spring 2005 | early developments 1

NCEDL Pre-kindergarten Study

FPG

Child

Development

Institute

The University of North Carolina

at Chapel Hill earlydevelopments

Spring 2005 | Volume 9 #1
2 early developments | spring 2005 

news

Employee of Year 

Award Goes to 

FPG Publications 

Director

The inaugural employeeof-the-year award by the Research and Economic 

Development Office at The 

University of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill has been awarded 

to Gina Harrison, director of 

publications at the FPG. The award 

was presented during a recent 

luncheon by Dr. Tony Waldrop, 

vice chancellor for research and 

development at UNC. 

FPG Director Dr. Don Bailey 

praised Harrison for „creating 

visually engaging and attractive 

products for scientists as well as 

non-researchers.“

Harrison has been with Carolina 

for 20 years.

FPG ... Advancing Knowledge, Enhancing Lives

‘Enduring Contribution’ Award 

Given to Former FPG Director

Dr. James Gallagher, senior scientist and 

former director of FPG, has received a 

lifetime achievement award from the America 

Psychological Foundation (APF). Gallagher will be 

presented with the 2005 Gold Medal for “enduring 

contribution by a psychologist in the public interest, at the 

foundation’s convention this fall. In addition, APF will donate 

$2,000 to a charity designated by Gallagher. 

FPG Director Dr. Don Bailey praised Gallagher for his 

„lifetime achievements of leadership, scholarship and 

devoted commitment to the needs of students with 

exceptionalities.“

Gallagher is considered an internationally known expert on 

gifted children as well as on early childhood policy. He is 

also a Kenan Professor emeritus at UNC and senior policy 

scientist at the National Center for Early Development & 

Learning (NCEDL).

Gallagher’s many awards include: J. E. Wallace Wallin Award 

for Contributions to Special Education, 1967; John Fogarty 

Award for Distinguished Government Service, 1972; Council for 

Exceptional Children Service to the Field Award, 1990; National 

Association for Gifted Children Distinguished Service to the 

Field Award, 1995 and 1999; and The World Council for Gifted 

and Talented Children Distinguished Service Award, 1997.

 

Gallagher has served in numerous professional positions 

including president of the National Association for Gifted 

Children; the Council for Exceptional Children; and the 

World Council for Gifted and Talented Children; and 

member of Boards of Directors for the Association for the 

Gifted, and the Council for Exceptional Children.
spring 2005 | early developments 3

ISSN 1536-4739

Editors

Pam Winton, Virginia Buysse

Writers

Donna Bryant

Dick Clifford

Diane Early

Loyd Little

Designer

Gina Harrison

Photographers

Don Trull

John Cotter

Assistant Editor

Jay Hargrove

www.fpg.unc.edu

www.ncedl.org

Early Developments is published three 

times a year by the FPG Child Development Institute at The University of 

North Carolina at Chapel Hill. FPG is 

one of the nation’s oldest multidisciplinary centers devoted to the study 

of children and families. Our mission is 

to cultivate and share knowledge that 

enhances child development and family well being.

To subscribe or

to change your address

contact Jay Hargrove

CB #8185, UNC-CH

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8185

919.966.0888

hargrove@mail.fpg.unc.edu

To order additional copies

contact FPG Publications Office

919.966.4221

FPGPublications@unc.edu

Periodicals postage paid at 

Chapel Hill, NC

Total design, production, & printing costs 

of this issue of Early Developments

were $12,376. 20,000 copies of this 

document were printed at a cost of 

$9289.74 or 46¢ each.

Introduction

4

Pre-K Education 

in the States

6

Who Goes to Pre-K & 

How Are They Doing?

10

Who Are the Pre-K 

Teachers? What Are 

Pre-K Classrooms Like?

15

contents

How Is the 

Pre-K Day Spent?

22

NCEDL Publications

29

|ed|

early developments

Spring 2005 | Volume 9 #1
4 early developments | spring 2005 

NCEDL 

Directors’ Notes

by Donna Bryant

Donna Bryant is a 

Senior Scientist and the 

Co-Director of NCEDL

S

TATE-FUNDED PRE-KINDERGARTEN

is a growing phenomenon in 

the United States. The majority 

of 4-year-olds now spend some time 

every weekday in care outside of their 

home and many of these children are 

being served in preschool classrooms 

funded with state education dollars. 

The public strongly supports such 

programs and there is generally 

bipartisan political support for 

pre-K education. 

Because the outlook is good for 

the future of pre-K, we want to do 

all that we can to ensure that new 

programs are the best they can be for 

the young children who attend them. 

To that end, over the past 4 years, the 

National Center for Early Development 

& Learning’s (NCEDL) work has been 

devoted to research on public pre-K 

classrooms, teachers, and children. 

We are pleased that this issue of Early 

Developments is devoted entirely to 

the findings of this research.

When you read the articles, though, 

you will see that the findings are 

somewhat disappointing. We wish 

we could report that state-funded 

pre-K programs are uniformly of high 

quality with exemplary classroom 

practices. Unfortunately, this is not 

the story we tell in this issue. The 

research endeavor places scientists 

in uncomfortable situations when the 

results we find are not the results we 

wanted. However, one of the most 

important purposes of research is to 

document and understand various 

conditions in people, families, 

schools, or other systems. The more 

we understand those conditions, 

the better able we are to improve 

them. If we can find out what works, 

others can advocate for it. If we find 

out what doesn’t work, perhaps our 

data will indicate how to improve 

the situation. Such information is 

particularly valuable in the early 

stages of program implementation—

the stage pre-K is in now—before 

programs get fully set in place. 

This pre-K study could not have 

taken place without excellent 

collaborations at many levels. 

Our colleagues at the University 

of Virginia and the University of 

California at Los Angeles worked 

together with our team at FPG to 

design and carry out the study in 6 

very diverse states. The state early 

childhood specialists across the 50 

states, through their organization, 

gave us good advice about launching 

the study. They have also been keen 

listeners and questioners as they 

have learned about the results. In the 

participating states, the state early 

childhood teams provided access to 

their pre-K programs and helped us 

understand circumstances specific to 

their states. Data collectors in every 

state dedicated countless hours to 

contacting and visiting programs and 

children. And, we are most indebted 

to the hundreds of teachers, parents, 

administrators—and especially the 

children—who participated in this 

project. Clearly, no research would 

be possible without the dedication of 

Dick Clifford is a 

Senior Scientist and the 

Co-Director of NCEDL
spring 2005 | early developments 5

the research participants. These many 

collaborations have helped the study 

progress at every stage and have also 

been interpersonally very rewarding. 

Our 3-university team of researchers 

is now ending 9 years of work as the 

National Center for Early Development 

& Learning, funded by the U. S. 

Department of Education’s Institute of 

Education Sciences (formerly OERI). 

In the first 5 years, NCEDL was a 

collection of several studies relevant 

to early childhood education. In the 

past 4 years, we have focused all our 

efforts on the multi-state study of 

pre-K. A list of the publications from 

the studies from all 9 years is included 

on pages 29–31. The publications from 

the pre-K study are just beginning to 

appear in research journals, and a few 

are summarized in the articles in this 

issue. Plus, data from the children’s 

kindergarten year are just now being 

analyzed, so there will be much more 

to come. 

The findings of the pre-K study and 

our experiences with other work at 

FPG have caused us to rethink school 

entry in America. We think that 

pre-K classroom practices and the 

transition of 3- and 4-year olds into 

public school systems need a great 

deal more thoughtful discussion and 

development, guided by research on 

what’s best for young learners and 

their families. To that end, FPG has 

launched a new effort called First 

School. We have begun an intensive 

planning process with the goal of 

developing a new model for what First 

School might be like for children in 

the U. S. in the next 10–20 years. We 

envision that First School would have 

the following features:

• be available for all children from 

age 3 to about age 8;

• provide seamless transitions for 

children;

• integrate and align curriculum 

across grades;

• provide developmentally 

appropriate facilities and 

activities;

• focus on academic skills, socialemotional development, and 

physical health;

• involve strong and meaningful 

partnerships with families in 

developing, implementing and 

evaluating the model.

As this new program is launched, we 

will provide technical assistance and 

consultation to state and local officials 

involved in beginning or expanding 

preschool services. Look for more 

information about the First School

model in future issues of ED. |ed|
6 early developments | spring 2005 

Pre-K Education 

in the States

T

HE WAY WE CARE FOR AND EDUCATE YOUNG

CHILDREN in the United States has changed 

dramatically in the past forty years. In the 

past, it was rare for children to be cared 

for outside the home, whereas today, most 

children experience group care before coming 

to kindergarten. Public schools are increasingly 

involved in providing pre-kindergarten (pre-K) education to 

four-year-olds (and some three-year-olds). 

By 2001, 43 states were offering some form of pre-K. 

A recent report suggested that as many as 25% of all 

four-year-olds in the U.S. are being served in preschool 

classrooms under the auspice of the public schools.

One motivating factor for states to implement public 

pre-K is that large numbers of children are failing to meet 

educational standards in the early grades. Many state pre-K 

programs were established to serve children thought to be 

at risk of later school failure with the idea that early, high 

quality, learning experiences can help them make a smooth 

transition to school and be successful. 

Other state pre-K programs acknowledge that all young 

children stand to benefit from positive early educational 

experiences, so they are striving to operate universal 

pre-K. In fact, a number of national organizations (e.g., 

the American Federation of Teachers, the Committee for 

Economic Development, and the Council of Chief State 

School Officers) now suggest that all four-year-olds should 

have access to pre-K. 

Researchers at the National Center for Early Development 

& Learning (NCEDL), housed at the FPG Child Development 

Institute (FPG) at The University of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill, believe that in the next 10 to 20 years, public 

schools will be the primary agency for meeting child care 

and learning needs of three- and four-year olds. 

