary. Washington, DC: National Education Goals 

Panel. 

Meisels, S. J. & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2000). The elements of early childhood assessment. In J. P. 

Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels (Eds), Handbook of early childhood intervention (2nd ed.). New York: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Meisels, S. J., Jabolon, J. R., Marsden, D. B., Dichtelmiller, M. L., & Dorfman, A. B. (1994). The 

Work Sampling System. Ann Arbor, MD: Rebus. 

National Research Council. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Committee on 

Early Childhood Pedagogy. Barbara T. Bowman, M. Suzanne Donovan, and M. Susan Burns, 

Editors. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press. 

Scott-Little, C., Kagan, S. L., & Clifford, R. M. (2003). Assessing the state of state assessments: 

Perspectives on assessing young children. Tallahassee, FL: SERVE. 

Shepard, L., Kagan, S. L., & Wurtz, E. (1998). Principles and recommendations for early childhood 

assessments. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel. 
 102

 

SECTION VII: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

In every major endeavor to improve the condition of young children, there can be tremendous 

benefits and some genuine, however unintended, pitfalls. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss 

the findings of this study and to share some ideas regarding how the data might be used to increase 

the benefits while minimizing the pitfalls. It should be noted that we draw the themes for this 

discussion from the data and then make corresponding recommendations in italics. In some cases, 

the recommendations, while rooted in the data, draw upon the authors’ familiarity with the subject. 

The Challenge of Inconsistent Nomenclature 

Throughout this study, we have found it necessary to continually explicate our terms. When 

collecting data, knowledgeable informants often used the term “standards” to refer to program 

standards, a convention that has existed in the field for decades. Because of this long-standing 

practice of having the word “standards” associated with program inputs, it is very challenging to 

convert discourse to alter the focus not only to children but also to outputs or child outcomes. For 

example, during the course of our data collection, several respondents completed the whole 

interview telling us that they had CBO standards only to send us program standards as their 

“standards.” In other states, respondents said they did not have CBO standards, but upon further 

examination, we learned that they indeed did. 

To be sure, confusion exists about what the word “standards” means and about the different kinds of 

standards that exist. But the confusion does not end there. As noted in the text, states use very 

different terms even when discussing child-based learning outcomes, with the terms “benchmarks,” 

“indicators,” and “guidelines” prevailing. In some cases, the terms are most accurate because of 

how states intend them to be used. For example, the term “guidelines” implies that the users should 

not consider the content required, but rather a guide to instruction and/or assessment. However, this 

is not always the case. Sometimes the documents may be called “guidelines,” but there is the 

intention that they will be used. This confounding of the content of the document and its intended 

use is a recurring theme. A related nomenclature problem arises because there is some tentativeness 

on the part of the issuers of the documents to demand or require the use of the created CBO 

standards. States may want localities or programs to make independent decisions concerning the use 

of the standards, or they may be somewhat timid, given the historic reluctance toward standards and 

assessment with children of this age, about requiring their use. 

 

Perhaps the greatest reason for the nomenclature confusion is that the early care and education field, 

because of its highly decentralized nature and its conflicting social history, has long had difficulty 

coming to agreement on terms of any sort, and “standards” is simply one more in a long series of 

nomenclature confusions. Take for example the names the field applies to itself: early childhood 

education, early care and education, child care, and preschool. For those inside the field, these terms 

carry with them important distinctions, and so it is with standards. For those who work closely with 

them, the terms “benchmarks,” “guidelines,” “standards,” and “learning outcomes” all have distinct 

meanings. Perhaps as more people become familiar with the early childhood standards issues, the 

terms will be clearer. At present, however, we have found great diversity in how people talk about 

and label (either in writing or in discourse) “CBO standards.” 
 103

Recognizing the intensity of the nomenclature problem, there is important work underway to create 

a lexicon of terms around standards and outcomes. Led by the Council of Chief State School 

Officers and enjoined by representatives of prominent organizations, this work should prove most 

helpful and should be widely disseminated. 

The issue of cloudy nomenclature should not be confused, however, with the efforts by some states 

to develop different kinds of standards, with some focused on what children should know and be 

able to do (CBO standards), some focused on program performance standards, and still others 

concentrated on the development of instructional standards. In this case, there is not nomenclature 

confusion but rather the intention to develop distinct sets of standards for different purposes. 

Recommendation: Develop a common nomenclature for CBO standards. We 

recommend the term “early learning standards.” It should be noted that is not the 

term we have used in this document because we felt it necessary to be quite explicit 

about the subject of our work and, therefore, felt the need to state that we were 

concerned with child-based outcome standards. Hopefully, over time, this label can 

be eliminated and one that is more user-friendly, like early learning standards, 

substituted. 

The Issue of Inclusion 

Throughout this work, we have been impressed with the consistency of the commitment to 

including all children in the standards efforts. In nearly every document, the words “all children” 

appear. The intent of universal application is quite clear. For far too long, insufficiently high 

expectations have been set for children who were perceived to have difficulty learning. Often this 

imagined “difficulty to learn” was associated with income and/or race. In an effort to set universally 

high expectations, the common language and intent of the standards movement is to be all inclusive. 

It is important to note, however, that grave concerns are simultaneously expressed regarding 

children who have learning challenges, including, for example, children with disabilities and 

English language learners. While it is rhetorically appropriate to be inclusive, serious challenges are 

manifest if one takes the application of these standards, with no modifications, to apply to all 

children. For many reasons, the silent secret that few are addressing is the real need to somehow 

tailor the standards for the very limited number of children who do face documented learning 

challenges. In an effort to set very high learning standards for all children, we must recognize an 

emerging conundrum: children do vary on every measurable characteristic, and while we may 

establish common standards for all children, for a limited number of children, some alternations in 

timing, sequence, and patterns of instruction and expectations may be necessary. Although not 

popular to discuss, the need for modifications must be addressed if the standards movement is to 

reach its potential. 
 104

Recommendations: Consider the development of a national panel or task force to 

address the relationship between universal standards and the unique needs of limited 

numbers of young children. Such a group should address the content and application 

of standards for children with disabilities and English language learners, in 

particular, with the goal of advancing the expectations and learning outcomes for all 

children. 

The Nature of CBO Standards’ Content 

This study, while not a content analysis per se, reveals some rich preliminary findings regarding the 

content of the CBO standards. It is important to note that large numbers of states with CBO 

standards have addressed all five dimensions of school readiness specified by the National 

Education Goals Panel: physical and motor development, social and emotional development, 

approaches toward learning, language and communication skills, and cognitive development. In 

states where CBO standards did not address all five domains, the two most often lacking were 

approaches toward learning and social and emotional development. 

