INSIDE THE CONTENT:

THE BREADTH AND DEPTH 

OF EARLY LEARNING STANDARDS

Executive Summary

By

Catherine Scott-Little

Sharon Lynn Kagan

Victoria Stebbins Frelow

March 2005 
 1

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

Executive Summary 

Introduction 

Standards for children’s learning and development have become increasingly common in 

the United States. As states and the federal government have invested resources in early 

care and education, the need to define what children are learning in the programs has 

become increasingly clear. Federal policies such as the Head Start Child Outcome 

Framework and the Good Start Grow Smart requirement that states develop voluntary 

early learning guidelines have further accentuated the importance of early learning 

standards. In 2002, 27 states had developed early learning standards, most since 1999 

(Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2003). The number of states with early learning standards 

increased to 41 in 2004 (Scott-Little & Kagan, 2004). With this tremendous increase in 

the number of states with early learning standards comes a pressing need to better 

understand the content included in the standards. 

Purpose of This Study 

The purpose of this study is to analyze the content of early learning standards, 

operationally defined as documents that articulate expectations for children’s 

development and learning during the preschool period (ages three to five years). Data 

from the content analysis will show what areas of children’s learning and development 

have been covered within the standards. Standards from 36 states were collected and 

analyzed to address the following research questions: 

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

dimensions of physical, social-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 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? 

Methodology 

An extensive search process was utilized to locate all early learning standards documents 

published as of November 2003. Personal contacts with Early Childhood State Specialists 

in State Departments of Education and other key informants within states, coupled with a 

search of the World Wide Web, yielded a total of 38 documents from 36 states. Two 

states had two separate sets of standards, each developed by a separate entity within the 

state. These have been identified by the name of the document or the agency responsible 

for development of the particular set of standards. The states with early learning 

documents included in this analysis are listed in Table 1. 
 2

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 

* Standards documents included in this analysis were published as of November 2003. 

 Although some of these states have published revised versions of their standards and others have 

 published new sets of standards since November 2003, they are not included in this 

 analysis 

The standards documents vary tremendously in format, content, and length, so it was 

necessary to develop a coding scheme that could accommodate a wide variety of 

standards. The research team carefully studied the National Education Goals Panel’s 

description of dimensions of school readiness, the standards documents themselves, and 

the research literature related to children’s early development and learning. Based on this 

work, the team developed a coding framework that included five dimensions of learning 

and development—physical well-being and motor development, social and emotional 

development, approaches toward learning, language and communication, and cognition 

and general knowledge. Indicators that further articulated specific skills and knowledge 

were developed for each dimension. The result was a coding system that included 36 

indicators divided across the five dimensions, although the number of indicators was not 

equal across the five dimensions. The physical, approaches toward learning, and 

cognition dimensions each have four indicators. Social-emotional development has eight 

indicators and language and communication has sixteen indicators. Figure 1 lists the 

indicators within each of the five dimensions. 
 3

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 of 

language 

Vocabulary 

Questioning 

Creative uses of 

language 

Creative 

expression 

Non-verbal 

communication 

Phonemic 

awareness 

Literature 

awareness 

Comprehension 

Print awareness 

Book awareness 

Alphabet 

awareness 

Story sense 

Writing process 

Physical 

knowledge 

Logicomathematical 

knowledge 

Socialconventional 

knowledge 

Social 

knowledge 

BREADTH BREADTH 
 4

The unequal distribution of indicators across the dimensions is likely due to a number of 

factors, including varying degrees of research on specific skills and knowledge within the 

dimensions and varying degrees to which the skills and knowledge within a dimension 

lend themselves to standards. 

Using this coding scheme, the research team coded each individual standard within a 

standards document according to the indicator that best fit the content of the standard. 

Each standard was coded based on only the content of the standards (i.e., not the subject 

area heading within which it was found or any accompanying explanatory text) and was 

coded for only one indicator. This process meant that each standard was coded as one of 

the indicators within the framework and, by default, was coded according to the 

corresponding dimension. The research team then examined the “breadth” of the 

standards (the extent to which each of the five dimensions has been addressed within the 

content) and the depth of the standards (the extent to which each indicator within a 

specific dimension has been addressed). 

Findings 

The standards documents varied tremendously in the number and types of items included. 

