INSIDE THE CONTENT:

THE BREADTH AND DEPTH

OF EARLY LEARNING STANDARDS

By

Catherine Scott-Little

Sharon Lynn Kagan

Victoria Stebbins Frelow

March 2005
Inside the Content: 

The Breadth and Depth of Early Learning Standards 

By 

Catherine Scott-Little, Ph.D. 

Human Development and Family Studies 

SERVE 

University of North Carolina at Greensboro 

Sharon Lynn Kagan, Ed.D. 

Victoria Stebbins Frelow 

Teachers College 

Columbia University 

In Association with the School of Education 

University of North Carolina at Greensboro 

2005 

Edited by 

Donna Nalley, Ph.D., SERVE Publications Director 

Karen DeMeester, Ph.D., 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). The findings and opinions expressed do not 

necessarily reflect the position or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education. 
 ii

Acknowledgments 

We would like to thank a number of persons who were instrumental to our efforts to bring 

this work to fruition. Rosemarie Andrews, Sarah Boeving, Amanda Weisner, and Jennifer 

Kunzman’s assistance in development of the document was invaluable. We would also like 

to thank Victoria Seitz for her insightful assistance with data analysis for the report. 

We especially would like to thank the early childhood specialists in state departments of 

education who participated in the interviews for Phase 1 of this study and have continued 

to provide us with updated standards documents and insights on early learning standards. 

We are grateful to each of the informants 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 in this report will be useful to persons involved in developing and 

implementing early learning standards. 

The authors are also grateful to four anonymous reviewers from the Institute of Education 

Sciences and 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 this research report. 

 

External Reviewers: 

Susan R. Andersen, Iowa Department of Education 

Barbara T. Bowman, The Erikson Institute 

Harriet A. Egertson, Independent Consultant, Early Childhood Education 

Marilou Hyson, National Association for the Education of Young Children 

Deborah Leong, Metropolitan State College of Denver 

 Jana Martella, Council of Chief State School Officers 

SERVE’s Internal Reviewers: 

 Beth Bader, Planning and Development 

 Dee Brewer, Education Policy Program 

E. Glyn Brown, Expanded Learning Opportunities Program 
 iii

 Inside the Content: The Breadth and Depth of Early Learning Standards 

Table of Contents 

Section Title Page 

Number 

Acknowledgments ii 

Background and Purposes for This Study 1 

SERVE’s Early Learning Standards Study 2 

 Phase 1: Understanding the Context of Early Learning Standards 2 

 Phase 2: Examining the Content of Early Learning Standards 3 

 Purpose of This Study 3 

 “Non-Purposes” of This Study 3 

Methodology 4 

 Data Collection 4 

 Collecting Current Sets of Standards 4 

 Developing a Framework for Analysis of Early Learning Standards 6 

 Selecting a Framework as the Basis for a Coding System 6 

 Developing the Protocol for Coding Standards 8 

 Limitations of the Coding Scheme 8 

 Deciding What Standards to Code 9 

 The Data Coding Process 10 

 Coding the Data 10 

 Reliability of the Coding Process 13 

 Using the Framework to Analyze the Content of Early Learning Standards 14 

 Breadth of Standards 16 

 Depth of Standards 16 

Findings 16 

 Variation in the Number of Standards Items and Subject Headings in the 

 Standards Documents 

17 

 Analysis of Breadth: Coverage Across the Five Dimensions 20 

 Absolute Breadth 20 

 Relative Emphasis Within Breadth 23 

 Analysis of Depth: Coverage Within Each of the Five Dimensions 24 

 Absolute Depth 24 

 Relative Emphasis of Depth 26 

 Physical Well-Being and Motor Development 28 

 Social and Emotional Development 29 

 Approaches Toward Learning 29 

 Language and Communication 29 

 Cognition and General Knowledge 30 

Discussion and Recommendations 30 

 Implications 31 

 The Desirability of State Variation 31 

 Balance Among the Dimensions: The “Breadth” of Standards 32 

 Covering Domains Fully: The Depth of Standards 37 
 iv

 Physical Well-Being and Motor Development 37 

 Social and Emotional Development 37 

 Approaches Toward Learning 38 

 Language and Communication 38 

 Cognition and General Knowledge 39 

 Recommendations 40 

Conclusion 43 

References 45 

List of Tables 

Table 1: States With Early Learning Standards Included in This Content 

 Analysis 

5 

Table 2: Sample Standards Items 12 

Table 3: Number of Standards Items and Subject Area Headings Included 

 Within the Standards Documents 

18 

Table 4: Absolute Breadth: One or More Standards Coded for Each 

 Dimension 

21 

Table 5: Percentage of Standards Items in Each of the Five Dimensions 23 

Table 6: Absolute Depth by Dimension 25 

Table 7: Percentage of Standards Items by Indicator Within Each Dimension 27 

List of Figures 

Figure 1: Indicators for Coding Standards 15 

List of Appendices 

Appendix A: Standards Documents Included in the Analysis 

Appendix B: Indicators Used for Coding Standards Items 

Appendix C: State-by-State Breakdown of the Relative Degree of Emphasis 

 Across the Dimensions 

Appendix D: State-by-State Breakdown of the Relative Degree of Emphasis 

 Within the Physical Well-Being and Motor Development 

 Dimension 

Appendix E: State-by-State Breakdown of the Relative Degree of Emphasis 

 Within the Social and Emotional Development Dimension 

Appendix F: State-by-State Breakdown of the Relative Degree of Emphasis 

 Within the Approaches Toward Learning Dimension 

Appendix G: State-by-State Breakdown of the Relative Degree of Emphasis 

 Within the Language and Communication Dimension 

Appendix H: State-by-State Breakdown of the Relative Degree of Emphasis 

 Within the Cognition and General Knowledge Dimension 
 1

Inside the Content: The Breadth and Depth of Early Learning Standards 

Background and Purposes for This Study 

Standards-based education has become the norm in America’s K−12 education system. Virtually 

every state in the nation, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, has developed standards 

to outline expectations for student learning in kindergarten and later grades (American 

Federation of Teachers, 1999). The process of developing standards in the K−12 arena began in 

the late 1980s and has revolutionized the education system in our country. Development of 

standards has been at the heart of the accountability movements in elementary and secondary 

education. Standards define what teachers should teach, what students should learn, and what 

should be assessed to determine the degree to which schools have been effective in helping 

students learn the content articulated in the standards. 

Until recently, early care and education has largely been exempt from the standards-based 

education movement. Traditionally, the focus within early education has been on program 

standards that articulate requirements for basic elements of early care and education services, 

such as staff-child ratios, health and safety practices, and daily schedules and activities. Within 

the past five years, however, there has been a marked increase in the number of states that have 

developed standards for children’s learning and development before kindergarten entry. In 2002, 

just over half the states had some type of standards for preschool-age children or younger 

(commonly known as early learning standards), most developed since 1999 (Kagan & ScottLittle, 2004; Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2003a; 2003b). Furthermore, Head Start has 

promulgated the Head Start Child Outcomes Framework, a document that outlines 100 specific 

expectations for children’s growth and learning (Head Start Bureau, 2001). Numerous 

professional organizations have developed model standards for children’s learning in various 

areas, including the arts, physical education, language, literacy, mathematics, and technology.1

Most recently, the Bush Administration’s Good Start, Grow Smart early childhood initiative 

directed states to include plans for developing “voluntary early learning guidelines” in the areas 

of language and early literacy skills as part of their plans for their Child Care Development 

Funds (CCDF). The Good Start, Grow Smart initiative specifies that these voluntary early 

learning guidelines should be aligned with K−12 standards and should be able to be adapted to 

various child care settings (U.S. Whitehouse, 2002). 

 

1

 Arts Education Partnerships. (1998). Young Children and the Arts: Making Creative Connections. Washington, 

DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Available at http://aep-arts-org. Music Educators National Conference 

(1995). Prekindergarten Music Education Standards. Reston, VA: MENC—The National Association for Music 

Education. Available at www.menc.org/publication/books/performance_standards/prek.html. National Association 

for Sport and Physical Education. (2002). Active Start: A Statement of Physical Activity Guidelines for Children 

Birth to Five Years. Available at 

http://member.aahperd.org/Template.cfm?Template=Categorydisplay.cfm&category=60&ParentCategoryID=5&sec

tion=5. National Dance Education Organization. (2002). Standards for Dance in Early Childhood (Draft). Bethesda, 

MD: Author. National Center on Education and the Economy. Speaking & Listening for Preschool through Third 

Grade. Available at www.ncee.org. International Reading Association. (1996). Standards for the English Language 

Arts. Available at http://newbookstore.reading.org. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Principles and 

Standards for School Mathematics, Chapter 4: Standards for Grades Pre-K–2. Available at 

http://standards.nctm.org/ document/chapter4/index.html. International Society for Technology in Education. 

(1998). National Educational Technology Standards for Children. Eugene, OR: Author. 
 2

Many in the field of early care and education have been wary of “standards” for early childhood 

development because of significant concerns that the nature of development and learning at this 

age does not lend itself to “standardization.” Despite these concerns, the field has witnessed a 

dramatic shift, and now early learning standards are increasingly common. 

Several factors have mediated this press for early learning standards. First, research over several 

decades has shown that children have great capacity for learning during the years before 

kindergarten, and several recent reports, such as Eager to Learn (National Research Council, 

2001), have eloquently and convincingly pointed out the great potential for learning at this age. 

Research has also shown the important impact early education programming can have on 

children’s learning and development. Second, the federal government, states, local school 

districts, and communities have invested tremendous resources in services for children this age 

(Doherty, 2002; Schulman, Blank, & Ewen, 1999). It seems reasonable and perhaps inevitable in 

this age of accountability that policymakers and others want to know just what children are 

supposed to be learning in these early care and education settings. Finally, the accountability 

pressures in the K−12 education system have led many to look to early education as a key for 

improving student performance in the later grades. As such, standards to define what children 

can be expected to learn at this age have become an increasingly important part of efforts to 

promote student learning before kindergarten and, in turn, improve student performance in later 

grades. Given the convergence of these pressures for accountability and intentionality about 

learning in programs serving children before kindergarten, early learning standards have become 

increasingly common (Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2003a; 2003b). 

SERVE’s Early Learning Standards Study 

Phase 1: Understanding the Context of Early Learning Standards 

Recognizing the potential significance of these standards, SERVE partnered with Dr. Sharon 

Lynn Kagan from Teachers College, Columbia University to conduct a national study on early 

learning standards. The study has been conducted in two phases. The first phase was a national 

survey of early education administrators to address four basic research questions: 

1) What states have early learning standards? 

2) How were they developed? 

3) What are some basic features of the standards documents (e.g., what ages and 

levels are targeted, and what subject areas are included?) 

4) How are they being used? 

Results from this study indicated that, as of May 2002, 27 states had published standards 

documents to articulate expectations for children’s growth and development. These state 

standards were focused primarily on children’s growth and learning during the preschool years, 

although a few of these states had early learning standards for infants and toddlers. The standards 

had, for the most part, been developed to improve instruction and programming through a highly 

collaborative process involving multiple stakeholders within each state. The standards were 

primarily developed for use in publicly funded pre-kindergarten programs, although informants 

from most states reported plans to encourage other early care and education programs within the 

state to use them. The degree to which programs are reportedly held accountable for using the 
 3

standards varied. Some states consider them voluntary; some expect programs to use the 

standards but have no system to hold programs accountable; and a few were in the process of 

developing assessment systems to collect data on the extent to which children made progress on 

the skills and abilities articulated in the standards (Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2003a; 2003b). 

Phase 2: Examining the Content of Early Learning Standards 

While helpful in illuminating the status of recent development of early learning standards, the 

first phase of the study did not provide an in-depth analysis of the nature or content of the 

standards themselves. The second phase of the study, a content analysis, is described in this 

report. 

Purpose of this study. The purpose of this descriptive study is to examine the content of 

early learning standards developed by state-level organizations in order to address the following 

research questions: 

1) To what extent have various dimensions of development and learning (i.e., the 

dimensions of physical and motor, social and emotional, approaches toward learning, 

language and communication, and cognition and general knowledge) been addressed 

in early learning standards? What is the relative degree of emphasis within the 

standards on each of the five dimensions of development and learning? 

2) To what extent have specific indicators of children’s learning and development within 

each of the dimensions been addressed in early learning standards? What is the 

relative degree of emphasis placed on the indicators within the five dimensions? 

Our purpose in addressing these questions is to provide a picture of what states emphasized in 

their early learning standards documents and to extract themes or patterns that can provide useful 

information for those currently engaged in the process of developing or revising standards 

documents. The process of developing early learning standards is new for the field, and, like any 

new initiative, there is a need for self-assessment and reflection on what has been done. We hope 

to present descriptive data that will guide future policy decisions related to the content of early 

learning standards and to identify areas where further research is needed to facilitate optimal use 

of early learning standards. 

“Non-purposes” of this study. Having outlined the purposes for this study, it is also 

necessary to articulate important “non-purposes” for this work. This study is not designed to 

compare states or identify a set of “best” standards among documents analyzed. Based on data 

from the first phase of this study, we know that states developed early learning standards through 

different processes and for different purposes. With such divergent starting points, comparing the 

end result of the standards development process is not productive. We do, however, present 

patterns observed from our analysis of the standards and suggest standards documents that 

exemplify the various patterns. A second “non-purpose” of this study relates to how the 

documents are being used or implemented. While this is perhaps the most significant question 

for the field, this report does not discuss data relative to implementation of the documents. Phase 

1 of this study on early learning standards addressed how states planned to use the documents. 

See Scott-Little, Kagan, and Frelow (2003a) for a discussion of implementation issues. 
 4

The following sections of the report summarize the methodology and findings of our content 

analysis. Based on the findings, we discuss the implications of this work for the development of 

early learning standards and provide recommendations for ongoing work in the final section. 

Methodology 

Data Collection 

Collecting Current Sets of Standards 

The first step for this content analysis was to gather the most current versions of early learning 

standards documents available. In the first phase of the study, the research team collected a total 

of 29 sets of standards from 27 states. The study revealed, however, that the process of 

developing early learning standards is a “moving target.” A number of respondents from states 

with published early learning standards indicated that their states were continuing to work on 

their standards. In some cases, such as New Jersey and Ohio, the current set of standards was 

being revised or replaced. In other states, their standards were considered “draft” because they 

had not received final approval from the state’s board of education. In yet another group of states 

(such as Colorado, Missouri, and South Carolina), standards had been developed for a limited 

number of domains or subject areas, and the respondents indicated that additional 

domains/subject areas were in process. Thus, even among the 29 sets of published early learning 

standards identified in the first phase of this study, there was ongoing work that could render the 

document obtained during the first round of data collection obsolete. Furthermore, respondents 

from 12 additional states plus the District of Columbia indicated during the first round of 

interviews that their state was in the process of developing early learning standards but did not 

have a published document. At the time of the interviews for the first phase of the study, 

respondents from several of these states indicated that their state would have a completed 

document in the near future. 

Based on these data indicating a significant number of states were engaged in the standards 

development or revision process, we re-contacted each state to determine if a new standards 

document had been published. Beginning in January 2003, the primary respondent from each 

state with published early learning standards was re-contacted through a form letter, e-mail, 

and/or phone call to determine whether a revised standards document might have been published 

since the time of the original interview. In addition, respondents from each of the 12 states plus 

the District of Columbia that were originally reported to be in the process of developing 

standards were re-contacted to determine whether the state had published a standards document 

since the time of the interview. In cases where respondents indicated a revised or new set of early 

learning standards had been published, the research team requested a copy of the new document, 

along with the web address for the document. In addition to re-contacting respondents from the 

first phase of the study, a thorough search of the World Wide Web was conducted to locate any 

early learning standards posted by states. 

The research team then examined each document provided by respondents and collected from 

the World Wide Web. To be included in the study, the standards document had to be deemed 
 5

published and available for review as of November 2003. Early draft documents posted for 

public comment were not included. Documents published but pending final approval from the 

state’s board of education were included if the description of the development process indicated 

that the review process had been completed. This process of re-contacting respondents and 

searching the World Wide Web produced a total of nine new early learning standards documents 

and eight revised documents. A total of 38 sets of standards from 36 states were included in the 

content analysis. Table 1 lists the state standards documents included in the content analysis. 

Please see Appendix A for a complete listing of the standards documents analyzed in this report. 