We suspect that there may be various reasons for this phenomenon. First, in some cases, these 

domains might have simply not been a priority for the state. We have seen that often states begin 

with CBOs in one domain—often literacy or math—and then move on to others. So, it may well be 

that approaches to learning and social and emotional development will be covered in the future. A 

second reason why there may have been less emphasis here is that the majority of states have 

aligned their standards with those in K–12, where there is often less focus on these domains than for 

early childhood. Therefore, there may be less incentive for their inclusion in standards for younger 

children. Finally, these areas may have been given somewhat less attention because they are more 

difficult to operationalize. Whatever the rationale, it is important to note the lack of emphasis in 

some domains and the simultaneous focus in other domains of development. 

No matter what the reason for the relatively limited attention to social-emotional and approaches 

toward learning domains within the CBO standards, the trend is disturbing. In the comprehensive 

review of early childhood research entitled From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early 

Childhood Development, the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2000) present 

evidence that these domains are inextricably related to children’s later development and learning. 

The report notes that “the growth of self-regulation is a cornerstone of early childhood development 

that cuts across all domains of behavior” (p. 26). Furthermore, the report concludes that 

“establishing relationships with other children is a central task of the early childhood years. The 

success with which young children accomplish this objective can affect whether they will walk 

pathways to competence or deviance as they move into middle childhood and adolescent years” (p. 

180). Clearly, these domains are key to children’s later success. Given the potential for driving 

curricula through CBO standards, it stands to reason that states should address these key domains, 

and we recommend that states continue to work toward including standards that reflect these 

domains. 
 105

We noted also that there was a slight trend to include standards for foreign language. There are 

many reasons why this might be the case. For example, it may be the result of states’ need to honor 

the languages of their many English-language learners, or it may be due to the impact of the brain 

research that stresses children’s early capacity for language facility. The inclusion of these 

standards may also be due to the realization that we are living in a global society and that learning 

multiple languages can best prepare young children for the world they will encounter. In reality, the 

most probable reason that states have covered foreign languages in their early childhood standards 

is that when the CBO standards were developed, they were based on (or included as part of) K–12 

standards that addressed foreign languages. Whatever the rationale, the occurrence is interesting. 

Recommendations: Given the potency of the standards to drive instruction in 

programs, to guide pre- and in-service training, and to serve as 

accountability instruments, it is critical that all five dimensions be included. 

If not, there is strong likelihood that the curriculum will be weighted toward 

domains that, while critically important, do not reflect the integration and 

richness of children’s early learning needs. We strongly recommend that 

states address the social-emotional and approaches to learning domains as 

part of their CBO standards. We also recommend that states give 

consideration to the importance of providing opportunities for children to 

learn a second language as part of their standards development process. 

Developing CBO Standards 

As noted in the study, the development of CBO standards is a comparatively new phenomenon, 

with most of the work being incepted in 2000 or thereafter. Only nine states had standards prior to 

2000 and seven prior to 1999, so there was a limited experiential base from which virgin developers 

of standards for young children could draw. In addition, each of the states has its own history, 

attitudes, and values, both toward standards and toward early care and education. These factors 

conspire to create fairly unique developmental processes in the states. To that end, we applaud the 

work of the National Association for the Education of Young Children in its recent position 

statement that provides guidelines for standards development. 

Among the earliest issues, noted in this document and elsewhere, that developers face is specifying 

the purpose and intended use of the standards. We noted that many of the standards development 

efforts emerged with close links to public education and the pressure for accountability being felt 

there. We also noted that many state legislatures, investing new dollars in early care and education 

programs, were anxious to have information on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of their 

investments. Having measurable standards was deemed one way to discern this. Our analysis 

indicated that often these precipitating events framed the rationale for the standards and the timeline 

and process for their development. For example, in some states with a strong legislative impetus, 

the time available for standards development was short, sometimes forcing either a less inclusive 

standards development process or a more restricted focus of the standards content. This may 

partially account for the reality that many states develop standards in one or two domains (literacy 

and math) initially, then return to the process to add on other domains. 
 106

The political context may also help account for the standards development/re-development process 

that we observed. In one state, for example, a set of standards was developed during the tenure of 

one governor; when a new governor took office, a new set of standards was called for. In other 

states, because of education-related mandates, standards were developed that were attached to the 

K–12 standards, but with more time, new standards that are more “early childhood in nature” are 

being developed. Conversely, in some states, the standards developed were not sufficiently 

academic in orientation and are being re-designed to accommodate the political press for more 

content-oriented standards. Clearly, the political context helped frame the intentions, 

conceptualization, and content of the standards in states where CBO standards exist. The potency of 

political context is also evidenced in states where there are no CBO standards. Recall that concerns 

about the hegemony of local control were offered as a rationale for the absence of a state role in 

CBO standards efforts. The first lesson related to development, then, is that the CBO standards 

efforts do not fall on a tabula rasa; to the contrary, they are clear products of their politicalphilosophical environs. 

 

A second consideration that emerged in the development phase was whether the standards being 

developed would apply to all preschool-aged children (typically ages three to five) or to only those 

children who were nearing their formal school entry (five-year-olds) and whether to include even 

younger children (birth through age three). States had to decide whether to target their standards at a 

range of ages (typically three to five years) or a specific point in time (completion of preschool or 

beginning of kindergarten). Given concerns about CBO standards possibly being used as a 

gatekeeper to keep children from entering kindergarten, this was an important decision, since CBO 

standards covering a broad range of ages might be less likely to lend themselves to being used to 

make placement decisions about individual children. 

Beyond this, the ages of the children for whom the standards were being developed also influenced 

who was to be involved in the process, which agency took leadership, and the content to be 

addressed. Our analysis revealed that the development of the standards was most often geared to 

older preschool children (four- and five-year-olds) and was strongly linked to the state education 

system. Only four states reported CBO standards for children from birth to 36 months, though some 

states, having developed standards for four- and five-year-olds, are now turning to the development 

of standards for younger children. As these standards emerge, it will be important to discern how 

they align with standards for older preschoolers. 

A third issue for consideration in the CBO standards development process was how to approach the 

linkage between the CBO standards and the kindergarten or K–12 standards. It is clear from the 

interview data that states felt it was vitally important that their CBO standards were in some way 

related to the K–12 standards. Each of the respondents reported that his or her state’s CBO 

standards were in some way linked to the K–12 standards. However, states varied tremendously in 

how this linkage was operationalized. In some states, the actual K–12 standards were incorporated 

into the CBO standards (or vice versa). In others, developmental domains or subject areas from the 

K–12 standards were used in the CBO standards; others saw their standards as linked to the K–12 

standards although evidence of the linkage within the document was less obvious. Another 

consideration is whether the CBO standards are seen as building to the K–12 standards or as an 

extension of the K–12 standards downward into early childhood settings. There is clearly a desire to 
 107

see the CBO standards related to the K–12 standards, but exactly how that is carried out may be an 

important decision point for states in their process of developing CBO standards. 

