Winter 1999 Volume 3, No. 1

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center

Kindergarten

Transition

Promoting continuity in the lives of young children
earlyDevelopments Winter 1999

2

Vol. 3, No.1

Supervising Editors

Virginia Buysse & Pam Winton

Editor

Loyd Little

Graphic Design

Miki Kersgard

Circulation

Jay Hargrove

Photography

Don Trull

Editorial Offices

521 S. Greensboro Street, Suite 206

Carrboro, NC 27510

Postal Address

Send change of address to:

Jay Hargrove

CB #8185, UNC-CH

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8185

Periodicals postage paid at 

Chapel Hill, NC

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.

For subscription information contact 

Jay Hargrove (919) 966-0888 or 

email jay_hargrove@unc.edu

6,500 copies of this public document were printed

at a cost of $5,000.00 or $0.77 per copy.

Early Developments 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, U.S.

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.

Field notes

S

ENDING YOUR CHILDREN off to preschool programs and to

kindergarten can be tough: the first loosening of the apron

strings; the first serious strangers in your child’s life; and

the constant worry your child will tell everyone that you watch

soap operas on television.

Evidence shows that this is also a pivotal time in a child’s development. For the first time, a child will be expected to use his/her

intellectual, social, and physical skills in a formal setting. There

are new expectations, new relationships, and new experiences.

Successful transition is known to be a component of long-term

school success. There are numerous practices and policies in

place to ease such transitions for children and their families—

meetings with parents, open houses, letters, phone calls, and orientations. We are just now beginning systematic research in

documenting how effective these activities are.

In this issue of Early Developments, we look at

■ a new research study looking at the transition experiences

of children with fragile X syndrome,

■ a new study by FPG researchers,“Creating Risk and

Promise: Children’s and Teachers’ Constructions in the

Cultural World of Kindergarten,”

■ initial data and analyses from a major new national survey

of kindergarten teachers’ perceptions of transition practices

by the National Center for Early Development & Learning

(NCEDL), and 

■ a spirited three-day research synthesis conference, sponsored by NCEDL, on transitions held last year.

This is fascinating and fertile ground. For example, teachers say a

major barrier is that they get class lists, on the average, 15 days

before kindergarten starts. Not enough time, they say, to organize

meetings with parents before school starts. The bottom line,

according to NCEDL researcher Robert Pianta, is that “the nation

has a long way to go in ensuring that all children come to school

ready to learn, and ensuring that schools make the necessary

provisions to reach out to their families.”

Successful transitions mean, of course, far more than a handful

of practices by teachers. In the larger context, they are a function

of the family, the education system, preschool programs, and the

community.

—Loyd Little

editor

THE TRANSITION TO

KINDERGARTEN—how

well do children

adjust?, page 4

ARE WE READY TO

TEACH?—the need for

teachers to prepare

for transition, 

page 8

SYNTHESIS CONFERENCE—summaries

from the kindergarten transition

conference, 

page 11

IN PRINT—recent publications from the

Frank Porter Graham

Child Development

Center, page 15
We had to relate to only one new educational institution, and, in

that case, could count on our son being old enough to create a

partnership on his own. We had also negotiated a series of educational transitions in the past that gave us confidence in formal

institutions. The articles in this issue describe what we know 

from research about creating positive experiences that build such

confidence for young children and families and focus predominantly on the continuity and supportive connections between educational systems.

Several underlying themes of the research reported emerge upon

careful reading. The importance of ensuring successful transitions is

first, and paramount. Research on the subject is clear: successful

adjustments to school are critical for long-term successes as students

and adults. Another emergent theme is that current education policies and practices do not consistently support connections that provide stability to children and families during transitions. There are

glaring problems, but most alarming are those findings that suggest

the most vulnerable children are the least likely to experience adequate transition planning. A last and vital theme is that focused

attention on transitions by teachers, parents, and educational systems can make a positive difference. Research findings reported in

this issue point toward promising solutions, such as reduced studentteacher ratios, individualized transition plans that engage parents,

schools and communities as partners in preparing for transitions

and relationships that ensure children receive all necessary services.

The broad gap between proposed solutions and descriptions of current practices means, however, that a lot of work remains to be done.

As a starting point, we might draw some basic conclusions from the

available facts. That only 24% of kindergarten teachers surveyed

L

AST FALL, OUR YOUNGEST SON TURNED 13, our middle son left

home to begin his first year of college, and our oldest son, a college graduate living abroad whom I thought was “emancipated”

from the family nest, returned home to live. It was a year of transitions, and our family had to make significant adjustments. Roles,

responsibilities and familiar patterns (e.g., Who mows the lawn?

Who does the dishes?) had to be renegotiated. You might say we

experienced the disequilibrium typical to moving from one phase 

of the family life cycle into another. That the first two phases were

somewhat familiar and expected (we had been parents of a 13-yearold son twice, and had already sent one son off to college) helped,

but the third was unexpected and demanded some adjustments on

our part.

Transitions like these are, to be sure, a natural part of family growth

and development. They create stress because they demand changes

in familiar patterns and routines, but they also give rise to complex

adaptive responses that strengthen families in unique ways—all of

which prepares them for ongoing changes that are an inevitable part

of living. I say “complex” because research suggests that the interaction of many factors predicts how an individual family will react to

transition events. Examples are numerous: How families define situations, the meaning they attach to events, and a range of past experiences in similar situations, are but a few important ones. The

presence of informal resources (such as friends, family, and neighbors) and formal supports (such as professionals or institutions)

taken together contribute to the creative process of adaptation.