Two states on the list—Maine and Washington—have two sets of standards. The full name of the 

standards document or the agency that developed the standards has been used to differentiate 

between the two sets of standards that have been developed within the same state. 

Table 1 

States With Early Learning Standards Included in This Content Analysis* 

States 

Arkansas 

Arizona** 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware** 

Florida 

Georgia*** 

Hawaii** 

Idaho** 

Illinois 

Indiana** 

Kentucky** 

Louisiana** 

Maine—Learning Results 

Maine—Early Learning Results 

Maryland*** 

Massachusetts*** 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri*** 

New Jersey*** 

New Mexico 

New York 

Ohio*** 

Oklahoma 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina*** 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia** 

Washington—Early Childhood Ed. & Assistance Program 

Washington—Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction 

Wisconsin** 

Wyoming** 

* Four states that were developing their standards at the time of data collection have since completed their 

process (Alabama, Nevada, North Carolina, and Tennessee). Their documents have not been included in this 

analysis because they were not available for review at the end of the data collection period (November, 2003). 

** Standards published subsequently to completion of Phase 1 of the study (i.e., between May 2002 and 

November 2003) 

*** Standards revised after completion of Phase 1 of this study (i.e., between May 2002 and November 2003) 

Results from the search process also revealed that a number of the states listed above are 

continuing in the standards development process, either to revise or expand their published 

standards documents (Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

Vermont, and Washington—OSPI). Of these states, three (Colorado, Maryland, and South 
 6

Carolina) had completed a limited number of subject areas (language arts or mathematics for 

instance) and were in the process of developing standards for additional subject areas. Only the 

subject areas completed by November 2003 were included in this analysis. 

A total of nine states plus the District of Columbia that did not have published early learning 

standards were in the process of developing standards as of November 2003: Alabama, Iowa, 

Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, and Tennessee. Although 

some of these states had draft standards documents, they were not included in the analysis 

because they did not meet the criteria for “published” standards documents. Four of these 

states—Alabama, Nevada, North Carolina, and Tennessee—have subsequently completed their 

standards documents, although these standards documents have not been included in this analysis 

because they were not published by the cut-off date for data collection (November 2003). The 

number of states working on new or revised standards clearly indicates the prevalence of 

standards development activities across the country. 

Developing a Framework for Analysis of Early Learning Standards 

Selecting a Framework as the Basis for a Coding System 

The primary purpose of this study is to examine the aspects of children’s development and 

learning states have addressed in their early learning standards. In order to conduct such an 

analysis, it was necessary to develop a coding/analysis framework. Two considerations guided 

the selection of a coding/analysis framework: 1) the need for a framework that was relatively 

widely accepted in the field and 2) the need for a framework that would be applicable across a 

wide variety of approaches to articulating standards. Given that there are no national standards 

for children’s early learning outcomes to use in this analysis, the team looked for a framework 

that would be widely recognized as valid and could be used to code 38 different standards 

documents, each with its own unique approach to outlining expectations for children’s growth 

and development before school entry. 

The research team considered several alternative documents to use as a basis for developing a 

coding scheme for the standards. For instance, the Head Start Child Outcomes Framework 

includes one hundred indicators divided into eight dimensions. McGraw Hill has published 

model standards that can be used as a prototype in developing standards. We also looked at the 

Creative Curriculum’s Developmental Continuum that provides a detailed description of agelevel expectations for the preschool children. Because the research team was committed to 

developing a framework that would be applicable across a wide variety of programs and types of 

standards, would support reliable coding decisions, and could produce meaningful comparisons, 

it was determined that the number of indicators used to code the standards must be relatively 

small to ensure a manageable coding process. These alternate frameworks were determined to 

have too many indicators to support a reliable coding process and therefore were not selected. 

The research team studied the National Education Goals Panel’s five dimensions of readiness as 

defined and described in Reconsidering Children’s Early Development and Learning: Toward 

Common Views and Vocabulary (1995) and determined that this document could provide a 

manageable starting point for a coding system. The NEGP framework was selected as the basis 
 7

for developing a framework for coding the content of standards. The NEGP’s framework 

represents one of the most widely agreed-upon, research-based, peer-reviewed documents 

describing dimensions of school readiness available in the field of early care and education. 

Extensive research was conducted to develop the descriptions of the domains and over 300 

people provided input on the five developmental domains. Thirty experts in the field of early 

care and education and child development peer reviewed the descriptions. While there are no 

national standards for school readiness, the NEGP document development process yielded the 

closest approximation we found to national consensus on areas of development important to 

school readiness. 

In addition to the rigorous process used to develop the NEGP document, the NEGP framework 

was most appropriate for this type of analysis for a number of other reasons. First, the document 

includes aspects of children’s development that have been empirically linked with later success 

in school. Each of the dimensions has a research literature that demonstrates the importance of 

the area in terms of children’s adjustment and/or performance in later grades. Second, the 

descriptions of the dimensions were deemed to be sufficiently broad to encompass the wide 

variety of early learning standards that have been developed. States vary in how they have 

approached the task of defining expectations for children’s learning and development, with some 

focusing more on “academic” areas and others including both “developmental” and “academic” 

standards items. The NEGP framework can encompass both—with the physical, social and 

emotional, and approaches toward learning dimensions reflecting what are considered to be more 

developmental indicators and the language and cognition dimensions encompassing more 

“academic” indicators. 

Finally, data from Phase 1 of this early learning standards study indicated that states have used 

the NEGP framework in their efforts to develop early learning standards. The fact that states 

have used the document increased the likelihood that the content of state standards would map 

onto a framework developed based on the NEGP document. 

In sum, the NEGP document was deemed to be a well-documented description of the 

characteristics and skills important for young children’s success in school and considered broad 

enough to encompass the varying types of standards states have developed. The NEGP document 

describes children’s school readiness in five basic dimensions. A brief definition of these 

dimensions follows: 

• Physical Well-Being and Motor Development: Characteristics of a child’s growth, 

physical health, and motor abilities. 

• Social and Emotional Development: Social development includes characteristics that are 

important for children to have successful interactions and relationships with others, both 

peers and adults. An individual’s feelings toward self and others constitute emotional 

development. 

• Approaches Toward Learning: Approaches toward learning include the inclinations, 

dispositions, or styles reflected in how children become involved in learning, rather than 

particular skills related to learning. 

• Language and Communication Development: The acquisition of communication methods 

(oral and written) and the social rules and customs that guide how children express 
 8

themselves and understand communications from other persons. This dimension includes 

early literacy skills. 

• Cognition and General Knowledge: The knowledge base a child has and the ability to 

represent the world cognitively are included in cognition and general knowledge. Three 

types of knowledge described in the NEGP document are physical knowledge, logicomathematical knowledge, and social-conventional knowledge. 

These five developmental dimensions were the starting point for development of a system that 

could be used to code the content of the standards. Although not originally intended to be used as 

standards or indicators, the NEGP framework provided a rich and research-based description of 

children’s school readiness that was used as a framework from which the research team could 

begin to operationalize the indicators described below. 

Developing the protocol for coding standards. To develop a research protocol, the 

research team carefully studied the NEGP document to develop a list of the key attributes 

described for each dimension. Using a consensus process, individual members of the team 

identified the core attributes for each dimension. The individual lists were compared, and 

agreement was reached on the final list. The list was then used to code early learning standards 

documents from several states in a pilot process to determine the feasibility of this coding 

procedure. Based on this pilot process, the team determined that the list developed from NEGP 

would not accommodate all standards items that were included in the language arts subject area 

and modified the Language Development dimension. Items were added to include more specific 

indicators for early literacy development. Indicators for phonemic and phonological awareness, 

comprehension related to literacy, book awareness, and alphabet or letter recognition were 

developed. The result was a total of 36 indicators (included in Appendix B) that reflect a more 

specific description of each dimension. These indicators were used to code standards items and 

will be referred to as “indicators” throughout this document. 

 Limitations of the coding scheme. Although the coding scheme used for this study was 

developed based on careful analysis of the NEGP work, study of subsequent research that has 

been published on children’s early development and learning, and a careful pilot process of 

actually coding state standards, the framework does have two primary limitations in coding 

standards items. First, the number of indicators varies across the five dimensions. For instance, 

the Health and Physical Well-Being dimension contains four indicators—growth, fitness, motor 

skills, and functional performance. Likewise, the Approaches Toward Learning and the 

Cognition and General Knowledge dimensions also consist of four indicators. The final two 

dimensions have at least twice this number of indicators. The Language and Communication 

dimension, by comparison, consists of 16 indicators and the Social and Emotional dimension 

consists of 8 indicators. This “unevenness” is due to a number of factors. First, some dimensions 

may lend themselves more to identification of specific indicators. Furthermore, we have a larger 

and more specific research-base to draw from for certain dimensions. For example, more 

research has been done on the specific skills and abilities that are associated with children’s 

success in learning to read. Therefore, we have more information about what indicators should 

be included in this dimension. Conversely, the area of approaches toward learning is less well 

researched and may reflect a more global construct that does not lend itself to specific indicators. 
 9

The unevenness in the number of indicators within the five dimensions could result in 

differences in the level of specificity with which the standards in the different areas were coded. 

While this may have implications for how the standards items were coded within the dimension, 

it would not have implications for how the standards items were coded across the dimensions. 

For instance, an item that reflects health and physical development would still be coded within 

the Physical Well-Being and Motor Development dimension, whether or not there were a 

number of very specific indicators within the dimension to choose from. The basic content of the 

standards item is still Physical and Motor whether there are 4 indicators within the dimension or 

16 indicators. 

The second limitation of this framework for coding standards items is that the relationship 

between academic content areas and the dimension categories is not self-evident. A more 

detailed description of the dimensions is necessary to show how academic content fits within the 

framework. Because early learning standards are articulations of expectations for what children 

should know and be able to do, they often reflect both academic content and developmental 

expectations that fall outside of the traditional realm of academic subject areas. The Head Start 

Child Outcomes Framework provides an example of this mixture of developmental and academic 

expectations with dimensions of Language Development, Literacy, Mathematics, Science, 

Creative Arts, Social and Emotional Development, Approaches to Learning, and Physical Health 

and Development. Learning and development are regarded as intertwined and dependent upon 

each other. While the overall titles used in our analytic framework for the dimensions are 

developmental in nature—Physical Well-Being and Motor Development, Social and Emotional 

Development, Approaches Toward Learning, Language and Communication Development, and 

Cognition and General Knowledge—academic content is an important element within the 

dimensions. However, just how the academic content fits within this framework is not obvious 

from the titles. Therefore, we have provided a detailed explanation for how indicators within 

each dimension were operationalized and have provided specific examples of how academic 

content was coded later in this description of the methodology. 

Deciding what standards to code. Having developed a framework for coding the data, the 

next step was to determine precisely what would be coded within the early learning standards 

documents. Because the focus of the study is on standards for preschool-age children, only 

standards for three-, four-, and five-year-old children (prior to kindergarten entry) were coded. 

Although several documents included standards for infants and toddlers or kindergarten-age 

within the same standards document, standards for children younger or older than preschool-age 

were omitted from the analysis. 

The decision regarding what to code within the standards for preschool-age children was more 

complex than determining the age-range of standards that would be coded. As noted in our first 

report on early learning standards, states have used a variety of approaches to articulate their 

standards. The nomenclature used to describe the standards varies from state to state. In some 

states, the “standards” are broad descriptions of instructional or developmental goals for 

children, with “benchmarks” that describe specific skills or abilities that relate to each 

“standard.” In other states, “desired results” or “learning goals” outline broader expectations, and 

“indicators” or “standards” articulate more specific expectations for children’s growth and 

development. Using yet another approach, some states have developed “standards” and provided 
 10

no more specific indicators. The research team, therefore, had to determine precisely what to 

code in order to have comparability across standards documents in the “level” of data that was 

coded. 

The “level” of standards within an early learning standards document that most specifically 

described expectations for children’s development and learning was the unit that was coded for 

this analysis, regardless of what the items were called within the document (i.e., whether they 

were called “standards,” “benchmarks,” “indicators,” or some other name developed by the 

state). If a state document included broad statements labeled as “standards,” each of which was 

further broken down by more specific “benchmarks,” the “benchmarks” were the items coded. In 

other instances, a state document might include “learning goals” that describe expectations for 

children’s development and learning with no additional items under each to provide more 

specificity. In this case, the “learning goals” were coded. This strategy meant that the coding 

process was done with whatever “level” of items that were the most specific, and the data, 

therefore, reflect the largest possible number of items that are of the same “level” within each 

standards document. 

Furthermore, the team decided to code individual standards without taking into account the 

category or subject area within which the standard was included or any supporting explanation 

that accompanied the standard (such as examples or suggested teaching strategies). This strategy 

meant that the most specific description of expectations within each set of standards was coded 

solely on the content of the item. 

The Data Coding Process 

Coding the data. The standards documents were first coded according to the individual 

indicator that most accurately reflected the content of the standard. In other words, each item 

within a standards document was coded for one (and only one) of the 36 indicators developed for 

purposes of this analysis (see above for a description of the indicators). Because each indicator 

was associated with only one of the five larger dimensions, this coding process also yielded 

which of the dimensions the standard reflected. 

Two independent raters piloted the coding process with standards documents from two states. 

Coding for the majority of the items seemed self-evident, and agreement was reached easily. The 

appropriate coding was, however, not self-evident for all items. To improve the reliability of the 

coding process, several basic principles were developed to guide the coding process: 

1. Coding the ends and not the means: As noted above, during the coding process the focus 

was on the standard’s ends, or outcome, and not the means. For example, an item might 

refer to the use of vocabulary to demonstrate comprehension of a specified concept. 

Rather than coding the item as “vocabulary,” the item would be coded as cognition 

because the coding would reflect the primary objective of the item—children 

demonstrating knowledge of a concept. In addition, the coding was based on the 

standards item only, without consideration for other contextual information such as the 

standard’s subject area/category or examples provided to illustrate the standard. 
 11

2. Coding academic subject areas: While the framework developed for this analysis does not 

label specific content or subject areas such as mathematics, social studies, science, and 

history, the skills and knowledge related to each were specified within the indicators. 

Skills that might be considered to be more reflective of academic content areas (such as 

classification and seriation) are included in the operationalization of the indicators. 

Consequently, the framework used to code the individual standards items does 

accommodate standards from various subject areas, typically within the cognition and 

general knowledge dimension but sometimes under approaches toward learning. The 

nature of the item, more so than the subject category, determined which of the indicators 

within the dimensions were used to code academic items. If items focused on knowledge 

of specific properties, characteristics, or facts related to the physical world, the item was 

coded as “physical knowledge.” If a standards item related to mathematics or high-order 

thinking about relationships (such as comparisons of how something is similar or 

different from something else), the item was coded as logico-mathematical knowledge. 

Items related to knowledge about the conventions or rules of society and/or 

schools/classrooms were coded as “social-conventional knowledge.” Items related to 

roles of persons or groups within society were coded as “social knowledge.” These items 

most commonly fell under the heading of “social studies” within the standards 

documents. If standards were process-oriented items, such as problem solving, curiosity, 

reflection on prior knowledge, and/or hypothesizing, they were coded under the 

applicable approaches toward learning category. 

3. Relationships vs. social skills: Our coding framework provided for a differentiation 

between two highly related constructs: social relationships and social skills. According to 

the NEGP description of school readiness, “social competence with peers is considered to 

have two aspects (Howes, 1988): (1) the social skills necessary to cooperate with peers, 

and (2) the ability to form and sustain reciprocal friendships” (p. 20). In our framework, 

therefore, we have made the distinction between social skills such as cooperation, turn 

taking, and perspective taking (which we call social skills) and reciprocal relationships 

(which we call relationships). We further extrapolated this concept to apply to 

interactions and relationships with adults, distinguishing between social skills with adults 

and relationships with adults. The descriptions provided in Appendix B amplify the 

differences between these constructs and how they were operationalized during the 

coding process. We believe that the research literature (National Research Council, 2001; 

National Research Council & Institute of Medicine, 2000) increasingly points to the 

importance of reciprocal relationships—with both peers and adults—and, therefore, felt it 

necessary to distinguish between these two important elements of social competence 

within our coding framework. 

