ed

early developments early developments Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center

Fall 2002 | Volume 6, Issue 3

Child & Family Policy

Informing Public Policy

Jim Gallagher - Legend & Legacy in Special Education

The Impact of Welfare Reform

Supporting IDEA

A Seamless System of Services

FPG Recent Publications

Prekindergarten Education in the US

NCEDL Publications

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

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
LYNETTE AYTCH, FPG Investigator, 

was recently elected to the 

Board of the Division of Early 

Childhood (DEC), a sub-division 

of CEC.

MARY RUTH COLEMAN, FPG 

Scientist and Clinical Associate 

Professor in the UNC-CH School 

of Education, was recently elected for a 

three-year term to the Board of Directors of 

the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). 

CEC is the largest organization for special 

educators, individuals with special needs and 

their families in the world.

PAM WINTON, FPG Senior Scientist and Director of 

Outreach and Research Professor in the UNC-CH 

School of Education, now serves as Associate 

Editor of the Journal of Early Intervention.

ELEANOR RICHARDSON, longtime volunteer and former employee in the nursery of the FPG Child Development 

Institute, received this year’s C. Knox Massey Distinguished Service Award for “unusual, meritorious or superior 

contributions” by UNC employees. Honorees receive an award citation and a $5,000 stipend.

news
ISSN 1536-4739

Supervising Editors

Pam Winton, Virginia Buysse

Writer

John Manuel

Designer

Gina Harrison

Photographer

Don Trull

Copy Editor

Anna Mitchell

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. It is funded in part by UNC-Chapel Hill and 

in part by PR/Award Number R307A60004, 

administered by the office of Educational 

Research and Improvement, National Institute 

on Early Childhood Development and Education, US Department of Education. Content 

of articles does not necessarily represent the 

position of the US Deparment of Education. 

Endorsements by the federal government 

should not be assumed.

To change your address

contact Jay Hargrove

CB #8185, UNC-CH

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8185

Periodicals postage paid at 

Chapel Hill, NC

For a free subscription

send your name & address to

Jay Hargrove

(919) 966-0888

hargrove@mail.fpg.unc.edu

To order additional copies

contact FPG Publications Office

(919) 966-4221

pubs@mail.fpg.unc.edu

Total design, production, & printing costs 

of this issue of Early Developments

were $7602. 

10,000 copies of this document were 

printed at a cost of $5383, or 54¢ each.

|ed|

early developments

Fall 2002 | Volume 6 #3

Informing Public Policy

4

Jim Gallagher—

Legend & Legacy in Special Education

5

The Impact of Welfare Reform

8

Supporting IDEA

7

A Seamless System 

of Services?

9

FPG Publications

13

Prekindergarten Education in the US

14

NCEDL Publications

 15

contents
4 early developments | fall 2002 

I

F INVESTIGATORS AT THE FPG INSTITUTE studied 

astronomy, we probably would not be concerned 

about public policy. But since our work focuses 

almost exclusively on programs and services for 

children and families, it is of enormous relevance 

to policy makers. These individuals in local, state 

and federal government must make decisions about 

which programs to fund, how much money to allocate and 

what regulations are needed to assure equitable access and 

achieve the program’s desired outcomes.

Just think about the array of laws and regulations that 

directly affect children and families. Head Start represents 

a large federal commitment to improving the health and 

development of children living in poverty. The Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act requires free, appropriate, 

public education for all children with disabilities and provides 

fi nancial incentives and guidelines to assure that states comply 

with this requirement. And the list goes on. Welfare reform, 

childcare subsidies, Medicaid, child care regulations and state 

initiatives for prekindergarten programs all represent policy 

decisions that commit public resources and establish standards 

by which those resources are to be used. 

How are public policy decisions made? Research informs 

public policy, but ultimately policy decisions are based 

on factors that include cost, public demand, timing and 

politics. Policy research attempts to understand the various 

factors infl uencing policy development. Policy research also 

examines specifi c policies and determines whether they 

really result in the intended outcomes.

Jim Gallagher, former director of FPG, has always believed 

in the power of policy to make a real difference in the lives 

of children. He should know. In 1967 he was asked to 

serve as Associate Commissioner of Education, and Chief 

of the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped in the 

US Department of Education. This was a very prestigious 

appointment, as the BEH had just been established and the 

role of the federal government in the lives of exceptional 

children was just beginning to be formulated. Jim’s work 

at the Department of Education had a profound infl uence 

on setting standards and directions for a federal role, and 

his mark on the department can still be seen today in 

what is now known as the Offi ce of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

When he came to FPG, he began a series of policy studies 

that have helped the fi eld understand the role of policy 

and what it takes for policy to be implemented effectively 

at the local level. He trained several generations of policy 

researchers, and his infl uence is evident both here at FPG

and in many places around the country.

As an institute, we try to shape policy by providing 

information to help policy makers make informed decisions. 

We distinguish this work from advocacy, in which an 

individual or organization pushes for a particular piece of 

legislation or funding. Many advocacy groups exist, and 

they play an extremely important role in fostering social 

change. What we can do is provide objective information 

and systematic analysis of issues so that both policy makers 

and advocates will have as many facts at their disposal for 

weighing the costs and benefi ts of various programs.

This issue of Early Developments highlights some of the 

policy work currently underway at FPG. We also use this 

issue as an opportunity to celebrate the many contributions 

Jim Gallagher has made to the fi eld and his infl uence on 

the current generation of policy researchers.

On a personal note, I have now served as director of FPG

for 10 years. Jim Gallagher was one of the major reasons I 

joined the center and his legacy as director has continued to 

serve as both a challenge and an inspiration for me. Never 

one to interfere, but always available to listen and support, 

he is often the fi rst in line to volunteer to help with any 

project. I was hoping to catch up with him someday, but 

Jim, you are one of a kind. Carry on! |ed|

Informing

Public Policy by Don Bailey, Director

FPG Photo Archives
fall 2002 | early developments 5

Legend & Legacy in Special Education

Jim

Gallagher

I

F THERE WERE A SPECIAL EDUCATION HALL OF

FAME, Jim Gallagher surely would be an inductee. 

A number of people have earned renown in 

special education for their research, teaching, or 

policy-making, but few have made signifi cant 

contributions in all three fi elds. Jim Gallagher, FPG

Senior Scientist and Kenan Professor Emeritus of 

Education, is that rare exception. 

“Jim Gallagher is a protean source of ideas, enthusiasm 

and collegiality,” says Rud Turnbull, co-director of the 

Beach Center on Disability at the University of Kansas. “His 

ideas began with his seminal concept of an individualized 

education contract and have carried through to his most 

recent work-in-progress, his treatise on special education 

policy. His enthusiasm has never waned; that is because 

it is undergirded by a deep commitment to students with 

disabilities and their families and professional providers, 

and because he brings an infectious buoyancy to his work.”

On September 26, FPG will sponsor a symposium to 

honor Gallagher for his nearly fi ve decades of contributions 

on behalf of the education of gifted children and children 

with disabilities. Such events are usually reserved for an 

individual about to enter retirement. In Gallagher’s case, 

the energetic Irishman will accept his accolades and return 

to the fi eld. 

Nationally and internationally, Gallagher may be best 

known for his research and writing, if for no other reason 

than he has produced so much of both. The articles, 

monologues and books that he has authored or co-authored 

number well over 200. It is rare to discover a student of 

special education who is not familiar with at least one of 

his textbooks. Teaching the Gifted Child (Allyn & Bacon), 
6 early developments | fall 2002 

now in its fourth edition, has been called the Bible on the 

subject of educating gifted children. Educating Exceptional 

Children (Houghton Miffl in), coauthored with Sam Kirk and 

Nick Anastasiow, has been through 10 editions and serves as 

the introductory text to many courses on special education 

for children. 

As long as he has been a researcher, Gallagher has been 

a teacher. He began in 1954 as an assistant professor at the 

University of Illinois, eventually rising to Associate Director of 

the university’s Institute for Research on Exceptional Children. 

In 1970, he was named Kenan Professor of Education at the 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Over his 30 years 

of teaching at that institution, he trained many graduate 

students who went on to become leading professionals in the 

fi eld, including Ron Haskins, former senior staff person for the 

House Ways and Means Committee and now a welfare reform 

specialist in the Bush administration.

As a teacher, Gallagher sought to bridge what he 

perceived as a gap between academicians and politicians 

in communicating and understanding early childhood 

education issues. In the mid-70s, he secured funding from 

the Bush Foundation (part of 3M Company) to put together 

a program of biweekly seminars on policy making for 

doctoral students in early childhood education. Many of 

his former students who are now practicing professionals 

fondly remember Gallagher’s instruction on how to translate 

knowledge into political action.

“Because he’d worked on Capitol Hill, Jim knew as much 

about the politics of special education as he did about 

research,” says Pam Winton, a former student at UNC and 

now Senior Scientist at FPG. “He taught us how to use 

research fi ndings in a way to impact policy, how to think 

about problems in a way that could translate into results.

“Jim was the person who introduced me to the term 

‘RFP’,” Winton laughs. “He taught us how to get money 

from the federal government to actually fund programs 

benefi ting children with special needs.”

As well as being a world-class researcher and educator, 

Gallagher became a heavy hitter in the fi eld of public 

policy. In 1967, John Gardener, then head of the US

Department of Education under President Lyndon Johnson, 

tapped Gallagher to head the newly formed Bureau of 

Education for the Handicapped. Key members of Congress 

had indicated support for a program supporting preschool 

age children with special needs. Gallagher and his team 

responded by devising a demonstration program directing 

federal funds to 20 exemplary programs supporting young 

children with disabilities. 

“Few in America recognized the importance of linking 

child development research to social policy as early as 

Jim Gallagher did,” says Lynn Kagan, Professor of Early 

Childhood and Family Policy at Columbia University 

Teachers College. “Even fewer had a keen sense of how it 

could and should be done.”

Later, as Director of FPG, Gallagher proposed to the 

Bureau to develop a system of technical assistance for these 

demonstration programs. FPG later won a contract to do 

just that and proceeded to develop a national system of 

technical assistance now known as NECTAC (see page 11).

“This support system of technical assistance strengthened 

already good programs and brought credibility to the 

demonstration center 

program,” Gallagher 

says. “The program 

gradually increased its 

membership and became 

a visible example of 

what could be done to 

help young children with 

disabilities.”

1954

appointed 

Assistant Professor 

at the University of 

Illinois at Urbana. 

Later named 

Associate Director 

of the Institute 

for Research on 

Exceptional Children

1967

named Associate 

Commissioner 

of Education at 

the U.S. Offi ce of 

Education and Chief 

of the Bureau of 

Education for the 

Handicapped

1970

hired as Director 

of Frank Porter 

Graham Center and 

Kenan Professor 

of Education at 

the University of 

North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill

1972

John Fogarty Award 

for Distinguished 

Government Service

1986

Distinguished 

Scholar Award, 

National Association 

of Gifted Children

Career Highlights

1967

J.E. Wallace 

Wallin Award for 

Contributions to 

Special Education, 

Council for 

Exceptional Children

FPG Photo Archives FPG Photo Archives
fall 2002 | early developments 7

A longtime acquaintance of the Kennedy family, Gallagher 

was asked in 1970 to participate in a series of meetings 

they were sponsoring on mental retardation. In his paper 

entitled “A Special Education Contract,” Gallagher argued 

that schools should develop an individualized education 

contract with each child with special needs, one that 

specifi es what services are being provided for the child and 

who will provide them. These elements were eventually 

included in the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) that is 

now part of the federal IDEA law.

A few years after his presentation at the Kennedy 

symposium, Gallagher was called upon to testify on 

behalf of the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded 

Children (PARC) in a suit it had fi led against the State of 

Pennsylvania. Despite having a line in its constitution 

saying all children were entitled to a public education, 

Pennsylvania had a policy of excluding children from public 

school who were deemed not ready for kindergarten. “The 

relevant question was, can these children learn something 

useful?” Gallagher says. “I was one of four expert witnesses 

who asserted the answer was ‘yes.’”

The court subsequently ruled that Pennsylvania had to 

admit those students into the public schools. That case is 

now looked upon as a landmark in the special education 

fi eld and helped lead to the formulation and passage of the 

federal Education for All Handicapped Children Act, the 

predecessor of IDEA. “It was Jim Gallagher who, as expert 

witness for the then-excluded students in the landmark 

PARC case, brought his knowledge to bear to lay 

the foundation of IDEA,” Turnbull says.

At FPG, Gallagher developed a special interest in 

the educational needs of gifted children. Though 

some states like North Carolina 

included gifted children in their 

defi nition of exceptional children, 

1987

appointed as 

Director of the 

Gifted Policy 

Studies Program 

and Director of the 

Carolina Institute 

for Child and 

Family Policy at 

the University of 

North Carolina

programs to help such children were not widespread, 

and those that did exist tended to serve kids who needed 

the least help. Working with the State of North Carolina, 

Gallagher set up nine model centers that helped school 

districts plan programs to identify and serve gifted children, 

particularly those from poor backgrounds. On the basis of 

this work, North Carolina revised its laws for dealing with 

gifted children. Now, all local school districts must have a 

broad-based plan for identifying and serving gifted children.

Recently, Gallagher has turned his attention to what he 

describes as the missing support infrastructure for teachers 

dealing with children with special needs. “The teacher is 

the point person in providing services for these children, 

but there is no systematic support program behind them,” 

he says. “The shortage of special education teachers is 

widespread. Many are retiring. If teachers had more of a 

support system, they would feel part of a team. You would 

attract more teachers to the profession and retain more of 

them for longer periods of time.”

Gallagher is now writing a book entitled Decision-making 

on Special Education, addressing such issues as how much 

to spend on special education and how to integrate it 

into general education. Asked why he continues to work, 

Gallagher cites a quote from anthropologist Loren Eisely:

We cannot know all that has happened in the past or 

the reason for all these events, any more than we can 

with surety discern what lies ahead. We have joined the 

caravan...at a certain point. We will travel as far as we 

can, but we cannot in one lifetime see 

all that we would like to see or learn all 

that we hunger to know.

Says Gallagher, “I still hunger to 

know and teach what I know.” |ed|

1994

named co-director 

of the Statewide 

Technical Assistance 

for Gifted Education 

Program at 

the University 

of North Carolina

1995

Distinguished 

Service to the Field 

of Gifted Education 

and Leadership as 

President of the 

National Association 

of Gifted Children

1997

Distinguished 

Service Award, 

World Council 

for Gifted and 

Talented Children

2000

Lifetime Service for Exceptional Children, 

North Carolina Department of Public Education; 

Eighth Annual Razor Walker Award, 

UNC-Wilmington

FPG Photo Archives
8 early developments | fall 2002 

James Carroll, Artville, A Kid’s World

Welfare 

Reform

Emily, welfare recipient and 

caregiver of a 3-year-old daughter 

with severe visual impairments and 

developmental delays, has been 

informed by her caseworker that 

she needs to find a job. Emily says 

she would like to work, but needs to 

be at home to meet with the various 

therapists who come during the 

day to work with her child. Emily 

also has to take her daughter to 

three other sites for educational 

and therapeutic services. On top of 

this, Emily is worried about losing 

Medicaid for her daughter if she 

goes back to work. She is certain 

no private insurance company 

would cover her daughter in light of 

her pre-existing conditions. Emily 

lives in Illinois, one of the 28 states 

that do not exempt caregivers of 

persons with disabilities from time 

limits for welfare benefits. Seeking 

to enforce the time limit, Emily’s 

caseworker insists that Emily must 

be creative in finding child care 

and getting a job. This mandate is 

adding another layer of stress to 

Emily’s already fragile existence, 

and threatens to undermine her 

family’s ability to function. 

 

The Impact on 
fall 2002 | early developments 9

 Families with Members with Disabilities

T

HE MAJOR GOAL OF WELFARE REFORMS

instituted in 1996 is to move welfare 

recipients to work. For many caregivers of 

children with disabilities, this transition 

can be especially challenging. Exactly 

how the new work requirements and time 

limits affect the lives of these families is 

revealed through a project entitled “The 

Impact of Welfare Reform on Families 

with Members with Disabilities.” 