Another issue for consideration, related to some of the political-philosophical context issues 

discussed earlier, was the role of the state and the role of separate localities in the development of 

the standards. In almost all cases, the state took leadership in the development of the CBO standards 

that were to be considered “state” standards. It should be noted, however, that during our 

conversations with informants, we did learn about other sets of CBO standards, many of which were 

locally developed. In addition, some states considered providing guideline standards at the state 

level with some discretion accorded the local level for adaptation to meet local needs, cultures, and 

contexts. Just how the standards will be used and what capacity exists for aggregation of any data 

collected based on the CBO standards under these conditions merit consideration in the 

development phase. 

Finally, we did note some trends in the development phases between states that were early adopters 

of standards and those that were later adopters of standards. In the case of the early adopters, they 

were pioneers forging new terrain, with less of an information base to build upon. Later developers 

had the benefit of the pioneers and often drew on their experiences and standards. We noted that 

often states relied on or at least reviewed the work of other states as sources for their own work. In 

some cases, more than paper exchanges took place; individuals engaged in the process linked with 

each other, attended conferences, and shared resources. In these cases, the later-developing states 

had the benefit of the work of others, and this often led to expedited processes. 

Recommendations: The task of developing CBO standards is extremely 

complex. States should clearly articulate why they are developing standards 

at the beginning of the process, allow sufficient time for the process (data 

indicate at least a year), and make thoughtful decisions about who should be 

included in order to ensure that key stakeholders are represented and there is 

sufficient expertise (both in terms of child development and knowledge of the 

program to which the standards will be applied) to generate CBO standards 

that are valid and useful. States should take steps to ensure that the most upto-date research and content knowledge is used in the development of the 

standards. In addition to embarking on the development of standards with 

solid knowledge, clear intentions, and sufficient time, resources to support 

the standards development process must be established. Such resources 

might include exchanges in the form of ongoing symposia, workshops, and 

retreats where those charged with standards development can share 

documents, information, and experiences that would make the development 

process more efficient and potentially more effective. 

Use of CBO Standards 

Perhaps the most complicated set of issues connected to CBO standards relates to their use. These 

issues take several forms. First, there is the issue of the universality of application. We noted, for 

example, that states elected to apply the use of standards differently. In some states, usage was 
 108

recommended across all programs serving the age cohort for whom the standards were intended in 

the state, so that if the standards were developed for four-year-old children, their use would be 

recommended statewide for this age population. More often than not, however, this was not the 

pattern. Typically, a state recommended or required the use of the developed standards within a subset of the state’s population. Often the sub-set correlated with specific programs, often those that 

were funded by public dollars. So, for example, it was quite common for states to require the use of 

standards with specified programs serving targeted populations of young children. 

In addition to minimizing the potential use of the standards, this strategy also exacerbates a divide 

too long prevalent in early childhood education. If the use of standards were to accelerate young 

children’s positive learning outcomes, why would their use be limited to only some programs and 

some children? Will this not further increase the differences in quality among programs and the 

differences in outcomes for children? Under ideal circumstances, standards developed by the state 

should be used ubiquitously for all children. Informants indicated that states felt they did not have 

the right or authority to impose such standards on all programs, particularly those in the for-profit 

sector and family child care programs. Here the unique history of early childhood education 

reappears and contours the use of standards. Because, unlike K–12 education, early childhood 

education is not compulsory and is not fully publicly funded, the legality of imposing requirements 

(in this case, standards) on all programs is still questioned. While state regulations do exist in all 

states, they do not apply to all programs, with many being legally exempt. A question, then, to be 

addressed is one that combines implementation authority with equity: How can states foster 

equitable child outcomes when they have inequitable program responsibility? 

A second challenge, also deeply rooted in the history of early childhood education, is the 

development of multiple sets of standards within a state. Alluded to earlier within the context of 

different sets of standards existing for different age groups, the problem of multiple standards also 

exists, and is perhaps more troublesome, for children of the same age group. In many states, 

programs promulgate their own standards in addition to those that the state has developed. 

Throughout the nation, for example, Head Start has now required the use of its child outcomes 

within its programs. However, those programs also rest within states and often use state funds to 

support some of their activities. The problem for programs, then, is which set of standards to meet, 

those promulgated by the state or those advanced by their own program. The situation is made even 

more complex when funds from several sources are used to serve the children and their families; 

programs legitimately feel dual accountability. 

The issue of multiple sets of standards is problematic for the programs and reflects the age-old 

schism in the field. Historically, early childhood has been funded as a series of discrete programs, 

each with its own standards, requirements, and regulations. Now, rather than using standards as the 

natural and cogent glue to bind the intentions of all early childhood programs and to unite them 

around common goals for children, the standards—as they are unfolding in many states—have 

become another domain of contention and difference. In some cases, the existence of multiple sets 

of standards could lead directors who do not want to be accountable to these different standards to 

re-organize their programs and pull apart healthy collaborations that have linked funding streams to 

provide comprehensive services for children. Therefore, the lack of uniform standards could force 

program leaders to undo much of their effective linkage work because they do want to impose 

double accountability on teachers and themselves. From this perspective, how the use of standards 
 109

unfolds, particularly when a single program is required to meet several sets of standards, will be 

important for the field. At once, the field has the opportunity to use standards to link programs or to 

sever and inhibit such relationships. From a systems perspective, this is a critical consideration for 

standards implementation, particularly in light of the recent Good Start, Grow Smart initiative’s call 

for voluntary early learning guidelines to be developed for child care programs. Potential exists for 

yet another set of standards to be developed in states. 

The third issue that emerges in discussions of the use of standards relates directly to how states 

intend for the standards to be used in the programs that are using them—the nature and intensity of 

the mandate. As the study reveals, the standards are being used very differently, with some states 

mandating their use and following up with monitoring and training and technical assistance. Other 

states simply issue the standards and make them available on the Web. In other cases, the standards 

are being used as the metric against which children’s performance will be assessed. In these cases 

(as in all settings), it is important to consider the alignment of the standards with both the 

curriculum and the assessments. As we have seen, there is no consistent pattern of use that emerges. 

This further complicates the range of impacts that standards do and can have on children’s early 

learning and development. 

Manifesting these differences, questions emerge regarding the intentionality of the standards. Have 

they been developed with the goal of improving pedagogy and instructional practice, with the goal 

of accountability, with the goal of meeting a legislative mandate? Questions also emerge regarding 

the intensity or degree of requirement for use that is likely to yield results. For example, if the 

standards are promoted as voluntary guidelines, will they be put to use? What is the impact of a 

mandate on their actual use? 

 

A fourth issue, not one based on intensity of requirement or intentionality of use, relates to the way 

the standards are actually being used on the front line by teachers in programs. This is where the 

rubber meets the road for children. Because this study drew its information from administrators 

primarily, we do have some idea, but not first-hand observations, regarding the use of the standards 

in actual programs, and like everything else related to standards, their use varies considerably. That 

is to say, in some settings where there is technical assistance and support of duration, our 

informants sensed that the standards were in greater use than in settings where there had been no 

technical support. Although this does make sense, ambiguity persists regarding what “use” means. 