4. Considerations for standards items related to creativity and the arts: Many standards 

documents included items related to artistic skills and/or processes. Items related to 

artistic development were coded based on the content of the item itself rather than the 

subject heading or other contextual information that accompanied the item. Depending on 

the emphasis within the specific standard, these items typically could be coded under any 

number of the indicators. In order to provide some consistency in how creativity or 

artistic standards items were coded, a basic principle was established: if the standards 

item related to a child’s ability to demonstrate creativity, initiative, curiosity, etc., the 

item was coded within the approaches toward learning dimension. However, if the item 
 12

simply indicated that a child would participate in a creative activity, such as dance or 

creative movement, the indicator that best fit the activity was used as the code. For 

example, a standards item that indicated a child would “participate in dance or creative 

movement,” the standard would be coded as physical and motor development. While this 

coding scheme may limit our ability to speak to the degree to which the arts have been 

addressed (as a separate dimension or subject area), we do feel that standards for the arts 

have been reliably and accurately coded. 

To further clarify how these principles were applied, we have included Table 2 below with 

examples of standards items, the subject area where the item is found within the standards 

document, the dimension code and the indicator code that the item received, and a rationale for 

why the item was coded in the selected category. 

Table 2 

Sample Standards Items 

Sample Standards Item Subject 

Area 

Dimension 

Coded 

Indicator 

Coded 

Rationale 

Recognizes common 

geometric shapes 

Mathematics Cognition Physical 

knowledge 

Requires knowledge 

of specific properties 

of objects 

Sorts, classifies, and orders 

objects by one attribute 

Mathematics Cognition Logicomathematical Requires analysis of 

relationship between 

objects 

Forms logical conclusions 

about data 

Mathematics Approaches Reflection & 

interpretation 

Requires reflection 

and interpretation of 

data 

Identifies common plants 

and animals 

Science Cognition Physical 

knowledge 

Requires knowledge 

of the physical world

Perceives self as an 

explorer 

Science Social and 

emotional 

Self-concept Relates to how the 

child sees self 

Uses the five senses to 

gather information and 

explore the environment 

Science Approaches Curiosity Primary emphasis is 

on exploring the 

environment (code 

the ends not the 

means) 

Recognizes and talks about 

the importance and reasons 

for having rules 

Social 

Studies 

Cognition Social 

convention 

Relates to 

knowledge of 

conventions or rules 

Discusses members of their 

family and their roles 

Social 

Studies 

Cognition Social 

knowledge 

Focuses on 

knowledge of roles 

(code ends not 

means—discuss) 

Enters into a group play 

situation 

Socialemotional Social and 

emotional 

Social skills Relates to specific 

skills for social 
 13

Sample Standards Item Subject 

Area 

Dimension 

Coded 

Indicator 

Coded 

Rationale 

interactions 

Demonstrates affection for 

familiar peers 

Personalsocial Social and 

emotional 

Relationships 

with peers 

Emphasizes a 

relationship rather 

than specific skills 

Uses art materials in 

creative ways 

Arts Approaches Invention & 

imagination 

Focuses on the 

creative process 

Demonstrates 

understanding of the visual 

relationships in artwork, 

such as lines, shapes, 

colors, textures, and balance 

or portion 

Arts Cognition Logicomathematical Requires an 

understanding of the 

relationship between 

various elements of 

art work 

Participates in music 

activities that are part of 

different cultures 

Arts Cognition Social 

knowledge 

Focus is on 

experiences with 

different cultures 

Develops awareness of 

different musical 

instruments, tones, rhythms, 

and tempos 

Arts Cognition Physical 

knowledge 

Requires knowledge 

of various properties 

of music 

While this approach to coding standards may not totally reflect the intentions of standards 

developers from each individual state, it does provide a reliable and uniform system for 

analyzing the content of standards from different states and can accommodate different 

approaches of articulating standards. The “context information” surrounding the standards items, 

such as the subject area heading within which the standards item was found or explanations that 

accompanied the standards, could possibly provide more information regarding the standards 

developers’ intention for what dimension or specific indicator the standards item was designed to 

address. However, states varied widely in the type and amount of “context information” they 

provided. Therefore, the research team decided that a more reliable process would be to code 

only the content of individual standards items. The codings reflect our judgment as to which of 

the indicators best matched the essence of the content of each standards item. Our anecdotal 

observations suggest that typically the coding assigned was consistent with the “context 

information” and probably with the intentions of the standards developers, but there were 

instances when our coding of individual standards items may vary from the category within 

which standards developers from an individual state might say a particular standard was intended 

to address. 

Reliability of the coding process. Using these guiding principles and the descriptions 

developed for the 36 indicators, each item within a standards document was coded. Two 

members of the research team coded standards documents, each coding approximately half of the 

38 standards documents. Seven randomly selected standards documents (18% of the documents 

included in the sample) were coded independently by both of the coders in order to check for 

reliability of the coding process. Reliability rates of agreement on the seven documents ranged 

from 83% to 100%, with an average of 90% agreement. Items upon which the two independent 
 14

coders disagreed were identified and analyzed. Patterns within the disagreements were used to 

further clarify the indicators used for coding. In addition, the two raters reached consensus on 

how to code each item upon which they disagreed, and the consensus rating was used as the final 

rating for purposes of the study. 

Using the Framework to Analyze the Content of Early Learning Standards 

The basic premise of our work is that early learning standards that promote quality programming 

and support children’s readiness for school cover all of these five dimensions in a manner that 

addresses important skills and characteristics within each domain. Simply put, our formula for 

quality standards is as follows: 

BREADTH + DEPTH = QUALITY STANDARDS 

Figure 1 provides a summary of the elements of breadth and depth. The following section 

outlines the conceptual framework we have used for describing the breadth and depth of early 

learning standards. Additional information on how each of the constructs was operationalized is 

provided within the findings sections of the document. 
 15

Figure 1 

Indicators for Coding Standards 

Indicators Used to Code Standards 

Physical 

& Motor 

Social & 

Emotional 

Approaches 

Toward 

Learning 

Language & 

Communication 

Cognition & 

General 

Knowledge 

Growth 

Fitness 

Motor skills 

Functional 

performance 

Regulation of 

emotions 

Feelings of 

others 

Self-concept 

Self-efficacy 

Social skills w/ 

adults 

Relationships 

w/ adults 

Social skills w/ 

peers 

Relationships 

w/ peers 

Curiosity 

Initiative 

Reflection & 

interpretation 

Invention & 

imagination 

Listening 

Speaking 

Social uses 

Vocabulary 

Questioning 

Creative uses of 

language 

Creative 

expression 

Non-verbal 

communication 

Phonemic & 

phonological 

awareness 

Literature 

awareness 

Comprehension 

Print awareness 

Book awareness 

Alphabet 

awareness 

Story sense 

Writing process 

Physical 

knowledge 

Logicomathematical 

knowledge 

Socialconventional 

knowledge 

Social 

knowledge 

BREADTH BREADTH 
 16

Breadth of Standards 

Breadth refers to how many of the five dimensions (i.e., Physical and Motor, Social and 

Emotional, Approaches Toward Learning, Language and Communication, and Cognition and 

General Knowledge) are addressed within the standards documents. Our analysis of the breadth 

of the standards is conceptualized in two ways: 

1) Absolute Breadth: Whether the state included one or more standards items related 

to each of the five dimensions. 

2) Relative Emphasis Within Breadth: The relative degree of emphasis across the 

five dimensions. 

Standards with good “breadth” address each of the five dimensions; standards with less 

“breadth” omit (or include a minimal number of items from) one or more of the dimensions. 

Depth of Standards 

“Depth” of coverage addresses the extent to which a set of standards addresses each of the 

indicators within a specific dimension (i.e., Growth, Fitness, Motor Development, and 

Functional Performance within the Physical and Motor dimension). Like breadth, we have 

conceptualized “depth” in two ways: 

1) Absolute Depth: The degree to which the standards addressed each of the 

indicators within the dimension with at least one standard. 

2) Relative Emphasis Within Depth: The relative degree to which standards items 

addressed each of the indicators within a dimension. 

The depth analysis provides an indication of the degree to which a set of standards has included 

specific indicators included in our coding framework as components of each dimension. 

Because the specifics for calculating each of these types of data are best illustrated with the data 

themselves, more detailed descriptions of how the breadth and depth data were calculated are 

provided within the section that discusses the findings. The actual data, along with a description 

of how they were calculated and a narrative description of the findings, are provided under each 

section. 

Findings 

The findings are presented in three sections. First, we present descriptive information related to 

the standards documents themselves (i.e., data that did not require use of the coding scheme but 

provide information about the standards documents). The number of standards items and subject 

area headings included within the standards documents are provided to give readers a broad 

overview of the format of the standards documents. Following this section, descriptive 

information is provided regarding the breadth of coverage of items across five dimensions, 
 17

showing the degree to which the five categories are represented in the 38 standards documents. 

Finally, we present information about depth (i.e., examining the question of what specific 

content is included within each of the five dimensions). 

 

Variation in the Number of Standards Items and Subject Headings in the Standards Documents 

States vary dramatically in the number and types of items included in their standards documents. 

As Table 3 shows, the total number of items states have included in their standards documents 

ranges from 50 to 371, with a mean of 151.1 items and a standard deviation of 83.7. Virginia has 

the fewest number of standards items included in their document—50. Indiana, Michigan, and 

Pennsylvania had the largest number of standards items, with 368, 369, and 371 items 

respectively. 
Table 3 

Number of Standards Items and Subject Area Head 18

ings Included Within the Standards Documents 

State 

Number of 

Standards 

Items 

Physical/ 

Motor/ 

Health 

Social/ 

Emotional 

Approaches 

Toward 

Learning 

Language/ 

Communication 

Literacy Cognition/ 

General 

Knowledge 

Math Science Art/ 

Aesthetics 

Social 

Studies 

Other 

Arizona 88 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Safety 

Arkansas 260 √ √ √ √ √

California 55 √ √ Safety 

Colorado 69 √ √ √

Conn. 77 √ √ √ √

Delaware 114 √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Florida 189 √ √ √ √ √

Georgia 125 √ √ √ √ √ √

Hawaii 147 √ √ √ √ √ √

Idaho 186 √ √ √ √ √ √ Humanities 

Illinois 106 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Foreign 

language 

Indiana 368 √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Kentucky 177 √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Louisiana 98 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Maine 

Learning Results Early Learning Results 

199 147 

√√ √

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

LR: Career Prep. Modern & Classic Language Technology

Maryland 196 √ √ √ √ √

Mass. 130 √ √ √ √ √ √ Technology 

Engineer 

Michigan 369 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Nutrition, 

Self-Help 

Minnesota 93 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
 19

State 

Number of 

Standards 

Items 

Physical/ 

Motor/ 

Health 

Social/ 

Emotional 

Approaches 

Toward 

Learning 

Language/ 

Communication 

Literacy Cognition/ 

General 

Knowledge 

Math Science Art/ 

Aesthetics 

Social 

Studies 

Other 

Mississippi 122 √ √ √ √ √

Missouri 156 √ √ √ √ √

New Jersey 170 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ World 

languages 

New Mexico 96 √ √ √ √ √

New York 102 √ √

Ohio 160 √ √ √ √ √

Oklahoma 118 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Penn. 371 √ √ √

Rhode Island 133 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

South 

Carolina 

58 √ √ √

Texas 202 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Technology 

Utah 263 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Vermont 155 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Technology 

Virginia 50 √ √ √

Washington 

ECAP OSPI 

52 

156 

√ √

√

√√

√

 Self-Help 

Wisconsin 63 √ √ √ √ √

Wyoming 122 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Total X = 

151.1 

29 25 8 35 27 11 28 23 21 15 
 20

To provide information on the subject areas that states have used within their standards 

documents, the research team simply reviewed the table of contents for each document and 

recorded the subject headings (either at the heading level or the sub-heading level). The data are 

presented in Table 3. States have covered a variety of topics within their early learning standards 

documents. Every state except for California and Connecticut included language and 

communication and/or literacy as a subject area heading. Several (11) states included a subject 

area titled “Cognition” or “Cognitive Development.” Within these states, some included 

traditional academic subject areas such as mathematics and science within the broader subject 

area of cognition, while others had both subject areas titled cognition and subject areas such as 

mathematics, science and social studies. For example, Louisiana, Michigan, Texas, and Utah 

have a subject area titled cognition or cognitive development and also include subject headings 

for mathematics, science, social studies, and the arts. 

A significant number of states also included areas that might be considered non-traditional in 

K−12 standards—physical and motor development (n = 29) and social and emotional 

development (n = 25). Far fewer states included subject area headings that addressed the 

approaches toward learning dimension (n = 8). Interestingly, states also included subject area 

headings that might be considered non-traditional for early care and education—technology (n = 

4), career preparation (n = 1), and second language development (n = 3). 

While these data speak to the wide variation in the standards documents and give us some clues 

about the general content of the standards, they do not provide an in-depth understanding of the 

content of the standards themselves. To fully understand the content of early learning standards, 

it is necessary to analyze individual standards items rather than global categories and to code the 

standards items without consideration for the subject area headings. Subject area headings are 

broad and, because of the integrated nature of children’s development and learning, items within 

subject areas or topics can be related to more than one area of learning. For instance, 

communication is a significant feature of children’s social development and vice versa. 

Therefore, it was necessary to code each individual standard item based on the primary focus of 

its content, without respect to the subject area where it was located, in order to gain an in-depth 

understanding of the content of the standards. 

Analysis of Breadth: Coverage Across the Five Dimensions 

In order to develop an understanding of the breadth of the standards—the extent to which each of 

the five dimensions have been addressed within the standards—the research team coded each 

individual standard item according to which indicator it addressed. Because the indicators are 

grouped by dimension, the research team could easily discern which of the five dimensions had 

been addressed within a standards document. We then constructed tables to operationalize two 

conceptualizations of breadth—the absolute number of dimensions addressed and the relative 

degree of emphasis across the five dimensions. 

Absolute Breadth 

The first question related to the breadth of the standards was whether states had covered each of 

the dimensions within their standards. To construct this “absolute breadth” analysis, the research 
 21

team looked across the various indicators that had been coded within a state and recorded 

whether there was at least one standard item for each of the dimensions. Results are shown in 

Table 4. 

Table 4 

Absolute Breadth: One or More Standards Coded for Each Dimension 

STATE Physical 

Social and 

Emotional 

Approaches 

Toward 

Learning 

Language & 

Communication

Cognition & 

General 

Knowledge 

No. of 

Dimensions 

 

Arkansas Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Arizona Y Y Y Y Y 5 

California Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Colorado N N N Y Y 2 

Connecticut Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Delaware Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Florida Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Georgia Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Hawaii Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Idaho Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Illinois Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Indiana Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Kentucky Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Louisiana Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Maine: Learning 

Results Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Maine: Early 

Learning Results Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Maryland Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Massachusetts Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Michigan Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Minnesota Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Mississippi Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Missouri Y Y Y Y Y 5 

New Jersey Y Y Y Y Y 5 

New Mexico Y Y Y Y Y 5 

New York N Y Y Y Y 4 

Ohio N Y Y Y Y 4 

Oklahoma Y Y Y Y Y 5 
 22

Pennsylvania N Y Y Y Y 4 

Rhode Island Y Y Y Y Y 5 

South Carolina N N Y Y Y 3 

Texas Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Utah Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Vermont Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Virginia N N N Y Y 2 

Washington - ECEAP Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Washington - OSPI Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Wisconsin Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Wyoming Y Y Y Y Y 5 

Total Number of 

States by Domain 32 35 36 38 38 

The majority of states (n = 32) had at least one indicator within each of the five dimensions. 

Three states had addressed four out of the five dimensions (New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania), 

and one state (South Carolina) covered three of the dimensions within its standards. Two states 

(Colorado and Virginia) had standards items that addressed only two of the five dimensions 

(Language and Communication and Cognition and General Knowledge). In both of these states, 

standards had been developed to address early literacy and mathematics. Respondents in the 

Phase 1 survey of standards developers (Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2003a) indicated that 

Colorado is developing standards for various subject areas sequentially and that standards in 

other dimensions were in progress at the time of the interview. 

