Classroom Processes Affecting Children’s Development from Head Start through Kindergarten

Understanding children’s development from the beginning of Head Start at age 4 until the end of kindergarten is a complicated endeavor, for at least three reasons. First, multiple factors affecting children’s development during this time must be considered, including attributes of the child him- or herself, the multiple settings within which the child spends time (e.g., home, Head Start classrooms, kindergarten classrooms), and the multiple administrative agencies (Head Start, state and district K–12) that support the home and classroom settings. Second, the child, settings, and agencies are all dynamic, such that they are each changing over the course of this time. This includes changes occurring within the child, and, in particular, the rapid neurological development in the prefrontal cortex that helps to facilitate the child’s capacities to regulate his or her emotion and attention (Durston & Casey, Reference Durston and Casey2006); changes in their classroom experiences (i.e., moving from Head Start to kindergarten); and changes in administrative agencies that support these classrooms (e.g., Head Start to federal, state and local Departments of Education).

Third, there are multiple processes that contribute to children’s development of academic and social-emotional skills during these two years. One process involves the quality of children’s interactions within their homes, ECE classrooms, and other primary settings wherein the child spends substantial time and has defined roles and relationships. For example, ecological and social interaction theories of development (e.g., Bronfenbrenner & Morris, Reference Bronfenbrenner and Morris2006; Vygotsky, Reference Vygotsky1962) applied to preschool classrooms (Mashburn & Pianta, Reference Mashburn, Pianta, Reynolds, Rolnick, Englund and Temple2010) offer explanations for how children’s development occurs within Head Start and kindergarten classrooms. Namely, learning and development occurs through the child’s back-and-forth interactions with adults, peers, and learning materials that occur on a regular basis and over extended periods of time, are appropriate to the child’s current ability, and become progressively more complex. More specifically, the quality of social interactions in classrooms that impact young children’s development of academic and social-emotional has been described as comprising three domains: emotionally supportive interactions, well-organized interactions, and instructionally supportive interactions (Hamre et al., Reference Hamre, Pianta and Downer2013). There is empirical support that that more emotionally supportive classroom interactions (e.g., positive climate, sensitivity toward children’s emotional needs) were positively associated with children’s development of social-emotional skills and more instructionally supportive classroom interactions (e.g., language modeling, concept development) were positively associated with children’s development of literacy, math and language skills during the preschool year (Mashburn et al., Reference Mashburn, Pianta and Hamre2008).

Processes affecting children’s development from Head Start through kindergarten also involve the nature of the instructional practices that children experience within their classrooms. Instructional practices vary across ECE classrooms with regard to how much time is spent on academic instruction (e.g., math and literacy instruction), child-led activities (e.g., free-choice centers) and teacher-directed whole group activities (e.g., book readings, group lessons), and there is some empirical evidence suggesting that specific instructional practices in ECE classrooms are positively associated with children’s development. For example, Ball and Blachman (Reference Ball and Blachman1991) found that kindergarten instructional practices focused on phonemic segmentation and letter-sound combinations were positively associated with children’s reading and spelling outcomes. Further, Claessens, Engel, and Curran (Reference Claessens, Engel and Curran2014) found that greater exposure to advanced math and reading instruction in kindergarten was positively associated with academic skills; however, frequency of basic skills instruction was not associated with children’s development.

In addition to those processes within classrooms described above, children’s development from Head Start through the end of kindergarten is also affected by their patterns of experiences as they transition across Head Start and kindergarten classrooms. The child’s transition from a Head Start to a kindergarten classroom may present abrupt shifts in the quality of their interactions with teachers, peers, and learning materials, and in the types of instructional experiences with regard to how classroom activities are structured and the amount of time spent on direct academic instruction. This shift in children’s instructional experiences may be particularly abrupt today, as accountability pressure from the K–12 systems have trickled down to kindergarten classrooms; the result of which is “a heightened focus on academic skills and a reduction in opportunities for play” (Bassok, Latham & Rorem, Reference Bassok, Latham and Rorem2015). As a result, the transition from Head Start to kindergarten very likely involves a shift from play-focused, child-centered experiences to more academically focused, adult-directed experiences, and for some children, this shift is more pronounced than for other children.

In theory, these shifts in experiences from Head Start to kindergarten classrooms may have implications for children’s long-term development. For example, Dewey (Reference Dewey1938) introduced the concept of continuity of experience, which posits that acquiring new knowledge involves a process of taking current knowledge from previous learning experiences and modifying it based on current experiences. Thus, the learner’s prior experiences and current capacities are the starting place for developing new knowledge, and for teaching to be effective, it must build upon those prior experiences and current capacities to make learning more meaningful and effective (Dewey, Reference Dewey1938). Similarly, in this volume, Stipek (Reference Stipek2015) discusses how and why continuity, and more specifically, the alignment of policy and classroom practices across grades, promotes children’s development. From both of these perspectives, children’s development is not only affected by the nature of their instructional experiences and quality of interactions within classrooms; children’s development is also affected by the accumulation of experiences across grades, and more specifically, the extent to which the child’s current learning experiences are attuned to the child’s capabilities and are consistent with their prior experiences. As such, we postulate that the fade-out of impacts of Head Start and other early learning programs may be due, in part, to a mis-alignment in between the systems of Head Start and kindergarten.

Despite the theoretical warrant for the importance of considering children’s experiences across Head Start and kindergarten classrooms, there is very little empirical research that examines if and how specific patterns of experiences across grades affect children’s long-term development. In the next section, we briefly present three sets of hypotheses – Consistency, Developmentally Sequenced, and High Quality – regarding specific patterns of instructional experiences across Head Start and kindergarten classrooms that we postulate are positively associated with children’s long-term development.

Hypotheses about Long-Term Development of Children Who Attended Head Start

Method

Results

In our preliminary analyses, we tested direct effects of instructional practices in Head Start and kindergarten classrooms on children’s academic and social-emotional development during kindergarten.  Results from these analyses are presented in Table 6.4 for academic outcomes and Table 6.5 for social-emotional outcomes (see Block 1, which includes these eight measures of instructional practices entered into the models). There were no significant associations (p < 0.05) found between any of the instructional practices and children’s development of academic skills during kindergarten (Table 6.4). Thus, instructional practices in Head Start and in Kindergarten classrooms did not contribute, uniquely and independently, to children’s language, literacy or math development during kindergarten. Children’s development of social-emotional skills during kindergarten (Table 6.5) was positively associated with the frequency of literacy instruction they experienced; however, the patterns of these results are not intuitive. For example, more frequent literacy instruction in Head Start was negatively associated with children’s development of social-emotional skills and positive approaches to learning (B = −0.21, SE = 0.10, p < 0.05) during kindergarten. More frequent literacy instruction in kindergarten was positively associated with teachers’ reports of the child’s classroom aggression (B = 1.36, SE = 0.56, p < 0.05) and negatively associated with parents’ reports of the child’s problem behaviors (B = −0.59, SE = 0.25, p < 0.05).

To evaluate the primary research questions about the consistency of children’s experiences across Head Start and kindergarten classroom and children’s development of academic skills during kindergarten (Table 6.4), interaction terms were added to the preliminary analyses. More specifically, for the two models examining children’s development of receptive language skills and literacy skills during kindergarten, the following interaction term was added: frequency of literacy/language instruction in kindergarten × frequency of literacy/language instruction in Head Start. This resulting coefficient represents the extent to which the effects of more frequent literacy/language instruction in kindergarten on children’s language or literacy development during kindergarten depended upon the frequency with which children experienced literacy/language instruction in their Head Start classrooms. Neither of these two interaction terms was statistically different from zero. For children’s math development during kindergarten, we entered the interaction between the frequency of math instruction in kindergarten classrooms and the frequency of math instruction in Head Start classrooms. A statistically significant coefficient for this interaction was found (B = 2.19, SE = 0.82, p < 0.01).

We depict this interaction in Figure 6.1 using model-based estimates to generate math scores at the end of kindergarten for nine groups of children who had each different combination of low, medium, and high frequency of math instruction in Head Start and in kindergarten. To estimate these means, low was defined as one standard deviation below the mean, medium was defined as at the mean, and high was defined as one standard deviation above the mean. This interaction in Figure 6.1 illustrates that the association between math instruction in kindergarten and children’s development of math skills during the kindergarten year depended upon the frequency with which children experienced math instruction in Head Start.

Figure 6.1 Consistency of math instruction across Head Start and kindergarten classrooms and children’s development of math skills during kindergarten

More specifically, among children who experienced low frequency math instruction during Head Start, less frequent math instruction during kindergarten was positively associated with math skills at the end of kindergarten. In addition, among children who experienced high frequency math instruction during Head Start, more frequent math instruction during kindergarten was also positively associated with math skills at the end of kindergarten. This figure also indicates that highest math skills at the end of kindergarten were achieved by children who experienced low frequency math instruction across both grades (Mean = 97.1) and children who experienced high frequency math instruction across both grades (Mean = 97.5). In addition, the lowest math skills at the end of kindergarten were achieved by two groups of children: those who experienced high frequency math instruction in Head Start and low frequency math instruction in kindergarten (Mean = 94.8), and those who experienced low frequency math instruction in Head Start and high frequency math instruction in kindergarten (Mean = 94.5). These patterns of associations provide some evidence in support of the Consistency Hypothesis.

To evaluate the research questions related to children’s development of social-emotional skills during kindergarten (Table 6.5), we entered the following two interaction terms separately for each of the three social-emotional outcomes: frequency of child-chosen activities in kindergarten × frequency of child-chosen activities in Head Start; and frequency of whole-group activities in kindergarten × frequency of whole-group activities in Head Start. A statistically significant coefficient was found for the interaction between the frequency of child-chosen activities in Head Start and kindergarten on children’s development of social skills and positive approaches to learning during kindergarten (B = 0.10, SE = 0.05, p < 0.05). Figure 6.2 illustrates this interaction. Among children who spent more time doing child-chosen activities during Head Start, more frequent child-chosen activities in kindergarten was positively associated with children’s development of social-skills and positive approaches to learning. In contrast, among children who spent less time doing child-chosen activities during Head Start, less frequent opportunities for child-chosen activities during kindergarten were also positively associated with development. Another coefficient – for the interaction between the frequency of whole-group activities in kindergarten and the frequency of whole-group activities in Head Start on children’s classroom aggression – approached statistical significance (B = −0.44, SE = 0.24, p = .065). Figure 6.3 illustrates this interaction, which has a similar pattern to Figures 6.1 and 6.2. More specifically, for children who experienced frequent whole-group activities in Head Start, more frequent whole group activities during kindergarten were associated with lower classroom aggression; similarly, for children who experienced less frequent whole-group activities in Head Start, less frequent whole group activities during kindergarten were also associated with lower classroom aggression. Both of these figures suggest that the children who experienced consistent instructional practices across Head Start and kindergarten made the greatest gains on social-emotional skills during kindergarten, while children who experienced inconsistent patterns in how activities were structured had the lowest gains in their social skills and approaches to learning and greatest gains in classroom aggression during kindergarten.

Figure 6.2 Consistency of child-chosen activities across Head Start and kindergarten classrooms and children’s development of social skills during kindergarten

Figure 6.3 Consistency of whole-group activities across Head Start and kindergarten classrooms and children’s development of aggression during kindergarten

Discussion

Our empirical investigation into the Consistency Hypothesis among children in the 4-year-old cohort of the HSIS who attended Head Start and kindergarten classrooms provides some initial evidence that the combination of children’s instructional practices across Head Start and kindergarten classrooms affects their development during kindergarten. Results indicate that, overall, instructional practices that children experienced during kindergarten (time spent on a literacy/language instruction, math instruction, whole-group activities, child-chosen activities) were not directly associated with their development of academic and social-emotional skills during kindergarten. However, the effects of these instructional practices on children’s development depended upon children’s previous instructional experiences during Head Start. More specifically, the pattern of results provides some initial evidence that consistency in the amount of math instruction across grades promotes math development during kindergarten, and consistency in how activities are structured (whole-group, child-chosen) across grades promotes positive development of social-emotional skills during kindergarten. This pattern of results was found for multiple child outcomes, including direct assessments of math, teacher-reports of classroom aggression, and parent-reports of social skills.

There are some notable limitations with this study related to its correlational design, which through the inclusion of covariates may not adequately account for other unmeasured factors that affect children’s development during kindergarten. In addition, the measures of children’s instructional experiences in Head Start and kindergarten are teacher-reported and reflect the perspectives of teachers, and thus may not directly comport with children’s actual experiences. Further, the measure of the frequency of literacy/language instruction and math instruction had limited variability, due to the rating scale that truncated the most frequent response to “daily” and, therefore, did not capture variability in the number of hours and minutes of instruction per day.

Despite these limitations, these results provide initial empirical evidence that consistent instructional practices across Head Start and kindergarten classrooms is positively associated with children’s development. Further empirical investigations are warranted, which include: extending the analyses with this sample to include first grade experiences and child outcomes, and third grade experiences and child outcomes; replicating these analyses with other samples; exploring other analytic approaches to investigate the consistency hypothesis; and exploring the two other sets of hypotheses regarding developmentally-sequenced and high-quality experiences across Head Start and kindergarten classrooms.

Just as ECE researchers in this volume and elsewhere are engaged in work to advance our understanding of children’s long-term development and how to sustain the gains of the investments made in ECE programs, policymakers, program administrators, and teachers have been engaged in numerous efforts to implement strategies that support children and families amid the transition to kindergarten. For example, there is a long history of developing and implementing a wide-range of “transition” strategies that support children as they move into kindergarten (e.g., Kagan, Karnati, Friedlander & Tarrant, Reference Kagan, Karnati, Friedlander and Tarrant2010). Strategies range from short-term, low-cost, and easy-to-implement practices, such as kindergarten open houses, phone calls, and home visits before the school year begins, which are intended to help children and families become acquainted with the new settings and establish relationships that open lines of communication between children, teachers, and parents.

Other strategies provide more intensive supports to children and families during the summer before the beginning of kindergarten as well as throughout the early elementary grades. For example, in 1990, the Head Start Bureau began implementing a large-scale transition program to provide a comprehensive set of supports to former Head Start children and their families during the first four years of elementary school (Kagan & Neuman, Reference Kagan and Neuman1998), including parent involvement activities, educational enhancements for children, family social support services, and health and nutrition services (Ramey, Ramey, Phillips et al., Reference Ramey, Ramey and Phillips2000). Other types of transition strategies involve aligning standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment from pre-kindergarten through third grade (Bogard & Takanishi, Reference Bogard and Takanishi2005), in order to support children’s development by promoting experiences across grades that are consistent and effectively build upon the child’s current capabilities (Kagan, Karnati, Friedlander & Tarrant, Reference Kagan, Karnati, Friedlander and Tarrant2010).

In conclusion, children’s transitions from Head Start into kindergarten bring changes in their instructional experiences. Among children in the Head Start Impact Study, this shift involved moving from Head Start classrooms into kindergarten classrooms wherein they spent more time on literacy/language instruction and in whole-group activities and less time in child-chosen activities (Table 6.2). We proposed that the magnitude of this shift in instructional practices that children experience upon entering kindergarten, which varies widely between children, has implications for their development of academic and social-emotional skills during kindergarten. Results from this study provide some empirical evidence that the consistency of instructional practices across Head Start and kindergarten classrooms is positively associated with children’s development of math skills and social-emotional skills during kindergarten. Thus, strategies that effectively increase the consistency of instructional experiences when children move from Head Start into kindergarten classrooms can help sustain the gains in children’s academic and social-emotional skills that were made during the Head Start year.

Introduction

Experts have proposed two likely explanations for the erosion of the advantages achieved in preschool during the early elementary grades: (1) the preschool “treatment” was not sufficiently strong, and (2) it was not followed up with high-quality educational opportunities in the early elementary grades. Supporting the first explanation is the observation that the preschool programs that have shown sustained effects (e.g., Abecedarian, Chicago Child–Parent Centers, Perry Preschool) were intense and unusually high in quality, including substantial parent involvement and well-trained teachers. Teachers in the Perry Preschool Program, for example, were certified to teach preschool, elementary, and special education (Schweinhart, Barnes & Weikart, Reference Schweinhart, Barnes and Weikart1993). Consistent with the second explanation is evidence that children in low-income communities attend elementary schools with fewer resources and relatively inexperienced teachers (Currie & Thomas, Reference Currie and Thomas2000; Peske & Haycock, Reference Peske and Haycock2006). Quality matters in both explanations. This chapter accordingly focuses on the issue of quality for preschool and the early elementary grades as well as strategies for achieving continuity in children’s educational experience as they move from preschool into elementary school.

Quality of learning contexts is typically measured within classrooms. What transpires in the classroom, however, substantially depends on policies made beyond the classroom. For example, state standards and assessments, as well as district and school decisions about curriculum, affect the nature and quality of learning experiences in any given grade and the level of continuity across grades. Strategies to ensure and maintain the benefits of preschool therefore need to consider the larger ecology of schooling.

The first section provides a brief overview of evidence on the nature of high-quality instructional programs for preschool through third grade. This summary is followed by a discussion of policies outside of the classroom that affect the quality of children’s learning experiences in the classroom. The final section focuses on the potential value of creating continuity in children’s educational experience as they move from preschool through the early elementary grades.

Program and Classroom Quality

This section focuses on the qualities of learning environments that are associated with positive student outcomes.

Continuity

There is indisputable evidence that high-quality preschool, as described above, is required for substantial and sustained benefits (Barnett, Reference Barnett2011) and that children benefit from high-quality teaching subsequent to preschool. Indeed, Hanushek (Reference Hanushek, Izumi and Evers2002) concluded from his analyses that the achievement gap could be closed by providing economically disadvantaged children three consecutive years of a highly effective teacher. Children whose quality preschool experience is followed by high quality instruction in the early elementary grades thus have an advantage over children whose quality preschool experience is followed by low-quality instruction in elementary school.

Quality counts at every grade, but many experts and policymakers claim that there are additional benefits to continuityFootnote ³ between preschool and the early elementary grades. Quality, then, needs to be conceptualized not just as the quality of instruction within a grade, but the continuity of educational experiences across grades.

Why might a lack of continuity result in a failure to achieve the expected long-lasting effects of preschool? Here are a few examples. If kindergarten teachers do not build on the gains children made in preschool and continue to advance in their skills, and instead teach material that children have already learned, children without the benefit of preschool will catch up. Significant and unnecessary changes in behavioral expectations or the nature of instruction likewise might disrupt children’s continuous learning. Time for learning is reduced by the time needed to learn new routines and expectations. If parents are not invited or given opportunities to participate in elementary school, the habits and expectations of being involved in their children’s education, developed in high-quality preschool, would not provide ongoing benefit for children.

Proponents of what is often referred to as “Pre-K–3” have written widely on the policies and practices that are important to achieving continuity in children’s educational experiences so that the benefits of quality preschool are maintained and children continue to make gains in the early elementary grades. The focus has been on such elements as standards, assessments, curricula, and instructional strategies (Kauerz, Reference Kauerz2006; Bogard & Takanishi, Reference Bogard and Takanishi2005; Graves, Reference Graves2006; Takanishi, Reference Takanishi2016).

The value of continuity from preschool through the early elementary grades is suggested by evidence that programs providing continuity in services and supports have produced particularly impressive long-term effects in child outcomes (see Reynolds, Magnuson & Ou, Reference Reynolds, Magnuson and Ou2006). Otherwise, there is little empirical evidence for the benefits of continuity in policies and practices across grades, over and above the value of high-quality learning environments and the provision of services at every grade. Given the dearth of research, the discussion below is an analysis of what dimensions of policy and practice continuity are most likely to matter for children’s learning and development.

Clearly, for children who are enrolled in low-quality preschool, the goal is not to create continuity by continuing ineffective practices throughout the early elementary grades. And no proponent of Pre-K–3 continuity suggests that children should engage in the same academic activities for several grades, or that 3- or 4-year-olds should have the same level of autonomy and responsibility as 8-year-olds. The important questions are: What kind of continuity across grades is beneficial? What should change in children’s school experience? How should it change and what should remain the same? These issues are discussed below at various levels of policy and practice (see also Stipek, Clements, Coburn et al., Reference Stipek, Clements, Coburn, Franke and Farran2017).

Summary

Quality is typically assessed within grades. But continuity and coherence across grades most likely also contributes to the quality of children’s experience and thus their learning. This chapter suggests ways in which a lack of continuity could undermine the overall quality of children’s educational experience and contribute to the fading of the benefits of high-quality preschool.

Achieving the kind of continuity described here is difficult in the context of the typical organizational disconnect, especially between preschool and elementary grades. Preschool is often embedded in different institutional contexts (e.g., Head Start, state preschool) from elementary schools, with different funding sources and different regulations, and with different teacher certification requirements. Preschools and elementary schools are also often not located on the same campus, making collaboration among teachers at the different levels difficult. And in some states, there are substantial differences in the nature and quality of teachers’ training.

Many districts and schools have made attempts to address these challenges and promote greater continuity (Valentino & Stipek, Reference Valentino and Stipek2016). These efforts should be followed closely, documenting successful strategies, the challenges encountered, and the effects on classroom instruction and student learning. There is a strong research base supporting the description of quality educational contexts reviewed in the first section of this chapter. A similar research base is needed to answer the questions asked in the second section concerning continuity of policies and practices needed to sustain the benefits of high-quality preschool and promote children’s learning and development.

Chapter Focus

In this chapter, I review the Midwest Child–Parent Center Preschool-to-Third-Grade Program (CPC-P–3) as an approach for scaling and sustaining an evidence-based education program. Key elements, short- and longer-term impacts, and shared lessons for implementation at the neighborhood, district, and state levels are described. Supported by an Investing in Innovation Grant from the US Department of Education, the Chicago Longitudinal Study, and related projects, CPC-P–3 provides comprehensive education and family support services to children and parents in six Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin school districts. Designed to accelerate achievement, socio-emotional learning, and parent involvement (HCRC, 2012; Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, Richardson and Hayakawa2016), CPC-P–3 is a school reform model to engage schools and families, thereby facilitating scale up. This is illustrated with evidence from ongoing longitudinal studies, which support scaling at larger levels and key principles of effective collaboration.

Principles of School–Family–University Collaboration

As a school reform model, CPC-P–3 implements a set of core elements in elementary school or center-based sites to enhance student learning. CPC services through third grade can be completely co-located or as a partnership between centers and schools. The framework is a school–family–university collaboration model which emphasizes three principles: (a) shared ownership, (b) committed resources, and (c) progress monitoring for improvement (Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, Hayakawa and Ou2017).

In shared ownership, the major partners have an equal responsibility to plan, implement, manage, and improve the program. Rather than the usual approach in which an externally developed (e.g., university-based) program is adopted without modification, a shared ownership model distributes the responsibility to ensure effective implementation, thereby strengthening the commitment from all partners to work together in achieving common goals. This is consistent with emerging collaborative stakeholder models of research (Frank, Basch & Selby, Reference Frank, Basch and Selby2014). Shared ownership provides a foundation of trust necessary for scaling and sustaining programs. Families also have an active role by providing input and ideas about strategies to implement, and working collaboratively with teachers and staff to create and maintain a strong learning environment.

For committed resources, each partner makes key investments that are necessary for effective implementation. Resources include time, financial capital, and physical space. Although resources denote the “stake” that each partner has in an initiative, the increased commitment that goes along with investment can facilitate scale-up and sustainability. Alternative financing options that are used, such as matching grants, blended funding, and leveraging, increase the capacity and feasibility of further expansion. Given shared ownership, staff collaboration in fulfilling roles and responsibilities is further enhanced, which also increases efficiency.

Progress monitoring for improvement addresses how well programs are meeting their short- and intermediate-term goals. This ongoing formative evaluation is essential for continuous improvement. Measuring and reporting the extent of implementation fidelity enables timely adjustment of program strategies and activities to the needs of participants and partners alike. This is especially important in comprehensive programs in which responses to intervention have large variability. The use of data and evidence, and sharing these among partners, reinforce the importance of meeting milestones and standards. The tools that are routinized also help ensure that the quality of the program can be maintained as scaling occurs.

Midwest Child–Parent Center Expansion Program

The CPC program began in 1967 in inner-city Chicago. This was made possible by funding from Title I of the Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965, which provided grants to school districts serving high proportions of low-income children. The goal of the Act was to “Employ imaginative thinking and new approaches to meet the educational needs of poor children” (US Senate, 1967; p. 1455). The Chicago Public School District was the first school system to use these funds for preschool and thereby established CPC as the second oldest (after Head Start) federally funded preschool. Although CPC began as a comprehensive preschool program, children received continuing services in kindergarten and the early grades the following year, resulting in the P–3 program that exists today. The program was designed as a response to three major problems facing Chicago’s west side neighborhoods: low rates of attendance, family disengagement with schools, and low student achievement.

The conceptual foundations of the program derive from ecological, risk/protection, and human capital theories (Bronfenbrenner, Reference Bronfenbrenner1989; Rutter & Rutter, Reference Rutter and Rutter1993), in which well-being is a product of proximal and distal influences at multiple levels of contexts (individual, family, school, community) experienced during the entire early childhood period (ages 3 to 9). The program’s focus on the quality and continuity of learning environments indicates that optimal development can be promoted through enriched experiences and settings co-created by children, families, and schools. Due to discontinuities in instructional support and philosophy between early childhood and school age settings, improvements in the integration and alignment of services during this important ecological transition can improve children’s levels of readiness for kindergarten that are sustained over the elementary grades (Takanishi, Reference Takanishi2016; Takanishi & Kauerz, Reference Takanishi and Kauerz2008; Zigler & Styfco, Reference Zigler and Styfco1993). Increased teacher preparation and ongoing resource support reinforce instructional improvements (Manning et al., Reference Manning, Garvis, Fleming and Wong2017).

In the current expansion, each CPC-P–3 site provides a dynamic support system. Comprehensive education and family support services are provided. Under the direction of a leadership team at each site and in collaboration with the Principal, CPC-P–3 enhances school readiness skills, increases early school achievement, and promotes parent involvement. It is a stand-alone school or center in which all children receive services. Sites implement a set of six core elements following the program guidelines and requirements specified in the manual (HCRC, 2012; Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, Richardson and Hayakawa2016). All teachers, staff, and children participate as well as staff hired to reduce class sizes, and provide program leadership, professional development, and family engagement. For historical comparisons of the program, see Reynolds et al. (Reference Reynolds, Richardson and Hayakawa2016) and Reynolds (Reference Reynolds2012).

The program expansion and scale-up is guided by six major goals: (1) Implement the CPC model with high levels of quality following key elements of effectiveness; (2) Assess the quality of implementation of the preschool, kindergarten, and first- to third-grade components by context and participant characteristics; (3) Evaluate the impact of the CPC program from preschool to third grade using a rigorous and multifaceted design; (4) Assess the impact of the CPC program by child, family, and program characteristics; (5) Determine the cost-effectiveness of the program over preschool to third grade; and (6) Implement a sustainability plan to facilitate program expansion in additional settings.

The CPC’s Head Teacher (HT) or Director works under the leadership of the elementary school Principal. HTs are the administrative leads for the program and manage implementation, provide coaching and supervision to staff, and help establish expectations of performance. The Parent Resource Teacher (PRT) directs the CPC’s parent resource room and family services, and outreach activities are organized by the School–Community Representative (SCR). Health services are coordinated between the preschool and elementary grades. Liaisons work with the HT and PRT to provide alignment of curriculum and parent involvement activities.

After preschool participation at ages 3 and/or 4 in small classes with student:teacher ratios of 17:2, the K–3 component provides reduced class sizes (maximum of 25), teacher aides for each class, continued parent involvement opportunities, and enriched classroom environments for strengthening language and literacy, math, science, and social-emotional skills. Site mentors from HCRC also work with leadership and staff to ensure effective implementation. Curricular and performance monitoring are integrated within a robust professional development system of school facilitators and online supports.

In order to enhance shared ownership and school-wide integration of P–3 services, the Midwest CPC expansion conceptualizes the program as a school reform model led by the principal. Figure 8.1 shows the continuity principle of implementation and Figure 8.2 the organizational structure, in which the CPC head teacher, in concert with the principal and other coordinators, implements all program elements. Children’s learning is supported by the family within the context of the school and community. The system of services is mutually beneficial to all partners and builds shared ownership, committed resources, and progress monitoring for improvement.

Figure 8.1 Child–Parent Center Preschool to Third Grade Conceptualization

Figure 8.2 Child–Parent Center Preschool to Third Grade Model

CPC-P–3 as School Reform

Given the historic focus on specific elements of reform, including curriculum enhancement and small classes (Reynolds, Magnuson & Ou, Reference Reynolds, Magnuson and Ou2010), newer comprehensive approaches for promoting effective school transitions may not only have larger effects on child development but also provide a greater likelihood that gains will be sustained. To date, key principles of effective school improvement developed in the 1970s have not been successfully utilized in early childhood programs and their follow-on efforts (Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, Hayakawa and Ou2017; Zigler & Styfco, Reference Zigler and Styfco1993; Zigler & Trickett, Reference Zigler and Trickett1978). Among these are principal leadership, school climate and high expectations of performance, and engaged learning communities (Rury, Reference Rury2016; Takanishi & Kauerz, Reference Takanishi and Kauerz2008). These principles have been incorporated in school reform with positive results, most notably the 5 Essentials framework of effective leaders, ambitious instruction, involved families, supportive environment, and collaborative teachers (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Lupescu & Easton, Reference Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu and Easton2010). Although developed independently within the context of early childhood programs, the six core elements of CPC are consistent with the 5 Essentials, and they provide a strategy of school improvement that can promote well-being and achievement.

Figure 8.1 shows the continuity inherent in CPC-P–3 in its equal emphasis on preschool, kindergarten, and the early grades. Preschool or early education provides the foundation and the next few grades build on this to promote achievement and well-being for children and parents. The figure also illustrates the inherent tension between the early timing of intervention versus duration of services. One is the early timing versus the developmental continuity in learning. CPC-P–3 represents both, but a major focus of dissemination will be the importance of continuity in learning for children to benefit most and for the achievement gap to be realistically closed (see Figure 8.2).

As shown, there are six core elements that are described as follows:

1. 1. Collaborative leadership team. A leadership team is run by the HT in collaboration with the principal. The HT ensures that all elements are effectively implemented. The PRT, SCR, and other staff work together to support the system.

2. 2. Effective learning experiences. Ensure mastery in core learning domains (e.g., literacy and language, math, science, socio-emotional) through small classes, diverse and engaged instruction, and increased time through full-day preschool and kindergarten classes. For example, preschool and K–3 classes are limited to 17 and 25, respectively, with assistants in each.

3. 3. Aligned curriculum. Organize a sequence of evidence-based curricula and instructional practices that address multiple domains of child development within a balanced, activity-based approach. A curriculum alignment plan is developed with the principal is and updated annually.

4. 4. Parent involvement and engagement. Comprehensive menu-based services are led by the PRT and SCR, including multifaceted activities and opportunities to engage families.

5. 5. Professional development system. Online professional development and on-site follow-up support is integrated for classroom and program applications. Among the topics covered by the modules are oral language, thinking skills, movement, inquiry, and socio-emotional learning.

6. 6. Continuity and stability: Preschool to third grade services, through co-located or close-by centers, incorporate comprehensive service delivery and year-to-year consistency for children and families. Instructional and family support services are integrated across grades.

The strength of the model lies in the synergy of all six elements working together, with across-element coordination a strong design feature. These are key to producing long-term impacts on children’s educational progress, socio-emotional development, and well-being.

Figure 8.3 shows a more detailed program structure and operations for the six key elements to promote well-being, which includes achievement, performance, parent involvement, and health. Beginning with a strong foundation at ages 3 and 4, children participate in small classes through third grade and each class has an assistant for at least half of the day. The learning environment created by the principal and CPC head teacher provides an integrated context for improved achievement and sustained gains. Transitions from year to year are supported by the parent involvement team, site mentors, and school staff, who share instructional approaches across grades for the benefit of children and families. A curriculum alignment plan and parent involvement plan are developed each year to guide implementation and program improvement. Professional development includes on-line teaching modules and on-site coaching and review of instructional practices to support a balance of teacher- and child-initiated instructional practices. Outreach services, including home visits and workshops, are through the parent resource room, as the parent resource teacher and school–community representative develop a menu-based system that is informed by a family needs assessment.

Figure 8.3 Child–Parent Center Structure, Key Elements, and Outcomes HT = Head Teacher, PRT = Parent Resource Teacher, SCR = School-Community Representative, AP = Assistant Principal, and P.I. = Parent Involvement.

Table 8.1 provides a description of how each of the program elements contributes to the three core principles of collaboration. The collaborative leadership team of the principal and HT help establish the learning environment of shared ownership among the partners, which provides opportunities for CPC staff to serve children and families in all facets of the program. The principal’s increased commitment to the program, including participation in institutes and decisions to increase school resources to P–3, is a significant advance from the original program. This results in not only greater implementation fidelity but increased resource investments by the partners, who see the benefits of improved learning environment. The greater attention to progress monitoring by the leadership team increases fidelity to program principles and accountability.

Other program elements contribute in similar ways to the collaboration and shared ownership, resource commitments, and progress monitoring, and provide a foundation for scaling. In effective learning experiences, for example, the implementation of full-day preschool in small classes emphasizes a balance of teacher-directed and child-initiated instruction for promoting strong learning gains (Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, Richardson and Hayakawa2016). This is complemented by increased alignment of instruction across grades, in which a curriculum alignment plan is developed, and grade level meetings and coaching visits are frequent. As a consequence, sustained gains of early education are more likely to occur.

Implementation Examples for Increasing and Sustaining Effects

Although CPC has a distinguished history, expansion beyond Chicago has been a major need. This is addressed by the Midwest expansion. At the time of the expansion in 2012, only the preschool component of the program was being implemented in just ten of the original sites. On the basis of the accumulated evidence, the Chicago district and others expressed interest in not only re-establishing the P–3 elements but enhancing the program so that it could be effective in a variety of community contexts. Working with Chicago’s leadership and others, the HCRC team developed a comprehensive plan that integrated six core elements that was implemented under a school reform model consistent with the US Department of Education’s Office of Innovation.

Program elements were modified and strengthened to address large demographic changes at both the societal level (e.g., increasing numbers of single-parent households and working mothers of young children) and program level (e.g., more diverse populations of children and families, new geographic locations).

Children’s participation in CPC-P–3 is expected to promote enduring positive impacts for three major reasons: (a) a longer duration of participation can produce greater and more foundational changes in school achievement and performance; (b) the program encourages stability and predictability in learning environments; and (c) it is implemented during the transition to school, a critical phase of development in which continuing services can accelerate learning and reduce the likelihood of drop-off effects (Reynolds, Magnuson & Ou, Reference Reynolds, Magnuson and Ou2010). Studies of preschool impact show that the length of gains is a function of program quality, magnitude of initial effect, timing and duration, and subsequent school quality (Camilli et al., Reference Camilli, Vargas, Ryan and Barnett2010; Currie & Thomas, Reference Currie and Thomas2000; Englund et al., Reference Englund, White, Reynolds, Schweinhart, Campbell and Reynolds2014). We describe three examples of how CPC-P3 is strengthening impacts in ways that are scalable and that overcome earlier limitations.

CPC Impacts over Time

The positive effects of CPC are well documented. I summarize findings from the Chicago Longitudinal Study (CLS; Reynolds, Reference Reynolds2012) and the initial implementation of the Midwest CPC expansion.

CLS.

This study has tracked a CPC and comparison cohort born in 1979–80 and provides the most extensive evidence of impacts. It was also the basis of the Midwest CPC expansion. In a quasi-experimental design, 989 3- and 4-year-olds from low-income families who participated in 20 CPCs in the mid 1980s were compared to 550 children of the same age who enrolled in the usual early childhood programs in five randomly selected schools. A broad range of measures of well-being have been collected over three decades with over 90 percent sample recovery. These include school readiness and achievement, remedial education, educational attainment, involvement in the criminal justice system, and economic well-being. Program participation was from P–3 and followed the CPC elements. Study characteristics and findings are described in Table 8.3.

Table 8.3 Child–Parent Center estimates for school readiness, parent involvement, and achievement in two studies

Study characteristics	Midwest Longitudinal Expansion Project			Chicago Longitudinal Study
	Chicago	Saint Paul	Total
Preschool years	2012–2013	2012–2013	2012–2013	1983–1985
Research design	Quasi-experimental, school-level propensity scores			Quasi-experimental, matched groups
Program, Control participants	1724, 906	215, 87	1993, 993	989, 550
Control group enrolled in pre-K (%)	100	100	100	15%
African American/Hispanic/Asian (%)	64/34/0	30/14/31	60/32/3	93/7/0
Assessment	TS-GOLD	PALS		ITBS composite
Time of assessment	End of pre-K	End of pre-K	End of pre-K	Beginning of K
Average class size/level of fidelity	17/high	17/high	17/high	17/high
School readiness effect size (SD units)	48	38	47	63
Higher dosage (full-day/2 years)	65	n/a	40	71
Lower dosage (part-day/1 year)	32	38	33	36
Parent involvement effect size	39	20	37	46
Time of assessment	End of PreK	End of PreK		First grade
Education outcomes effect size (SD or %)		N/A
Third grade reading achievement				28 (pre-K), 0.60 (pre-K–3)
Eighth grade reading achievement				30, 0.35
Special education by age 18				14.4% vs. 24.6%, 13.5% vs. 20.7%
Grade retention by age 15				23.0% vs. 38.4%, 21.9% vs. 32.3%
High school completion by age 21				61.9% vs. 51.4%, 59.4% vs. 57.2%

Note. Midwest CPC Chicago sample size is enrolled 3- and 4-year-olds. Saint Paul sample size is enrolled 4-year-olds for whom the school district provided data. Evanston and McLean County (Normal, IL) districts were excluded due to lack of available data. Chicago Longitudinal Study sample size is an age cohort of children who enrolled at age 3 and/or 4. TS-GOLD = Teaching Strategies Gold Assessment, Total Score. PALS = Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (Upper-Case Alphabet Recognition). ITBS = Iowa Tests of Basic Skills cognitive composite. The quasi-experimental designs are propensity-score matching at the school level (i.e., achievement, family income, race/ethnicity) and matched groups based on demographic similarity and participation in district intervention. For dosage, Midwest CPC is full-day/part-day; CLS is 2 years versus 1 year for part-day SD = standard deviation units.

Based on a variety of regression, latent-variable, and propensity score analyses, CPC preschool participation was found to be associated with higher school readiness, higher reading and math achievement, reduced grade retention, reduced special education placement, and higher rates of high school completion (Reynolds, Reference Reynolds2012). CPC–P–3 has shown similar patterns of gains with the exception of high school completion by age 21. Significant differences were detected in later in the 20s, however (Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, Temple, Ou, Arteaga and White2011a).

Figure 8.4 shows the pattern of gains and effect sizes in reading achievement for the CPC preschool component from kindergarten through age 15. Developmental standard scores on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills are shown and effect sizes in standard deviation units. The latter are across the bottom of the figure. Values are adjusted for child and family background characteristics as well as participation in CPC school-age services. A standard deviation of 0.20 is generally considered practically significant and signifies an improvement in performance of roughly 3 months (a third of a school year). Positive and significant effect sizes were sustained from kindergarten entrance to the end of ninth grade (age 15). The large initial impact of roughly two-thirds of a standard deviation (based on a composite heavily weighted on literacy and language) was maintained at slightly lower levels through second grade and then stabilized in the range of 0.25 to 0.32 from middle childhood to adolescence. That the standard deviation increases with age naturally leads to a reduction in effect size. This is due to variability in learning opportunities and experiences as children develop. Since the sum total of experience and learning increases with age, the contribution of preschool experience to this total would be expected to decline in relative terms as children grow.

Figure 8.4 Reading growth to age 15

By age 21, the CPC preschool program is found to be associated with a higher rate of high school completion and a lower rate of juvenile arrest (Ou & Reynolds, Reference Ou, Reynolds and Groark2006; Reynolds, Temple, Robertson, & Mann, Reference Reynolds, Temple, Robertson and Mann2001). Children participating in CPC-P–3 (4 to 6 years of participation from preschool to second or third grade) were found to have higher academic achievement when compared with children receiving only the preschool or follow-on programs (Conrad & Eash, Reference Conrad and Eash1983). CPC-P–3 participation was associated with lower rates of school remedial services and delinquency (Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, Temple, Robertson and Mann2001, Reference Reynolds, Temple, Ou, Arteaga and White2011a; see Table 8.3).

Figure 8.5 shows the growth in reading achievement from kindergarten entry (age 5) to fourth grade (age 10) for the CPC-P–3 group that participated in 4 to 6 years of intervention (to second or third grade) compared to the CPC group that only completed preschool and kindergarten. Scores are developmental standard scores on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills and are adjusted from baseline child and family background characteristics (Reynolds, Reference Reynolds1994, Reference Reynolds2012). Although growth during the kindergarten year was similar between groups and at/above national norms, the CPC-P–3 group experienced greater growth between first and fourth grades. This translates to about a 6-month gain above and beyond preschool and kindergarten participation (Reynolds & Temple, Reference Reynolds and Temple1998; Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, Temple, Ou, Arteaga and White2011a). This advantage in performance reduced the gap with the national average by about 75 percent, even though the average performance of the CPC-P–3 group was not quite to the national average. That the program increased reading achievement to this extent is impressive given the high levels of economic and disadvantage growing up. CPC families reside in the highest poverty neighborhoods in Chicago, which are among the most extreme in the nation (Reynolds, Reference Reynolds2012).

Figure 8.5 CPC-P–3 reading advantage

Scaling and Financing through Pay for Success

Given the low rate of success in scaling evidence-based programs, new approaches to financing have been developed. One of the most prominent is called Social Impact Bonds or “Pay for Success.” In a Pay for Success (PFS) approach, private investors and/or philanthropic organizations loan funds to public sector jurisdictions (e.g., school districts, cities, counties) to expand evidence-based or very promising programs (GAO, 2015; Temple & Reynolds, Reference Temple and Reynolds2015). To the extent that these services are found to generate cost savings to the public sector, a state or local government is obligated to make payments to the investors based on the estimated cost savings. Economic evaluation is crucial in both determining the suitability of intervention programs to be financed in this manner and in determining the “success” payments. This approach can promote a shift from costly treatment-based interventions consuming ever larger portions of public budgets to proactive, preventive interventions that save more dollars than they cost.

PFS illustrates the role of shared ownership and committed resources in program expansion. Through a PFS initiative with the City of Chicago, the Midwest CPC has begun further expansion in the Chicago Public Schools. In this financing structure, Goldman Sachs, Northern Trust, and the J. B. & M. K. Pritzker Family Foundation provided $17 million in loans for the operational costs of new classrooms, which will serve an additional 2,600 children over four years (HCRC, 2014). The City will repay the loans only if the program improves outcomes as determined by an independent evaluation.

The CPC program under the Midwest expansion was selected for two major reasons. First, the expansion of CPC already underway was showing strong initial findings and school principals and the district were committed to the program. This was demonstrated by their increased funding and growing collaboration with the university. Second, the program had a long track record of effectiveness in promoting student success and in reducing the need for remediation. Two cost–benefit analyses documented that at an average cost per child of $8,512 (2012) for preschool, benefits exceed costs by a factor of 7 to 10 (Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, Temple, Robertson and Mann2002, Reference Reynolds, Temple, White, Ou and Robertson2011b). P–3 services showed similar returns.

A large percentage of the economic return was savings in special education, juvenile court, and child welfare. For example, the annual cost per child of special education services is over $15,000 above and beyond regular instruction. The majority of this cost is covered by the school district. Given the direct relationship between the city and the school district, the focus of the PFS was special education savings.

The CPC PFS initiative began implementation in February 2015 for an initial cohort of over 350 children in six sites. Five of them are existing schools in the CPC expansion. Annual evaluation results have been reported since 2016. Success payments of $2,900 were paid to the investor in 2017 for each child who was ready for kindergarten. Success payments of $9,100 were paid starting the next year for each CPC child who avoided special education as compared to the matched control group of children without CPC participation. Next, success payments of $750 may be made for each child proficient in literacy in third grade. Rates of special education will be tracked through high school. School readiness for each 4-year-old is defined as the percentage of children performing at or above the national average at the end of the year on five of six subscales of the Teaching Strategies Gold Assessment System (Lambert, Kim & Burts, Reference Lambert, Kim and Burts2013). The payment structure is based on the long-term evidence that CPC improves school achievement and reduces the need for special education by up to 41 percent or nearly a year of services (Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, Temple, Robertson and Mann2002).

Although the major advantage of PFS is the capacity for program expansion when existing public resources are not available, two limitations are notable. First, the success of the initiative is largely dependent on the selected program. Those having a track record, such as CPC or others with existing evidence of economic returns, are most reassuring to investors. Second, as a new type of financing, the success metrics of PFS so far rest on one jurisdiction of savings – special education or the justice system. Comprehensive programs having many sources of savings require multi-jurisdiction contracts. These are very challenging to complete and have not been completed to date. In CPC, for example, there are criminal justice system and child welfare savings, but because they are administered through counties, it was not feasible to secure partnership agreements. Consequently, PFS contracts may underestimate the possible savings.

Overall, PFS has helped scale CPC and can facilitate similar efforts in other districts. It provides a new avenue for leveraging resources in evidence-based programs. Private investment contributed to an initiative can also be combined with public resources to create a public–private approach to scaling, which then can be modified over time as public resources increase.

Implications for Creating, Increasing, and Sustaining Gains

The expansion of CPC-P–3 is based on a school reform approach to program improvement within a collaborative structure of partners. Through shared ownership, committed resources, and progress monitoring for improvement, the program is more likely to be scaled effectively and sustained in ways that continually produce benefits to children and families in school success and engaged parenting. This approach effectively bridges the historically large divide between early education and school-age services (Bogard & Takanishi, Reference Bogard and Takanishi2005; Takanishi, Reference Takanishi2016; Ziger & Styfo, Reference Zigler and Styfco1993). Successful implementation of CPC has yielded strong benefits so far in increasing school readiness skills, improving attendance, and in strengthening parental involvement in children’s education. These positive benefits have led to further scale up through an innovative Pay for Success initiative in Chicago that will substantially increase enrollment in the coming years. Cost savings in special education and remediation are expected to be consistent with prior studies.

Buy-in from partners at every level of the school community – school leaders and staff, children, and families, and local partners – is critical to successful CPC expansion and prevention programs in general (Takanishi & Kauerz, Reference Takanishi and Kauerz2008). The principle of shared ownership means that program and school decisions result from reciprocal dialogue among partners (Boyd & Crowson, Reference Boyd and Crowson1993). Such a climate of collaboration helps ensure that benefits are sustained and that progress toward scaling is successful.

Based on development, implementation, and evaluation of the CPC-P–3 expansion, there are a number of lessons and implications for increasing and sustaining early learning gains in all programs. The essential principle is that by establishing and maintaining a comprehensive system of supports from preschool through third grade, achievement levels can be optimized and achievement gaps realistically closed.

1. 1. Principal leadership is essential for good implementation and positive effects on students. In working directly with principals, the implementation team established a strong partnership with schools. Principals felt a shared ownership of the program. As a result, they prioritized program continuity and key elements over P–3 and directly financed key elements of the program: full-day pre-K, classroom assistants, and outreach staff. This support was essential in promoting a positive learning climate for students, families, and teachers necessary for sustained learning gains. Analysis of implementation data indicated that the collaborative leadership team was integral to the success of other program elements. Increased investment in principal preparation and professional learning about the design and impact of P–3 approaches is needed. Ongoing opportunities to engage principals in the key elements of P–3 programs are also warranted.

2. 2. Systems of support must be comprehensive and include family services. CPC is a comprehensive school reform model of six core elements covering leadership, instructional support, school–family relations, and continuity. This level of coverage is consistent with school reform strategies (Takanishi, Reference Takanishi2016; Zigler & Styfco, Reference Zigler and Styfco1993). Each site leadership team of Head Teacher, Parent Resource Teacher, and School–Community Representative as well as the Curriculum and Parent Involvement Liaisons play key roles. Alignment of services across P–3 has been instrumental for creating a strong learning climate. The extent to which each of the program elements contributes to short- and longer-term effects is an important next-step question.

3. 3. Menu-based system of parent involvement enables schools to tailor services more effectively. Under this new framework, the parent involvement team increased the focus on home visits, check-ins with parents on attendance, and workshops ranging from English Language Learning and computer classes to career and GED training. CPC families had higher involvement through at least first grade. As shown in previous studies (Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, Temple, Ou, Arteaga and White2011a), parent involvement is a key reason why CPC has sustained effects on later achievement, school completion, and lower need for remediation and treatment.

4. 4. P–3 can improve levels of student, family, and teacher engagement at multiple levels. As a comprehensive support system to promote a strong climate for participation, P–3 reforms can not only increase student-level attendance and reduce chronic absenteeism but help at the school level as well. Prior to the introduction of CPC-P–3 in 2012–13, CPCs had the lowest average daily attendance of all Chicago district preschool programs. This was due in part to the centers being located in the highest poverty areas. After the first year of Midwest CPC, they had the highest rate (including tuition-based pre-K). The introduction of full-day programs and the comprehensive set of services contributed (Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, Richardson and Hayakawa2014). These benefits carried over to the later grades. K–2 school-level attendance gains were 50 percent higher in CPC schools than in comparison schools. This is likely to be attributed to the established learning climate. P–3 strategies that are comprehensive in scope are more likely to affect the larger climate than reforms that are more narrowly focused on curriculum or professional development.

5. 5. Progress monitoring leads to program improvements and better P–3 alignment. The evidence indicates that regular documentation of implementation of elements helps ensure that adherence to evidence-based elements is occurring. Because of such fidelity checks, changes can be made regularly and in a timely manner. This promotes better program effectiveness. Four tools were developed in the expansion to promote monitoring for improvement: observational assessment, brief teacher activity reports, and annual curriculum and parent involvement plans. The observational assessment measures classroom task orientation and student engagement. CPC classes were observed to have significantly higher levels of task orientation than comparison classes. These results enhance instruction and professional development. This ongoing process of monitoring for program improvement is beneficial for all types of programs yet most monitoring is for accountability, and is not frequent or in-depth enough to encourage program improvement. Greater comprehensive in monitoring requires additional resources for implementation and should be a built-in part of program management at the school level.

In conclusion, the findings of the implementation and impacts of CPC-P–3 provide a strong foundation for increased investment in scale-up and expansion efforts, especially in communities and schools serving large proportions of at-risk children. Readiness for dissemination occurs when programs have strong evidence and there is a system of services to support expansion and provide consultation. This is now available in the CPC program and can facilitate further scale-up to promote increased achievement.

Introduction

The first eight years of children’s learning experiences lay the critical cognitive, social, and emotional foundations on which the entirety of their future education rests. Children who do not have these in place by age 8 are at high risk of later educational failure and negative life outcomes. Fortunately, aligned, high-quality early education programs can narrow opportunity and achievement gaps while also raising the achievement and accelerating the developmental progression of all students.

Yet access to high-quality birth-to-third grade early education remains rare in the United States. Early childhood education programs are delivered through a patchwork of school-based, non-school-based, and home-based providers, many of questionable quality. The early education workforce is similarly variable in both quality and credentialing. For instance, most states require just a high school diploma for teachers of infants and toddlers. This is also true for pre-K teachers working in non-school settings and for directors of child care centers. Finally, all too often, infant, toddler, and pre-K programs feed into elementary schools led by principals who have limited experience with early education. As a result, many of their K–3 classrooms feature inconsistent instruction and learning environments that are ill-suited to meet youngsters’ needs.

Based on estimates from the National Institute for Early Education Research’s The State of Preschool 2014, only about 42 percent of 4-year-olds and 15 percent of 3-year-olds are served by public pre-K programs, including special education and the federal Head Start program (Barnett, Carolan, Squires, Clarke Brown & Horowitz, Reference Barnett, Carolan, Squires, Clarke Brown and Horowitz2015). Those enrollment figures do not account for the quality of programs in which children are enrolled. Even children who benefit from high-quality pre-K may lose the benefits of these programs when they continue into elementary schools where curriculum, instructional interventions, professional development, and assessments are not necessarily aligned with their pre-K experiences.

This fragmented system has produced dismal outcomes for children. Based on data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), known as “the nation’s report card,” just 42 percent of all American children read at or above the proficient level at fourth grade (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2013, p. 7). For children from low-income families, the percentage plummets to less than 20 percent (Guernsey, Bornfreund, McCann & Williams, Reference Guernsey, Bornfreund, McCann and Williams2014). For dual-language learners (DLLs), fewer than 10 percent are meeting expectations. While there is not a nationally comparable measure of children’s early reading skills, there are other worrisome data. According to seminal research by Betsy Hart and Todd Risley, children from families receiving public assistance hear as many as 30 million fewer words than their peers living in more affluent families (1995). Later studies have found disparities between young children from poor families and those from more well-off families as early as 18 months (Fernald, Marchman & Weisleder, Reference Fernald, Marchman and Weisleder2013).

Improving Reading Outcomes

Students who have weak literacy skills at third grade face a series of potentially damaging short- and long-term consequences. Many will repeat a grade and some will drop out of school. Worse still, when they reach adulthood, their lack of a high school diploma makes it more likely that they will face incarceration and become dependent on social supports (Lesaux, Reference Lesaux2010). To improve children’s literacy skills and close opportunity and achievement gaps, federal, state, and local policymakers, along with other stakeholders, have centered on third grade as a pivotal point in academic and life trajectories.

The low percentage of American fourth-graders who are proficient readers is the result of economic, health, education, and other factors. One key variable is that too many state and local education agencies (LEAs) lack a seamless, coordinated, high-quality birth-through-third grade continuum of learning. Meanwhile, progress at the state and federal levels to build a strong early “learning staircase” has been mixed (Bornfreund, McCann, Williams & Guernsey, Reference Bornfreund, McCann, Williams and Guernsey2014, p. 3). The focus on early literacy must begin much before third grade; ideally, it should begin at birth.

Nonie Lesaux, professor of education at Harvard School of Education, has made the case that isolated, compartmentalized policy reforms are insufficient for making sure children are on track in the pre-K–third grade years (2013). A comprehensive approach to literacy includes attention to a wide range of components, including: teacher preparation and professional development; early identification of struggling students and intervention to support their success; comprehensive and shared assessments; language-rich and engaging reading curricula; provision of pre-K and full-day kindergarten; and school–community–family partnerships.

In order to significantly improve children’s literacy development as well as learning and development across domains, federal, states, and local education agencies need to take a comprehensive, coordinated, and connected pre-K–third grade approach and use a long-term vision for this developmental period to provide a high-quality early education for each and every child.

History of Pre-K–Third Grade Approaches

Pre-K–3 is not a new approach to early education. Its origins date to the 1960s and 1970s with the Johnson Administration’s War on Poverty, which popularized the notion that education can lift Americans out of poverty. Head Start was created in 1965 to provide low-income families and their 4-year-old children with educational, health, and social services. However, a number of studies conducted over decades show that, although Head Start children displayed positive outcomes on early childhood metrics, academic gains fade during the first year of elementary school (Omwake, Reference Omwake1969; US Department of Health & Human Services, 2010). In 1967, President Johnson issued an executive order creating Project Follow Through, an effort to identify whole-school approaches to curriculum and instruction that maintained the academic gains children made in Head Start (Hirsch, Jr. et al., Reference Hirsch Jr., Apple and Rochester2005). As with Head Start, Follow Through was locally run, which allowed each community to develop its own model for instruction to fit the needs of its students (Meyer, Gersten & Gutkin, Reference Meyer, Gersten and Gutkin1983).Footnote ¹

The Chicago Child–Parent Center Education Program (CPC) also started in 1967 as a comprehensive early education program to support children from low-income families who were not served by Head Start (Reynolds, Reference Reynolds2000; Sullivan, Reference Sullivan1971). The program provides 3- and 4-year-olds with a full day of pre-K. Parent engagement, including regular volunteering in the classroom, is a major component of the program. The original program followed a pre-K–3 model and provided key program elements such as reduced class sizes, low teacher:student ratios, and parent involvement throughout the early elementary school grades. Rigorous evaluations have found that CPC participation increases kindergarten readiness, improves high school graduation rates, and reduces crime (Reynolds et al., 2016a; Reynolds et al., 2011). In 2011, researchers at the University of Minnesota received a five-year grant from the US Department of Education to begin expanding the CPC program across the Midwest (Nyhan, Reference Nyhan2013, Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, Hayakawa, Candee and Englund2016b).

Two demonstration programs, developed in the following decades, provide useful insight into the potential value of investing in a pre-K–3 approach to early education. North Carolina’s Abecedarian Project (started in 1972; Campbell et al., Reference Campbell, Ramey, Pungello, Sparling and Miller-Johnson2002) included some elements of a strong PreK–3 model. The experimental program provided full-time, year-round education and care to low-income African American children from birth to age 5. A small number of children received extended family support in the primary grades (Graves, Reference Graves2006, Campbell et al., Reference Campbell, Ramey, Pungello, Sparling and Miller-Johnson2002). Those children had higher academic outcomes than children who only received support during pre-K (Graves, Reference Graves2006).

From 1974 on, the federal government established multiple programs to foster collaboration across child development programs and improve transition into public elementary programs. These include Project Developmental Continuity, the Head Start Transition Project, and the National Transition Study in the 1980s (Kagan & Neuman, Reference Kagan and Neuman1998). In 1990, Congress passed legislation to make the focus on transitions a more permanent part of Head Start’s model. The National Head Start/Public School Early Childhood Transition Demonstration Projection allocated grants to programs to continue providing social and health services for children and families. Preliminary qualitative findings on this program showed families had more positive adjustments to school (Kagan & Neuman, Reference Kagan and Neuman1998).

In part because of these early examples, pre-K–3 approaches have begun to take hold in communities across the country. For instance, New Jersey’s full-day, high-quality Abbott preschool program, which is aligned with full-day kindergarten and the later grades, has been found to improve student achievement well into elementary school (Barnett et al., Reference Barnett, Jung, Youn and Frede2013). Additional states and localities with promising pre-K–3 initiatives underway include: Seattle Public Schools; Boston; Minneapolis and St. Paul; and Lansing, Michigan, which adopted the First School model to reorganize elementary schools into pre-K–3 campuses (Manship et al., Reference Manship, Farber, Smith and Drummond2016). This list is growing, as new districts and organizations are realizing the value of a coordinated pre-K–3 continuum and beyond. Obama Administration efforts, such as the Race to the Top–Early Learning Challenge, have supported the growth of pre-K–3 strategies.

As the pre-K–3 approach gains traction with policymakers and educators, experts are also moving the early education field toward a stronger understanding of how to maximize these strategies’ effectiveness. In 2013, Kristie Kauerz, of the University of Washington, and Julia Coffman, of the Center for Evaluation Innovation, released their Framework for Planning, Implementing, and Evaluating PreK–3rd Grade Approaches, targeted at schools, local education agencies, early learning programs, and community partners.

State Pre-K–Third Grade Policies that Support Children’s Literacy Development

Effective early education policy approaches must combine targeted early literacy initiatives with policies that support, scaffold, and sequence children’s learning and development through third grade. New America recently completed a project to capture the range of current policies in this space (Bornfreund, Cook, Lieberman & Williams, Reference Bornfreund, Cook, Lieberman and Williams2015). The effort synthesized 2011–15 data on states’ pre-K–3 policies. It also sought to explore which of these policies help or hinder the ability of local education agencies, schools, and teachers to ensure that all children are on track to read on grade level by the end of third grade. The project covers seven areas: educators; standards, assessment, and data; equitable funding; state-funded pre-K; kindergarten; dual-language learners; and third grade reading laws.

These policy areas, discussed in more detail below, offer some insight into the kind of priorities state leaders are setting and the conditions they are putting in place for districts to meet students’ educational and developmental needs, particularly when it comes to literacy development in from pre-K to third grade. It is by no means an exhaustive list of important policies.

Educators (Teachers and Leaders)

Educator quality is the primary in-school variable affecting students’ academic and developmental growth (Weisberg, Reference Weisberg2009). Students who have an ineffective teacher multiple years in a row are doomed to fall further and further behind (Chetty, Friedman & Rockoff, Reference Chetty, Friedman and Rockoff2013). Unfortunately, children from low-income families and children of color are often assigned less effective or less experienced teachers (Murnane & Steele, Reference Murnane and Steele2007). Given what we know about the importance of meaningful interactions between students and teachers, this variation in quality is worrisome (Allen & Kelly, Reference Allen and Kelly2015).

Educator practice does not develop in a vacuum, however. It is shaped by each school’s particular context. Effective school leaders set expectations for teachers, provide support, and ensure coordination and collaboration within and across grade levels.

Various state policies also shape educator effectiveness. Relevant policies include teacher preparation and licensing, principal preparation and licensure, and educator evaluation. For example, prospective teachers’ coursework and experiences are driven by their state’s definitions of the teaching licenses they are pursuing. Most states offer both 1) an early childhood teaching license that begins at birth or pre-K and typically extends into the early grades of elementary school and 2) an elementary teaching license that begins at kindergarten or first grade and typically extends through fifth or sixth grade. While both licenses prepare prospective teachers for early grade classrooms, preparation can look very different depending on the track they are pursuing. Early childhood teacher preparation programs tend to place more emphasis on child development, family engagement, integrated curriculum learning strategies, and early literacy development. Elementary teacher preparation programs tend to place more emphasis on classroom management, teaching strategies better suited for the later grades, and content areas beyond literacy (Bornfreund, Reference Bornfreund2011).

By providing an early childhood license, prospective teachers who know they want to teach in early-grade classrooms can specialize in the ways that young children learn and develop as well as benefit from practical experience by working with younger children. An early childhood degree program and teaching license provides a path for teachers of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers to develop necessary knowledge and expertise and have opportunities to advance. This is critically important in an era of rising credential requirements for the birth-to-5 educator workforce. It is becoming more common for a BA to be the minimum qualification for entry into the profession. Head Start already mandates that at least 50 percent of teachers have a bachelor’s degree with an early childhood specialization; many state pre-K programs require the same. The recent Institute of Medicine report, Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation, makes this a long-term goal for all lead teachers of children birth-to-8 (Allen & Kelly, Reference Allen and Kelly2015). According to the NIEER’s State Pre-K Yearbook (Barnett, Carolan, Squires, Clarke Brown & Horowitz, Reference Barnett, Carolan, Squires, Clarke Brown and Horowitz2015), 21 states and the District of Columbia require the lead teacher in a state-funded pre-K classroom to have a bachelor’s degree, but not necessarily a teaching license, regardless of whether she or he teaches in a public school or non-public school setting.

Outside of public school settings, policies also need to pay attention to the adults who are working with young children. It is essential that those lead teachers, assistant teachers, and program leaders have an understanding of child development and how to foster nurturing relationships and quality interactions with infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. States can establish requirements through child care licensing to help ensure that teachers of children at these stages have at least some specific training. As of 2011, only 19 states and the District of Columbia required lead teachers in child care centers to have more than a high school diploma (NACCRRA, 2013, pp. 188–189). What is especially worrisome is that 17 states do not even require teachers of younger children in center-based settings to have a high school diploma or GED at all. And states all but ignore assistant teachers, who spend significant amounts of time with children in early childhood classrooms.

State policies for educators are not just about aligning licensure requirements with the ages of teachers’ students. To help ensure that elementary school teachers are well prepared to teach reading, many states require – either through coursework requirements or program standards – that preparation programs address five essential components of reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. As of 2013, 25 states require teacher preparation programs to incorporate all five components (National Council on Teacher Quality, 2014, p. 33).

Once teachers are prepared and credentialed to teach in pre-K–3 classrooms, they need principals who can effectively support them, providing feedback that can improve their practice. To do this well, elementary school principals, who in many cases have never taught in an elementary school, need to understand early child development to know what appropriate, content-rich instruction looks like in the early grades, so they can provide the right support for pre-K and early grade teachers (National Association of Elementary School Principals, 2014; Mead, Reference Mead2011).

Illinois is the only state that has made early childhood education a part of principal preparation. In 2010, the state redesigned accreditation for principal preparation programs, requiring that they offer early childhood content and field experiences to expose principals to pre-K–12 instructional activities. The state also intends to add early childhood content to its principal certification exam (NGA, 2013).

Five additional states (Iowa, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, and Vermont) require principals to have at least some coursework in child development as part of their school leadership preparation (Bornfreund et al., Reference Bornfreund, Cook, Lieberman and Williams2015). Coursework may seem like a natural policy target – requiring that principals receive instruction in child development topics might mean that they act on this knowledge – but simply imparting information does not mean it is acted on. The National Governors Association points out in a recent report that Illinois did not simply layer early childhood on top of existing principal preparation requirements. Rather, a goal of the change is to embed early education into administrator candidates’ coursework, field experiences, and licensure processes (NGA, 2013).

Leadership is essential in the elementary school, and also in early childhood programs serving infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Directors of these centers are responsible for meeting requirements set by the myriad agencies they may be regulated by including child care licensing, Head Start, and possibly state-funded pre-K. They are also responsible for engaging and communicating with families, observing and developing teachers, and selecting curricula, assessments, and developmental and educational programming. It is unreasonable to expect that someone with no specialized knowledge or training could do these things well. Yet six states require center directors to have only a high school diploma. Only three states require at least an associate’s degree in a related field (NACCRRA, 2013). Very few states require more advanced training in either business management or instructional leadership.

Standards, Assessment, and Data

Aligned standards, assessment, and data are also key components of a strong pre-K–3 continuum. High-quality standards and aligned curricula across the domains of learning and development are essential for guiding curriculum and instruction. All states have standards for K–12 in at least English language arts (ELA), mathematics, science, and social studies. All states but two (South Dakota and Vermont) have early learning guidelines across multiple domains at least for pre-kindergarten. But while many states report having aligned their early learning guidelines with their K–12 ELA and math standards, there is reason to doubt whether this alignment is substantive enough to drive instruction in pre-K–3 classrooms (Bornfreund et al., Reference Bornfreund, McCann, Williams and Guernsey2014).

It is not enough to align state early learning guidelines with K–12 reading and math standards. Other developmental domains such as social-emotional learning should be included in standards for the early grades of elementary school. Studies have shown that students who have instruction in social-emotional learning have better academic performance and fewer negative behaviors than those who do not (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor & Schellinger, Reference Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor and Schellinger2011). Several states include some social-emotional learning references in standards for various subject areas, but few have free-standing standards. According to a state survey conducted by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, only six states (Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Washington, and West Virginia) have free-standing social-emotional learning standards that include specific grade level indicators through at least third grade (CASEL, 2014).

To get a full picture of children’s learning and development as measured by state standards, policymakers and educators need comprehensive assessments, including screening, and diagnostic, formative, and summative tools. Capturing these data from the early grades and children’s experiences before they enter school is critical. Surprisingly, few states are able to do this fully, meaning basic questions about the children served with public dollars go unanswered (Early Childhood Data Collaborative, 2014).

Approximately half of children with developmental problems are not identified until they begin elementary school, even though intervening earlier is often more effective and more affordable in the long run. And while all children can experience developmental delays, low-income families and mothers with lower educational attainment are more likely to report developmental disabilities.

Both the CDC and the AAP recommend that all children be screened for developmental delays and disabilities at 9, 18, and either 24 or 30 months of age at well-child visits. Developmental screenings, however, do not necessarily need to be conducted by a physician; home visiting nurses, early educators, social workers, and even parents can screen children. Because of the significant percentage of children still not being identified early enough, and the fact that so many children are sent to child care, child care centers offer an ideal opportunity to reduce the numbers of children falling through the cracks.

Yet, no states require all licensed child care centers to conduct developmental screenings of children. Several states do, however, include screenings as an indicator in their quality rating and improvement systems. Delaware, for example, rates centers on the use of a developmental screener. Since Delaware provides higher reimbursement subsidies for higher-rated providers, the state’s support for screeners has material backing.

Developmental screeners are just the first critical assessments in an effective PreK–3rd grade approach to early education. Without diagnostic, formative, and summative tools, it is not possible for teachers, schools, districts, and states to capture and analyze children’s progress toward meeting standards. Early childhood assessments should include multiple domains of learning, including physical well-being, motor development, social and emotional development, approaches to learning, language and literacy development, cognitive development, and general knowledge (Snow & Van Hemel, Reference Snow and Van Hemel2008). Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia require that all state-funded pre-K programs use a multi-domain assessment of a child’s learning and development (Bornfreund, Cook, Lieberman, Williams, Reference Bornfreund, Cook, Lieberman and Williams2015).

Many states are at varying stages of implementing kindergarten entry assessments (KEAs) with an eye toward gathering better data. These assessments are typically given within the first two months of the kindergarten year to gauge students’ skills and knowledge as they enter their first year of traditional schooling. With incentives from the federal government through Race to the Top–Early Learning Challenge and the Enhanced Assessment Grant competition that focused on KEAs, many states are moving toward more multi-domain assessments. Sixteen states have fully implemented KEAs, and another 21 and the District of Columbia are planning, piloting, or implementing them in 2015–16. Beyond KEAs, few states have requirements or even provide recommendations on the kind of assessment that should be taking place in kindergarten, first, or second grade.

In recent years, states have made progress on developing more comprehensive and connected early childhood data systems – expanding their ability to link to other early childhood programs, other systems serving children, and K–12 longitudinal data systems. Around a quarter of states and the District of Columbia can link child-level data across the array of early childhood programs.

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia securely link data from at least some early childhood programs to the K–12 longitudinal system. Nine additional states are planning to link data in these systems at some point in the future (ECDC, 2014).

Only one state, Pennsylvania, is currently able to securely link child-level data from each early childhood program and connect all of those programs to the K–12 longitudinal data system (Early Childhood Data Collaborative, 2014). Information about a child’s participation and experiences in child care, pre-K, or other programs can help state and local education agencies make decisions about current and future investments in early education policies and programs. And these data can help kindergarten teachers be better prepared to meet the needs of the youngsters entering their classrooms.

Equitable Funding

Strong educators and solid standards, curriculum, data, and assessments require appropriate resources. According to the 4th edition of the School Funding Fairness report, Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card, states’ per-pupil expenditures in the K–12 system ranged from about $6,400 to $18,500 for 2012 (Baker, Sciarra & Farrie, Reference Baker, Sciarra and Farrie2015). State funding for education is generally distributed by formula. Many states use funding formulas that provide money based on the number of pupils in a district. These formulas are sometimes weighted based on the number of students with disabilities, the number of students living in poverty, or the number of students who are English learners.

The School Funding Fairness report also looked at whether states send more dollars to districts with higher concentrations of students living in poverty. At the local level, the primary funding source is property tax, which means that schools serving the nation’s most vulnerable children are often the least likely to have sufficient economic and non-economic resources to overcome the challenges they face (PreK Financing Overview, 2015). States can establish a formula that addresses these local inequalities. According to the analysis, in 2012, only 15 states had progressive funding distributions, meaning they provide higher-poverty districts (or schools) with more state resources. Meanwhile, 19 states had flat funding distributions, and 14 states had regressive funding distributions (Baker, Sciarra & Farrie, Reference Baker, Sciarra and Farrie2015).

Stable and equitable funding is also important for pre-K. States fund pre-K in a variety of ways, from general funds to money generated through tobacco and lottery taxes. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia pay for at least one of their state-funded pre-K programs through their core school funding formula, raising its profile by recognizing it as a part of children’s core education and provides more reliable funding (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2015). Funding pre-K through these formulas can take a number of forms. Some states apply their K–12 funding formula to pre-K (creating a true Pre-K–12 system). Other states weight pre-K more heavily, recognizing that quality pre-K requires higher per-pupil costs. Some provide a basic per-pupil rate for pre-K and then supplement with additional money for children with special needs. Other states set a cap for pre-K funding in the formula.

Quality and Access in State-Funded Pre-K

If states and local education agencies are serious about improving children’s chances of reading on grade level by the end of third grade, then they will focus on what happens before students enter kindergarten. Increased national awareness of pre-K’s benefits for students has sparked efforts to expand access to public programs in several states and local communities. There are, however, big differences in the reach and quality of these programs. With limited state dollars to support early education, leaders often grapple with how to balance access and quality. There are quality indicators related to both a program’s structure and process that should be in place to help ensure maximum benefits for children (Yoshikawa et al., Reference Yoshikawa, Weiland and Brooks-Gunn2013).

Provision of Full-Day Kindergarten

High-quality pre-K experiences are most impactful when followed by a strong, full-day kindergarten program to help sustain children’s pre-K learning. Yet in 35 states, children are not required to attend kindergarten at all, much less for a full day (Workman, Reference Workman2013). Five states do not require districts to provide kindergarten at all. To improve learning outcomes for all children, states must make quality in kindergarten a much bigger priority.

A strong full-day kindergarten program is a key component of the pre-K–3 continuum as it is the bridge of continuity in early elementary school. Some research shows that full-day kindergarten supports better academic outcomes than half-day kindergarten. Students who attend full-day also have better attendance in the primary grades and are less likely to be held back a grade or require remediation (Children’s Defense Fund, 2014).

Surprisingly, many states fund only a half-day of kindergarten, and in some cases kindergarten is funded at a lower amount than first grade (Workman, Reference Workman2013). This leaves districts that still want to offer a full-day kindergarten with the challenge of figuring out how to fund it. More than ten states allow districts to pass the cost onto families by charging tuition for full-day kindergarten. In many places, district leaders establish a sliding scale so that rates are based on family income. Still other states that may not require districts to offer full-day kindergarten fund it anyway. New Jersey and Wisconsin are two examples; this creates a financial incentive for districts to provide full-day kindergarten for all children even when it is not required for them to do so. Still, not requiring full-day kindergarten by law leaves it more vulnerable in challenging budget years.

Time alone, though, will not make a difference without solid, developmentally appropriate instruction and opportunities for learning. The difference between a half day and a full day is not just related to dosage, but also to how the time is structured. A full day should allow teachers to expand lessons beyond reading and math content and to provide time for child-directed learning, small-group activities, exploration and inquiry, and interactions between children – all of which are crucial in the early years of elementary school. While 11 states and the District of Columbia require that districts offer full-day kindergarten, “full day” is not necessarily equivalent to a full day in the first grade. Depending on the state, a full kindergarten day can range from about four to seven hours.

While all children can benefit from attending full-day kindergarten, it may be especially important for certain subgroups of children. Some research suggests that dual-language learners, for example, who attend full-day kindergarten do better on academic measures and are less likely to be retained in the early grades when compared to peers who attended only half-day programs (Cannon, Jacknowitz & Painter, Reference Cannon, Jacknowitz and Painter2011).

Dual-Language Learners

Some demographers have estimated that by 2030, nearly 40 percent of American students will speak a language other than English at home (Thomas & Collier, Reference Thomas and Collier2002, p. 10). This population shift will be seen in schools most significantly in the early grades. Unfortunately, state policies governing dual-language learner (DLL) identification, linguistic supports, and reclassification into mainstream English classrooms are frequently misaligned with current research on students’ academic needs.

Identifying and supporting DLLs as early as possible is important for their long-term success in both English and their other language. Yet only 15 states and the District of Columbia require state-funded pre-K programs to conduct screenings to identify children who are DLLs. While research is increasingly clear that the best way to support young DLLs’ academic growth, linguistic development, and English acquisition is by providing ongoing home language support at school alongside English exposure, six states (Arkansas, California, Arizona, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Tennessee) endorse “English-Only” instruction in one form or another. Only 21 states have family engagement laws or regulations that make any mention of families that primarily speak another language at home (Belway, Duran & Spielberg, Reference Belway, Durán and Spielberg2013).

As the English learner population continues to grow, it is increasingly likely that general classroom teachers will have students who need English acquisition support. General classroom teachers should be equipped with the knowledge and skills to provide DLLs with the linguistic support they need. Under federal law, local education agencies “must provide research-based professional development to any teachers, administrators, and staff who work with English language learners” (Education Commission of the States, 2014). Based on an analysis conducted by the Education Commission, few states require specialized training for regular classroom teachers beyond what the federal government requires. States such as Indiana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have made it a licensing requirement, meaning that prospective teachers are required to have coursework on methods for teaching English acquisition. And resources matter. The overwhelming majority of states provide some funding to help meet the needs of English language learners, but four do not (Millard, Reference Millard2015).

Third Grade Reading Laws

Students’ reading proficiency in third grade is an effective predictor of their future academic success. Because of this, 36 states and the District of Columbia have laws aimed at supporting third-grade reading success. But to date, these laws have focused more heavily on intervention rather than prevention. Further, they often consider language and literacy development only after children have entered kindergarten, even though research clearly shows that language and literacy development prior to kindergarten are critical for later academic success.

Florida was among the first states to pass legislation, in 2002, to improve third graders’ reading proficiency and promote only those students scoring proficient on Florida’s third grade reading assessments. By 2015, 36 states and the District of Columbia had followed Florida’s lead passing similar laws aimed at improving students’ third grade reading. Of the states with these laws, 18 and the District of Columbia include a requirement to retain students who do not score at proficient levels on the state’s reading test (Workman, Reference Workman2014).

The body of research on retention is somewhat clearer: it shows that retained students are generally no better off in the long-term. Several studies, in fact, show negative impacts for retained children (Jimerson, Reference Jimerson2001). For instance, 19 studies included in a meta-analysis indicate that retention is associated with dropping out of high school. Additionally, retention is also expensive for local education agencies, making it a questionable policy.

Beyond retention, state third grade reading laws have much in common. Most, but not all, states with these laws require annual reading assessments in K–3. Five states require assessment before kindergarten. Most laws include a mix of intervention strategies. The majority require intervention before third grade for students identified as struggling readers. Interventions required or recommended include things like creating academic improvement plans, establishing home reading programs, tutoring or instruction outside of school hours, and providing summer school. Some states require or recommend that schools hire a reading specialist who can provide more intensive instruction to students and/or coaching for general classroom teachers. Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia require parents to be notified about their child’s progress in reading (Workman, Reference Workman2014).

Of the 18 states and the District of Columbia that do require retention, some specify certain actions that districts or schools must take to support students in their retained year or to allow for an alternate pathway for grade promotion. It would make little sense to simply have students repeat a grade without making modifications that could help produce different results. Reflecting this idea, five states require that students who are held back have a different teacher. Eleven states and the District allow students to be promoted if they participate in an intervention such as summer school and 19 include exemptions, but these vary greatly across states. Most states provide for certain students to be exempt from retention. These laws do focus attention on third grade reading, but they alone will not ensure all children are on the path to being strong readers in third grade. That requires a more comprehensive approach to children’s early education and development.

Implications for State Policy

Each of these policy areas is important on its own, but the most powerful impacts will take form when they are considered together. Policies exist in context. Investing in or addressing bits and pieces of a pre-K–3 approach will not result in sustained gains for all children. What is necessary is a coherent and connected set of policies that flow and fit together.

Most states are far from unified alignment. From Crawling to Walking shows that states are at very different levels of progress toward a set of strong pre-K–3 policies that establish promising conditions at the local level. Several states are tackling pieces of the pre-K–3 approach fairly well. But real progress will occur when states begin to knit those discrete policies together.

Equally important to the structure of state policy is how those policies are implemented by communities, public schools, and local education agencies. Understanding the implementation of these laws and how they do or do not fit together is an area for future research. State education agencies and other related entities as appropriate should work with experts and practitioners to help think through implementation; pilot initiatives in different communities; and evaluate the success, failure, and potential consequences of those efforts, establishing a feedback loop that will provide important information for making necessary changes.

Without coherent and connected pre-K–3 policies, it will be much harder to ensure that the gains children make in pre-K programs are sustained and built upon in kindergarten, the early grades, and beyond.