Are the standards being used as guidelines to consider when planning pedagogical experiences for 

children? Are they being used as elements of ongoing assessments to discern what children know 

and are able to do? If the latter is the case, is the information garnered from the CBO standards 

being collected periodically and is it being used to help teachers plan and share their classroom 

strategies? And if this is the case, what is the relationship between the CBO standards and the 

curriculum? Is the content linked? Has any mapping of the intentions of standards, the assessments, 

and the curriculum taken place? 

Complicated questions in the abstract, these issues are even more complex in reality. At first blush, 

such linkage seems necessary and prudent. Yet, upon examination, the standards-assessmentcurriculum trilogy opens lingering questions about the nature of early childhood pedagogy (e.g., 

what is an appropriate balance between teacher intentionality and child initiation? What is the 

nature of effective observation in early childhood classrooms? What is the appropriate content of 
 110

early childhood curricula?). Couple the ambiguities associated with these issues with the reality of 

the challenges of implementing any reform and the magnitude of the impact of CBO standards 

becomes even more apparent. We know from the literature that implementing even small changes in 

educational settings is difficult. Using standards that are effectively linked to assessment and 

curriculum presents a potentially massive change for front-line staff. Much more analysis is needed 

to better understand how these implementation issues are playing out in states, as well as in local 

programs. Such analyses must examine if the use of standards is hastened by supports in the form of 

training and technical assistance. What are the methods of linkages in practice between standards at 

the preschool level and standards at the kindergarten and primary levels? What attitudinal issues 

must be addressed to ensure the effective use of standards? These issues await analysis, but they 

must not wait too long because, as we have seen, the use of CBO standards is being fostered 

immediately, with consequences that we have yet to fully understand. 

Embedded in this set of issues is the question of the use of standards for informing parents of 

children’s progress. Many early educators legitimately worry that families will misinterpret the 

press for standards and exert far more pressure on their children. While the importance of early 

learning is critical to emphasize for parents, sometimes this is manifest in a “drill and kill” focus. 

Early educators need support as they work with parents to understand the importance of standards, 

in general. More specifically, early educators need support in translating the results of standardsbased assessments to parents in meaningful ways that inspire home-based support for ageappropriate learning. 

Finally, there is a set of questions that combines the variables discussed above—universality of 

application, multiple standards, intensity of mandate, and the actual implementation. We question 

whether it is preferable to establish voluntary standards for the entire state or mandatory standards 

for a sub-set of programs. Is it better to have multiple sets of standards over none whatsoever? Is it 

preferable to require the use of standards, knowing that they will not be monitored, or simply 

recommend their use until a monitoring and support scheme can be established? How linked to 

assessment and curriculum must the standards be before their use can be recommended or 

supported, either on a voluntary or mandated basis? And what is the real capacity of states and the 

nation to produce and implement standards that are fully integrated with assessment and 

curriculum? Our study was not designed to yield answers to these questions, but they are empirical 

in nature and beg for analysis. In addressing these questions and the legion of others that will 

emerge, it is important to keep in mind the kind of early care and education system we hope to 

evolve—one with a future orientation, not predicated in and bound by the current approach to 

American early care and education. 

 

Recommendations: Provide support to front-line staff as they implement 

CBO standards in the form of mentoring, workshops, and pre-service and inservice training to ensure that the standards are linked to assessment and 

curriculum. Ensure that this support includes the importance of effective 

communication of standards to parents. Provide support to states and 

programs as they discern how to consolidate and/or navigate multiple sets of 

standards. Provide a forum and funds for more systematic evaluation of the 

implementation and use of standards across the nation, with a specific focus 

on linkages among standards, assessments, and curriculum. Fund empirical 
 111

studies that examine the use of standards and the nature of changes in child 

outcomes. Examine the relationship between universality of application, 

multiple standards, and the intensity of the mandate. 

 

How We Hold the CBO Standards 

Perhaps most important are issues related to how we hold the standards. By this we mean, what are 

our real intentions for creating and using standards for young children and what do we hope to 

genuinely accomplish by using them? 

We have seen states moving rapidly to develop and introduce CBO standards. Often in the haste to 

implement such standards, often at the behest of legislatures or governors, time cannot or is not 

expended in examining the raison d’etre for the CBO standards themselves. In some cases, 

informants suggested that the development of the standards was in fulfillment of a state mandate 

and that too little time and thought and too few resources had been expended in their development 

and implementation. We need to question the degree to which it is expected that the standards will 

actually be used by program personnel and for what purposes. 

Installing something as dramatic as standards into early childhood programs demands both thought 

and support. Thought is necessary because, as a field, many workers are not predisposed to the idea 

of standards or a formalized curriculum. CBO standards are a relatively new phenomena, and frontline staff have not learned about what they are or how to use them in their professional development 

experiences. This lack of information, coupled with some lingering questions about the 

appropriateness of such standards and the relatively small amount of resources that have heretofore 

been invested in the implementation process, could interfere with the use of CBO standards in the 

classroom. Understanding these issues, it is important to note that only one state—Colorado—will 

not disseminate guidelines without providing technical assistance and support. This strategy may 

limit the spread of the guidelines, but it does enhance the likelihood that the CBO standards will be 

understood and used with some fidelity of purpose. It may well be that if we really expect standards 

to be used, we need to seriously consider our dissemination and support strategies. This will enable 

the standards to be more than a paper document and imbue them with real purpose. 

A second and related issue addresses the embeddedness of standards in K–12 education. 

Throughout this document, we have seen that the links to K–12 standards and K–12 education are 

indeed strong. The majority of the standards efforts were launched or headed by departments of 

education; a large number of the standards have been explicitly linked to K–12 standards, and large 

numbers of the standards are being used in school-related programs. We have seen that it is entirely 

possible for such CBO standards to be appropriate for the three- to five-year-olds and that many 

educators are now turning their attention to children younger than three. The question being raised 

by some early educators is to what extent is this involvement with the K–12 system altering the 

values long espoused by the early childhood education field? Can we have CBO standards that 

respect young children’s unique developmental needs and growth paths? Can we reconcile a 

developmental orientation with one that is primarily curricular in orientation? Will the 

establishment of CBO standards by the education community undermine early educators’ rightful 

and historic role with young children? 
 112

These legitimate questions relate to the fundamental identity of early education. Always tossed 

between health and human services and education, between the unstructured nature of early 

education and the structure of public education, early childhood is at a pivotal point in its social 

history. Wanting to retain its special foci, yet needing to align with the force of formal education, 

early childhood education is in transition. And nothing points out this transition more than the CBO 

standards debate and the data revealed in this analysis. It is clear that education, with its emphasis 

on standards and professionalization and with its stable funding, is increasingly pointing the way for 

early childhood education. The challenge before early educators is to make way for the benefits of 

this necessary and long-overdue alliance without sacrificing the strengths of traditional early care 

and education. The CBO standards movement, especially as it seems to be playing out, will give 

momentum to these discussions. 

