ed

early developments early developments Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center

Summer 2001 | Volume 5, Issue 1

pre-Kindergarten

Contents

Pre-K at Issue

School Readiness

FPG Recent Publications

Pre-K for Children with Special Needs

NCEDL News

State Initiatives

State Policies on Readiness

New Directions

NCEDL Recent Publications

PDF version Early Developments © 2000 Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, The Univewrsity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

pre-Kindergarten

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Summer 2001 | Volume 5, Number 1
early developments 2 | Summer 2001 DonTrull

pre-K
early developments 3 | Summer 2001

AS A 5-YEAR-OLD IN 1955, I DID NOT ATTEND

KINDERGARTEN. I was living in a small town in

South Carolina, which like many other states at

that time did not have kindergarten programs

available for all children. The first public kindergartens in the U.S. opened in the late 1800s, but it

was not until the 1970s that kindergarten became

widely available for all children. The growth of

kindergartens was fueled in part by Sputnik and

concerns about how the U.S. could keep ahead of

other countries, and in part by concerns over the

success of poor children in school.

The establishment of public school kindergarten

was not without controversy. Many people felt

that children did not need to be in school that

young, and that it was the family’s responsibility

to raise and care for children until age 6.

And there was controversy over what might

happen in kindergarten classes. Many were

concerned that kindergarten would become too

academic and that schools would not be sensitive

to the developmental needs of young children.

Despite these concerns, today it is routinely

accepted that all children will attend kindergarten

and all schools will provide kindergarten.

Now in 2001, these same issues have appeared

again, but the focus has shifted to younger

children. Three primary factors have caused new

attention to preschool education:

• First, there are concerns about the poor to

mediocre quality of many childcare programs.

Research showing that quality is important for

all children has led some to argue that the

only way to insure quality at a national level

is to provide a comprehensive program of

services for all young children.

at Issue

 Should

public

schools

take an

active

role in

providing

pre-K

services

and if so,

for

whom?

• Second, in numerous surveys teachers report

that a substantial proportion of children

experience significant problems in the

transition to kindergarten.

• And finally, the failure of many children to

learn to read, the achievement gap between

white children and children of color, and

continued evidence of school failure for many

children from low-income families have

resulted in a call for increased attention to

early education as one way to promote later

school success for all children.

Although the majority of 3- and 4-year olds in

the U.S. are in some type of out-of-home care

setting, these settings vary widely in terms of

quality and affordability. They include private,

public and for-profit programs.

At issue today is whether public schools should

take an active role in providing pre-K services,

and if so, for whom? Almost every state is

examining seriously this question. In the process,

of course, the same issues that were discussed in

the context of kindergarten are now being

discussed in the context of pre-K.

- Is this a proper role for public schools?

- Will it mean that pre-K programs will

shift to have more of an academic focus?

- What will be the source of funding

for these programs?

- What will be the impact on the private

child care community?

- Are pre-K programs really effective

in promoting later school success?

In reality, many public schools are already in

the business of pre-K education. A recent survey

conducted by Gitanjali Saluja and Dick Clifford >

by Don Bailey Director, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center
early developments 4 | Summer 2001

The same issues

that were discussed

in the context of

kindergarten are now

being discussed in

the context of pre-K.

Although some of these issues

will be discussed at the national

level, most of the action will be

within individual states. As state

legislators begin to weigh the costs

and benefits of such programs, there

will be an important need for data to

help inform policy decisions.

In recognition of this need for

information, FPG is committed to a

program of work that helps provide

the best data for policy makers.

This includes information about state

policies and funding possibilities,

program models and characteristics,

the status of children during and

after pre-K programs and the

transition to kindergarten.

For those of us in the early

childhood field, this is an exciting

time, an opportunity for all of us to

think broadly about the needs of

young children and their families.

What will programs and services for

young children look like in ten years?

One thing is for sure. With all of the

attention currently being paid to this

issue, things are likely to change

dramatically over the next few years.

Hopefully through research and

thoughtful consideration, the next

decade will result in more equitable

access for all children and their

families to high-quality, appropriate

care and educational opportunities.

|ed|

This is an exciting time, an opportunity for all of us to think broadly

about the needs of young children and their families.

 pre-Kat Issue

here at FPG found that 42 states are

currently funding some type of pre-K

program through the public schools.

A variety of different models are

being used, including state-funded

Head Start programs (18 states),

universal pre-K for all children

(2 states), and pre-K for at-risk

children (26 states).

No state has pre-K currently

available for all children, although

Georgia and New York are moving

in this direction.

During the next decade, this issue

will receive tremendous attention in

the context of school reform,

standards and accountability. In

North Carolina, for example, a recent

court ruling stated that public schools

must provide for the education of all

at-risk 4-year-olds in order to maximize their success in kindergarten

and beyond.

In this issue of Early Developments

we highlight some recent studies

addressing this issue. Among these

include a recent assessment of the

skills of entering kindergartners in

North Carolina; a description of how

five states established pre-K

programs and what other states

might learn from this process; a

study of preschool programs for

children with disabilities; and a

survey of state early childhood

coordinators regarding readiness

assessment.
early developments 5 | Summer 2001

Summer 2001

| Volume 5 Number 1

ISSN 1536-4739

Supervising Editors

Virginia Buysse, Pam Winton

Graphic Design

Turner McCollum

Circulation

Jay Hargrove

Photography

Don Trull

Writer

Loyd Little

Editorial Offices

521 South Greensboro Street

Suite 206

Carrboro, NC 27510

www.fpg.unc.edu

www.ncedl.org

In this issue of ed we highlight

some recent studies addressing

the issue of pre-K. Among these

are a recent assessment of the

skills of entering kindergartners

in North Carolina; a description

of how five states established

pre-K programs and what other

states might learn from this

process; a study of preschool

programs for children with

disabilities; and a survey of state

early childhood coordinators

regarding readiness assessment.

CONTENTS

Pre-K At Issue 2

School Readiness 6

FPG is working to define, assess

and promote school readiness

FPG Recent Publications 12

Pre-K for Children

with Special Needs 14

New survey examines

preschool programs for

children with disabilities

NCEDL NEWS

State Initiatives 16

Lessons learned in

trailblazing pre-K programs

State Policies on Readiness 18

States are moving toward appropriate assessment of readiness

New Directions 21

NCEDL awarded $11 million

to study pre-K programs

NCEDL Recent Publications 22
early developments 6 | Summer 2001

FPG working to define, assess and promote
early developments 7 | Summer 2001

SINCE 1990, ONE OF THE TOP NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS HAS BEEN

“all children in America should start

school ready to learn.”

And that has been true in North

Carolina as well. From 1993 to 2000,

Gov. Jim Hunt focused much of his

energy on improving education. In

fact, in 1999, the National Education

Goals Panel singled out North

Carolina as the state showing the

most significant improvement during

the 1990s. The state’s performance

improved on 14 of the panel’s

measures–more than any other state.