This issue of Early Developments focuses on the role of formal 

institutions in family adaptations to the critical event of school

entry. Our family’s fall transition experiences pale in comparison

to those that often face families of young children at that juncture.

earlyDevelopments Winter 1999

3

From the director’s office

Passages This month’s “From The Director’s Office” is a guest column by Pam Winton,

an investigator with the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center. Pam

is a nationally recognized child development researcher and head of the Research to Practice Strand of the National Center for Early

Development & Learning.

— Don Bailey, Director, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center

See Director’s Office, page 7
earlyDevelopments Winter 1999

4

NEARLY HALF THE NATION’S TEACHERS are 

concerned about many of the children 

entering kindergarten, according to a new

national survey by the National Center for 

Early Development & Learning (NCEDL), a 

multi-university research center based at the

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Teachers are most frequently concerned about

children’s skills in following directions and in

academics.

T

HE TRANSITION TO KINDERGARTEN is a pivotal time in a

child’s development. It comes at an age when our culture

expects increased independence from children. Children are

called upon to employ and coordinate their intellectual, social, and

physical skills in a formal setting, often for the first time.

Kindergarten offers challenges to the child in literacy, numeracy,

self-regulation, and social competence, and research shows that

success during this first year may predict later school success.

Martha Cox of UNC-Chapel Hill and Robert C. Pianta of the

University of Virginia co-directed the Kindergarten Transitions

Study with assistance from Diane M. Early and Lorriane C. Taylor,

both at UNC-CH, and Sara E. Rimm-Kaufman and Karen M. La Paro

from the University of Virginia.

Nearly 3,600 teachers answered the survey, which identified teachers’ areas of concern in children’s transition into kindergarten and

into first grade; looked at what transition practices are and aren’t

being used; and asked teachers what barriers they see to doing

more to facilitate transitions. Teachers report 52 percent of children

have a successful entry into kindergarten, while 48 percent have

moderate or serious problems.

Teachers report concerns less frequently in suburban and rural than

in urban schools, in districts with lower poverty, and in schools

with less cultural diversity. Less experienced teachers report higher

rates of general and specific transition problems, Pianta said.

The teachers’ reports of concerns may reflect a mismatch between

the competency of children and teachers’ expectations, Pianta said.

For example, in culturally diverse schools white teachers perceive

higher rates of child difficulty in following directions, social skills,

and immaturity, compared to teachers in other ethnic groups.

Rimm-Kaufman said,“The teacher’s own ethnic status may sensiTeachers believe many 

children have problems in 

adjusting to kindergarten
tize them to lack of congruence between children’s home culture

and school’s mainstream culture.”

The findings also indicate, said Pianta, that teachers in schools with

the greatest needs (higher poverty, more culturally diverse, urban)

rely more heavily on group-oriented transition practices that occur

after the beginning of school than teachers in other settings.“These

lower-intensity practices probably run counter to what the children

and families in such schools need in order to connect with the

school,” he said.

Of 23 transition practices used by teachers for children entering

kindergarten listed on the survey, the most common practices are

“a talk with parents after school starts,” followed, in order, by

■ a letter to parents after the beginning of school

■ an open house after school starts

■ a flyer or brochure sent after school starts

■ read records of child’s past experience/status 

The least common practice was “home visiting, both before and

after the beginning of school.” In order, the next least common were

■ a call to the child before school starts

■ a call to the child after school starts

■ a visit to preschools and programs for 4-year olds

Perceived barriers

Teachers report that a major barrier to their helping more with children’s transitions into kindergarten is that class lists are generated

too late. Lists are received, on the average, 15 days before the first

day of school. “As long as teachers do not know who their students

will be, it is impossible for them to begin the transition process

while the child is still in their preschool setting. The school is, in

effect, requiring that the transition be an abrupt one,” said Early.

Although family mobility and late registration prevent many schools

from making early classroom assignments for all children, if schools

could assign at least some children to kindergarten classrooms earlier, teachers would be more able to create a transition process,

rather than a transition event, Pianta said.

These barriers can be placed in four broad categories:

■ Administrative—“class lists generated too late,”“plan not available in school/district,” and “school/district doesn’t support”

On your mark...

Percentages of teachers who say that

about half of their class or more enter

kindergarten with needs

Perceived Needs

following directions 46%

academic skills 36%

home environment 35%

working independently 34%

formal preschool experience 31%

working in a group 30%

immaturity 20%

communicating 14%

Get set...

Percentages of perceived 

barriers selected by teachers.

(Teachers could check more than one item.)

Class lists generated too late 56%

Summer work not supported by salary 47%

Transition plan not available 43%

Takes too much time 37%

Dangerous to visit homes 33%

Parents don’t bring child to 

registration/open house 32%

Can’t reach parents 27%

Parents not interested 25%

Parents can’t read letters sent home 21%

No school or district support 20%

Materials not available 19%

I choose not to do it 11%

Preschool teachers not interested 7%

Concern about creating

negative expectations 7%

Contacting parents before school 

starts is discouraged 5%
earlyDevelopments Winter 1999

6

■ Resources—“funds and materials not available,”“requires

summer work”

■ Family—“parents not interested,”“parents can’t read materials,” and “dangerous to visit homes”

■ Teachers—“I choose not to do it,” and “takes too much time”

“Clearly, for the child to experience minimum discontinuity, the various settings must be in communication and some activities to prepare the child for the change must occur while the child is still

spending the majority of his/her time in the more familiar preschool setting. Transition practices that occur after the beginning of

school restrict the length of the transition period. Likewise, practices that are aimed at the entire class do not address the special

needs of individual children and families,” Early said.