Recommendations: There is a need for open and honest discourse around 

CBO standards and the related system issues they evoke between formal K–

12 education and early childhood education. While many states are moving 

toward universal pre-kindergarten, much of this activity is being 

conceptualized as another program, not as a means to integrate a system of 

care and education for American children. We recommend that sustained 

opportunities for linkage, research, and policy be developed that will address 

the design and implementation of a system of early care and education that is 

designed, supported, and implemented in concert with Head Start, child care, 

and the public schools. 

Conclusion 

This study, while directed at CBO standards and their use, has revealed that like many issues in 

early childhood education, CBO standards cannot stand alone. Their presence, their very being, is 

enmeshed with larger issues that have characterized the field for decades: equity for children across 

diverse programs and delivery streams and linkages with public education while retaining a 

developmental orientation. To understand the challenges associated with creating and implementing 

CBO standards is to understand the challenges associated with early childhood education. As such, 

CBO standards—important in their own right—may also be regarded as a critical barometer of 

American early care and education. 

References 

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. Jack P. Shonkoff and Deborah A. Phillips, eds. Board on Children, Youth, and 

Families, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C.: 

National Academy Press. 
 113

APPENDIX A 

Early Learning Standards 

Survey of States Interview Protocol

We are conducting this study to collect data on how states have developed and defined early 

learning standards for children ages birth through kindergarten entry. By “early learning standards” 

we mean any effort a state-level organization has made to define or outline expectations for 

children’s learning. The standards may be known under any number of titles, such as early learning 

frameworks, benchmarks, child outcome indicators, desired results, etc. 

The information gained through this survey will be extremely beneficial for the early childhood 

field. The report from the survey will be the most comprehensive source of information available on 

early learning standards developed across the country. There are no risks for participants in this 

study. Responses will be recorded and reviewed by respondents for accuracy. Data will be analyzed 

in such a manner that responses cannot be attributed to individual respondents. By continuing with 

this phone call, you agree to participate in the study. You are free to refuse to participate or to 

withdraw your consent to participate in this research at any time without penalty or prejudice by 

simply discontinuing our phone call; your participation is entirely voluntary. Your privacy will be 

protected because you will not be identified by name as a participant in this project. 

During the phone interview for the Early Learning Standards Study, we will be asking the following 

questions:

State: _____________ 

Person interviewed: __________________________ 

Position: ______________ 

 

Phone number: ______________________ 

Fax number: ________________________ 

E-mail address: ______________________ 

1. Please describe how your state-level organization or agency has defined expectations for 

children’s learning prior to entering kindergarten. Does your state have early learning 

standards (or frameworks, benchmarks, outcomes/indicators, etc.) to describe 

expectations for children’s learning or behaviors between the ages of birth through 

kindergarten entry that are applicable across the state? ____ Yes ______ No 

If no, please skip to Question 5 
 114

1a. What is the formal name of the early learning standards? 

1b. What ages of development do they cover? 

 Infant/Toddler (birth to three):

 Three–Five Years: 

1c. Please list or describe the categories of development/skills addressed in the 

standards. 

 Infant/Toddler: 

 Three–Five Years: 

1d. Which of the following developmental domains identified by the National 

Educational Goals Panel do the early learning standards cover? (Check appropriate 

box.) 

 

Age 

Group 

Physical/ 

Health 

Cognitive Approaches

to Learning 

Social/ 

Emotional 

Communication Other (list) 

Infant/ 

Toddler 

 

Three– 

Five Yrs. 

1e. Are these early learning standards descriptions of what the state-level 

agency/organization would ideally like for all children to exhibit/demonstrate or are 

they descriptions of characteristics/skills children are expected to display? (Check 

appropriate box.) 

Ages Descriptions of “Ideal” Descriptions of What is 

Expected 

Infant/Toddler 

Three– 

Five Yrs. 

 

 1f. To what extent are the early learning standards linked to or modeled after 

standards developed for your state’s K–12 system? 
 115

2. How were the early learning standards (expectations or child-based outcomes) 

developed? 

2a. Why was the process started? Was there a formal legislative mandate, departmental 

order, etc., or was the process based on a more informal recognition of a need for 

such a document? Was the need for early learning standards related to the movement 

to develop standards for the K–12 standards? If so, how? 

 Infant/Toddler: 

 Three–Five Years: 

2b. Who was included in the process of developing the standards? What groups were 

represented? Who headed up the effort? How long did it take? 

 Infant/Toddler: 

 Three–Five Years: 

2c. How was the effort/initiative to develop the early learning standards 

financed? Where did the funding come from and what 

agency/organization had fiscal oversight for the process? 

 Infant/Toddler: 

Three–Five Years: 

2d. Are your state-level agency/organization’s early learning standards based on a 

particular philosophical view, theory of learning, conceptual framework, and/or 

research-base? If so, please describe the framework used and how it is reflected in 

the standards. 

 Infant/Toddler: 

 Three–Five Years: 

2e. Are the early learning standards modeled on other state and/or national models for 

standards or indicators? If so, please describe which state or national models were 

used. 

 Infant/Toddler: 

 Three–Five Years: 
 116

2f. How have you incorporated children with a wide range of developmental levels, 

especially with children from special circumstances (children with disabilities, 

limited English proficiency, behavioral and emotional problems, children from 

highly mobile and/or limited income families), into the early learning standards? 

 

 Infant/Toddler: 

 Three–Five Years: 

 2g. Have the early learning standards been formally adopted by groups, 

agencies, or boards? If so, please list them. 

 Infant/Toddler: 

 Three–Five Years: 

 2h. Do you anticipate any changes or modifications to the standards in the 

near future (within the next 12–18 months)? If so, please describe why the 

standards might be modified and how the modifications may be 

developed/implemented. 

 Infant/Toddler: 

 Three–Five Years: 

3. How does your state-level agency/organization implement or disseminate the early 

learning standards? 

 3a. What program(s) use the early learning standards and how are they used? 

 Infant/Toddler: 

 Three–Five Years: 

 3b. Who publishes the early learning standards? 

 Infant/Toddler: 

 Three–Five Years: 

 3c. How do persons (teachers, administrators, parents) know about the early 

learning standards? How are the early learning standards made 

available/disseminated? (Check all that apply.) 
 117

 _____ Print document available to the public 

 _____ Internal document (transmittal notice, memo, etc.) 

 _____ Video (training or promotional) 

 _____ Available on the Web at ____________________ 

 _____ Conferences, workshops, training presentations 

 _____ Other: __________________________________ 

 3d.What resources or support systems are in place to support the use or implementation 

of the early learning standards? 

 Infant/Toddler: 

 Three–Five Years: 

 3e. Are the early learning standards used to make accountability decisions about 

programs or individual children (such as assigning children to programs or as a 

factor to determine funding or ratings for early childhood programs)? If so, please 

describe. 

 Infant/Toddler: 

 Three–Five Years: 

4. Does your state-level agency/organization collect data to provide an indication of the 

degree to which the early learning standards are being met/achieved? 