With funding from the Institute of Education Sciences at 

the U.S. Department of Education, investigators at three 

universities have been collaborating to run the Multi-State 

Study of Pre-Kindergarten. Several investigators are at FPG

and others are at the University of California at Los Angeles 

and the University of Virginia.

As the Multi-State Study began in 2000–2001, the team 

conducted a 50-state survey of states’ pre-K program 

administrators. The survey questions covered basic program 

information on certain policy and program design issues. 

“Pre-kindergarten” and “pre-K” are used here to refer 

to classrooms for four-year-olds that are fully or partially 

funded by state education agencies and operated in schools 

or under the direction of state and local education agencies. 

‘Remarkable Variability’

Results showed the remarkable variability across states in 

the way in which pre-K programs are being implemented. 

On every dimension assessed, the range is considerable. 

All states that have pre-K programs serve four-year-olds, 

but almost half also include threes and some even include 

younger children. All states focus on children at risk, but 

three have universal programs where the state attempts to 

serve all four-year-olds. 

The definitions of “risk” vary widely across states. Low 

family income is almost always viewed as a risk, but 

sometimes other risk factors are considered, such as parents 

who are unemployed or suspected of abuse/neglect, or 

child factors such as low-birth-weight or limited English 

proficiency.

6 early developments | spring 2005 
spring 2005 | early developments 7

Most states serve small percentages of their four-yearolds. Only Georgia, New York, and Oklahoma are working 

toward universal access and sufficient funding to serve large 

percentages of their four-year-olds. Among states that target atrisk children, only New Jersey and Ohio seem to have dedicated 

sufficient funds to serve most of their targeted population in 

pre-K, although New Jersey did it under court order. 

Few states restrict pre-K to school buildings but in 

several, pre-K is very much associated with schools because 

of the high percentages of classes offered in schools. Most 

states also fund programs that are in child care centers and 

Head Start programs as well as in public schools, taking 

advantage of existing resources and buildings. 

The majority of state-funded pre-K programs (59%) 

require services to be offered for 2.5–4 hours per day. 

Half of the states require that classes be held five days a 

week for 9–10 months a year. Only seven states, all in the 

south, offer six-hour school-like days. In most states, wraparound child care funds allow some pre-K programs to offer 

additional hours for children who qualify.

To receive state pre-K funding, most states require 

programs to meet certain standards, but these requirements 

also vary widely. For example, adult-child ratios range from 

1:6 to 1:10; group size from 15 to 24; and minimum teacher 

qualifications range from a Child Development Associate’s 

credential, which requires about one year of post-secondary 

spring 2005 | early developments 7
8 early developments | spring 2005 

education, to a Bachelor’s degree with a state teaching 

certificate. 

In sum, large variations exist in the characteristics of 

public pre-K that is offered to children across the United 

States.

How Did We Get Here?

How did America arrive at this uneven non-system called 

“pre-K”? It appears that some states have adopted pre-K 

standards that are modifications of K–3 standards, while the 

standards of other states seem to be child care standards 

that have been made more stringent for pre-K. 

Although the NCEDL survey did not assess this issue, 

these two approaches could reflect states’ different starting 

points and motivations as they made decisions to serve 

four-year olds. Decision-makers in some states may have 

been trying to improve the child care system so that 

preschoolers’ group care experiences better prepare the 

children for school. In other states, decision-makers may 

have begun their pre-K enterprise to be “school-like.” 

In either case, states may have made decisions to 

create state-funded pre-K programs in existing preschools 

and Head Starts so as not to disrupt existing systems of 

early care and education and because space constraints 

prevented them from creating purely school-based systems. 

Possibly, states were hoping to also improve the existing 

system of care. Different philosophies seem to have led to 

different program models and standards. 

Implications of Such Diversity

What are the implications of such diversity in how pre-K 

programs are structured and housed? Is it a problem to have 

such variety across the states in their pre-K programs? 

Dr. Donna Bryant, co-director of NCEDL and associate 

director of FPG said, “We just don’t have enough evidence 

to answer this question yet. It would seem possible to 

arrive at good outcomes for kids in a number of different 

ways, but on the other hand, I suspect that some standards 

or practices are just not good enough.” 

She pointed out that although significant amounts of 

federal and local funds flow into the education and child 

care systems, these are basically state responsibilities. “It is 

not surprising that a vast array of structures and regulations 

have evolved and this variety may not be a problem in and 

of itself. What is critical is that states find ways to achieve 

high quality programs that are available to large numbers 

of children. A single system or structure across states is 

probably not necessary to achieve high quality, but quality 

should be the focus of all states,” she said.

As the states experiment with different types of pre-K 

programs, what changes might take place? Only a handful 

of states serve more than 20% of their four-year-olds in 

state-funded pre-K programs, so all states—even those with 

existing pre-K programs—will likely increase the size of 

their programs over the next few years. 

“As growth in these programs increases, practical 

experience will also increase and may bring about 

programmatic change,” said Bryant. “We need to document 

the status of states’ pre-K programs over time in order to 

understand the trends.”

Dr. Oscar Barbarin, an NCEDL researcher at FPG and a 

professor in social work at The University of North Carolina 

at Chapel Hill, said, “We should also be concerned about 

educating at-risk pre-kindergartners in homogeneous 

classes, as many states do. If children’s first school 

experiences are in classes where all their classmates 

are also at-risk, are the children socially prepared for a 

kindergarten that might be more integrated with children of 

all types and abilities?” 

Such homogeneous classes might also require more 

extensive extra services such as speech, language, and 

physical therapies.

Pre-K Expenditures

At the time of the NCEDL survey (2000–01) states invested 

over $2 billion in education-related pre-K programs and 

served over 740,000 children. The per capita spending by 

the states ranged from less than $1,000/child to greater 

than $5,000/child. However, these numbers significantly 

underestimate the cost of pre-K, because programs receive 

money from many sources, not just the state. “Accurate cost 

data are notoriously hard to collect,” said Dick Clifford, codirector of NCEDL and a senior scientist at FPG. 

It should be noted that since the NCEDL survey data were 

gathered, Nevada and North Carolina began statewide 

pre-K initiatives and some states such as Illinois, Louisiana, 

and New Jersey have expanded programs. Texas has 

extended the length of the pre-K day in many locations. 

However, in the past few years, a number of states have 

decreased their funding for pre-K. “Recent budget problems 

in many states will result in a slower expansion of state 

pre-K than originally intended,” said Dr. Robert Pianta, 

principal investigator of the NCEDL site at the University of 

Virginia. 

Clearly, a more in depth study of pre-K financing is 

warranted, he said. 

Many Unanswered Questions

The survey data provided a picture of the diversity of public 

pre-K in America, especially the variety of ways in which 

8 early developments | spring 2005 
spring 2005 | early developments 9

it is being implemented across the 

states. States continue to explore 

the best ways of providing this 

important service to young children 

and their families. 

However, at the same time, “there 

is a press for expansion of pre-K 

programs in the hope that we will 

be able to better prepare all young 

children for school, especially young 

children at-risk for later learning 

difficulties,” said Bryant. “State 

policymakers see pre-K as the way 

to address the achievement gap 

between poor and non-poor children 

and help all children get a good start 

on the road to success.”

The lack of knowledge about the 

effectiveness of the different types of 

programs is a significant hindrance 

to policymakers as they continue to make decisions about 

pre-K, she said. The potential influence of pre-K programs 

on children’s kindergarten readiness has been a primary 

motivation for states to begin or to expand pre-K programs. 

Important questions that remain include:

• Are a minimum number of hours needed for children 

to achieve learning goals? Should pre-K be a full school 

day to help children be ready for school? 

• Do children make more progress and retain those skills 

when their pre-K classrooms are in elementary schools 

or in other community programs? 

• What are the minimum standards for teacher 

education? Do Bachelor’s level teachers provide a more 

optimal learning environment or can well-supervised 

Associate’s degree teachers do the same?

• Are pre-K classrooms of sufficient quality to ensure 

learning? What is the distribution of quality and 

practices in typical state pre-K programs? 

• Who gains the most from attending these programs? 

Do children from low-income families or with other 

risk factors benefit more from pre-K than typical 

children from middle-income families? Is higher quality 

positively associated with better child outcomes, as 

has been seen in child care research? 

• And perhaps most important, what are the outcomes in 

kindergarten for children who attend these public preK programs? 

With funding from the U.S. Department of Education, the 

NCEDL team tried to answer these questions with the MultiState Study of Pre-Kindergarten. This six-state study was 

conducted between 2001 and 2003 and is the focus of the 

next three articles in this issue of Early Developments. 

The study involved four states—Georgia, Illinois, 

Kentucky, and Ohio—and two large regions of two other 

states—California (Los Angeles and the Central Valley) and 

New York (New York City and Albany areas).

NCEDL researchers can’t yet answer all the important 

questions listed above, but are using the data from this 

study to make a start.

“More within-state studies would be helpful, but crossstate studies like NCEDL’s Multi-State Study of Pre-K and the 

Study of State Wide Early Education Programs (SWEEP) [see 

sidebar on page 26] will be especially useful,” suggested 

Bryant. 

It is clear that states are investing large amounts of state 

tax dollars in pre-K programs with the expectation that 

early learning goals can be met. State and local officials are 

striving to provide the best programs possible. 

Bryant said that much still needs to be learned about 

exactly what is being provided in these programs and how 

decisions about structural features and classroom practices 

lead to programs that meet these high expectations. |ed|

TO LEARN MORE

Additional articles based on study findings will be published soon.

Information about these will be at 

www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl

spring 2005 | early developments 9
10 early developments | spring 2005 

Who Goes to Pre-K & 

How Are They Doing?

I

N THE PAST TWO DECADES, schools and school districts have become increasingly involved in the 

education of children younger than kindergarten. This study, NCEDL’s Multi-State Study of 

Pre-Kindergarten, provides one of the first detailed pictures of the children in these programs. 