“With such short notice, there is little continuity of environments

and little opportunity to establish relationships that can help to

head off some problems early in a child’s schooling. We wait too

long and do too little to connect children and families to school. I

think this has consequences down the line,” Pianta said.

Taylor said,“School administrators

should consider earlier identification

of new students and a formal transition practices plan. Given the importance of this period, teachers need

extra assistance and support to facilitate transition. Also, more teachers

should receive training in transitions.

“Consideration must be given to how barriers to transition practices

are affected by family, school, and community context. A formal

method of mapping and tracking teacher transition practices is

needed in order to identify barriers and overcome them.

Interventions that attend to the ecology of the transitions, and in

particular, acknowledge the family’s cultural background, may

heighten children’s competencies and improve the teacher-child fit

so that children have a better chance to enter school ‘ready to learn’,”

Taylor said.

Other results

The survey also found that:

■ 25 percent of membership in kindergarten classrooms changes

during the course of the academic year.

■ Kindergarten classrooms had an average of 22.2 students, with

no significant differences between suburban and urban class

sizes. The National Association for the Education of Young

Children recommends that kindergartners be in classes no

larger than 25 with two teachers. Survey data indicate that

most teachers have a paid assistant at least some of the time.

These findings show that “we have a long way to go in ensuring 

that all children come to school ready to learn, and ensuring that

schools make the necessary provisions to reach out to their families,” Pianta said.

Cox cautioned that while this particular survey focused on teachers

and classrooms, it is interactions in a larger context that are critical

for a child’s success during transition.“In addition to the individual

child’s readiness and the kindergarten teacher’s role, the family, the

education system, preschool programs, and the community, are all

responsible for successful transitions,” she said.

Martha Cox is a senior investigator at the Frank Porter Graham

Child Development Center (FPG), University of North Carolina at

Chapel Hill. The National Center for Early Development & Learning

is administratively housed at FPG.

“We

“We wait too long and 

do too little to connect 

children and families 

to school.”
Go!

Moving into 1ST grade

The NCEDL Kindergarten Transitions Survey

looked at the transition from kindergarten

into first-grade and found that among the

11 transition practices listed, over half of the

teachers (57 percent) report meeting regularly with first-grade teachers to discuss 

continuity in the curriculum between

kindergarten and first grade. And over half

of the teachers (56 percent) report arranging for their class to visit a first-grade class.

However, less than 25 percent of teachers

say they attend meetings to plan general

transition activities, send parents information on how placements in first grade are

made, attend meetings to plan transitions

for individual children, or plan transition

activities for children with special needs. 

Robert Pianta, co-director of the study,

said the findings indicate that traditional child-focused transition practices such

as having children visit a first-grade

classroom or having a first-grade child

visit the kindergarten classroom are

used more widely than practices that

involve the parents in decisions about

who will be their child’s first-grade

teacher and what the expectations are

for first grade. Teachers may be talking to teachers about transition, but

teachers are not reaching parents

about their children’s transition into

first grade, he said. 

Karen La Paro of the University of

Virginia, who helped with the survey analysis, said, “Again, we find

this lack of connection between

home and school and lack of focus

on the individual child’s transition

to grade one.” 

Pianta said, “The implications of

our findings are that children

have little facilitated contact with

their future first-grade teacher.

Contact is even less frequent in

schools with high minority representation and in schools in high

poverty areas. The importance

of success in first grade is not

being realized through the use

of kindergarten-to-first grade

transition practices.” 

earlyDevelopments Winter 1999

Stepping up

Practices reflect transition training

T

EACHER EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION ARE, for the most part, unrelated to transition

practice use; however, teachers who have received special transitions training use

more transition practices, according to the NCEDL Kindergarten Transitions Survey.

Some 24 percent of teachers reported having had specialized training in transitions to

kindergarten. Teachers with this specialized training, as compared with teachers without

this training, use more of all types

of transition strategies, and apparently see some value in approaching transitions from a variety of

angles. Data indicates that more

such training may be of value in

encouraging more comprehensive

transition practices.

“Kindergarten teachers in the

United States on average, have

many years of teaching experience

at the kindergarten level and tend

to be well-educated. Many have a

master’s degree. However, it is

striking how few have any formal

training or currently receive information about transition practices,”

said Robert Pianta, co-director of

the study.“Our experience shows

that when teachers become aware

of possible transition activities,

and barriers are eliminated, they

respond by engaging in a range of

transition practices.”

Teacher characteristics 

Education

■ 47 percent of public school kindergarten

teachers have a master’s degree or higher. 

■ Significantly fewer teachers in rural areas

than in urban or suburban areas hold a

master’s degree or higher.

■ 78% of teachers had an elementary education certification that included kindergarten. 

Experience

■ Public school kindergarten teachers have

an average of 11.5 years experience teaching kindergarten, an additional 1.1 years

teaching below the kindergarten level,

and 3.5 years above the kindergarten

level. 

■ Teachers from schools in districts with the

least poverty had significantly more

kindergarten teaching experience than

teachers from schools in middle-level

poverty districts. 

reported having any kind of specialized training in transitions to kindergarten suggests that

changes need to be made in our professional development systems. That there is little facilitated contact between parents and their child’s future first-grade teacher bespeaks the need

for changes in school systems and in family-school relationships. That schools serving vulnerable children are the least likely to have supportive transition practices means that directing resources to certain schools and communities is warranted.

The information provided in this issue calls into question our singular focus on the question,

“Are young children ready for school?” Equal attention should be paid to the question,“Are

schools ready for young children?” In addressing this latter point, our challenge as professionals is to ensure that our educational institutions act as formal supports, not formal

obstacles, to a family’s critical adaptation to transition events. Furthermore, it is important

that all families, at the point of exit from the public school system, believe that educational

systems are supportive and valued resources in their communities. Forging that confidence

begins in early childhood.

Director’s Office, continued from page 3
earlyDevelopments Winter 1999

8

WITH THAT STATEMENT among her

comments, Naomi Karp helped

open the “Transition to

Kindergarten” synthesis conference held last

year in Charlottesville, VA, by the National

Center for Early Development & Learning

(NCEDL).

The topic was well suited for its relevance to

the first goal among the six “National

Education Goals.” As stated in 1991 by the

National Education Goals Panel, that goal is

“All children in America will start school

ready to learn.”

Administrators, policymakers, teachers, parents, and caregivers joined a dozen national

transition experts in analyzing nine papers

written for the conference. During large

group discussions and then during small

synthesis groups, participants examined

each paper’s implications for research, practice, personnel preparation, and policy.

Early on, several speakers took issue with

the “ready to learn” goal. Craig Ramey, a psychology professor at the University of

Alabama and former researcher at FPG, said,

“It is a silly statement. It’s a political statement. Whoever wrote it didn’t know anything about child development.”

Picking up the gauntlet, Samuel Meisels of

the University of Michigan proposed that

readiness is a process that occurs over time

and is not complete by the first day of

kindergarten. It is more than just knowledge

of a few skills.“Readiness must be conceptualized as a broad construct that incorporates all aspects of a child’s life that

“States commonly use low third-grade 

reading scores to predict, among other

things, how many students will drop out o

school and how many will be incarcerated.

— Naomi Karp, direc

National Institute on Early Childhood Development & Educat

Are

According to some researchers, the questio

ready to learn, but are we ready to teach t

we ready to teach?
earlyDevelopments Winter 1999

9

f

.”

ctor 

tion

contribute directly to that child’s ability to

learn. Definitions of readiness must take

into account the setting, context, and conditions under which the child acquires skills

and is encouraged to learn. Assessments of

readiness must, in consequence, incorporate

data from the child, teacher, and the community into an overall evaluation.”

Meisels went ever further, suggesting that

the national readiness goal should be restated this way: “By the year 2000 all children

will have an opportunity to enhance their

skills, knowledge, and abilities by participating in classrooms that are sensitive to community values,

recognize individual differences, reinforce and extend

children’s strength, and assist

them in overcoming their difficulties.”

Part of the problem with

defining standards and creating assessments is that children enter school from such a

wide variety of backgrounds—

preschools, child care centers, and

homes. Thus, teachers are faced

with the challenge of children and

their families from a broad range of

experiences, skills, dispositions, abilities, and commitments to education.

Several speakers pointed out that standards

for young children should cover a range of

abilities and that teachers should recognize

that not all children will reach them at the

same pace.

Administrators and some parents seem to

want tests, but what kind of tests? Robert

Pianta of the University of Virginia and coorganizer of the conference said,“In the next

10 years, there will be increased emphasis

on testing, such as minimum competency

standards. Can we reliably test kids? Are our

existing programs any good? Our notions of

what’s good for young children will collide

with minimum competency standards by

focusing on isolated skills instead of a more

broad-based contextualized notion of skill

development.”

Ramey said he felt it is more important to

test change, rather that specific skills.“We

need to document children’s rate of change,

but not performance at a point in time.”

But in documenting change, do you document the change of the child over time or

the change in a child compared with change

in other children? Someone suggested a goal

of equal growth rates. But, said Fred

Morrison of Loyola University,“Are equal

growth rates enough? Don’t we

really want children to catch

up?” Which prompted 

Jim Gallagher, NCEDL researcher, to ask,

“Catch up to whom? The best students in the

class? The class average?”

Role of parents in transition

Sandra Christenson of the University ofMinnesota said in her paper that studies

show that parents would spend more time in

activities with children if educators would

give them more guidance.“Regardless of

education level, ethnic background, or

income level, parents want their children to

be successful in school; however, they do not

know how to assist their children,” said

Christenson.

There should be common goals among families, educators, and students. But not only

does this add demands on already overworked teachers, it comes at a time when

parents are beginning to relinquish control

of their children to outsiders for the first

time. This alone can add more anxiety and

tension to a situation that is already creating

stress for children and their parents, particularly those who are poor, said Martha Cox

of the Frank Porter Graham Center and coorganizer of the conference along with

Pianta.

Martha Moorehouse of the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services raised the

question of the purposes of parent involvement.“If parents know why they are

involved, they’re more likely to be

more interested. We need more

research about parent involvement during the school year

and during the summer.”

Doris Entwisle of the

Johns Hopkins University

said a study by her and

Karl Alexander showed

that in the summer poor

children fall behind, while

during the winter they do, on

average, as well as their betteroff classmates.

Pianta suggested,“Most parents

would love to have a list of things

that they could work on during the

summer with their kids.”

Influences on 

successful transitions

Ramey put forth his “TransitionConceptual” model with eight spheres of

influence closely associated with successful

transitions:

Survival resources are adequate to

meet the child’s and family’s needs.

Good physical and mental health and

health practices prevail.

Individuals have a sense of security.

The child and family have a positive

on is not are children

hem?

?

“Regardless of

education level, 

ethnic background, or

income level, parents

want their children to be

successful in school...”

—Sandra Christenson

University of Minnesota
earlyDevelopments Winter 1999

10

and realistic self-concept.

Positive motivation, expectations, and

values exist to do well in school.

Individuals have good social support to

facilitate the transition to school.

The child and family have good communication, both among themselves

and with those concerned with the

transition to school.

The child and family have those basic

skills considered essential to do well,

such as everyday living, social-emotional, school and academic, and jobrelated skills.

Ramey said,“It is vital that individual differences be studied vigorously—so that

schools, communities, and families do not

adopt a one-size-fitsall strategy when this

may not be appropriate.”

Part of the problem,

wrote Gary Melton,

Susan Limber, and

Terri Teague, all of the

University of South

Carolina, in their

paper “Changing

Schools for Changing

Families,” is that many

of the issues that surround the financing of

school-linked services

are really issues of priorities, authority, and

control over resources.

The authors suggested that with some creativity and thoughtfulness, and most importantly, with a strong administrative

commitment, many existing funding

streams can be redirected to school-based

services and other family-school-community partnerships.

However, suppose the money spigot were

turned on? “How do state/local boards

decide to allocate money? Suppose we got all

the resources. Where do we put the money?”

questioned Pianta.

At least one speaker was leery of more government bureaucracy. Ramey said,“We have

too many layers of bureaucracy. It’s taken

the incentives out. We’re losing creativity.

We’re losing energy.”

Gallagher reminded speakers that a weak

therapeutic dose often does no good and

can do more harm in the case of intervention and new programs.“It seems immoral

to go along with a piece of cake instead of

the whole cake. It’s a non-therapeutic dose.

You have an illness, and you are given an

insufficient amount of medicine to recover.

It’s not the fault of the medicine; it’s that a

sufficient dose wasn’t given. And if a program doesn’t work because not enough

money was invested, then the whole program can get a bad name.”

Some speakers raised questions about the

appropriateness of “advocacy.” Ramey’s

answer was,“If we can’t make public policy

recommendations a legitimate part of our

work, then we are part of the problem. We

have become part of a conspiracy when we

don’t ask for enough money to provide sufficiently broad and in-depth programs.”

Other themes and questions

raised during the conference

Teachers are facing tremendous pressures from parents, administrators, the

calendar, and unruly students. Barbara

Bowman of the Erikson Institute said,

“The most frequent complaint I hear

from teachers is that a class may have 4

or 5 children with problems and the

teacher spends the entire time trying to

control those 4 or 5.”

Questions were raised about the effectiveness of half-day child care programs versus whole-day programs.

Several speakers said the research isn’t

conclusive, although they suggested

that whole-day programs would minimize transitions during the day and let

teachers get better acquainted with

children and their families.

One synthesis group suggested that college loans be forgiven for teachers who

work in high-poverty areas.

Another synthesis group suggested that

professional development for teachers,

administrators, and other school

employees should include more information about the issue of transition.

Moorehouse offered

several avenues of

research: “What does

harm at the classroom

level? We need to know

more about curriculabased approaches and

other approaches.”

Don Bailey, director of

both FPG and NCEDL, said

more understanding of

the meaning and usefulness of the term ‘risk’ is

needed.“Perhaps, we

need broader categories

of risk. More diversity?

For example, does a poor

quality preschool program create a risk factor?

Should or can risk be assessed earlier?

Is the transition itself the risk? Should

we look at what it is about the transition that is the risk? For example, poor

transitions can create risks for children

in at least two ways: Children are at risk

for perceiving that school is not a good

place to be, and they are at risk for perceiving that one’s self is not successful

at school. Then, one question would be:

How do we go about preventing risks in

transitions?”

Papers prepared for this synthesis conference

are being rewritten based on discussions at

the conference, and additional synthesis

information is being prepared for a book to

be published by Paul H. Brookes Publishing

Company.
earlyDevelopments Winter 1999

11

Distilling the essence

The Role of Kindergarten in Promoting Educational Equity and Excellence

by Nicholas Zill (Westat, Inc.)

■ 55% of kindergarten children attend part-day programs (National Household Education Surveys [NHES], 1996)

■ Most US parents with children in kindergarten believe the schools attended by their children are doing a reasonably good job of communicating with parents and providing opportunities for parental involvement in school. (NHES) 

■ In general, public kindergartens could communicate more with parents and involve them more in school activities, compared to private kindergartens. (NHES)

■ The most frequently reported complaint from teachers is the child’s attention span and ability to focus on schoolwork (i.e.,“doesn’t

concentrate, doesn’t pay attention for long”). This is reported for nearly one child in every four. (NHES)

■ Two other teacher criticisms that are common but slightly less frequent have to do with the child’s approach to learning new skills and

his or her academic progress. About 1 kindergarten child in 7 is said to “lack confidence in learning new things or taking part in new

activities.” An equivalent portion is described as “not learning up to his or her capabilities.” (NHES)

■ Children from single-parent families get more negative reports from their kindergarten teachers than children from families in which

both birth parents are present in the household. (NHES)

Summaries of selected papers presented

at the Kindergarten Transitions Synthesis

Conference in Charlottesville, VA by NCEDL

in early 1998.

Classroom Practices (Curriculum and

Management)

by Barbara T. Bowman (Erikson Institute for Advanced Study in

Child Development)

Bowman said that her interpretation of some research is that:

■ Development is holistic and cannot be separated into independently formed and functioning domains.

■ Children’s inner-feeling states are as important as their behavior in determining social/emotional status.

■ Normal development encompasses a broad range of behavior

and the younger the child the broader the normal range.

■ Early caretaking relationships presage later social/emotional

status.

■ Culture plays an important role in parents’ election of childrearing strategies, which in turn affect children’s feeling states

and social behavior.

■ Adjustment or maturity is achieved through synchrony

between the capabilities of the child and the demands of his

social world.

Bowman offered five general comments on some efforts to

improve young children’s school achievement:

■ Too much weight is placed on “risk factors” in making programmatic decisions.

■ Too little weight is placed on understanding cultural differences and engaging parents and communities in the process

of setting standards and determining school practices.

■ Not enough attention has been directed to supporting children’s emotional/social health, particularly in their relationships with their parents and teachers.

■ Teachers need a great deal more training and support if they

are to respond to the diversity of need pervasive among lowincome families and communities.

■ Society needs to make a greater commitment of resources to

the education of low-income children.

Critical Issues for Families and Schools: Rights,

Responsibilities, Resources, and Relationship

by Sandra L. Christenson (University of Minnesota)

■ Families, educators, and students must think of their relationships differently, moving from thinking in terms of service

delivery (“provider” and “client” or “professionals” and “target populations”) to thinking of complementary efforts

toward common goals.

■ The clear demarcation between early intervention and K-12

education defies the notion of constructing sustaining relationships between families and schools to enhance children’s

development and learning. Not only is there evidence that

children need to be prepared for school learning, but also K12 education could benefit from aligning with the family

support principles so characteristic of early intervention

practices.

■ A constructive, sustained relationship between families and

schools is one way to increase social capital for children and

youth, provided issues related to rights, responsibilities, and

resources are understood.
earlyDevelopments Winter 1999

12

Early Schooling and Social Stratification

by Doris R. Entwisle and Karl Alexander (Johns Hopkins University)

■ Poor children in the Beginning School Study (BSS by Entwisle and Alexander), on average, did as well or better than their economically better-off classmates when schools were open. Only during summer recess did poor children fall behind.

■ First-grade children in the “low socioeconomic status” (SES) schools, even though they gained as many points on standardized tests

as better-off children, were given lower marks, held back more often, and in other ways rated less favorably by teachers than the

high SES children. (BSS)

■ The early school placements of children that reflect social structure in the larger society (attending high- or low-SES elementary

school, retention, special education) have long-term consequences.

■ Elementary schools are typically organized along lines of family and neighborhood SES, with the consequence that the socioeconomic status of elementary children differs markedly between schools.

Assessing Readiness

by Samuel J. Meisels (University of Michigan)

When readiness is defined as an interaction reflecting a joint focus

on the child’s status and the characteristics of the educational setting, two conditions are critical for its assessment. There must be

sustained opportunities for the interactions between teacher and

child to occur. And these interactions must occur over time, rather

than on a single occasion. Meisels said performance assessments

(assessments of a child’s ability to analyze, synthesize, evaluate,

and interpret facts and ideas) should:

■ Be integrative, bringing together various skills into visible displays and demonstrations of behavior that occur during the

context of instruction.

■ Emphasize top-level competence by asking children to show

what they can do. Teachers should work with students to help

them achieve their best possible work.

■ Encourage meta-cognition and the capacity to articulate as

well as reflect on performance. Children should evaluate their

own work, and reflect on their own progress rather than

being passive recipients of instruction or compliant occupants of the classroom.

■ Be guided by developmental standards, embedded in the longitudinal character of the children’s work and captured by the

continuous program format of curriculum-embedded performance assessments.

Fundamental to the attainment of children’s mastery and competence at the outset of school is the development of a sense of self

that can only be developed over time and in interaction with trustworthy, caring adults.

Children in the “low

socioeconomic status”

schools, even though

they gained as many

points on standardized

tests as better-off 

children, were given

lower marks
earlyDevelopments Winter 1999

13

Changing Schools for Changing Families

by Gary B. Melton, Susan P. Limber, and Terri Teague of the Institute

for Families in Society (University of South Carolina) 

■ “Parents and educators frequently seem like islands in the lives

of children, surrounded by competing agendas, often without

visible connections to one another.” (Norman & Smith, 1997)

■ The Institute for Families in Society envisions a transformation

of schools, both as communities in themselves and as centers of

the broader community. Guiding principals are these:

– Help should be built into natural settings in the community.

The service system should be such that families need not

define themselves as clients or patients to obtain help.

– Fundamental community institutions (including but not limited to the schools) should be human environments for children and families, who themselves should feel they have a

say in the programs of which they are part. They should be

treated with respect.

– Personal attention has particular significance at times of

developmental transition. A “welcome wagon” for children

and families who have recently moved into the attendance

area—or simply have entered kindergarten — ought to be a

feature of every elementary school.

■ When teachers and administrators wait until a child in early

grades misbehaves before contacting parents and then assume

that parents have the skills to respond effectively or the abilities

to maneuver through the service system to get assistance, they

are often disappointed. Preschool interventions that focus on

skill building for parents and attempt to connect parents with

help are critically important.

■ Schools cannot keep violence out by constructing higher walls or

using sophisticated monitoring/alarm systems. They must build

relationships among community members that promote peaceful interactions, mutual respect, and investment in the good of

the community.

Children with Disabilities in Early

Elementary Schools: Transitions and Practice

Issues

by Mark Wolery (Frank Porter Graham Center)

■ The transition from preschool programs to early elementary schools includes a number of challenges that

can be addressed by 

– establishing interagency transition teams and

policies,

– addressing the staff needs of both the sending and

receiving programs,

– responding to families’ concerns about the transition through a variety of strategies, and 

– preparing children for the receiving program.

■ Issues related to teaching students with disabilities in

early elementary classes include identification of

legitimate outcomes—here F.F. Billingsley’s (1977)

three-part framework (promoting membership, social

relationships, and competence) appears to be useful.

■ Another issue focuses on parents of students with disabilities, and two points seem pertinent.

– Despite available processes and procedures, parents do not appear to be integral parts of the

Individualized Educational Plan.

– Parents on average do not perceive being in a positive partnership with the schools.

■ Understanding how to promote adoption of different

practices and how to sustain positive family-school

relationships are clear research priorities.

■ Some evidence speaks to the supports teachers need

in providing instruction to students with disabilities.

Fundamental to the attainment of 

children’s mastery...is the development

of a sense of self
earlyDevelopments Winter 1999

14

Transitions for fragile X 

children pose challenges for

both families and schools

T

HE TRANSITION OF CHILDREN with 

disabilities into preschool and kindergarten poses many problems, and

studies by FPG researchers are throwing a

new light on issues facing children with fragile X syndrome. Fragile X syndrome is the

most common inherited cause of developmental disability, affecting as many as one in

2,500 people. It is caused by a gene mutation

on the X chromosome. Since 1993, FPG has

been following selected young children with

fragile X syndrome in Virginia and the

Carolinas. Children in these two studies are

now moving into kindergarten and first

grade. Researchers Don Bailey and Deborah

Hatton say that while most parents are

pleased with the transition from preschool

programs to kindergarten and from kindergarten to first grade, such transitions can

create anxiety.

Hatton said,“The transition into kindergarten, particularly, can be an intense experience because many times the parents have

not had much experience with school services for children with disabilities. If they have,

it may have been years ago when special education services were very different than today.

Parents are really concerned about labels

their children will receive, their placement

options, what support services are available,

and opportunities for inclusion.“Our early

findings show that placement in classes is

driven more by the resources that school systems have, rather than the goals in the

Individualized Education Plans,” she said.

Bailey said,“One of the questions we asked

parents was,‘Did your children go into a special class and, if so, what kind?’ This turned

out to be very interesting. Some parents shop

around and look at classes that they think

their child would best fit in, and then they

try to get the child labeled for whatever it

takes to get their child into that class. For

example, parents might look at a class for

autism and say,‘I think this would be best for

our child,’ and so then they work to get their

child labeled autistic.”

Because children with fragile X exhibit a

number of problems and because fragile X

is not an eligibility category for receiving

services, such children are given different

labels, depending in part on the resources

of the schools and in part on the desires of

the parents.

Bailey said,“One fascinating thing we’re finding is that there can be a number of kids

with the same disorder and yet they are

labeled differently. Fragile X syndrome is not

an eligibility category for schools.You have

to fit into a more general category, such as

mentally retarded or autistic.”

Hatton said,“Most of these children were

served in early intervention programs at the

preschool level with the label of developmental delay. A very few had the label of mental

retardation. But then when they get to

kindergarten and first grade, these labels

start diverging a lot. And this can lead to

problems. With fragile X syndrome, the

majority may be mentally retarded, but if

you’re teaching them, that is the least of your

problems. For a teacher, the problems are

attention issues and hyperactivity disorders.”

Bailey said another major issue coming to

light in these

early findings

is inclusion.

“There is the

question of

whether the

parents want their child to be with normal

children or in special services. While many

parents want inclusion, there are characteristics of regular classes that make these classes

very distractible for children with fragile X—

noise, lots of activity, lots of choices. This is a

very difficult setting for many children with

fragile X. The environment is a challenge. As

it turns out, a majority of parents end up

choosing self-contained classrooms.”

Hatton said,“We’re finding out that even parents who want inclusion see that while it

might work in preschool and kindergarten, it

gets more difficult by the first grade.And by

the second grade, virtually all the parents are 

requesting specialized services, even those 

who had been very adamant about inclusion.”

State and local schools’ rules and traditions

also make a difference. Bailey said,“An

autism class in Virginia may be very different from an autism class in NC. Thus, a child

labeled autistic in Fayetteville, NC, might

receive different services in Roanoke, VA. In

some schools, you don’t have to be labeled

autistic, for example, to be served in a class

for autistic children.”

Bailey and Hatton say they expect policy

implications to emerge from these studies.

“If our findings continue supporting these

early indications, there will be a need for a

re-examination of how we describe children,

how we determine eligibility, and how we

allocate services. We need to answer questions about how school systems label children and how these labels correspond to

services. Labels often don’t give you any idea

of what ought to be done in the classroom.”

The researchers are also collecting some data

from practitioners. “How to structure the

classroom and school environment will be of

help to practitioners,” said Bailey.

Overall, the early data indicate that most

parents were very pleased with the transition

from infant intervention programs to preschool. “It seems like there is a lot of support

during this transition period. Basically, parents said the transition went well and that

they were pleased with the services and the

assessments. We asked,‘What would you

have changed?’ and the most common

answer was ‘more therapies as part of the

support services’,” said Hatton.

Parents are being interviewed at least once a

year and the researchers are also examining

school records and individualized family

plans to ascertain services received, what

children are labeled, and so forth. Both studies are financed by the U.S. Department of

Education.

Helping parents choose

“For a teacher, the problems are attention

issues and hyperactivity disorders.”
earlyDevelopments Winter 1999

15

Family outcomes in 

early intervention: 

A framework for 

program evaluation 

and efficacy research

D. Bailey Jr., R. McWilliam, L. Darkes,

K. Hebbler, R. Simeonsson, D. Spiker, & 

M. Wagner. (1998). Exceptional Children, 64,

313–328.

Inclusion in the context of

competing values in early

childhood education

D. Bailey Jr., R. McWilliam, V. Buysse, & 

P. Wesley. (1998). Early Childhood Research

Quarterly, 13 (1), 27–47.

Development of speech and

language

J. Roberts, I. Wallace, & D. Brackett. (1998).

In K. Grundfast & A. Lalwane (Eds.),

Pediatrics otology and neurotology, (pp.

39–48). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Ravens.

Social and family risk factors

for infant development at

one year: An application of

the cumulative risk model

S. Hooper, M. Burchinal, J. Roberts, S. Zeisel,

& E. Neebe. (1998). Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology, 19(1), 85–96.

Creating risk and promise:

Children’s and teachers’ 

co-constructions in the cultural world of kindergarten

D. Skinner, D. Bryant, J. Coffman, & 

F. Campbell. (1998). Elementary School

Journal, 98(4), 297–310.

Selves in time and place:

Identities, experience, and

history in Nepal

D. Skinner, A. Pach III, & D. Holland (Eds.).

(1998). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Implementing early childhood

inclusion: Barrier and support 

factors

V. Buysse, P. Wesley, & L. Keyes. (1998).

Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(1),

169–184.

Planning for young 

children with disabilities and

their families: The evidence

from IFSP/IEPs

J. Gallagher. (1998). Chapel Hill: University

of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham

Child Development Center, Early Childhood

Research Institute on Service Utilization.

The public policy legacy of

Samuel A. Kirk

J. Gallagher. (1998). Learning Disabilities

Research and Practices, 13(1), 11–14.

Beyond Parallel Play

R. Clifford. (1998). Young Children, 53:1, 2.

A transition in leadership

R. Clifford. (1998). Young Children, 53:2, 2.

Who’s in charge?

R. Clifford. (1998). Young Children, 53:3, 2.

Early childhood 

environment rating scale:

Revised edition

T. Harms, R. Clifford, & D. Cryer. (1998). New

York: Teachers College Press.

Resources within reason:

Materials for supporting the

communication development

of young children

C. Catlett, P. Winton, J. Bisantz, D. Hoge, & 

J. Cripe. (1998). Young Exceptional Children,

1(3), 27.

Resources within reason:

Transitions

C. Catlett, P. Winton, S. Fowler, A. Hains,

N. Livesay, S. Rosenkoetter, & B. Rous.

(1998). Young Exceptional Children, 1(2), 28.

Preserving childhood for 

children in shelters

T. Harms, R. Richardson, & P. Rolandelli.

(1998). Washington, DC: CWLA Press.

Inclusion of young 

children with special needs in

early childhood education:

The research base

S. Odom & K. Diamond. (1998). Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(1), 3–26.

Improving quality in early

childhood environments

through on-site consultation

S. Palsha & P. Wesley. (1998). Topics in Early

Childhood Special Education 18(4), 243–253.

Recent publications

by researchers at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center
T

HE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY was to try

to understand how kindergarten

teachers begin to view and interact

with students from low-income families as

these children first enter kindergarten. How

do some children come to be identified as

“at-risk” and others as having promise? How

do teachers’ language and classroom practices affect the child and what behaviors of

the children most influence the teachers’

beliefs and practices?

This work fits into a larger body of research

on “cultural production.” Cultural production theory, as applied to school achievement, views students as affected by their

homes, the society in which they are being

raised, and their teachers, but also views

students as actively shaping teachers’

notions about themselves and their own

school success or failure. Relationships were

studied by observing 21 former Head Start

children in their kindergarten year in 14 different classrooms. Researchers collected

extensive information about each child and

each classroom.

They found many examples of positive

interactions between students and teachers,

but also observed some practices that could

contribute to early school failure. Teacher

practices that worked best for minority children from low-income families included

communicating high expectations, emphasizing what children could do rather that

what they couldn’t, praising children frequently, redirecting inappropriate behavior,

and conveying a caring attitude. These

behaviors undoubtedly help children from

all walks of life, although the focus in this

study was on children from poor families.

The study showed that ideas like competence, readiness, risk, and promise are not

characteristics inherent in the child, but

are notions created in and across a variety

of contexts, including home, school, and

the larger society. The points at which

schools contribute to the children’s understandings of themselves as good or bad

students and the ways in which school

practices work to foster success or failure

are areas that need to be examined to create promise instead of risk.

Research spotlight

Recent findings at FPG

Creating Risk and Promise: Children’s and Teachers’ 

Co-constructions in the Cultural World of Kindergarten

Debra Skinner, Donna Bryant, Jennifer Coffman, & Frances Campbell. (1998).

The Elementary School Journal, 98(4), pp. 297–310.

Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center

CB# 8185, UNC-CH

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8185

❑ Check here and return if you would like 

to be removed from our mailing list

Address service requested

Non-Profit Org

U.S. Postage

PAID

Permit 177

Chapel Hill, NC

27599-1110