An alternate way of looking at these data is to examine which of the five dimensions were most 

often included within the standards. The data indicated that all 38 standards documents had at 

least one indicator in the Language and Communication and the Cognition and General 

Knowledge dimensions. Six standards documents had no standards coded within Physical and 

Motor Development, three had no standards related to Social and Emotional, and two had no 

standards coded as Approaches Toward Learning. These data provide an interesting contrast 

when compared with the subject area headings used by states (see Table 3), particularly for 

Approaches Toward Learning. The data suggest that fewer states had included subject areas that 

addressed the physical, social and emotional, and approaches toward learning dimensions. There 

were, however, standards items within various other subject areas that address these dimensions 

when the content of individual standards was coded without consideration for subject area 

headings. For instance, only eight states had a subject area titled “approaches toward learning” 

(or something similar), but all but two had at least one standard item coded within the 

approaches toward learning dimension. In most states the actual content of the individual 

standards items, when coded independently of the subject area headings, included a greater 

number of the dimensions than the subject area headings would indicate. 
 23

Relative Emphasis Within Breadth 

Although looking at the absolute number of dimensions addressed with at least one standard item 

provides some indication as to the breadth of the standards documents, it does not yield a 

complete understanding of the breadth of standards. The research team was also interested in the 

extent to which each of the five dimensions had been addressed within the standards and the 

relative degree of emphasis that states had placed on each of the five dimensions. To gain a 

better understanding of the breadth of the standards, the research team examined the relative 

number of standards that were coded within each of the five dimensions. Due to the wide 

variation in the number of standards included in the standards documents, the research team 

converted the number of standards per dimension into a percentage (i.e., number of standards 

within the dimension divided by the total number of standards within the document) to provide 

data that was comparable across states. Table 5 provides the average percentage of standards 

items coded within each dimension, along with the standard deviation and range across the 

states. Appendix C provides data for individual states. 

Table 5 

Percentage of Standards Items in Each of the Five Dimensions 

Dimension Mean 

Percentage 

Standard 

Deviation 

Range of 

Percentages 

Physical Well-Being and Motor 

Development 

8.7 7.2 0 – 32.3 

Social and Emotional Development 

12.1 7.3 0 – 29.9 

Approaches Toward Learning 

9.6 6.0 0 – 24.00 

Language and Communication 

30.9 13.7 18.0 – 72.5 

Cognition and General Knowledge 

38.6 14.0 7.0 – 71.9 

As the percentages in Table 5 suggest, there is great variability in the degree to which the five 

dimensions have been addressed within the standards documents. On average, a larger 

percentage of the standards items were coded as Language and Communication and Cognition 

and General Knowledge (30.9% and 38.6% respectively). Items coded as social and emotional 

and approaches toward learning comprised a lower percentage of the standards items (12.1% and 

9.6% respectively), and the percentage of items coded as Physical Well-Being and Motor 

Development was the lowest of all the areas (8.7%). Clearly when looking at the relative 

emphasis across the five dimensions (defined as the percentage of standards addressing the 

dimension), language and cognition represent the largest share of the standards items. 
 24

The data also suggest that there was greater variability in the percentage of standards items 

included within the language and cognition dimensions, with a standard deviation of 13.7% for 

language development and 14.0% for cognition compared with standard deviations of 7.2% for 

physical well-being, 7.3% for social and emotional development, and 6.0% for approaches 

toward learning. This suggests that, while all states have addressed the language and cognitive 

developmental dimensions more than other dimensions, there is greater variability between states 

in the extent to which standards documents have focused on these domains. 

There is not only wide variation between dimensions in the number of standards items but also 

vast differences between states in the degree to which they have included the five dimensions in 

their standards. Appendix C provides the percentage of standards items coded within each of the 

dimensions for each state. Maine—Early Learning Results, New Mexico, and Wisconsin have 

relatively evenly distributed percentages of standards across the five dimensions (operationalized 

as less than 50% of their standards items coded in Language and Cognition). Colorado, Maine—

Learning Results, and Virginia are states with the least breadth across the five dimensions, with 

more than 90% of their standards items coded as Language and Cognition. Clearly the degree of 

emphasis and the relative balance that state standards exhibit across the five dimensions varies 

considerably for state to state, but, overall, the Language and Cognition dimensions are the 

dimensions addressed most often within the standards. 

Analysis of Depth: Coverage Within Each of the Five Dimensions 

The research team also conceptualized depth or degree of coverage within the five dimensions in 

two ways: absolute depth within the dimension and relative degree of emphasis within the 

dimension. These analyses look at the degree to which each of the individual indicators within a 

dimension has been addressed within the standards. We looked first at the degree to which each 

of the indicators within the dimensions has been addressed (absolute depth) and then at the 

relative degree of emphasis placed on each of the indicators within the dimension. 

Absolute Depth 

To calculate the absolute depth percentages for each state, the number of indicators within the 

dimension addressed in the standards document was divided by the total number of indicators 

that could have been coded for that dimension. For instance, the Physical Well-Being and Motor 

Development dimension consists of four indicators—growth, fitness, motor skills, and functional 

performance. The number of these four indicators addressed by at least one standard within a 

state’s standards document was divided by four to yield a percentage of the indicators that were 

addressed. If a state’s standards addressed all four of the indicators, their percentage was 100%. 

If a state’s standards document only addressed two of the four indicators, their percentage was 

50% and so forth. Results are presented in Table 6. 
 25

Table 6 

Absolute Depth by Dimension 

 Percentage of Indicators Addressed Within Each Domain 

State Physical 

Social and 

Emotional 

Approaches 

Toward 

Learning 

Language & 

Communication

Cognition & 

General 

Knowledge

 

Arkansas 100 75 100 50 75 

Arizona 50 100 100 88 100 

California 50 75 75 69 75 

Colorado 0 0 0 88 75 

Connecticut 75 63 100 56 75 

Delaware 100 88 100 81 100 

Florida 75 63 100 75 100 

Georgia 50 63 100 88 100 

Hawaii 75 63 50 75 100 

Idaho 100 75 100 81 100 

Illinois 100 63 75 88 100 

Indiana 75 50 100 94 100 

Kentucky 75 75 100 88 100 

Louisiana 75 75 25 69 100 

Maine: Learning Results 75 38 50 88 100 

Maine: Early Learning Results 50 88 50 69 50 

Maryland 25 13 50 88 100 

Massachusetts 75 38 75 75 100 

Michigan 75 75 100 94 100 

Minnesota 75 75 100 75 100 

Mississippi 75 75 50 88 100 

Missouri 75 88 100 75 100 

New Jersey 75 75 100 88 100 

New Mexico 75 63 25 69 50 

New York 0 25 25 88 75 

Ohio 0 63 75 75 100 

Oklahoma 50 75 100 69 100 

Pennsylvania 0 13 100 100 75 

Rhode Island 50 63 100 88 100 

South Carolina 50 38 75 88 100 

Texas 75 63 100 81 100 
 26

Utah 50 100 100 100 100 

Vermont 75 88 100 94 100 

Virginia 0 0 0 81 50 

Washington - ECEAP 50 75 50 63 100 

Washington - OSPI 50 88 100 94 75 

Wisconsin 100 75 100 69 100 

Wyoming 75 88 100 94 100 

Average Percentage by 

Domain 60.5 63.4 77.6 81.1 91.4 

Data from Table 6 indicate that Cognition and General Knowledge was the dimension where the 

largest number of states addressed all four of the indicators within the dimension. Twenty-eight 

of the 38 standards documents addressed 100% of the four indicators within this dimension. On 

average, states addressed 91.4% of the four indicators. The Language and Communication 

dimension has the next highest average absolute-depth percentage (81.1%). While only two 

states covered each of the 16 indicators within this dimension, 23 states addressed over 80% of 

the indicators within this dimension. This is particularly striking given the fact that this 

dimension had the largest number of indicators. It was fairly common for states that had 

approaches toward learning items within their standards to address all four of the indicators 

within the dimension. Twenty-two states addressed all four dimensions, and, on average, states 

addressed 77.6% of the indicators. States were more likely to leave out specific indicators within 

the physical and social and emotional dimensions. Only five states addressed each of the four 

indicators within the physical dimension and only two states addressed all eight of the social and 

emotional indicators. 

Looking by state rather than dimension, the data indicate that states varied in the extent to which 

they addressed specific indicators within the dimensions. While no state addressed all of the 

indicators within all five dimensions, Utah had standards coded for all of the indicators within 

four of the five dimensions. The extent to which states addressed each of the indicators within 

each of the five dimensions ranged from 100% of four dimensions (Utah) to none of the 

indicators in three dimensions (Physical, Social and Emotional, and Approaches) and 81% and 

50% of the remaining dimensions (Language and Cognition respectively) in Virginia. 

While this analysis provides a useful picture of the extent to which states are addressing the 

various indicators within the dimensions, further analysis was necessary to identify which of the 

individual indicators within the dimensions are most often being addressed and which are most 

often not being addressed within the standards. To provide data that addresses this aspect of 

depth, the research team conducted the “relative emphasis of depth” analyses described in the 

following section of this report. 

Relative Emphasis of Depth 

The percentage of standards coded within each dimension was calculated for each indicator in 

order to provide data on which of the indicators have been emphasized within the dimensions. 

For each of the five dimensions, Table 7 presents the percentage of standards items addressing 
 27

each of the indicators within the dimension. For purposes of this depth analysis, standards 

documents that did not include at least one standard within a particular dimension were 

eliminated from the analysis. Tables presenting each state’s breakdown across the five 

dimensions are presented in the Appendix. 

Table 7A-7E 

Percentage of Standards Items by Indicator Within Each Dimension 

7A. Physical Well-Being and Motor 

Development

 

 

Indicator

Mean 

Percentage

Standard 

Deviation Range

 

 

Overall rate of growth 2.1 5.4 0−18.2 

Level of physical fitness 11.5 14.4 0−60 

Motor skills (gross, fine, oral, sensory) 49.1 20.2 0−93.3 

Functional performance 24.2 20.1 0−100 

 

7B. Social and Emotional Development 

 

Indicator

Mean 

Percentage

Standard 

Deviation Range

 

Expresses emotions appropriately 19.1 11.2 0−44.4 

Comprehends feelings of others 10.5 9.1 0−33 

Self-concept 12.9 8.0 0−26 

Self-efficacy 4.2 5.9 0−22.6 

Social skills with adults 7.4 8.5 0−27.3 

Ability to develop relationships with adults 2.2 4.2 0−17 

Social skills with peers 33.4 17.3 8−100 

Ability to develop relationships with peers 4.8 12.7 0−69.2 

 

7C. Approaches Toward Learning 

 

Indicator

Mean 

Percentage

Standard 

Deviation Range

 

Curiosity about new tasks and challenges 32.1 21.4 0−100 

Initiative, task persistence, and 

attentiveness 

17.4 17.0 0−67 
 28

Approach to reflection and interpretation 27.6 28.8 0−100 

Capacity for invention and imagination 16.9 21.0 0−100 

 

7D Language and Communication 

Development

 

Indicator

Mean 

Percentage

Standard 

Deviation Range

 

Listening 5.4 4.4 0−19.4 

Speaking 5.2 5.3 0−26.7 

Social uses of language 8.7 5.6 0−21 

Vocabulary and meaning 10.3 5.1 0−26 

Questioning 2.2 2.3 0−8 

Creative uses of language 10.6 6.2 0−28 

Creative expression 5.7 5.9 0−24 

Non-verbal communication 1.2 2.3 0−11.1 

Literature awareness 6.8 4.4 0−17 

Comprehension of text 3.9 4.8 0−21.6 

Phonemic awareness 6.4 4.0 0−14 

Print awareness 9.8 5.2 0−22.2 

Book awareness 3.3 3.6 0−18.8 

Alphabet awareness 6.1 4.6 0−18.8 

Story sense 3.0 2.6 0−8.11 

Writing process 11.4 7.0 0−31.4 

 

7E Cognition and General Knowledge 

 

Indicator

Mean 

Percentage

Standard 

Deviation Range

 

Knowledge of the physical world 37.9 14.4 8−72.7 

Logico-mathematical knowledge 43.4 13.8 18.2−78.6 

Social-conventional knowledge 6.7 5.6 0−23 

Social knowledge 12.8 9.7 0−38 

Physical well-being and motor development. For states that included any standards items 

within the physical and motor development dimension (n = 32), Table 7A shows the overall 

average for how standards within this category were distributed across the four indicators, and 

Appendix D provides the relative emphasis across the four indicators for each state. As Table 7A 

shows, when states included items within the physical and motor development dimension, these 

items overwhelmingly addressed motor skills. On average, 49.1% of items within the physical 
 29

and motor development category fell into this specific area. Every state with Physical WellBeing and Motor Development standards except two addressed motor skills with at least one 

standard. Functional performance or self-help skills were the next most commonly addressed 

indicator within this dimension (mean = 24.2%), and physical fitness received relatively less 

attention within the standards documents (mean = 11.5%). Nine of the 32 states that had physical 

standards did not address fitness. Almost never (mean = 2.1%) did items address the child’s 

overall rate of growth or having good nutrition—27 out of 32 states with standards in the 

physical domain did not address children’s growth and health. 

Social and emotional development. Table 7B presents a similar breakdown for those 

states that included any items within the social and emotional dimension (n = 35). Appendix E 

presents this data for each state. As Table 7B indicates, approximately one third (mean = 33.4%) 

of the items addressing social and emotional development focused specifically on the child’s 

ability to demonstrate positive social skills with peers. Furthermore, all standards documents that 

included items within the social and emotional dimension included at least one item focusing on 

the social skills with peers. To a somewhat lesser extent (19.1% of the items on average), 

standards items related to social and emotional development focused on the child’s ability to 

express emotions appropriately. 

Other indicators within the social and emotional dimension received considerably less attention 

within the standards documents. The ability to develop relationships with peers (mean = 4.8%) 

and adults (mean = 2.2%) were virtually unaddressed, as was the indicator of self-efficacy (mean 

= 4.2%). Fifteen states with social and emotional standards did not address relationships, either 

with adults or with peers. Sixteen of the states with social and emotional standards did not 

address self-efficacy. 

Approaches toward learning. Table 7C provides a breakdown by indicators for those 

states that included items within the Approaches Toward Learning dimension (n = 36). As Table 

7C shows, items coded as Approaches Toward Learning most often focused on curiosity about 

new tasks and challenges (32.1% of items within this dimension were of this kind) or on the 

child’s approach to reflection and interpretation (27.6%). Initiative/task persistence (mean = 

17.4%) and invention and imagination (mean = 16.9%) were addressed less often. It is important 

to note that the “capacity for invention and imagination” indicator included both standards items 

that addressed dramatic play and other forms of creativity. Appendix F presents the Approaches 

Toward Learning data for each state. Looking at individual states one can see that the 

distributions across the four indicators within approaches toward learning vary from state to 

state. For some states (such as Louisiana and New York), all of the approaches toward learning 

standards addressed one indicator within the dimension. In these cases, typically there was only 

one standard that was coded within Approaches Toward Learning, and therefore 100% of the 

standards fell within one indicator. Other states (such as Arizona and Missouri) have a more even 

distribution of standards across the four indicators. 

Language and communication. Table 7D provides the breakdowns for items within the 

Language and Communication dimension. All states included at least some items within this 

dimension. A state-by-state breakdown of the percentage of standards addressing each indicator 

within Language and Communication is provided in Appendix G. Indicators within the 
 30

Language and Communication dimension included items related to both communication and 

early literacy development. As Table 7D shows, standards related to language development were 

more equally distributed across items than was true for items in other dimensions, with the 

highest percentage of items focused on the writing process (mean = 11.4%), creative uses of 

language (mean = 10.6%), and vocabulary and word meaning (mean = 10.3%). Fewer standards 

items addressed questioning (mean = 2.2%), nonverbal communication (mean = 1.2%), story 

sense (mean = 3.0%), book awareness (mean = 3.3%), or comprehension of text or stories (mean 

= 3.9%). 

Data in Appendix G reveal that a number of states did not address various indicators within the 

Language and Communication dimension. For instance, within the communication sub-area 

eight states did not address listening, 16 states did not address questioning, 10 states did not 

address creative expression, and 26 states did not address non-verbal communication. Every state 

addressed the area of vocabulary. Within the literacy sub-area, 5 states did not address 

phonemic/phonological awareness (which were coded together), 15 states did not address 

comprehension, 11 states had no standards related to book awareness, 5 states did not address 

alphabet awareness, and 10 states did not address story sense. Although support within the 

research literature for the importance of these various indicators varies from indicator to 

indicator, there are several indicators research suggests are critically important for children in the 

process of learning to read that have not been addressed in some state standards documents. Even 

though every state had addressed the language and communication dimension, the extent to 

which they have addressed various early literacy skills varies. 

