Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO 

September 2003 HEAD START 

Curriculum Use and 

Individual Child 

Assessment in 

Cognitive and 

Language 

Development 

GAO-03-1049 
Page i GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Letter 1

Appendix I Congressional Briefing Slides: Head Start 5 

Abbreviations 

FACES Family and Child Experiences Survey 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

Contents 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

September 12, 2003 

The Honorable George Miller 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Dale E. Kildee 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Education Reform 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

House of Representatives 

To enhance Head Start’s contribution to the school readiness of children 

from low-income families, the 1998 amendments to the Head Start Act 

provided for updating the Head Start performance standards to ensure 

that when children leave the program, they have the basic skills needed to 

start school.1

 Head Start’s performance standards for education and early 

childhood development require that the programs’ curricula support each 

child’s cognitive and language development, including emergent literacy 

skills. In preschool children, cognitive and language development refers to 

the fundamental abilities needed to reason and to speak a language. Skills 

in emergent literacy are the precursors to reading, such as learning the 

letters of the alphabet. The curriculum Head Start programs use must meet 

the definition for a written curriculum in Head Start’s performance 

standards. Programs have the option of developing their own curriculum, 

using a curriculum developed locally or by the state education agency, and 

adopting or adapting a model developed by an educational publisher. 

Programs also may use teacher mentoring and individual child assessment 

to help implement the curriculum. 

As reauthorization of Head Start approached, you asked us to answer 

these questions about Head Start programs’ efforts to prepare children for 

school: 

 1

Pub. L. 105-285, Title I, Sec. 108 (amending sec. 641A of the Head Start Act).

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

1. To what extent have Head Start programs made progress in meeting 

performance standards for cognitive and language development since 

they took effect in January 1998? 

2. To what extent has local Head Start programs’ use of curricula 

changed since the performance standards for children’s cognitive and 

language development were issued? 

3. To what extent have local Head Start programs used teacher 

mentoring and individual child assessments to support curriculum 

planning? 

To determine what progress has been made in meeting the new standards, 

we used data from Head Start’s compliance reviews. We analyzed the 

percentage of Head Start programs that met overall performance 

standards for curriculum and the percentage that met seven specific 

performance standards for cognitive and language development. To 

examine local Head Start programs’ use of curricula, mentoring, and 

individual child assessments, we analyzed data from the Department of 

Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Family and Child Experiences Survey 

(FACES). FACES is a series of longitudinal surveys of nationally 

representative samples of Head Start children.2

 We used data from the 

spring 1998 and fall 2000 teacher interviews, which contained information 

about types of Head Start curricula and classroom activities, the 

percentage of teachers who received mentoring visits, the percentage of 

Head Start children who received individual child assessments and how 

teachers used the assessment information. Although limitations in the 

FACES data did not allow us to determine change in curricula and 

classroom activities over time, the data did permit us to describe Head 

Start curricula and classroom activities at two points in time. Information 

on mentoring and individual child assessment was available only for fall 

2000. We also interviewed officials in 9 of 10 HHS regional offices about 

Head Start programs’ curriculum practices and analyzed HHS’ 2002 

Program Information Report data on curricula. The Program Information 

Report contains basic information about Head Start programs’ operating 

characteristics and services. All Head Start and Early Head Start programs 

 2

Nicholas Zill, et al., Head Start FACES (2000): A Whole-Child Perspective on 

Program Performance, Fourth Progress Report, A report prepared for Child 

Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 

Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human 

Services, May 2003, provides additional details about the FACES sample design.
Page 3 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

are required to submit data for the Program Information Report annually. 

We conducted our work between February and June 2003 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

We provided a briefing on the results of our work to staff of the House 

Committee on Education and the Workforce on May 15, 2003. We provided 

additional information in a second briefing on June 6, 2003. This report 

formally conveys the information provided during those briefings. 

In summary, we found that data from Head Start compliance reviews 

conducted during 2000-02 indicated that most programs met performance 

standards for overall curriculum and for cognitive and language 

development. Of all 1,532 programs in HHS’s 10 regions, HHS determined 

that the highest percent found out of compliance with any one of seven 

specific performance standards for cognitive and language development 

was 10 percent. Among the programs cited for compliance issues related 

to these standards, the areas most in need of improvement included 

(1) using classroom activities and materials that were sufficiently adapted 

to each child’s developmental level and (2) using continuous observation 

and assessment to support each child’s instruction in cognitive and 

literacy skills. 