The data from the study are statistically representative of all of the pre-K children and programs 

in the four states and two regions participating. 

Who Are the Children in Pre-K?

Most states offer pre-K programs to children from poor families or at risk for learning delays because 

they want to help those children succeed in school. 

However, two states in the study (Georgia and New York) are moving towards universal pre-K 

where any four-year-old can enroll regardless of characteristics like family income. Across these six 

states, pre-kindergartners were quite diverse ethnically, economically, and linguistically. 

Fifty-three percent of pre-K children were from families that earned less than 150% of the federal 

poverty guideline, although the range of family income went quite high because the study included 

two universal pre-K states. African American, Latino, and Asian children were more likely than White 

children to be in a pre-K class with a high concentration of poor children. This is probably because of 

the strong linkages between poverty and ethnicity in America. 
spring 2005 | early developments 11

A large proportion (42%) of the children’s mothers had only a high school 

education or less, a characteristic also associated with poverty.

In the year before pre-K, most children were in some form of out-of-home 

care or education, though nearly a third were cared for exclusively at home. A 

majority of parents reported their children’s health to be very good or excellent. 

Spanish-speaking children were enrolled in pre-K programs in the same large 

numbers as in the older grades. Nationally, English language learners (ELL) 

comprise 12% of the elementary school population. According to the NCEDL

study, 23% of pre-kindergartners spoke a language other than English at home, 

although about half of them spoke some English at home, too. The pre-K 

teachers reported that 16% of the children were ELL. 

Dr. Diane Early, study coordinator and a scientist at the FPG Child 

Development Institute (FPG) at UNC-Chapel Hill, said, “One of the challenges 

that pre-K programs will face as they expand is responding sensitively and 

appropriately to a population of children who are so diverse, in terms of 

ethnicity, race, family income, and dominant language.” 

Dr. Richard Clifford, co-director of NCEDL and a senior scientist at FPG, said, 

“The finding that classes with the highest concentration of poor children also were 

classes that were predominantly African American or Latino illustrates the difficult 

task of disentangling race and ethnicity from socio-economic backgrounds.” 

Most states that have implemented pre-K (including four of the states in this 

study) are targeting children who might be at-risk for later academic problems 

by using family income as the main criterion for enrollment. 

Clifford said that this enrollment strategy is often viewed as a means of closing 

the achievement gap that exists between poor and non-poor children, as well as 

between White children and children of other racial or ethnic backgrounds. 

Clifford said, “The diversity we see in the pre-K population emphasizes 

the importance of understanding the needs of children and families whose 

The NCEDL Multi-State 

Study of Pre-Kindergarten

Classroom observations, child assessments, and questionnaires were 

collected from representative samples of children, teachers, and 

classrooms beginning in the fall of 2001. 

In four states—Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, and Ohio—and two large regions 

of two other states—California (Los Angeles and the Central Valley) and New 

York (New York City and Albany areas), 240 state-funded programs were 

randomly selected.

More than 900 pre-K children participated in the study. The results are 

representative of over 211,000 pre-K children in the participating areas.

A Picture of 

Pre-K Children 

as They Start the 

School Year

• 46% were girls; 

54% were boys.

• 23% spoke Spanish or 

another language other than 

English at home.

• More than half the families 

were low-income.

• This was the first classroombased experience for half of 

the children.

• 78% of parents rated their 

child’s health as very good 

or excellent.

• Children’s ability to 

understand words and speak 

were well below national 

average.

spring 2005 | early developments 11
12 early developments | spring 2005 

traditions, experiences, and expectations may be different 

from those of program teachers and administrators.” 

How Are the Children Doing? 

In the fall and spring of pre-K, randomly selected fouryear-olds who spoke English well enough to be assessed 

were given some standardized tests, measures on which 

the average U.S. child would score 100. [Spanish-speaking 

children whose English skills were not advanced enough 

for assessment in English were assessed in Spanish. Those 

results are not included here. Ability to understand words was 

measured using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT), 

3rd edition. Understanding and use of spoken language was 

measured using the OWLS (Oral & Written Language Scales—

Oral Expression Scale). Early math was measured using the 

Applied Problems sub-test of the Woodcock Johnson III Tests 

of Achievement.] Given that many of these pre-K programs 

targeted children at-risk for school difficulties, it was not 

surprising to the researchers to learn that the children’s 

language, literacy, and number skills were below the norm 

when they entered pre-K. 

Their abilities to understand and use words were well 

below the national average, and their early math scores were 

somewhat below (see graph). Their social behavior, as rated 

by their pre-K teachers, was just fine. 

If indeed the purpose of state initiated pre-K programs is 

to increase school-related academic and social skills at the 

time that the children enter kindergarten, then did the pre-K 

programs in the NCEDL study achieve this goal? 

The answer appears to be “yes.” 

On standardized measures of language and math, children 

made small but meaningful gains from the fall to the spring 

of their pre-K year. Dr. Carollee Howes, NCEDL researcher 

and principal investigator of the UCLA site, said that most 

of these children from low-income families had likely been 

losing ground each year, academically. “Pre-K experiences 

stopped children’s academic declines and even helped them 

catch up a bit,” she said. 

The second graph shows children’s fall and spring scores 

on some skills that children typically learn in pre-K: naming 

letters, numbers, and colors, and counting. Children’s 

performance varied widely on these tasks, but on average, the 

group gained in knowledge over the pre-kindergarten year. 

Howes said, “These results make us optimistic about 

the promise of pre-K programs to help begin bridging the 

achievement gap in this country.” Noting that other results 

from this six-state study suggest that the quality of the 

classrooms was uneven (see next ED article), Howes said 

that the small but significant effects on children seen in this 

study, could be even greater. “Imagine what we could do if 

all programs were of high quality.” |ed|

������

�����

��

�������

��������

��

��������������

��������

��

������

���

��������

��������

���

�����

���

Pre-K Children’s Race/Ethnicity

�

�

��

��

��

������

����

��������

���������������

������ ����������������������

���������������

�������

���������������

�����

Children’s Performance 

Across the Pre-K Year on 

Non-Standardized Measures

��

��

��

��

��

���

������

����

������

����

�������

��������

��������������

�����

�����

Children’s Performance 

Across the Pre-K Year on 

Standardized Measures*

* These measures are designed so that at each time point 

the average child will score 100. This graph indicates that 

pre-K children scored well below the norm when they 

started pre-K, but made gains over the school year, more 

so in language than in math.

12 early developments | spring 2005 
spring 2005 | early developments spring 2005 | early developments 1313

During the Multi-State Study of Pre-Kindergarten, NCEDL researchers gathered detailed information 

about what was actually happening in the pre-K and kindergarten classrooms, as well as how the 

children were doing. 

They learned what early childhood teachers think about child development and how they actually teach, 

including instructional practices around language, literacy, mathematics concepts, and social-emotional 

competencies. 

Within the 40 pre-K classrooms in each participating state, carefully trained data collectors conducted 

multiple days of classroom observations in the fall and spring. Four randomly selected children took 

part in a one-on-one assessment of his or her pre-academic skills during the fall and spring of the pre-K 

year (2001–02). 

The same children were followed into kindergarten and assessed in the fall and spring of 2002–03 and 

kindergarten classroom observations were made. These articles focus on the pre-K data; kindergarten 

data are being analyzed now. Additionally, administrators/principals, pre-K and kindergarten teachers, 

and parents completed questionnaires about themselves and the children. A study of about half 

the families used individual home-based interviews to gather more information from families and to 

videotape parent-child interactions. 

These data will provide early childhood teachers and administrators, policymakers, families, and 

teacher educators with a thorough description of pre-K and kindergarten classroom environments. They 

will also help researchers understand how teachers’ professional development and training experiences 

relate to their classroom practices and how classroom practices relate to children’s learning and 

development.

Design 

of the 

Multi-State 

Study
14 early developments | spring 2005 

Measures

Listed below are some of the measures used by NCEDL. If you want to know more 

about the measures, visit www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl/pages/measures_0103.cfm 

Classroom Observations

Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale—Revised (ECERS-R). (Harms, Clifford, Cryer, 1998). Measure 

of global classroom quality. 

Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2004). Measures the 

nature and quality of teacher-child interactions and the quality of instruction.

Emerging Academic Snapshot. (Ritchie, Howes, Kraft-Sayre, & Weiser, 2001). Time-sampled measure of 

how children spend their time.

Direct Assessments of Children’s Skills

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 3rd edition (PPVT-III). (Dunn & Dunn, 1997). A standardized measure 

of children’s understanding of vocabulary words.

Oral & Written Language Scales (OWLS) (Oral Expression Scale). (Carrow-Woolfolk, 1995). A 

standardized measure of a child’s understanding and use of spoken language. 

Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001). 

 Applied Problems Subtest: A standardized measure of children’s ability to analyze and solve math 

problems. 

Sound Awareness-Rhyming Subtest: A non-standardized measure of the ability to rhyme, a 

component of phonological awareness. 

Identifying Letters, Numbers, Counting and Writing. (NCEDL, 2001). Non-standardized measures of 

children’s ability to identify letters and numbers, to count and to write their name. 

Color Bears. (Zill & Resnick, Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey, 1998). Non-standardized 

measure to assess color recognition and identification.

Teacher Reports

Teacher-Child Rating Scale. (Hightower et al., 1986). Teachers’ ratings of children’s social competence 

and behavior problems.

Language and Literacy Skills. (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999). Teachers’ ratings of 

children’s language and literacy skills; items are from the teacher questionnaire of the Early Childhood 

Longitudinal Study – Kindergarten Cohort. 

Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs. (Schaefer & Edgerton, 

1985). A measure of teachers’ adult-centered 

versus child-centered beliefs.

Student Teacher Relationship Scale. (STRS; Pianta, 

2001). Teacher’s rating of the closeness and 

conflict in relationship with specific child. ■

14 early developments | spring 2005 
spring 2005 | early developments 15

Who Are 

the 

Pre-K 

Teachers? 