_____Yes _____ No 

If no, please skip to Question 4e 

 4a. If so, what agency/organization is leading the effort, and can you provide 

 any contact information? 

 4b. How is the process funded? 

 4c. Please briefly describe the type of data collected. For what purpose are 

 the data used? 

Infant/Toddler: 

___ Statewide screening (health and developmental) 

___ Performance data on individual child outcomes 
 118

___ Program evaluation data 

 Three–Five Years: 

___ Statewide screening (health and developmental) 

___ Performance data on individual child outcomes 

 ___ Program evaluation data 

 4d. Who collects the information? 

 Infant/Toddler: 

 Three-Five Years: 

 4e. What sources of information are used? (Check all that apply.)

Ages Direct 

Assessment or 

Observation of 

Children’s 

Behavior and 

Skills 

Teacher 

Reports 

Parent 

Reports 

Other 

Infant/ 

Toddlers 

 

Three–Five 

Years 

 4f. Is there a systematic way of pulling these data together at the state level? If so, please 

describe this process. 

 Infant/Toddler: 

 Three–Five Years: 

 

 4g. If your state-level agency/organization does not currently collect data related to the 

early learning standards, are there plans to develop a data collection system? Please 

describe. Who is involved in planning for the system? What agency/organization is 

leading the effort? How is the planning process funded? 

Please skip to Question 6
 119

5. If your state-level agency or organization does not currently define early 

learning standards (either not at all or not for a particular age group), then has 

your state begun to study this issue? What agency is leading the effort? Who is 

involved? Please describe the process you have been/will be using. Where is the funding 

for the initiative coming from? What further actions are planned? 

 Infant/Toddlers: 

 Three–Five Years: 

6. Is there anyone else within your state you would suggest that we talk with about statelevel efforts to develop and/or use early learning standards? If so, how should we contact 

him/her?

7. Have any local communities or school districts within your state developed 

particularly good models for early learning standards? If so, please describe 

them and suggest where we might find additional information on the effort. 

 8. Please send us the following (if you have them): 

a) Written definition of early learning standards 

b) Legislation regarding early learning standards 

c) Instruments developed and/or a list of instruments used 

d) Any reports on early learning standards (including general reports on readiness or 

reports on data in your state) 

e) Is any of this information available on the Web? If so, please include the address. 

Send all information to: 

Teachers College/Columbia University 

ATTN: Vickie Frelow 

Box 226 

525 West 120th Street 

New York, NY 10027 

Once we have collected the data via phone interviews, we will post a report from survey 

results on the SERVE web page. We will send you an e-mail notice that the report has been 

posted. You will be able to find it at www.serve.org. 
 120

APPENDIX B 

Letter of Introduction to Respondents 

October 2001 

Address 

Address 

Address 

Dear : 

SERVE is collaborating with the Center for Children and Families at Teachers College at Columbia 

University and the National Association for the Education of Young Children to conduct a national 

survey to document how states are currently developing and defining early learning standards for 

children from birth through kindergarten entry. Although there has been some effort to study early 

learning standards at the national level, we know very little about what is happening in individual 

states. This study will provide critical information on each state’s efforts to articulate expectations 

for children’s learning before they enter school. 

During the next few weeks, we will be contacting state early childhood specialists, state-level child 

care administrators, and state AEYC presidents to conduct a survey of current policies and practices 

related to state-level early learning standards. The study will collect information on any effort that a 

state-level organization has made to define expectations for children’s early learning and/or 

behaviors. These early learning standards may be called early learning frameworks, benchmarks, 

desired results, child indicators, etc. We are including all of the above in our study of early 

learning standards. We hope to talk with individuals in each state to document how states are 

defining early learning expectations and how the standards are used. 

We would like to talk with you on the phone and ask you a few questions regarding your state’s 

policies and practices. Within the next few days, Vickie Frelow or Lynda Hallmark, graduate 

students at Teachers College, will be contacting you to schedule a convenient interview date and 

time. We have enclosed a copy of the interview questionnaire so that you might have an opportunity 

to think about the questions and collect any relevant information. The interview will last 

approximately 20–30 minutes. Questions regarding your rights as a participant in this project can be 

answered by calling Dr. Beverly Maddox-Britt, of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 

at (336) 334-5878. 

If you feel that there is someone else who can provide us with more useful information, we would 

appreciate his or her name, phone number, and e-mail address. In addition, we ask that you please 

forward this letter and questionnaire to them, or we will be happy to do so. 
 121

Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter. We know that you maintain a very busy 

schedule, and we appreciate your willingness to help. If you have any questions, please feel free to 

contact Catherine Scott-Little by phone (800-755-3277) or e-mail (cscottli@serve.org). 

We hope that you will participate in this study, which we believe will provide important 

information on how our country is thinking about children’s early learning. We plan to post the 

results of this survey on the SERVE web page (www.serve.org) and will notify you as soon as it is 

available. 

Sincerely, 

Catherine Scott-Little, Ph.D. 

SERVE 

Sharon Lynn Kagan, Ed.D. 

Teachers College at Columbia University 

Mark Ginsberg, Ph.D. 

National Association for the Education of Young Children 

Enclosure 
 122

APPENDIX C 

Developmental Dimension Descriptions* 

Physical Well-Being and Motor Development 

Physical well-being and motor development includes characteristics of a child’s physical 

development and physical abilities. Elements of children’s physical development include the child’s 

overall rate of growth, level of physical fitness, and body physiology. Children’s physical abilities 

include gross motor skills, fine motor skills, oral motor skills, sensorimotor skills, and functional 

performance. 

Social and Emotional Development 

Social development alludes to children’s abilities to form and sustain social relationships with 

adults and peers. Seen as a key to success in school, socially competent children are able to 

communicate with adults and understand and identify adult roles. It is also important for children to 

develop social skills necessary to cooperate with peers and to form and sustain reciprocal 

friendships. Self-concept, or the traits, habits, abilities, motives, social roles, goals, and values that 

define how children perceive themselves, is an essential element of both social and emotional 

development. Likewise, a child’s ability to regulate emotions and understand the feelings of others 

and his/her sense of self-efficacy are central to emotional development. 

Approaches Toward Learning 

Children’s general approach toward learning includes their attitudes, habits, and learning styles. 

Generally a child’s approach toward learning is influenced by predispositions that reflect his/her 

gender, temperament, and cultural patterns and values. Children’s learning styles—their openness to 

and curiosity about new tasks and challenges; their initiative, task persistence, and attentiveness; 

their approach to reflection and interpretation; their capacity for invention and imagination; and 

their cognitive approaches to tasks—also influence their approach toward learning. 