For the most part, Head Start teachers reported that children were in 

programs that used a specific curriculum or combinations of curricula; in 

1998 and 2000, the largest percentages were in programs that used either 

High Scope or Creative Curriculum. Different methodologies for each 

survey precluded making comparisons over time. In 2000, children were 

more likely to listen to stories for which they see print, to learn about 

prepositions, new words, the conventions of print and letters, and to retell 

stories on a daily or almost daily basis, than to experience other language 

development activities, such as working on phonics, writing their name, or 

learning about rhyming words and word families. 

Of those who had a mentor, teachers of about two-thirds of Head Start 

children received mentoring visits, weekly or bi-weekly. In 2000, teachers 

of an estimated 78 percent of Head Start children used individual 

assessments in their small group instruction and in overall curriculum 

planning. Almost 90 percent of Head Start children received individual 

assessments in cognitive and language development. About half were 

assessed in mathematics and emergent literacy. The children received 

individual assessments at least once a year. 
Page 4 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

We provided a draft of this report to HHS for review and comment. HHS 

indicated that it had no general comments but provided written technical 

comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional committees 

and other interested parties. We also will make copies available to others 

upon request. This report will also be available on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

or Betty Ward-Zukerman at (202) 512-7215. Sara Edmondson, Luann Moy, 

Christopher Moriarity, and Elsie Picyk also made key contributions to this 

report. 

Marnie S. Shaul 

Director, Education, Workforce, and 

 Income Security Issues 
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 5 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Briefing for Congressional Requesters

May 15, and June 6, 2003

HEAD START: Curriculum Use and Individual Child Assessment in 

Cognitive and Language Development
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 6 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

2

Introduction

The 1998 amendments to the Head Start Act provided for updating performance 

standards to ensure that Head Start children leave the program ready for school. 

Head Start’s performance standards for education and early childhood 

development require that programs’ curricula support each child’s cognitive and 

language development, including emergent literacy skills.1

In preschool children, cognitive and language development refer to advances in 

basic abilities in thinking and speaking. Skills in emergent literacy are the 

precursors to reading, such as learning the letters of the alphabet.

As reauthorization of Head Start approached, you asked us to determine the 

progress of local Head Start programs in meeting the performance standards for 

children’s cognitive and language development and to describe their use of 

curricula, mentoring for teachers, and child assessments to foster children’s 

development.

1Pub. L. 105-285, Title I, Sec. 108 (amending sec. 641A of the Head Start Act).
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 7 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

3

Key Questions

1. To what extent have Head Start programs made progress in meeting

performance standards for cognitive and language development since they took 

effect in January 1998? 

2. To what extent has local Head Start programs’ use of curricula changed since 

the performance standards for children’s cognitive and language development 

were issued?

3. To what extent have local Head Start programs used teacher mentoring and 

individual child assessments to support curriculum planning?
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 8 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

4

Scope and Methodology

We determined what progress has been made in meeting the new standards by 

analyzing data from the Head Start Monitoring and Tracking System (HSMTS), an 

automated database that quantifies and tabulates the results of Head Start on-site 

compliance reviews. 

We examined local Head Start programs’ use of curricula and individual child 

assessment practices by:

• Analyzing data from the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) 

Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES). FACES is a series of 

longitudinal surveys of nationally representative samples of Head Start children. 

Employing multiple data collection instruments, the survey includes 

assessments of children, interviews with their parents, observation of 

classrooms, and interviews with teachers. We used data from the spring 1998 

and fall 2000 teacher interviews, which contained information about curriculum 

use, teachers, and child assessment practices.
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 9 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

5

Scope and Methodology (continued)

• Producing weighted estimates from the 1998 and 2000 FACES teacher 

interview data using child weights developed by the FACES project team. A 

weight is the factor we used to make estimates for the Head Start child 

population from the FACES sample data. Because we were analyzing data for 

both 1998 and 2000, we used the same type of weights for both years.

• Obtaining margins of error for estimates using FACES data at the 95 percent 

confidence level.