Cognition and general knowledge. As Table 7E shows, standards items in the Cognition 

and General Knowledge dimension overwhelmingly focused either on logico-mathematical 

knowledge (mean of 43.4% of items in this category) or on the child’s knowledge of the physical 

world (mean = 37.9%). Appendix H presents the percentages of each state’s standards coded 

within the Cognition and General Knowledge dimension by indicator. All standards documents 

in the study included at least one item that addressed logico-mathematical knowledge and 

knowledge of the physical world. The percentage of standards items within the domain that 

addressed logico-mathematical knowledge ranged from 18% to 79%. States had ranged from 

14% to 73% in the percentage of their standards items that addressed knowledge of the physical 

world. Social-conventional knowledge was the indicator addressed the least (mean = 6.7%). 

Eight states had no standards related to this indicator, and the remaining states had from 1 to 23 

percent of their standards items coded as social-conventional knowledge. Social knowledge was 

included somewhat more within the Cognition and General Knowledge dimension, with a mean 

of 12.8% of the standards items falling into this category. Only five states had no items related to 

this indicator, and the range for the states that included social knowledge items was from 2 to 38 

percent. 

Discussion and Recommendations 

Data from this study indicate that the standards-based education movement has reached the early 

care and education field. Thirty-six states had published early learning standards documents in 

November 2003, and a number of other states were in the process of developing standards. The 

data from the first phase of this study (Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2003a; 2003b) and from 
 31

the process of obtaining standards documents to include in this content analysis clearly indicate 

that there is much ongoing work in this area. Between May 2002 and November 2003, a total of 

nine new standards documents and eight revised standards documents were published. It is an 

opportune time to consider the results of this content analysis and discuss the implications of the 

findings for development of early learning standards. We offer our analysis of the data from this 

study in two parts: 1) discussion of the implications of the findings and 2) recommendations. 

Implications 

The Desirability of State Variation

As we have seen, states vary dramatically in both the number of standards they have and in what 

they elect to emphasize in their standards. Of less concern is the variation in the number of items 

states elect to include in their early learning standards (ranging from 50 to 371). It may be, for 

example, that states create early learning standards with a large number of items because they 

feel this will help guide teacher instruction; the greater the number of items, the more the teacher 

will have guidance on what is to be taught. Conversely, if a state elects to have fewer items, it 

may reflect an intention to give teachers more autonomy in setting their instructional objectives. 

It does seem that where states are using the early learning standards as a prelude to the 

development of an accountability system, perhaps greater parsimony of items would be 

desirable. It seems, then, that the number of items in a state’s early learning standards may 

reflect several differences, including differences in the purpose for which the standards were 

developed and/or differences in the degree of autonomy the state wishes to accord teachers. It is 

clear, however, that this variation in number could reflect very different attitudes about the 

standards and their intended uses. 

Of greater concern is the range of differences among states in their focus areas and the need for a 

thoughtful consideration of the pros and cons of having such significant differences between 

states in the content that has been addressed in early learning standards. Distributions of items 

into the five dimensions clearly indicate a preponderance of emphasis in the areas of cognition 

and general knowledge and language and communication. In part, this emphasis was anticipated 

and reflects the press by states to imbue their standards with a more academic orientation. It also 

reflects much current literature that stresses the competence of young children as learners early 

in their lives. 

The issue related to state variation, however, is not so much what specific domains are or are not 

emphasized but the degree to which states differ in their choices of which domains to emphasize 

and whether these differences have positive or negative implications for the field. For example, 

does it make sense for some states to have standards only in language and mathematics and for 

other states to have standards that address all five dimensions? What are the consequences of 

considerably different standards across the United States? Conversely, what would be the 

implications of having more continuity across the states in what is addressed in early learning 

standards? 

Two additional questions are raised by this variation. First, to what extent is it desirable to have 

early learning standards that are consistent across states, at least in the domains that are 

addressed? Second, to what extent is standardization of early learning standards feasible, given 
 32

the history of educational policymaking in this nation? In addressing the desirability question, it 

is important to note that the historic variation that has characterized early childhood education 

has been regarded as a strength of the field. It has been argued, for example, that it is extremely 

important to have variation in early childhood programs so that parental choice among diverse 

curricular and pedagogical options can be preserved. Given that the lack of program 

standardization has been regarded as a strength, the development of greater standardization of 

early learning standards could be regarded as an inhibitor of such diversity. On the other hand, if 

we want children able to function in a global society where mobility is the norm, a lack of 

standards’ standardization may be problematic. 

The feasibility of creating a set of uniform standards that would be used across the states is also 

problematic, given both the autonomy of states with regard to education policies and the highly 

idiosyncratic nature of early childhood education. It might be possible to have a set of standards 

established that could serve as a guideline for state modification, thereby respecting state 

differences. It is important to note that uniform standards can be developed; indeed, several 

different sets have been developed by national organizations (e.g., Head Start Performance 

Outcomes by the Head Start Bureau, Pre-kindergarten Music Education Standards by the 

National Association for Music Education, physical activity guidelines by the National 

Association for Sport and Physical Education, and standards for children’s mathematical learning 

by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). The issue is not whether uniform 

standards can be created. A more pertinent issue is whether it is desirable and/or feasible to have 

consistent standards across states. It should be noted that in several foreign countries national 

early learning standards have been developed and adopted; these nations, however, have long 

histories and sentiments that support greater national cohesion and control. Indeed, given the 

social history of the United States, variation in early learning standards is to be expected. The 

question at hand is the degree to which we believe such variation is in the best interests of the 

nation’s children. While national standards may not be appropriate or feasible for a number of 

reasons, we do advocate that the question of whether there is a need for such standards warrants 

attention. 

Balance Among the Dimensions: The “Breadth” of Standards

Early in this document, we proposed that the basic premise of our work is that early learning 

standards promote quality programming and support children’s readiness for school when they 

cover all five dimensions in a manner that addresses important knowledge, skills, and 

characteristics within each domain. Simply put, our formula for quality standards is: 

BREADTH + DEPTH = QUALITY STANDARDS 

Data from this analysis revealed that states vary considerably in the breadth (and depth) of their 

standards. In the analysis of “absolute breadth” (defined as having at least one standard within 

each of the dimensions), the data indicate that most states have addressed each of the five 

dimensions with at least one standard. However, data related to the relative emphasis across each 

of the five dimensions indicate that the majority of standards are related to Language and 

Communication and Cognition and General Knowledge. As stated earlier, this data is not 
 33

surprising given the emphasis being placed on specific knowledge and skills within these 

dimensions that are important for children’s later success in school and the fact that many of 

these standards have been developed for use in publicly funded pre-kindergarten programs. 

While data from this study do not directly address the reasons behind this variation in the extent 

to which the five dimensions are included in standards, one can hypothesize a number of reasons. 

For example, some of the dimensions may lend themselves more to standards than others. The 

number of cognitive skills that are considered to be important may simply be greater than the 

number of social and emotional or physical skills needed for children to be prepared for success 

in school. The types of skills and abilities that fall under the cognitive domain may be easier to 

articulate in the form of standards than skills and abilities related to other dimensions such as 

approaches toward learning skills. 

Indeed, analysis of the coding system used for this study shows that even the indicators used to 

code the standards are not equally distributed across the five dimensions. The Physical WellBeing and Motor Development, Approaches Toward Learning, and Cognition and General 

Knowledge dimensions all have 4 indicators while the Social and Emotional dimension has 8 

indicators and Language and Communication has 16 indicators. For this study, the differences in 

the number of indicators across the five dimensions is due in part to the nature of the dimensions 

themselves (with some dimensions lending themselves more to a greater number of specific 

indicators) and in part to the unevenness of the research literature to support specific indicators 

within dimensions. For instance, the Language and Communication dimension has the greatest 

number of indicators. Within the literature, extensive research has been done to examine specific 

skills and characteristics within this area that are important for later development, particularly 

related to the skills needed to learn to read in later years. In contrast, the literature within 

Approaches Toward Learning suggests that this area is important for children’s later 

development and learning but does not provide robust empirical data for specific skills or 

characteristics within the dimension. 

For purposes of this analysis, however, differences in the level of specificity within the five 

dimensions would not impact the coding of standards across the five dimensions (i.e., the 

breadth analyses). Items related to physical development would be coded as Physical Well-Being 

and Motor Development whether there were 4 indicators or 16 indicators within the dimension. 

The breadth coding would be the same. The depth codings within the individual dimensions 

would be different from dimension to dimension depending on the number of indicators/level of 

specificity within the dimension. Our experience in developing the coding system, however, does 

suggest that when developing standards states may generate more standards within a dimension 

simply because the skills within the dimension lend themselves more to standards or because 

there is a more robust literature within certain domains to articulate important skills and 

knowledge within the dimension. 

Alternatively, states that are linking their early learning standards directly with K−12 standards 

may find it difficult to justify including standards related to physical development, social and 

emotional development, or approaches toward learning if there are no corresponding standards 

within the K−12 document. Data from Phase 1 of our Early Learning Standards study suggested 

that linkage to K−12 standards is very important within states. In a number of states, the early 
 34

learning standards are directly linked to kindergarten standards, which may be focused more on 

language and cognition dimensions. Yet another possible explanation for the differences between 

the dimensions in how they have been emphasized is that standards developers may have viewed 

particular areas as more important and, therefore, developed more items to cover those areas. 

Perhaps some areas of learning and development lend themselves more to direct instruction 

and/or assessment and, therefore, are more likely to be addressed in the standards. Whatever the 

reason, the fact is that states have included far more items related to children’s language and 

cognitive development in their standards document. 

Beyond the simple observation that the standards vary in the degree to which they have 

addressed the five dimensions, two more significant questions are raised by this analysis—what 

is the relationship between development and learning, and what constitutes the appropriate 

balance of dimensions among any given set of standards? Some educators within the field may 

conceptualize development separately from learning that takes place through direct instruction. 

Standards based on the notion that learning and development are discrete concepts likely focus 

on academic content areas. Others within the field suggest that learning and development are 

intertwined but feel that more emphasis should be placed on academic content areas because the 

standards are being used in programs designed to prepare at-risk children for success in school—

because the programs have limited resources and limited time with the children their focus 

should be on academic knowledge and skills and the early learning standards should reflect this 

emphasis. Still others see social and emotional and physical development as the most important 

areas—if children’s development is supported during this time, they will be well prepared for the 

academic content of later grades. 

Jack Shonkoff, co-editor of Neurons to Neighborhoods (2001), suggests that the debates that 

focus on either academic content or developmental areas as being important for children’s later 

success are not productive and we agree. Supporting children’s development and learning is not 

and either/or proposition; it is a both/and proposition (Shonkoff, 2004). Theorists and empirical 

evidence suggest that learning and development are so closely linked that children need to have 

experiences that promote both to be successful later in school. It follows that early childhood 

programs of all types, and their respective standards, must seek to foster children’s growth in all 

areas. 

Early Learning Standards: Creating the Conditions for Success, a joint position statement of the 

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National 

Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) 

issued in 2002, addressed the issue of breadth in early learning standards. The statement suggests 

that for early learning standards to be effective, they must “emphasize significant, 

developmentally appropriate content and outcomes” (p. 2). The statement further amplifies the 

criteria for effective early learning standards by stating that effective early learning standards 

include all domains of young children’s development and incorporate content that has been 

shown to be important for children’s future development and learning. The question of what 

constitutes an appropriate balance between the five dimensions remains, and much additional 

analysis is needed to provide states with guidance on how to support standards development 

within each dimension. What is clear from this position statement is that the authors felt that it is 
 35

important that early learning standards include all dimensions of children’s learning and 

development. 

The Physical Well-Being and Motor Development dimension may pose unique challenges for 

standards writers. Some key elements of physical development may not readily lend themselves 

to early learning standards. For instance, while most people would agree that it is important for 

children’s growth to be within the norm for their age, it may be problematic to write a standard 

that specifies “children will grow.” Likewise, while educators would like for all children to be 

able to see and hear, including a standard that states an expectation that children can see and hear 

could be viewed as not inclusive of children with visual or auditory disabilities. Yet there are 

other elements of physical and motor development that do lend themselves to intervention—

gross motor skills, fine motor skills, physical fitness, and functional performance. Careful 

attention is warranted to ensure that the small number of physical and motor standards items 

does not stem from simple lack of attention to the domain. Indeed, some states have developed 

standards items to articulate important physical characteristics and abilities that at first glance 

might not seem to lend themselves to standards. 

The tendency to focus less attention on the social and emotional dimension and on approaches 

toward learning is particularly significant in light of research that documents the importance of 

these skills for positive child outcomes later in life. Recent reports from the National Research 

Council (National Research Council & Institute of Medicine, 2000; National Research Council, 

2001) synthesized decades of research and concluded that the social skills, emotional capacities, 

and dispositions toward learning children acquire during the early years are inexplicably linked 

to their learning and their overall well-being later in life. Self-regulation and the ability to form 

and sustain positive social relationships are the “building blocks of healthy development” 

(National Research Council & Institute of Medicine, 2000, p. 4). Social and emotional 

development has been shown to be an important component of children’s readiness for success in 

school (Peth-Pierce, 2001; Raver, 2002; Zill et al., 2003). Children who are socially and 

emotionally well-adjusted have a greater chance of being successful early in school. 

In addition to research on children, studies on what teachers think is important for children to 

learn during the preschool years also support the notion that social and emotional skills are 

important elements of school success. Kindergarten teachers consistently report that it is more 

important for children to have developed positive social and emotional skills than specific 

academic skills before they enter kindergarten (Davies & North, 1990; Heaviside & Farris, 1993; 

Lewit & Baker, 1995; Lin, Lawrence, & Gorrell, 2003; Welch & White, 1999; West, 1993). In 

general, preschool and kindergarten teachers tend to emphasize the importance of skills such as 

following directions, not being disruptive in class, being sensitive to others, and taking turns, 

over academic skills (Haines, Fowler, Schwartz, Kottwitz, & Rosenkoetter, 1989; Kowalski, 

Pretti-Frontezak, & Johnson, 2001). Data from national studies of children at entrance into 

kindergarten suggest that children often exhibit difficulties in social and emotional areas such as 

these when they start kindergarten. In a nationally representative survey of over 3,000 teachers, 

30 percent of the kindergarten teachers reported that at least half of the children in their class had 

difficulty making the transition into kindergarten. Specific areas where children had difficulty 

included following directions, working as part of a group, and other social skills (RimmKaufman, Pianta, & Cox, 2000). 
 36

 

The standards documents include relatively more items related to the important dimensions of 

Language and Communication Development and Cognition and General Knowledge. Research 

suggests these are vitally important areas for children’s later success in school. Several largescale studies of preschool- and kindergarten-age children found that children also need support in 

their language and cognitive development in order to be successful in school. The Early 

Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Cohort found that, on average, children entered 

kindergarten with a great deal of knowledge in the areas of literacy and mathematics but that 

there were significant differences among children from different backgrounds. Overall, children 

were proficient in recognizing letters and shapes but were less proficient in phonological 

awareness tasks and sequencing tasks. However, performance on measures of language and 

cognition varied by factors associated with children who are at-risk for later school failure. 

Children whose mothers had higher education levels and children from two-parent families 

scored higher on measures of literacy, mathematics, and general knowledge at kindergarten 

entry. Furthermore, these differences persisted and the gap between children from advantaged 

backgrounds and those with relatively more at-risk family backgrounds widened in later grades 

(Denton & West, 2002; Rathbun & West, 2004; West, Denton, & Germino Hausken, 2002; 

West, Denton, & Reaney, 2001). 

Findings from the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Study (FACES) provide further 

evidence for the importance of early experiences that support children’s language and cognitive 

development. Head Start children enter the program with language skills and knowledge far 

below national norms for their age (Zill et al., 2001; 2003). Data from both the 1997 and the 

2000 cohort revealed that children in Head Start scored significantly lower than national norms 

on measures of literacy and numerousy skills when they started the program. Although the Head 

Start children participating in the study made meaningful gains from the time they entered the 

program until the time they exited the program, they were still significantly below national 

averages in areas such as vocabulary knowledge, letter recognition, and early mathematics skills. 

Data from the 1997 cohort indicate that these children made significant gains once they entered 

kindergarten but still lagged behind national norms in early literacy and mathematics at the end 

of kindergarten (Zill et al., 2003). 