But improvement, while great, was

not good enough for Hunt. In 1999,

he challenged the state to build the

“best system of public schools of any

state in America” by 2010. A key

component in his “First in America”

challenge was “ready for school.”

The State Board of Education and

the NC Partnership for Children

(the organization charged with

leading Smart Start, NC’s early

childhood initiative) were also very

interested in school readiness issues.

These groups joined forces and

created a statewide task force to

develop a definition of school

readiness and a plan for assessing

school readiness. This task force,

the NC Ready for School Goal Team,

drew its members from the early

childhood and public school communities and included researchers

‘ There is no

definition of

school readiness

that is used

consistently

across the country.’

– NC Ready for School Goal Team

The team said that the condition

of children must be considered

across five domains:

1.Health and physical development

2.Social and emotional development

3.Approaches toward learning

4.Language development

and communication

5.Cognition and general knowledge

“Several things need to be remembered,” said Maxwell. “These five

areas are linked together. No single

area adequately represents a child’s

condition of readiness as he or she

enters school. Also, development

varies widely at age five. We should

not expect all children to reach a

common standard of readiness.”

The team said that the capacity of

schools must be considered across

four cornerstones:

1.Knowledge of growth and

development of typically and

atypically developing children

2.Knowledge of the strengths,

interests and needs of each child

3.Knowledge of the social and

cultural contexts in which each

child and family lives

4.Ability to translate developmental

knowledge into developmentally

appropriates practice

“Additionally,” said Maxwell,

“teachers and administrators in ready

schools will have a nurturing

atmosphere, use a curriculum that

provides meaningful contexts for

learning, and address the areas of >

from the National Center for Early

Development & Learning (NCEDL)

and the Frank Porter Graham Child

Development Center (FPG), based

at UNC-Chapel Hill: Donna Bryant,

Dick Clifford, Kelly Maxwell, and

Gitanjali Saluja.

Despite widespread agreement on

the importance of school readiness,

the nation and North Carolina have

struggled to define what being ready

for school means.

Kelly Maxwell, one of the FPG

researchers on the team, said, “The

team concluded, first, that there is no

definition of school readiness that is

used consistently across the country.

We had to develop our own.”

The team decided that school

readiness is a puzzle with two pieces

• The condition of children when

they enter school, and

• The capacity of schools to educate

all children whatever each child’s

condition may be.

“The readiness puzzle,” said

Maxwell, “can only be solved if

the two pieces fit together. We can

improve the fit by enhancing both

the condition of children as they

enter school and the capacity of

schools to educate the full range of

children enrolled. Each piece of the

puzzle is important in the Ready for

School Goal Team definition of

school readiness.”

school readiness
early developments 8 | Summer 2001

 school readiness ‘One of the major findings from this study is the gap
early developments 9 | Summer 2001

in skills between children from

lower-income families

and

higher-income families.’

Kelly Maxwell

The study found that children

from lower-income families in North

Carolina entered school with much

lower skills in all five major areas of

development and learning.

“One of the major findings from

this study is the gap in skills between

children from lower-income families

and higher-income families,” said

Maxwell. That gap is illustrated by

these findings:

76% of children from lowerincome families were rated by

their parents as having very good

or excellent health, vs. 91% of

children from higher-income

families.

82% of children from lowerincome families were rated by

their parents as often or very often

seeming eager to learn, vs. 94%

of children from higher-income

families.

28% of children from lowerincome families had very low

scores on a measure of social skills,

vs. 10% of children from higherincome families.

38% of children from lowerincome families had very low

scores on a language measure,

vs. 6% of children from higherincome families.

37% of children from lowerincome families had very low

scores on measures of early math

skills, vs. 9% of children from

higher-income families.>

[ continued from page 7 ]

children’s development described

earlier. They will also support

practices that address the unique

ways in which young children learn.”

The NC Ready for School Team

was also charged with coming up

with ways to assess school readiness.

The team agreed on these assessment conditions:

• Assessment should help, not harm

children and schools.

• Assessment should include both

pieces of the definition (children

and schools).

• Assessment for different purposes

requires different strategies:

Instructional assessment provides

information to help teachers

effectively instruct each child.

Accountability assessment can use

samples of children to determine

how well communities and the

state are supporting children and

families before kindergarten.

The goal team proposed specific

measures of children and schools

that could serve the accountability

purpose. [Editor’s note: These specific measures

may be found at fpg.unc.edu/~schoolreadiness/

battery.pdf. Or email – SchoolReadiness@unc.edu.

If you don’t have access to the Internet, call

Stephanie Ridley toll free at 800-822-8811.]

The goal team also recommended

that the state conduct a pilot study of

the proposed assessment plan. The

state agreed and a pilot study began

in the fall of 2000 using the new NC

School Readiness Assessment.

Maxwell and FPG researcher Donna

Bryant directed this pilot study, with

assistance from Stephanie Ridley.

Bryant is also co-director of the

National Center for Early Development & Learning at UNC-Chapel Hill.

The pilot gathered information

from a statewide representative

sample of more than 1,000 children

and about 200 schools. Information

was collected on each of the five

domains of children’s development

and on key components of schools’

readiness for children. Principals,

kindergarten teachers, parents and

children took part in the assessment.
early developments 10 | Summer 2001

• Provide extra resources and

supports for children at risk when

they enter school. “Without extra

help, these children will likely fall

even further behind their peers

from higher-income families,”

the report said.

• Support all children’s development

and learning in each of the five

areas. “Each of the five areas is

important, and children’s development in one area is affected by

their development in another.

Families, early childhood programs,

and public schools need to support

children’s development in all five

areas,” the report said.

“The findings from this study serve

as a good benchmark from which to

judge our state’s progress over the

next few years,” said Bryant. “Periodic data on a statewide representative sample of kindergartners and

schools will help us know whether

the many early childhood improvement and intervention efforts are

helping NC’s children.”

The Ready for School Goal Team

has recommended that this assessment be conducted regularly at the

state level as well as for each of NC’s

100 counties. |ed|

[Editor’s Note: The N.C. Kindergartners and Schools

summary report and executive summary are online

at fpg.unc.edu/~SchoolReadiness. Print copies can

be ordered from the web site, by calling 1-888-822-

8811, or by emailing schoolreadiness@unc.edu.]

Turning to the second piece of the

definition, public schools in NC were

similar to the national average on

key factors such as kindergarten

teachers’ years of experience and

class size. On average, NC kindergarten teachers had 11 years of

experience. The average NC

kindergarten class size was 21, vs.

the national average of 20. However,

the average class size was larger than

the goal of 18 set by the US Department of Education. More NC

principals had education beyond

a Master’s degree than their peers

nationally.

Summarizing the implications of

the study, Maxwell said, “We still

have work to do to ensure that each

child enters school ready to succeed

and that schools have the capacity

to educate all kindergartners.”

She urged an increased focus on

services for young children from

lower-income families.