What Are 

Pre-K 

Classrooms 

Like?

S

TATES ARE FUNDING PRE-K PROGRAMS for young children in the 

belief that these programs will help children be better prepared 

for success when they enter kindergarten. This belief is wellfounded, based on the results of several experimental studies such 

as the Perry Preschool Project (Yipsilanti, MI) and the Abecedarian 

Project at the FPG Child Development Institute (FPG) at The University 

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-Chapel Hill). 

These studies show that high-quality early educational experiences 

help children from low-income families be more successful in school 

and in life, compared to similar children who had not attended the 

education program. 

The real question today is whether early educational programs 

provided as part of states’ pre-K initiatives are as good as those in 

the landmark studies of early intervention. Two kinds of indicators 

are usually used by researchers to measure the quality of an early 

childhood educational program. One type is called “structural 

quality”—the characteristics of pre-K that can be regulated, such 
16 early developments | spring 2005 

as level of teacher education and experience, number of 

children per class, and teacher to child ratio.

The other way of looking at the quality of a program 

involves observing classrooms and rating the kinds of 

learning activities in the classroom, as well as the nature 

of the teacher-child interactions and children’s interactions 

with each other. Researchers call this “process quality.” 

The NCEDL Multi-State Study 

of Pre-K collected information 

about both types of quality 

indicators. Researchers examined a 

representative group of classrooms 

and teachers in the six states in the 

study. 

Overall, teachers were well 

qualified and relatively well paid 

compared to early childhood 

teachers in other settings. The group 

of teachers was quite similar to the 

U.S. population in terms of race and 

ethnicity, but was much less diverse 

than the population of children and 

families served in the programs.

In spite of fears that teachers 

would be either very young or 

would be more experienced 

teachers who had worked primarily 

with older children, the population 

of teachers in these states for the 

most part had the appropriate 

qualifications and experiences for 

working with young children. 

Pre-K classrooms in these states 

were almost equally split between 

being located in a public school 

(47%) or in some other setting, 

such as a child care center (53%). 

Teacher Education 

and Classrooms

There is a push in early childhood 

education to require teachers of 

young children to have college 

degrees. This has come about 

mainly because earlier studies showed an association 

between higher levels of teacher education and greater 

classroom quality. 

It is certainly the case that in the six states in which the 

study was conducted, high proportions of teachers have 

a BA degree or more. However, teacher education levels 

differed by setting, teacher ethnicity, and classroom poverty 

levels.

In public school settings, about 81% of pre-K teachers 

had a Bachelor’s degree or higher and only 8% reported no 

post-secondary degree. This compares to 57% of teachers 

in non-public school settings with a BA or higher and 24% 

with no post-secondary degree.

African American and Latina 

teachers were somewhat less likely 

to have a BA degree than white 

teachers. In addition, classrooms 

where the teacher did not have a 

Bachelor’s degree tended to have 

a higher proportion of children 

from low-income backgrounds than 

classrooms where the teacher had a 

Bachelor’s degree. 

Dr. Oscar Barbarin, one of the 

study’s principal researchers 

at UNC-Chapel Hill, said, “In 

essence, the children who are 

most in need of high quality 

early childhood experiences are 

being taught by the less qualified 

teachers. Although this is true for 

all levels of public education, it 

is particularly distressing to find 

this in pre-K programs that are 

specifically designed for at-risk 

children. It is certainly possible 

that the differences noted here may 

contribute to the persistent gaps 

in achievement that are evident as 

children enter kindergarten.”

A Closer Look at Salaries

The average salary received by 

teachers in this population (about 

$19 per hour) is higher than has 

been reported in studies of child 

care teachers (somewhat over $8 

per hour) or Head Start teachers 

(about $16 per hour). This is likely 

due to the higher education levels of these pre-K teachers 

compared to child care or Head Start teachers. 

The study found salary differences for teachers who 

taught in public schools versus those who taught in classes 

located outside of public schools, on average $27 per hour 

A Quick Look at 

Pre-K Teachers

The study sample of 240 lead 

teachers represented over 17,000 

pre-K teachers in the six states. 

• Age and gender: 42 years old, 

on average, and 98% female

• Ethnicity: 62% White, 

17% African-American, 

10% Latina, 3% Asian/Pacific 

Islander, 8% Other/Mixed

• Education: 16% no formal degree 

past high school, 15% two-year 

degree, 39% BA degree, 

30% MA degree or more 

• Credentials: 23% had a Child 

Development Associate 

credential (CDA), 51% had a BA 

and state certification to teach 

four-year-olds

• Language of the classroom: 

100% spoke English, 27% spoke 

some Spanish too, 4% spoke 

some other language 

• Salary: $19.23 per hour on average 

(range: $5.21–$58.25), 19% 

earned less than $10 per hour.

• Hours worked: 37 hours per 

week on average and 10.6 

months per year 

16 early developments | spring 2005 
spring 2005 | early developments 17

compared to $13 per hour. A high 

percentage of pre-K teachers in 

public schools earn more than $20 

per hour, as shown in the adjacent 

graph.

A Bachelor’s degree or higher is 

more common in pre-K programs 

located in schools and salaries are 

possibly influenced by the culture 

or pay scales of the school systems. 

The pre-K teachers in the six 

states in this study earn salaries 

that are well above what child 

care teachers make and approach 

salaries of public school teachers.

Race/Ethnicity

The population of pre-K teachers is relatively representative 

of the population of the U.S. in terms of race and ethnicity 

but is not nearly as diverse as the population of children in 

the programs. The population of pre-K teachers across the 

six states in this study is comparable to the U.S. population 

with only slightly more African American teachers and 

slightly fewer Latina teachers. 

The race/ethnicity composition of pre-K students is quite 

different from teachers; 44% of pre-K children are African 

American or Latino and only 27% of pre-K teachers are 

African American or Latina.

Dr. Richard Clifford, co-director of NCEDL, said, “It 

appears clear that as programs seek to increase the 

academic requirements of teachers—moving to the BA

as the expected standard—they are having a difficult 

time maintaining a teaching staff that is reflective of the 

diversity of the child population being served.”

Other Structural Features

Although these pre-K programs 

generally met the standards for 

structural quality features of early 

childhood programs proposed 

by the National Association for 

the Education of Young Children 

(NAEYC), they varied considerably 

in teacher and program attributes. 

Teacher-child ratios were on 

average1:8 with an average class 

size of 18. This is within NAEYC

accreditation standards of a 1:10 

adult to child ratio and maximum 

class size of 20 for 3- and 4-

year-olds classrooms. In fact, all 

classrooms in the study met the 

1:10 ratio and 86% were at or 

lower than the maximum class size 

recommendation of 20 children.

NAEYC also recommends that 

early childhood teachers hold 

at least a CDA and preferably a 

Bachelor’s degree or higher in an 

early childhood related in topic. 

The findings from this study 

suggest that a Bachelor’s degree 

or higher is becoming the norm 

for teachers in state-funded pre-K 

programs with more than 68% of teachers holding at least 

a Bachelor’s degree, substantially more than in child care 

or Head Start.

According to program administrators, at least 80% of 

programs provided services for children with special needs, 

conducted developmental assessments of children, and 

provided meals for children. Between 50–79% of programs 

offered parenting education or family literacy programs, 

transportation, and health care or social services, 

sometimes offered collaboratively with other agencies. 

Less than half of the programs provided on-site family 

case workers, before or after school care, or extended year 

(summer and holiday) care.

Length of Day

Offering a part-day pre-K program rather than a full school 

day (about six hours) often represents a strategic decision 

related to the number of children who can be served and/

or the cost of the program. “These tradeoffs raise questions 

about how much is minimally needed to benefit children,” 

said Dr. Margaret Burchinal, an NCEDL researcher at UNCChapel Hill. 

Roughly half (51%) of pre-K 

programs across these states are 

part-time (15 or fewer hours per 

week). The average across all 

programs is to operate four or five 

days per week for an average of 5 

hours per day. 

Burchinal said, “There is some 

evidence from other research that 

full-day kindergarten programs 

are more effective than part-day 

�

��

��

��

��

���

�������������

��������������������

���� �������� �������� ����

�����������

����������������������

������

�����

��

������

��������

��������

��

������

���

��������

��������

��� �����

���

Teacher Race/Ethnicity

Pre-K Teacher Salaries

spring 2005 | early developments 17
18 early developments | spring 2005 

programs for children. This 

might indicate that optimal pre-K 

programs would operate on a fullday schedule as well. 

“In addition, part-day programs 

may complicate the lives of 

children and their working 

parents. When parents work 

outside of the home, they need to 

augment part-day pre-K programs 

with other sources of child care if 

they are not provided through the 

program.” 

Most program administrators 

in this study (60%) reported that 

there were no after school or extended care options. “In 

addition to the inconvenience for parents, it is possible 

that moving from program to program during the day may 

have negative consequences for the children themselves,” 

Burchinal said. 

Part-day and full-day classrooms differed in the 

population of children and families they served. Full-day 

classrooms had a higher proportion of children from lowincome backgrounds and a higher proportion of African 

American children as compared with part-day classrooms. 

Part-day classes had a higher proportion of Latino children.

The majority of teachers reported either High/Scope 

(38%) or Creative Curriculum (19%) as their curriculum, 

indicating that they had some overall guiding principles 

for their program. Only 4% reported having no 

curriculum. 

Classroom Quality

Several other studies in the early childhood field have 

shown that good program standards (for example, low 

teacher-child ratios, high levels of teacher education) are 

associated with higher levels of classroom quality. 

However, NCEDL researchers were surprised that in 

this six-state pre-K sample, the 

observed classroom quality, based 

on the fall data collection, was 

lower than would be anticipated, 

given the relatively high program 

standards (i.e., ratio, class size, 

teacher education) found in 

the study. (See page 20 for a 

description of how classroom 

quality was measured.) 