The reality is that it is important for children to develop positive skills and knowledge within 

each of the five dimensions to be successful later in school. Early learning standards—and the 

educational programs where they are implemented—must have a balanced approach to learning 

to fully support children’s development and learning. Standards can have a focus in the more 

academic areas and still maintain some emphasis in other dimensions—it is not an either/or

equation but a both/and equation. Children’s physical, social and emotional, approaches toward 

learning, language, and cognitive development are all important for later success in school 

(Piñata & McCoy, 1997; Zill & West, 2001). 

To date, however, there has been little discussion of what the balance among the domains should 

be to promote children’s optimal development and learning. How much emphasis should be 

accorded each dimension? Are some dimensions more critical to development at various stages? 

These questions and others that address the balance of emphasis among the dimensions merit 

some consideration by educators, parents, teachers, and others interested in fostering early 
 37

learning standards. This is particularly necessary as the standards movement builds momentum 

and as standards are used more and more frequently to guide curriculum and instruction. Without 

such systematic focus on the balance of emphasis among the domains, we may find not only 

great variation among states but also the elimination or significant reduction of focus on 

dimensions historically considered critical to child development and later school success. 

Covering Domains Fully: The Depth of Standards

While the balance among domains is a serious issue, the focus of items within each domain is as 

well. Our findings suggest that many domain sub-areas important to child development and 

learning are missing from states’ early learning standards. Implications of the depth findings are 

discussed below. 

Physical well-being and motor development. A significant number of states with 

standards for Physical Well-Being and Motor Development addressed only one or two of the 

four indicators within this dimension. The data indicate that states have focused primarily on 

children’s motor development, with half of the physical well-being and motor items being 

concentrated in this area. Children’s general health, overall growth, and level of physical fitness 

have been virtually ignored within the standards documents. This is significant, particularly 

given the growing concerns about childhood obesity rates (Black, 2004). About 15 percent of 

children between the ages of 6 and 19 in the United States are seriously overweight, and almost 

one in every three children is at risk for being overweight (American Academy of Pediatrics, 

2003). Concerns about the lack of physical fitness among children are rising, with the National 

Association for Sports and Physical Education doubling its recommendations for the amount of 

physical activity children need from 30 minutes to 60 minutes per day (Corbin & Pangrazi, 2003) 

and the American Academy of Pediatrics issuing a policy statement to discourage the availability 

of soft drinks and fruit drinks in schools (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2004) at the 

beginning of 2004. The amount of physical activity in which children engage is a contributing 

factor to the increasing rates of obesity (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000; 

1996). Data also suggest that children enrolled in different preschool programs differ 

significantly in the amount of physical activity they exhibit, suggesting that the policies and 

practices implemented within preschools have an important impact on the activity levels of 

children enrolled (Pate et al., 2004). Standards documents that do not address the importance of 

overall health and physical fitness could contribute to, rather than mediate, these serious health 

issues. 

Social and emotional development. Within the social and emotional domain, about half of 

the states addressed 75 percent or more of the eight indicators within the domain. The emphasis 

within the standards documents was on children’s abilities to communicate effectively with peers 

and adults and on their ability to regulate their emotions appropriately (particularly negative 

emotions such as anger). While these are important skills, the ability to form relationships with 

peers and adults as well as children’s self-efficacy have not been widely addressed in the 

standards. Research reports such as From Neurons to Neighborhoods (National Research 

Council & Institute of Medicine, 2000) and Eager to Learn (National Research Council, 2001) 

indicate that these skills are also critically important for children’s growth and development. 

Attachments children form with adults and relationships they build with peers are the foundation 
 38

for healthy development and learning later in life. Children need to be able to do more than 

communicate with others; they need to develop the ability to form productive and lasting 

relationships. 

Approaches toward learning. The approaches toward learning dimension presented 

perhaps some of the most interesting data within the content analysis. While relatively few 

standards documents had a subject area titled approaches toward learning (or something similar), 

virtually all of the documents (36 out of 38) included at least some standards items that reflected 

this domain. The approaches toward learning items tended to be spread throughout a variety of 

subject areas, including the arts, science, mathematics, and social and emotional subject areas. 

Within the dimension, states typically addressed at least three of the four indicators, thus 

exhibiting relatively good coverage across the indicators within this dimension. The emphasis 

across the four indicators was, however, uneven. For example, standards documents had more 

items that addressed curiosity and reflection or interpretation than imagination and invention or 

task persistence. This finding is significant, particularly given the lack of items to address 

children’s imagination and dramatic play, long recognized as essential to the development of 

young children. 

Language and communication. Given the recent emphasis on early literacy among early 

care and education programs, the data are somewhat surprising in that they indicate relatively 

equal emphasis has been placed on general communication skills, such as speaking and social 

uses of language, and early literacy skills. Yet, the data do suggest states might be well served by 

a careful review of their language and communication standards to ensure that specific skills 

research indicates are critical for early literacy development are sufficiently covered. 

Whitehurst and Lonigan (1998; 2001) provided a model of early literacy skills that suggests both 

“inside out” and “outside in” sources of information are important for children in order to learn 

to read and to comprehend what they read. Inside out factors include phonological processing 

skills, print principles including letter name or alphabet knowledge, awareness of print 

principles, early writing, and knowledge of grammar and syntax. Knowledge of the world, 

vocabulary, oral language skills, and a motivation to read are “outside in” factors associated with 

successful readers. Preliminary findings from the National Early Literacy Panel’s research on 

early literacy development (NELP, 2004) yield additional empirical support for many of the 

factors Whitehurst and Lonigan suggest are important for children in the process of learning to 

read. Decoding skills, reading comprehension, invented spelling, awareness of environmental 

print, basic concepts of print, the ability to write their name, alphabet knowledge, phonological 

awareness, and rapid automatic naming/lexical access were the strongest predictors of children’s 

ability to decode text. In the area of reading comprehension, alphabet knowledge, phonological 

awareness, and oral language skills were predictors with the strongest empirical support in the 

meta-analysis. 

Examination of the early learning standards data suggests that states should carefully review 

their standards to ensure that the skills and abilities associated with learning to read are included. 

For instance, alphabet knowledge is one factor closely associated with learning to read. On 

average, standards addressing alphabet knowledge comprised approximately six percent of the 

standards items within the language and communication domain. Five states, however, had no 
 39

standards to address this important skill. Phonological awareness also comprised an average of 

six percent of the standards in this dimension, but five states had no standards to address 

phonological awareness. Oral language was more likely to be included. Standards related to oral 

language were coded as speaking (the mechanics of communication) and social uses of language 

(broader oral language skills), and these indicators were the focus of five and nine percent 

(respectively) of the standards within the language and communication domain. Only one state 

had no standards items coded in either of these two areas. 

The limited attention to reading comprehension is perhaps the most significant finding within 

this dimension. Standards were coded under the comprehension indicator if they addressed a 

child’s ability to answer questions about a story, explain the point of a story, relate the story to an 

experience he or she had had, etc. Comprehension was coded separately from story sense, an 

indicator related to children being able to predict what happens next in a story or to describe the 

general progression of a story. Comprehension standards made up only four percent of the 

standards items, and a total of 15 states had no item to address comprehension. Even if one 

considers story sense to be a component of comprehension, together the two items made up only 

seven percent of the standards, and four states had no standards coded as comprehension or story 

sense. Standards developers would do well to examine their early learning standards to make 

sure that at least some standards address children’s ability to comprehend or process stories and 

other literacy-related information. 

Finally, approximately 11 percent of the standards items were related to the writing process. 

Standards items included in this category ranged from scribbling, to representing objects or ideas 

through drawings, to writing letters and writing words. While there is clearly an emphasis on the 

writing process in the standards, a more differentiated coding system would be needed to 

determine what specific aspects of the writing process are being emphasized. Have the standards 

focused on writing letters or have they focused more on the earlier stages of the writing process? 

A revised coding system would be needed to answer this question. However, the data do indicate 

that states have recognized the importance of early writing skills and have included them in their 

standards. 

Cognition and general knowledge. The majority of states included standards to address 

all four indicators within the Cognition and General Knowledge dimension. By far the standards 

documents emphasized two areas: knowledge of the physical world and logico-mathematical 

knowledge. However, the coding system provides limited data on what specifically within these 

two areas has been addressed. Data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study—Kindergarten 

Cohort (Zill & West, 2001) suggest that children may be more proficient in lower level 

mathematics skills, such as counting to 10 and recognizing numerals, than they are in more 

advanced mathematics skills, such as number sequencing and solving word problems. Likewise, 

children’s knowledge of the physical world can be broken down into knowledge about different 

subject areas such as science, history, and the arts. Additional indicators would need to be added 

to the coding system to further delineate the extent to which the standards have addressed 

important skills and knowledge within these areas. What we know is that, overall, these areas 

received the most attention within the standards. 
 40

Social-conventional knowledge, or knowledge of rules and customs that govern how individuals 

approach a task, was much less common among the standards coded as cognition and general 

knowledge. This finding is striking given the emphasis that kindergarten and preschool teachers 

tend to place on the importance of children knowing and following rules. In addition, standards 

items that related to children’s knowledge about the social world (such as family and community 

roles, differences between persons from different cultures, etc.) were relatively underrepresented 

among the cognitive and general knowledge items. 

Given the potential importance of early learning standards as a basis for early childhood 

curricula and programming, it seems that the absence of items related to important 

developmental and knowledge areas is perhaps a more significant finding than what is included 

in the standards. These omissions and imbalances suggest that far more attention is needed to 

discussion within the field on the significance of particular skills or abilities within each of the 

five dimensions. Research is needed to empirically test the relative importance of these skills for 

later development and the implications for the construction of specific standards to ensure that all 

areas important to development are included. Greater agreement on the relative importance of 

various developmental constructs within the five domains would provide a basis for including (or 

excluding) particular skills or abilities. 

It would seem that an effort to emphasize the importance of discrete skills or characteristics 

within dimensions might lead to more and more standards items being added to standards 

documents. We are not advocating that standards documents necessarily need to include more 

items. Rather, we are stressing the importance of a systematic and empirical review of precisely 

which skills and characteristics are important for optimal learning and developmental outcomes. 

Standards should be constructed to reflect the results of such analysis. Completeness as well as 

balance in what is covered both seem to be important issues when looking at the depth of 

standards. Items in each dimension should be reviewed to ensure that collectively they address 

all elements and that the elements being emphasized are those that are deemed most important. 

Because the process of developing and reviewing early learning standards is still somewhat new, 

more scrutiny of the standards is needed. Greater attention to content analysis should be 

developed and shared by and among those charged with responsibility for standards’ 

construction. 

Recommendations 

Early learning standards have tremendous potential, both positive and negative. By defining the 

desired content and expectations for children’s learning, the standards can benefit early care and 

education programs as well as the children they serve. Standards can serve to increase the degree 

of intentionality with which teachers teach, can focus curriculum and instruction on areas of 

development that are key to promoting positive child growth and learning, and can promote a 

more coherent approach to children’s education as programs in different settings work from a 

common set of standards. Early learning standards, however, bring with them an equal potential 

for negative consequences. If standards are the basis of instruction, what are the implications of 

important areas of development being omitted? Would the standards become the basis for 

misguided instructional practices? 
 41

To maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of early learning standards, we make the 

following recommendations: 

1. Before finalizing the early learning standards, careful analysis of the content of 

the standards should be done. The following questions should be addressed in a 

formal review process: 

a. Is the purpose for the standards clear? Is the purpose to guide instruction? To 

serve as the basis for an assessment system? To hold programs accountable 

for child outcomes? Once the purpose is clear, does the content and the format 

of the document clearly support or “match” the purpose (in terms of level of 

specificity, areas of focus, etc.)? 

b. Does the content of the standards reflect the state’s view of what is important 

for children’s development and learning prior to kindergarten entry? What is 

the relative degree of emphasis between the five dimensions? Is the degree of 

emphasis consistent with the state’s priorities and goals for the early care and 

education programs? 

c. Have important indicators within each dimension been covered? Based on the 

review of the standards, have all important areas within each dimension been 

addressed? What’s been left out and is the omission consistent with the 

research literature on children’s early learning, the state’s priorities, and the 

goals of the programs where the standards will be used? 

d. What is the relationship between the early learning standards and the K−12 

standards? Is there consistency or alignment between the early learning 

standards and the kindergarten standards to the greatest extent that is feasible 

and desirable? Careful consideration should be given to the extent to which 

closely aligned early learning and kindergarten standards can promote 

consistency and continuity for children as they move from preschool programs 

into kindergarten. 

2. Additional research on the nature and the content of early learning standards 

should be conducted. The development of early learning standards is a relatively 

new undertaking within the field of early care and education. Most of the 

standards have been developed within the past three years, and many states have 

also revised their standards within the same period. With the advent of any new 

innovation in education comes the need for analysis and self-reflection. 

Additional research is needed to explore how states have approached the 

development of their standards and what factors might explain differences 

between states in the content of their standards. Furthermore, and perhaps most 

important, further work is needed to provide data about how standards address the 

different areas of development and learning that are associated with children’s 

later success in school. What is the optimal balance in the relative emphasis of the 

standards across the five dimensions? Can the important areas of children’s 

learning and development that do not easily lend themselves to standards be 

articulated more effectively? As part of this effort to better understand the nature 

of early learning standards, we recommend that additional work be done to 

develop a more refined coding scheme that can better provide a more in-depth 
 42

understanding of the content of the standards, particularly in the area of Cognition 

and General Knowledge. A more refined coding system would provide more 

specific data on the level of skills and knowledge that have been addressed in the 

standards and would more explicitly address how academic content areas have 

been reflected in the standards. 

3. Because early learning standards should be the basis from which programs 

develop curriculum and assess children’s learning, further research is needed to 

examine the relationship between standards and the curricula and assessments 

being used in early care and education settings. This relationship is known as 

horizontal alignment. To what extent do the skills, knowledge, and characteristics 

addressed in the standards relate to the goals and objectives and the teaching 

strategies of the curriculum being used in the program? Are the assessments being 

used within the program collecting data on the same skills and characteristics 

outlined in the standards? Standards, curricula, and assessments that address the 

same or similar areas of children’s learning can produce a synergy that effectively 

supports teachers in their efforts to promote optimal child outcomes. In instances 

where standards, curricula, and assessments are not in line with each other (i.e., 

exhibit poor horizontal alignment), teachers are likely to be confused about 

priorities for instruction and children may be subjected to an unfair situation 

where expectations for their learning and development do not match what is being 

taught or what is being assessed. A critical next step in our understanding of the 

content of early learning standards is to systematically examine the relationship or 

alignment between the standards, curricula, and assessments being used in early 

education programs. 

4. Further research is needed to understand how the content of early learning 

standards relates to the content of K−12 standards. Given the importance that the 

linkage to K−12 standards seems to play in the development and content of early 

learning standards, research is needed to examine whether the content of directly 

“linked” early learning standards is actually aligned with the content of the K−12 

standards—does “linkage” translate to “alignment”? If so, how? Additionally, are 

the K−12 standards to which early learning standards are linked of high quality, 

and do they reflect adequate breadth and depth? What type of alignment between 

standards used in the preschool and kindergarten programs can best promote 

children’s transition to kindergarten? 

5. Finally, we think it is critical that additional research be done on the utilization of 

standards in the field. States have spent considerable time and resources 

developing early learning standards. The question now is, “how are they 

impacting practice?” This research would need to take into account features 

within the standards documents themselves that might promote utilization and 

supports within the early care and education system that can help teachers use 

standards effectively. Within the documents themselves, are different ways of 

stating standards more effective or clear for teachers? What features of standards 

documents best support optimal use in the field—are standards enough or should 
 43

they be accompanied by narratives that provide examples, describe teaching 

strategies, etc.? 

Research on the system-level supports needed to help teachers implement the standards 

should be multifaceted. The development and implementation of standards represents a 

huge “mind shift” for the field and moves us from a focus on the environment or the 

“inputs” of early education to a balanced focus on both the inputs and the outcomes of 

our efforts. Teachers will be asked to be more intentional about what skills, knowledge, 

and characteristics they seek to help children develop. Research on how to help teachers 

make this shift is imperative. What factors within the overall early education system of a 

state and within individual programs are associated with effective use of standards? What 

training and support is necessary to help teachers use the standards to guide their 

instruction? What role do standards play in higher education teacher-preparation 

programs? How can standards best be implemented so that they are used effectively? 

Research on how to support the utilization of early learning standards is especially 

important given the fact that the early learning standards will likely be used in a wide 

variety of programs. Interviews with standards developers for Phase 1 of this study 

indicated that most states have developed early learning standards for use in their 

publicly funded pre-kindergarten programs but almost all states make them available to 

other programs and intend to support their use in other programs. With the advent of the 

Good Start Grow Smart requirements for voluntary early learning guidelines to be used in 

child care programs, the likelihood of these standards being used in settings other than 

publicly funded pre-kindergarten programs has increased. State-funded pre-kindergarten 

programs may be located in school settings where the notion of standards-based 

education is a daily consideration. While these teachers certainly will need support and 

access to professional development, they have the advantage of having worked with 

colleagues who routinely use standards and a school with an administrative system to 

support the use of standards. Many states, however, have extended their pre-kindergarten 

programs into community-based settings, and, with the advent of the Good Start Grow 

Smart requirements for early learning guidelines, even child care programs that do not 

provide state-funded pre-kindergarten programs may use the early learning guidelines. 

These programs typically have teachers with lower levels of education and professional 

development, may have less exposure to standards-based education, and if they are 

operating full-day programs, may have less time for professional development. Research 

that provides data to examine the types of support and professional development that are 

needed for effective implementation of early learning standards in these settings is 

imperative. 

Conclusion 

The purpose of this study was to provide a systematic analysis of the content of early learning 

standards. In conducting the study, we have shown that early learning standards are increasingly 

common across the nation—more states have them than do not. Our analysis indicates that 

standards documents vary tremendously in the depth and breadth of their content. Several 

important dimensions of school readiness—physical and motor, social and emotional, and 
 44

approaches toward learning—have received relatively less emphasis within the standards. 

Whether these findings reflect intentional or unintentional content skews is unclear. What is clear 

is the need for systematic analysis of the content of early learning standards, particularly because 

many states are currently in the process of developing or revising early learning standards. 

Early learning standards articulate expectations for children’s development and learning and, as a 

consequence, have the capacity to influence the nature of early learning programs and the 

content of children’s daily experiences within the programs. Increasingly these standards have 

the potential to drive what is taught and, ultimately, what young children in this nation learn. 

Given the potential importance of these standards, it is imperative that the field engage in careful 

consideration of the content of these documents, serious deliberation related to what should be 

included, and rigorous research to examine the alignment of these standards with other elements 

of the education system and how the early learning standards are implemented. 
 45

References 

American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Nutrition. (2003). Prevention of pediatric 

overweight and obesity. Pediatrics, 112, 424 –430. 

American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on School Health. (2004). Soft drinks in schools. 

Pediatrics, 113, 152−154. 

American Federation of Teachers. (1999). Making standards matter. Washington, DC: Author. 

Barnett, W. S. (1998). Long-term effects on cognitive development and school success. In 

 W. S. Barnett & S. S. Boocock (Eds.), Early care and education for children in poverty 

(pp 11 - 44). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 

Black, S. (2004, January). Beyond baby fat. American School Board Journal, 191(1), 1−3. 

Corbin, C. B., & Pangrazi, R. P. (2003). Physical activity for children: A statement of guidelines 

for children ages 5−12. Rolston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical 

Education. 

Davies, M., & North, J. (1990). Teacher’s expectations of school entry skills. Australian Journal 

of Early Childhood. 15(4), 44−46. 

Denton, K., & West, J. (2002). Children’s reading and mathematics achievement in kindergarten 

and first grade. (NCES 2002-125). Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics. 

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

Education Week, 21(17), 54–56. 

Fishel, J. E., Storch, S. A., Spira, E. G., & Stolz, B. M. (2003). Enhancing emergent literacy 

skills in Head Start: First year curriculum evaluation results. Presented at the Biennial 

Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development. Tampa, FL. 

Hains, A. H., Fowler, S. A., Schwartz, E. S., Kottwitz, E., & Rosenkoetter, S. (1989). A 

comparison of preschool and kindergarten teacher expectations for school readiness. 

Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4, 75−88. 

Head Start Bureau. (2001). Head Start Child Outcomes Framework. Head Start Bulletin, 70, 

44−50. 

Heaviside, S., & Farris, E. (1993). Public school kindergarten teachers’ views on children’s 

readiness for school. Contractor Report. Statistical Analysis Report. Fast Response 

Survey System (NCES-93-410). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
 46

Kagan, S. L., & Scott-Little, C. (2004). Early learning standards: Changing the parlance and 

practice of early childhood education? Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 388−396. 

Kowalski, K., Pretti-Frontczak, K., & Johnson, L. (2001). Preschool teachers’ beliefs concerning 

the importance of various developmental skills and abilities. Journal of Research in 

Childhood Education, 16, 5–14. 

Lewit, E. M., & Baker, L. S. (1995). School readiness. The Future of Children, 5(2), 128−139. 

Lin, H. L., Lawrence, F. R., & Gorrell, J. (2003). Kindergarten teachers’ views of children’s 

readiness for school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 225−237. 

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), 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 Early Literacy Panel. (November 9, 2004). The National Early Literacy Panel: A 

research synthesis on early literacy development. Presentation for the National 

Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. 

Anaheim, CA. 

National Education Goals Panel. (1995). Reconsidering children’s early development and 

learning: Toward common views and vocabulary. Goal 1 Technical Planning Group. S. 

L. Kagan, E. Moore, & S. Bredekamp (Eds). Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

National Research Council. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Committee on 

Early Childhood Pedagogy. B. T. Bowman, M. S. Donovan, & M. S. Burns (Eds.). 

Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 

National Research Council & Institute of Medicine. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: 

The science of early childhood development. J. P. Shonkoff & D. A. Phillips (Eds.) 

Board on Children, Youth and Families, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences 

and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Pate, R. R., Pfeiffer, K. A., Trost, S. G., Ziegler, P., & Dowda, M. (2004). Physical activity 

 among children attending preschools. Pediatrics, 114, 1258−1263. 

Peth-Pierce, R. (2001). A good beginning: Sending America’s children to school with the social 

and emotional competence they need to succeed. Monograph based on two papers 

commissioned by the Child Mental Health Foundations and Agencies Network (FAN). 

Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 
 47

Phillips, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., Klebanov, P., & Crane, J. (1998). Family 

 background, parenting practices, and the black-white test score gap. In C. Jencks 

 & M. Phillips (Eds.), The black-white test score gap. Washington, DC: 

 Brookings Institution Press. 

Pianta, R. C., & McCoy, S. J. (1997). The first day of school: The predictive validity of 

 early school screening. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18, 1−22. 

Rathbun, A., & West, J. (2004). From kindergarten through third grade: Children’s beginning 

school experiences. (NCES 2004-007). U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

 for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 

Raver, C. (2002). Emotions matter: Making the case for the role of young children’s emotional 

development for early school readiness. SRCD Social Policy Report, 16(3). Ann Arbor, 

MI: Society for Research in Child Development. 

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (2000). Teachers’ judgments of problems in 

the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 147−166. 

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

Defense Fund. 

Scott-Little, C., Kagan, S. L., Frelow, V. S. (2003a). Standards for preschool children’s 

learning and development: Who has the standards, how were they developed, and how 

were they used? Greensboro, NC: The Regional Educational Laboratory at SERVE. 

Scott-Little, C., Kagan, S. L., & Frelow, V. S. (2003b, Fall). Creating the conditions for success 

with early learning standards: Results from a national study of state-level standards for 

children’s learning prior to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 5(2). 

Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v5n2/little.html

Shonkoff, J. P. (July, 2004). Beyond Neurons to Neighborhoods: Leading the way from 

research to policy. Plenary address for the annual State Child Care Administrators 

Meeting. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children 

and Families, Child Care Bureau. Washington, DC, July 29, 2004. 

United States Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). Physical activity and health: 

 A report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and 

 Prevention. 

United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Healthy people 2010

 (2nd edition). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 

Welch, M. D., & White, B. (1999). Teacher and parent expectations for kindergarten readiness. 

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 437 225). 
 48

West, J. (1993). Readiness for kindergarten: Parent and teacher beliefs. Statistics in Brief 

(NCES 93-257). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. 

 

West, J., Denton, K., & Germino Hausken, E. (2000). America’s kindergartners. (NCES 

 2000-070). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

West, J., Denton, K., & Reaney, L. (2001). The kindergarten year. (NCES 2001-023). 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

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

 Initiative. Retrieved April 4, 2004, from 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/earlychildhood/sect1.html

Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child 

 Development, 68, 848−872. 

Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. (2001). Emergent literacy: Development from prereaders 

 to readers. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy 

 research. New York: The Guilford Press. 

Zill, N., Resnick, G., Kim, K. et al. (2001). Head Start FACES: Longitudinal findings on 

 program performance. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

 Services. 

Zill, N., Resnick, G., Kim, K., O’Donnell, K., Sorongon, A., et al. (2003). Head Start FACES 

2000: A whole-child perspective on program performance. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

Zill, N., & West, J. (2001). Entering kindergarten: A portrait of American children when they 

 begin school. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. 

 Department of Education. 

 
 49

Appendices 

Appendix A: Standards Documents Included in the Analysis 

Appendix B: Indicators Used for Coding Standards Items 

Appendix C: State-by-State Breakdown of the Relative Degree of Emphasis 

Across the Dimensions 

Appendix D: State-by-State Breakdown of the Relative Degree of Emphasis 

 Within the Physical Well-Being and Motor Development Dimension 

Appendix E: State-by-State Breakdown of the Relative Degree of Emphasis Within 

 the Social and Emotional Development Dimension 

Appendix F: State-by-State Breakdown of the Relative Degree of Emphasis Within 

 the Approaches Toward Learning Dimension 

Appendix G: State-by-State Breakdown of the Relative Degree of Emphasis 

Within the Language and Communication Dimension 

Appendix H: State-by-State Breakdown of the Relative Degree of Emphasis 

Within the Cognition and General Knowledge Dimension 

 
 50

Appendix A 

 

Standards Documents Included in the Analysis

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. Available at: 

http://www.state.ar.us/childcare/ARKANSAS%20EARLY%20CHILDHOOD%20EDUCATIO

N%20FRAMEWORK.pdf 

Arizona

Arizona Department of Education. (2003). Arizona Early Childhood Education Standards. 

Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Education. Available at: 

http://www.ade.state.az.us/earlychildhood/downloads/ECE-Standards.pdf 

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/sp/cd/ci/documents/continuum.doc

Colorado

Colorado Department of Education. (2000). Building Blocks to Colorado’s Content Standards.

Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Education. Available as follows: 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

Delaware

Delaware Department of Education. (2003). Delaware Early Learning Foundations for School 

Success. Dover, DE: Delaware Department of Education. Available at: 

http://www.doe.state.de.us/early_childhood/Standards/28372_Schoolbook.pdf 
 51

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.schoolreadiness.org/home/download.asp?catsub=19

Georgia

Georgia Office of School Readiness. (2003). Georgia’s Pre-K Program Content Standards.

Atlanta, GA: Office of School Readiness, Georgia Pre-K Program. Available at: 

http://www.osr.state.ga.us/PreK/TeachersContentStandards.html 

Hawaii

Hawaii Good Beginnings Interdepartmental Council. School Readiness Task Force. (2003). 

Hawaii Preschool Content Standards. Curriculum Guidelines for Programs for Four-Year-Olds. 

Hawaii: Good Beginnings Alliance. Available at: 

http://www.goodbeginnings.org/pdf/Hawaii%20Preschool%20Content%20Standards.pdf

Idaho

Idaho State Department of Education. (2003). Idaho Early Learning Standards: A Resource 

Guide (Draft). Boise, ID: Idaho State Department of Education, Bureau of Special Education. 

Available at: 

http://www.sde.state.id.us/SpecialEd/docs/content/IdahoEarlyLearningStandards.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

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

Kentucky

Kentucky Department of Education. Kentucky Preschool Program. (2003). Building the 

Foundation for School Success. Available at: 

http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Instructional+Resources/Early+Childhood+Development/Ke

ntucky%27s+Early+Childhood+Standards.htm
 52

Louisiana

Louisiana Department of Education. (2003). Louisiana Standards for Programs Serving FourYear-Old Children. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana Department of Education; Office of Student 

and School Performance; Division of Student Standards and Assessments. Available at: 

http://www.louisianaschools.net/lde/ssa/742.html 

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

Maine Department of Education. (1999). Birth to Five Early Learning Results. 

Maryland

Maryland State Department of Education. (2003). MSDE Voluntary State Curriculum. Baltimore, 

MD: Maryland State Department of Education. Available at: http://mdk12.org/mspp/vsc/ 

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Department of Education. (2003). Guidelines for Preschool Learning 

Experiences. Malden, MA: Massachusetts Department of Education. Available at: 

http://www.doe.mass.edu/els/standards/ple_guidelines.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://education.state.mn.us/content/010859.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
 53

Missouri

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Early Childhood Section. (2001). 

Missouri Pre-K Standards. Jefferson City, MO. Available at: 

http://www.dese.state.mo.us/divimprove/fedprog/earlychild/PreK_Standards.html

New Jersey

New Jersey State Department of Education. (2003). Early Childhood Education Program 

Expectations: Standards of Quality. (Revised). Trenton, NJ: New Jersey State Department of 

Education. Available at: http://www.state.nj.us/njded/ece/expectations/expectations.pdf 

New Mexico

University of New Mexico Center for Family and Community Partnerships. (2000). 

Developmental Milestones (part of the Focused Portfolio system described 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. (2003). Early Learning Content Standards. Ohio Department of 

Education, Office of Early Childhood Education. Available at: 

http://www.ode.state.oh.us/ece/standards1/Early%20Learning%20Standards-final-10-04.pdf

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/kdevelop.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
 54

Rhode Island

Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2003). Rhode Island Early 

Learning Standards. Providence, RI: Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. 

Available at 

http://www.ridoe.net/child_family/earlychild/childstandards.htm

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. Mathematics available at: 

http://www.myscschools.com/offices/cso/mathematics/standards.htm. 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: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/early/prekguide.html 

Utah

Utah State Office of Education. (2000). Pre-K Standards (Guidelines). Salt Lake City, UT: Utah 

State Office of Education. 

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

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 

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. 
 55

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. 

Wisconsin

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, 

Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services, Head Start State Collaboration Project, 

Early Childhood Collaborating Partners. (2003). Wisconsin Model Early Learning Standards. 

Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Available at: 

http://www.collaboratingpartners.com/docs/NMN_EL_Standards.pdf 

Wyoming

Wyoming Department of Education. Early Childhood Readiness Standards. Cheyenne, WY: 

Wyoming Department of Education. 

 
 56

Appendix B 

Indicators Used for Coding Standards Items

Dimension I: Physical Well-Being and Motor Development 

I. Physical Development 

1. Overall rate of growth and good nutrition 

2. Level of physical fitness (overall health, strength, stamina, and ability to exercise) 

II. Physical Abilities 

 

3. Motor skills (gross, fine, oral, sensory) 

4. Functional performance (physical competencies; self-help skills) 

Dimension II: Social and Emotional Development 

I. Emotional Development 

5. Regulates and expresses emotions appropriately (communicates one’s 

attitudes/feelings verbally and non-verbally) 

6. Ability to comprehend the feelings of others (empathy, understanding, acceptance, 

distinguishes between incidental and intentional actions) 

7. Self-concept (traits, habits, abilities, motives, social roles, goals, and values that 

define how we perceive ourselves) 

8. Self-efficacy (belief that one can successfully accomplish what one sets out to do) 

II. Social Development 

9. Social skills with adults (includes ability to communicate with adults) 

10. Ability to have relationships with adults 

11. Social skills with peers (includes social skills necessary to cooperate with peers) 

12. Ability to form and sustain reciprocal friendships with peers 

Dimension III: Approaches Toward Learning 

 I. Learning Styles

13. Openness to and curiosity about new tasks and challenges (predisposition to explore and 

experiment) 

14. Initiative, task persistence, and attentiveness 

15. Approach to reflection and interpretation 

16. Capacity for invention and imagination 
 57

Dimension IV: Language Development 

I. Verbal Language 

17. Listening (includes following oral directions) 

18. Speaking (focuses on mechanics of speaking and not on what it communicates) 

19. Social uses of language 

20. Vocabulary and meaning 

21. Questioning 

22. Creative uses of language (listens attentively to stories, songs; rhyming sounds and 

words; storytelling) 

23. Creative expression (non-language) 

24. Non-verbal communication 

III. Emerging Literacy 

25. Phonemic and phonological awareness (increase the ability to discriminate and identify 

sounds; process sounds to formulate words) 

26. Literature awareness (interest in various forms of literature; recalling familiar stories) 

27. Comprehension (awareness of the basic content of literacy-related materials) 

28. Print awareness (recognizes own name in writing; aware of connection between text and 

oral storytelling) 

29. Book awareness (reads from left to right; holds book and turns pages appropriately) 

30. Alphabet awareness (recognizes or knows the names of letters of the alphabet) 

31. Story sense (aware of story sequence) 

32. Writing process (produces ordered scribbling) 

Dimension V: Cognition and General Knowledge 

I. Physical Knowledge 

33. Knowledge of objects in external reality learned by observations and experience with 

 the objects (representational thoughtability to think about things not present) 

II. Logico-Mathematical Knowledge 

34. Knowledge constructed within the mind of the individual that establishes similarities, 

differences, and associations between objects, events, or people. 