• Interviewing officials responsible for Head Start compliance reviews in 9 of 

HHS’s 10 regional offices about Head Start programs’ curriculum practices. 

• Analyzing HHS’s 2002 Program Information Report data regarding use of 

curricula and child assessment instruments.

We conducted our work between February and June 2003 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 10 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

6

Scope and Methodology (continued)

Limitations

• We did not review Head Start’s performance standards, apart from identifying 

those related to cognitive and language development, or independently assess 

compliance by Head Start programs.

• Using existing administrative and FACES data, our review provides information 

about the Head Start program at the national level, focusing on the 50 states and 

the District of Columbia. Our review does not examine Head Start programs for 

migrants, Native Americans, or the Early Head Start program.

• The FACES samples were designed to be nationally representative of Head 

Start children. Teachers were included in the survey sample if they were 

teachers of sampled children, yielding a probability sample. However, because 

the probability sample of teachers that resulted also yielded high standard errors, 

our estimates from the teacher interview data were less precise than would have 

been true had the sample been designed primarily to collect data about teachers.
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 11 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

7

Summary of Results

• Data from Head Start compliance reviews indicated that most programs met performance 

standards for overall curriculum and for seven specific standards for cognitive and 

language development.

• For the most part, Head Start children were in programs that used a specific curriculum or 

combinations of curricula; in 1998 and 2000, the largest percentages of Head Start children 

were in programs that used either High Scope or Creative Curriculum. However, because 

the surveys in each time period used different methodologies, we could not determine if 

these percentages represented an actual change over time. The FACES data indicated 

that, in each time period, most Head Start children had teachers who reported offering 

basic cognitive or language development activities daily or almost daily, but provided no 

additional information on how the curricula were implemented.

• Of those who had a mentor, teachers for about two-thirds of Head Start children reported 

being observed by a mentor, once every week or every 2 weeks. Teachers of an estimated 

78 percent of Head Start children reported using information from individual assessments 

for small group instruction and in overall curriculum planning. Almost 90 percent of Head 

Start children were assessed in cognitive and language development; about half were 

assessed in mathematics and emergent literacy. 
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 12 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

8

Background

• Head Start programs are administered locally but must comply with federal 

performance standards in a number of categories, such as education and early 

childhood development, child health and safety, and family and community 

partnerships. The standards for education and early childhood development 

pertain to curriculum and are designed to foster school readiness in all areas of 

social competence, including social, emotional, and physical, as well as 

cognitive. Our review focused on seven of the curriculum standards for 

children’s cognitive and language development.

• HHS regional offices make on-site inspections to monitor programs’ performance 

in meeting all performance standards. Inspection teams monitor approximately 

one-third of the programs each year.
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 13 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

9

Background (continued)

• Head Start’s performance standards for cognitive and language development are 

based on concepts, such as emergent literacy, that have their roots in behavioral and 

social science research on child development:

• Cognitive development refers to advances in a child’s ability to develop ideas and 

theories about how things work, that is, the general ability to reason.

• Language development refers to a child’s progress in learning language, including 

grammar, the sounds of speech and vocabulary.

• Emergent literacy refers to the theory that developing the ability to read begins 

early in a child’s life, rather than when a child starts school. It includes the skills, 

knowledge, and attitudes that are considered forerunners to reading and writing, 

including recognizing the names of the letters of the alphabet, scribbling, 

recognizing that the print in books is what is read, paying attention to the sounds 

in words, and connecting stories to life experiences.2

2

Since 1998, the National Research Council has examined the research on early childhood learning and development in several comprehensive reviews that discuss 

these concepts in greater detail. National Research Council, Starting Out Right: A Guide to Promoting Children's Reading Success, Committee on Prevention of 

Reading Difficulties in Young Children, M.S. Burns, P. Griffin, and C.E. Snow, eds. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999); National Research Council, How 

People Learn: Mind, Brain, Experience, School-Expanded Edition, Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, and R. R. 

Cocking, eds. (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001); and National Research Council, Eager to Learn, Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy, B. T. 