Some of the recommendations

made by the research team include:

• Prioritize high quality services for

children birth through five who are

at risk for school failure. “Preparing

children for school starts at birth –

not just the year before they come

to school,” Maxwell stated.

[ continued from page 9 ]

The good news is that the study found

that NC kindergartners were about the same

as their peers nationally on measures of

health, social skills and approaches toward

learning. Highlights of the findings for NC

kindergartners include:

85% of NC kindergartners were rated by

their parents as being in very good or

excellent health vs. 83% nationally.

89% of NC kindergartners were rated by

their parents as often or very often seeming eager to learn vs. 92% nationally.

• The average social skills score for NC

kindergartners was 97 vs. the national

average of 100. Compared to national

norms, about the same number of NC

children had very low social skills

(18% in NC vs. 16% nationally).

• On a measure of children’s language skills,

the average score for NC kindergartners

was 97, vs. the national average of 100.

Compared to national norms, more NC

children had very low language skills

(21% in NC vs. 16% nationally).

• On measures of children’s math skills,

the average score for NC kindergartners

was 95, vs. the national average of 100.

Compared to national norms, more NC

children had very low math skills

(22% in NC vs. 16% nationally).

school readiness
early developments 11 | Summer 2001

Professional development

As the NC School Readiness Task Force

observed, readiness is a two-part puzzle:

children and schools. Improving teacher

“readiness” through better inservice and

preservice professional development has

long been one of FPG’s priorities.

One project that is on the cutting edge

of research into professional development

is the Literacy Environment Enrichment

Project (LEEP) directed by FPG Researcher

Ellen Peisner-Feinberg. “In collaboration

with the Education Development Center

in Newton, MA, we are testing distance

learning technologies against traditional

teaching to examine the impact on

teachers’ and supervisors’ beliefs and

practices and on children’s literacy

growth,” said Peisner-Feinberg.

This year, participants in the LEEP

program will receive training through the

traditional classroom structure. Next year

the same course will be taught through

distance learning. Evaluation will compare

the different models to one another as

well as to a control group of teachers not

participating in the training. Data will be

gathered to examine the literacy practices

and overall quality of the classrooms as well

as children’s growth in language and literacy

skills over the course of the year. |ed|

If you want to know more

– Smart Start Evaluation Team at FPG

www.fpg.unc.edu/~smartstart/

– NC state web site for Smart Start

www.smartstart-nc.org/

Quality improvements

As part of its policy-related research, FPG

helps evaluate the statewide Smart Start

Initiative, the overall goal of which is to

ensure that children are prepared to succeed

when they enter school. In a recent study of

children in six Smart Start counties, FPG

evaluators found that the program helps

boost children’s thinking and language skills

when compared with those of children not

connected with the effort. Researchers found

statistically significant and meaningful

improvements in skills for entering

kindergartners who attended child care

centers that were involved in Smart Start

quality improvement efforts. However, this

finding was true only for those centers that

used Smart Start money to directly improve

classroom quality.

Study director Donna Bryant said,

“Seventeen percent of children not attending

Smart Start centers had low cognitive skills,

but only 9 percent of children who attended

Smart Start centers had low skills.” “On a

behavior rating by teachers, 18 percent of

children not attending Smart Start centers

had behavior problems whereas only 10

percent of Smart Start children did.”

The study gathered information about the

thinking, language and social skills of 508

kindergartners. “The results of this multicounty study support earlier single-county

studies of the positive effects of Smart Start

on NC children,” Bryant said. “They also

suggest that the type, not just the quantity,

of Smart Start support matters. Efforts directly related to improving the day-to-day quality

of child care are most likely to have an effect

on children’s school entry skills.” Previous FPG

studies have shown that the quality of child

care in North Carolina is gradually improving,

that more NC children are enrolled in higherquality child-care programs, and that

interagency collaboration has improved since

Smart Start began. Information about FPG/

UNC Smart Start evaluation and copies of

many of the reports are available at

www.fpg.unc.edu/~smartstart. |ed|

Two projects at Frank Porter Graham Center examine

professional development and quality improvements

FPG researchers also examining strategies promoting readiness
early developments 12 | Summer 2001

Inclusive preschool programs.

Odom, S.L., & Bailey, D. (2001). In

M.J. Guralnick (Ed.), Early childhood

inclusion: Classroom ecology and

child outcomes. pp.253-276.

Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Innovations in professional

development: Creating

communities of practice to

support inclusion. Buysse, V.,

Wesley, P. W., & Able-Boone, H.

(2001). In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.),

Early childhood inclusion: Focus on

change. pp.179-200. Baltimore,

MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Instructional perspectives

in inclusive preschool classrooms.

McWilliam, R. A., Wolery, M., &

Odom, S. L. (2001). In M. J.

Guralnick (Ed.), Early childhood

inclusion: Focus on change.

pp.503-530. Baltimore, MD:

Paul H. Brookes.

Linking literacy and language

with social and emotional

learning. Bryant, D. (2000).

Committee for Children Prevention

Update newsletter. Spring issue.

Measuring variability in early

child language: Don’t shoot the

messenger. Fenson, L., Bates, E.,

Dale, P., Goodman, J., Reznick, J. S.,

& Thal, D. (2000). Child

Development, 71, 323-328.

Models of collaboration for

early intervention: Laying the

groundwork. Buysse, V., & Wesley,

P. W. (2001). In P. M. Blasco (Ed.),

Early intervention services for

infants, toddlers, and their families.

pp.259-293. Boston, MA:

Allyn and Bacon.

Factors associated with fathers’

caregiving activities and

sensitivity with young children.

NICHD Early Child Care Research

Network. (2000). Journal of Family

Psychology, 14(2), 200-219.

Families with young children: A

review of research in the 1990s.

Demo, D., & Cox, M. (2000).

(Special decade-in-review issue

entitled “Understanding families

into the new millennium”), Journal

of Marriage and the Family, 62,

876-895.

Family experiences and factors

associated with the diagnosis of

fragile X syndrome. Bailey, D.B.,

Skinner, D., Hatton, D., & Roberts,

J. (2000). Developmental and

Behavioral Pediatrics, 21(5),

315-321.

Family literacy programs:

A promising practice for the

twenty-first century. Wasik, B. H.,

Herman, S., Dobbins, D. R., &

Roberts, J. (2000). In D.B Day (Ed.),

Teaching and learning in the 21st

century: Wise practices, pp.7-19.

Raleigh: NC Association for

Supervision in Curriculum and

Development.

Home visiting: Procedures

for helping families (2nd ed.).

Wasik, B. H., & Bryant, D. M.

(2001). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

“I wish it wouldn’t all depend

upon me”: Research on families

and early childhood inclusion.

Erwin, E., Soodak, L., Winton, P., &

Turnbull, A. (2001). In M. Guralnick

(Ed.), Early childhood inclusion:

Focus on change. pp.127-158.

Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Author and reviewer guidelines:

Reporting qualitative studies.

