fall 2004 | early developments 1

Program Evaluation

FPG

Child

Development

Institute

The University of North Carolina

at Chapel Hill earlydevelopments

Fall 2004 | Volume 8 #3
2 early developments | fall 2004 

news

Bailey Receives 

National Rosen Award

DR. DON BAILEY, director of 

the FPG Child Development 

Institute (FPG) at The University 

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has 

received the William Rosen Research 

Award for “significant contributions to 

the field of fragile X research.”

The award, given every two years, 

was presented by the National Fragile 

X Foundation during its recent 9TH

International Fragile X Conference in 

Washington, DC. 

Fragile X syndrome is a gene disorder 

and the most common known cause of 

mental retardation and developmental 

disabilities. Fragile X is found in one 

in 4,000 births. The disorder is on the 

X chromosome that is in both males 

and females, but males are typically 

affected more severely. 

Bailey is also director of the Fragile 

X Research Center, a collaborative 

endeavor between FPG and the 

University of Kansas. 

Coleman Recognized for 

‘Dedicated Service’ 

DR. MARY RUTH COLEMAN, Senior Scientist at FPG, 

has received an award “in appreciation of her 

dedicated service to children.”

The National Association for Gifted Children presented 

the award during its annual meeting earlier this month in 

Salt Lake City. Coleman’s research focuses on, among 

other topics, early literacy and cognitive development, 

children with disabilities, learning disabilities and the 

recognition of academic potential and talents among 

diverse learners.

The National Association for Gifted Children, based in 

Washington, DC, is an organization of parents, teachers, 

educators, other professionals and community leaders 

who address the needs of children with demonstrated 

gifts and talents, as well as children who may be able to 

develop their talent potential with appropriate educational 

experiences.

Coming Next in

Early Developments

The National Center for Early Development & Learning 

(NCEDL) Study of Pre-kindergarten Programs
fall 2004 | early developments 3

 

ISSN 1536-4739

Editors

Pam Winton, Virginia Buysse

Writer

John Manuel

Designer

Gina Harrison

Photographers

Don Trull

John Cotter

Assistant Editor

Satsuki Scoville

www.fpg.unc.edu

www.ncedl.org

Early Developments is published three 

times a year by the FPG Child Development 

Institute at The University of North Carolina 

at Chapel Hill. 

To subscribe or

to change your address

contact Jay Hargrove

CB #8185, UNC-CH

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8185

919.966.0888

hargrove@mail.fpg.unc.edu

To order additional copies

contact FPG Publications Offi ce

919.966.4221

FPGPublications@unc.edu

Periodicals postage paid at 

Chapel Hill, NC

Total design, production, & printing costs 

of this issue of Early Developments

were $7658. 

10,000 copies of this document were 

printed at a cost of $5500, or 55¢ each.

Program Evaluation

at FPG

4

How Smart a Start?

6

Much More at Four

10

Making the 

Literacy Connection

15

contents

Can Song & Dance 

Improve Kids’ Chances?

17

Center Illuminates 

Early Childhood 

Outcomes

19

FPG Publications

22

|ed|

early developments

Fall 2004 | Volume 8 #3
4 early developments | fall 2004 

Program Evaluation 

at 

FPG

by Donna Bryant

This issue of Early Developments

is devoted to program 

evaluation, a type of work 

that many of us at FPG are engaged 

in, either conducting evaluations 

ourselves or helping agencies and 

states conduct evaluations. Many 

readers know FPG for its research 

in prevention, early intervention, 

child care, and child and family 

development, but in the past several 

years, we have become more involved 

with evaluation of early childhood 

programs and initiatives. 

The lines between evaluation and 

research are not clear-cut. They are 

alike in that evaluation and research 

are processes involving systematic 

data collection and rigorous design 

to gain knowledge about social 

and educational programs. They 

are different in that evaluation is 

inherently political. Evaluations are 

conducted to make decisions about 

the merit of an initiative—whether 

to continue, expand, or eliminate 

a program. Evaluations are also 

conducted to determine whether a 

program is operating as intended 

and to learn how to improve it. 

Research can answer questions about 

the effectiveness of a treatment, but an evaluation of the 

effectiveness of a program may well result in more or less 

funding for a project.

Because important decisions are made based on 

evaluations, FPG evaluators usually include several 

strategies to conduct the best evaluation possible. 

Obtaining input into the evaluation process from the 

key stakeholders—program directors, service providers, 

policymakers—can increase the reliability and validity of 

the results. In the best circumstances, it will also increase 

the likelihood that the results will be used in a program 

improvement process. 

Including a needs and resources assessment in the 

evaluation can help a program judge how well its services 

are responding to the needs of its clients or community. 

Collecting contextual data helps to understand the social, 

economic and political conditions in which an initiative is 

implemented. Qualitative methods of collecting information 

can be very useful in assessing context, as well as other 

dimensions of an evaluation. 

Evaluation is a relatively young field. Prisons, hospitals, 

and orphanages were evaluated back in the 1800s, but 

the modern history of evaluation began in the 1960s. 

The legislation that launched many programs as part of 

President Johnson’s Great Society also required evaluation 

of these new programs. Nowadays, “accountability” is 

a common buzzword among federal, state, and local 

policymakers.

Even though relatively new, several branches of 

evaluation have developed, for example empowerment 

evaluation, responsive evaluation, and participatory 

Donna Bryant is a 

Senior Scientist and the 

Associate Director of FPG

4 early developments | fall 2004 
fall 2004 | early developments 5

evaluation, each with its own special approach. Theorydriven evaluation was useful to a team of us at FPG and 

other UNC departments when we began evaluating Smart 

Start in 1993. Smart Start, North Carolina’s broad early 

childhood initiative, at first seemed daunting to evaluate 

because it actually encompassed so many different 

programs. A theory-driven evaluation approach helped our 

team focus the evaluation efforts. With the key stakeholders 

of Smart Start, we developed a logic model—a type of flow 

chart—that made explicit the processes of change on which 

Smart Start services were based. This theory of change logic 

model then guided the evaluation. 

A logic model is easy to develop if program leaders can 

describe the services they are attempting to deliver and 

explain the outcomes they hope the services will influence. 

All too often, though, social service and educational 

programs cannot be this specific and have only a vague 

or broad idea of what the service providers are trying to 

accomplish. In these cases, a good evaluator can guide a 

discussion among the program staff so that their procedures 

and goals are more specified. 

Challenges in conducting an evaluation are numerous—

policymakers often want a report very quickly or may 

fail to provide enough funds for an adequate evaluation. 

Worse still, policymakers or program leaders may already 

know how they want the results to turn out and there 

can be pressure on the evaluator to do this. Most often, 

though, an evaluator’s challenge is conducting a valid 

evaluation in real world settings where randomized designs 

are hard to implement and where families and children 

may receive other kinds of services, in addition to the one 

being evaluated. These conditions make it hard to attribute 

outcomes to the program, although evaluators have 

strategies to try to account for or rule out other possible 

influences on the outcomes of interest. 

The articles in this issue are about five evaluation 

projects at FPG. The Smart Start evaluation has ended, 

but was an exciting and rewarding project. The work of 

the Early Childhood Outcomes Center is increasing our 

knowledge about appropriate and feasible outcomes to use 

in evaluations of programs for children with disabilities 

and their families. FPG investigators are in the fourth year 

of evaluating the More At Four Pre-kindergarten Program 

(MAF), NC’s newest early childhood effort. In addition to 

assessing outcomes, the MAF evaluation illustrates the 

challenge and importance of documenting implementation 

of program services. Two of the four FPG studies currently 

evaluating specific early childhood curricula are highlighted 

in this issue, evaluations of a literacy program and a music 

curriculum, both conducted with rigorous designs.

With many evaluation efforts successfully completed or 

underway, evaluators at FPG have begun meeting regularly 

to share ideas about evaluation strategies and resources. 

We have named our group the FPG Early Education 

Evaluation Initiative and our goal is to use our collective 

expertise to conduct and to assist others in conducting 

evaluations of early childhood efforts. In years past, we 

have been individually responsive to agencies that want 

help with evaluations, but we believe that collectively we 

are more effective. We have knowledge and skills to offer 

to foundations and federal, state, and local agencies that 

fund service programs—from assessing evaluation capacity 

to planning or reviewing evaluations to actually carrying 

them out. Please contact us with your evaluation needs and 

questions. Over the next year we want to ascertain the level 

of interest in and need for our services and our capacity for 

responding to requests. 

Our email is FPGevaluation@unc.edu or you may also 

contact an individual member via the FPG home page.

FPG Early Eduation Evaluation Initiatives Group Members

Donna Bryant, Virginia Buysse, Dina Castro, Jim Gallagher, 

Lynne Kahn, Kelly Maxwell, Ellen Peisner-Feinberg, Noreen 

Yazejian, and Kathleen Yonce.|ed|

fall 2004 | early developments 5
6 early developments | fall 2004 

How Smart a 

Start?

T

HE PROGRAM IS HUGE. The goals are 

ambitious. Demands for evidence that the 

program is working have been persistent 

from the beginning. FPG has risen to the 

task, conducting a complex evaluation 

over a decade that has simultaneously provided the 

State of North Carolina with the evidence it needed 

to continue funding for the Smart Start initiative, 

helping local partnerships identify areas that needed 

improvement, and training a network of early 

childhood evaluators who now support the local 

partnerships.

Smart Start is a comprehensive, community-based 

initiative serving North Carolina children under 

the age of 6 and their families. The program was 

launched in 1993 with the goal of ensuring that 

all children enter school healthy and prepared to 

succeed. From an initial group of 18 participating 

counties, Smart Start has expanded to include all 100 

counties in 81 local partnerships (the local nonprofit 

organizations that administer the funds). 

Smart Start does not prescribe specific activities to 

achieve its goals. Rather the local partnerships devise 

their own strategies focusing on three major areas of 

service implementation—child care and education, 

6 early developments | fall 2004 
fall 2004 | early developments 7

family support programs, and health services. Progress in 

the provision and quality of these areas is tied to the longerrange goal of increased child preparedness for school.

Smart Start is an ambitious program, currently funded 

by the state at a level of $190 million per year, and as 

much as $240 million per year in the past. State legislators 

were eager to learn of the program’s accomplishments 

within a few years of its implementation. In 1993, the NC

Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of 

Child Development contracted with FPG to evaluate the 

Smart Start initiative. FPG formed a statewide evaluation 

team consisting of researchers from FPG as well as the 

Schools of Education, Social Work, and Public 

Health at The University 

of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill.

Between 1993 

and 2003, 

the team 

conducted 

dozens of studies and produced 35 reports. “People wanted 

data as early as 1994 when many of the programs had 

only just started,” says Donna Bryant, FPG senior scientist 

and director of the Smart Start evaluation. “We gave them 

data on numbers of children being served and how Smart 

Start was being implemented. Only later could we measure 

whether services and children’s readiness had actually 

improved.”

The latest fi ndings, published in the March 2003 report, 

Smart Start and Preschool Child Care Quality in North 

Carolina, confi rm the positive relationship between 

Smart Start services and school readiness. “We showed 

that children in higher quality child care do better in 

kindergarten,” Bryant says. “This provided the state with 

the evidence it needed to continue legislative support for 

Smart Start.”

To conduct this evaluation, FPG analyzed 110 preschool 

child care programs 

in 20 partnerships 

that entered Smart 

Health at The University 

of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill.

Between 1993 

and 2003, 

the team 

conducted 

kindergarten,” Bryant says. “This provided the state with 

the evidence it needed to continue legislative support for 

Smart Start.”

To conduct this evaluation, analyzed 110 preschool 

child care programs 

in 20 partnerships 

that entered Smart 

team consisting of researchers from 

Schools of Education, Social Work, and Public 

Health at The University 

of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill.

Between 1993 

and 2003, 

the team 

Between 1993 To conduct this evaluation, FPG analyzed 110 preschool 

Children who 

attended higher 

quality centers 

scored signifi cantly 

higher on measures 

of skills and 

abilities that are 

deemed important 

for entering 

kindergarten 

ready to succeed.

fall 2004 | early developments 7
8 early developments | fall 2004 

Start in the fi rst, third, and fourth years of funding and in a 

variety of geographical settings. FPG measured the quality 

of classroom practices and the centers’ level of participation 

in Smart Start-funded activities in the past year. From these 

classrooms, FPG assessed 512 children on their language, 

literacy, numeracy, and social-emotional skills.

FPG researchers analyzed whether participation in Smart 

Start-funded activities was related to child care center 

quality as measured by the ECERS, the Early Childhood 

Environment Rating Scale. Finally, they analyzed whether 

preschool classroom quality was related to children’s 

skills and abilities in their preschool years and on into 

their kindergarten years, as measured by individual child 

assessments and teacher ratings of children. 

“The analysis showed that child care quality in this 

sample of child care centers has increased signifi cantly over 

time, with the increase signifi cantly related to the amount 

of a center’s participation in Smart Start activities,” Bryant 

says. “Children who attended higher quality centers scored 

signifi cantly higher on measures of skills and abilities that 

are deemed important for entering kindergarten ready to 

succeed. These results were over and above the effects of 

gender, ethnicity, and income.”

 Karen Ponder, president of the North Carolina 

Partnership for Children, says FPG’s evaluations of Smart 

Start have been of tremendous value to program directors 

and policy makers. “First, the data have been used to 

modify and change certain services,” Ponder says. “For 

example, in the report entitled Demonstrating Effective 

Child Care Quality Improvement, we discovered there 

were some key factors that appeared to affect the success 

of quality improvement efforts. We were able to use this 

information to improve the current practices of local 

partnerships.” The key factors that came up repeatedly 

in the interviews conducted for this study were: strong 

leadership; strategic planning for a system of quality 

improvement programs; support for the education and 

professional development of the work force; fi nancial 

rewards for higher education and improved quality; 

on-site, customized technical assistance; and effective 

collaborations with multiple community agencies.

 Cumberland County’s Partnership for Children used 

FPG’s statewide evaluation of school readiness as impetus 

to conduct its own countywide school 

readiness assessment, assisted by FPG

researchers Kelly Maxwell and Donna 

Bryant. This assessment pinpointed 

several weaknesses and spawned 

corrective actions. “Our assessment 

on-site, customized technical assistance; and effective 

collaborations with multiple community agencies.

 Cumberland County’s Partnership for Children used 

FPG’s statewide evaluation of school readiness as impetus 

to conduct its own countywide school 

������������

�

��

��

��

��

���

������

������

������

������������

��� ������ ����

���������������������������

8 early developments | fall 2004 

Preschool Classroom Quality Improved Over Time
fall 2004 | early developments 9

... the second 

major value of 

the Smart Start 

evaluations 

has been the 

documented 

evidence that 

Smart Start is 

reaching its goals 

of improving 

child care and 

school readiness.

showed we were weak in transition practices,” says Eva 

Hansen, executive director of the Partnership for Children 

of Cumberland County. “As a result, we’ve developed more 

focused activities. We’ve hired some transition coordinators 

and we’ve expanded our parent/kindergarten academy, 

a 6-week parent education program to help children and 

families adjust to entering kindergarten.”

Ponder says the second major value of the Smart Start 

evaluations has been the documented evidence that Smart 

Start is reaching its goals of improving child care and 

school readiness. “These data are used frequently with 

policy makers to gain their continued support for Smart 

Start,” Ponder says. 

Through the decade-long evaluation process, FPG

developed close relationships with the evaluators in the 

local partnerships. A network of early childhood evaluators 

supported by FPG through the course of the evaluations 

now help counties evaluate their outcomes on an on-going 

basis. Bryant says that this network is a positive by-product 

of the original Smart Start evaluation work. 

Bryant reports that the FPG team has received many 

requests to help other states and communities that have 

implemented programs similar to Smart Start. While 

engaged in the Smart Start evaluation, FPG offered advice to 

others, for example, posting an evaluation notebook on the 

web. However, the team typically urged states to develop 

their own evaluation capabilities. 

Now that the 10-year Smart Start evaluation is over, 

Bryant says the FPG evaluation team is more willing to 

undertake evaluations in other states. “We learned so much 

about evaluating comprehensive community initiatives and 

we helped North Carolina learn what works to improve 

early childhood programs,” Bryant says. “Smart Start has 

been an innovative and successful initiative.” |ed|

To Learn More

FPG Smart Start Evaluation Project

www.fpg.unc.edu/smartstart

Smart Start (North Carolina Partnership for Children)

www.ncsmartstart.org

North Carolina’s kindergartners & schools: Summary report. Maxwell, K. 

L., Bryant, D. M., Ridley, S. M., & Keyes-Elstein, L. (2001). Chapel Hill: The 

University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Center.

North Carolina’s kindergartners & schools: Executive summary. Maxwell, 

K. L., Bryant, D. M., Ridley, S. M. & Keyes-Elstein, L. (2001). Chapel Hill: The 

University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Center.

fall 2004 | early developments 9
10 early developments | fall 2004 

T

HE RESEARCH ON THE BENEFITS OF HIGH

QUALITY EARLY EDUCATION for later school 

success, especially for “at-risk” children, 

has prompted many states to make major 

investments in the education of young children. 

North Carolina’s More at Four Pre-kindergarten 

Program is one state’s solution to ensuring that all 

children enter school ready to learn and succeed. 

FPG is conducting the statewide evaluation of this 

program in order to provide information about its 

effectiveness as well as to offer suggestions for 

program improvement. More at Four has expanded 

rapidly since its inception nearly 3 years ago and 

evaluators have had to respond to changing needs 

for supporting information. Local administrators 

and teachers are enthusiastic about the program 

and hope to use the evaluation results not 

just to confi rm their success, but to make 

improvements.

HE RESEARCH ON THE BENEFITS OF HIGH

 for later school 

success, especially for “at-risk” children, 

has prompted many states to make major 

investments in the education of young children. 

More at Four Pre-kindergarten 

Much 

More at 

Four
fall 2004 | early developments 11

Launched in January 2002, the 

More at Four Program is a North 

Carolina state-funded initiative 

designed to help at-risk 4-year-olds 

prepare for elementary school, 

particularly those children who 

would not otherwise have a prekindergarten experience. The More at 

Four Program is distinguished from 

Smart Start by focusing specifi cally 

on pre-kindergarten educational 

programs for the neediest group of 

4-year-olds, whereas Smart Start is 

a broad-based initiative designed 

to provide a range of services 

for children aged birth through 5 

years. Funding for the More at Four 

Program for the year 2004–05 is just 

under $51 million.

The More at Four Program

provides funding for classroombased educational programs at a 

variety of sites designated by the local 

administration within each county 

or multi-county region. These sites, 

including public schools, for-profi t and 

nonprofi t private child care centers, 

Head Start programs, and other 

combinations, must meet a variety 

of program guidelines and standards 

involving curriculum, training and 

educational levels for teachers and 

directors, class size, and studentteacher ratios. 

In Johnston County, North Carolina, 

the More at Four Program provides 

vital services to Latino children 

among others. “Fifty percent of our 

children entering kindergarten do not 

speak English,” says Laura Sylvester, 

community outreach coordinator for 

the Johnston County Partnership for 

Children (the administrative agency 

for More at Four in that county). 

“We know if they enter kindergarten 

like that, teachers will have trouble 

teaching them and the children will 

have trouble learning. We now have 

three bilingual staff members working 

on the project. They are going out and 

looking for children, working with the 

parents to get them enrolled at a More 

at Four Program center. Our staff also 

refer the families to other agencies 

where they have a need.”

Legislators originally approved 

the More at Four Program with the 

requirement that an annual evaluation 

be conducted. The NC Department 

of Health and Human Services More 

at Four Pre-kindergarten Program has 

contracted with FPG to perform this 

evaluation since the program began. 

FPG released its Year 1 evaluation 

report in 2003 (see www.fpg.unc.edu/

~mafeval/pages/publications.cfm). The Year 2 

evaluation report will be released this 

winter, with the Year 3 report coming 

out in the spring of 2005.

From the start, evaluating the 

More at Four Program has presented 

FPG with unique challenges. More 

at Four is a new program and a 

rapidly expanding one, starting in 

2002 serving 1,244 children in 139 

classrooms across the state to serving 

nearly 11,000 children in over 900 

classrooms today. Local programs 

use an online system developed by 

The More at Four Program

provides vital services to Latino 

children among others.

fall 2004 | early developments 11
12 early developments | fall 2004 

Researchers gather information 

from monthly service reports, 

annual observations of classroom 

quality, annual parent surveys 

administered at the end of the 

year in both English and Spanish, 

and individual child assessments 

at the beginning and end of the 

More at Four year.

FPG to provide monthly service report 

information about program operations 

from the county level down to the 

individual child level. The FPG team is 

responsible for managing the system 

and analyzing this information, 

in addition to gathering more indepth data directly from samples of 

classrooms, children, and families 

across the state.

“The amount of data we collect for 

this project is huge,” says Cathy Maris, 

the More at Four Program evaluation 

project coordinator for FPG. “Our team is 

out in the field 6 to 8 months of the year 

gathering data on hundreds of children 

and their classrooms. We also manage 

the service report data, which includes 

information on more than 10,000 

children each month. It keeps us busy, 

but it feels good to be part of something 

that seems to be making such a positive 

difference in children’s lives.”

Because the More at Four Program

is new, funded above and beyond 

Smart Start, politicians have been 

under pressure to justify its existence. 

Their urgent need for information 

often falls to FPG staff. “We’ve had 

to be very responsive to the needs of 

the More at Four Program State Office, 

the Governor, and the legislature for 

specific information, while at the same 

time being the external evaluator who 

can be objective and scientific,” says 

Ellen Peisner-Feinberg, the principal 

investigator for the evaluation and a 

Scientist at FPG. “That might mean 

dropping what we are doing to focus 

on a specific question they need 

answered.”

 The goals of the evaluation have 

been to provide information regarding 

the quality of the program and its 

effectiveness for children, as well as to 

indicate suggested areas for program 

improvement. The primary research 

questions addressed by the evaluation 

have been:

• What were the characteristics of 

the local programs?

• Who was served by the More at 

Four Program?

• What was the quality of the 

services provided?

• How satisfied were families with 

the program?

• What were the outcomes for 

children attending these programs?

To address these questions, FPG

researchers gather information from 

monthly service reports, annual 

observations of classroom quality, 

annual parent surveys administered 

at the end of the year in both English 

and Spanish, and individual child 

assessments at the beginning and 

end of the More at Four year. The FPG

evaluation team includes a research 

staff of 6, with assistance from other 

data collectors, data programmers, and 

statisticians. 

FPG’s Year 1 report was limited to 

descriptive information of the More 

at Four Program, as the program had 

only been in existence for 6 months, 

and individual sites operated for an 

average of only 3 months. The Year 

2 evaluation offered the first chance 

to look at the quality of services and 

their impact on children. As of this 

writing, the Year 2 Report is being 

12 early developments | fall 2004 
fall 2004 | early developments 13

More at Four 

Evaluation 

Methodology

T

HE EVALUATION OF THE MORE AT FOUR PROGRAM has gathered 

a variety of different types of information from a wide range of 

sources in order to provide a comprehensive look at the program 

statewide. Each of the 91 counties or multi-county regions 

provides monthly service report data for every county, site, 

classroom, and child participating in the program using an online system. 

The data from this reporting system, which FPG developed and manages, 

are analyzed to examine the characteristics of program operations for the 

entire state. These service reports include information such as program 

size and operation days, teacher and administrator qualifications, and child 

demographic characteristics and attendance information.

Researchers observed a random sample of classrooms to determine 

the global quality of classroom practices and the level of curriculum 

implementation in the second and third years of the program. The former 

involved observations of 257 classrooms over a 2-year period to gauge 

such practices as the developmental appropriateness of activities and 

materials provided, the interactions among teachers and children, the 

physical environment, and the daily organization of the program. A total of 

128 classrooms were observed during this same time period to determine the 

extent to which the organization of the environment, the materials provided, 

and the general schedule and routines were structured in accordance with the 

guidelines of the different curricula used in these classrooms.

Surveys from 1,666 parents in the first and second years provided information 

about satisfaction with the More at Four Program, perceptions of the 

program’s effects on their children’s skills and development, parents’ level of 

involvement in program activities, and family demographic characteristics. 

For a sample of 788 children over the past two years, researchers conducted 

individual assessments of language and literacy skills, math skills, general 

knowledge, and social skills near the beginning and end of the program year. 

These data provided information about the amount of development growth 

experienced by children over the More at Four Program year. The researchers 

are currently following a sample of these children into kindergarten to look 

at the longer-term effects of participation in the More at Four Program on 

children’s school success. ■

finalized. However, the results look 

encouraging. 

With respect to outcomes, the 

children sampled showed significant 

developmental growth in language and 

literacy skills, general knowledge, and 

behavioral skills. On many of these 

measures, children demonstrated 

more growth in skills over the school 

year than would have been expected 

without such a program. Children 

who entered the program at greater 

need (e.g., children at higher levels 

of service priority status, at greater 

overall risk, or with lower levels of 

English proficiency) showed even 

greater gains than children of lesser 

need, suggesting that the program is 

working for the target population. 

Data showed that, overall, the More 

at Four Program provided a good 

quality preschool experience. Scores 

on the measure of classroom practices 

were in the highest quality range for 

half of the sample and in the medium 

range for the other half. Notably, no 

classrooms scored in the poor quality 

range. 

Parent surveys revealed that most 

parents were very satisfied with all 

aspects of the More at Four Program.

Nearly all parents reported their 

children “always” or “often” had 

positive experiences with the program. 

Parents were also generally pleased 

with how the program helped develop 

skills related to kindergarten success.

While researchers found a great 

deal of variation among the different 

counties/regions in program 

characteristics, the local sites were 

generally in compliance with the 

program requirements. “For the most 

part, individual sites met the guidelines 

for program operation, including class 

size and operating hours, with greater 

variation in the length of the program 

year, given the program expansion that 

was still going on in the second year,” 

Peisner-Feinberg says.

fall 2004 | early developments 13
14 early developments | fall 2004 

The evaluation has shown that the 

program is reaching the target group—

nearly three-quarters of the children 

served during the first two years of the 

More at Four Program had not been 

previously served in a pre-kindergarten 

or child care program. In addition, 

the evaluation showed that a majority 

of children served were designated 

at-risk, especially in terms of family 

income and parental employment. 

Significantly, 9% of children being 

served had disabilities, compared to the 

US population average of 6%.

“The findings suggest that, overall, 

the programs are doing what they’re 

supposed to be doing and having 

beneficial effects on children,” 

Peisner-Feinberg says. “There are 

some areas where we can suggest 

ways to improve and we look forward 

to sharing that information with the 

counties.”

 Carolyn Cobb, Director of the More 

at Four Program, anticipates that the 

evaluation will confirm what she has 

been hearing anecdotally—that the 

More at Four Program is a success. 

“The stories and letters we get from 

directors and teachers and parents are 

very heartening,” Cobb says. “I feel 

we are getting to the right kids.

“I hope to use FPG’s evaluation 

not just to measure success, but to 

improve the program,” she adds. “For 

example, there is a suggestion that 

one curriculum is better than others. 

And there are areas of the classroom 

quality data showing where some 

classrooms in some counties have 

not done as well as others. These 

are areas where we need to provide 

technical assistance and intervention.”

For Laura Sylvester, the program 

has already shown its worth. “The 

feedback I’ve been getting about the 

program from teachers, directors, 

owners and principals is all positive,” 

she says. “The fact that our Hispanic 

kids can speak perfect English after 

ten months is proof enough that the 

program is working.” |ed|

To Learn More

FPG Evaluation of the 

North Carolina More at Four Program

www.fpg.unc.edu/~mafeval/

More at Four Pre-kindergarten Program

www.governor.state.nc.us/Office/Education/Home.asp
fall 2004 | early developments 15

Making the 

Literacy 

Connection

FEW SKILLS ARE MORE IMPORTANT FOR A CHILD’S SUCCESS IN SCHOOL, and subsequently throughout life, than the 

ability to read. Literacy programs for preschool-age children have burgeoned with the recent availability of federal 

funds, but how well these programs work is largely unknown. FPG is providing answers for one North Carolina 

program, allowing administrators to use evaluation findings to make modifications as the program progresses.

The Literacy Connection (TLC) is an initiative conducted by the Wake County Public School System with a $3.2 million 

grant from the US Department of Education through the Early Reading First program, part of President Bush’s No Child 

Left Behind Act. TLC is designed to create centers of educational excellence for preschool children who are at risk for later 
16 early developments | fall 2004 

reading difficulties. 

The goal of the 

centers is to enhance 

inner-city preschool 

children’s language, 

cognitive, and early 

reading skills through 

staff development, 

family education 

and involvement, 

continuity between 

preschool and 

school settings, 

and community 

partnerships. Children 

served by the centers 

include English 

language learners and children with disabilities.

Wake County Schools has subcontracted with FPG to 

evaluate the program, which got underway in the fall of 

2003. FPG’s analysis of the first full year of implementation 

is scheduled for release in the summer of 2005 and a final 

analysis by the fall of 2006.

TLC includes four main components. First, the program 

trains and assigns literacy coaches to each participating 

pre-kindergarten (pre-K) classroom. Once a week, the 

coach works with the teacher and the teacher’s assistant 

on how to increase the amount of reading in the classroom, 

employing the latest techniques demonstrated through 

research to be effective. Second, TLC sponsors training 

sessions for parents on how to read to children and set 

up helpful routines. The third component addresses the 

often difficult transition between pre-K and kindergarten. 

TLC explains to parents how to enroll their child in 

kindergarten. The program also arranges for a local 

kindergarten class to visit the pre-K class, after which 

the pre-K children will visit the kindergarten class. Staff 

development is the fourth component. Once a month, TLC

invites participating teachers to a workshop to learn about 

the latest research findings in the area of literacy. This 

provides teachers with a comprehensive foundation on 

which to build their literacy programs. 

“We are curious to see whether providing teachers with the 

tools, in terms of language materials and knowledge about 

literacy practices, coupled with a strong parent education 

component, leads to children who are more prepared for 

school,” says Noreen Yazejian, FPG principal investigator.

FPG’s evaluation is assessing 11 participating classrooms 

with 24 teachers/assistants and 88 students. Researchers 

are employing a 

pre/post design 

to measure 

changes in 

classroom 

environments; 

teacher 

knowledge; 

teacher 

instruction 

and planning; 

children’s 

language, 

cognitive, 

and early 

reading skills; 

and parent 

knowledge and involvement in supporting their children’s 

literacy development. Classroom environments are 

being measured through direct observation. Teacher 

knowledge, instruction, and planning are being measured 

through surveys, interviews, and focus groups. Individual 

assessments are being used to assess children’s language, 

cognitive, and early reading skills. In addition, researchers 

will examine kindergarten entry assessments, conducted by 

Wake County Schools, to see whether children coming from 

these centers are performing better than their peers. Parent 

knowledge and involvement is being assessed through 

surveys. 

FPG’s evaluation is designed to provide feedback to 

administrators as the project develops. This will allow TLC

program administrators and literacy coaches like Debbie 

Gooch to make modifications where needed.

“Through the evaluation that FPG is doing, we hope 

teachers will be able to look at the results for their children 

to enhance their teaching practices,” Gooch says. “For 

example, if many children score low on phonological 

awareness, teachers will know they need to increase 

activities that develop that skill. At the same time, with the 

focus groups that FPG is doing with our classroom teachers, 

our TLC staff hope to learn what’s working and what needs 

to be addressed through professional development.”

Wake County is one of thirty Early Reading First grant 

recipients nationwide and one of three in North Carolina. FPG

anticipates that the results of this study will be of interest 

to educational organizations around the country seeking to 

replicate literacy programs for preschoolers. |ed|

To Learn More

US Department of Education • Early Reading First

www.ed.gov/programs/earlyreading/index.html

16 early developments | fall 2004 

Literacy coaches work with teachers once a week.
fall 2004 | early developments 17

S

PEND THE DAY IN A PRESCHOOL CLASSROOM and you’re likely 

to see and hear some music and movement activities, 

whether it’s children singing songs, dancing to music, or 

marching in a parade with musical instruments. Most educators 

would agree that music and movement experiences are one 

component for providing a high quality early childhood program. 

Such activities are intrinsically fun for children and have been 

incorporated into preschool classrooms around the country. 

However, there is little research on how such activities in the 

classroom contribute to children’s development.

In 2002, the Foundation for Music-based Learning, a nonprofit organization located in Greensboro, NC, contracted with 

FPG to conduct a study of the effects of a music and movement 

intervention on children’s skills in Head Start classrooms. 

“We were interested in observing whether specific 

musical practices in the classroom would relate to 

children’s school readiness skills,” says Noreen 

Yazejian, co-principal investigator at FPG. “Ours 

is one of the few studies nationally that has 

looked at the effects of a classroom level 

Can Song and Dance Improve Kids’ Chances?

fall 2004 | early developments 17
18 early developments | fall 2004 

music curriculum paired with a comparison group.”

FPG’s evaluation focused on 207 children in 27 Head 

Start classrooms in three states, a suburban area of North 

Carolina, a rural area of Kentucky, and an urban area of 

New York. The study 

included both an 

intervention group 

of 15 classes and a 

comparison group 

of 12 classes.

Classrooms in 

the intervention 

group received 

the music and 

movement 

curriculum 

delivered by an 

early childhood 

music teacher 

twice a week for 

30 minutes a 

day throughout 

the Head Start 

program year. 

Classrooms in the 

comparison group received 

no additional music and 

movement activities other than 

what was typically available.

FPG researchers assessed 

children in both groups at the 

beginning and end of the year 

to measure growth in language, 

motor, and social skills. In 

addition, they observed each 

classroom before and after the 

intervention to see whether the intervention affected the 

quality of classroom practices overall.

The study found one area, communication skills, 

in which children receiving the music and movement 

intervention showed more growth than children in the 

comparison group. Specifi cally, children receiving the music 

intervention were rated higher on language and listening 

skills, both important components of school readiness. 

The data suggest that the music curriculum did not affect 

overall classroom quality, which may not be surprising 

given that the music intervention was only one hour/week 

within a full-time child care program. 

However, FPG’s evaluation has helped fi ll in the 

knowledge gaps of what it takes to improve the quality of 

preschool classrooms and the school readiness skills of 

children in those classrooms. “People are trying to fi gure 

out what can be done to improve the quality of classroom 

practices,” says 

Ellen PeisnerFeinberg, 

co-principal 

investigator of 

the study. “We 

are trying to 

ask and answer 

this question at 

all levels in our 

research. It is 

also possible that 

current measures 

of program 

quality may 

not be sensitive 

enough to measure 

improvements 

resulting 

from specifi c 

interventions 

such as enhanced music and 

movement education.

“The current study suggests 

that adding high quality music 

and movement activities to 

preschool classrooms through 

a music teacher, even for 

one hour/week, had positive 

effects on one aspect of children’s 

development,” she adds. “I’d like to see future research in 

this area look at how to help teachers themselves provide 

such high quality activities on a regular basis. We know 

that some type of music and movement activities are 

already a part of most preschool classrooms, and we now 

have some evidence that when done well, they can make a 

difference for children.” |ed|

To Learn More about the 

Music & Movement Curriculum

www.musikgarten.org

out what can be done to improve the quality of classroom 

practices,” says 

Ellen PeisnerFeinberg, 

co-principal 

investigator of 

the study. “We 

are trying to 

ask and answer 

this question at 

all levels in our 

research. It is 

also possible that 

current measures 

of program 

quality may 

not be sensitive 

enough to measure 

improvements 

resulting 

from specific 

interventions 

New York. The study 

comparison group received 

such as enhanced music and 

movement education.

that adding high quality music 

and movement activities to 

preschool classrooms through 

a music teacher, even for 

one hour/week, had positive 

effects on one aspect of children’s 

development,” she adds. “I’d like to see future research in 

18 early developments | fall 2004 
fall 2004 | early developments 19

ACROSS THE NATION, 

federal funding for 

Infant, Toddler and 

Preschool programs 

created under the 

Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) 

is vulnerable because of a lack of 

data showing what differences these 

programs make for participating 

children. Individual state programs 

are also under scrutiny due to 

declining tax revenues. Help for 

these much-needed programs is on 

the way through the Early Childhood 

Outcomes Center (ECO).

Formed at the behest of the US

Department of Education’s Office of 

Special Education Programs (OSEP), 

ECO promotes the development and 

implementation of child and family 

outcome systems that can be used for 

national, as well as state and local 

accountability. The Center’s principal 

activities are:

• Collaboration with stakeholder 

and other groups concerned with 

outcomes measurement

• Research on issues related to the 

development and implementation 

of outcomes measures

• Technical assistance to 

support states in developing 

and implementing outcome 

measurement systems

ECO is a collaborative effort among 

five organizations. SRI International 

serves as prime contractor and 

provides overall leadership for the 

ECO Center. FPG coordinates technical 

assistance services and collaboration 

with other child care accountability 

efforts. Other subcontractors include 

Juniper Gardens Children’s Project at 

the University of Kansas, which leads 

Center 

Illuminates 

Early Childhood 

Outcomes

research; the National Association of 

State Directors of Special Education, 

which serves as the liaison to all state 

directors of special education; and 

the University of Connecticut Center 

for Excellence in Developmental 

Disabilities Education, Research, and 

Service, who along with FPG director 

Don Bailey takes the lead on all efforts 

related to family outcomes.

Principal clients include all state 

programs funded through Part 

C and Section 619 of IDEA. The 

administrators of these state programs 

are excited about working with ECO

on the evaluation of their programs.

“Working with the ECO Center has 

provided a focus and depth of research 

and information that is allowing the 

early childhood community to really 

consider the options for how to assess 

the effectiveness of our programs,” 
20 early developments | fall 2004 

says Ruth Littlefi eld, director of the 

Preschool Program in the Division 

of Special Education in the New 

Hampshire Department of Education. 

“It is raising the bar in terms of the 

questions we ask and the answers 

we can come up with to assess our 

programs.”

“The center provides a great chance 

for us to take a long-term look at the 

impact of early intervention services, 

particularly of outcomes involving 

children’s developmental growth—

their social, emotional, and language 

skills,” says Duncan Munn, head of 

the Early Intervention Program within 

the North Carolina Department of 

Health and Human Services. “We’ve 

looked at family outcomes, systems 

outcomes, and various quantitative 

factors, but we’ve never had the 

resources to do a systematic, largescale child outcomes study.”

Lynne Kahn, director of technical 

assistance for ECO, describes the 

two ways in which the Center will 

assist its state clients. “In what we 

call ‘the fast track,’ we will support 

all states in getting quality data for a 

minimal set of outcomes that will be 

reported by all states to OSEP. We also 

will provide intensive assistance to 

six to eight selected states, which 

will focus on developing a more 

comprehensive outcome systems 

for states for use in documenting 

program outcomes and planning 

for program improvements.” ECO

will work with these states on such 

areas as evaluation design, training 

for data collection, supervision of 

data collection, and understanding, 

analyzing and using data.

Kahn brings a wealth of experience 

to ECO as a result of her longstanding role as Associate Director of 

Evaluation with the National Early 

Childhood Technical Assistance 

Center (NECTAC). In operation for 

For More Information

Early Childhood Outcomes Center

www.the-ECO-center.org

more than 20 years, NECTAC’s primary 

business has been providing technical 

assistance to state and local clients, 

transferring knowledge about early 

childhood research and effective 

practices and policies. |ed|
fall 2004 | early developments 21

T

hanks to the over 200 readers of Early Developments who 

responded to the survey we included in one of our recent issues. 

Based on these responses, we learned that a majority of you apply 

ideas from Early Developments to your own work, fi nd additional 

information on topics using contacts and references supplied by 

Early Developments, and share Early Developments with others. As 

one reader stated in a personal comment: “It is the one thing on 

my bedside pile of journals and articles that I consistently pick up and read. It 

is short, timely, attractive and informative.” 

We’re glad to hear that ED provides a useful service and now we 

need your help.

The Early Developments magazine reaches more 

than 9000 people three times a year. 

Help us sustain our tradition of 

excellence in sharing 

timely information 

during a time of rising 

costs and declining 

budgets. We need your 

continued support. Please 

volunteer a subscription 

to the Early Developments

magazine and accept our 

sincere thanks. The suggested 

volunteer subscription amount 

is $20 per year, but the exact 

amount of your tax deductible 

donation is up to you. 

 

 Thank you!

Enclosed is my voluntary subscription 

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

���

�����

�����������

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

�������������������������������

We’re glad to hear that ED provides a useful service and now we 

Early Developments magazine reaches more 

than 9000 people three times a year. 

Help us sustain our tradition of 

continued support. Please 

Early Developments

magazine and accept our 

sincere thanks. The suggested 

volunteer subscription amount 

is $20 per year, but the exact 

amount of your tax deductible 

donation is up to you. 

Enclosed is my voluntary subscription 

fall 2002 | early developments 1

FPG

Child

Development

Institute The University of North Carolina

at Chapel Hill

earlydevelopments

 Fall 2002 | Volume 6, #3

Child & Family Policy

�����������������

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

���

�����

�����������

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

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

����������������������������������

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

���

�����

�����������

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

�������������������������������

to 

Early Developments, payable to UNC Chapel Hill, 

in the amount of: ________

 

 ____________________________________________

First Name M.I. Last Name

 ____________________________________________

Street 

 ____________________________________________

City State Zip

Please mail to: 

FPG / Early Developments

CB# 8180

UNC CH

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8180

fall 2004 | early developments 21
22 early developments | fall 2004 

fpg

f

or more information 

about FPG publications, 

see the FPG web site at

www.fpg.unc.edu

or contact the 

FPG Publications Office at 

919•966•4221 or 

FPGpublications@unc.edu

Adult attachment style and parental responsiveness 

during a stressful event. Edelstein, R. S., 

Alexander, K. W., Schaaf, J. M., Goodman, G. S., 

Quas, J. A., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Attachment 

and Human Development, 6, 31–53. 

All about the ECERS-R: A detailed guide 

in words and pictures to be used with the 

ECERS-R. Cryer, D., Harms, T., & Riley, C. (2003). 

Winston-Salem, NC: Kaplan Early Learning, PACT 

Group. 

All about the ITERS-R: A detailed guide 

in words and pictures to be used with the 

ITERS-R. Cryer, D., Harms, T., & Riley, C. (2004). 

Winston-Salem, NC: Kaplan Early Learning, PACT 

Group.

Are child developmental outcomes related to 

before-and-after-school care arrangements? Results 

from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. NICHD 

Early Child Care Research Network. (2004). Child 

Development, 75(1), 280–295. 

Community design: The next step to an active 

society? Bors, P., Altpeter, M., Luken, K., & 

Marshall, V. (2004). The Journal on Active 

Aging, 3(1), 24–32. 

Consultation as a framework for productive 

collaboration. Wesley, P. W., & Buysse, V. (2004). 

Journal of Educational and Psychological 

Consultation, 15(2), 127–150.

Consultation in early childhood settings.

Buysse, V., & Wesley, P. W. (2005). Baltimore: 

Paul H. Brookes.

recent 

publications

Cord-blood transplants from unrelated donors in 

patients with Hurler’s syndrome. Staba, S. L., 

Escolar, M. L., Poe, M., Kim, Y., Martin, P. L., 

Szabolcs, P., et al. (2004). New England Journal 

of Medicine, 350(19), 1960–1969.

Creating inclusive 4-H environments for people 

with disabilities. Stumpf-Downing, M., Henderson, 

K., Luken, K., & Bialeschki, D. (2004). Journal of 

Extension, 42(4). Retrieved from http://www.joe.

org/joe/2004august/a1.shtml.

Early intervention service coordination policies: 

National policy infrastructure. Harbin, G. L., 

Bruder, M. B, Adams, C., Mazarella, C., Whitbread, 

K., Whitbread, K., et al. (2004). Topics in Early 

Childhood Special Education, 24(2), 89–97.

The ecological context of challenging behavior in 

young children with developmental disabilities.

Scarborough, A. A., & Poon, K. K. (2004). In L. M. 

Glidden (Ed.), International review of research in 

mental retardation (pp. 229–260). San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press.

The effect of format modifications and reading 

comprehension on recall of informed consent 

information by low-income parents. Campbell, F. 

A., Goldman, B. D., Boccia, M. L., & Skinner, M. 

(2004). Patient Education and Counseling, 53(2), 

205–216. 

Effects of otitis media on children’s speech 

and language. Roberts, J. E. (2004). Ontario, 

Canada: BC Decker.

Family involvement packets. Coleman, M. R., 

& Coltrane Shah, S. (2004). Washington, DC: 

Council for Exceptional Children. 

Health disparities between adults with 

developmental disabilities, adults with other 

disabilities, and adults not reporting disability in 

North Carolina. Havercamp, S., Scandlin, D., & 

Roth, M. (2004). Public Health Reports, 119(4), 

418–426. 

Learningames, the abecedarian curriculum: 

48–60 months. Sparling, J., & Lewis, I. (2004). 

Chapel Hill, NC: MindNurture, Inc.

Mother-child relationship dysregulation in the 

toddler years: Antecedents and consequences.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2004). Development and Psychopathology, 

16(1), 43–68. 

Multiple pathways to early academic achievement. 

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 

(2004). Harvard Educational Review, 74(1), 1–29.

22 early developments | fall 2004 
fall 2004 | early developments 23

Selected New 

FPG Products

Many products developed at FPG are 

available for free online. You may also 

purchase products from the FPG Publications Offi ce, phone 919.966.4221 or email 

FPGpublications@unc.edu. The FPG online catalog currently includes information on 

more than 300 publications. Visit the FPG web site at www.fpg.unc.edu to learn more. 

FPG Highlights: 2003-2004. FPG Child Development Institute. (2004). Chapel Hill, NC: 

Author.

Health and disability in North Carolina 2003. NC Offi ce on Disability and Health and 

the State Center for Health Statistics. (2004). Raleigh: NC Dept. of Health and Human 

Services. 

Including preschool-age children with disabilities in community settings: A 

resource packet (3rd ed.). deFosset, S. (Ed.). (2004). Chapel Hill: The University of 

North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute, National Early Childhood Technical 

Assistance Center. 

Resource guide: Selected early childhood/early intervention training materials 

(12th ed.). Catlett, C., Winton, P. J., & Hamel, S. E. (Eds.). (2004). Chapel Hill: The 

University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.

Revisiting a comparison of eligibility policies for infant/toddler programs and 

preschool special education programs. Danaher, J., Shackelford, J., & Harbin, G. 

(2004). Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute, 

National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. 

National early intervention longitudinal study: 

Birth history and health status of children 

entering early intervention. [NEILS Data 

Report 5]. Spiker, D., Mallik, S., Hebbeler, K., 

Scarborough, A., Simeonsson, R., & Bailey, D. 

(2004). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. 

The national early intervention longitudinal 

study: Family outcomes at the end of early 

intervention. [NEILS Data Report 6]. Bailey, D., 

Scarborough, A., Hebbeler, K., Spiker, D., & Mallik, 

S. (2004). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. 

A national picture of children and families entering 

early intervention. Scarborough, A. A., Spiker, 

D., Mallik, S., Hebbeler, K., Bailey, D. B., & 

Simeonsson, R. J. (2004). Exceptional Children, 

70(4), 469–483. 

Observation resources that help teachers support 

young children in home, community and classroom 

settings. Catlett, C., & Winton, P. (2004). Young 

Exceptional Children, 7(3), 30.

Otitis media and speech and language: A metaanalysis of prospective studies. Roberts, J. 

E., Rosenfeld, R. M., & Zeisel, S. A. (2004). 

Pediatrics, 113(3), 237–247. 

Otitis media, hearing loss, and language learning: 

Controversies and current research. Roberts, J. 

E., Hunter, L., Gravel, J., Rosenfeld, R., Berman, 

S., Haggard, M., et al. (2004). Journal of 

Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 25(2), 

1–13. 

Parent involvement in Head Start programs: 

The role of parent, teacher, and classroom 

characteristics. Castro, D. C., Bryant, D., PeisnerFeinberg, E. S., & Skinner, M. (2004). Early 

Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(3), 413–430. 

Personnel preparation: The early recognition 

and cultivation of potential, using science 

talents and abilities to recognize students.

Coleman, M. R., & Coltrane Shah, S. (2004). 

Washington, DC: Council for Exceptional Children.

Revisiting a comparison of eligibility policies for 

infant/toddler programs and preschool special 

education programs. Danaher, J., Shackelford, J., 

& Harbin, G. (2004). Topics in Early Childhood 

Special Education, 24(2), 59–67.

School readiness assessment. Maxwell, K. L., & 

Clifford, R. M. (2004). Young Children, 59(1), 

42–46. 

Science/literature connections. Coleman, M. 

R., & Coltrane Shah, S. (2004). Washington, DC: 

Council for Exceptional Children.

Spanish translation of the Infant/Toddler 

Environment Rating Scale (Rev. ed.). Harms, 

T., Cryer, D., & Clifford, R. M. (2004). New York: 

Teachers College Press. 

Supporting the transition of one man with autism 

from work to retirement. Hodges, J., Luken, K. 

& Hubbard, A. (2004). Therapeutic Recreation 

Journal, 38, 301–311. 

The transition to parenting: Continuity and change 

in early parenting behavior and attitudes. Cox, 

M. J., Burchinal, M., Taylor, L. C., Frosch, C., 

Goldman, B., & Kanoy, K. (2004). In R. D. 

Conger (Ed.), Continuity and change: Family 

structure and process (pp. 201-240). Mahwah, 

NJ: Erlbaum.

fall 2004 | early developments 23
24 early developments | fall 2004 

ed

early developments

FPG Child Development Institute

CB 8185, UNC-CH

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8185

Non-Profi t Org

US Postage Paid

Permit 177

Chapel Hill, NC

ISSN 1536-4739

Visit us online

www.fpg.unc.edu

www.ncedl.org

Address Service Requested