Bowman, M.S. Donovan, and M. Susan Burns, eds. (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001).
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 14 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Background

10

Head Start Performance Standards for Cognitive and 

Language Development

• Standard 1304.21 (a) (4)-Grantee and delegate agencies must provide for the 

development of each child’s cognitive and language skills by

(i) using a variety of strategies,

(ii) providing for creative self-expression, 

(iii) promoting interaction and conversation with others, and

(iv) providing materials and activities adapted to each child.

• Standard 1304.21 (c) (1)-Grantee and delegate agencies, in collaboration with 

the parents, must implement a curriculum to

(i) support each child’s individual pattern of development and learning and

(ii) develop each child's cognitive, literacy, and mathematical skills.

Source: GAO analysis of Head Start performance standards described in HHS, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Head Start Program 

Regulations and Program Guidance for Parts 1304 and 1308, February 2001. See also 45 CFR, Part 1304.21.
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 15 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Background

11

Head Start Performance Standards for Cognitive and 

Language Development (continued)

• Standard 1304.21 (c) (2)-Staff must use a variety of strategies to promote and 

support children’s learning and developmental progress based on the observation 

and ongoing assessment of each child.
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 16 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

12

Background (continued)

• The curriculum Head Start programs use must meet the definition for curriculum 

in Head Start performance standards.3 Programs may develop their own 

curriculum, adopt, or adapt any existing package. Two widely used existing 

curricula are High Scope and Creative Curriculum.

• Head Start’s performance standards define curriculum as a written plan that

includes: (1) goals for children’s development and learning, (2) the experiences 

through which children will achieve the goals, (3) what staff and parents do to 

help children achieve the goals, and (4) the materials needed to support the 

implementation of the curriculum.

3See 45 CFR 1304.3(a)(5). 
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 17 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Background

13

Key Features of Two Curricula-High Scope and Creative 

Curriculum

Guides teachers in developing a relationship with the child’s 

family.

Encourages parent participation in the classroom

and fosters home-school communication.

Parent 

involvement

Includes a Creative Curriculum Developmental Continuum 

for ages 3-5, which defines and measures a sequence of 

steps a child is expected to take toward milestones in 

socioemotional, physical, cognitive, and language 

development.

Using the Child Observation Record, a teacher or observer 

assesses a child’s behavior in 6 areas: initiative, social relations, 

creative representation, music and movement, language and 

literacy, and logic and mathematics.

Assessment

Five major areas: how children develop and learn, the 

learning environment, the content areas children learn, the 

teacher’s role, and the family’s role. Six content areas: 

literary, math, science, social studies, arts, technology, and 

the process skills children use to learn the content. Eleven 

classroom interest areas: blocks, dramatic play, toys and 

games, art, library, discovery, sand and water, music and 

movement, cooking, computers, and outdoors.

Fifty-eight key experiences for preschool children grouped into 

10 categories: creative representation, language and literacy, 

initiative and social relations, movement, music, classification, 

seriation, number, space, and time.

Curriculum 

framework

Balances teacher-directed and child-initiated learning, 

emphasizing responding to children’s learning styles and 

building on their interests.

Encourages children to pursue their own interests

and goals. Teaching strategies balance child and adult initiation.

Teaching and 

learning theory

High Scope Creative Curriculum

Curriculum

features

Sources: GAO summary of curriculum publishers’ documentation.
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 18 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Question 1

14

Overall, HHS Finds Most Programs in Compliance with 

Curriculum Standards

• By 2002, HHS had determined that at least 45 percent of all 1,532 programs in 

HHS’s 10 regions were rated as having “no findings” in curriculum-related areas 

during on-site inspections, meaning that the programs were in full compliance 

with Head Start’s overall performance standards for curriculum.5 The remaining 

programs had at least one finding.

• In 2002, HHS found that no more than 10 percent of the programs reviewed in 

any geographic region that year had serious or significant areas of 

noncompliance with overall standards for curriculum.

5Head Start inspection teams used the following criteria to determine compliance findings:

“No findings” means that a program was in full compliance.

“Findings” means that a program was out of compliance in at least one area.

“Substantial findings” means that a program had serious or significant areas of noncompliance..
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 19 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Question 1

15

Overall, HHS Finds Most Programs in Compliance with 

Curriculum Standards (continued)

• Three percent of the programs reviewed in 2002 were rated deficient with regard 

to the overall performance standards for curriculum.6

• Deficiencies must be corrected immediately or within a year, pursuant to a 

written quality improvement plan.