McWilliam, R. A. (2000). Journal of

Early Intervention, 23, 77-80.

Behavioral problems among

preschool children in South

Africa: A longitudinal perspective from birth to age five.

Richter, L., Griesel, D. & Barbarin, O.

(2000). In N. Singh, J.P. Leung, &

A.N. Singh (Eds.), International

perspectives on child and adolescent mental health, pp.159-182.

Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier

Publishers.

Biology versus experience:

Balancing the equation.

Reznick, J. S. (2000).

Developmental Science, 3,

133-134.

Changing paradigms for gifted

education in the United States.

Gallagher, J. (2000). In K. Heller

(Ed.), International handbook of

gifted education, pp.681-694.

Amsterdam, Holland:

Elsevier Publishers.

Characteristics and quality of

child care for toddlers and

preschoolers. NICHD Early Child

Care Research Network. (2000).

Applied Developmental Science,

4(3), 116-135.

Children’s social and cognitive

development and child care

quality: Testing for differential

associations related to poverty,

gender, or ethnicity.

Burchinal, M. R., Peisner-Feinberg,

E., Bryant, D., & Clifford, R. (2000).

Applied Developmental Science, 4,

149-165

Classification of teachers’

interaction behaviors in early

childhood classrooms.

de Kruif, R. E. L., McWilliam, R. A.,

Ridley, S. M., & Wakely, M. B.

(2000). Early Childhood Research

Quarterly, 15(2), 247-268.

Classroom behavior of elementary school-age boys with fragile

X syndrome. Symons, F.J., Clark,

R.D., Roberts, J.P., & Bailey, D.B.

(2001). The Journal of Special

Education, 34(4), 194-202.

Cultural resources and

psychological adjustment

of African-American children:

Effects of spirituality and racial

attribution. Christian, M., &

Barbarin, O. (2001). Journal of Black

Psychology, 27, 43-63.

Cumulative risk and early

cognitive development:

A comparison of statistical

risk models. Burchinal, M. R.,

Roberts, J. E., Hooper, S., & Zeisel,

S. A. (2000). Developmental

Psychology, 36, 793-807.

Comfort zone revisited:

Child characteristics and

professional comfort with

consultation. Wesley, P. W.,

Buysse, V., & Keyes, L. (2000).

Journal of Early Intervention,

23(2), 106-115.

Economic status, community

danger, and psychological

problems among South African

children. Barbarin, O., & Richter, L.

(2001). Childhood,8(1), 115-131.

Exposure to violence, coping

resources, and psychological

adjustment of South African

children. Barbarin, O., & Richter, L.,

& De Wet, T. (2001). American

Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71,6-25.

Recent Publications from the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center
early developments 13 | Summer 2001

Two tails of the normal curve:

Similarities and differences in

the study of mental retardation

and giftedness. Robinson, N.,

Zigler, E., & Gallagher, J. (2000).

American Psychologist, 55(12),

1413-1424.

Unexpected journey:

The earliest days. [Video].

Wesley, P. W. (Producer). (2001).

Chapel Hill: UNC-Chapel Hill,

Frank Porter Graham Child

Development Center.

Variability in FMRP and early

development in males with

fragile X syndrome. Bailey, D.B.,

& Hatton, D.D. (2001).

American Journal on Mental

Retardation, 105(1), 16-27.

When is an assessment an

intervention? Parent perception

of infant intentionality and

language. Reznick, J. S., &

Schwartz, B. B. (2001). Journal of

the American Academy of Child &

Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 11-17.

Working women’s selection

of care for their infants:

A prospective study. Pungello,

E. P., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (2000).

Family Relations, 49, 245-255.

Test of candidate oxytocin

ligands in rhesus monkeys:

Pharmacokinetics and PET

imaging studies. Boccia, M.L.,

Pedersen, C.A., & Wood, F. (2000).

American Journal of Primatology,

51, 46.

The acculturation of immigrant

children: Implications for

educators. Kurtz-Costes, B.,

& Pungello, E. P. (2000).

Social Education, 64, 121-125.

The relation of child care to

cognitive and language

development. NICHD Early Child

Care Research Network. (2000).

Child Development, 71(4), 960-980.

The development of visual

expectations in the first year.

Reznick, J. S., Chawarska, K., &

Betts, S. (2000). Child Development, 71, 1191-1204.

The early interventionist.

Ayankoya, B., & Oser, C. (2000).

Bulletin of ZERO TO THREE,

National Center for Infants, Toddlers

and Families, October/November,

21(2).

The Young Family Interaction

Coding System. Paley, B., Cox, M.

J., & Kanoy, K. W. (2000). In P.K.

Kerig, & K.M. Lindahl (Eds.), Family

observational coding systems:

Resources for systemic research.

pp.273-288. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Prevalence of aggressive

behaviors among preschoolers

in Head Start and community

child care programs. Kupersmidt,

J. B., Bryant, D., & Willoughby, M.

(2000). Behavioral Disorders, 26(1),

42-52.

Professionals’ and families’

perceptions of family-centered

practices in infant-toddler

services. McWilliam, R. A., Snyder,

P., Harbin, G. L., Porter, P., & Munn,

D. (2000). Early Education and

Development, 11 (Special Issue:

Families and Exceptionality),

519-538.

Recommended practices in

interdisciplinary models.

McWilliam, R. A. (2000). In S.

Sandall, M.E. McLean, & B.J. Smith

(Eds.), DEC recommended practices

in early intervention/early childhood

special education. pp.47-52. Denver,

CO: DEC.

Services to young children with

disabilities: A descriptive analysis.

Harbin, G. L., McWilliam, R. A., &

Gallagher, J. (2000). In S. J. Meisels,

& J. P. Shonkoff (Eds.), Handbook of

early childhood intervention, 2nd

edition. pp.387-415. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Short-form versions of the

MacArthur Communicative

Development Inventories.

Fenson, L, Pethick, S., Renda, C.,

Cox, J.L., Dale, P.S., & Reznick, J. S.

(2000). Applied Psycholinguistics,

21, 95-115.

Nonverbal assessment of IQ,

attention, and memory abilities

in children with fragile-X

syndrome using the Leiter-R.

Hooper, S.R., Hatton, D.D., Baranek,

G.T., Roberts, J.P., & Bailey D.B.

(2000). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 255-267.

Observing children at play:

Using engagement to evaluate

activities and the classroom

environment. Ridley, S. M., &

McWilliam, R. A. (2000).

Children and Families, 14(3), 36-38.

Otitis media in early childhood

in relation to preschool language

and school readiness skills among

black children. Roberts, J.E.,

Burchinal, M.R., Jackson, S.C.,

Hooper, S.R., Roush, J., Mundy, M.,

Neebe, E.C., & Zeisel, S.A. (2000).

Pediatrics, 106, 725-735.

Persistent effects of early

intervention on high-risk

children and their mothers.