The average score of 3.86 on 

the Early Childhood Environment 

Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R) was 

lower than what has been found 

in other large-scale studies of early 

childhood programs. 

Two large-scale studies of early 

childhood programs, the Cost, 

Quality, and Outcomes (CQO) study 

of child care and the FACES study 

of Head Start classrooms, found 

slightly higher ECERS-R scores in 

their samples. Dick Clifford, codirector of NCEDL and an author of 

the ECERS, noted that two reasons 

may underlie the difference 

between these two studies and the 

NCEDL study of pre-K.

First, unlike the CQO or FACES study, “the NCEDL study 

used the revised ECERS, which includes specific items about 

diversity, math, and science, all of which may tend to lower 

overall scores,” Clifford said.

The second reason Clifford mentioned is that this study 

included a large number of part-day programs, in which 

“routine activities (arrival/departure, snacks/meals) can 

quickly absorb a great deal of the time, leaving less time 

for activities in learning centers or small-group teaching 

activities.” He said that these were the kinds of activities 

that researchers think most help children advance in 

language, literacy, and math.

On the second measure of classroom quality used by the 

study, the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), 

the scores were also lower than expected, especially for 

Instructional Climate. On a 7-point scale, the average 

Instructional Climate was 2.47 and the average Emotional 

Climate score was 5.22. 

Dr. Robert Pianta, an NCEDL researcher at the University 

of Virginia and the co-author of the CLASS, said “the low 

Instructional Climate scores indicate that pre-K teachers 

do not typically engage in focused instruction that uses 

a variety of methods to engage 

children, nor do they have 

many extended discussions that 

encourage children to hypothesize, 

predict, and problem solve. 

“In fact the findings suggest that 

superficial task demands, including 

giving directions and assigning 

routine tasks, predominate 

over children’s involvement in 

appropriate conceptual or skillbased activities.”

�����

���

�������������

��

�����������������

���

���������������

��

��������

���

����������

���

�

��

��

��

������� ������� ������� ������� ������� �������

��������������

������������������������

Classroom Quality

Teacher Report of 

Pre-K Curricula

18 early developments | spring 2005 
spring 2005 | early developments 19

Upcoming Analyses 

Examine Teacher, 

Classroom 

& Outcomes 

Relationships

Dr. Richard Clifford, co-director of NCEDL, said, “We 

believe that over the next ten years, public investment in 

the education of young children will continue to increase, 

particularly for children at risk for academic problems in 

the early school years. 

“Eventually, public school will begin for most children 

at age three or four. Pre-K, in many ways, is at a 

crossroads--caught between child care programs, 

Head Start, and schools. We can speculate that some 

of the variability across programs may stem from some 

programs using a school-based (K-3) model wherein 

teacher-initiated activities take precedence and other 

programs using a modified child care model wherein a 

child-centered approach is more common.”

How these different models of pre-K affect children’s 

development and transition into kindergarten will be 

explored by NCEDL researchers in subsequent reports 

using these data. 

Clifford said that key challenges for national and state 

policymakers and local practitioners include: 

1) whether to provide pre-K programs, 

2) to whom such programs should be available, 

3) how the services should be financed, 

4) what the goals of these programs are, and 

5) what models and practices should be used. 

NCEDL researchers will use these data to answer 

questions about the links between child outcomes and 

key variables such as teacher education, curriculum, and 

family involvement. They will also consider the degree 

to which quality predicts child outcomes in pre-K and 

kindergarten. ■

Summary of 

Classroom Quality Findings

• Class size and teacher: child ratios in 

pre-K classes met or exceeded 

recommended standards.

• Pre-K teachers were, on average, better 

educated and paid than other early 

childhood educators, although salaries 

in non-school settings still lag somewhat 

behind those of public school teachers. 

• Classroom quality as observed was lower 

than would be predicted given the high 

level of structural quality in these pre-K 

programs.

Global quality, as measured by both the ECERS-R and 

the CLASS, was generally lower when the classroom was 

composed of mostly poor children, teachers did not have 

Bachelor’s level training in early childhood, and teachers 

expressed more traditional beliefs about children and 

learning. Location of the program in a school building, 

child-staff ratio, and length of day had no relation to 

quality. 

Pianta added, “These findings demonstrate once again 

that we are not meeting the needs of our poorest children. 

Children from low income families are at the greatest risk 

for future academic problems and therefore stand the most 

to gain from pre-K. Unfortunately, they are also in the 

lower quality pre-K rooms.” |ed|

TO LEARN MORE

If you want to know more about the ECERS, go to 

www.fpg.unc.edu/products/product_detail.cfm?apubsID=507

Copies of the ECERS can be ordered at 

www.Kaplanco.com

www.teacherscollegepress.com

An article by Pianta, “Standardized Classroom Observations from Pre-K to 

Third Grade: A Mechanism for Improving Quality Classroom Experiences 

During the P-3 Years,” can be found at 

www.ffcd.org/news/publications.html

If you want to know more about the CLASS, see LaParo, K. M., Pianta, R. 

C., & Stulhman, M. (2004). The Classroom Assessment Scoring System: 

Findings from the pre-k year. The Elementary School Journal, 104(5), 

409–426.

spring 2005 | early developments 19
20 early developments | spring 2005 

Early childhood 

researchers 

often talk 

about classroom 

quality, but how is 

quality measured? 

The field has several 

good instruments for 

measuring classroom 

quality. 

Past research 

indicates that children tend to do better on later tests of 

academic skills when they have been in better quality 

classrooms, as measured by these instruments. This seems to 

be true for children from all different incomes and backgrounds.

NCEDL’s Multi-State Study of Pre-Kindergarten used two 

observational measures of quality: The Early Childhood 

Environment Rating Scale-Revised Edition (ECERS-R) and 

the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). Each 

looks at a different aspect of a classroom’s quality and tells us 

something different about children’s pre-K experiences.

All quality ratings were made by observers who had been trained 

intensively on these measures. Before visiting study-classrooms, 

the observers spent many hours with experts on the measures, 

to make sure all observers rate the classrooms in the same way 

as the experts and as one another. Then, observers were tested 

to make sure they used the measures correctly.

The ECERS-R is a widely used measure of classroom quality 

with established reliability and validity. To complete this 

measure, a well-trained observer spent several hours (the entire 

class for part-day rooms and from the start of class until nap in 

full-day rooms) observing the classroom on a typical day, once 

in the fall and once in the spring. 

The observer watched everything from how well children wash 

their hands to what type of language interactions the teachers 

had with the children. The observers inspected the classroom 

materials closely, noting the variety, organization, and availability 

of materials such as books, fine motor toys, blocks, science and 

math materials, 

and dramatic play 

props. 

Observers took 

extensive notes 

and answered 

hundreds of 

yes/no questions. 

The pattern of 

responses to the 

yes/no questions 

were used to score 37 different aspects of quality. Classrooms 

receive a score from 1 to 7 on each aspect, with 1 indicating 

“inadequate” quality, 3 indicating “minimal” quality, 5 indicating 

“good” quality, and 7 indicating “excellent” quality.

From those 37 aspects of quality, two global ECERS-R scores 

were calculated. One is called “Provisions for Learning” and it 

is the average of the items related to the physical surroundings 

and materials. To score well on this part of the ECERS-R, the 

classroom must have a wide variety of high-quality materials, 

those materials must be available to children for much of the 

day, and the physical surroundings must be safe and well 

organized for learning. 

The other ECERS-R score is called “Teaching and Interactions.” 

To score well on this part, teachers must engage children in 

high-quality conversations, children must be well supervised, 

and children and teachers must appear to be happy and 

productive.

The CLASS is a second measure of classroom quality, also linked 

to children’s outcomes. Unlike the ECERS-R, it does not assess 

physical or structural features of the classroom but instead 

focuses on the emotional and instructional climate and teacherchild interactions. To complete this measure, observers spent 

two days in the fall and two days in the spring in each classroom. 

Again, the observers stayed in the classroom for the entire class 

if it was a part-day room and from the beginning of class until 

nap if it was a full-day room. They observed all activities and 

interactions in the classroom and then rated the classroom on 

How is 

Quality 

Measured?

20 early developments | spring 2005 
spring 2005 | early developments 21

the strategies teachers use to promote children’s higher 

order thinking skills and creativity through problem-solving, 

integration, and instructional discussions. 

From these ratings, two CLASS scores are created. The score 

called “Emotional Climate” indicates how positive, sensitive, 

and responsive the classroom is. The score called “Instructional 

Climate” indicates how well time, materials, and teacher-child 

interactions are managed to optimize children’s learning.

Using these two measures, the ECERS-R and the CLASS, 

NCEDL researchers are able to provide an accurate, detailed, 

and meaningful picture of pre-K classroom quality. ■

nine dimensions of quality, using 7-point scales, every half hour. 

Each of nine dimensions is rated from 1–7 with 1 or 2 indicating 

the classroom is low on that dimension, and 3, 4, or 5 indicating 

that the classroom is in the mid-range, and a 6 or 7 indicating the 

classroom is high on that dimension.

An example of the dimensions is “positive climate” where 

observers look for qualities like enthusiasm, enjoyment, and 

respect displayed between the teacher and children and 

among children. Observers also rate the extent to which there 

is “over-control” in the classroom, refl ecting the extent to which 

classroom activities are rigidly structured or regimented. 

Also, they rate “productivity” which refl ects how well the teacher 

manages instructional time and routines so that children learn 

and make progress and “concept development” which refl ects 

spring 2005 | early developments 21
22 early developments | spring 2005 

How Is 

the 

Pre-K Day 

Spent?

F

INDINGS FROM NCEDL’S MULTI-STATE STUDY OF PRE-K indicate that 

classroom quality in these six state-funded pre-K programs was lower 

than other research has indicated is best for children, especially with 

regard to instruction. 