The number of standards items ranged from 50 to 371 (mean = 151.1, standard deviation 

= 83.7). Data from coding these indicators further accentuates the differences between the 

standards, both in terms of their breadth and in terms of the depth of coverage within the 

five dimensions. 

Breath of Coverage Across the Five Dimensions 

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

dimensions. Each of the states (N = 38) had at least one indicator for Language and 

Communication and for Cognition and General Knowledge. The Physical Well-Being 

and Motor Development dimension was the area most likely to be omitted from the 

standards. Six states had no standards related to this dimension. Three states had no 

standards coded within the Social and Emotional Development dimension, and two states 

had no standards coded as Approaches Toward Learning. 

To gain an understanding of the degree to which each of the dimensions was emphasized 

within the standards, the research team examined the percentage of standards that were 

coded within each of the five dimensions. By far the standards emphasized Cognition and 

General Knowledge and Language and Communication. An average of 38.6% of the 

standards items were coded as Cognition and General Knowledge, and an average of 

30.9% of the standards were coded as Language and Communication. Approximately 9% 

of the standards items developed by states were coded as Physical Well-Being and Motor 

Development. Approaches Toward Learning standards made up 10% of the items, and 

12% of the standards were coded as Social and Emotional Development. 
 5

Depth of Coverage Within the Five Dimensions 

Next, the research team examined the extent to which each of the individual indicators 

within each of the five dimensions was covered within the standards. Standards were 

most likely to address each of the four indicators within the Cognition and General 

Knowledge dimension. Twenty-eight out of the 38 standards documents addressed all 

four indicators within this dimension. States were least likely to address all indicators 

within the Social and Emotional and the Physical Well-Being and Motor dimensions, 

with only two states addressing all eight indicators within the Social and Emotional 

dimension and five states addressing all four indicators in the Physical Well-Being and 

Motor area. 

The percentage of standards items coded for each indicator within each dimension was 

calculated in order to provide data related to which of the individual indicators has been 

emphasized the most within the dimensions. Within the Physical Well-Being and Motor 

dimension, almost half (mean = 49.1%) of the standards items developed by states related 

to motor development. Functional performance or self-help skills was the next most 

commonly addressed skill within Physical Well-Being and Motor Development, with an 

average of 24% of the standards items addressing functional performance. The standards 

within Physical Well-Being and Motor Development addressed physical fitness (mean = 

11.5%) and overall health and growth (mean = 2.1%) much less often. 

Within the Social and Emotional dimension, the standards were most often coded as 

social skills with peers (mean = 33.4%) or the ability to express emotions appropriately 

(mean = 19.1%). Relationships with adults (mean = 2.2%), relationships with peers 

(mean = 4.8%), and self-efficacy (mean = 4.2%) were the social-emotional indicators 

addressed least often within the standards. 

Standards within Approaches Toward Learning were relatively evenly distributed across 

the four indicators. Curiosity (mean = 32.1%) and reflection and interpretation (mean = 

27.6%) were most commonly addressed, but initiative (mean = 17.4%) and capacity for 

invention and imagination (mean = 16.9%) were also represented within the standards. 

The Language and Communication dimension had the largest number of indicators 

within the coding scheme—16. While individual states ranged in the degree to which 

they addressed each of the individual indicators, the average across states was fairly 

evenly distributed. Writing (mean = 11.4%), vocabulary (mean = 10.3%), and creative 

uses of language (mean = 10.6%) were the indicators addressed, on average, by the 

highest percentage of standards items within this dimension. Questioning (mean = 2.2%), 

non-verbal communication (mean = 1.2%), book awareness (mean = 3.3%), story sense 

(mean = 3.0%), and comprehension (mean = 3.9%) were the indicators with the lowest 

percentages of standards items. Further analysis revealed that a number of the standards 

documents did not address important early literacy skills. Five out of 38 standards 

documents did not address phonemic/phonological awareness. Fifteen states did not 

address comprehension. Eleven states had no standards related to book awareness. Five 

states did not address alphabet awareness, and ten states did not address story sense. 
 6

Standards items within Cognition and General Knowledge overwhelmingly focused 

either on logico-mathematical knowledge (mean = 43.4%) or knowledge of the physical 

world (mean = 37.9%). Social knowledge was addressed in an average of 12.8% of the 

standards, and social conventional knowledge was addressed in an average of 6.7% of the 

standards. 

Discussion and Recommendations 

Data from this study clearly indicate that standards for children’s early learning and 

development are becoming increasingly common. Thirty-eight standards documents were 

included in this analysis, many of which were developed or revised within the last three 

years. Clearly states are doing a lot of work in this area, and it is an opportune time to 

examine the content of early learning standards and provide guidance for states as they 

are developing and revising standards. 

Findings from the analysis revealed that the standards vary tremendously across states. 

The extent of the variation across states is a reflection of the lack of national standards for 

children’s early learning, the importance of state-level policies in the design of early 

learning standards, and the diverse nature of the programs serving our youngest learners. 

Yet, in a society where families are highly mobile and a number of children may move 

from one state to another, implications of the variability of standards from state to state 

must be examined. More uniformity in the content of standards across states is likely to 

yield greater continuity for children who move from state to state. 

Data from the content analysis indicate that states also vary in the degree to which they 

have addressed important elements of children’s learning and development within the 

standards. We propose that to truly support quality early learning programs and to 

facilitate children’s readiness for success in school, standards must be both broad and 

deep in their content. Simply put, our formula for quality standards is: 

BREADTH + DEPTH = QUALITY STANDARDS 

While these standards documents often have included at least one standards item related 

to each of the dimensions, further analysis revealed that several important elements of 

children’s development and learning have been under emphasized or left out of the 

standards. For instance, within the Physical Well-Being and Motor Development area, 

almost half of the standards items addressed motor skills. Physical fitness, however, was 

addressed within only 11.5% of the standards and not addressed at all in 14 states. Given 

current concerns about children’s obesity in this country, it is important that standards 

address the area of physical fitness. 

Within the Social and Emotional dimension, standards emphasized regulation of 

emotions and social skills with peers. These are important areas for children’s later 

success in school. Yet other areas that are also important were not addressed within the 

standards. Most notably, relationships with peers and adults and self-efficacy were 
 7

omitted in many of the standards documents. Research indicates that these are also 

important for children’s later success in school. 

Language and Communication and Cognition and General Knowledge have been 

emphasized within the standards. Given that many of the standards have been developed 

for programs serving children who are at-risk for school failure, this finding is perhaps 

not surprising. Data from studies such as the Head Start FACES study and the Early 

Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K) suggest that children from 

backgrounds that put them at risk for school failure enter kindergarten well below 

national norms in their knowledge and skills related to these two areas. Yet, even though 

these dimensions have been emphasized within the standards, several important areas 

have been under-emphasized within the dimensions. Most notably within the Language 

and Communication dimension is the number of states that have not addressed 

phonemic/phonological awareness, alphabet awareness, and comprehension. Without a 

doubt, these are important skills for children’s later literacy development. Within 

Cognition and General Knowledge, the limited number of standards that address social 

conventions is noteworthy, particularly given the importance kindergarten teachers place 

on children’s abilities to participate in routines and to follow rules. 

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 comprehensive and 

balanced approach to learning to fully support children’s development and learning. 

Standards can have a focus in the more academic skills within Language and 

Communication and Cognition and General Knowledge and still maintain some emphasis 

on other dimensions. 

In order to maximize the potential of early learning standards to promote effective 

preschool programming, we recommend the following: 

1) A formal content analysis be completed on early learning standards 

documents before they are finalized to ensure that the content of the standards 

reflects the intentions of the standards developers and includes skills, 

knowledge, and characteristics important for children’s later success in 

school. 

2) Further research be done to: 

a. better understand the content of standards and to determine the optimal 

balance of standards across different areas of children’s learning and 

development. 

b. investigate the horizontal alignment between the standards, curricula, and 

assessments being used within early care and education programs. 

c. examine the vertical alignment between early learning standards and K−12 

standards. 

d. study the implementation and utilization of standards within the field, 

particularly across different types of early care and education programs. 
 8

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. 

References 

Scott-Little, C., & Kagan, S. L. (2004). Reconsidering early care and education issues: 

Implications for the field. Presentation for the National Association of Early 

Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. Anaheim, CA. 

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). Available at http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v5n2/little.html.