Ramey, C.T., Campbell, F.A.,

Burchinal, M., Skinner, M., Gardner,

D., & Ramey, S.L. (2000). Applied

Developmental Sciences, 4, 2-14.

Personal preparation and

secondary education programs

for gifted students. Gallagher, J.

(2001). Journal of Secondary Gifted

Education. 12, #3, Spring.

Preferences for conspecific

and heterospecific faces:

Effects of inversion and feature

rearrangement. Boccia, M.L., &

Pedersen, C.A. (2000). American

Journal of Primatology, 51, 46.

Summer 2001
early developments 14 | Summer 2001

Pre-K Children with Special Needs

Synopses of findings

Intensity of services

NC’s school systems use a variety of

arrangements to provide services to

preschoolers with disabilities. For example,

Amanda is a 4-year old with Down

syndrome and is among about 4,500 NC

preschoolers served in preschool programs

operated by the NC Dept. of Public

Instruction. She attends a self-contained

classroom (children with disabilities only)

which is the most prevalent service

available across the state. The study found

about 2,000 preschoolers served in this

arrangement.

About 800 preschoolers with disabilities

attend inclusive public school classrooms.

Children in inclusive settings spend more

hours at school than the children who

attend self-contained classrooms.

Another 1,400 children receive itinerant

services. These services typically involve the

itinerant teacher making two 30-minute

visits per week to the child’s regular day

care program. The study found only a

small number of preschoolers (129)

receiving home-based services, which

usually involved one 1-hour visit per week

to the child’s home.

Parent participation

Amanda’s parents are actively involved

in the Individualized Education Plan (IED)

process, parent meetings and volunteering

in the classroom. Most systems reported

parent participation in these activities.

Few systems, however, reported parent

participation in evaluating the preschool

program or in setting policies and

procedures.

Transportation services

Amanda spends about 15 minutes in

route to her classroom each morning

driven by her mother and 20 minutes

going home in the afternoon via the

school bus. The study reported that the

majority of children spend a reasonable

amount of time being transported to and

from school.

A third of the coordinators at preschool

programs, however, said that transportation is “often a problem” or an “extremely

big problem.” Two hundred and sixty

preschoolers across the state were

reported as spending more than one

hour being transported one way.

Child transition

Amanda will be moving on to

kindergarten next year. Fortunately for

Amanda and her family, her program

uses a large number of recommended

transition practices. The study found

this to be true for most of the responding

systems.

Examples of transition activities include

holding transition meetings with the

New survey examines preschool

programs for children with disabilities

ALTHOUGH PRE-K PROGRAMS ARE

THE LATEST HOT TOPIC OF DEBATE

in many states, preschool for children

with disabilities has been a reality in

the US for more than 15 years. In

1975, the federal Education for All

Handi-capped Children Act laid the

foun-dation for preschool programs

by providing initiatives and guidelines

for states. In 1986, states were

mandated to provide a free, appropriate, public education for all

3-and 4-year olds with disabilities.

To capture a picture of the services

offered to preschoolers with disabilities

in NC, FPG researchers studied all 117

of NC’s local education agencies (LEAs).

More than 350 preschool teachers and

520 support service personnel, including speech-language pathologists,

physical therapists and occupational

therapists completed a lengthy survey

about the services they provided

to preschoolers.

On-site visits to 22 preschool classrooms were made to complete an

Early Childhood Environment Rating

Scale–Revised (ECERS-R) and to

collect a measure of child engagement.

Investigators were Sharon Palsha,

Mark Wolery, Don Bailey and research

assistant Margaret Brashers.
early developments 15 | Summer 2001

RECOMMENDATIONS

The study included specific recommendations in each of the above areas.

These include:

PARENT PARTICIPATION: Parent

participation is a critical component of a

preschool program, and therefore every

effort should be made to encourage

parents to be involved actively in their

child’s preschool life. The study recommended that the schools offer their diverse

parent population a range of options in

which to participate at the systems,

policy, program, classroom, and child level.

Systems should have IEP procedures in

place that encourage parents to offer IEP

goals for their child.

TRANSITION POLICIES: It is important

that systems have policies and procedures

in place to support children and their

families not just in the transition form

preschool to kindergarten, but also during

the kinder-garten year so that placement

into the school-age program meets with

the greatest success for the child and

family.

TRANSPORTATION: Transportation is an

important, yet challenging, part of the

preschool program. Coordinators, teachers

and parents all should be aware of the

length of time preschoolers spend being

transported to school. In cases where there

are problems all of these parties should

work together to explore solutions.

MORE INCLUSION: The findings from the

on-site observations suggest that the

NC preschool program should strongly

consider moving toward a model offering

more inclusive classrooms. Inclusive

classrooms overall offered better quality.

Integrated therapy: If therapists serving

preschoolers want to follow the field’s

recommended practices, they would

provide more integrated therapy than is

now provided. Systems should analyze

staff development activities that break

down the barriers to providing integrated

therapy. Given the discrepancy between

the therapists’ typical and ideal practice in

helping classroom teachers individualize

instruction, systems need to provide

therapists and teachers with the time and

resources to consult on therapy IEP goals.

|ed|

family, holding meetings with kindergarten

personnel, and inviting kindergarten

teachers to the IEP meeting.

Respondents reported that more than

three-fourths of their preschoolers from

the previous school year aging out of the

program were placed in a regular

kindergarten and another 14% spent at

least some time in a regular kindergarten.

Only 53% of the systems report that the

preschool program continues to provide

support to the child during the kindergarten year.

Preschool teachers

Amanda’s preschool teacher is only

responsible for her one self-contained

classroom. This is the typical practice

across the state. The study found,

however, that about a quarter of the fulltime teachers and a fifth of the part-time

teachers had multiple teaching assignments.

The teachers were almost exclusively

Caucasian females. Two-thirds of the

teachers held a bachelor’s degree and one

third held a master’s. About three-quarters

held a birth-kindergarten license.

Preschool coordinators

Coordinators in LEAs reported having a

range of other responsibilities with close to

half (42%) indicating that they also

provided direct services to preschoolers.

They are almost exclusively female (95%)

and Caucasian (90%). As a group the

coordinators are well educated, with the

majority holding a master’s degree. More

than half (56%) hold birth-kindergarten or

preschool handicapped certification.

Related service personnel

Therapists serving the preschoolers with

disabilities tend to be female and

Caucasian. Speech-language pathologists

and occupational therapists tend to be fulltime employees of their school system.

Therapists are moderately to substantially

involved in a number of the IEP activities.

IEP development, monitoring

Amanda’s parents actively participate

in the IEP process and suggest goals for

their daughter. This behavior was atypical

of what was reported in our study.

The majority of teachers reported that less

than half of their preschoolers’ parents

If you want to know more

NCEDL Spotlight No. 6:

Disabilities & Transitions,

published by NCEDL

www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl/PDFs/spot6.pdf

NCEDL Spotlight No. 25:

Early childhood support structure

is proposed, published by NCEDL.

www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl/PDFs/spot25.pdf

NCEDL Spotlight No. 15:

“Early Intervention: What’s Next?”

www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl/PDFs/spot15.pdf

suggested or asked for a modification of

an IEP goal for their child.

Teachers typically gave parents formal

feedback on IEP goals every nine weeks.

More than half of the preschoolers

acquired three-fourths of their IEP goals.

Classroom observations

The ECERS-R data suggest that the

observed inclusive classes overall were of

good quality and were of higher quality

than the self-contained classes. For each

category, with the exception of parents

and staff, the inclusive classes had higher

mean scores than did the self-contained

classes. Statistically significant differences

occurred in 3 of the 7 ECERS-R categories,

all in the direction of the inclusive

classrooms having higher quality.

Typical, ideal practices

Amanda’s physical therapy and speechlanguage therapy both take place in her

classroom in the context of her daily

classroom activities. Related service

personnel reported that at least half of

all therapy should be provided in the

child’s regular class and in the context of

ongoing classroom routines and activities,

but that this was not currently happening.

Therapists said they should work with

almost all teachers to help them individualize classroom instruction based on therapy

goals and needs, but that this happened

with only about half the teachers.
Photograph | GoldscheiderHa2001

NCEDL National Center for Early Development and Learning 16 | Summer 2001

State Initiatives 16

Lessons learned in trailblazing

pre-K programs

State Policies on Readiness 18

States are moving toward appropriate

assessment of readiness

New Directions 21

NCEDL awarded $11 million

to study pre-K programs

NCEDL Recent Publications 22

STATE INITIATIVES

Lessons learned in

trailblazing pre-K programs

SOME STATES HAVE ESTABLISHED PRE-K PROGRAMS

AND OTHERS HAVE NOT. As states without pre-K classes

consider such a change, it would help to know what

features have facilitated this policy shift in other states.

To answer this, NCEDL researchers examined how five

states – Georgia, Illinois, New York, South Carolina and

Texas – made major educational shifts by establishing

pre-K programs for four-year-olds.

Key figures in political and educational circles were

interviewed to determine the major facilitators to this

policy shift, the barriers to be overcome, and strategies

used to make these policy changes. These states appear

to be well on the way to universal pre-K services as soon

as they find a way to finance the programs, according to

researchers James J. Gallagher, Jenna R. Clayton and

Sarah E. Heinemeier.

The study – Education for four-year olds: State initiatives –

is published by NCEDL as a 65-page technical report, and

includes a 14-page executive summary.

Generalities from the five

Researchers cited these major commonalities among

how these 5 states approached pre-K programs:

Political leadership

In each case, powerful political figures lead the way. In

South Carolina and Georgia, the governor spearheaded

this effort. In New York, the influential speaker of the

assembly was the major force behind the program. In

Texas, a special study commission appointed by the

governor and headed by Ross Perot provided the impetus.

In Illinois, a number of key legislators played an important

role and were helped by key advocacy groups.

Early school failures

In each state, a key reason for initiating the program was

that a number of children in that state were identified as

failing in the early grades. The prospect of continued poor

school performance and possible later dependence on the

NCEDLNEWS

National Center for Early Development and Learning
larger society was a motivating force in identifying such

children early and providing a stimulating pre-K program.

Reform packages

One political strategy used in each state was embedding

the pre-K program in a larger package of educational

reform.

Grassroots support

Professional child care providers and Head Start teachers

had to be convinced that no harm would come to them

or their interests. Considerable effort was expended to

make sure that these groups supported the new policy.

Other commonalities

• The media made an insignificant impact

in these states.

• There was no visible role for higher education

in the decision.

• Basically, the political forces and professional

education and child care groups worked out

the program strategies.

• The general public seemed moderately positive

towards the move. There were few instances of

general public endorsement or protest, with the

exception of some on the Christian right who

believed the program undermined family values

and that the child was better off with his/her

mother than with a teacher or child care provider.

Major differences

Researchers cited these major differences among how

these states approached pre-K programs:

Finance: Georgia established a lottery with the proceeds

earmarked for the program. In Texas, the program has

been in place so long that is now part of the state’s

continuing budget. In Illinois, the program budget has to

be considered anew each year. In New York, the universal

pre-K is on a five-year phase-in process. South Carolina

raised the state sales tax a penny to pay for this and other

education reforms.

Gradual versus sudden: Illinois and Texas each had a

gradually developing and expanding program. Georgia

established its universal program in a very short time.

The gradual approach allowed states to reach agreements

with the various professional groups and get the public

accustomed to the program. On the other hand, the

passage of time lets opposition coalesce and build

their case.

Organizational support systems: States either set up a

separate office or maintained an identifiable unit in the

state department of education to administer the program.

The structures varied considerably from a near one-person

early childhood department (Texas and New York) to

Georgia’s separate Office of School Readiness, which is

well funded and well staffed. Some states like South

Carolina allow much more flexibility at the local level

on the nature of the program and staffing. |NCEDL|

If you want to know more

Education for four-year olds:State initiatives

online at:

www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl/PDFs/EdFours-tr.pdf

(65-page PDF file)

www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl/PDFs/EdFours-es.pdf

(14-page summary)

www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl/PDFs/spot29.pdf

(2-page Spotlight No.29)

If you would like a printed copy

of any of the above, call

Publications Office at 919-966-4221,

or email pubs@mail.fpg.unc.edu

NCEDL National Center for Early Development and Learning 17 | Summer 2001

Advice to states wishing

to begin or extend pre-K

Based on the experiences of the five states (Georgia,

Texas, New York, Illinois and South Carolina) NCEDL

researchers offered this advice to states wishing to

begin or expand pre-kindergarten programs:

Link with larger educational reform

These five states found it useful to embed the four-year-old

program in a larger package of education reform. This

appeared to divert criticism or opposition and to mute the

perception of the costs of the program. In some cases, the

pre-K program was linked with raises in teachers’ salaries.

In others, it joined hands with increases in technology and

other education initiatives.

Importance of early childhood

Most states began the pre-K program with vulnerable

populations, children at risk for school failure. Once the

benefits for at-risk children had been noted, it was natural for

parents of children not at risk to wonder why their children

weren’t receiving these services.

Political leadership and support

Since such pre-K programs cost considerable money (though

saving money in the long run), it was important that key

political leaders directly support the program. It is also wise to

make the support bipartisan, if at all possible.

Gradual introduction

Unless a source is available that would not stress other state

budget considerations, there is a tendency to introduce the

idea and program gradually.

Transportation

One factor often overlooked in the planning has been

transportation. While public schools accept responsibility

for transportation, this has been left out of pre-K planning

in some instances.

Infrastructure data systems

A natural step in policy development is to assure that direct

services to children are taken care of, but to overlook the

support structure that is so important to a quality program.

A good example is the lack of a data system. Without such

a system, state planners are in the dark when it comes to

needed resources and legislators are in the dark about the

viability of the requests being made.

Program quality assurance

Establishing standards such as certification of key staff

members and developing technical assistance personnel to

improve the overall quality of the program are two strategies

that support high quality pre-K programs. Such standards

result in greater public support

and acceptance for the overall program.

Collaboration with stakeholders

The successful programs took pains to allay the natural

anxieties of child care service providers. The perception that

two or three institutions will fight over who will care for fouryear-olds can bring forth political opposition. All five states

encouraged various efforts to bring about collaboration

among these stakeholders.

Other forces at work

Two other social movements added support to these policy

changes. The large percentage of mothers in the workforce

and requirements that welfare mothers go to work left

parents searching for constructive environments for their

young children. |NCEDL| NCEDLNEWS
A SURVEY OF EARLY CHILDHOOD STATE REPRESENTATIVES in all 50 states indicates that efforts to minimize

the misuse of readiness assessment tools may have had

some impact at the state level, according to researchers

at the National Center for Early Development &

Learning.

Respondents to NCEDL’s survey generally indicated

an increased awareness of recommended early

childhood assessment practices, according to Gitanjali

Saluja and Richard Clifford, both at the University of

North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Also working on the

survey was Catherine Scott-Little of SERVE, the

Regional Education Laboratory based at UNCGreensboro.

Survey results indicated that although several states

are studying readiness, no state had a formal,

statewide definition of readiness for school. Many

states are trying to clarify the difference between

readiness testing and screening.

Rather than using readiness assessment for

placement decisions, many states reported developing

readiness assessment systems to profile children as they

enter school or to design classroom activities to better

meet the needs of children.

Appropriate Assessment of Readiness

Other key findings as of January 2000:

• Five states said that local districts may have

formal definitions for school readiness.

Five states reported they had frameworks

or benchmarks to describe readiness.

• Six states said they believed states should place

emphasis on schools being ready for all children.

• Thirteen states said that they conduct statewide

screening when children enter kindergarten.

Twenty-six said that they did not mandate

readiness assessments, but local districts may

choose to assess children prior to, or as they

enter kindergarten.

• Twelve states said they used data collected on

children prior to kindergarten for instructional

purposes. Seven said the data help identify highneed schools and improve outcome and services

for children in families in need.

Discussion

While the work that many states have done in the

area of school readiness is significant, two fundamental issues have been largely unaddressed:

1. The importance of schools being ready

for all children. While several survey respondents

indicated that their state emphasizes the importance of schools being ready for all children, only

one state reported efforts to incorporate assessment of schools into their school readiness

assessment system. Yet, school readiness can play

a critical role in explaining children’s performance

in later grades. To gain a true assessment of school

readiness, data must be collected on both children

and schools.

2. The role of the local district. Many respondents

indicated that local districts have a great deal of

latitude in (1) how children are assessed when

they enter school and (2) how data from these

assessments are used. Data on how local districts

are assessing children are scarce. These assessment

strategies are likely to vary in quality. Some may

use standardized assessment strategies, while

others may use instruments that are locally

developed and have not been tested for validity

and reliability. Further research is needed to

determine more about the role of local districts.

[ continued on page 20 ]

NCEDL National Center for Early Development and Learning 18 | Summer 2001

NCEDLNEWS
 [continued on next page...]

 Pros and Cons on assessing readiness

One highly charged issue today is whether

and how states should assess children’s

readiness for schools.

Advocates of readiness testing say that such

results can identify children who are at risk

for an unsuccessful entry into kindergarten.

By assessing readiness, children can be

provided needed assistance early.

Opponents say that testing may not be the

best indicator of young children’s development and that tests could be used to

exclude some children from kindergarten.

They say that all children are ready for

kindergarten by age 5, and it is the

responsibility of kindergartens to adopt to

the needs of each individual child.

Readiness assessment should

• Benefit children and the adults who

work with children

• Be used for the purposes for which they

are designed (“Screenings” should not

be used for skills assessment.)

• Be valid and reliable

• Be age-appropriate, using naturalistic

observations to collect information as

children interact in “real life” situations

• Be holistic, collecting information on all

developmental domains (physical, social,

emotional and cognitive)

• Be linguistically and culturally appropriate

• Collect information through a variety of

processes and multiple sources (collection

of children’s work, observations of

children, interviews with children, parent

reports, etc.)

• Be used to guide instruction and not to

determine children’s placement in school

The above are from a 2000 position statement by the National Association of Early

Childhood Specialists in State Departments

of Education.

The National Education Goals Panel has

endorsed the following: “Ready schools

should have strong leadership, strive for

continuity between early care and education programs, promote smooth transitions

between home and school, be committed

to the success of every child as well as every

teacher and adult who interacts with children at school, use approaches that have

been shown to raise children’s achievement

and then alter practices and programs if

they do not benefit children.” >

NCEDLNEWS
NCEDL National Center for Early Development and Learning 20 | Summer 2001

NCEDLNEWS

Assessing Readiness

[ continued from page 18 ]

Implications for research and policy makers

• Results from this survey indicate a need for

education on principles of early childhood

assessment and for additional research.

• Efforts need to be made to inform policy

makers and educators on recommended

assessment strategies and how the data

from the assessments should be used.

• Research on early childhood assessment

must be translated into a format that can

be used by policy makers as they design

readiness assessment systems.

• Safeguards such as random sampling

must be built into assessment systems

to ensure that

(1) assessments provide valid information

(2) the information is used in a manner

consistent with good early childhood

practice.

If you want to know more

Spotlight # 26:

State policies on readiness surveyed.

Online: www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl/PDFs/spot26.pdf

Readiness for school: A survey of state policies

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

R.M. (2001). Early Childhood Research and Practice.

www.ecrp.uiuc.edu/index.html

National Association of Early Childhood

Specialists in State Departments of Education.

(2000). Still! Unacceptable trends

in kindergarten entry and placement.

www.ericps.crc.uiuc.edu/naecs/position trends2000.html

Cracking the readiness mystique. Kagan, S. L.

(1999). Young Children, 54(5). 2-3.

Assessing readiness. Meisels, S. J. (1999).

In R.C. Pianta, Robert C. & M.J. Cox (Eds.),

The transition to kindergarten. Baltimore:

Paul H. Brookes.

National Education Goals Panel (1991).

The Goal 1 Technical Planning Subgroup

report on school readiness. Washington,D.C.

|NCEDL|
MUCH ATTENTION IS BEING GIVEN TO PRE-K

PROGRAMS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. In many

states, public schools are examining what role they will

play in pre-K education and many different models are

being tried. What are these programs like? In order to

help answer that question, NCEDL has received $11

million to launch a major new study of prekindergarten

programs linked to public schools.

The new three-year grant was announced by the

National Institute on Early Childhood Development and

Education’s Office of Educational Research and

Improvement in the U.S. Department of Education.

The center is based at the UNC-Chapel Hill, with key

collaborators at the University of California at Los

Angeles and the University of Virginia.

Since its founding in 1996, NCEDL has examined

effective practices in caring for and educating young

children, determined how those practices are being

used, identified barriers to them, and tested results and

models for improvement, said Richard Clifford, codirector of the center with Donna Bryant. Both are

senior scientists at the Graham center and professors in

UNC’s School of Education.

“One specific area of our work has been the quality

of child care and its effects on children during their

preschool and early school years, “ Clifford said.

“Public prekindergarten will be the focus of NCEDL

through early 2004.”

Bryant said, “With 42 states already serving some of

their four-year-olds in state-funded programs and most

states considering expansion, the country needs more

information about effective models.”

NCEDL investigators estimate that nearly a million

pre-K children are served in programs located in or

linked to public elementary schools. Some programs

focus on children from low-income families; others are

universal. Standards such as teacher training, class size

and duration of program vary considerably.

“We need to know more about how these

differences affect children’s experiences in

prekindergarten and their transition into the beginning

school years,” said Bryant.

The center’s extended research into prekindergarten

will focus on a sample of pre-K classes from California,

Ohio, New York, Illinois, Georgia and Kentucky.

Researchers will assess those children and their

classrooms with emphasis on literacy, math and social

skills development several times before first grade, and

documenting transition activities of the schools and

early childhood programs.

“We expect to have a much clearer understanding

of the relationship between specific instructional practices in pre-K and kindergarten classes and children’s

language, cognitive and social development, “

Clifford said.

Carollee Howes and Robert Pianta head the UCLA

and UVA teams, respectively.

NCEDL is one of 12

national centers funded

by the U.S. Department

of Education to conduct

research into significant

problems in education.

It is the only center that

focuses on early childhood.

NCEDL is supported under

the Education Research and

Development Centers Program,

PR/award number R307A60004,

as administered by the Office of Educational

Research and Improvement, U.S. Department

of Education. |NCEDL|

New directions

NCEDL National Center for Early Development and Learning 21 | Summer 2001

NCEDL

awarded

$11 million

to launch

a major

new study

of pre-K

programs

linked to

public schools

The center’s

extended research

into prekindergarten

will focus on a

sample of pre-K

classes from

California, Ohio,

New York, Illinois,

Georgia and

Kentucky.

NCEDLNEWS
early developments 22 | Summer 2001

Ear infections and language development.

Roberts, J.E., & Zeisel, S.A. (2000).

Washington, DC: US Department of

Education.

Early intervention: The moderating role

of the home environment. Bradley, R. H.,

Burchinal, M., & Casey, P. H. (2001). Applied

Developmental Science, 5, 1-7.

Education for four-year-olds: State initiatives.

Gallagher, J., Clayton, J., & Heinemeier, S.

(2001). Chapel Hill: UNC-Chapel Hill, FPG

Child Development Center, NCEDL.

Education for four-year-olds: State initiatives.

Executive Summary. Gallagher, J., Clayton, J.,

& Heinemeier, S. (2001). Chapel Hill: UNCChapel Hill, FPG Child Development Center,

NCEDL.

Family selection and child care experiences: Implications for studies of child

outcomes. Burchinal, M. R., & Nelson, L.

(2000). Early Childhood Research Quarterly,

15, 385-412.

Readiness for school: A survey of state

policies and definitions. Saluja, G., ScottLittle, C., & Clifford, R.M. (2000).

Early Childhood Research and Practice, 2(2).

http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v2n2/saluja.html

Social-emotional classroom climate in

child care, child-teacher relationships and

children’s second grade peer relations.

Howes, C. (2000). Social Development. 9,

191-204.

Spotlight N0.25 (Aug. 2000). Early childhood

infrastructure. Chapel Hill: UNC-Chapel Hill,

Frank Porter Graham Child Development

Center, NCEDL.

RECENTPUBLICATIONS

Bradley

Burchinal

Casey

Clayton

Clifford

Cox

Early

Gallagher

Heinemeier

Howes

Nelson

Peisner-Feinberg

Phillipsen

Pianta

Rimm-Kaufman

Saluja

Scott-Little

Roberts

Taylor

Zeisel

Spotlight No.26 (Sep. 2000). State policies

on readiness surveyed. Chapel Hill: UNCChapel Hill, Frank Porter Graham Child

Development Center, NCEDL.

Spotlight No.27 (Oct. 2000). Intervention

and home environment. Chapel Hill: UNCChapel Hill, Frank Porter Graham Child

Development Center, NCEDL.

Spotlight No.28 (Nov. 2000). Teacher prep

and diversity. Chapel Hill: UNC-Chapel Hill,

Frank Porter Graham Child Development

Center, NCEDL.

Spotlight No.29 (Dec. 2000). Pre-K initiatives

in five states. Chapel Hill: UNC-Chapel Hill,

Frank Porter Graham Child Development

Center, NCEDL

Teachers’ judgments of success

in the transition to kindergarten.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Pianta, R., & Cox, M.

(2000). Early Childhood Research Quarterly,

15(2), 147-166.

The consistency and predictability of

teacher-child relationships during the

transition to kindergarten. Howes, C.,

Phillipsen, L., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2000).

Journal of School Psychology. 38, 113-132.

The missing support infrastructure for

early childhood. Gallagher, J. & Clifford, R.

(2000). Early Childhood Research and

Practice. 2(1), 1-24.

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.

NCEDLNEWS

Recent Publications from the National Center for Early Development and Learning

NCEDL National Center for Early Development and Learning 22 | Summer 2001
early developments 23 | Summer 2001

Colophon |ed|

Typefaces

Frutiger, Garamond, Impact,

Akzidenz Grotesk Condensed

Paper stock

Potlatch, Scout Matte, 80lb.Text

Summer 2001 | Volume 5 Number 1

ISSN 1536-4739

Postal Address

Send change of address to:

Jay Hargrove

Campus Box 8185, UNC-CH

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8185

Periodicals postage paid

at Chapel Hill, NC

Subscription information

contact Jay Hargrove

at (919) 966-0888

or email:

hargrove@mail.fpg.unc.edu

Visit us online

www.fpg.unc.edu

www.NCEDL.org

Early Developments is

published three times a year

by the Frank Porter Graham

Child Development Center at

The University of North Carolina

at Chapel Hill. It is funded in part

by The University of North Carolina

at Chapel Hill and in part by

PR/Award Number R307A60004,

administered by the Office of

Educational Research and Improvement, National Institute on Early

Childhood Development and

Education, US Department of

Education. Contents of articles

do not necessarily represent the

positions of the U.S. Department

of Education. Endorsement by the

federal government should not

be assumed.

8500 copies printed | $0.84 copy.
early developments 24 | Summer 2001

Campus Box 8185, UNC-CH

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8185

Address Service Requested

Non-Profit Org

U.S. Postage

Paid

Permit 177

Chapel Hill, NC

Photograph | GoldscheiderHa2001

ed