III. Social-Conventional Knowledge 

35. Awareness of the agreed-upon conventions of society and the school-learned 

knowledge of conventions (the English language has 26 letters; classroom 

routines) 

 36. Social knowledge (aware of self, family, and community; aware of physical 

environment and natural world) 
 58

Appendix C 

State-by-State Breakdown of the Relative Degree 

of Emphasis Across the Dimensions 

Percentage of Indicators Coded Within Each Dimension 

State Physical 

Social and 

Emotional 

Approaches 

Toward 

Learning 

Language & 

Communication 

Cognition & 

General 

Knowledge 

 

Arkansas 16 19 14 18 33 

Arizona 8 12 12 23 45 

California 24 16 7 27 26 

Colorado 0 0 0 41 59 

Connecticut 14 18 16 25 27 

Delaware 7 14 11 22 46 

Florida 18 12 12 18 40 

Georgia 6 10 10 28 46 

Hawaii 8 11 8 18 55 

Idaho 5 7 11 32 45 

Illinois 8 11 8 25 48 

Indiana 3 7 6 32 52 

Kentucky 7 9 16 27 41 

Louisiana 8 17 1 22 52 

Maine: Learning Results 4 3 3 19 72 

Maine: Early L. R. 20 30 3 31 16 

Maryland 1 1 10 38 50 

Massachusetts 10 2 9 23 56 

Michigan 4 8 10 21 57 

Minnesota 9 20 15 22 34 

Mississippi 5 20 1 36 38 

Missouri 11 12 22 19 36 

New Jersey 7 13 9 25 46 

New Mexico 32 19 3 32 14 

New York 0 13 2 73 13 

Ohio 0 6 11 34 49 

Oklahoma 20 11 10 21 37 

Pennsylvania 0 3 9 51 37 

Rhode Island 6 13 18 28 34 
 59

 Physical 

Social & 

Emotional 

Approaches 

Toward 

Learning 

Language & 

Communication 

Cognition & 

General 

Knowledge 

South Carolina 11 4 11 28 46 

Texas 8 10 8 37 37 

Utah 13 18 12 31 26 

Vermont 8 14 16 26 36 

Virginia 0 0 0 64 36 

Washington – ECEAP 10 25 6 34 25 

Washington – OSPI 3 20 4 67 7 

Wisconsin 9 22 24 24 21 

Wyoming 9 10 17 34 30 

Average Percentage by 

Dimension 8.7 12.1 9.6 30.9 38.6 
 60

Appendix D 

State-by-State Breakdown of the Relative Degree of Emphasis 

Within the Physical Well-Being and Motor Development Dimension 

State Growth Fitness Motor skills 

Functional 

performance 

 

Arkansas 7 7 64 22 

Arizona 0 0 59 41 

California 0 0 62 38 

Colorado 0 0 0 0 

Connecticut 0 9 64 27 

Delaware 13 13 49 25 

Florida 18 0 64 18 

Georgia 0 0 86 14 

Hawaii 0 8 59 33 

Idaho 11 33 45 11 

Illinois 13 25 50 12 

Indiana 0 10 50 40 

Kentucky 0 8 69 23 

Louisiana 0 13 75 12 

Maine: Learning Results 0 13 50 37 

Maine: Early Learning Results 0 0 93 7 

Maryland 0 0 0 100 

Massachusetts 0 31 54 15 

Michigan 0 20 60 20 

Minnesota 0 37 50 13 

Mississippi 0 17 50 33 

Missouri 0 12 76 12 

New Jersey 0 8 30 62 

New Mexico 0 10 61 29 

New York 0 0 0 0 

Ohio 0 0 0 0 

Oklahoma 0 0 83 17 

Pennsylvania 0 0 0 0 

Rhode Island 0 43 57 0 

South Carolina 0 19 81 0 
 61

State Growth Fitness Motor skills 

Functional 

performance 

Texas 0 6 69 25 

Utah 0 0 44 56 

Vermont 0 8 75 17 

Virginia 0 0 0 0 

Washington - ECEAP 0 60 0 40 

Washington - OSPI 0 0 50 50 

Wisconsin 17 17 49 17 

Wyoming 0 9 36 55 

Average percentage across 

states 2.1 11.5 49.1 24.2 
 62

Appendix E 

State-by-State Breakdown of the Relative Degree of Emphasis Within 

Social and Emotional Development Dimension 

State 

Regulates 

emotions

Feelings of 

others Self-concept Self-efficacy

Social skills 

with adults

Relationships 

with adults 

Social 

skills with 

peers 

Relationships 

with peers 

Arkansas 0 23 12 12 6 12 35 0 Arizona 20 20 17 3 10 3 24 3 California 22 22 11 11 11 0 22 0 Colorado 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Connecticut 22 7 14 0 14 0 43 0 Delaware 25 6 19 6 13 0 25 6 Florida 13 13 0 22 26 0 26 0 Georgia 17 17 25 8 0 0 33 0 Hawaii 31 0 13 0 19 0 31 6 Idaho 33 17 17 8 0 8 17 0 Illinois 42 17 8 0 0 0 25 8 Indiana 44 0 7 4 0 0 44 0 Kentucky 19 0 25 6 13 0 31 6 Louisiana 12 24 18 0 6 6 35 0 Maine: Learning Results 40 0 20 0 0 0 40 0 Maine: Early L. Results 23 5 9 2 27 9 25 0 Maryland 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 Massachusetts 33 33 0 0 0 0 33 0 
 63

State 

Regulates 

emotions

Feelings of 

others Self-concept Self-efficacy

Social skills 

with adults

Relationships 

with adults 

Social 

skills with 

peers 

Relationships 

with peers 

Michigan 23 6 23 23 0 0 19 6 Minnesota 26 11 26 0 5 0 26 5 Mississippi 25 21 4 4 0 0 42 4 Missouri 21 5 21 0 5 5 37 5 New Jersey 23 9 18 5 0 9 36 0 New Mexico 17 28 0 0 17 0 33 6 New York 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 69 Ohio 22 22 22 0 11 0 22 0 Oklahoma 8 15 15 8 23 0 31 0 Pennsylvania 0 0 0 0 18 0 82 0 Rhode Island 17 11 22 0 0 0 44 6 South Carolina 33 0 33 0 0 0 33 0 Texas 15 15 15 0 10 0 45 0 Utah 15 4 6 6 13 2 52 2 Vermont 19 14 14 4 4 0 41 4 Virginia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washington - ECEAP 15 8 15 0 0 8 23 31 Washington - OSPI 6 3 10 13 10 3 55 0 Wisconsin 29 7 15 7 21 0 21 0 Wyoming 17 17 17 8 0 17 8 17 Average Percentage Across States 19.1 10.5 12.9 4.2 7.4 2.2 33.4 4.8 
 64

Appendix F 

State-by-State Breakdown of the Relative Degree of Emphasis 

Within the Approaches Toward Learning Dimension 

State Curiosity Initiative 

Reflection & 

Interpretation

Invention & 

Imagination 

 

Arkansas 59 8 25 8 

Arizona 23 16 23 39 

California 50 25 0 25 

Colorado 0 0 0 0 

Connecticut 18 18 46 18 

Delaware 23 23 8 46 

Florida 50 32 5 14 

Georgia 39 23 23 15 

Hawaii 64 36 0 0 

Idaho 10 5 71 14 

Illinois 38 25 0 38 

Indiana 52 9 9 30 

Kentucky 36 25 36 3 

Louisiana 0 0 0 100 

Maine: Learning Results 33 0 0 37 

Maine: Early Learning Results 40 0 60 0 

Maryland 5 0 95 0 

Massachusetts 33 0 33 33 

Michigan 19 19 58 3 

Minnesota 43 21 21 14 

Mississippi 0 50 50 0 

Missouri 34 14 23 29 

New Jersey 20 40 33 7 

New Mexico 100 0 0 0 

New York 0 0 100 0 

Ohio 39 0 50 11 

Oklahoma 33 17 25 25 

Pennsylvania 49 8 23 20 

Rhode Island 54 29 13 4 

South Carolina 6 0 44 50 
 65

State Curiosity Initiative 

Reflection & 

Interpretation

Invention & 

Imagination 

Texas 65 5 12 18 

Utah 44 19 34 3 

Vermont 36 32 28 4 

Virginia 0 0 0 0 

Washington – ECEAP 33 67 0 0 

Washington – OSPI 17 50 17 17 

Wisconsin 20 7 66 7 

Wyoming 33 38 19 10 

Average Percentage across 

States 32.1 17.4 27.6 16.9 
 66

Appendix G 

State-by-State Breakdown of the Relative Degree of Emphasis Within the 

Language and Communication Dimension--Communication Items 

State Listening Speaking

Social 

uses of 

language Vocabulary Questioning 

Creative 

use of 

language

Creative 

expression 

Non-verbal 

communication

Arkansas 0 19 6 19 0 6 0 0 Arizona 3 2 12 8 3 12 7 0 California 0 6 13 6 0 6 0 0 Colorado 3 3 7 10 3 17 3 3 Connecticut 0 5 21 5 0 11 16 0 Delaware 4 8 16 0 0 12 8 0 Florida 9 9 0 9 0 3 3 0 Georgia 6 3 6 9 0 14 6 0 Hawaii 0 4 19 4 4 11 0 0 Idaho 2 9 9 26 0 3 14 0 Illinois 8 0 19 4 4 4 4 0 Indiana 3 1 7 12 6 15 3 0 Kentucky 8 2 4 6 2 15 2 4 Louisiana 9 5 0 9 5 14 18 0 Maine: Learning Results 3 5 16 8 3 3 3 0 Maine: Early L. Results 0 27 11 11 0 7 0 11 Maryland 3 3 4 12 3 8 0 0 Massachusetts 0 3 13 17 3 20 7 0 
 67

State Listening Speaking

Social 

uses of 

language Vocabulary Questioning 

Creative 

use of 

language

Creative 

expression 

Non-verbal 

communication

Michigan 8 4 6 13 4 6 3 6 Minnesota 10 10 10 10 0 5 5 5 Mississippi 9 2 12 9 0 16 2 2 Missouri 0 4 17 10 0 10 10 0 New Jersey 7 7 14 19 2 10 0 0 New Mexico 19 3 3 13 0 3 10 0 New York 11 3 4 8 1 23 0 0 Ohio 0 2 4 11 0 9 0 0 Oklahoma 4 0 0 8 8 12 24 0 Pennsylvania 4 7 3 9 5 14 2 1 Rhode Island 11 11 3 5 0 11 11 3 South Carolina 9 2 7 5 5 21 7 5 Texas 8 0 5 12 4 16 10 0 Utah 9 2 10 14 5 8 12 3 Vermont 5 5 10 10 2 12 2 2 Virginia 13 0 9 6 3 0 0 0 Washington – ECEAP 6 11 6 11 0 11 0 0 Washington – OSPI 1 0 8 8 7 17 7 2 Wisconsin 7 7 13 20 0 0 13 0 Wyoming 5 5 2 15 2 17 5 0 Average Percentage Across States 5.4 5.2 8.7 10.3 2.2 10.6 5.7 1.2 
 68

Appendix G (continued) 

Relative Degree of Emphasis Within the Language and 

Communication Dimension—Early Literacy Items 

State 

Phonemic/ 

Phonological 

Awareness 

Literature 

Awareness Comprehension

Print 

Awareness 

Book 

Awareness

Alphabet 

Awareness

Story 

Sense 

Writing 

Process 

Arkansas 0 12 0 19 0 0 6 12 

Arizona 0 2 8 7 7 12 2 15 California 13 6 6 6 0 6 6 20 Colorado 7 7 3 21 0 0 3 3 Connecticut 0 5 0 0 5 11 0 21 Delaware 8 4 4 4 4 12 0 16 Florida 9 3 9 6 3 9 0 31 Georgia 11 14 3 9 3 3 3 11 Hawaii 4 7 7 22 4 4 0 11 Idaho 3 6 2 9 0 2 2 13 Illinois 12 8 8 8 4 4 4 12 Indiana 8 4 3 11 3 6 3 17 Kentucky 6 17 0 13 4 8 0 8 Louisiana 5 5 9 5 0 0 0 18 Maine: Learning Results 5 4 22 8 0 5 8 5 Maine: Early L. Results 4 2 4 0 2 7 0 13 Maryland 14 5 12 12 5 4 6 9 Massachusetts 10 7 3 0 0 3 7 7 
 69

State 

Phonemic/ 

Phonological 

Awareness 

Literature 

Awareness Comprehension

Print 

Awareness 

Book 

Awareness

Alphabet 

Awareness

Story 

Sense 

Writing 

Process 

Michigan 4 5 4 15 4 0 1 18 

Minnesota 5 5 0 10 0 0 5 20 Mississippi 7 9 0 9 9 5 7 2 Missouri 7 4 0 7 4 4 7 17 New Jersey 2 2 0 12 2 7 5 10 New Mexico 0 16 0 13 0 6 3 10 New York 4 4 7 12 1 3 1 18 Ohio 7 5 13 14 2 4 2 27 Oklahoma 8 4 0 8 8 12 4 0 Pennsylvania 11 15 10 3 3 3 7 3 Rhode Island 11 3 0 8 5 13 3 5 South Carolina 0 9 0 19 2 5 2 2 Texas 10 11 0 8 8 4 1 3 Utah 1 6 1 11 4 1 5 7 Vermont 10 10 2 10 2 8 0 10 Virginia 13 3 0 3 19 19 3 9 Washington – ECEAP 6 11 0 11 0 16 0 11 Washington – OSPI 3 13 5 13 2 5 2 9 Wisconsin 7 0 0 13 0 13 0 7 Wyoming 7 5 2 13 5 7 5 5 Average Percentage Across States 6.4 6.8 3.9 9.8 3.3 6.1 3.0 11.4 
 70

Appendix H 

State-by-State Breakdown of the 

Relative Degree of Emphasis Within the 

Cognition and General Knowledge Dimension 

State 

Physical 

Knowledge 

LogicoMathematical 

Knowledge 

Social 

Conventions 

Social 

Knowledge

 

Arkansas 27 45 0 27 

Arizona 26 47 14 13 

California 14 79 7 0 

Colorado 34 63 0 2 

Connecticut 32 59 9 0 

Delaware 48 42 4 6 

Florida 30 39 8 22 

Georgia 33 46 9 12 

Hawaii 42 35 7 16 

Idaho 38 32 6 24 

Illinois 42 35 8 15 

Indiana 30 55 4 11 

Kentucky 35 30 7 28 

Louisiana 31 46 6 18 

Maine: Learning Results 63 27 3 7 

Maine: Early Learning Results 48 52 0 0 

Maryland 34 52 3 11 

Massachusetts 52 22 13 13 

Michigan 34 49 1 16 

Minnesota 28 44 3 25 

Mississippi 28 54 11 7 

Missouri 38 53 7 2 

New Jersey 30 47 9 14 

New Mexico 69 31 0 0 

New York 62 23 0 15 

Ohio 37 53 4 6 

Oklahoma 36 32 9 23 

Pennsylvania 38 59 0 3 
 71

State 

Physical 

Knowledge 

LogicoMathematical 

Knowledge 

Social 

Conventions 

Social 

Knowledge

Rhode Island 24 48 13 15 

South Carolina 60 29 7 4 

Texas 29 36 20 15 

Utah 55 27 6 12 

Vermont 22 27 13 38 

Virginia 28 72 0 0 

Washington - ECEAP 15 54 23 8 

Washington - OSPI 73 18 0 9 

Wisconsin 8 54 8 30 

Wyoming 30 38 11 21 

Average Percentage Across 

States 37.9 43.5 6.7 12.8