• Deficiencies not corrected within the specified time frame will lead to 

termination of the grant or denial of refunding.

6Head Start regulations define a deficiency in 45 CFR 1304.3(a)(6). Any determination of “substantial findings” could potentially lead to a designation of 

deficiency. Thus, the 3 percent of programs rated deficient in 2002 may have included some of those with substantial findings. However, information on

the reasons for the deficiency ratings was not available.
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 20 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Question 1

16

HHS Finds Most Programs in Compliance with 

Cognitive and Language Development Standards

• Of the 1,532 programs reviewed during 2000-02, HHS determined that the 

highest percent found out of compliance with any one of the seven specific 

performance standards for cognitive and language development was 10 percent.

• Programs were found out of compliance most often for:

• not using classroom activities and materials sufficiently adapted to children’s 

varied development and

• not making continuous observation and assessment of each child’s progress.
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 21 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Question 2

17

Head Start Children Were in Programs That Used a 

Specific Curriculum

The FACES data did not allow us to determine change over time, but did permit 

us to describe Head Start curricula at two points in time.

• In large part, Head Start teachers reported that children were in programs 

that used a specific curriculum or combinations of curricula. In 1998, an 

estimated 54 percent of Head Start children were in programs that used 

either High Scope or Creative Curriculum, while in 2000, an estimated 58 

percent of the children were in programs that used one or the other 

curriculum. However, because the surveys in each time period used different 

methodologies, we could not determine if these percentages represented an 

actual change. 

• In each time period, more than 40 percent of the children were in classes that 

used other curricula or combinations of curricula.7 In 1998, some 

combinations included High Scope and Creative Curriculum. 7HHS’s Administration for Children and Families has issued Head Start FACES (2000): A Whole-Child Perspective on Program Performance, Fourth Progress Report,

which includes analyses of Head Start curricula that were beyond the scope of this study. See http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/core/

ongoing_research/faces/faces_intro.html.
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 22 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Question 2

18

Sources: 1998 FACES teacher interview data, GAO analysis.

Note: The survey question in the 1998 teacher interview that provided these data asked FACES respondents to identify the name of their principal 

curriculum. Because many respondents answered the question in a way that indicated they used more than one principal curriculum, we recoded 

the responses. We interpreted the use of more than one principal curriculum as the use of combinations of curricula. Some combinations included 

High Scope and Creative Curriculum.

The percentages are based on sample data and have at most, a plus or minus 13 percent margin of error. 

In 1998, the Largest Percentages of Head Start Children 

Were in Classes That Used High Scope or Creative 

Curriculum

18

36

46

Creative Curriculum

High Scope

Other, including

combinations
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 23 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Question 2

19

In 2000, the Largest Percentages of Head Start Children 

Also Were in Classes That Used High Scope or Creative 

Curriculum

22

36

42

High Scope – principal curriculum 

Creative Curriculum – principal curriculum 

Other – principal curriculum

Sources: 2000 FACES teacher interview data, GAO analysis.

Note: The survey question in the 2000 teacher interview that provided these data asked FACES respondents to identify the name of 

their principal curriculum. Respondents answered the question in a way that indicated the one principal curriculum they used. The 

percentages above are based on sample data and have at most, a plus or minus 15 percent margin of error.

Responses to HHS’s 2002 Program Information Report (PIR) indicated that 45 percent of Head Start programs used Creative 

Curriculum and 18 percent used High Scope. The question in the PIR concerning the type of curriculum used was open-ended. 

These percentages represent responses by programs that reported simply “Creative Curriculum” or “High Scope”.
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 24 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Question 2

20

Teachers Reported That Head Start Children Have Been 

Exposed to a Variety of Cognitive and Language 

Development Activities

• The FACES data included no detailed information on the implementation of 

individual curriculum packages in 1998 and 2000, but some information on the 

activities supporting cognitive development that children experienced was 

available. However, because HHS’s FACES project team changed and 

expanded the FACES interview questions in 2000, to collect more detailed 

information on children’s exposure to activities that foster emergent literacy, 

these data also did not allow us to determine change over time.

• In both time periods, most Head Start children had teachers who reported 

offering basic cognitive and language development activities daily or almost 

daily.