In order to better understand what happens in these classrooms, the 

researchers looked at minute-by-minute information on the children’s activities 

and interactions. They concluded that much of the children’s time is spent with 

no learning activity going on and that children’s interactions with teachers were 

few. When interactions did occur, they were not at a level that would help the 

children gain more complex understandings of language and math concepts.
spring 2005 | early developments 23

How the Information Was Collected

To learn about the pre-K day, trained observers from the 

Multi-State Study of Pre-K spent two days in each classroom 

using the SNAPSHOT measure. The observer watched a study 

child for 20 seconds then spent 40 seconds indicating on a 

code sheet everything that child did and any interaction the 

child had with a teacher, assistant teacher, or other adult 

in the classroom. The observer would then move on to the 

second, third, and fourth child in the study. 

Once the observer completed one observation of each 

child, the process would begin again. This continued 

throughout the day in part-day rooms, or until nap in fullday rooms, with occasional breaks to record data on other 

measures. 

These tallies could then be totaled for each child, 

indicating what the main intended activities were, the 

types of content areas in which the child was engaged (or 

not), and the frequency of teacher-child interactions. (More 

detail about the specific category codes is available from 

the SNAPSHOT authors.) 
24 early developments | spring 2005 

��������

�����

���

�����

��

���������

��

��������������

���

�������

��

�������

��

����

��

��������

���

How Classroom Time Was Used

Activity Setting

Routines (like standing in line, cleaning-up, and washing 

hands) and eating meals or snacks accounted for about 

one-third of the observed time. Children spent another third 

of their time in free choice and about a quarter of their time 

in whole-group activity. They spent very little time in small 

groups assigned by their teacher.

Child Engagement 

Observers kept track of how much time children were 

engaged in various types of activities: pre-reading, being 

read to, letter-sound activities, oral language development, 

math, science, writing, social studies, arts and gross and 

fine motor. 

Of the activities 

coded, children were 

most likely to be 

engaged in social 

studies (which included 

dramatic play and 

blocks) and emergent 

literacy activities (3% 

of time in letter/sound 

activities, 4% in oral 

language activities, 3% 

being read to, and 2% 

engaged in pre-reading). 

All these literacy 

activities together only 

added up to about one-eighth of the observation times. 

Additionally, children spent 6% of their time in math 

activities, 8% in science, and 9% in art/music. However, 

the children spent 44% of their time not involved in any of 

the coded activities. For the most part, that 44% is the same 

time as the meals/snack and routine mentioned above. 

Teacher-Child Interaction

Children were involved with a teacher or other adult in less 

than one-third of the observations. This code for interaction 

involved various levels, with higher levels indicating more 

enhanced, higher-level verbal exchanges. When teachers 

and children were interacting, “minimal” interaction was 

coded twice as often as elaborated interactions.

Teacher-child interactions were infrequent during free 

play or routines. Elaborated interactions were most likely 

in whole-group activity. The average child engaged in 

elaborated interactions with the teacher only 8% of the 

intervals and more than one-third of those were during 

whole group time.

Elaborated interactions during small group or free play, 

which are typically good opportunities for one-on-one 

exchanges, occurred on average less than 3% of the time. 

Minimal adult-child interaction also occurred most often in 

whole-group activity settings.

Patterns of Interaction

Because the observers coded six activity settings, 11 child 

engagement categories, and four levels of teacher-child 

interaction, there were, in theory, hundreds of different 

possible combinations that could have been coded in 

any one interval per child. The most frequent pattern of 

interaction (15% of the time) was routine activity setting, 

no teacher-child interaction and no child engagement. The 

next most common (10%) was meals/snack, no teacherchild interaction, and 

no child engagement. 

So, children spent 

the largest part of 

their day in routine, 

maintenance activities 

(like standing in 

line) and eating. 

Unfortunately, during 

that time, they were 

not also engaged in 

some learning activity 

like oral language 

development or 

hearing a story and 

�����

��

�����

���

�������

���

������������������

���

�����������

��

�����������

���

How Pre-K Children Spend Their Time

Child Engagement

24 early developments | spring 2005 
spring 2005 | early developments 25

were not talking 

with adults. Dr. 

Sharon Ritchie, an 

NCEDL researcher 

at the University 

of California at Los 

Angeles (UCLA), 

said, “Of course, 

eating and hand 

washing are critical 

activities. We just 

wish that meals and 

other routine times 

were opportunities 

for conversations 

between adults and 

children or time for 

singing or playing 

number games.” 

Unfortunately, children were most likely to engage in prereading and letter-sound activities with no or only minimal 

teacher-child interaction. Even while adults are reading to 

children, the level of teacher-child interaction was most 

often minimal. 

From other studies, researchers know that hearing 

stories and working on early reading skills have the most 

value for young children when adults are very involved in 

these activities, helping children understand and having 

conversations that encourage more and more advanced 

thinking. 

Children in the pre-K classrooms 

in this study had relatively few 

experiences linked to helping children 

learn pre-academic material—working 

with a teacher who helped them 

move from less to more complex 

understandings of literacy and 

math concepts. On average these 

experiences added together occurred 

about 3% of the time and less than 

half of the children experienced them 

at all. 

If we consider that each teacher 

needed to divide her attention among 

seven or eight children, each child 

could possibly have 10% of her time, 

still leaving the teacher with 20% to 

30% of her time to address routine 

classroom needs.

The small proportion of 

time in which children do 

interact with the teacher 

is in stark contrast to the 

growing research that 

suggests that learning is 

most apt to occur when 

children engage in preacademic material with 

an adult who involves 

them in responsive, 

elaborated interaction. 

What Were 

They Doing?

So what were children 

doing instead? They were 

spending relatively large 

amounts of time waiting and relatively large amounts of time 

with little contact with an adult.

Children were in circle time or some other whole group 

activity for over 30 minutes, on average, in part-day programs 

and over 75 minutes, on average, in full-day programs. Most 

often, during these times teachers gave verbal directives, 

asked simple questions, or answered questions without 

expanding or elaborating on the child’s response.

While all children engaged in some pre-academic activities 

for some time—working on letter-sound correspondence, 

building oral language skills by conversing with an adult, 

being read to, or working on math skills and concepts—the 

����������

��

�������

���

�������

��

����

���

Teacher-Child Interaction
26 early developments | spring 2005 

NCEDL is conducting a second multistate study of state-funded early 

education programs sponsored by 

the Pew Charitable Trusts’ National 

Institute for Early Education Research 

(NIEER) and the Foundation for Child 

Development (FCD). 

Information from the Multi-State Study 

of Pre-K and the SWEEP Study will be 

combined to create a more detailed and 

complete picture of American pre-K.

A collaborative team of researchers 

from The University of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill, the University of California at 

Los Angeles, the University of Virginia, 

and NIEER are expanding the work of 

the Multi-State Study of Pre-K into five 

additional states to more fully address 

these research questions: 

■ What happens in pre-K programs?

■ What does pre-K look like across a 

number of states and different types 

of programs?

■ What do children learn in their 

pre-K year and does it help in 

kindergarten?

■ How do state-level policy decisions 

relate to classroom practice, 

classroom quality, and child 

outcomes?

SWEEP Participants

Over 450 pre-K schools/centers in 

Massachusetts, New Jersey, Texas, 

Washington and Wisconsin have been 

selected at random to take part in the 

study. These five states were selected 

because they have well developed 

programs that represent different models 

of pre-K services. In each program, one 

classroom was selected at random to 

participate.

Data Collection

SWEEP collected data very similar to 

NCEDL’s Multi-State Study of Pre-K. 

Researchers visited one randomly 

selected pre-K classroom at each school 

or center in the fall and in the spring of 

the 2003-2004 school year to collect 

information on children’s experiences. 

Classroom observations included 

the ECERS-R, the CLASS, and the 

Emerging Academics SNAPSHOT.

In the fall and spring, one-on-one 

assessments were administered to four 

children selected at random from the 

participating classroom. The assessment 

battery was almost identical to the one 

used in NCEDL’s Multi-State Study of 

Pre-Kindergarten and assessed children’s 

literacy, language, and mathematics 

skills. Teachers, principals/directors, and 

parents completed questionnaires.

In the 2004–2005 school year, 

when most of the study children are 

in kindergarten, each participating 

child’s current teacher will be asked to 

complete questionnaires about the child’s 

academic and social progress.

Dr. Diane Early, an NCEDL researcher 

at UNC-Chapel Hill, said, “The SWEEP 

Study, in conjunction with NCEDL’s MultiState Study of Pre-K, has the potential to 

greatly expand our understanding of pre-K 

programs. With 11 states in all, we will 

have data on programs serving 80% of 

all children in pre-K in the United States 

and will be able to consider various 

state-level policies and how they relate 

to children’s experiences and outcomes. 

These combined data provide exciting 

opportunities to answer pressing policy 

questions.” ■

NCEDL begins study of 

State Wide Early Education Programs 

(SWEEP) 

26 early developments | spring 2005 

TO LEARN MORE

NCEDL

www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl

NIEER

http://nieer.org

Foundation for Child Development

www.fcd.org
spring 2005 | early developments 27

amount of time spent in these activities was relatively small 

when compared to more routine activities like waiting in 

line or eating. 

Engagement in pre-academic activities was also small in 

real time. For example, in a 2.5-hour/day program, if 13% 

of the time was spent in literacy activities of all kinds, this 

would equal less than 20 minutes. In a full-day program, 

13% would translate to about half an hour of literacy 

activities. 

Why Aren’t 

Experiences 

Optimal?

“Early childhood 

has traditionally 

been a field 

where teachers 

have less 

education than 

elementary 

teachers, 

certainly less 

pay, and often 

little supervision. 

They may never 

have received 

professional 

development 

training that 

emphasizes 

teacher practices 

that move 

children from 

activities such as rote counting, recitation and copying 

to activities such as predicting or determining multiple 

solutions to social and cognitive problems,” said Dr. 