Language and Communication 

Language development is the acquisition of linguistic forms and procedures, as well as social rules 

and customs that guide how children express themselves and understand communications from 

other persons. Components of language development include an understanding of content, form, 

and use of language. Verbal language skills, such as listening, speaking, social uses of language, 

vocabulary and meaning, questioning, and creative uses of language, are important elements of 

communication. Likewise, emerging literacy skills, such as literature awareness, print awareness, 

story sense, and writing processes, are essential as well. 
 123

Cognition and General Knowledge 

Cognition and general knowledge include a number of components. The first component is physical 

knowledge of the properties of objects within the world around the child. Logico-mathematical 

knowledge, or the relationships created by individuals within their minds between objects, events, 

or people, is a second component of cognition and general knowledge. Finally, social-conventional 

knowledge, or awareness of the agreed-upon conventions of society and the school-learned 

knowledge or conventions, is the third element of cognition and general knowledge. Corresponding 

abilities include representational thought, problem-solving, mathematical knowledge, social 

knowledge, and imagination. 

* Adapted from Kagan, S. L., Moore, E., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (1995). Reconsidering children’s 

early development and learning: Toward common views and vocabulary. Washington, DC: United 

States Government Printing Office. 
 124

APPENDIX D 

Child-Based Outcome Standards Documents 

Arkansas 

Arkansas Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education. (1999). Arkansas Early 

Childhood Education Framework: Benchmarks with Strategies/Activities for Three and Four Year 

Old Children. Little Rock, AR: The Arkansas Division of Child Care and Early Childhood 

Education. 

California 

California Department of Education. (2001). Desired Results for Children and Families: 

Developmental Continuum of Desired Results, Indicators, and Measures for Children from Birth to 

14 Years and Families Served by CDD-funded Center-based Programs and Family Child Care 

Home Networks. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. Available at 

http://www.cde.ca.gov/cyfsbranch/child_development/dr2.htm

(provides a summary of the desired results system) and at 

http://www.cde.ca.gov/cyfsbranch/child_development/downloads/Iam.pdf 

(provides the indicators that are part of the desired results for children birth through age 14) 

Colorado 

Colorado Department of Education. (2000). Building Blocks to Colorado’s Content Standards. 

Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Education. 

Available at 

Reading and Writing: 

http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/download/pdf/EC-BldgBlks%20ReadWrit.pdf

Mathematics: 

http://www.cde.state.co.us/earlychildhoodconnections/docs/pdf/MathBB.pdf

Connecticut 

Connecticut State Board of Education. (1999). The Connecticut Framework: Preschool Curricular 

Goals and Benchmarks. Hartford, CN: State of Connecticut, State Board of Education. Available at 

http://www.state.ct.us/sde/deps/early/Frmwrkbench.pdf

Florida 

Florida Partnership for School Readiness. (2002). Florida School Readiness Performance 

Standards for Three-, Four-, and Five-Year-Old Children. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Partnership for 

School Readiness. Available at 

http://www.myflorida.com/myflorida/government/governorinitiatives/schoolreadiness/pdf/Performa

nceStandards3-4-5.pdf
 125

Georgia 

Georgia Office of School Readiness. (2001). Office of School Readiness, Georgia Pre-K Program 

Learning Goals. Atlanta, GA: Office of School Readiness, Georgia Pre-K Program. Available at 

http://www.osr.state.ga.us/forms/PreKGoals.PDF

Illinois 

Illinois State Board of Education. (2002). Resources on Early Learning: Illinois Early Learning 

Standards. Springfield, IL: Illinois State Board of Education, Division of Early Childhood 

Education. Available at 

http://www.illinoisearlylearning.org/standards/index.htm

This site describes the standards and provides links to separate files for the introduction to the 

document and different domains: 

Language arts: http://www.illinoisearlylearning.org/standards/languagearts.htm

Mathematics: http://www.illinoisearlylearning.org/standards/math.htm

Science: http://www.illinoisearlylearning.org/standards/science.htm

Social sciences: http://www.illinoisearlylearning.org/standards/socscience.htm

Physical/health: http://www.illinoisearlylearning.org/standards/phydev.htm

Fine arts: http://www.illinoisearlylearning.org/standards/finearts.htm

Foreign languages: http://www.illinoisearlylearning.org/standards/foreignlang.htm

Social/emotional: http://www.illinoisearlylearning.org/standards/socemodev.htm

Indiana 

Indiana Department of Education. (2002). Foundations for Young Children to the Indiana Academic 

Standards. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of Education, Division of Prime Time. Available 

at http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/primetime/foundations.html * 

This web address is the home page for The Foundations for Young Children to the Indiana 

Academic Standards. From this site a Word document of the standards can be downloaded at 

http://paris.doe.state.in.us/downloads/PreschoolFoundations.doc or a PDF is available for the 

introduction to the document and various domains: 

Mathematics: http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/primetime/pdf/foundationmath.pdf

Physical education: http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/primetime/pdf/foundationphysed.pdf

Science: http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/primetime/pdf/foundationscience.pdf

Music: http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/primetime/pdf/foundationmusic.pdf

Social studies: http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/primetime/pdf/foundationsocialstudies.pdf

Visual arts: http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/primetime/pdf/foundationvisualarts.pdf

Louisiana 

Louisiana Department of Education. (2002). Louisiana Standards for Programs Serving Four-YearOld Children. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana Department of Education, Office of Student and School 

Performance, Division of Student Standards and Assessments. 

This document, which includes program and child-based outcome standards, is available at 

http://www.louisianaschools.net/DOE/asps/home.asp?I=CONTENT (at the bottom of the list of 

content standards). The child-based outcome standards (i.e., “content standards”) section of the 
 126

document can be accessed at 

http://www.louisianaschools.net/DOE/assessment/standards/PDFs/PreKStan3.pdf 

Maine 

Maine Department of Education. (1997). Learning Results. Augusta, ME: Maine Department of 

Education. Available at http://www.state.me.us/education/lres/lres.htm

Subject areas are found in different files: 

Career preparation: http://www.state.me.us/education/lres/career.htm

English/language arts: http://www.state.me.us/education/lres/ela.htm

Health/physical ed: http://www.state.me.us/education/lres/hpe.htm

Modern and classical languages: http://www.state.me.us/education/lres/mcl.htm

Mathematics: http://www.state.me.us/education/lres/math.htm

Science and technology: http://www.state.me.us/education/lres/st.htm

Social studies: http://www.state.me.us/education/lres/ss.htm

Visual and performing arts: http://www.state.me.us/education/lres/vpa.htm

Maine Department of Education. (1999). Birth to Five Early Learning Results. Augusta, ME: Maine 

Department of Education. 

Maryland 

Maryland State Department of Education. (2002). MSDE Representative Examples Manual 

Prekindergarten and Kindergarten Content Standards. Baltimore, MD: Maryland State Department 

of Education. 

Maryland State Department of Education. (2001). The Maryland Model for School Readiness 

(MMSR) “Readiness” Outcomes and Indicators. Baltimore, MD: Maryland State Department of 

Education. Available at http://www.mdk12.org/instruction/ensure/MMSR/MMSRDE1_toc.html * 

Individual domains can be found at the following: 

Physical well-being and motor development: 

http://www.mdk12.org/instruction/ensure/MMSR/MMSRDE1_1.html

Social and emotional development: 

http://www.mdk12.org/instruction/ensure/MMSR/MMSRDE1_2.html

Approaches toward learning: http://www.mdk12.org/instruction/ensure/MMSR/MMSRDE1_3.html

Language and literacy development: 

http://www.mdk12.org/instruction/ensure/MMSR/MMSRDE1_4.html

Cognition and general knowledge: 

http://www.mdk12.org/instruction/ensure/MMSR/MMSRDE1_5.html

Massachusetts 

Massachusetts Department of Education. (2001). Massachusetts Curriculum Framework. Malden, 

MA: Massachusetts Department of Education. Available at 

http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/current.html

Subject areas are available at: 
 127

Arts: http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/arts/1099.pdf

English/language arts: http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/ela/0601.pdf

Foreign languages: http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/foreign/1999.pdf

Comprehensive health: http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/health/1999/1099.pdf

Mathematics: http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/math/2000/final.pdf

History and social science: http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/hss/1022prepub.pdf

Science and technology/engineering: http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/2001/0501.pdf

Massachusetts Board of Education, Early Childhood Advisory Council. (In process). Early 

Childhood Program Standards for Center-Based Programs for Three- and Four-Year Olds. Draft 

standards available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/els/ or at 

http://www.doe.mass.edu/els/rfp_2001/71301.pdf * 

Michigan 

Michigan State Board of Education. (1992). Early Childhood Standards of Quality for 

Prekindergarten Through Second Grade. Lansing, MI: Michigan State Board of Education, Early 

Childhood Education, Parenting, and Comprehensive School Health Unit. 

Minnesota 

Minnesota Department of Children, Families, & Learning. (2000). Minnesota Early Childhood 

Indicators of Progress: A Resource Guide. Roseville, MN: Minnesota Department of Children, 

Families, & Learning. Available at http://cfl.state.mn.us/ecfi/EARLYCHI.PDF

Mississippi 

Mississippi Department of Education. (2001). Mississippi Pre-kindergarten Curriculum Including 

Benchmarks, Informal Assessments and Suggested Teaching Strategies. Jackson, MS: Mississippi 

Department of Education. Available at 

http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/ACAD/ID/curriculum/LAER/MsPreK.pdf

Missouri 

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Early Childhood Section. (2001). 

Missouri Pre-K Literacy Standards. Jefferson City, MO. Available at 

http://www.dese.state.mo.us/divimprove/fedprog/earlychild/pdf/PREKSTANDARDS.pdf

New Jersey 

New Jersey State Department of Education. (2000). Early Childhood Education Program 

Expectations: Standards of Quality. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey State Department of Education. 

New Jersey’s standards are being revised. A draft of the revised early learning standards is available 

at http://www.state.nj.us/njded/ece/expectations/2002/expectations.htm * 
 128

New Mexico 

University of New Mexico Center for Family and Community Partnerships. (2000). Developmental 

Milestones in the Focused Portfolio Assessment System. Information on Focused Portfolio 

Assessment System available at: 

http://www.newassessment.org/public/assessments/AndMore/FocusedPortfolio.cfm

New York 

The University of the State of New York & The State Education Department. (2002). Early Literacy 

Guidance Prekindergarten – Grade 3. Albany, NY: The State Education Department. Available at 

http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/ela/early.pdf

Ohio 

Ohio Department of Education. (2000). Connections: An Early Childhood Education Curriculum 

Framework for Continuity. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education. Available at 

http://www.ode.state.oh.us/ece/connections/connecti.pdf

(Early learning standards are embedded in the document.) 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma State Department of Education. (1996). Developmental Skills. Oklahoma City, OK: 

Oklahoma State Department of Education. Available at 

http://title3.sde.state.ok.us/early/Developmental.htm

Pennsylvania 

Pennsylvania Department of Education & Pennsylvania Association of Intermediate Units. (2001). 

Early Childhood Learning Continuum Indicators. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of 

Education. Available at http://www.pde.state.pa.us/nclb/lib/nclb/earlychildhoodcontinuum.pdf

Rhode Island 

Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2002). Rhode Island Early 

Learning Standards. Providence, RI: Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. 

Available at http://www.ridoe.net/child_family/earlychild/RI_Standards_Complete_Document.pdf1

South Carolina 

South Carolina State Department of Education, Office of Curriculum and Standards. (2001). 

Mathematics Curriculum Standards. Columbia, SC: South Carolina State Department of Education. 

Available at http://www.myscschools.com/offices/cso/mathematics/standards.htm (with separate 

PDF’s for specific mathematics standards) 

English/language arts available at 

http://www.myscschools.com/offices/cso/english_la/standards/grade_band_pk-2.pdf * 

Texas 

Texas Education Agency. (1999). Prekindergarten Curriculum Guidelines. Austin, TX: Texas 

Education Agency. Available at 
 129

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/early/prekguide.pdf#xml=http://www.tea.state.tx.uswww.tea.s

tate.tx.us/cgi/texis/webinator/search/xml.txt?query=prekindergarten&db=db&id=a041babb18155c5

9

Utah 

Utah State Office of Education. (2000). Pre-K Standards (Guidelines). Salt Lake City, UT: Utah 

State Office of Education. Available at http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/curr/early/standards.htm

Virginia 

Virginia Department of Education. (2002). Virginia’s Foundation Blocks for Early Learning: 

Guidelines for Literacy and Mathematics. Richmond, VA: Office of Elementary Instructional 

Services, Virginia Department of Education. * Available at 

http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/Elem_M/FoundationBlocks.pdf 

Vermont 

State of Vermont, Department of Education. (1993). Vermont’s Framework of Standards and 

Learning Opportunities. Montpelier, VT: Vermont Department of Education. Available at 

http://www.state.vt.us/educ/new/html/pubs/framework.html

Washington 

Children’s Services, Community Services Division, Department of Community, Trade and 

Economic Development. (1999). Washington State’s Early Childhood Education and Assistance 

Program Outcomes Selected for New Evaluation Design. Olympia, WA: Washington Community 

Trade and Economic Development Department. Described at 

http://www.ocd.wa.gov/info/csd/waeceap/Child_Outcomes/ChildOutcomes.htm

Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2001). Birth to Five Framework for Achieving 

the Essential Academic Learning Requirements in Reading, Writing and Communication. Olympia, 

WA: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. 

Hard copies can be ordered at www.k12.wa.us/publications (item number AS1019 under the 

subsection entitled “Academic Standards and Assessments”). 

Wyoming 

Wyoming Department of Education. Early Childhood Readiness Standards. Cheyenne, WY: 

Wyoming Department of Education. Available at 

http://www.k12.wy.us/specialprograms/Docs/early_childhood_standards.pdf * 

* Document published subsequent to data collection for this study and therefore is not included in 

the data analysis for this report.