Note: Information on classroom activities was derived from teacher interviews and thus is subject to the social desirability biases inherent in selfreported data.
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 25 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Question 2

21

In 1998, Teachers Reported That over 90 Percent of 

Head Start Children Experienced Several Basic 

Cognitive Development Activities Daily or Almost Daily

Learning letters 68

Reading stories 95

93 Solving puzzles and playing with 

geometric forms

96 Building with blocks or doing other

construction work

92

Percentage 

of children

Learning numbers or counting

Activity offered by teacher

Sources: 1998 FACES teacher interview data, GAO analysis. 

Note: The percentages are based on sample data and have at most, a plus or minus 7 percent margin of error. Differences in the percentage for 

learning letters and all other activities are statistically significant. 

• Teachers reported that over 90 

percent of Head Start children 

experienced block building, story 

reading, solving puzzles, and 

learning numbers daily or almost 

daily. A smaller proportion 

learned letters that often. 
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 26 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Question 2

22

In 2000, Teachers Reported That Head Start Children 

Were Exposed to a Variety of Language Development 

Activities Daily or Almost Daily

Discussing new words 76

29

33

41

43

48

52

60

67

68

75

89

Percentage 

of children

Listening to stories for which they do not see print

Writing letters

Learning about rhyming words and word families

Writing their name

Working on phonics

Dictating stories 

Retelling stories

Learning letters

Learning about the conventions of print

Learning about common prepositions

Listening to stories for which they see print

Children's classroom activity

Sources: 2000 FACES teacher interview data, GAO analysis. There were no items in the 2000 FACES teacher interview concerning classroom 

activities that fostered general reasoning and numerical skills.

Note: The percentages are based on sample data and have at most, a plus or minus 10 percent margin of error. Differences in the percentages 

greater than 25 percent are statistically significant. Differences less than 10 percent are not statistically significant.

• Children were more likely to 

listen to stories for which they 

see print, to learn about new 

words, prepositions, the 

conventions of print and letters, 

and to retell stories, on a daily or 

almost daily basis, than to 

experience the other activities.
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 27 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Question 2

23

Regional Officials Reported Some Changes in

Use of Curricula

• According to officials in 8 of HHS’s 10 regional offices, use of curriculum by 

programs in several regions has changed since 1998. They reported that:

• More programs are using published curricula. Programs have found that 

commercially produced curricula make it easier for them to measure child 

outcomes. They also use supplementary curricula that they adapt to the 

commercial curricula.

• Programs are selecting curricula that include assessment tools that also can 

help measure outcomes.8

• Programs are implementing their curricula with a more structured, sequenced 

set of classroom activities.

8Responses to HHS’s 2002 Program Information Report (PIR) indicate that, for on-going child assessment, the assessment instruments 

developed by publishers of Creative Curriculum and High Scope were used by the largest percentage of programs. Of programs 

responding to the PIR,11 percent used the Developmental Continuum assessment instrument produced by the publishers of Creative 

Curriculum and 9 percent used the Child Observation Record produced by High Scope’s publishers.
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 28 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Question 3

24

In 2000, Teachers of Most Head Start Children Reported 

Receiving Mentoring Support

• Teachers of about two-thirds of Head Start children reported being observed by 

a mentor, who provided feedback, guidance, and training. 

• Of children whose teachers have a mentor, the teachers of about 60 percent 

received mentoring visits once every week or every 2 weeks. Teachers of the 

remainder received mentoring visits about once a month or less often.

• About half of Head Start children had teachers who acted as a mentor for other 

teachers and trainees.9

Sources: 2000 FACES teacher interview data, GAO analysis.

Note: The percentages are based on sample data and have a margin of error. The margin of error for percentages in all three bullets is at most plus or 

minus 10 percent. The differences among all percentages in the first and third bullets are statistically significant. In the second bullet, the difference 

between the percentages for once a week and once every 2 weeks and the difference between the percentages for once a week and once a month or 

less are statistically significant.

9The FACES data did not provide information on the qualifications of mentors in 2000. 
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 29 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Question 3

25

In 2000, Most Head Start Children Had Teachers Who 

Monitored Their Individual Progress

• About 90 percent of Head Start children had teachers who reported maintaining 

records of progress on each child. 