Headed by FPG Scientist Debra Skinner with funding from 

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation/USDHHS, 

the project is part of a larger study, “Welfare, Children, 

and Families: A Three City Study,” being conducted in the 

cities of Boston, Chicago and San Antonio. The Three-City 

Study monitors the consequences of welfare reform on 

the well being of children and families through surveys 

of approximately 2,400 low-income families, video-taped 

assessments of 630 children and their 

caregivers and ethnographic observations 

and interviews with 256 families. 

Skinner’s study focuses primarily on 

the experiences of 42 families of young 

children with disabilities. Interviews 

and observations with these families 

over a three-year period provide a rich 

picture of how disability, poverty and 

welfare reform converge to impact 

their lives and well-being. With the 

passage of the Personal Responsibility 

and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 

Act (PRWORA) in 1996, a new program, 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF), limits the time that families can 

receive cash assistance. It also requires 

beneficiaries to participate in workrelated activities. 

Skinner’s research shows that for low-income persons 

who must care for a child with disabilities, finding fulltime or even part-time work that doesn’t put the child at 

risk is difficult. “All caregivers in the study expressed the 

desire to work, but some of them are unwilling to leave 

their young child who may need round-the-clock care,” 

Skinner says. “Lack of child care slots for children with 

moderate or severe disabilities and lack of flexibility in the 

workplace are major barriers. Also, many jobs that these 

caregivers qualify for do not offer health coverage at all, or 

policies will not cover a child with preexisting conditions. 

Caregivers fear the loss of Medicaid coverage if they go 

back to work, and fear that their children’s health and 

access to services will suffer.”

Skinner found that a significant portion of the caregivers 

of children with disabilities had physical or mental health 

conditions themselves that limited their ability to work and 

carry out daily routines. “We were surprised at the high 

rate of poor health of mothers and other 

family members,” Skinner says. “For the 

most part, these families do a tremendous 

job of piecing together services for their 

children and garnering the emotional and 

physical resources needed to support their 

families. However, these efforts take a 

physical and emotional toll.”

Given these barriers, Skinner says it 

may not be feasible for some caregivers 

of young children with disabilities to 

enter the workforce. If not exempted 

from time limits, the loss of TANF

benefits may pose further hardships for 

them and their children. “If they are to 

work, these families require a range of 

supports including appropriate child care 

and flexible workplaces,” Skinner says. 

“Supports that would aid these families 

... a significant 

portion of the 

caregivers of 

children with 

disabilities had 

physical or mental 

health conditions 

themselves...
10 early developments | fall 2002 

include extending transitional Medicaid until other health care coverage could 

be obtained. For parents or other caregivers of children with disabilities who 

are required to work, work participation could become more broadly defined to 

include caring for the child with disabilities, or participation in training programs 

for specialized care, service coordination and parent advocacy for children with 

disabilities. In the workplace, employees need to become aware of the difference 

disability may make for families, and offer some flexibility to allow caregivers to 

deal with their children’s special health care needs. For caregivers with disabilities, 

targeted and appropriate job training and placement should be offered.”

Skinner found that agencies that work with families in poverty are rarely 

aware of disability issues and the programs that serve persons with disabilities. 

Conversely, agencies that work with persons with disabilities are often not 

familiar with poverty programs. “What would help support low-income families 

with members with disabilities is for each type of agency to become aware of 

the other, and to collaborate in referring families to appropriate programs and 

services for those in poverty or with disabilities,” she says.

PRWORA is up for reauthorization this year. So far in the debate, little attention 

has focused on the needs of low-income families of children with disabilities. 

“In the reauthorization of welfare reform, it is important that the more 

vulnerable members of our society not be disproportionately impacted,” Skinner 

says. “I hope our study and others like it will raise state and federal policymakers’ awareness of the impact of welfare reform on families of children with 

disabilities and will lead to instituting the necessary supports to help families 

care for their children and obtain economic security.” |ed|

For more information

Disability, Health Coverage, and Welfare Reform. 

Skinner, D., Slattery, E., Lachicotte, W., Cherlin, A., 

& Burton, L. (in press). The Kaiser Commission 

on Medicaid and the Uninsured, Washington, DC. 

The report can be found on the following web site 

www.kff.org/sections.cgi?section=kcmu

The web site for the larger project for which this 

is a component is www.jhu.edu/~welfare

Abraham Menashe, Challenging Perceptions, digitalvision
fall 2002 | early developments 11

TA Center

 national

early childhood

WITH A CONTRACT FROM

THE US OFFICE OF SPECIAL

EDUCATION PROGRAMS,

FPG has launched the National Early 

Childhood Technical Assistance 

Center (NECTAC) to help support the 

implementation of early childhood 

provisions of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The 

Center will replace NECTAS, which has 

provided support to the states in early 

childhood services for nearly 30 years.

“We believe the new TA Center will 

carry on and build upon the tradition, 

commitment and foundation of the 

NECTAS project,” says Pascal “Pat” 

Trohanis, director of NECTAC. “Our 

new contract demands a more focused 

approach to TA—one that seeks to 

infl uence early childhood service 

systems in a way that leads to more 

positive outcomes for young children 

and their families.”

Since the passage of IDEA, states 

have made considerable progress in 

implementing the early childhood 

provisions of the law. Challenges 

remain, however, in assuring that all 

eligible children and families receive 

and benefi t from high-quality services 

that address their unique priorities. 

NECTAC’s mission is to strengthen 

service systems to ensure that children 

with disabilities and their families 

receive and benefi t from high-quality, 

culturally appropriate and familycentered supports and services. 

Trohanis believes that for NECTAC’s 

assistance to yield improved results 

for children and families, a multilevel 

systems change approach is needed. 

Toward that end, NECTAC will target 

state infrastructure, personnel 

development, community infrastructure, 

service providers and practices and 

individual children and families.

NECTAC employs various strategies, 

including strategic planning, 

consultations, workshops, information 

materials, teleconferences and 

contributions to a topically focused 

web site: www.nectac.org. To 

make their information more widely 

available, NECTAC is affi liating with 

the Education Resources Information 

Center (ERIC) as an adjunct 

clearinghouse for information on 

early intervention and early childhood 

special education.

As the prime contractor, FPG

will work closely with two key 

subcontracting organizations-

-the National Association 

of State Directors of 

Special Education 

in Alexandria, VA, 

and the Parents 

Advocacy Coalition 

for Education Rights 

(PACER) in Minneapolis, 

MN. |ed|

Supporting IDEA

IDEAs � partnerships � results

Pat Trohanis
12 early developments | fall 2002 

I

N RECENT YEARS THE NUMBER

of federal and state programs 

designed to help young children 

with special needs in this 

country has grown dramatically. 

Programs such as Head Start, 

Even Start and early intervention 

offer families of young children 

an array of services and supports. 

Altogether, these programs should form 

a seamless system allowing children and 

families to get the services they need 

with minimal hassle. But how easy is it 

for a family to learn about these services 

and access them? How comprehensive 

are early intervention services and 

how well-coordinated across different 

agencies and programs? FPG Scientist 

Gloria Harbin has studied these 

questions since 1986 and her fi ndings 

are revealing.

Early intervention services consist 

of many types of services that address 

children’s health and development 

as well as supports for their families. 

No one agency or program offers all 

of the therapies or special services 

that an individual child or family may 

need. As a result, families often must 

seek the services and supports they 

need from more than one agency. 

Although coordinating these child 

and family services offered by various 

agencies makes sense and is federally 

mandated, state early intervention 

systems have found this diffi cult to 

achieve. The lack of coordination 

a seamless 

system of 

services?

stems largely from the fact that each 

of the federal programs was developed 

separately—with their own mission, 

mandates and ways of determining 

who is eligible for services.

Over the years, Congress has 

heard testimonies of families 

being bounced from one agency to 

another; of professionals who did not 

communicate with each other and 

gave families confl icting information; 

of agencies’ failures to refer a child 

to another agency that provided 

the service the child was eligible to 

receive; of family members having 

to quit their jobs to devote time to 

fi nding the service their children 

really needed; and of families 

providing the same family history or 

assessment results over and over to 

each agency. The lack of coordinated 

early intervention services has meant 

that some children have experienced 

long delays in obtaining the services 

they needed or, worse yet, have not 

received the services at all.

In 1986, Congress passed the 

Infant-Toddler Program, Part C of the 

Individuals with disabilities Education 

Act, which included, among other 

things, a remedy to this problem. 

A comprehensive system for early 

intervention, coordinated across 

multiple agencies and disciplines at 

both the system and individual level 

was a key component of the new 

legislation. Since the law’s passage, 

Gloria Harbin
fall 2002 | early developments 13

Six Levels 

of 

Service 

Coordination

1 Single program

2 Network of programs beginning to coordinate

3 Primary coordination with intervention, secondary 

coordination with 

other agencies

4 Multiagency system with some leadership coming 

from 

lead agency

5 Multiagency system—leadership and decision 

making dispersed among 

agencies

6 LICC is lead agency for comprehensive and 

cohesive system for 

all children

...an integrated 

approach to 

providing services 

yielded a much 

higher degree of 

satisfaction and 

sense of belonging 

among families 

in need.

integrated approach to providing 

services yielded a much higher degree 

of satisfaction and sense of belonging 

among families in need. “We found 

the best outcomes for kids in the 

broadest and most coordinated service 

systems, those that were designed to 

serve all children and their families,” 

Harbin says. “In other words, children 

with disabilities are more likely to 

receive better services if communities 

begin to plan more cohesive and 

integrated systems for children rather 

than allowing 

programs to function 

in isolation.” Harbin 

said that a parent 

in her study said it 

best: “We never ran 

into the walls of the 

system in Canyon 

City like we did 

in the community 

where we previously 

lived.”

Based on her 

findings, Harbin 

sees a need for 

communities 

across the nation 

to integrate all 

programs for all children and 

families into a cohesive whole. She 

admits there are significant political, 

financial and psychological barriers 

to doing this. The single most 

important ingredient to accomplishing 

integration, she says, is leadership.

“The presence of leadership or the 

lack of it is a major key to success or 

failure,” she says. “We need university 

programs that will train a generation 

of community leaders who have a 

vision of interagency cooperation and 

a comprehensive system of services 

and resources that supports and 

actively nurtures the development of 

all children in the community, instead 

of only some of the children. |ed|

For more information

Implementing early intervention policy: Are we 

making the grade? Harbin, G.L. (2001). Journal 

of Early Intervention, 24(2), 103-105.

The challenge of coordination. Harbin, G.L. (1996). 

Infants and Young Children, 8(3), 68-76.

Services for young children with disabilities and 

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

Gallagher, J.J. (2000). In J.P. Shonkoff, & S.J. 

Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood 

intervention (2nd ed.), pp. 387-415. New York: 

Cambridge University Press.

*

*

Harbin has studied the effectiveness 

of the federal requirements that early 

intervention services be integrated 

and coordinated across programs 

and agencies. She is among the few 

researchers to do this on a national 

scale.

Harbin’s research has focused on 

the state and local levels where most 

of these programs are housed and 

administered. Her state-level studies, 

conducted primarily between 1987 

and 1992, analyzed the amount 

of coordination, 

approaches to 

coordination, 

agreements 

among agencies, 

structures and 

linkages to facilitate 

coordination 

and outcomes of 

coordination. At the 

local level, Harbin 

has analyzed nine 

communities in 

three states from 

1992 to 1997. She 

is still following 

three of those 

communities and 

has been studying all communities in 

North Carolina for the last four years.

Harbin has identified six levels of 

coordination at the state and local 

level. Her recent research indicates that 

most states are using one of the three 

less comprehensive and coordinated 

models. “In general, states have not 

put together a comprehensive system 

of services,” Harbin says. “Most focus 

only on a child’s educational and 

therapeutic needs.”

The result, she says, is that adults 

and children with disabilities in many 

communities do not feel supported, 

but instead feel unwelcome and 

stigmatized by their community.

By contrast, communities such 

as Canyon City, CO, that took an 
recent pub

fpg

Cardiovascular indicators of arousal in boys 

with fragile X syndrome. Roberts, J. E., Boccia, 

M. L., Bailey, D. B., & Hatton, D. D. (2001). 

Developmental Psychobiology, 39, 107-123.

Commentary on Espinosa’s “Is it time for early 

childhood training standards?” Bryant, D. (2001). 

National Head Start Association Dialogue, 4(2), 

303-305.

Complex syntax production of African American 

preschoolers. Jackson, S. C., & Roberts, J. E. 

(2001). Journal of Speech, Language, and 

Hearing Research, 44(5), 1083-1096.

Designing a High Quality Pre-kindergarten 

Program. Clifford, R., & Gallagher, J. (2001). Chapel 

Hill: North Carolina Education Research Council. 

Development and behavior of male toddlers with 

fragile X syndrome. Roberts, J. E., Hatton, D. D., & 

Bailey, D. B. (2001). Journal of Early Intervention, 

24, 207-223.

Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes 

from the Abecedarian Project. Campbell, F. A., 

Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E. P., Miller-Johnson, S., 

& Sparling, J. J. (2002). Applied Developmental 

Science, 6, 42-57.

Evaluating Smart Start. Bryant, D., & Maxwell, K. 

(2001). The State Education Standard, 30-37.

The evolution of transition policy for young children 

with special needs and their families: Past, present, 

and future. Rosenkoetter, S. E., Whaley, K. T., 

Hains, A. H., & Pierce, L. (2001). Topics in Early 

Childhood Special Education, 21(1), 3-15.

Implementing inclusive early childhood education: 

A call for professional empowerment. Soodak, L., 

Erwin, E., Winton, P., Brotherson, M.J., Turnbull, 

A., Hanson, M., & Brault, L. (2002). Topics in 

Early Childhood Special Education, 22(2), 91-102. 

Innovations in professional development: Creating 

communities of practice to support inclusion.

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

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

inclusion: Focus on change (pp. 179-200). 

Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Parents’ reactions and recommendations following 

diagnosis and hearing aid fitting. Sjoblad, S., 

Roush, J., Harrison, M., & McWilliam, R. A. 

(2001). American Journal of Audiology, 10, 24-31.

Personnel preparation and secondary education 

programs for gifted students. Gallagher, J. (2001).

Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12(3), 2-7. 

Predictors of developmentally appropriate 

classroom practices in kindergarten through 

third grade. Maxwell, K. L., McWilliam, R. A., 

Hemmeter, M. L., Ault, M. J., & Schuster, J. W. 

(2001). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16,

431-452.

“Practice” makes perfect: Research looks at 

family-centered practices in early elementary 

grades. Kraus, S., Maxwell, K., & McWilliam, R. A. 

(Summer, 2001). Exceptional Parent, 62-63.

Problem behavior in boys with fragile X syndrome.

Hatton, D. D., Hooper, S. R., Bailey, D. B., Skinner, 

M., Sullivan, K., & Wheeler, A. (2002). American 

Journal of Medical Genetics, 108, 105-116.

Resources within reason: Insights and lessons from 

families of children with disabilities. Catlett, C., & 

Winton, P. J. (2002, Winter). Young Exceptional 

Children, 5(2), 28.

14 early developments | fall 2002
lications

School readiness in North 

Carolina: One state’s attempt to do the right thing.

Maxwell, K. L., Bryant, D. M., Ridley, S. M., & 

Scott-Little, C. (2001). Young Children, 56, 59-62.

Section 619 Profile (10th ed.). deFosset, S. (Ed.). 

(2001). Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, 

FPG Child Development Institute, NECTAS.

Setting effects on friendship formation among 

young children with and without disabilities.

Buysse, V., Goldman, B. D., & Skinner, M. L. 

(2002). Exceptional Children, 68(4), 503–517.

Smart Start and Child Care in North Carolina: 

Effects on Quality and Changes over Time.

Smart Start Evaluation Team. (May, 2002). 

Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, FPG 

Child Development Institute.

Smart Start Annual Report. Smart Start 

Evaluation Team. (June, 2002). Chapel Hill: 

The University of North Carolina, FPG Child 

Development Institute. 

State/Jurisdictional Eligibility Definitions 

for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities 

Under IDEA. Shackelford, J. (2000). NECTAS 

Notes, 5 (rev. ed.). Chapel Hill: The University of 

North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute, 

NECTAS.

The early interventionist. Oser, C., & Ayankoya, B. 

(2000). Zero to Three, 21(2), 24-31.

The Early Learning Accomplishment Profile 

Examiners Manual and Technical Report.

Hardin, B. J., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. S. (2001). 

Lewisville, NC: Kaplan Press.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to 

the Child Development Encyclopedia. Trohanis, P. 

(Contributor). (2002). New York: Macmillan Reference 

USA, Gale Group, Thomson Learning, p. 205.

The observed construction of teaching: Four 

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

& Zulli, R. A. (2002). Journal of Research in 

Childhood Education, 16, 148-161. 

The relation of preschool quality to children’s 

cognitive and social developmental trajectories 

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

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

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

Child Development, 72(5), 1534-1553.

Unexpected Journey: The Earliest Days [Video]. 

Wesley, P. (Producer). (2001). (Available from 

Partnerships for Inclusion, 521 South Greensboro 

Street, Carrboro, NC 27510) 

What next for OERI? Gallagher, J. (2002). 

Education Week. March 27, p. 52.

fall 2002 | early developments 15

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 

pubs@mail.fpg.unc.edu
16 early developments | fall 2002 

WITH MORE MOTHERS OF YOUNG CHILDREN entering the workforce and a growing recognition of the 

importance of early learning experiences in preparing children for school, the American public and 

educators alike are focusing on the need for high-quality prekindergarten programs for 4-year-olds. Many 

other countries already offer universal prekindergarten programs for 3- and 4-year-olds. In the US, federal 

and state governments have been reluctant to assume responsibility for educating children prior to school 

entry into kindergarten, but that appears to be changing. At least 42 states currently offer some type of prekindergarten 

program, and a few such as Georgia, Oklahoma and New York are moving towards a voluntary prekindergarten program for 

all 4-year-olds. 

Focus on

Prekindergarten Education in the US
fall 2002 | early developments 17

Adding import to this national trend is the passage of 

President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act in January 2002 

(www.NoChildLeftBehind.gov). This law seeks to ensure 

that public schools are teaching students what they need to 

know to be successful in life. It also draws attention to the 

need to prepare children for academic success before they 

start formal schooling. In response to this new educational 

policy agenda, FPG has launched two major initiatives—the 

NCEDL Multi-State Prekindergarten Study and a National 

Prekindergarten Center (NPC) to assist states in the 

development of high-quality prekindergarten programs.

NCEDL Multi-State Study 

A

CROSS THE COUNTRY, states are rapidly expanding 

school-linked prekindergarten programs at a cost 

exceeding $2.9 billion. Although these efforts are 

commendable, states are launching these programs without 

basic knowledge about the nature of prekindergarten policies 

and services or of the implications of decisions about the 

basic design of the programs. The National Center for Early 

Development & Learning (NCEDL), housed at FPG, seeks to 

close this information gap through a multi-state study of 

prekindergarten services.

“It’s amazing how little is known about these programs,” 

says Donna Bryant, co-director of the study along with 

Richard Clifford. “Does it matter if there’s a lot of reading 

in these programs, if it’s full-day or half-day? These are the 

kinds of things states should know.”

“Some states have conducted individual studies of 

prekindergarten services, but each study uses different 

measures, so we can’t compare results across states.” 

Clifford adds, “While there have been major national 

studies of Head Start, child care and early intervention, 

there has not been a single large-scale, multi-state study 

of prekindergarten services. Given the amount of state and 

federal money going into these programs, the need for such 

a study is urgent.”

NCEDL’s Multi-State Prekindergarten Study has two primary 

purposes: 1) to describe the variations of experiences for 

children in prekindergarten and the impact of these variations 

on children’s basic development, and 2) to examine the degree 

to which the prekindergarten experiences prepare children for 

kindergarten and early schooling.

Primary questions being researched include the education 

and experience of teachers and teacher assistants in schoollinked prekindergarten programs; the nature and distribution 

of practices in areas such as literacy, math and teacher-child 

relationships; how quality and practices vary as a function of 

child and teacher characteristics and classroom and program 

variables; and whether children’s outcomes can be predicted 

by their experiences in prekindergarten programs.

Prior to launching the study, NCEDL conducted a survey 

of state-level personnel in every state and the nation’s 

capital to learn about state-funded and other school-related 

prekindergarten services, class size, ratios, teacher education 

and other structural features. Based on that survey, NCEDL

selected six states for the larger study—California, Georgia, 

Illinois, Kentucky, New York and Ohio. 

Twenty-four data collectors, four in each state, have been 

trained and sent into the field armed with questionnaires and 

assessment materials. They have visited 240 preschool classes, 40 

picked at random in each state. Four children in each classroom, 

also picked at random, are being followed. Researchers are 

currently conducting the second round of data collection on 

these children as they move from the prekindergarten classes into 

kindergarten. Data collection will be complete in May 2003.

In addition to assessing classrooms teachers and students, 

FPG Fellow Oscar Barbarin (also on the faculty of the UNCCH School of Social Work) is leading a part of the study 

examining the child’s home environment. Researchers are 

conducting one-on-one interviews with parents to find out 

about family activities, parent attitudes toward education 

and the school and childrearing practices. 

The NCEDL researchers would like to follow the children 

into the first and second grade, and are currently seeking 

additional funds to support this work. Collecting data as 

the children move from the prekindergarten classes into 

kindergarten and beyond will be difficult with the children 

scattering out to different schools.

NCEDL is a collaborative effort of researchers at FPG

working with colleagues at the University of Virginia under 

the direction of 

Bob Pianta and at 

the University of 

California at Los 

Angeles under the 

direction of Carollee 

Howes. Other 

key researchers 

at FPG include 

Senior Scientist 

Peg Burchinal and 

Scientist Diane Early.
18 early developments | fall 2002 

NPC

National Prekindergarten Center

U

P TO THE PRESENT, states and local school 

districts have been launching prekindergarten 

programs with little technical assistance. No 

single organization provides research-based information 

to help guide prekindergarten policies and practices. To 

help fill this need, FPG has started planning a National 

Prekindergarten Center (NPC) with a one-year grant from 

the Foundation for Child Development. 

“We envision our mission as helping local, state and 

federal leaders develop and implement high quality 

universal prekindergarten programs through our research, 

policy analysis, technical assistance and communications,” 

says Kelly Maxwell, who co-directs the center with Dick 

Clifford. Maxwell directed North Carolina’s statewide 

school readiness assessment and co-directs the evaluation 

of North Carolina’s Smart Start early childhood initiative.

High-quality prekindergarten programs are being 

launched not only in the public schools, but also Head Start 

centers, and community-based childcare centers. Many 

states are using classrooms in all three types of programs to 

provide prekindergarten services.”

The National Prekindergarten Center will be housed 

at FPG, but will partner with various organizations that 

address prekindergarten issues. “For us to be effective, 

we will need to develop strategic partnerships across the 

country,” Clifford says. “For example, NCEDL and NPC are 

working together with Steve Barnett at the National Institute 

for Early Education Research to study the cost of 

state prekindergarten programs. The burning 

question for most policymakers is, ‘How much 

will a prekindergarten program cost?’ Yet 

there is little information about the true cost of 

prekindergarten. We hope to gather the information needed 

to help states understand the real cost of providing high 

quality prekindergarten services for children.”

In addition to finance, NPC will focus its long-term 

efforts on governance and professional development. 

Governance concerns the respective roles of federal, state 

and local governments in administrating prekindergarten 

programs. “Simply put, the question is ‘Who’s in charge 

of what?’” Clifford says. “For K-12 education, state and 

local governments are primarily responsible for educating 

their children, with the federal government providing some 

support and technical assistance. In the prekindergarten 

arena, the roles are still unclear.”

Professional development addresses the shortage of 

qualified teachers in prekindergarten programs. It is 

estimated that less than half of the current teachers of 3- and 

4-year-olds in this country have a BA degree. “Research has 

shown that highly qualified teachers conduct more enriching 

classes,” Maxwell says. “States will have to work very hard 

to train a sufficient number of teachers to meet the growing 

prekindergarten needs.”

As NPC ends its planning year, Clifford and Maxwell are 

seeking additional funding from the Foundation for Child 

Development and other funding sources. NPC is already 

involved in research and policy work and will begin offering 

technical assistance during 2003. “We’re excited about the 

new opportunities and working relationships that we’ve 

developed during this planning year and are looking forward 

to NPC becoming fully operational,” Clifford says. |ed|

For more information

Almost a million children in school before kindergarten: Who is responsible for 

early childhood services? Clifford, R. M., Early, D. M., & Hills, T. W. (1999). 

Young Children, 54(5), 48-51.

Education for four-year-olds: State initiatives. 

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

R., & Heinemeier, S. E. (2001). Chapel Hill: 

The University of North Carolina, FPG Child 

Development Institute, National Center for Early 

Development & Learning. [Also available online 

at www.ncedl.org]

The missing support infrastructure in early 

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

(2000). Early Childhood Research & Practice 

(2)1. [Available only online at http://ecrp.uiuc.edu]
fall 2002 | early developments 19

ncedlpublications

Caregiver training and classroom quality in child 

care centers. Burchinal, M., Cryer, D., Clifford, 

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

Science, 6(1). 

Demographic characteristics of early childhood 

teachers and structural elements of early care and 

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

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

Research and Practice, 4(1), 1-19. 

Early childhood care: Relations with family 

characteristics and preferred care characteristics.

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

Childhood Research Quarterly, 16(4), 475-497. 

Mothers and fathers responses to signals of 

children with cerebral palsy during feeding. Olrick, 

J., Pianta, R., & Marvin, R. (2002). Journal of 

Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 14(1), 

1-17.

Parents’ perceptions of their children’s child care: 

A cross-national comparison. Cryer, D., Tietze, W. 

& Wessels, H. (2002). Early Childhood Research 

Quarterly, 17(2), 258-277.

Public school involvement in pre-kindergarten 

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

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

80(5), 18-21. 

Teachers narratives about their relationships with 

children: Associations with behavior in classrooms.

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

Psychology Review, 31(2), 148-163.

The relation of kindergarten classroom 

environment to teacher, family, and school 

characteristics and child outcomes. La Paro, 

K., Pianta, R., Payne, C., Cox, M., & Bradley, R. 

(2002). Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 225-

238.

The transition to school. Pianta, R. (2002). 

National Head Start Association Magazine, XVI

(3), 42-46.

Transition practices: Findings from a national 

survey of kindergarten teachers. Early, D. M, 

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

Early Childhood Education Journal, 28, 199-206. 

Turnover in kindergarten classroom membership 

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

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

239-252. 

fall 2002 | early developments 19
20 early developments | fall 2002

ed

early developments

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

FPG Child Development Institute

CB 8185, UNC-CH

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8185

Address Service Requested