Carollee Howes, NCEDL principal investigator at UCLA. 

An alternative explanation, she said, is that “teachers 

may be confused about what is expected now that their 

programs are ‘real school’.” 

Future research in this area should examine pathways 

to teaching in these programs, she said, and whether the 

more recent findings are making their way into professional 

development programs for early childhood teachers.

Some children in some programs did experience the 

kinds of teacher-child interactions around pre-literacy and 

pre-mathematics that research suggests are associated with 

school readiness. Not surprisingly, given the emphasis on 

the importance of free choice in early childhood, children 

tended to experience these elaborated teacher interactions 

and pre-academic learning in free choice activity settings. 

The NCEDL researchers are continuing to analyze the data 

from the classrooms in the six states to look for predictors 

of classrooms with more teacher-child interactions and 

more child engagement in learning activities. 

They are also conducting a second multi-state study of 

pre-K, collecting comparable data from five more states with 

state-funded pre-K (see sidebar on p. 26 on SWEEP study). 

The programs in these 11 states serve 80% of children in 

pre-K in the United States. The combined data will be a rich 

source of information about quality and practices in pre-K 

classrooms and how they affect the school readiness skills 

of the children who attend them, Howes said. |ed|

TO LEARN MORE

Ritchie, S., Howes, C., Kraft-Sayre, M. & Weisner, B. (2001). Emerging 

academics snapshot. Unpublished. University of California at Los Angeles. 
28 early developments | spring 2005 

FINDINGS from 

NCEDL’s MultiState Study of 

Pre-K indicate that, 

overall, classroom quality and 

practices may not be sufficient 

to benefit children as much as 

they could. 

“Researchers think that 

classroom quality must be 

improved if children are to arrive 

at kindergarten prepared to take 

advantage of all that school has 

to offer,” said Dr. Bob Pianta of 

the University of Virginia (UVA). 

Two new studies involving 

NCEDL investigators are 

underway to learn more about program improvement. Pianta and 

his colleagues at UVA have created a professional development 

program for pre-K teachers called MyTeachingPartner (MTP) that 

they say holds promise. 

The MTP program is designed to raise instructional quality by 

focusing on teacher-child interactions, considered the major 

conduit for the transmission of knowledge, information and skill 

in the classroom. Research has shown that all types of school 

readiness skills are higher when children’s interactions with 

adults are warm, supportive and sensitive, while also providing 

structure and instruction. 

MTP teaches teachers to observe themselves, using 

the Classroom Assessment Scoring System, one of the 

instruments used to assess quality in the Multi-State Study 

of Pre-K. Teachers get feedback and support to be more 

deliberate and individualized in their instruction. They also 

receive activities for use in pre-K classrooms, evaluation results, 

regular newsletters and new web-links. 

MTP teachers participate in weekly, live, Internet-mediated 

consultation focused on curriculum implementation too. Over 

the web, teachers send video of themselves implementing 

activities in the classroom and then MTP consultants provide 

feedback.

The materials, activities and consultations offered by MTP

have been fully field-tested and piloted with early childhood 

educators. Pianta’s team is now evaluating MTP in 250 pre-K 

classrooms in Virginia. Results are expected in 2006. 

PFI Model Also Studied

Dr. Donna Bryant, co-director of NCEDL, and researchers in 

four other states, with funds from the Child Care Bureau are 

studying the Partnerships for Inclusion (PFI) model of classroom 

quality improvement that 

incorporates the use of the 

Early Childhood Environment 

Rating Scale-Revised (one 

of the instruments used to 

assess quality in Multi-State 

Study of Pre-K) to help the 

early childhood teacher 

or caregiver set goals for 

change. 

Both the teacher and 

a consultant separately 

administer the ECERS-R and 

then jointly conduct a needs 

assessment, where the 

teacher identifies goals for 

herself and her class. Over 10 

months, the consultant visits the classroom, providing information 

and ideas to support the desired changes. 

The teacher and consultant periodically re-evaluate and 

set new goals, with a focus on selecting and implementing 

strategies that can foster children’s growth and development. 

The consultant also promotes the teacher’s ability to develop 

strategies for recognizing and meeting needs after the 

consultation ends.

Previous studies of the PFI model have shown significant 

improvements in the quality of center-based child care and family 

child care home environments and activities. The study is also 

attempting to document changes in children’s outcomes as a 

result of participation in this professional development model.

A first cohort of child care teachers (including some pre-K teachers) 

and family child care providers in California, Iowa, Nebraska, 

Minnesota and North Carolina have been randomly assigned to 

PFI consultation or to a comparison group. After another cohort in 

2005–06, results from this study will be available in 2007.

Bryant said that NCEDL researchers hope that professional 

development such as MyTeachingPartner and the PFI model will 

help classroom-based programs meet the challenge of providing 

high-quality classroom experiences to all young children. ■

Improving Pre-K Quality

TO LEARN MORE

MyTeachingPartner

www.myteachingpartner.net

www.ffcd.org/news/publications.html

Palsha, S., & Wesley, P. (1998). Improving quality in early childhood 

environments through on-site consultation. Topics in Early Childhood Special 

Education, 18(4), 243–252.

Wesley, P., & Buysse, V. (1996). Supporting early childhood inclusion: Lessons 

learned through a statewide technical assistance project. Topics in Early 

Childhood special Education, 16(4), 476–499.

QUINCE Project

www.fpg.unc.edu/~quince

PFI Project

www.fpg.unc.edu/~pfi

28 early developments | spring 2005 
spring 2005 | early developments 29

f

or more information 

about FPG publications, 

see the FPG web site at

www.fpg.unc.edu

or contact the 

FPG Publications Office at 

919•966•4221 or 

FPGpublications@unc.edu

Here is a partial listing of major publications by 

NCEDL researchers over the years. Additional 

listings may be found at

www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl/pages/products.cfm#tech

Many of our products are available online. 

Note: Books are not available through NCEDL, 

unless otherwise noted. They may be purchased 

through the publisher and at book retailers such 

as Barnes & Noble and Amazon.com.

General Child Development

Critical thinking about critical periods. Bailey, 

D. B., Jr., Bruer, J., Symons, F., & Lichtman, J. 

(Eds.). (2001). Baltimore: Brookes.

Statistical methods for describing developmental 

patterns. Burchinal, M. R. (1999). Early Education 

and Development, 10, 83–99.

Pre-Kindergarten

Almost a million children in school before 

kindergarten. Clifford, R., Early, D. M., & Hills, T. 

(1999). Young Children, 54(5), 48–51.

Features of pre-kindergarten programs, 

classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed 

classroom quality and child-teacher interactions?

Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., 

Clifford, R. M., Early, D. M., & Barbarin, O. (in 

press). Applied Developmental Science.

Public school involvement in pre-kindergarten 

education: What makes a difference? Saluja, G., 

Early, D. M., & Clifford, R. M. (2001). Principal, 

80(5), 18–21. 

ncedl 

publications

What is pre-kindergarten? Trends in the 

development of a public system of pre-kindergarten 

services. Clifford, R. M., Barbarin, O., Chang, 

F., Early, D. M., Bryant, D., Howes, C., et al. (in 

press). Applied Developmental Science. 

Characteristics and 

Quality of Early Care and 

Education

Caregiver training and classroom quality in 

child care centers. Burchinal, M. R., Cryer, D., 

Clifford, R. M., & Howes, C. (2002). Applied 

Developmental Sciences, 6, 2–11.

Child care program and teacher practices: 

Associations with quality and children’s 

experiences. Wishard, A., Shivers, E. M., Howes, 

C., & Ritchie, S. (2003). Early Childhood 

Research Quarterly, 18, 75–103.

Childcare experiences and developmental 

outcomes. Burchinal, M. R. (1999). Annals of the 

American Academy of Political Science, 563,

73–98.

The classroom assessment scoring system: 

Findings from the pre-k year. La Paro, K. M., 

Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. (2004). The 

Elementary School Journal, 104(5), 409–426.

Demographic characteristics of early childhood 

teachers and structural elements of early care and 

education in the United States. Saluja, G., Early, 

D. M., & Clifford, R. M. (2002). Early Childhood 

Research and Practice, 4(1), 1–19. Available 

online at: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/saluja.html

Diversity, child care quality, and developmental 

outcomes. Burchinal, M. R., & Cryer, D. (2003). 

Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 401–426.

Early childhood care: Relations with family 

characteristics and preferences. Early, D. M., 

& Burchinal, M. R. (2001). Early Childhood 

Research Quarterly, 16, 475–497.

Early childhood education & care in the 

USA. Cryer, D., & Clifford, R. M. (Eds.). (2003). 

Baltimore: Brookes.

Family selection and child care experiences: 

Implications for studies of child outcomes.

Burchinal, M. R., & Nelson, L. (2001). Early 

Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 385–412.

Infants and toddlers in out-of-home care. 

Cryer, D., & Harms, T. (Eds.). (2000). Baltimore: 

Brookes. 

Structural predictors of child care quality in child 

care homes. Burchinal, M., Howes, C., & Kontos, 

S. (2002). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 

17, 87–105.

spring 2005 | early developments 29
30 early developments | spring 2005 

Kindergarten and 

Early Elementary

Implementation, sustainability, and scaling up in 

school contexts: Understanding the context of 

academic functioning. Pianta, R. (2003). School 

Psychology Review, 32(3), 331–335.

Prevention-oriented programming in schools. 

Pianta, R. (in press). Encyclopedia of School 

Psychology.

Readiness for school: A Survey of state policies 

and definitions. Saluja, G., Scott-Little, C., & 

Clifford, R. M. (2000). Early Childhood Research 

and Practice, 2(2). Available online at: http://

ecrp.uiuc.edu/v2n2/saluja.html

Teacher ratings of behavior among AfricanAmerican and Caucasian children during the 

first two years of school. Sbarra, D., & Pianta, 

R. (2001). Psychology in the Schools, 38(3), 

229–238.

The relation of kindergarten classroom 

environment to teacher, family, and school 

characteristics and child outcomes. Pianta, R. C., 

La Paro, K. M., Payne, C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. 

(2002). The Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 

225–238. 

Turnover in kindergarten classroom membership 

in a national sample. Pianta, R. C., & Early, D. 

(2001). Early Education and Development, 12(2), 

239–252.

Children’s Social Skills

A review of interventions for preschoolers with 

aggressive and disruptive behavior. Bryant D., 

Vizzard, L. H., Willoughby, M., & Kupersmidt, J. 

(1999). Early Education & Development, 10(1), 

47–68. 

Linking literacy and language with social 

and emotional learning. Prevention Update 

[newsletter]. Bryant, D. (2000, Spring). Seattle, 

WA: Committee for Children.

Overt and covert dimensions of antisocial behavior 

in early childhood. Willoughby, M., Kupersmidt, J., 

& Bryant, D. (2001). Journal of Abnormal Child 

Psychology, 29, 177–187.

Prevalence of aggressive behaviors among 

preschoolers in Head Start and community child 

care programs. Kupersmidt, J. B., Bryant, D., & 

Willoughby, M. T. (2000). Behavioral Disorders, 

26, 42–52.

Children’s Academic Skills

Development of academic skills from preschool 

through second grade: Family and classroom 

predictors of developmental trajectories. Burchinal, 

M. R., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Pianta, R., & Howes, 

C. (2002). Journal of School Psychology, 40(5). 

415–436.

Predicting children’s competence in the early 

school years: A meta-analytic review. La Paro, K., 

& Pianta, R. C. (2001). Review of Educational 

Research, 70(4), 443–484.

Teaching 4- to 8-year-olds: Literacy, math, 

multiculturalism, and classroom community. 

Howes, C. (Ed.). (2003). Baltimore: Brookes.

The relation of preschool quality to children’s 

cognitive and social developmental trajectories 

through second grade. Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., 

Burchinal, M. R., Clifford, R. M., Culkin, M. L., 

Howes, C., Kagan, S. L., & Yazejian, N. (2001). 

Child Development, 72(5), 1534–1553.

Early Childhood Policy

Getting from here to there: To an ideal early 

preschool system. Gallagher, J., Clifford, R., & 

Maxwell, K. (2004). Early Childhood Research 

and Practice, 6(1). Available online at: 

http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v6n1/clifford.html

The missing support infrastructure in early 

childhood. Gallagher, J., & Clifford, R. (2000). 

Early Childhood Research and Practice, 2(1). 

Available online at: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v2n1/

gallagher.html

Transitions

Collaboration in building partnerships between 

families and schools: The National Center for Early 

Development & Learning’s kindergarten transition 

intervention. Pianta, R. C., Kraft-Sayre, M., RimmKaufman, S., Gercke, N., & Higgins, T. (2001). 

Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16(1), 

117–132.

An ecological perspective on the transition to 

kindergarten: A theoretical framework to guide 

empirical research. Rimm-Kaufman, S., & Pianta, 

R. (2001). Journal of Applied Developmental 

Psychology, 21(5), 491–511.

Enhancing the transition to kindergarten: 

Connecting families and elementary schools. KraftSayre, M. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Dimensions 

of Early Childhood, 29(1), 25–29.

Kindergarten teachers and classrooms: A transition 

context. Early, D. M., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. 

(1999). Early Education and Development, 10, 

24–46.

Kindergarten teachers’ practices related to 

transition into schools: Results of a national survey. 

Pianta, R. C., Cox, M. J., Taylor, L., & Early, D. 

(1999). Elementary School Journal, 100, 71–86.

Policy, practice, and reality in the transition to 

school. Pianta, R. (2004). Harvard Evaluation 

Exchange, Volume X, No. 2.

Preschool to kindergarten transition activities: 

Involvement and satisfaction of families and 

teachers. La Paro, K., Kraft-Sayre, M., & Pianta, 

R. (2003). Journal of Research in Childhood 

Education, 17(2), 147–158.

Services and programs that influence young 

children’s school transitions. Early, D. (2004). In 

R. E. Tremblay, R. G. Barr, & R. DeV. Peters (Eds.), 

Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development

[online]. Available online at: http://www.excellenc

e-earlychildhood.ca/documents/EarlyANGxp.pdf

Successful kindergarten transition. Pianta, R., 

& Kraft-Sayre, M. (2003). Baltimore: Brookes.

The transition to kindergarten. Pianta, R., & 

Cox, M. (Eds.). (1999) Baltimore: Brookes. 

Transition practices: Findings from a national 

survey of kindergarten teachers. Early, D. M., 

Pianta, R. C., Taylor, L. C., & Cox, M. J. (2001). 

Early Childhood Education Journal, 28, 199–206. 

30 early developments | spring 2005 
spring 2005 | early developments 31

Early Intervention

Defining and assessing quality in early intervention 

programs for infants and toddlers with disabilities 

and their families: Challenges and unresolved 

issues. Aytch, L. S., Cryer, D., Bailey, D. 

B., & Selz, L. (1999). Early Education and 

Development, 10, 7–23.

Early intervention: The moderating role of the 

home environment. Bradley, R. H., Burchinal, M., 

& Casey, P. H. (2001). Applied Developmental 

Science, 5, 1–7.

Parents and Families

An examination of cross-racial comparability of 

mother-child interaction among African American 

and Anglo American families. Whiteside-Mansell, 

L., Bradley, R. H., Little, T. D., Corwyn, R. F., 

& Spiker, D. (2001). Journal of Marriage and 

Family, 63, 767–778.

The home environments of children in the United 

States Part 1: Variations by age, ethnicity, and 

poverty status. Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., 

McAdoo, H. P., & Garcia Coll, C. (2001). Child 

Development, 72, 1844–1867.

The home environments of children in the 

United States Part 2: Relations with behavioral 

development through age thirteen. Bradley, R. H., 

Corwyn, R. F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H. P., & 

Garcia Coll, C. (2001). Child Development, 72,

1868–1886.

A longitudinal study of mother-child interactions at 

school entry and social and academic outcomes in 

middle school. Morrison, E., Rimm-Kaufman, S., & 

Pianta, R. (2003). Journal of School Psychology, 

41(3), 185–200.

Maternal sensitivity and child wariness in the 

transition to kindergarten. Early, D. M., RimmKaufman, S. E., Cox, M. J., Saluja, G., Pianta, 

R. C., Bradley, R. H., & Payne, C. C. (2002). 

Parenting: Science and Practice, 2(4), 355–377.

Parent education: A term whose time is past. 

Winton, P., Sloop, S., & Rodriguez, P. (1999). 

Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 

19(3), 157–161.

Teacher articulated perceptions and practices with 

families: Examining effective teaching in diverse 

high quality child care settings. Shivers, E., 

Howes, C., Wishard, A. G., & Ritchie, S. (2004). 

Early Education and Development, 15, 167–186.

Teachers’ perceptions of their relationships 

with students: Relations with child and teacher 

characteristics. Saft, E., & Pianta, R. (2001). 

School Psychology Quarterly, 16(2), 125–141.

Teacher-Child 

Relationships

Conceptualizing risk in relational terms: 

Associations among the quality of child-adult 

relationships prior to school entry and children’s 

developmental outcomes in first grade. Pianta, 

R. C., & Stuhlman, M. (2004). Educational and 

Child Psychology, 21, 32–45.

Early behavioral attributes and teachers’ 

sensitivity as predictors of competent behavior in 

the kindergarten classroom. Rimm-Kaufman, S. 

E., Early, D. M., Cox, M. J., Saluja, G., Pianta, R. 

C., Bradley, R. H., & Payne, C. (2002). Applied 

Developmental Psychology, 166, 1–20.

Early teacher-child relationships and the 

trajectory of children’s school outcomes through 

eighth-grade. Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. 

(2001). Child Development, 72(2), 625–638.

Improving social relationships in child care 

through a researcher- program partnership.

Howes, C., Shivers, E. M., & Ritchie, S. (2004). 

Early Education and Development, 15, 57–78.

A matter of trust: Connecting teachers and 

learners in the early childhood classrooms. 

Howes, C., & Ritchie, S. (2002). New York: 

Teachers College Press.

Relationships among children and adults and 

family literacy. Pianta, R. (2004). In B. Wasik 

(Ed.), Handbook on Family Literacy Programs 

(pp. 175–192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 

Associates.

Teacher-child relationships and children’s success 

in the first years of school. Stuhlman, M., & 

Pianta, R. (2004). School Psychology Review, 

33(3), 444–458.

Teachers’ narratives about their relationships 

with children: Associations with behavior in 

classrooms. Stuhlman, M., & Pianta, R. (2002). 

School Psychology Review, 31, 148-163. 

Professional Development

Early childhood intervention personnel 

preparation: Backward mapping for future 

planning. Winton, P.J. (2000). Topics in Early 

Childhood Special Education, 20(2), 87–94.

Early childhood teacher preparation in special 

education at 2- and 4-year institutions of higher 

education. Chang, F., Early, D. M., & Winton, P. J. 

(in press). Journal of Early Intervention. 

Pathways to effective teaching. Howes, C., 

James, J., & Ritchie, S. (2003). Early Childhood 

Research Quarterly, 18, 104-120.

Preparing the workforce: Early childhood teacher 

preparation at 2- and 4-year institutions of higher 

education. Early, D. M., & Winton, P. (2001). Early 

Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 285-306.

spring 2005 | early developments 31
32 early developments | spring 2005 

ed

early developments

FPG Child Development Institute

CB 8185, UNC-CH

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8185

Non-Profi t Org

US Postage Paid

Permit 177

Chapel Hill, NC

ISSN 1536-4739

Visit us online

www.fpg.unc.edu

www.ncedl.org