• These individual records usually included samples of the child’s work, checklists, 

or rating scales that indicated the child’s skill level or notes from observations of 

the child’s progress.

Sources: 2000 FACES teacher interview data, GAO analysis.

Note: The percentages are based on sample data and have a plus or minus 7 percent margin of error. 
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 30 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Question 3

26

In 2000, Individual Progress of about Two-thirds of 

Head Start Children Was Tracked Using a Written 

System

• About two-thirds of Head Start children 

whose teachers conduct individual 

assessments were assessed using a 

written system that tracks each child’s 

progress on a chart, grid, or series of 

scales. 

• Teachers of an estimated 30 percent of 

Head Start children who were assessed 

used recorded observations of the children 

during class as the assessment method.

• Teachers of an estimated 3 percent of 

Head Start children observed their 

behavior but kept no records.

Sources: 2000 FACES teacher interview data, GAO analysis.

Note: The percentages are based on sample data and have at most, a plus or minus 9 percent margin of error. The differences among all percentages 

are statistically significant.

3

30

67

Percentage of 

children whose 

teachers use the 

child 

assessment 

approach

Each child is observed but no notes 

are kept

Each child is observed during class 

and notes are kept

Written system records individual 

child's progress on chart, grid, or 

series of scales

Child assessment approach
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 31 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Question 3

27

46

57

88

89

0 20 40 60 80 100

Emergent literacy

Mathematical

Language

Cognitive

Areas of child development

Percentage of children whose teachers 

assessed them in the areas

• Most Head Start children 

received individual 

assessments in cognitive and 

language development.10

• More than half of Head Start 

children were assessed in 

mathematical areas of 

development and almost half 

were assessed in emergent 

literacy.

Sources: 2000 FACES teacher interview data, GAO analysis.

Note: The percentages are based on sample data and have at most, a plus or minus 12 percent margin of error. The differences among the 

percentages for the cognitive, language, emergent literacy, and mathematical areas of development that are greater than 20 percent are statistically 

significant. Differences less than 12 percent are not statistically significant.

10Head Start children’s individual assessments cover a range of areas, including physical growth, motor, social and emotional skills and FACES 

collects information on assessments in these areas. We have reported findings only for the cognitive, language, emergent literacy, and mathematical 

areas of development because those areas were the focus of our review. Although High Scope and Creative Curriculum include assessment 

instruments, the FACES data did not identify the instruments that were used to conduct these assessments.

In 2000, Almost 90 Percent of Head Start Children 

Received Individual Assessments in Cognitive and 

Language Development
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 32 GAO-03-1049 Head Start 

Question 3

28

Head Start Children Received Individual Assessments 

at Least Once a Year in 2000

• About half of Head Start children 

received individual assessments 

three or more times a year and about 

half received assessments once or 

twice a year.

11

37 52

Annually

Twice a year

Three or more

times a year

Sources: 2000 FACES teacher interview data, GAO analysis.

Note: The percentages are based on sample data and have at most, a plus or minus 11 percent margin of error. The differences between 

the percentage for annual assessment and the percentages for twice a year and three or more times a year are statistically significant.
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides: 

Head Start 

Page 33 GAO-03-1049 Head Start (130241) 

Question 3

29

In 2000, Individual Assessment Results Were Used for 

Small Groups and Overall Curriculum Planning

• Teachers of an estimated 78 percent of 

Head Start children used the information 

from individual assessments to select 

small groups, by skill level, for specific 

learning activities, and in overall 

curriculum planning.

10

Used to select the appropriate level 

for all instructional activities or in 

overall curriculum planning

2 Information was recorded but not 

used for planning

78 Used both in selecting small groups 

and in overall curriculum planning

11

Percentage of 

Head Start 

children

Used to select small groups of 

children, by skill level, for specific 

learning activities

Use of individual child 

assessment information

Sources: 2000 FACES teacher interview data, GAO analysis.

Note: The percentages are based on sample data and have at most, a plus or minus 9 percent margin of error. The differences among all but two sets 

of percentages are statistically significant. The difference between information was not recorded and used to select the appropriate level, and the 

difference between used to select small groups and used to select the appropriate level were not statistically significant. 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs