Best Practices in a High Quality Preschool Program: Change Recommendations for the
Mount Ephraim School District
by
Kimberly C. Seifring
An executive position paper submitted to the faculty of
Wilmington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
In
Innovation and Leadership
Wilmington University
October, 2010
Best Practices in a High Quality Preschool Program: Change Recommendations for the
Mount Ephraim School District
by
Kimberly C. Seifring
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standards required by Wilmington University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education in Innovation and Leadership:
Lynne L. Svenning, Ph.D. Chairperson of Dissertation Committee
Linda H. Frazer, Ph.D., Member of Dissertation Committee
James J. Lavender, Ed. D., Member of Dissertation Committee
______
Betty J. Caffo, Ph.D., Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs
ii
Abstract
This executive position paper proposes recommendations for changes to the
Mount Ephraim preschool program based on research-based best strategies for high quality preschool programming using developmentally appropriate practices. A narrative of the current program is provided and research highlighting best practices for preschool programming.
One of the aspects reviewed included research on the five state-approved preschool curriculum options for New Jersey. Observational data and teacher interviews were completed on four of these five curriculum programs to assist with curriculum adoption recommendation.
Programmatic change recommendations to the Mount Ephraim program were made in regards to curriculum acquisition, inclusion of gross motor activities, how to increase parental involvement, aspects of student assessment and program assessment.
iii
October, 2010
Copyright 2010 by Seifring, Kimberly C.
All Rights Reserved
iv
This executive position paper is dedicated, first, to my family; my husband, Dan, and children, Liam, Kelsey and Caitlyn who consistently love me and support me. Those attributes focused me and kept me driven through the entire doctoral program. I would not have been able to complete a life long dream of completing a doctoral program if it were not for their selflessness and willingness to make some sacrifices of their own in regards to my time. Secondly, I would like to dedicate it to my parents, Robert and
Barbara Bolton, for not only laying the groundwork during my childhood about the importance of education but for the constant words of encouragement, positive reinforcement and assistance with my children during my time in the doctoral program.
You individuals are the best part of my life and have consistently supported me with love, guidance and patience. Finally, it is dedicated to my dissertation committee. Dr.
Svenning, thank you for the time and guidance you provided me throughout the dissertation process. Dr. Frazer, thank you for your willingness to answer all my questions even prior to the assignment of a dissertation chair. Dr. Lavender, thank you for your willingness to assist an educational colleague in her pursuit of becoming a doctor.
v
CONTENTS
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………..….iii
Dedication………………………………………………………………………………...iv
Chapter I –Preschool Programming in the Mount Ephraim School District…………...…1
Introduction………………………………………………………………………..1
Preschool History in the Mount Ephraim School District……………………...…3
District Demographic Background………………………………………………..8
Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………….9
Purpose of the Research……………………………………………………….…10
Need for Preschool Programming Alterations in the Mount Ephraim School
District…………………………………………………………………………....10
Research Questions……………………………………………………………....12
Chapter II – Review of the Best Practices in Preschool Education……………………...14
Introduction………………………………………………………………………14
Research Methodology…………………………………………………………..14
Historical Perspective…………………………………………………………....15
Cost/Benefit Analyses of Preschool Programs…………………………………..18
Effects on Students that Participate in a Preschool Program…………………….20
National Perspective in Preschool Education…………………………………....22
Early Learning Standards………………………………………………………...23
New Jersey Perspective on Preschool Education………………………………...26
High Quality Programs…………………………………………………………..31
Child Development and Preschool Education Programs………………………...34
vi
Cognitive Development……………………………………………………....34
Literacy Instruction…………………………………………………………...36
Math…………………………………………………………………………..38
Social/Emotional Growth………………………………………………….….41
Dramatic Play………………………………………………….……………...43
Gross Motor…………………………………………………………………..44
Early Childhood Curriculum……………………………………………………..45
Preschool Curricular Accreditation by NAEYC……………………………...49
State of New Jersey’s Preschool Curriculum Options…………………………...49
Tools of the Mind Project…………………………………………………….50
High Scope Preschool Curriculum…………………………………………....54
Bank Street Developmental Interaction Approach…………………………...56
The Creative Curriculum for Preschool……………………………………....57
Curiosity Corner………………………………………………………………59
Program Assessment…………………………………………………………..…62
Early Childhood Rating Scale – Revised (ECERS) ………………………….64
Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS)………………………...…65
Literacy Indicators and Interactions in the Classroom (LIIC)………………..66
Support for Early Literacy Assessment (SELA) ……………………………..67
Preschool Classroom Mathematics Inventory (PCMI) ………………………68
Child Development Assessment……………………………………..…………..69
Assessment Cautions…………………………………………………..……..73
Parental Involvement………………………………………………………….....73
vii
Parameters of a High Quality Preschool Program……………………………….77
Chapter III – Functional Review of State Approved Preschool Curriculum…………….79
Research Approach Utilized for Curriculum Reviews…………………………..79
Tools of the Mind Project………………………………………………………..79
District Background…………………………………………………………..80
Classroom Observation…………………………………………………….…80
Teacher Interview………………………………………………………….…82
High Scope Preschool Curriculum…………………………………………….…83
District Background…………………………………………………………..83
Classroom Observation…………………………………………………….…83
Teacher Interview………………………………………………………….…85
Bank Street Developmental Interaction Approach……………………………....88
The Creative Curriculum for Preschool……………………………………….…88
District Background………………………………………………………..…88
Classroom Observation……………………………………………………….88
Teacher Interview…………………………………………………………….89
Curiosity Corner………………………………………………………………….91
District Background……………………………………………………..……91
Classroom Observation……………………………………………………….91
Teacher Interview…………………………………………………………….92
Curriculum Comparisons………………………………………………………...93
Chapter IV – Programmatic Change Recommendation for the Mount Ephraim School
District Preschool Program……………………………………………………………..103
viii
Introduction……………………………………………………………………..103
Curriculum……………………………………………………………………...103
Curriculum Approval Recommendation…………………………………….104
Professional Development to Support Recommended Curriculum…………106
Gross Motor Programming……………………………………………………..107
Gross Motor Play Recommendation………….……………………………..107
Parental Involvement………………………………….………………………..108
Parental Involvement Recommendation………………….…………………109
Child Assessment………………………………………………….……………111
TCCP Assessment Recommendation……………………………….………112
Program Assessment…………………………………………………………....114
Program Assessment Recommendation…………………………………..…116
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...117
References……………………………………………………………………………....123
Appendix A……………………………………………………………………..………135
Appendix B………………………………………………………………………..……137
Appendix C……………………………………………………………………………..139
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Enrollment rates in Mount Ephraim school district preschool program………...5
Table 2: Strengths of New Jersey’s State Approved Preschool Curriculum Programs…94
Table 3: Weaknesses of New Jersey’s State Approved Preschool Curriculum
Programs…………………………………………………………………………………97
Table 4: Home/School Communication System Incorporated into New Jersey’s State
Approved Preschool Curriculum Programs ..……………………………………………99
Table 5: Assessment Program Incorporated into New Jersey’s State Approved Preschool
Curriculum Programs ………………………….……………………………………….101
Table 6: Summary of Programmatic Change Recommendations….…………………..119
Table 7: Summary of Fiscal Impact Based on Programmatic Change
Recommendations………………………………………………………………………121
x
Chapter I
Preschool Programming in the Mount Ephraim School District
Introduction
Research indicates that students demonstrate long-lasting educational benefits from participating in a preschool program (Jacobson, 2004; Preschool Teaching and
Learning Standards, 2009) and that participation in preschool is a key to later success
(National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2003). Bredekamp and
Copple (1997) indicate that “the preschool years are now recognized as a vitally important period of human development” (p. 97) and significant growth in the social, physical, emotional and cognitive domains occurs during this time frame.
In particular, research demonstrates that preschool programming for disadvantaged youth is favorable and yields long lasting results (Schweinhart &Weikart,
1998). Gormley, Jr., Gayer, Phillips and Dawson (2005) report on a meta-analysis of 13 state funded preschool programs that found “statistically significant positive impacts on some aspect of child development (cognitive, language, or social)” (p. 873) when participation in a preschool program occurred. In addition, research notes that long lasting improvements are seen in both the intellectual and social domains for economically disadvantaged youth when they participate in a high quality preschool program (Barnett, 1995). Barnett’s (1995) research reviewed 36 studies that investigated early childhood care and education (ECCE) programs; which included 15 studies that assessed the long term and short term effects of participation in exemplary early childhood programs. The studies reviewed indicated that an exemplary program was
1 2 described as having, “highly qualified staff, closer supervision of staff by experts, lower child-staff ratios, and smaller group size” (Barnett, 1995, p. 28).
Given that the research has demonstrated the longitudinal benefits of preschool participation, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) has documented that the overarching need of preschool programs should be,
“…to create an integrated, well-financed system of early care and education that has the capacity to support learning and development in all children, including children living in poverty, children whose home language is not English, and children with disabilities” (National Association for the Education of Young Children (b), 2009, p.2).
The research states that high quality preschool programs have empirically demonstrated a causal connection between program input and child outcomes (Howard &
Wiley, 2008). In addition to documenting the benefits of participation in preschool programs, research further indicates what elements are required to produce a high-quality preschool program. According to research, high quality preschool programs encompass both structural elements as well as process elements (Howard &Wiley, 2008). Structural elements are often regulated by state or local licensing requirements and include areas such as space, time, group size and teacher/child ratio while the process elements are aspects that are less regulated such as teacher/child interactions, activities available to the children and personal care routines (Howard & Wiley, 2008). The NAEYC highlights additional elements required for a high quality preschool program including: presence of a curriculum, procedures for assessment and procedures for program evaluation (National
Association for the Education of Young Children, 2003). The literature indicates that mere participation in a preschool program does not correlate with future success;
3 however, participation in a high-quality preschool program has demonstrated long term effectiveness (Weikart & Schweinart, 1986) and thus impact on future child outcomes.
Research documents that preschool education is beneficial for all children,
“typical children” as well as children with special needs; as a result, public preschool
programs are legally obligated to afford inclusionary opportunities for preschool children
with disabilities. Inclusion affords children with special needs the ability to develop and
belong aside their “typical” peer counterparts (DEC/NAEYC, 2009). The NAEYC
indicated that early childhood inclusion,
“embodies the values, policies, and practices that support the right of every infant and young child and his or her family, regardless of ability, to participate in a broad range of activities and contexts as full members of families, communities and society”(DEC/NAEYC, 2009, p.1). One of the overarching goals of an inclusive environment for the children both with and without disabilities is a sense of belonging and the ability to reach their fullest potential by being given access, support and the ability to participate in early childhood programming (DEC/NAEYC, 2009).
Preschool History in the Mount Ephraim School District
The first preschool program in the Mount Ephraim school district was
implemented during the 2005-2006 school year. It was developed to offer the district’s
students with special needs an inclusive preschool educational experience within their
neighborhood school. During the initial four years of the program, the district offered
two preschool sessions, one in the morning and one in the afternoon taught by one
teacher with a limit of fifteen students in each session. The program was offered on a
lottery basis to all general education four year old residents whom registered with the
school district and any student ages three to five that was classified as “Eligible for
4
Special Education and Related Services” under the classification category of “Preschool
Child with a Disability”. During the 2009-2010 school year, the program expanded to encompass two teachers enabling a total of four preschool sessions (two morning and two afternoon) each two and a half hours in duration. The expansion of the program afforded the district the opportunity to provide preschool positions to all registered resident four year olds without the necessity of employing a lottery system. The program continued to afford the opportunity for all children with a disability between the ages of three and five to be served in an inclusive preschool setting where the students are heterogeneously mixed between the sessions.
During the 2010-2011 school year, the Mount Ephraim school district returned to offering one morning session and one afternoon session of preschool. The change in program structure occurred due to a reduction in state education aid for the 2010-2011 school year. In addition the Mount Ephraim Board of Education voted to implement a program tuition fee for all non-disabled children. Initially a lottery was employed to determine what non-disabled children would participate in the preschool program.
However, once the tuition structure was implemented 75% of the parents and guardians withdrew their child’s name from enrollment. Therefore, all remaining non-disabled children were provided enrollment into the program for the 2010-2011 school year.
Enrollment figures for the Mount Ephraim preschool program for the current year and previous three years can be seen in Table 1.
5
______
Table 1
Enrollment rates in Mount Ephraim school district preschool program
School year Total enrollment General Special education education students students
2007-2008 30 19 11
2008-2009 29 23 6
2009-2010 42 33 9
2010-2011 24 16 8
The program is located in the elementary school building; therefore, the teacher
has access to all building level resources such as Child Study Team personnel and
Intervention and Referral Services committees. In addition, the teacher adheres to the
same school-based format for parent/teacher interactions; consequently, she participates
in Back to School Night as well as Fall and Spring conferences. On a professional level,
the teacher participates in all district wide professional development opportunities.
Historically speaking, when the preschool program was developed for the 2005-
2006 school year, the school board approved the New Jersey Preschool Teaching and
Learning Expectations as the curriculum for the preschool. These expectations are the
state released core curriculum content standards for the preschool level. However, an
official preschool curriculum was never approved by the Board of Education nor
purchased for the teacher to utilize in the classroom setting.
The preschool classroom is arranged in a manner that divides the room into
various learning centers utilizing classroom furniture as the established boundaries for the
6 different centers which include: a block center, a dramatic play area, a writing center, a classroom library, art station, manipulative center and sand/water table. All areas are clearly labeled and arranged so that items are within the children’s eye level.
The schedule of the preschool classroom include a variety of activities including: arrival time, circle time, labs, snack time, a gross motor component, story time and a group lesson that demonstrates a pre academic focus. During the “lab” portion of the schedule, the students are permitted to self select and complete various teacher designed tasks at the aforementioned centers. The gross motor component of the daily schedule involves the students participating in some form of gross motor movement activity such as following dancing moves on a tape while remaining in the classroom setting.
The class is staffed with one teacher and one paraprofessional with a maximum of fifteen students per session, including both non-disabled and disabled children. The present levels of educational and functional performance of children that are identified as
“Eligible for Special Education and Related Services” under the classification category of
“Preschool Child with a Disability” are documented in the child’s Individualized
Education Program (IEP). The child’s IEP team is generated by a multidisciplinary team comprised of a case manager, parent or guardian, special education teacher and general education teacher. In addition to profile information, this document also indicates what type of accommodations or modifications are required to allow children to develop their strengths while accommodating any weaknesses within their learning profile. Additional paraprofessionals are assigned on a per student basis according to the learning profile and needs of individual students as deemed necessary by their Individualized Education
Program (IEP) teams. In addition, at various times, related service personnel, including
7 the speech therapist, occupational therapist and physical therapist may complete integrated therapies within the classroom setting based on the needs and IEP mandates of the special needs students within the class.
The Mt. Ephraim school district currently screens all incoming preschool students in pre academic areas by the end of September utilizing a criterion referenced teacher made assessment tool. This tool assesses areas such as letter recognition, number recognition, colors, shapes and a student’s ability to write his/her name. This assessment tool is then administered an additional three to four times throughout the school year to demonstrate a child’s growth. Results from these assessments are documented on a teacher generated form that remains in the teachers’ personal files. Social skills are assessed informally via anecdotal notes completed by the teacher. Anecdotal notes are typically kept when an area of concern is noted for a particular student but do not occur for all children as part of the routine assessment process. At the conclusion of the school year the teacher compiles the various assessment procedures completed throughout the school year and organizes her files incase any of the kindergarten teachers request information about a student’s preschool performance.
Parents are informed of their child’s progress via report cards three times a year.
The report cards are aligned with the New Jersey Preschool Teaching and Learning
Expectations. The children are rated in the aligned areas as emerging “E”, developing
“D” or skilled “S”.
Currently the program assessment that occurs consists of the preschool teacher being formally observed one time on an annual basis. The classroom environment is not formally assessed by trained personnel at any point during the school year and there is no
8 form of parental input gathered on a district level regarding parents’ expectations, concerns and experiences on either an entering or exiting basis.
Although research indicates that preschool programs benefit from the establishment and implementation of various formalized constructs the Mount Ephraim school district’s preschool program does not currently have all of the aforementioned elements of a high quality preschool program firmly in place. A review of the literature to reveal what research indicates are the “best practices” in high quality preschool programming followed by implementation of these research based constructs is a necessary first step to ensure that the preschool program is designed and implemented in a manner that correlates with research based best instructional practices.
District Demographic Background
The Mount Ephraim school district is a PreK-8 school district located in southern
New Jersey and consists of two schools: Mary Bray Elementary (PreK – 4) and
Raymond Kershaw Middle School (5-8). The total district population is approximately
500 students, with approximately 280 students at the elementary school and approximately 220 students at the middle school. The demographic composition of the school district is as follows: 94% Caucasian, 0.4% African American, 2.9% Hispanic and 2.7% Asian Pacific Islander (School Matters, 2010). According to the New Jersey
Report Card during the 2008-2009 school year, the Limited English Proficiency population was 1.1% of the population at Mary Bray Elementary where the preschool program is located. About 15% of the students at Mary Bray Elementary are “Eligible for Special Education and Related Services” (State of New Jersey Department of
Education, n.d.).
9
The mission of the Mount Ephraim School District is as follows:
The Mount Ephraim School District promotes the idea that learning is the stepping stone to opportunity and the opportunity in tomorrow’s society will be a true advantage to be used carefully. Students must be taught to think critically and to write and speak with accuracy and meaning. We are a Pre-K to 8 school district that provides the students with the Core Curriculum Content Standards.
Students at all levels will be cognitively challenged in a continuing and spiraling fashion. The areas of physical education, fine arts and the processes of socialization and decision making are important components of a student’s life that will be correlated and integrated into the daily academic program.
The basic skills, including reading, writing and mathematics, will be highlighted and reinforced on a daily basis. As per the New Jersey Department of Education website, the District Factor
Group (DFG) is C/D (State of New Jersey Department of Education, 2006). The DFG is a tool utilized by the State of New Jersey that provides an approximate measure of a community’s relative socioeconomic status (State of New Jersey Department of
Education, 2006). The DFG scale utilized ranges from “A” to “I” with “A” ratings assigned to the lowest economic district and “I” ratings assigned to the most wealthy districts (State of New Jersey Department of Education, 2006).
Statement of the Problem
The preschool program of the Mount Ephraim school district does not incorporate all of the elements which research indicates are beneficial and necessary in order to implement and maintain a comprehensive high quality preschool program. This problem was highlighted during administrator/staff interactions focusing on current and historical practices in regards to the preschool program.
10
Presently the preschool program does not have a curriculum purchased or approved by the Board of Education; the formalized assessment system consists of a teacher generated, criterion referenced tool; anecdotal notes are only completed for students that demonstrate challenges in the domain of social skills; and the gross motor component of the preschool day occurs in the classroom with limited opportunities for gross motor development. In addition, the only portion of the program that is assessed on a regular basis is the annual observation of the teachers by her supervisors and parental involvement is limited to those opportunities provided to the families of the elementary aged students.
It is unknown what research-based practices in preschool education can be implemented in the Mount Ephraim school to ensure that the districts’ school children are best able to take advantage to the learning opportunities afforded to them.
Purpose of the Research
The purpose of the research is to review current literature to highlight the research-based best practices in establishing a high quality preschool program. The information will then be utilized to formulate a proposal and recommendations for alterations to the preschool program in the Mount Ephraim school district. These changes will be proposed to the district Board of Education in order to provide a learning environment for preschool students which incorporates and assimilates the research- based “best practices” in high quality preschool programming.
Need for Preschool Programming Alterations in the Mount Ephraim School District
The present parameters of the preschool program in the Mount Ephraim school district do not include various elements that research indicates should be in place in order
11 to provide students with a high quality preschool experience. Based on teacher interviews, the current preschool program is lacking a curriculum, established assessment systems, parental input and appropriate school-based areas designated for gross motor development.
A review of the empirical literature on high quality pre-school practices as well as various discussions with the current preschool teacher have highlighted various elements that are currently lacking or are in need of improvement in regards to the Mount Ephraim preschool program. This executive position paper will provide recommendations for alterations to the current preschool program and will be grounded in what research considers “best practices” in establishing high quality preschool programs. These alterations will ultimately result in an improved pre school program for the residents of
Mount Ephraim which will then have a long lasting future impact on the students both educationally and socially.
During the 2008-2009 school year, the Department of Education in the State of
New Jersey announced mandates for preschool programming for the 2009-2010 school year for a percentage of the states preschool aged children (New Jersey Department of
Education Preschool Program Implementation Guidelines, 2008). In an attempt to organize this mandated process, school districts were classified as either a “Universal
District” or a “Targeted District” based on the district’s DFG; the Mount Ephraim school district was classified as a “Targeted District” for this process (New Jersey Department of
Education Preschool Program Implementation Guidelines, 2008). Initially the mandates required all districts to offer a free full-day preschool program to a percentage of their three and four-year old residents for the 2009-2010 school year with the goal being that
12 by the 2013-2014 school year 90% of the states three and four year old children would be enrolled in preschool programs (New Jersey Department of Education Preschool Program
Implementation Guidelines, 2008). Due to state level fiscal limitations the preschool expansion initiative did not come to fruition; however, the need for research continues to be required to ensure the current program being provided is high quality in nature.
Research Questions
Several research questions guide the development of this executive position paper:
1. According to empirical research, what elements need to be incorporated into a
preschool curriculum to ensure the program is of high quality?
2. What does the research indicate regarding the type and frequency of gross motor
activities that preschool children should be engaged in in order to facilitate the
growth and development of a preschool child?
3. According to research, what kind of parental involvement, and what frequency, is
needed in order to facilitate the establishment of an effective preschool?
4. What does research indicate about the use of student assessment tools at the
preschool level? Does research recommend that student assessment tools be norm
referenced or criterion referenced? Does research indicate how often assessment
tools need to be administered in order accurately document a student’s learning
profile?
5. What does the literature indicate are best practices for preschool program
evaluation?
Chapter II
Review of Best Practices in Preschool Education
Introduction
The current literature review is being completed to obtain a thorough understanding of the elements which research indicates are beneficial and necessary in order to implement and maintain a comprehensive high quality preschool program. This research will provide documentation that will allow this researcher to analyze and critique Mount Ephraim’s current preschool program and make programmatic change recommendations predicated on research-based best practices.
Research Methodology
This researcher utilized the library databases at Wilmington University to retrieve literature in reference to various aspects of preschool programming and child development. The main research database utilized was Ebscohost under which the following databases were searched: Academic Search Premiere, Education Research
Complete, ERIC database, MasterFile Premier, and Primary Search. The key words initially utilized as inclusion criteria (both independently as well as in conjunction with each other) included: preschool programs, preschool, curriculum, social emotional growth, motor development, preschool program assessment, child assessment, parental involvement, Creative Curriculum, Curiosity Corner, Tools of the Mind, and High Scope curriculum. As a result of the initial literature review, a subsequent search occurred with terms such as: early childhood programs, early childhood assessment, early childhood gross motor development, early childhood curriculum. Furthermore, this researcher participated in a four part professional development series sponsored by the New Jersey
14 15
Department of Education on the P-3 initiative. Participation in this series provided a variety of literature for review on what aspects are necessary for high quality preschool programming.
In addition to the aforementioned research techniques, this researcher often reviewed the reference lists of various articles in an attempt to obtain other resources.
The resources obtained in this format would then be located utilizing Ebscohost Research
Database and abstracts were reviewed to determine appropriateness for the current literature review.
The literature review will provide an overview of best practices for high quality
preschool programming and child development. The review will provide a historical
perspective on preschool program development, a historical context for preschool
programming in the State of New Jersey, information pertaining to early learning
standards, child development, program assessment, child development assessment and
various preschool curriculum programs.
The aforementioned research will then be utilized to make programmatic change
recommendations to the Mount Ephraim preschool program predicated on what research
indicates are best practices for establishing a high quality preschool program.
Historical Perspective
Professionals in the field of education did not always validate preschool
programming as an effective means to facilitate a child’s growth in various domains
(Schweinhart, Weikart & Larner, 1986). Historically speaking, professionals in the
medical and psychological fields acknowledged that during a child’s preschool years a
significant period of learning occurred; however, educational professionals did not
16 concur with this belief (Pierce, 1952). While this period of learning was acknowledged as important by some, the belief that preschool education should fall on the families was evident in publications from the early 50’s with statements such as:
…public schools, like virtually all other school systems, make no provisions for instruction of children from birth to the fifth year, nor does there appear to be any valid reason for their taking over a function so patently belonging to the home (Pierce, 1952, p. 140). During this historical time frame while a majority of public school districts did not acknowledge any obligations to providing a preschool program for children, some schools, such as the public school system in Chicago, noted their belief that it was important to provide families with a systematic curriculum that focused on major aspects of living to be utilized and followed in the home setting in order to prepare their children for schooling (Pierce, 1952). In addition to preparatory needs, the Chicago school system elaborated on this curriculum noting that it was to be a communication device that afforded a “permanent working partnership of school and home” (Pierce, 1952, p. 138).
Reportedly, in the 1960s it was feared that if a child participated in an early education program harmful outcomes to the child’s development and familial relationships would occur (Schweinart et al, 1986); therefore, studies occurred in the early 1960s to determine the effects of early childhood programming (Weikart &
Schweinart, 1986). As a result of these studies, beneficial long term effects were noticed for disadvantaged youth when participation in a high-quality preschool program occurred
(Weikart & Schweinart, 1986). Research studies indicated that youth that participated in a high quality preschool program were more likely to graduate high school, find employment and enroll in post-secondary programming when compared to a control group of individuals that did not participate in a high-quality preschool program
17
(Schweinart et al., 1986; Weikart & Schweinart, 1986). Further findings from the aforementioned studies reported that youth that participated in high quality preschool programs were less likely to be classified as eligible for special education and related services, have children during their teenage year, commit crimes or receive assistance from welfare (Weikart & Schweinhart, 1986).
One well-known preschool program that was researched was the High/Scope
Perry Preschool Project. The Perry Preschool Project provided preschool children with a half-day preschool setting beginning at the age of 3 years old (Campbell, Ramey,
Pungello, Sparling, & Miller-Johnson, 2002). The children that were selected for the treatment group in the Perry Preschool Program were African-American, economically disadvantaged children (Jacobson, 2004) that had intelligent quotients between the ranges of 70 and 85 at the age of 3 (Campbell et al., 2002). The research study was implemented to determine both short and long term effects of a “high-quality preschool program on children deemed at risk for school failure” (Jacobson, 2004, p.1). Results of this study indicated that children who participated in the Perry Preschool Project experienced a decline in life time arrest rates by half, a significant improvement in their educational success, an improvement in economic success, and a fiscal return to the taxpayers of 716 percent of their original investment (Schweinart & Weikart, 1998), or
$13.00 for every dollar invested (Jacobson, 2004). Additional benefits from participation in the Perry Preschool Project for the treatment group included increased employment rates for women as well as increased home ownership rates for men (Campbell et al.,
2002). These results were recently verified when the findings of a survey administered to those that participated in the Perry Preschool Project four decades prior demonstrated that
18 those individuals from the treatment group continue to demonstrate more stable lives, earn higher incomes and are more law abiding than those individuals that did not participate in the program (Jacobson, 2004).
A second longitudinal study, entitled the Abecedarian Project, was completed to
assess the long-term benefits of enrollment in an early childhood education program for
at-risk youth. The treatment group in the Abecedarian study received intensive services
with early childhood education experiences five full days a week from birth (Campbell et
al., 2002). A review of the longitudinal data for the treatment group in this project
indicates that the group provided with the early childhood educational experiences
“attained significantly more years of total education…and showed a reduction in teenage
pregnancy compared with preschool controls” (Campbell et al., 2002, p.42). The
researchers of the Abecedarian project surmised that when children categorized as at-risk
are afforded the opportunity to be in a stimulating environment they can reap long lasting
benefits in cognitive development which effect later school success; therefore early
education can in fact make a difference in children’s lives (Campbell et al., 2002).
Cost/Benefit Analyses of Preschool Programs
These research results, in addition to others that document long term benefits of
preschool education for children in need have been referenced by policy makers and
economists in recent years as evidence that pre school programs are worth the investment
(Temple & Reynolds, 2007). These lobbyists have been “captivated by estimates
suggesting a high rate of return to early childhood education” (Temple & Reynolds,
2007, p. 126) and have utilized such research to publicly support the need for early
childhood education programs by stating, “one efficient way to invest public money to
19 ensure a skilled workforce is to invest it in quality care and education early in children’s lives” (National Institute for Early Education Research, 2007).
Cost benefit analysis procedures have been completed on a variety of preschool programs across the nation and have demonstrated a range of return on every dollar invested and consistently yield evidence which highlights the fact that preschool programs have high levels of cost effectiveness, especially for disadvantaged youth
(Temple & Reynolds, 2007). Sample cost effectiveness from investment in high quality preschool programs were observed when a cost benefit analysis was completed on the
Chicago Child-Parent Centers (CPC) (Temple & Reynolds, 2007). The CPCs are federally funded centers located in high poverty areas that offer educational interventions to children from preschool to grade two or three (Temple & Reynolds, 2007). The cost benefit analysis of this program yielded results that document that the program yields a pay off to society of seven dollars for every dollar invested (Temple & Reynolds, 2007).
Samples of the “pay offs” observed by society include a decline in the necessity for remediation services, an increased likelihood of high school completion as well as a reduction in the number of crimes completed by juveniles and young adults (Temple &
Reynolds, 2007).
Temple and Reynolds (2007) compared the results of investment in three different preschool programs and compared the cost benefit analysis of participation in these programs. The three programs compared were the Chicago CPC program, the
High/Scope Perry Preschool Program and the California Abecedarian Project (Temple &
Reynolds, 2007). When analyzing the cost benefit analysis of all three preschool programs it was determined that all three programs demonstrated a high return on the
20 initial investment with the range being between a $4.00 return to a $10.15 return on every dollar invested (Temple & Reynolds, 2007).
Research supports that preschool education is a sound investment and that the cost
to taxpayers of not providing a high quality preschool education program to
disadvantaged youth are “six times that of providing the service” (Schweinart et al., 1986,
p. 16). Temple and Reynolds (2007) concluded that “programs offered before
kindergarten have the highest economic returns” (p. 140). While Temple and Reynolds
(2007) research documented a wide range of benefits associated with the investment into
preschool programming there were various limitations to their study. All children that
participated in the three programs observed came from economically disadvantaged,
urban backgrounds and a majority of the students from the sample population were
African-American (Temple & Reynolds, 2007); therefore the generalization of findings
to all populations should be exercised with caution.
Effects on Students that Participate in a Preschool Program
Gilliam and Zigler (2000) provided a “detailed, critical review of the methods and
findings of impact evaluations of state-funded preschool programs” (p. 444). The goal of
this review was to highlight any consistent trends as a precursor to making
recommendations for preschool policy generation, service delivery or program evaluation
(Gilliam & Zigler, 2000). Completion of this review process revealed that most state
respondents identified that the primary goal of the preschool program was to increase the
school readiness skills for the enrolled children (Gilliam & Zigler, 2000). Results of the
review indicate that the state-funded preschool programs appear to assist children in
entering school with an increased level of developmental competence which allows the
21 students to perform better in school during the early years; however, even though academic gains were seen at the conclusion of preschool and into kindergarten, these gains did not appear to continue into first grade (Gilliam & Zigler, 2000).
Gormley Jr. et al. (2005) completed a research study on the school readiness abilities of children that attended a universal-Pre K program in Tulsa, Oklahoma; while
Gormley Jr. et al.’s (2005) study controlled for selection bias and utilized a fairly large sample caution needs to be utilized regarding the generalizability of the findings due to the geographical limitations of the study which utilized only one city school district.
Results of this study indicated that young children from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic classes and racial groups all demonstrated statistically significant performance effects on cognitive tests in the areas of pre reading skills, reading skills, prewriting skills, spelling skills, math reasoning and problem solving abilities when participation in a preschool program occurred (Gormley Jr. et al., 2005).
Barnett (1995) reviewed 36 studies of both large-scale public preschool programs as well as some model demonstration projects to determine the effects that preschool programs have on children that attended them. Barnett’s (1995) review indicates that participation in a preschool program “can produce large effects on IQ during the early childhood years and sizable persistent effects on achievement, grade retention, special education, high school graduation and socialization” (p. 43). One of the limitations of
Barnett’s (1995) review is that a majority of the studies demonstrated a limited sample population based on either socioeconomic factors or race; therefore generalization needs to occur with caution. However, one of Barnett’s (1995) findings across a majority of the studies reviewed indicated that disadvantaged children who participated in a high quality
22 preschool program demonstrated a reduction in special education eligibility and necessity of grade retention. Barnett’s (1995) review also explored longitudinal data in regards to high school graduation and found that the studies that reviewed graduation rates determined that participation in preschool programs had a large effect on graduation rate; with three of these effect sizes being found to be statistically significant.
Effects of preschool participation on long term socialization constructs found that children that participated in programs were found to have an increased commitment to school, a greater increase in economic potential as adult, improved relationships with neighbors and friends (Barnett, 1995). Additionally, a decrease in out of wed lock children for girls and a decrease in delinquency rates and were observed for individuals that participated in preschool programs (Barnett, 1995).
National Perspective in Preschool Education
The national need to ensure that our nation’s children have the necessary educational preparations to learn to read and succeed in school was highlighted in the
National Education Goals; the first goal articulated that all children would begin school ready to learn by the year 2000 (Gilliam & Zigler, 2000; National Association for the
Education of Young Children, 1995). While the National Education Goals referenced school readiness, the panel that generated the aforementioned goals acknowledged that any discussion of school readiness must include consideration of the diversity of experiences that preschool children enter school with; the variations in development and learning among young children; and the degree of reasonable expectations for school readiness capabilities while being supportive of individual differences (National
Association for the Education of Young Children, 1995). Consequently the first
23 objective of what was to become Goals 2000 included the statement that all children will have access to a preschool program that is both developmentally appropriate and high in quality in order to prepare children for their future school experiences (Gilliam & Zigler,
2000). This objective and additional objectives were written with the intention to ensure that preschool programs included a comprehensive array of services (Gilliam & Zigler,
2000).
President Bush continued to acknowledge the importance of preschool education in his State of the Union address in 2002 when he articulated that upcoming educational reform was going to include the Good Start, Grow Smart Initiative which addressed three major areas of strengthening preschool programming including Head Start, partnering with states to improve early childhood education and providing information to teachers, caregivers and parents (United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of
Food and Agricuture, 2009). This initiative required early learning standards in the areas of language, literacy and mathematics (National Association for the Education of Young
Children (a), 2009).
Early Learning Standards
The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) asserts that for learning standards to have a positive impact on preschool children, they need to be comprehensive, aligned across developmental ages and stages, be developmentally appropriate and be consistent with how children develop and learn (National Association for the Education of Young Children (a), 2009). Ideally, these standards should be in place to assist school districts in choosing or developing a curriculum that is
24 comprehensive and developmentally appropriate (National Association for the Education of Young Children (a), 2009).
The NAEYC developed the Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP)
Guidelines as professional standards to promote children’s learning (Howes, Burchinal,
Pianta, Bryant, Early, Clifford, & Barbarin, 2008). DAP is based on empirically based
principles of child development and learning (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) and include
the following twelve principles:
• Children’s development occurs in a variety of domains that are all
interrelated
• Child development occurs in an orderly sequence
• Developmental rates vary among children
• Development and learning occur during optimal periods which are
influenced by earlier experiences
• Child development occurs in predictable directions that result in greater
complexity and generalization
• Cultural and social contexts influence both development and learning
• Children are active learners that assimilate experiences from both the
social and physical domains to construct their own understandings
• Child development and learning is influenced from maturation coupled
with environmental experiences
• Play is an essential component of child development
25
• Child development advances when children are afforded the opportunity
to practice new skills as well as when they are challenged just beyond the
level of their present mastery
• Children can present their knowledge in a variety of modalities
• Child development will occur at a maximum level when a child learns in a
community in which safety and security needs are actualized
While consensus building is still occurring regarding the benefits and importance of preschool education, Scott-Little, Kagan and Frelow (2003) noted some peripheral ideas such as child-initiated learning are agreed upon among early childhood education individuals while consensus on the specific skills and characteristics that should be promoted during the preschool years is minimal. Consequently Scott-Little et al. (2003) conducted a national study to “examine early learning standards developed by state-level organizations” (p. 5). It was determined that the purpose of the state level standards was to improve classroom instruction and were typically generated for publicly funded early child care programs (Scott-Little et al., 2003). During this study one of the first areas reviewed was the degree to which the National Education Goals Panels’ five areas of readiness (Physical/health, Cognition, Approaches to Learning, Social/Emotional and
Language) were addressed in what the study termed child-based outcome (CBO) standards (Scott-Little et al., 2003). CBO standards were defined as, “state-based expectations for what young children should know and be able to do prior to entering kindergarten” (Scott-Little et al., 2003, p. 7).
Scott-Little et al.’s (2003) review of the national standards on a state by state basis yielded the finding that language was the most common area to be included in CBO
26 standards. Cognition and physical/health domains were also commonly articulated in state standards. The information obtained from this survey of state standards noted that
“Approaches to Learning” was the domain that was least likely addressed in the CBO standards reviewed (Scott-Little et al., 2003). The study further reviewed what subject areas were addressed in state CBO standards and found that the language and literacy domain appears are one of the most common domains, with mathematics being the second most commonly addressed area (Scott-Little et al., 2003). Further review of the standards considered the degree of linkage between a state’s CBO standards and K-12 standards. This review revealed a trend that for states that demonstrated a direct linkage between their preschool CBO standards and the K-12 standards the CBO standards tended to be more academic in nature (Scott-Little et al., 2003).
New Jersey Perspective on Preschool Education
Historically speaking, New Jersey has operated two types of preschool programs, one for Abbott districts and one for non-Abbott districts that have a high concentration of low-income families (New Jersey Department of Education Preschool Program
Implementation Guidelines, 2008). The Abbott districts, which are the 31 lowest wealth districts in the state, were mandated by the New Jersey Supreme Court in the Abbott v.
Bruke ( Abbott ) decision to offer a high quality preschool program to all three and four
year old children residing in an Abbott district (Frede, Jung, Barnett, Lamy, & Figueras,
2007; New Jersey Department of Education Preschool Program Implementation
Guidelines, 2008). This mandate came as a result of the 1998 ruling in the Abbott v.
Burke case ( Abbott V ) that documented that the State is required to offer a free high
quality preschool program to all three and four year old children in New Jersey’s lowest
27 income districts, previously known as the Abbott districts (currently known as former
Abbott districts), as part of the obligations set forth in the state constitution for a thorough and efficient education (Education Law Center (b), 2008). This mandate was handed down based on research that a high quality-intensive preschool program can “close much of the early achievement gap for low-income children, leading to greater success in school and life” (New Jersey Department of Education Preschool Program
Implementation Guidelines, 2008, p. 1) and permitted authorization for school districts to utilize schools as well as community-based centers to accommodate this education mandate (Education Law Center (a), 2008). Lamy, Barnett and Jung (2005) noted that the primary goal of the state-funded preschool programs was to prepare young children for the rigorous demands they will face in kindergarten as well as to provide a foundation in academic and social emotional arenas.
Although high quality preschool programs offered in both district and community settings were mandated in Abbott V , plaintiffs returned to court subsequent times due to an observable disparity in district and community based programs (Education Law Center
(a), 2008). The holdings in the subsequent Abbott rulings concisely detailed the standard for a well-planned high quality preschool program for all settings, regardless if the program occurred in a school district or was community based in nature (Education Law
Center (a), 2008). The court elaborated on the specifications of a “high quality” preschool program by indicating that the program should include: “a certified teacher and assistant; a maximum class size of 15; a minimum of 1 master teacher per 20 classrooms; a developmentally appropriate curriculum; adequate facilities; transportation, health and other related services; a support for language acquisition; an Early Childhood
28
Advisory Council; an outreach and recruitment plan for full enrollment; coordination with kindergarten; and parent education and involvement” (New Jersey Department of
Education Preschool Program Implementation Guidelines, 2008, p. 2)
As a result of the various holdings from the Supreme Court, the New Jersey
Department of Education has created the Abbott Preschool Implementation Guidelines for both Abbott and non-Abbott districts to use in order to help design high-quality, effective preschool programs (Chatham-Nelson, 2008). These guidelines articulate that the definition of “high quality” equates to programs that allow children in Abbott districts to enter kindergarten with readiness abilities and skills that are comparable to their peers from wealthier suburban districts (Chatham-Nelson, 2008). In addition to program requirements, the Abbott preschool programs also must adhere to various student and program assessment requirements Abbott districts were required to continually implement performance based assessments in order to document the progress of the children as well as guide curriculum planning and parental communication (New Jersey
Department of Education Preschool Program Implementation Guidelines, 2008). The program assessment requirements involve the utilization of a state designed self assessment tool on an annual basis (New Jersey Department of Education Preschool
Program Implementation Guidelines, 2008). This tool entitled Self Assessment
Validation Systems (SAVS) was designed to assess program implementation as well as progress on program improvement plans (Chatham-Nelson, 2008; New Jersey
Department of Education Preschool Program Implementation Guidelines, 2008).
In order to assess the effectiveness of the state mandated preschool programs in
New Jersey various studies have been completed since program implementation. In 2005
29 the National Institute for early Education Research (NIEER) completed a study entitled
The Effects of New Jersey’s Abbott Preschool Program on Young Children’s School
Readiness which utilized a sample population of 2,072 students from 21 of the state’s
Abbott district (Education Law Center (a), 2008; Lamy et al., 2005). The research design utilized was a regression-discontinuity design to reduce selection bias; however a limitation of the study revolved around the fact that students were only assessed utilizing the English language and it is speculated that the Abbott programs contain a larger percentage of English Language Learners (Lamy et al., 2005). The research question of interest in this study was whether or not attendance in a state-funded preschool program had a positive impact on academic skills upon kindergarten entry; additionally, the study assessed if there were a statistically significant difference in academic abilities if a child attended two years of preschool versus one year of participation (Lamy et al., 2005). In order to assess if participation in a preschool program was beneficial, the students from the study were administered a variety of norm-referenced assessments (Lamy et al.,
2005). Results of the study indicate that four year olds that attended the Abbott preschool programs:
• Increased receptive vocabulary scores by an additional four months, a particularly significant finding, since this measure is strongly predictive of general cognitive abilities. • Increased scores on measures of early math skills by 24 percent over the course of the year. • Increased print awareness scores by 61 percent over the course of the year- children who attended the program know more letters, more letter-sound associations, and are more familiar with words and book concepts at entry to kindergarten. (Education Law Center (a), 2008, p. 4)
30
The results in the areas of receptive vocabulary, math skills and print awareness were all determined to be statistically significant and therefore provide strong evidence of the positive impact the Abbott preschool programs have on a child’s language, literacy and math skill development (Lamy et al., 2005).
In addition to the aforementioned areas of assessment, students were also assessed in the area of phonological awareness (Lamy et al., 2005). Research indicated that there was not a statistically significant effect of preschool participation on phonological awareness skills as measured by the Blending subtest of the Preschool Comprehensive
Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Lamy et al., 2005).
The second research question regarding educational impact for students if their duration in the program was increased was not affirmed or denied, however speculation indicated that the effects of two years of preschool would yield significantly larger gains
(Lamy et al., 2005).
An additional report Frede, Jung, Barnett, Lamy and Figueras published in June
2007 entitled The Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study (APPLES) aspired to document the effects of a high quality preschool program on student learning outcomes. The results of the research presented in APPLES (2007) “provides clear evidence that by participating in a high-quality program, regardless of auspice, children are improving in literacy and math at least until the end of the kindergarten year” (p.4).
In an attempt to offer a resource for school districts to reference for preschool program implementation, the State of New Jersey generated standards, currently referenced as the 2009 Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards . This document
utilized a strong theoretical framework to deliver high quality educational experiences to
31 preschool children (Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards, 2009). The standards are not intended to be referenced as a curriculum guide but rather as targets that children should reach while utilizing a comprehensive, evidence-based curriculum (Preschool
Teaching and Learning Standards, 2009). In addition to discussion about educational targets New Jersey’ Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards (2009) also provide guidance in the areas of instructional planning, professional development and assessment.
These standards cover social/emotional development; visual and performing arts; health, safety, and physical education; language arts literacy; mathematics; science; social studies, family and life skills; world languages; and technology (New Jersey Department of Education Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards, 2009).
High Quality Programs
Preschool programs are designed with the anticipated effect of enhancing academic skills and social behavior of children prior to their induction into kindergarten (Howes et al., 2008). Research demonstrates that students that experience a high quality early education setting demonstrate the tendency to be involved with peers and materials in a more complex manner as well as demonstrate higher scores on standardized assessments when measuring school readiness abilities (LaParo, Pianta & Stuhlman 2004) as well as a potential increase of eight points on their intelligence quotients (Barnett, 1995). Barnett
(1995) indicates that these improvements in the cognitive and social domains are not only apparent during the preschool years but continue into the first few years of a student’s formal education career.
Many theorists have a variety of perspectives on what constitutes a high quality preschool program. Vygotskian theory states that preschool programs are not expected to
32 accelerate the instruction of pre academic and academic skills but rather expand and enrich preschool activities such as playing and painting (Bodrova & Leong, 2005). In addition, Vygotskian theory notes that instructional focus in a preschool setting should be on children understanding underlying competencies as opposed to rote memorization of facts and skills as well as offering an opportunity for a child to mature in respect to becoming capable of intentional behavior (Bodrova & Leong, 2005). According to
Vygotsky, a high quality preschool program is one that promotes development and includes the following constructs:
• Amplification of a child’s learning and development within both age
appropriate and developmentally appropriate activities
• Incorporates dramatic play as a leading program activity
• Utilizes teacher-child interactions that scaffold development
• Emphasizes underlying competencies which prepare children for future
education (Bodrova & Leong, 2005).
In addition to theorists belief’s regarding the necessary components to ensure high quality programming, professional organizations that are affiliated with appropriate educational opportunities for young children have generated minimum standards of quality in the areas of program design and infrastructure (Mashburn, Pianta, Hamre,
Downer, Barbarin, Bryant, Burchinal, Early & Howes, 2008). Program infrastructure and design include aspects such as,
…program features targeted by regulation or financing, such as the nature and level of
teacher training and experience, adoption of certain curricula, class size, child-to-teacher
ratio and whether of not the program offers additional services to children and their
families (Mashburn et al., 2008, p. 733)
33
The NAEYC is an example of a professional organization that has generated a comprehensive set of standards for early child care programs (Mashburn et al., 2008).
The NAEYC’s standards include descriptions of classroom experiences that the children experience, teacher preparation requirements, teacher/student ratios, curricula and class size requirements.
The NAEYC asserts that research indicates that a high quality program is one in which children are exposed to a robust curriculum while attention is focused on both learning sequences and self regulation abilities coupled with the tendency to reference literature and theory about child development (National Association for the Education of
Young Children (a), 2009). Furthermore, the NAEYC indicates that a high quality program is in place when children are afforded the opportunity to participate in secure relationships with adults on a consistent basis as well as the opportunity to form positive relationship with their peers (National Association for the Education of Young Children
(a), 2009). Hamre and Pianta (2007) as cited in Mashburn et al. (2008) further indicate that program quality has been assessed by direct experiences offered to the children enrolled in the program. These experiences include establishment of routines, implementation of activities and lessons, availability of materials and the quality and frequency of teacher/child interactions (Mashburn et al., 2008). Assessment of program quality is typically completed with the utilization of classroom observations in which domains such as program effects and professional development opportunities are considered (Mashburn et al., 2008).
The State of New Jersey encompassed the aforementioned areas of high quality programs in their statewide document entitled New Jersey Preschool Teaching and
34
Learning Standards (2009). These standards indicate that the routine of a preschool program should entail both unstructured play and structured activities; in addition the standards indicate that programs should encompass an inviting and supportive physical environment and the structure of daily routines.
Child Development and Preschool Education Programs
Research notes that a child’s development is highly influenced by their environment, is sporadic and is often uneven across various developmental areas (Scott-
Little et al., 2003). Furthermore, Mashburn et al.’s (2008) research confirmed that young children learn via interactions therefore “high quality emotional and instructional interactions are the mechanisms through which pre-K programs transmit academic, language, and social competencies to children” (p.744). These research findings as well as child theory should be referenced when designing a preschool program.
Cognitive Development Literature indicates that the cognitive development of a preschool child includes the development of both analytical thinking and reasoning abilities for preschool children (Shasta County Office of Education, 1989). Current understandings of childhood cognitive development can be based on various theoretical perspectives provided by theorists such as Piaget and Vygotsky (Bredekamp & Copple,
1997). According to Piaget, children’s cognitive abilities develop as they move through various developmental stages (Dixon, 1993; Hohman & Weikart, 1995) and that children
“learn by doing” as they assimilate knowledge acquired from their environment (Dixon,
1993). Piaget’s developmental stages consist of the: sensorimotor period, preoperational period, concrete operational period and formal operations period (Dixon, 1993; Hohman
& Weikart, 1995). If a child is developing at a level that is commensurate with his
35 chronological age he will be progressing through Piaget’s preoperational period during his tenure in preschool (Dixon, 1993). Dixon (1993) documents that a high quality preschool curriculum will support these developmental stages while affording students opportunities for the following tasks: decentering, overcoming egotism, discovering transformations, learning to think in reverse and conservation skills.
Bruner, Vygotsky and Piaget (as cited in Copple, 2003) indicate that during the time span of three to six years old a child’s cognitive development is characterized by children being able to form mental images which enables them to remember objects, events and individuals even when they are not physically present. This skill coupled with an increase in language capabilities allows for children to apply learned experiences from the past to a variety of situations (Copple, 2003).
Epstein (2003) cites Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers as a research resource that indicates meta-cognition develops when children are encouraged to participate in reflection, prediction, questioning and forming hypothesis. Therefore,
Epstein (2003) notes that thinking and reasoning skills can be developed when a curriculum program requires preschool students to plan and reflect. Planning is considered “choice with intention” (Epstein, 2003, p. 2) and reflection is “remembering with analysis” (Epstein, 2003, p. 2); therefore these skills incorporate both problem solving and decision making skills. These skills are beneficial in educational domains in areas such as science and math as well as in social domains such as social problem solving (Epstein, 2003). Incorporation of these abilities within a child’s repertoire enhances a child’s predictive and analytical abilities while developing a sense of
36 responsibility and utilizing self regulatory abilities (Epstein, 2003) thus impacting on a child’s cognitive development.
Literacy Instruction Research indicates that children that enter kindergarten with well-developed language and literacy skills demonstrate more success when compared to children that enter kindergarten with less-developed skills (Justice, Mashburn, Hamre &
Pianta, 2008). Justice et al. (2008) indicate that high quality literacy instruction “features systematic and explicit direct instruction that teaches children about the code-based characteristics of written language” (p. 52), Roskos, Christie and Richgels (2003) indicate that oral language comprehension, phonological awareness and print knowledge are three critical components to early literacy.
Based on the necessity and importance of high quality instruction Justice et al.
(2008) completed a study in which they attempted to quantify the quality of instruction in
135 publicly funded preschool programs for at-risk children. In addition to examining the quality of the program, Justice et al. (2008) also attempted to explore predictors of high quality instruction. These predictors included areas such as teacher, classroom and lesson characteristics (Justice et al., 2008). Results of their research indicate that few of the teachers in the study “provided literacy instruction that was explicit, systematic or purposeful” (Justice et al., 2008, p.63). In addition, literacy instruction appeared to lack evidence-based strategies that have been associated with advanced language development
(Justice et al., 2008).
Earlier research conducted by Hammill (2004) involved the review of three meta- analyses to assess what specific abilities are necessary for a child to be successful in reading and writing. Results of Hammill’s (2004) review indicated that the best predictor
37 of reading abilities was written abilities. Hammill (2004) indicates that core skills for reading and writing include: the ability to associate phonemes with graphemes, the ability to pronounce written words, the ability to comprehend and gain meaning from print, and reading fluency with appropriate accuracy.
Based on the review of research, Hammill (2004) suggests preschool teachers need to ensure that written language abilities such as print awareness, phoneme-letter correspondence and word knowledge are infused into literacy instruction. Hammill
(2004) highlights that the clusters within the meta-analysis review that had the most positive correlation with reading were “written language skills involving letters, words, sentences and composition” (p. 464). In addition, non print abilities such as intelligence, rapid naming, phonological awareness and memory did not demonstrate a positive correlation with future reading success and therefore do not need to be focused upon for literacy instruction at the preschool level (Hammill, 2004).
The National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) compiled a report from more than 500
research articles that highlighted variables that would consistently predict later literacy
outcomes (National Institute of Early Education Research, 2009). Some of these
variables are in contradiction to Hammill’s (2004) research. NELP’s report indicates that
these variables were associated with age-appropriate literacy skills:
• Know the names and sounds associated with printed letters (alphabet knowledge), • Hear and play with the sounds of language (phonological awareness-for example, rhyming or alliteration), • Rapidly name a sequence of letters or digits (rapid automatic naming), • Rapidly name a sequence of repeating random sets of pictures, colors or objects, • Write letters in isolation on request or write one’s own name, and
38
• Remember spoken information for a short period of time (phonological short- term memory) (National Institute for Early Education Research, 2009, p. 10) The compilation of these predictor variables yields instructional implications by indicating that instructing preschool children on understanding the alphabet demonstrates medium to large positive effects on various early literacy outcomes (National Institute for
Early Education Research, 2009). The research also suggests that children’s literacy development not only occurs as a result of experiences in an educational setting but also develops as a result of various interactions with both adults and peers (National Institute for Early Education Research, 2009). In addition the report compiled by NELP indicates that if preschool children are afforded the opportunity to participate in an environment that is rich in conversations and active experiences while being immersed in print related activities they are more likely to develop the foundational skills necessary to become successful in the areas of reading and written expression during kindergarten (National
Institute for Early Education Research, 2009).
Math Researchers have begun to acknowledge the fact that young children are very mathematically capable and typically enjoy completing mathematic activities and skills within their daily routines (Baroody, 2000; Epstein, 2009/2010). Furthermore, research denotes that young children can demonstrate an explicit interest in various mathematical ideas or concepts which permeate various play opportunities afforded to children in a preschool setting (Ginsburg & Amit, 2008). In addition to acquisition of mathematical knowledge via play based activities, children can develop a mathematic understanding with limited assistance through daily activities and their school experience should be designed to assist them in expanding this knowledge to include abstract concepts (Ginsburg & Amit, 2008).
39
In support of this observation, two of the leading professional organizations in both
early childhood education and mathematics, NAEYC and National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics (NCTM), have indicted that mathematics instruction is vital for 3 to 6
year old children due to the impact it has on their future mathematics learning (Ginsburg
& Amit, 2008; National Association for the Education of Young Children, n.d.). The
Executive Summary entitled Early Childhood Mathematics: Promoting Good
Beginnings (n.d.) published by NCTM and NAEYC indicates that preschool aged children should be exposed to a research based curriculum as well as effective teaching practices. Recommendations from this statement include that: children should be encouraged to utilize their natural interest in mathematics as well as their disposition to make sense of their physical worlds; opportunities for children’s interactions with key mathematical ideas should be provided; supportive learning experiences should be employed and coupled with continual assessment of a child’s knowledge, skill and strategies; and teaching practices should encourage the strengthening of problem solving and reasoning (National Association for the Education of Young Children, n.d.).
In addition to support offered by professional organizations, educators have highlighted that early mathematic skills for children encompasses more than rote counting and reciting of numerals, but can involve activities that lay the groundwork for future math learning (Epstein, 2009/2010); yet preschool children are not consistently receiving the full continuum of mathematic instruction that is needed to facilitate this growth (Frede, Weber, Hornbeck, Boyd & Worth, n.d.). The NCTM has identified five content areas within the education standards that are integral in early mathematic achievement and lay the groundwork for future mathematical success (Epstein,
40
2009/2010). These five areas include: numbers and operations, geometry, measurement, algebra and data analysis (Epstein, 2009/2010).
The NCTM has further recommended that the instructional approach utilized with preschool children shift from a traditional model to one that will “foster the mathematical power of children” (Baroody, 2000, p. 64) by allowing instruction to be purposeful, child directed and inquiry-based while utilizing an investigative approach. The investigative approach requires a child to increase their conceptual understanding of a concept by expanding on the knowledge they already possess about a topic (Baroody, 2000). The belief is that by allowing a child to connect new information to prior knowledge the possibility of an in depth understanding is more likely to occur (Baroody, 2000). This shift is necessary because it requires less emphasis on rote memorization and an increase in meaningful learning experiences (Baroody, 2000). The investigative approach can be incorporated and utilized by having children use everyday situations and child generated questions to ensure that mathematical instruction is viewed as purposeful (Baroody,
2000).
In order to ensure the aforementioned instructional areas (number and operations, geometry, measurement, algebra and data analysis) are being addressed it is imperative that teachers understand the developmentally appropriate manners in which children demonstrate progress which can then be facilitated by teacher scaffolding as they systematically engage children in conversations that further the development of math based conclusions (Epstein, 2009/2010). Additionally, it is important that the child’s environment have an abundance of enriching activities that are interesting to the children and permit the children to observe the usefulness of mathematics while continually
41 revisiting concepts which offer the children the opportunity to solidify their mathematic understandings and gain confidence in their abilities (Frede et al., n.d.).
Social/Emotional Growth A child’s social/emotional well being is linked to the manner in which a child will grow and develop (Shasta County Office of Education,
1989) and high quality programs that utilize developmentally appropriate practices coupled with sound teaching practices can considerably impact children in the social/emotional domain (National Institute for Early Education Research (b), 2007). It is during the preschool years that the child begins to transition from a self-centered world to an awareness of the external world around them during which time they develop a sense of trust and autonomy (Shasta County Office of Education, 1989). This transformation was documented by Erik Erikson in his psychosocial developmental stages (Dixon,
1993). During the preschool years, children should progress through the three stages in which they develop trust, autonomy and assert initiative (Dixon, 1993).
Research supports the social-emotional benefits of an interactive curriculum in which students and teachers engage in consistent interactions. Weikart and Schweinhart
(1986) completed a study in which they compared the longitudinal differences in a variety of academic and social areas among children instructed under one of three curriculum models. For this study, children were randomly assigned to one of the three models by a procedure that also ensured group comparability (Weikart & Schweinart,
1986). The three curriculum models utilized were a programmed-learning approach
(DISTAR), an open-framework approach (High Scope Curriculum) and a child-centered approach (a nursery school program) (Weikart & Schweinart, 1986). Results of Weikart and Schweinart’s (1986) research indicate that in regards to intellectual and scholastic
42 performance all three models achieved similarly positive outcomes; however in regards to longitudinal social-emotional outcomes, it was noted that students placed in programs that encouraged children to initiate their own activities had significantly lower rates of self-reported juvenile delinquency and associated difficulties as teenagers. Therefore,
Weikart and Schweinhart’s (1986) research indicates that programs that utilize an open- framework approach or a child-centered approach demonstrate an increase in positive longitudinal outcomes in regards to the social-emotional development of a child.
With a longitudinal look at the participants at the age of 23, the subjects from
High/Scope group and Nursery School group demonstrated a total of 10 significant advantages as compared to the group that received a direct instruction model
(Schweinhart & Weikart, 1998). Schweinhart and Weikart (1998) document these advantages as:
• Only 6% of the High Scope group and Nursery school groups required
treatment for emotional impairment at the age of 23 in comparison to 47%
of the direct instruction group
• 43% of the High/Scope group and 44% of the Nursery School group had
volunteered their time at some point up to the age of 23 in comparison to
11% of the group that received direct instruction
Schweinhart and Weikart (1998) also reported on advantages that were only observed in the High/Scope group and documented some of these advantages as:
• A total of 10% of the High/Scope group had been arrested for a felony by
age 23 in comparison to 39% of the Direct Instruction group; no subjects
43
from the High/Scope group were arrested for property crime compared to
38% of the Direct Instruction group
• 70% of the High/Scope group planned on graduating from college in
comparison to 36% of the Direct Instruction group
Results of the study indicate that children in poverty that attended a nursery school program that employed a child-initiated curriculum demonstrated fewer emotional problems and felony arrests at the age of 23 when compared to a group that was instructed with a scripted direct instruction model (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1998).
Results of this study also support that early childhood education should focus on not only academic preparation but should also include some social/emotional components such as problem solving, decision making and interpersonal skills (Schweinhart & Weikart,
1998).
Research supports that the social/emotional development of a preschool child should be considered when designing a preschool program and choosing a preschool curriculum with a continuous goal of promoting a positive self concept for the preschool child (Shasta County Office of Education, 1989).
Dramatic Play Dramatic play affords children the opportunity to understand the world via social interactions with other individuals while developing their ability to enhance their symbolic capabilities (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Copple, 2003).
Vygotsky (as cited in Copple, 2003) indicates that the ability to participate in dramatic play is linked to the development of symbolic thought in children. Additionally, dramatic play allows a child to learn self-regulation skills, increase memory capabilities, logical reasoning, imagination and language skills when they remain as an active
44 participant in make believe roles for play purposes (Copple, 2003) while learning to deal with emotions and resolving conflicts in order to gain a sense of competence (Bredekamp
& Copple, 1997).
Gross Motor Preschool children demonstrate significant physical growth and
development during their preschool years which impacts on their progress in both the
social and cognitive domains (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997); therefore, gross motor
development is yet another area that needs to be considered when discussing the gestalt
of child development. Bredekamp and Copple (1997) indicate that gross motor
development increases the functional use of a child’s limbs for activities such as running
and jumping. While this physical development is occurring quite dramatically during the
preschool time frame with a child’s physical growth occurring in primarily the trunks and
legs at a fairly steady rate, a preschool child’s nervous system does not mature at a
commensurate level of his physical development (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) thus
resulting in some “clumsy” movement from preschool children.
Various theorists have noted that they believe that specific motor controls are a necessity for learning (Mardell-Czudnowski & Goldenberg, 2000). Gross motor activities account for a significant amount of a child’s learning during the preschool years where moving, exploring and acting on objects affords children with active play scenarios as well as an opportunity to enhance their development and learning while engaging in developmentally appropriate activities (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).
Literature documents that motor development (both gross motor and fine motor) aides in establishing a child’s sense of mastery and self control while facilitating the development of a positive self concept (Shasta County Office of Education, 1989) and as a result,
45 preschool programs should incorporate plans to provide children with gross motor time on a daily basis (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).
Early Childhood Curriculum
Originally early childhood and preschool education demonstrated strong roots in developmental psychology; however, alterations in thinking and perspectives over the last few decades have shifted the focus to one of curriculum theory (Brostrom, 2006). A curriculum is a “set of written materials that describe a particular approach to providing learning experiences for children” (Parent Aware, n.d., p. 1). A curriculum can also be viewed as a complex idea of goals, content, pedagogy and instructional practices which are influenced by factors including “society’s values, content standards, accountability systems, research findings, community expectations, culture and language and individual children’s characteristics” (National Association for the Education of Young Children,
2003, p.6). Curricular approaches provide a theoretical basis for nurturing the minds of young children, a list of goals and objectives for a child’s development, a list of various activities children will experience and the process which adults will utilize to facilitate a child’s progress to the aforementioned goals and objectives (Parent Aware, n.d.) and consist of the “knowledge, skills, abilities, and understandings children are to acquire and the plans for the learning experiences through which those gains will occur” (National
Association for the Education of Young Children (a), 2009, p. 20). Bredekamp and
Copple (1997) acknowledge that early childhood curriculum is influenced by a variety of factors including parental input, cultural values and subject matter of the disciplines including the “physical, emotional, social, linguistic, aesthetic, and cognitive” (p. 20) domains.
46
Dodge, Heroman, Charles and Maiorca (2004) indicate that a comprehensive curriculum that is “grounded in research and child development theory provides a framework for what to teach, how to teach and how to assess children’s learning” (p.10) while addressing the following domains: cognitive development, language development, social/emotional development and physical development. Dodge et al. (2004) indicate that the “essence of developmentally appropriate practice is knowing where children are on a continuum of learning and then offering them challenging yet achievable experiences to gently nudge them along the way” (p. 13).
Research notes that professionals in the field of early childhood education often recognize that child-initiated learning is a beneficial approach for preschool children
(Scott-Little, et al., 2003; Thompson, 2008) and that affording children the opportunity to play provides them the ability to “develop physical competence and enjoyment of the outdoors, understand and make sense of the world, interact with others, express and control emotions, develop their symbolic and problem-solving abilities, and practice emerging skills” (National Association for the Education of Young Children (a), 2009, p.
14). Therefore, early childhood education environments should be arranged in order to give a child choices of various centers and the teacher is encouraged to follow a child’s lead when designing curricula activities (Scott-Little, et al., 2003). Consequently, preschool professionals need to embrace and encourage child-oriented experiences that focus on “social interaction, language use, active learning and appropriate self regulatory expectations” (Thompson, 2008, p. 9).
A review of the literature indicates that research supports that learning is a complex process for children and they learn through play and interactions with their
47 environment which afford them the opportunity to observe, interact and problem solve
(Shasta County Office of Education, 1989). As a result, many early childhood educators believe that a non-directed, play approach should be the hallmark of preschool programs with less emphasis on academics (Ginsburg & Amit, 2008). The Association for
Childhood Education International (ACEI) acknowledges their support of play based learning by referencing Isenberg & Quisenberry’s (1988) by stating,
ACEI believes that play is a powerful, natural behavior contributing to children’s
development and that no program of adult instruction can substitute for children’s own
observation, activities and direct knowledge. Children will master their experiences through
continual play, which is actually the most intensive and fruitful learning in their whole life
cycle (Shasta County Office of Education, 1989, p. 4).
The NAEYC has published a position statement in regards to preschool curriculum
and notes that preschool programs should, “implement curriculum that is thoughtfully
planned, challenging, engaging, developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically
responsive, comprehensive, and likely to promote positive outcomes for all young
children” (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2003, p. 6;
National Association for the Education of Young Children (b), 2009, p. 1). A preschool
curricula framework needs to adhere to developmentally appropriate principles and use
knowledge of child development coupled with knowledge of learning to set attainable yet
challenging goals for children (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Further research supports
that a preschool curriculum should encompass integrated approaches to meet all the needs
of the child including emotional, social, physical, and intellectual needs (The Shasta
County Office of Education, 1989) and the curriculum should be child initiated
48
(Schweinart et al., 1986). The NAEYC further elaborated on the curricular topic by indicating that the indicators of an effective curriculum include:
• Children are active and engaged.
• Goals are clear and shared by all.
• Curriculum is evidence-based.
• Valued content is learned through investigation and focused, intentional teaching.
• Curriculum builds on prior learning and experiences.
• Curriculum is comprehensive.
• Professional standards validate the curriculum’s subject-matter content.
• The curriculum is likely to benefit children.
(National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2003, p. 7; National
Association for the Education of Young Children (b), 2009, p. 1).
Additionally, Diamond, Barnett, Thomas and Munro (2007) indicate that consideration of how a curriculum improves a child’s executive functioning capabilities is integral. Executive functioning capabilities include skills such as: inhibitory control, working memory and cognitive flexibility (Diamond et al., 2007). Executive functioning capabilities are essential for future success and have demonstrated the ability to be more
“strongly associated with school readiness” (Diamond et al., 2007, p. 1387) than intelligence quotients or entry level reading or math skills and poor executive functioning capabilities have been associated with diagnoses such as ADHD.
Kantor (1998) further indicates that a preschool curriculum further prepares children
for the expectations that will be placed upon them entering a formal schooling
environment upon turning school age via a hidden curriculum; included in these
49 expectations are to learn impulse control, turn taking and rules and routines (Kantor,
1988). Kantor (1988) studies this idea of a hidden curriculum in an ethnographic research in which daily observations and field notes were utilized to record preschool children’s experiences. Upon completion of the research Kantor (1998) indicated that children leave preschool with many ideas about “the nature of school and its practices about who teachers are, what they can and will do for you…and about how to participate in a school setting” (p.34).
Preschool Curricular Accreditation by NAEYC Upon historical retrospect, the
NAEYC realized that they were providing accreditation to various preschool programs that did not utilize a developmental curriculum (Zan, 2005). As a result, NAEYC compiled a ten member team to reinvent the accreditation process and the result included a program standard statement that preschool curriculum should, “promote learning and development in each of the following domains: esthetic, cognitive, emotional, language, physical and social” (Zan, 2005, p. 98). The NAEYC elaborated on the topic of curriculum by stating that various curricular requirements and recommendations include, frequent integration “across traditional subject-matter divisions to help children make meaningful connections and provide opportunities for rich concept development” (Zan,
2005, p. 87). In addition, the team noted that curriculum content should have intellectual integrity as well as a focus on knowledge acquisition in addition to the encouragement of application abilities (Zan, 2005).
State of New Jersey’s Preschool Curriculum Options
The State of New Jersey requires that all district boards of education utilize a comprehensive curriculum that is research based and aligned with the Preschool
50
Teaching and Learning Standards (2009). When designing these curriculum expectations, the State of New Jersey referenced the NAEYC’s Developmentally
Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs in conjunction with the states’ K-12 standards (Scott-Little et al., 2003). The intended purpose of these state standards for
New Jersey is to inform curriculum and instruction, improve program quality and improve school readiness (Scott-Little et al., 2003). Scott-Little et al. (2003) noted that the state generated CBO standards in New Jersey were required for the then designated
“Abbott” districts and “encouraged” for other school districts.
The State of New Jersey further requires that school districts choose one of five state approved preschool curriculums which are: Tools of the Mind, High Scope
Preschool Curriculum, the Bank Street Developmental Interaction Approach, the Creative
Curriculum for Preschool, and Curiosity Corner.
Tools of the Mind Project The state of New Jersey has listed Tools of the Mind as one of the
five state approved preschool curriculums. Tools of the Mind is a preschool curriculum developed by Leong and Bodrova and focuses on children participating in deliberate play
(Vanderkam, 2009) and is based on Vygotskyian theory (Copple, 2003, National Institute for Early Education Research, 2004). This curriculum provides many activities that emphasize executive functioning as well as academic skills (Institute of Education
Sciences, 2008). The theory behind focusing on a child’s executive functioning capabilities is that this area involves developing self regulation, working memory and cognitive flexibility with an emphasis on Vygotsky’s theory and ideas (Institute of
Education Sciences, 2008). The premise behind the development of this curriculum is that it teaches children to regulate themselves which will have future impact on a child’s
51 ability to self-regulate and attend to a task at hand (Vanderkam, 2009) while becoming intentional and reflective learners (Tools of the Mind Pre-K Preschool, n.d.).
Tools of the Mind curriculum allows for teachers to attend to children’s learning capacities during child-initiated play activities by providing an opportunity for individualized support via scaffolding and explicit instruction which is informed by the continual use of ongoing assessment data monitored on a daily, weekly and monthly basis
(Metropolitan State College of Denver, 2010). The establishment of intentional, mature play as a foundation of the program occurs because play is the foundation of self- regulation development and offers children three types of interactions to enhance a child’s self-regulation abilities: regulation of others, by others and of ones self (Tools of the Mind Pre-K Preschool, n.d.). In a Tools of the Mind classroom, mature play is characterized by: being intentional, having the presence of explicit roles, providing access to and use of symbolic props, affording an opportunity for extensive language use and providing for the involvement of imaginary pretend scenarios (Tools of the Mind
Pre-K Preschool, n.d.). Based on the emphasis of dramatic and make believe play within the Tools of the Mind framework it is essential that classrooms are supplied with a wealth of make believe materials.
Additionally, a Tools of the Mind classroom will also incorporate a variety of small group and cooperative paired learning activities for the students (Metropolitan State
College of Denver, 2010). These activities include aspects such as “Buddy Reading” which encourages positive child-child interactions and self regulation skills and “Making
Collections” which encourages regulation skills during the completion of mathematics
52 activities in which the students are practicing their one-to-one correspondence skills
(Tools of the Mind, Pre-K Preschool, n.d.).
The curriculum encompasses child-directed, teacher supported and cooperative peer activities (Institute of Education Sciences, 2008). It is believed that child planning coupled with teacher support will aide in fostering self regulation skills for the children
(Institute of Education Sciences, 2008) as well as mature, and dramatic play to improve executive functioning skills (Diamond et al., 2007). The teacher support can be observed via discussions with children about their role in play scenarios, their planning of such scenarios and the reflection on such scenarios (Copple, 2003).
The program emphasizes the development of self-regulation skills for preschool children in a broad educational context (Metropolitan State College of Denver, 2010;
National Institute for Early Education Research (b), 2007) and the children are expected to plan their daily activities in written format utilizing drawing, scribbling and eventually writing (National Institute for Early Education Research, 2004). The Tools of the Mind curriculum indicates that self regulation, often called executive functioning, has been strongly associated with academic achievement (Tools of the Mind Pre-K Preschool, n.d.). The focus on self regulated learning is embedded in all activities and specific instructional activities are designed to teach self regulation as well as reflective thinking
(Metropolitan State College of Denver, 2010).
The basis of Tools of the Mind requires children to create a play plan which is then acted out for approximately 45 to 60 minutes of a preschool program (Vanderkam, 2009) and focuses on the development of metacognitive skills, cognitive abilities and self regulation skills (Copple, 2003). While the creators acknowledge that children may not
53 be able to sustain attention to the activity they indicated they would be doing in their
“play plan” for the full time allotment, children are expected to follow their plan long enough to ascertain that they know what a plan entails (Vanderkam, 2009).
Tools of the Mind was utilized in approximately 450 classrooms during the 2008-
2009 school year in a variety of states including: Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New Mexico and Oregon (Institute of Education Sciences, 2008).
The Institute of Education Sciences (2008) reviewed the literature on Tools of the Mind and found one study that met their stringent criteria for review. A review of this study
“found no discernible effects in oral language, print knowledge, cognition or math” for students in classrooms implementing the Tools of the Mind curriculum (Institute of
Education Sciences, 2008).
Diamond et al. (2007) completed a study that compared children randomly assigned to one of 21 preschool classrooms in an urban school district; implementation of stratified random assignments of teachers and assistants was also employed to minimize any impact on results based on teacher characteristics. The two groups demonstrated reciprocity in regards to professional development and resources yet differed in curricula utilized (Diamond et al., 2007). One group of classrooms implemented the Tools of the
Mind Curriculum as compared to a control group to determine if the curriculum had a positive impact on the children’s executive functioning. Diamond et al. (2007) report the children from the Tools of the Mind classrooms did in fact demonstrate superior academic performance when compared to the control group and the Tools of the Mind classroom appeared to be successful in moving children that originally demonstrated poor
54 executive functioning capabilities to a more “optimal state” (Diamond, et al., 2007, p.
1388).
High Scope Preschool Curriculum. High Scope curriculum is a Piagetian-based
(Hohman & Weikart, 1995) preschool guided curriculum that was created by Weikart in
the 1960s (Copple, 2003) and enforces the concept that children should take an active
step in the learning process by being an active learner, experimenter and observer of their
environment (Baxter & Petty, 2008) via direct experiences with “objects, people, ideas
and events” (Hohman & Weikart, 1995, p. 16) that are internally motivating and
interesting. The High Scope curriculum also purports that active learning is most
effective in settings that provide developmentally appropriate learning experiences
(Hohman & Weikart, 1995). Hohman and Weikart (1995) indicate that developmentally
appropriate education involves the following three criteria
• Exercises and challenges the learner’s capacities as they emerge at a given
developmental level
• Encourages and helps the learner to develop a unique pattern of interests, talents, and
goals.
• Presents learning experiences when learners are best able to master, generalize, and
retain what they learn and can relate it to previous experiences and future
expectations (p. 15).
In addition the creators of the High Scope curriculum believe that learning is a very social experience that includes meaningful social interactions between peers and adults
(Hohman & Weikart, 1995). This approach is supported by the concept that the role of the preschool staff is to support children in making and carrying out plans for play via a plan-do-review process (Bridge, 2001; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1998). This plan-do-
55 review approach is a hallmark to the High Scope curriculum and is comprised of a five to ten minute planning session during which the student plans where they want to visit, what materials will be utilized and which peers will be involved (Copple, 2003). The planned activities reflect experiences that are meant to stimulate intellectual, social and physical development (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1998). The planning session is followed by a 45 to 60 minute session in which the students carry out their plans; followed by another small group session in which the teacher and children recall what occurred during the play session (Copple, 2003). The High Scope curriculum states that the children need to reflect on their actions because for children to fully understand their immediate world they must participate in thoughtful reflection because such action will result in thought and understanding (Hohman & Weikart, 1995).
The High Scope curriculum also has some base in Vygotsky’s theory that children are
“instinctively social within their own families” (Bridge, 2005, p. 20). As a result the theoretical background of the High Scope curriculum indicates that it is imperative that staff build safe and caring relationships with the children in order to allow the children to feel comfortable about their atmosphere (Bridge, 2005), be conscious participant- observers and assist in supporting a child’s development by empowering children to control their own learning (Hohman & Weikart, 1995). The High Scope curriculum affords children opportunities to initiate and engage in learning activities that contribute to development in the cognitive, affective and physical domains while infusing the concept that active learning comes from personal initiative and thus the child is considered the instructor of knowledge (Schweinhart, Weikart & Hohmann, 2002). In order to foster active learning the High Scope curriculum states that a child’s learning
56 environment must encourage exploration, choice and independence while fostering positive adult/child interactions and having a consistent predictable routine (Schweinart et al., 2002). Baxter and Petty (2008) note that teachers support their students and foster these relationships by asking questions, assisting in the planning process and making comments on students’ plans.
Although the plan-do-review process encompasses a large portion of the preschool day, the High Scope curriculum also encompasses small-group time, large-group time and outside time (Hohman & Weikart, 1995) into the daily routine. During small group time, a group of six to eight students work with teacher-chosen materials yet the actions and uses of these materials are child initiated and child driven (Hohman & Weikart,
1995). Large group time involves the entire group of preschool children working together with activities such as singing songs and participating in movement activities
(Hohman & Weikart, 1995). The outside activities are incorporated into a High Scope classroom to ensure gross motor activity is incorporated within the program (Hohman and Weikart, 1995).
On going assessments occur in a High Scope classroom via observations and
anecdotal notes which are then utilized for daily planning of the next day’s activities
(Schweinart et al., 2002).
Bank Street Developmental Interaction Approach The Bank Street Developmental
Interaction Approach (Bank Street) is a child-centered approach that focuses on
individual development while emphasizing progress towards competence in both the
social and cognitive domains while acknowledging the importance of the whole-child
(Baxter & Petty, 2008). Baxter and Petty (2008) state that this approach “empowers
57 children to deal effectively with their environments” ( p. 35) while utilizing a play based approach and is based on the theories of individuals such as Jean Piaget, John Dewey,
Erik Eirkson and others (State of New Jersey Department of Education Division of Early
Childhood Education, 2006). Bank Street employs an approach that requires the teacher to be a questioner, planner and observer of curious children that are actively involved in their environment (Baxter & Petty, 2008) with rich experiences with both people and materials (State of New Jersey Department of Education Division of Early Childhood
Education, 2006). This curriculum offers a flexible structure encompassed in a framework of developmentally appropriate knowledge where children are afforded the opportunity for “choice, active investigation, independent pursuit and learning through discovery” (State of New Jersey Department of Education Division of Early Childhood
Education, 2006, p. 1).
The Creative Curriculum for Preschool The Creative Curriculum for Preschool
(TCCP) is an early childhood curriculum that encompasses teacher-led small group and
large group instruction through a project-based approach focused on science and social
studies topics in an attempt to foster the development of the child in the areas of
social/emotional, physical, cognitive, and language development (The Creative
Curriculum for Preschool, 2005) while enhancing learning in literacy, mathematics,
social studies, science, technology and the arts (Institute of Education Sciences (b),
2009). The children are afforded these learning opportunities in a variety of play based
classroom areas including: blocks, dramatic play, library, art, toys and games, discovery,
sand and water, cooking, computers, music and movement and outdoors (Institute of
Education Sciences (b), 2009).
58
TCCP requires on-going observation based assessment to assist in guiding instruction (Institute of Education Sciences (b), 2009). TCCP includes a developmental continuum for ages 3-5 and expanded forerunners that document the precursor abilities needed for the completion of a variety of skills (The Creative Curriculum for Preschool,
2005). The Developmental Continuum and Expanded Forerunners are utilized to describe emerging skills needed to complete a task as well as assist teachers in determining what individual children are capable of doing (The Creative Curriculum for
Preschool, 2005). This is done to enhance the teacher’s ability to develop individualized programs to assist with child development in addition to providing the teacher with a
“next step” for each child in regards to the development of various skills (The Creative
Curriculum for Preschool, 2005). TCCP recommends that a child’s progress is evaluated at a minimum of three times during a school year in order to formalize a check point time
(The Creative Curriculum for Preschool, 2005). The formalization of the process encourages the teacher and team of professionals working with a child the opportunity to summarize the child’s progress, and discuss any needs to be supported by the personnel
(The Creative Curriculum for Preschool, 2005).
The Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research (PCER) (as cited in Institute of
Education Sciences (b), 2009) completed a randomized controlled study which collected information on 171 children to investigate the effects of the TCCP on oral language, phonological processing and math as compared to a control group that consisted of the implementation of a “teacher-developed, nonspecific curricula with a focus on basic school readiness” (Institute of Education Sciences (b), 2009, p. 3). In order to assess a child’s oral language development, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – III and the
59
Test of Language Development – Primary III were administered; the PCER study indicated that there was not a statistically significant difference between the control and experimental groups (Institute of Education Sciences (b), 2009). Print knowledge was assessed utilizing the Test of Early Reading Ability – 3 and the Woodcock Johnson III
(WJ – III) Letter Identification and Spelling subtests and the results indicate that there was not a statistically significant difference between the control and experimental groups
(Institute of Education Sciences (b), 2009). Phonological processing was assessed utilizing the Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing Elision subtest and mathematics was assessed utilizing the Applied Problems subtest of the WJ –
III, the Child Math Assessment – Abbreviated and the Shape Composition task (Institute of Education Sciences (b), 2009). In both areas, Phonological Processing and
Mathematics, there were no statistically significant differences between the control and experimental groups (Institute of Education Sciences (b), 2009).
Curiosity Corner Curiosity Corner (CC) was developed by the Success For All
Foundation (SFAF) as a result of the landmark Abbott decision requiring free preschool to all three and four year old children in New Jersey’s Abbott school districts (Curiosity
Corner Summary of Research: First Year Findings, n.d.). CC is an integrated preschool curriculum that is comprised of two sets of thirty-eight week units which emphasizes language and literacy skills and are divided based on age level offerings, with one set for three-year olds and one set for four-year olds (Institute of Education Sciences (a), 2009) while referencing research and developmental needs of children in these age spans
(Chambers, Chamberlain, Hurley, & Slavin, 2001)
60
The daily activities include “Greeting and Readings, Clues and Questions, Rhyme
Time, Learning Labs, Story Tree, Outside/Gross Motor Play, Snack Time, and
Question/Reflection” (Chambers et al., 2001, p. 6; Institute of Education Sciences (a),
2009, p. 2) which are completed in a sequential order and allow for active learning experiences.
In the 1999-2000 school year, the SFAF completed research to assess the learning outcomes for students in classrooms where CC was implemented with a prediction that the students exposed to the CC curriculum would demonstrate an increase in language abilities (Chamber et al., 2001; Curiosity Corner Summary of Research: First Year
Findings, n.d.). The research design consisted of classroom observations coupled with the administration of the following standardized assessments: ECERS- R, the Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test and the Mullen Scales of Early Learning: Expressive Language,
Receptive Language and Visual Reception (Chambers et al., 2001; Curiosity Corner
Summary of Research: First Year Findings, n.d.). Twenty-seven experimental classrooms from child-care and preschool settings were compared to 23 matched control classes (Chambers et al., 2001). Based on the research findings, the three year old children that were exposed to the CC curriculum demonstrated a statistically significant higher expressive language ability when compared to those children in the control groups
(Chambers et al., 2001; Curiosity Corner Summary of Research: First Year Findings, n.d.;). In addition, results from the ECERS – R indicates that CC sites promoted children’s language, reasoning and child/child interactions when compared to control settings (Chambers et al., 2001). Remaining areas assessed included receptive language and visual reception; results did not demonstrate any statistically significant differences
61 in the abilities of those children exposed to the CC curriculum as compared to the control group (Chambers et al., 2001; Curiosity Corner Summary of Research: First Year
Findings, n.d.).
The Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research (PCER) (as cited in Institute of
Education Sciences (a), 2009) assessed the effectiveness of CC in comparison to other curriculum by completing a randomized controlled design with participants from 18 preschools in Florida, Kansas and New Jersey with a total population of 211 students
(Institute of Education Sciences (a), 2009). The areas assessed in this study were oral language, print knowledge, phonological processing and math (Institute of Education
Sciences (a), 2009). In order to assess a child’s oral language development, the Mullen
Scales of Early Learning Expressive Language Scales and Receptive Language Scales were administered; the PCER study indicated that there was not a statistically significant difference between the control and experimental groups (Institute of Education Sciences
(a), 2009). Print knowledge was assessed utilizing the Test of Early Reading Ability – 3 and the Woodcock Johnson III (WJ – III) Letter Identification and Spelling subtests and the results indicate that there was not statistically significant difference between the control and experimental groups; thus there were no discernible effects on print knowledge with the implementation of Curiosity Corner (Institute of Education Sciences
(a), 2009). Phonological processing was assessed utilizing the Preschool Comprehensive
Test of Phonological and Print Processing and mathematics was assessed utilizing the
Applied Problems subtest of the WJ – III, the composite score of the Child Math
Assessment – Abbreviated and Shape Composition (Institute of Education Sciences (a),
2009). In both areas, Phonological Processing and Mathematics there were no
62 statistically significant differences between the control and experimental groups (Institute of Education Sciences (a), 2009). The PCER indicated that cognition was also assessed utilizing the MSEL Visual Reception scale and results indicate no discernible effects in this domain (Institute of Education Sciences (a), 2009).
Program Assessment
Early research by Schweniart et al. (1986) documented the benefits of program assessment and the NAEYC concurs and elaborates on this recommendation by asserting that preschool programs should be assessed or evaluated on a consistent basis to determine if program goals are being met (National Association for the Education of
Young Children (b), 2009). NAEYC recommends using a variety of appropriate measures that assess the intended and unintended results of the program (National
Association for the Education of Young Children (b), 2009). Furthermore, the NAEYC emphasizes that program evaluation and accountability are an integral component of quality preschool education. Only if program evaluation occurs on a regular basis using
“varied, appropriate, and conceptually and technically sound evidence” (National
Association for the Education of Young Children (b), 2009, p. 2) will school districts know if programs are meeting the expected standards of quality (National Association for the Education of Young Children (b), 2009).
Information obtained from program evaluations can be useful in determining what aspects of a program have been successful and what aspects need some alterations to become effective (Chatham-Nelson, 2008; Martella, 2008). While research supports the fact that measurement tools are an integral part of a high quality program it is important
63 that individuals use them to measure what they are intended to measure to ensure that the reliability and validity of the measures remains intact (Martella, 2008).
Current regulations set forth in NCLB legislation acknowledge the importance of
quality instruction in early education environments while emphasizing accountability as
well as the implementation of research-based teaching methods that have been linked to
increased student learning outcomes (LaParo et al., 2004). LaParo et al. (2004) recognize
that while the regulations acknowledge the necessity of program evaluation, “what
constitutes quality in these classrooms and how it is measured remains in the forefront of
discussion” (p. 420). Many program assessment tools available assess classroom
environment while LaParo et al. (2004) highlight the importance of also utilizing a
process-oriented approach in which classroom characteristics as well as teacher-child
interactions are assessed. The NCLB regulations document that the creation of
standardized assessment tools to observe the learning environments and determine if
these environments were quality environments is important, yet fairly new. One genre of
tools is classroom environmental assessments in terms of both physical environment as
well as student/teacher interactions.
Mashburn et al. (2008) highlight that program evaluation is typically completed
utilizing some form of observation record which can focus on one of three preschool
programming aspects. These aspects are: program design, including items such as
teacher qualifications, class size and ratio; environmental quality or the nature of teacher
child interactions (Mashburn et al., 2008). Mashburn et al. (2008) found that classroom
observational data coupled with rating scales could yield findings regarding teachers’
strengths and weaknesses. Thus, Mashburn et al. (2008) supports NAEYC’s position and
64 stresses the importance of consistent, observational program monitoring to ensure that high quality interactions among emotional and instructional domains are occurring in preschool classrooms since quality interactions have been linked with future student based outcomes. Observational monitoring also permits gathering data on the quality of student-teacher interactions which are key to the social/emotional development of preschoolers. Martella (2008) supports Mashburn et al.’s findings and indicates that in addition to assessing teacher/child interactions, child outcomes should be measured as well as accountability and professional development to ensure the totality of a preschool program is being assessed. “Measuring what matters” is integral to ensuring that programs are facilitating the acquisition of knowledge and skills for pre school aged children and that program quality is assessed in totality (Martella, 2008).
While researchers have not yielded a consistent finding regarding what aspect of
preschool programs correlates with high quality programming, they agree that consistent,
on going program assessment is necessary to highlight any areas of weakness in order to
provide professional development in said areas; thus, to increase the overall quality of the
preschool program.
Early Childhood Rating Scale – Revised (ECERS) Historically speaking, the
NAEYC realized the necessity for revisions of program accreditation procedures when
close scrutiny of the accreditation process revealed that many programs were not high
quality in nature yet were able to meet the accreditation requirements utilizing the Early
Childhood Classroom Observation (ECCO) tool, the assessment devise prior to the
reinvention of the accreditation process (Zan, 2005). In an attempt to reinvent the
accreditation process, the ECCO was reviewed and revised into the Early Childhood
65
Environmental Rating Scale – Revised (ECERS – R) which is an assessment instrument utilized to assess overall program quality via observation report (Frede et al., 2007; Zan,
2005). This observational assessment tool has been utilized quite frequently for over 25 years (Mashburn et al., 2008) and has demonstrated a positive correlation with student learning outcomes (Howes et al., 2008) as well as well established reliability, validity and internal consistency measures (Frede et al., 2007).
The ECERS - R requires an observer to assess a classroom on seven subscales
(Frede et al., 2007) using 36 items that measure a variety of elements in the classroom environment and are averaged to provide a single overall measure of program quality
(Mashburn et al., 2008). Mashburn et al. (2008) indicate that these 36 items include:
“space and furnishings, routines, language reasoning, activities, interactions, and program structure” (p. 735). The ECERS – R utilizes a seven point scale with descriptors that anchor the odd numbers (Zan, 2005), where 7 is excellent, 5 correlates to a rating of good, 3 is minimal and a score of a 1 denotes inadequate (Chambers et al., 2001, Howes et al., 2008, LaParo et al., 2004, Masburn et al., 2008).
Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) The Pianta’s Classroom
Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) is another assessment tool utilized to measure teacher-child interactions (Martella, 2008; Mashburn et al., 2008) via classroom observation and was designed as a result of research completed in the areas teacher-child interactions, classroom environments and teaching practices (LaParo et al., 2004).
Creators of the CLASS assert that this assessment tool was designed to address the limitations of other classroom assessment tools (LaParo et al., 2004). Hamre and Pianata
(2005), (as cited in Justice et al., 2008), indicate that teacher-child interactions are an
66 important aspect of a child’s preschool programming because they can be associated with both a child’s academic and social performance and the CLASS “provides a framework for observing key dimensions of classroom processes, such as emotional and instructional support, that contribute to quality of the classroom setting from preschool through third grade” (LaParo et al., 2004, p. 409).
In addition to classroom interactions, the CLASS focuses on what teachers do with the materials they have available to them; the focus on processes as opposed to materials occurs in an attempt to gauge classroom practices to systematically improve said practices (LaParo et al., 2004).
This observational assessment tool consists of various dimensions organized under the three major areas of emotional climate, management and instructional support
(LaParo et al., 2004) that assess the instructional and social emotional climates of the classroom (Howes et al., 2008). Classroom observation utilizing the CLASS as a form for collecting reliable and valid assessment data requires intensive training in observation abilities to ensure that global observations are occurring (LaParo et al., 2004). The
CLASS scale consists of a scoring rubric for quality from one through seven with 1 and 2 demonstrating a low quality, 3 through 5 demonstrating a mid level of quality and 6 and 7 being utilized for high quality interactions (Justice et al., 2008, Mashburn et al., 2008).
Literacy Indicators and Interactions in the Classroom (LIIC). The Literacy
Indicators and Interactions in the Classroom (LIIC) scale is an assessment tool utilized to examine the materials available in a preschool classroom that encourage literacy activity as well as the approach the teachers utilize to encourage literacy related interactions
(Schuele, Roberts, Fitzgerald & Moore, 1993). Schuele et al. (1993) indicate that the
67 scale is broken down into eight categories to reflect the eight “quantifiable categories of literacy materials, activities, and experiences important to preschool classrooms” (p. 14).
The eight categories are: written information about the current day, directions and labels, writing and drawing materials, books, other print materials, instructional materials and activities, classroom areas for reading and writing and child-related written language display (Schuele et al., 1993). These categories are rated utilizing a 7 point scale where the odd numbers in the continuum are anchored with a descriptor and is completed via classroom observation (Schuele et al., 1993). Ideally, preschool classrooms should obtain a score of four or higher; a score below four would indicate that the environment could be altered to provide a more supportive literary environment to help support literacy development (Schuele et al., 1993).
While the premise of the LIIC is to provide an assessment tool to gauge the classroom environment Schuele et al. (1993) highlight some reservations with the tool including: one observation that is a minimum of two hours in duration may not be an accurate sampling for a classroom; the scale focuses on environmental opportunities, but not quality; and the items for the assessment tool were taken from literature although it is not documented that more of these experiences correlate with advanced literacy skills.
Supports for Early Literacy Assessment (SELA) The State of New Jersey currently recommends the Supports for Early Literacy Assessment (SELA) – CEER version in all preschool programs and requires this tool to be utilized in the Abbott preschool programs (Smith, Davidson & Weisenfeld, 2001). The SELA was developed to assess the extent to which the classroom environment supports literature development
(Frede et al., 2007) and was inspired by the publication of Learning to Read and Write
68 from the NAEYC (Smith et al., 2001). The SELA is a fairly new assessment tool that identifies if best practices in regards to literacy development are implemented by teachers in the classroom as well as if parent involvement activities encompass best practices in regards to literacy development (Smith et al., 2001). The items included in the SELA focus on classroom practices across a variety of domains including: the literate environment, language development, knowledge of print/book concepts phonological awareness, letters and words and parent involvement (Smith et al., 2001).
The SELA is comprised of 20 rating scales that must be completed during a 2 ½ to 3 hour classroom observation coupled with a 30 minute teacher interview (Smith et al.,
2001). Each item on the SELA has a five point scale with the odd rating numbers being anchored with descriptors (Smith et al., 2001). Completion of the assessment process utilizing this tool requires the examiner be familiar with aspects of high quality early childhood programs, aware of developmentally appropriate practices, participation in training sessions and practice administration with a previously trained examiner (Smith et al., 2001).
Preschool Classroom Mathematics Inventory (PCMI) The State of New Jersey requires that districts that are required to offer preschool programs (former Abbott districts), and recommends all other preschool programs, utilize the Preschool Classroom
Mathematics Inventory (PCMI) to assess mathematic instruction in preschool classrooms revolving around numeracy, geometry, measurement, problem solving and other mathematical concepts (Frede et al., 2005). This tool mirrors the design of the SELA and utilizes a five point scale that anchors the odd rating numbers with descriptors and is
69 completed by an examiner throughout an approximately three hour observation period
(Frede et al., 2005).
Child Development Assessment
In addition to program assessment, Hyson (2002) recommends that preschool educators utilize a comprehensive and ongoing assessment to aide in planning for both children’s educational and developmental success. Assessment processes can take on a variety of formats and may include observations, work sampling, completion of developmental checklists or rating scales, norm referenced assessments and portfolios
(National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2003). The NAEYC published a position statement in regards to assessment of preschool children in which they assert that assessment of a child’s strengths, needs and progress are an integral part of a preschool program (National Association for the Education of Young Children (b),
2009). Child development assessment is essential for planning and implementing instructional programs (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) and monitoring of a child’s progress
(National Association for the Education of Young Children (a), 2009). The NAEYC position statement further elaborates on the topic of child development assessment by stating that decisions regarding assessment and assessment tools should be “ethical, appropriate and reliable” (National Association for the Education of Young Children,
2003, p. 10; National Association for the Education of Young Children (b), 2009, p. 1).
The assessment methods need to be “developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive, tied to children’s daily activities, supported by professional development, inclusive of families and connected to specific, beneficial purposes”
(National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2003, p.10; National
70
Association for the Education of Young Children (b), 2009, p. 1). Creating sound assessment tools can be challenging due to the characteristically uneven development of skills among students as well as the impacts of culturally or linguistically diverse backgrounds (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; National Association for the Education of
Young Children (a), 2009).
In a position statement revised in 1995, the NAEYC acknowledged that variability in competencies within domains is a normal and acceptable aspect of early childhood development. According to the NAEYC, the assessment process will be considered effective if: assessment instruments are utilized for their intended purpose; screenings are always linked to a follow-up process; individually administered norm referenced tests are limited; and staff and families are knowledgeable about the assessment instruments being utilized as well as their outcomes (National Association for the Education of Young Children (b), 2009). While assessment tools can be helpful in determining readiness abilities, the NAEYC indicates that results from these tools should not be utilized to determine school entry or placement decisions because of the fact that students have a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences and that inequities in and lack of opportunities for children should not impact in the aforementioned areas (National
Association for the Education of Young Children (a), 2009).
The NAEYC indicates that use of assessment data should be multifaceted and should be utilized to make decisions regarding both teaching and learning, identifying specific concerns for children that may require individual and focused interventions
(National Association for the Education of Young Children (b), 2009). The NAEYC has
71 documented a detailed list of what indicators should be in place for effective assessment practices to be effective and include the following:
• Ethical principles guide assessment practices.
• Assessment instruments are used for their intended purposes.
• Assessments are appropriate for ages and other characteristics of children
being assessed.
• Assessment instruments are in compliance with professional criteria for
quality.
• What is assessed is developmentally and educationally significant.
• Assessment evidence is used to understand and improve learning.
• Assessment evidence is gathered from realistic settings and situations that
reflect children’s actual performance.
• Assessments use multiple sources of evidence gathered over time.
• Screening is always linked to follow-up.
• Use of individually administered, norm-referenced tests is limited.
• Staff and families are knowledgeable about assessments.
(National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2003, p.11; National
Association for the Education of Young Children (b), 2009, p. 2).
In addition, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (a)
(2009) issued by the NAEYC also highlights the following recommendations regarding preschool assessment:
• Assessment is ongoing, strategic and purposeful
72
• Assessment information is collected in a structured specified manner and
results are utilized to impact curriculum planning
• Assessments encompass both independent activities as well as though that
require assistance for completion
• Input from families is also utilized in the assessment process
• Any decisions made utilizing assessment date are done so with various
key stakeholders
Dodge et al. (2004) report that assessment data should be collected in a variety of manners and should be utilized to assist teachers in planning for children’s learning.
The State of New Jersey’s Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards (2009) supports NAEYC’s position and further elaborates that individual and group administered norm referenced tests are typically considered inappropriate tools to assess the development of children in preschool programs. The New Jersey Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards (2009) acknowledge that student assessment is an on going process “which includes identifying, collecting, describing, interpreting, and applying classroom-based evidence of early learning in order to make informed instructional decisions” (p.9). While the New Jersey Preschool and Teaching Learning Standards
(2009) indicate that norm-referenced tests are not an appropriate tool to assess preschool children it acknowledges that developmental screening measures can be helpful as an initial step in identifying children that have developmental delays in various domains.
The Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards (2009) indicate that observation can entail a variety of avenues including “rating forms, photography, narrative description, anecdotes, videotaping, journals, and recording of children’s conversations
73 and monologues” (p.11). Assessment techniques via developmental screeners should be coupled with observation to ensure appropriate documentation of a child’s abilities is occurring (The Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards, 2009). While observation skills can be instrumental in assessing children’s development, individuals must ensure that their observations are intentional, focused, and regularly scheduled (The Preschool
Teaching and Learning Standards, 2009).
Historically speaking Congress has mandated Head Start programs to use student standardized assessments to determine if programs were achieving desired results (Dodge et al., 2004). While use of the standardized assessment tools material can be beneficial in the aforementioned manner, Dodge et al. (2004) caution that assessment procedures should not be utilized simply to satisfy mandates but also should be utilized in an ongoing manner to help drive future instruction.
Assessment Cautions While professionals in the early childhood field advocate
for the use of assessments, they also note the various use of various forms of assessment
can also carry risks (Hyson, 2002). These risks include improper assessment of students
that are eligible for special services or from culturally and linguistically diverse families;
misuse of screening tools and readiness assessments; a disconnect between assessment
practices and curricular content; and a narrowing of the curriculum due to a narrow
assessment (Hyson, 2002).
Parental Involvement
Blankstein (2004) indicates that educational research clearly demonstrates that
“support and involvement of students’ families and the community at large is
fundamental to achievement in school” (p. 167). This research delineates factors that
74 have been accurate predictors of student achievement as: a family’s ability to generate a home environment which encourages learning, involvement in a child’s education and the ability to clearly communicate high expectations that are also reasonable (Blankstein,
2004). Schools that have demonstrated the ability to sustain positive family connections and involvement consistently employed three principles which are: demonstrating empathy and mutual understanding, involving family members in school activities and reaching out to family members (Blankstein, 2004).
Marzano, Waters and McNulty (2005) discuss a framework that schools can implement in order to enhance student achievement called “What Works in Schools:
Translating Research into Action”. This framework includes school-level factors, teacher-level factors as well as student-level factors (Marzano et al., 2005). The student- level factors encompass factors, such as “home environment”, that are not consistently addressed by school yet have an impact on student achievement (Marzano et al., 2005).
Marzano et al. (2005) indicate that if schools are willing to address some of these student level factors such as home environment by implementing school wide programs, enhancement of student achievement abilities can be seen. Included in the “home environment” portion of this model are: communications between parent/guardians and their children about their progress in school, supervision and parenting style (Marzano et al., 2005). Consequently, it is supported that parental involvement in a child’s preschool program would positively impact on their achievement and thus a pre school program would benefit from having a parental involvement component infused into them. Dodge et al. (2004) highlight that advocates for developmentally appropriate preschool programs include a component of sharing knowledge with families regarding the skills and
75 activities being introduced to their children through their educational programming. The
NAEYC further elaborates on the necessity of parental involvement by indicating that parental involvement should not be limited to “scheduled events” but that a program/family relationship needs to be nurtured throughout all activities for a preschool program to be considered of high quality (National Association for the Education of
Young Children (a), 2009)
The positive impacts of parental involvement in a preschool child’s program was cited by Bridge (2001) who noted that, “parental involvement in preschool is believed to be important because it allows children continuity of familiar relationships and experiences in the preschool curriculum” (p. 7). Based on this belief, Bridge (2001) completed a case study on parental involvement at Bell Nursery, a small, private preschool program located in a small rural community in England that utilized the high scope curriculum.
Professionals at Bell Nursery observed that the children in their classes tend to imitate the actions they experienced or observed in their own personal lives during the
“Plan-Do” portion of their day (Bridge, 2001). The case study completed at Bell Nursery consisted of asking the parents to have discussion with their children about the “Plan-do” portion of the High Scope day prior to arrival at school (Bridge, 2001). Professionals observed that this form of parental involvement appeared to impact the child’s performance in a variety of areas (Bridge, 2001). Bridge (2001) reported that the professionals at Bell Nursery noticed that the children that had the increased parental involvement at home appeared to have clearer “Plan-do” plans, demonstrated increased perseverance with their plans and had an increased overall confidence level. In addition
76 to child-centered benefits, the parents noted an emotional value to the process and stated that by participating in the planning session with their children in the home setting they found it easier leave their children in the preschool setting (Bridge, 2001). Overall
Bridge (2001) noted that it appears to be beneficial for all stakeholders in the preschool process when parental involvement creates and facilitates links between the home and school environments.
Research has also recognized that parental support in the form of reading to their children is a valuable tool in child development (Yarosz & Barnett, 2001). Yarosz and
Barnett (2001) researched home literacy activities and the extent to which various variables (mothers level of education, number of siblings, income, race, etc.) correlated to the frequency of reading storybooks to children. As a result of the research Yarosz and
Barnett (2001) recommend a stronger emphasis on reading and literacy activities in preschool settings should occur. In addition, recommendations were made that parents need to be informed of the importance and value of reading to young children (Yarosz &
Barnett, 2001). Parental involvement in reading to their children assists children in understanding the conventions of print in the written language prior to being able to decode or encode various print media (Bus, van IJzendoorn & Pellegrini, 1995).
Orally reading books to children affords them the opportunity to hear proper grammatical form of written language (Bus et al., 1995). Bus et al. (1995) completed a meta-analysis of the available empirical evidence regarding reading between parents and preschoolers and various outcomes. Bus et al. (1995) surmised that they believed the data would demonstrate that book reading would increase children’s knowledge of the written language and therefore an increase in reading achievement would be realized.
77
Results from the meta analytic review supported Bus et al.’s (1995) hypothesis and indicated that parent-preschooler book reading is related to items such as emergent literacy, language growth and reading achievement; therefore, the data supports that parent-preschooler reading is “a necessary preparation for beginning reading instruction at school” (p. 17) and parent involvement is a necessary component to a high quality program.
Seng (1998) acknowledges that research has indicated that best practices for both teachers and parents have demonstrated how to promote thinking, learning and literacy in our preschool aged children. One of the facets gleaned from the research is that neither parents nor schools can meet with success without the support of the other member of the dyad relationship with both members working collaboratively toward a shared goal
(Seng, 1998).
Parameters of a High Quality Preschool Program
Research indicates that students demonstrate long-lasting educational benefits from participating in a preschool program (Jacobson, 2004; New Jersey Department of
Education Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards, 2009) and that participation in preschool is a key to later success (National Association for the Education of Young
Children (a), 2003). Research and professional organization specializing in preschool education supports that high quality programs encompass various parameters that include: the presence a play-based, child centered curriculum that consider the various developmental domains for preschool children (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997); parameters for developmentally appropriate child assessment; program assessment; and reciprocal relationships with parents while encouraging parental involvement in the preschool
78 program (Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Program Serving
Children from Birth through Age 8, 2009). In order to ensure that a district is offering high quality program to their preschool children it is important that all of the key stakeholders involved in the program openly collaborate and share research based strategies for establishing high quality programs. This form of communication will facilitate the establishment of said strategies and thus a high quality preschool program.
Chapter III
Functional Review of State Approved Preschool Curriculum
Research Approach Utilized for Curriculum Reviews
The State of New Jersey requires that school districts choose one of five state approved preschool curriculums for their preschool programs. These curriculums are:
Tools of the Mind, High Scope Preschool Curriculum, the Bank Street Developmental
Interaction Approach, the Creative Curriculum for Preschool, and Curiosity Corner.
Formal observations and preschool teacher interviews (see Appendix A) occurred in classrooms in the southern New Jersey area that employed one of the aforementioned curricular approaches. Observations and interviews were completed in order to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the program. In addition, attempts at communication with kindergarten teachers were made to discuss their perceptions regarding whether or not the preschool curriculum utilized in their district adequately prepares children for kindergarten (Appendix B). The ultimate goal of these procedures was to obtain information to facilitate the decision making process regarding the acquisition of a preschool curriculum for the Mount Ephraim preschool program.
Observations occurred in schools that varied based on: District Factor Group
(DFG), former classification as an Abbott/Non-Abbott district, age of children served, homogeneous versus heterogeneous grouping based on age, and number of years implementing current preschool curriculum. This lack of environmental continuity could be considered a limitation of the study and may impact on teacher’s perceptions of the curriculum program being utilized.
Tools of the Mind Project
79 80
District Background The Tools of the Mind Curriculum was observed in a preschool classroom at the Decatur Avenue School in Pleasantville, New Jersey which educates 210 three and four year old children in a full day preschool program. The classroom observed included both general education and special education students. The district was in their second year of implementing the Tools of he Mind curriculum at the time of observation and according to the New Jersey Department of Education had a 2000 DFG of A (State of
New Jersey Department of Education, 2006)
Classroom Observation The classroom observed was arranged in the following play stations: sand and water table, dramatic play, blocks, table toys, library, science/nature and art. The teacher utilized classroom furniture to arrange boundaries between the areas and a majority of the classroom materials and locations were labeled.
During the opening day activities, the children were reminded of the rules of the classroom and progressed with some routine activities such as reflection on a timeline documenting the length of the school week and year, discussion about calendar activities, completion of a tally activity and participation in various word games.
In preparation for the play portion of the day, the students were afforded a choice of play activities utilizing a system devised of color coded clothes pins attached to a schematic map of the various play locations in the room. This method appeared to ensure that the students were equally divided among the various play stations. The children were then asked by the teacher or paraprofessional, “Who are you going to be, and what are you going to do?” As the children chose what they were going to play, rules for that play station had been velcroed to the clothespin the children chose and the rules were then reviewed prior to the generation of a play plan. The teacher and classroom
81 paraprofessional then guided the children in the completion of a play plan utilizing a teacher made form that allowed for simple differentiation of abilities based on student abilities. The differentiation occurred based on the expectation of the students’ plan.
Some children were expected to draw their plans, others had to draw and write blanks for words, while other attempted to draw and write out their play plan. The teacher assesses these play plans and scores them utilizing a differentiation key and symbols denoting the child’s ability level on the differentiation scale. The scale, from simple to complex, was as follows: plan, picture, message (children verbally articulate), line (children write lines for each word in their message), initial (children are able to provide the initial sound of the words in their message), last (children are able to provide the last sounds of the words in their message), vowels (children are able to provide the vowel sounds to the words in their message). A child must progress through these stages in a linear manner. The code utilized to document a child’s abilities at the various levels consisted of an “X” denoting scaffolding needed to occur or a circle denoting the child completed a certain level independently. Once a child chose a station and play plan they were expected to remain in that station during the entire time allotted for play to encourage self regulation abilities. The teacher and the paraprofessional circulated among the groups and inquired about various play scenarios occurring.
The Tools of the Mind curriculum affords the children a sound map to assist when children are prepared to begin writing activities as observed during the generation of the play plan for some students. The letters are clustered by sound similarity on the map and letters are paired with illustrations to assist the students as a visual reminder of various letters and sounds. The sound map observed during the observation period consisted of
82 only consonants, yet the teacher indicated that the program does offer a vowel sound map as well.
Teacher Interview The preschool teacher reported that she views the immediate implementation of self regulation techniques interwoven throughout language arts and mathematic activities a strength of the Tools of the Mind program. The topics of instruction are teacher generated and the length of instruction upon thematic topics is not specified in the curriculum.
The weakness of the program, as articulated by the preschool teacher, is the regulated structure and inability to deviate from the program. The teacher elaborated on this and indicated that initially the program was very overwhelming and time consuming to learn because of the various required components.
The teacher stated that during their initial year of implementation they attended four training sessions provided by the company which were helpful and in their subsequent year of implementation the professional development opportunities were completed by in-district personnel. She explained that the trainings could not be described as explicit which resulted in the need to reestablish various classroom routines and procedures once she discovered they were being implemented incorrectly.
Assessment tools are offered with the Tools of the Mind Curriculum in the form of anecdotal notes and developmental checklists. The program requires that a portfolio assessment be completed with four work samples a year in language arts and mathematics. The teacher stated that the assessment process was initially very overwhelming and continues to be time consuming.
83
The pre school teacher indicated that the Tools of the Mind Curriculum does not offer any form of home/school communication system or newsletter. She articulated that she wishes the program offered this form of communication and feels as though it would be a beneficial addition to the program.
Although attempts were made to converse with a kindergarten teacher regarding her perceptions of the children’s preparedness level entering kindergarten after being exposed to the Tools of the Mind Curriculum, the conversation was unable to occur.
High Scope Preschool Curriculum
District Background The High Scope Curriculum was observed in Buena School
District at the Milenase Elementary school which provided the preschool programming in a half day session. The classroom observed included both general education and special education four year old students. The Buena Regional school district began using the
High Scope curriculum in 2001 and according to the New Jersey Department of
Education had a 2000 DFG of A (State of New Jersey Department of Education, 2006).
Classroom Observation The classroom was arranged in a variety of learning centers and the teacher utilized classroom furniture to determine the boundaries of these areas.
The labeled areas included: art area, science area, block area, toy area, kitchen area, writing area, quiet area, reading area and house area. A review of the teacher’s lesson plans revealed that the typical preschool day is broken down into the following time frames: greeting time, small group time, large group time, snack time, story time, outside time, planning time, work time, clean up time, recall time and dismissal.
A sample objective in the teacher’s lesson plans for work time was, “Student will carry-out their plans in chosen areas while using materials, role playing, solving
84 problems, showing initiative and interacting in positive ways with each other and adults”.
A sample objective in the teacher’s lesson plans for recall time was, “The students will recall what they did during work time and tell about it, draw a picture to show it, or demonstrate in some way their work time activities”.
The children began their day with a variety of daily calendar type activities which included singing of songs and answering various teacher generated questions. In order for the children to transition to the small group portion of their day, the teacher asked each child to demonstrate the ability to make a predetermined sound and utilized the singing of a song to facilitate the transition process. The activities that were occurring in the two small groups included: writing numbers and letters in shaving cream based on teacher guided questions and a fine motor activity with straws and balls.
The group then transitioned into a large group activity that consisted of playing with a parachute in the classroom. During this activity the children had to listen to the teacher’s directives to know what expectations were being placed on them. The teacher was observed to utilize a variety of songs to help with attention and transition processes.
During the large group activity the paraprofessional was then preparing the classroom for snack time which the children transitioned to after washing their hands.
After snack time, the class gathered on the carpet to have the teacher read them a story on dinosaur babies. Throughout the story portion of the observation, the teacher was asking a variety of questions that assessed the students’ awareness regarding conventions of print as well as to assess their understanding of the selection being read.
In reviewing lesson plans for the week, the children would also be hearing Jack and the
85
Beanstalk, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty and Giggle, Giggle, Quack on subsequent days of the week.
Upon completion of the story, the children participated in some gross motor activity by being allowed to play on the playground equipment. During this gross motor component, the teacher was observed to solve a variety of social/emotional disputes among children using a questioning technique that afforded the children the opportunity to internalize the questions they could ask themselves if a similar situation ever reoccurred. As the children transferred from the playground equipment, the pre school teacher had the children begin to mentally consider what they were going to do during planning time. When the children entered the classroom, they were directed to find a shape with their name on it to write down their plan for play time. As the children completed their plans and reviewed them with the teacher or paraprofessional they were permitted to go to their play area to fulfill their plan.
At the conclusion of their play time, the teacher verbally recalled with the students what they completed during play time. For example, one student was heard to state, “I played with Kristin with the white stuff.” After a verbal recall was completed of the student’s play plans they were directed to retrieve their back packs and line up for dismissal purposes.
Teacher Interview The teacher reported that she has found the High Scope curriculum to have numerous strengths. She reported that the program aligns very easily with the New Jersey Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards which facilitates lesson plan writing. In addition she noted that she feels the progression through the program offers the children experiences in a developmental fashion rather than trying to be
86 initially too academic. She provided elaboration on this topic by articulating an example from the program; when students first begin the school year in a High Scope classroom they use a symbol to learn their name and then progress to identifying their name. In addition, the teacher reported that she feels as though the Plan-Do Review portion of the preschool day is helpful in having students think about their upcoming actions and affords the students the opportunity to contemplate how they will complete an activity.
Finally, the preschool teacher indicated as though she feels the High Scope program affords many opportunities for the children to grow in the social/emotional domain by trying to teach them to internalize a set of questions when disagreements occur.
The teacher reported that one of the weaknesses of the program is the rigidity and inability to alter portions of the program to fit a need observed in the classroom.
The teacher stated that the products are easy to use and there are a multitude of products to reference; she further elaborated that the teachers in the Buena school district were recently provided with the Numbers Plus portion of the program in regards to mathematic instruction. The teacher also indicated that when the program was first implemented in the Buena Regional School District the district ensured that all teachers participated in professional development opportunities provided by the company. The teacher stated that these experiences were highly beneficial. She highlighted that some neighboring school districts that were also initiating the High Scope curriculum did not utilize the professional development opportunities and various colleagues from these neighboring towns continue to talk about the negativity surrounding program implementation. The teacher articulated that she felt as though negativity is not felt in the
87
Buena Regional School District because of the implementation of these professional development opportunities.
In regards to child assessment, the teacher explained that they utilize a
“Children’s Observation Record” for anecdotal note purposes and home/school communication systems are completed on an individual basis at the teacher level.
A kindergarten teacher from the Buena school district was interviewed regarding her perception of the children’s preparedness levels for kindergarten after being instructed with the High Scope curriculum.
The teacher reported that the children that have been exposed to the High Scope
curriculum do not appear anxious when entering kindergarten, are able to follow routines
and interact positively with others. In addition, she indicated that the program appears to
“give the children their voice”. She elaborated on this comment by acknowledging that
the children exposed to the High Scope curriculum demonstrate strength in the area of
verbal communication via their involvement in classroom discussions and ability to fully
express answers to teacher generated questions. In addition, the teacher perceives that
the students demonstrate age appropriate behaviors when entering kindergarten in the
following domains: cognitive, gross motor, social/emotional, and language. When
questioned regarding any weaknesses she perceives in the children entering kindergarten
the teacher reported that she could not consistently acknowledge any.
The kindergarten teacher reported that the High Scope preschool curriculum is not
vertically aligned with the curriculum they use in kindergarten (Wilson Fundations and
Math Expressions). She stated that while these curriculums are not aligned, they do both
utilize a “hands on” approach to learning.
88
Bank Street Developmental Interaction Approach
Communication with representatives from the Early Childhood Division of New
Jersey’s Department of Education yielded the findings that there were currently no
district statewide that were employing the Bank Street Developmental approach in order
for a formal observation of this curricular approach to occur.
The Creative Curriculum for Preschool (TCCP)
District Background TCCP was observed at Tatem Elementary School in
Haddonfield, New Jersey which educates three and four year olds in a half-day program
that serves both general education and special needs children; the program is a tuition
based program for the general education students. The Haddonfield school district was in
its second year on implementing TCCP at the time of the observation. According to the
New Jersey Department of Education had a 2000 DFG of J (State of New Jersey
Department of Education, 2006).
Classroom Observation The classroom was arranged in different areas, using
classroom furniture as natural boundaries. The sections were not labeled but appeared to
be a block section, puzzle area, sand/water table, art station and dramatic play center.
During the observation period the children were participating on a study involving
“camping”. Upon entering the classroom the children participated in circle time activities
that consisted of a story walk and singing of camping related songs. During the book
walk portion of the observation, the children answered a variety of teacher generated
questions in a choral response which demonstrated that the children had discussed the
concept of camping previously and they appeared to be tapping prior knowledge in order
to answer posed questions.
89
Upon conclusion of the circle time activities, the children went outside and made smores utilizing a solar oven. In addition, the children were afforded some time for gross motor activities by utilizing the playground equipment; the teacher utilized this gross motor time for instruction on a variety of social skills as various student based disagreements occurred. At the completion of the extended gross motor portion of the observation period, the children returned to their classroom, utilized time for a bathroom break and then listened to the paraprofessional read a story about” Crazy Hair Day” (it was a student council sponsored “Spirit Day” on the day of this observation). During this portion of the observation period, the teacher worked with two children to give them their sensory diet input. Upon conclusion of the story the children were assisted in retrieving their backpacks and getting ready to be dismissed.
Teacher Interview The teacher indicated that she felt as though TCCP had
numerous strengths including the fact that the children appear to enjoy the program as
well as the areas of “study”. This topic was elaborated on and the teacher articulated that
initially the concept of having “studies” was difficult for her to embrace because she was
accustomed to switching topics on a weekly basis; however, she stated that the use of
“studies” is very child initiated which appears to impact on their motivation. An
additional strength of the program, as noted by the teacher, was that with the variety of
documentation materials and Expanded Forerunners, progression through a skill
continuum is easily documented. Furthermore, these documentation tools reportedly
facilitate the generation of goals and objectives for the children with special needs.
While the teacher commented on the comprehensive assessment materials as
being advantageous she also indicated that it is also an area of weakness due to the time
90 commitment that these tools require. In addition, the teacher stated that a possible weakness to the program could be considered the amount of supplemental media materials needed to sustain the “studies” for the children. She highlighted that the media center located at her school had an abundance of materials; however, she also articulated that if media centers did not have an abundance of such materials that could be viewed as a weakness in program implementation.
The teacher reported that the district recently began the implementation of this curriculum within the last two years, and the summer prior to implementation the teachers implementing the new program attended a four-day professional development series. She indicated that she believes this professional development opportunity was a necessity and found participation highly beneficial to ensure the program was appropriately implemented.
TCCP has a computer based assessment system called cc.net that allows teachers to document children’s progression on a continuum of skills. In addition, districts have the ability to allow parents access to the teachers comments, anecdotal notes and progress through the developmental continuum. The teacher stated that while this aspect can be an effective home/school communication device, it does relate back to a negative aspect of the program because the assessment documentation can be time consuming and if it is unable to occur in an expeditious manner parents have demonstrated frustration with the untimely input of progress notes.
Although attempts were made to converse with a kindergarten teacher regarding her perceptions of the children’s preparedness level entering kindergarten after being exposed to the Tools of the Mind Curriculum, the conversation was unable to occur.
91
Curiosity Corner
District Background The Curiosity Corner Curriculum was observed at Cold
Springs Elementary School in Gloucester City, New Jersey which educates approximately 265 children (both general education and special education children) between the ages of three and four years old in a full-day program (Gloucester City
Schools, n.d.) where Curiosity Corner has been implemented for the past ten years. The
Gloucester City school district has also integrated the Every Day Math curriculum into their preschool program. According to the New Jersey Department of Education had a
2000 DFG of B (State of New Jersey Department of Education, 2006).
Classroom Observation The program requires that the children participate in child-initiated learning labs for a substantial portion of their day (215 minutes) and gross motor activity for 60 minutes a day. The location of the gross motor activity varies depending on the weather outside. The weekly themes are set by SFAF and are implemented simultaneously among all of the classrooms in the school. Examples of the themes during the 2009-2010 school year include: To Market, To Market; Sensational
Sense; Blowing in the Wind and Baa-Baa, Moo-Moo. In addition to the assignment of weekly themes an assigned letter is made to a majority of the thematic weeks.
The classroom was arranged in the following learning lab areas: art, blocks, cooking, dramatic play, library/listening area, manipulatives, sand/water table, science, and writing. The teacher utilized classroom furniture to arrange boundaries between the areas and a majority of the classroom materials and locations were labeled. The daily schedule at Cold Springs included the following components: Breakfast/Greetings and
Readings, Clues and Questions, Rhyme Time, EveryDay Math, Learning Labs, Story
92
Tree, 60 minutes of Gross Motor Play, Lunch/Rest Time, Question and Reflection and
Home Links (Gloucester City Early Childhood Center, n.d.).
At the beginning of the observation period, the children were participating in breakfast and upon conclusion of their meal, they transitioned from their breakfast location to their opening day activities in which the teacher reviewed the classroom rules and calendar activities. The calendar activities were completed utilizing a variety of songs and rhymes with which the children were familiar and comfortable. The morning routines included various literacy instruction infused within the daily activity portion of the lesson. It appeared as though the teacher being observed had internalized the scripted portion of the curriculum; it did not appear that she had to reference the teacher manual for guidance on the script. Upon completion of the daily activities, the teacher provided an oral review of the different activities available at the various learning labs. The children were then offered the opportunity to choose which learning lab they wanted to play at during play time utilizing an approach in which the children were asked one at a time with questions such as, “Where will you go? How many friends are at that lab?”.
During this time frame the children were not required to remain at one lab and were observed to vacillate between areas while the teacher required the students to complete a teacher-led activity at the writing lab at intermittent times throughout the observation period.
Teacher Interview A strength of the Curiosity Corner program highlighted by the teacher is the weekly teacher manuals depicting the various themes from the program.
She reported the themes were easy to implement and follow. She also found the
93 numerous instructional resources provided by the SFAF with the purchase of the
Curiosity Corner program very useful.
During the first three years of implementation, SFAF came to Gloucester City to
provide professional development. Currently, unless the district hires several new
teachers, those new to the program are provided professional development via one of the
district’s instructional coaches. This instructional coach is also the individual responsible
for completing ongoing professional development for those previously trained using the
Curiosity Corner curriculum.
The teacher stated that Curiosity Corner does not offer adequate assessment tools
so they recently began to utilize the computer based assessment system (cc.net) from the
Creative Curriculum program. She felt these assessment tools were helpful, easy to use
and comprehensive. In addition, she highlighted that the web based assessment system
provides a plethora of information regarding child development.
Program assessment is completed utilizing a variety of materials depending on
how the instructional coach scored each individual teacher’s program during the prior
instructional year. Assessment materials can include the ECERS – R, PCMI, SELA or
SAVS.
A kindergarten teacher from the Gloucester City school district was interviewed
regarding her perception of the children’s preparedness levels for kindergarten after being
instructed with the Curiosity Corner curriculum.
The teacher reported that the children that have been exposed to the Curiosity
Corner curriculum have been afforded enriching experiences to compensate for any lack
of experience in the home setting. Academically speaking, she indicated that the children
94 are exposed to many of the same skills in preschool as they are presented in kindergarten.
The teacher stated that the children come with experience and knowledge in the cognitive domain as well as the social/emotional domain. She clarified the statement regarding the social/emotional abilities by highlighting that the student’s peer interactions appear to be an area of strength demonstrating the ability to compromise and verbalize their needs.
The kindergarten teacher indicated that she has not observed any areas of weaknesses in the children that had been exposed to the Curiosity Corner curriculum.
In regards to child assessment, she acknowledged that the preschool teachers assess the children on cc.net and leave the results in the students’ cumulative folder. She stated that while this information is available prior to meeting the children she prefers to not review the information until she has known the child for approximately one month.
Curriculum Comparisons
The aforementioned, state approved preschool curricula, have various strengths and weaknesses that were highlighted during classroom observations, a review of the curricular resources and teacher interviews. In addition, these strengths and weaknesses are supported by research indicating best practices for establishing high quality preschool programs and are summarized in Tables 2 through 5 below.
95
Table 2
Strengths of New Jersey’s State Approved Preschool Curriculum Programs
Curriculum program Teacher interview Researcher observations
• Immediately begins working on • Play is an essential component in the Tools of the Mind Project students ability to self regulate their curriculum behavior • Curriculum builds on prior learning and • Includes language arts and mathematic experiences activities in every day routines • Curriculum affords possibility for • Teachers gets to choose the themes differentiation based on child’s developmental abilities • Activities in different domains are all interrelated because of theme based approach • Focus on self regulation abilities • Program establishes routines and encourages teacher/child interactions • Literacy instruction is systematic and explicit • Mathematic instruction activities infused into daily activities • Aligns with New Jersey Preschool • Play is an essential component High Scope Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards • Developmental in nature Curriculum • Developmental in nature; not too • Curriculum affords possibility for academic differentiation based on child’s • Built in conflict resolution strategies developmental abilities encourages social/emotional • Focus on scaffolding to further a child’s
96
development abilities • Appropriate developmental approach; • Program establishes routines and not a rigid academic focus encourages teacher/child interactions • Plan do review portion of the lesson • Mathematic instruction afforded with affords children the opportunity to Numbers Plus challenges students in think about what they will be mathematics participating in during the “free play” portion of the day • Easy to use products • New math component; Numbers Plus • Children appear to enjoy the program • Play is an essential component The Creative Curriculum for • Numerous supplemental materials • Curriculum affords possibility for Preschool (TCCP) • Materials easily accommodate the differentiation based on child’s students with special needs developmental abilities • Child initiated • Activities in different domains are all interrelated because of theme based “study” approach • Child generated “studies” of interest • Curriculum builds on prior learning and experiences • Program establishes routines and encourages teacher/child interactions • Literacy instruction is systematic and explicit • Mathematic instruction activities infused into daily activities • Developmental Continuum and Forerunners affords ease of inclusion for children with special needs
97
• Scripted program that is very • Play is an essential component Curiosity Corner structured makes transition to • Program establishes routines and preschool setting easier for first year encourages teacher/child interactions teachers • Literacy instruction is systematic and • Numerous supplemental materials explicit • Focus, detailed lessons which are easy • Focused instruction on alphabet knowledge to implement is a portion of the program with weekly assigned letters
98
Table 3
Weaknesses of New Jersey’s State Approved Preschool Curriculum Programs
Curriculum program Teacher interview Researcher observations
• Extremely structured program that • Lack of formalized home/school Tools of the Mind Project does not provide any opportunity for communication flexibility • Requires support of master teacher to • Time consuming to learn the ensure accurate implementation of program approach; must have access to a master teacher to answer any questions • Time consuming to generate all of the necessary teacher made games and activities • The abundance of games for the students does not afford them many opportunities with the same learning game; therefore, consistently having to learn new rules to games • Rigid structure to the program does • Lack of formalized home/school High Scope Preschool not afford flexibility always needed in communication Curriculum the classroom • Instructional topics can vary daily; this does not afford children opportunity to internalize new knowledge and then broaden their understanding
99
• Labor intensive in regards to inputting • Program appears to encompass all The Creative Curriculum for anecdotal notes and observations necessary elements of a high quality Preschool • Not always provided with the time preschool curriculum needed to complete the formal observations • Need a lot of supplemental books for circle time • No assessment program offered • Lacks child assessment program Curiosity Corner • Lacks mathematic comprehensive mathematic program
100
Table 4
Home/School Communication System Incorporated into New Jersey’s State Approved Preschool Curriculum Programs
Curriculum program Teacher interview Researcher observations
• Completed individually on a teacher • Lack of formalized home/school Tools of the Mind Project by teacher basis communication is a weakness of the • No form of home/school program communication tool • Completed individually on a teacher • Lack of formalized home/school High Scope Preschool by teacher basis communication is a weakness of the Curriculum • No form of home/school program communication tool • Parents/guardians can have access to • Provides supplemental materials to The Creative Curriculum for information on cc.net (daily facilitate home/school communication Preschool observations, progress on forerunners) • Supports DAP by providing knowledge • Supplemental books and materials with families regarding the skills and available regarding developmental activities being introduced to their children milestones at various ages and through their educational programming learning games that can be completed • Access to cc.net provides parents on going at home and up to date information regarding their child’s progress in the preschool program utilizing a criterion referenced measure that is ongoing and comprehensive in nature
101
• Offers a weekly newsletter • Provides supplemental materials to Curiosity Corner introducing the theme of the week facilitate home/school communication • Supports DAP by providing knowledge with families regarding the skills and activities being introduced to their children through their educational programming
102
Table 5
Assessment Program Incorporated into New Jersey’s State Approved Preschool Curriculum Programs
Curriculum program Teacher interview Researcher observations
• Developmental checklists utilized with • Comprehensive, criterion referenced and Tools of the Mind Project anecdotal notes on going • Work sampling required (4 items in • Tied to daily activities Language Arts and 4 items in • No norm referenced assessments utilized Mathematics); pictures taken of work • Developmentally appropriate samples • Evidence gathered over time • Described as very time consuming • Includes purposeful observations with anecdotal notes • Utilize the children’s observation • Comprehensive, criterion referenced and High Scope Preschool record; anecdotal notes on going Curriculum • Tied to daily activities • Developmentally appropriate • Evidence gathered over time • Includes purposeful observations with anecdotal notes • The Creative Curriculum • Comprehensive, criterion referenced and The Creative Curriculum for Developmental Curriculum for Ages on going Preschool 3-5; Expanded Forerunners • Tied to daily activities • Available on cc.net • No norm referenced assessments utilized • Able to easily generate goals and • Developmentally appropriate objectives for special needs students • Evidence gathered over time from assessment system • Includes purposeful observations with anecdotal notes
103
• Families have access to observations and child assessment via cc.net • No assessment component; school • Program lacks assessment component; Curiosity Corner district utilizes cc.net from The research indicates preschool children Creative Curriculum for assessment should be regularly assessed with a purposes comprehensive and developmentally appropriate tool to determine growth on a as well as to determine future instructional needs
Chapter IV
Programmatic Change Recommendations for the Mount Ephraim School District
Preschool Program
Introduction
Information from both the New Jersey Department of Education as well as professional organizations designed to advocate for the early childhood education of our nation’s youth coupled with observations and teacher interviews regarding the present status of the Mount Ephraim school district preschool program has led to the need for programmatic changes to Mount Ephraim’s preschool program. The programmatic change recommendations being presented are guided by research indicating best practices for establishing a high quality preschool program and classroom observations/teacher interviews about the five state approved curriculums in New Jersey. The recommendations are accompanied with suggested implementation timelines and assessment of the fiscal impacts on the district.
Curriculum
In Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluations (2003) the
NAEYC recommends that early childhood programs implement a curriculum that is
“thoughtfully planned, challenging, engaging, developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive, comprehensive and likely to promote positive outcomes for all young children” (p.6) and indicates that the curriculum should allow young children to participate in first hand learning through physical, mental and social activity.
Additionally, the NAEYC acknowledges in the position statement on Developmentally
Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through
103 104
Age 8 (2009) that all domains of development are closely interrelated in regards to child development and that a preschool curriculum needs to actively engage children, build on prior knowledge through investigation, and must be comprehensive (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2003; National Association for the Education of
Young Children (b), 2009).
Teacher interviews revealed that the Mount Ephraim school district never purchased or adopted an official preschool curriculum upon initiating the preschool program. At the onset of the program, the Board of Education approved the New Jersey Preschool
Teaching and Learning Expectations as the curriculum, the state standards at the time; thus a recommendation for curriculum acquisition needs to be made to ensure a high quality program is being offered to the preschool children in the Mount Ephraim school district.
Curriculum Approval Recommendation The recommendation for the Mount Ephraim school district is to purchase The Creative Curriculum for Preschool (TCCP).
Observations of TCCP coupled with a materials review and information gleamed during teacher interviews indicate that the program encapsulates the research-based elements necessary for a high quality preschool program. TCCP affords children opportunities for development in both teacher-led small group and large group instruction through a project-based approach called “studies” (The Creative Curriculum for Preschool, 2005) while enhancing learning in literacy, mathematics, social studies, science, technology and the arts (Institute of Education Sciences (b), 2009). The learning opportunities for children are offered in a variety of play based classroom areas including: blocks, dramatic play, library, art, toys and games, discovery, sand and water, cooking,
105 computers, music and movement and outdoors (Institute of Education Sciences (b),
2009).
The recommendation for the purchase of necessary curricular materials will occur during the 2010-2011 school year utilizing unused funds awarded to the Mount Ephraim school district from the 2009-2010 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) entitlement grant. The appropriations from the entitlement grant will enable the school district to purchase The Creative Curriculum for Preschool, fourth edition Classroom
Resource Kit as well as some supplemental curricular materials.
The Classroom Resource Kit includes: The Creative Curriculum for Preschool,
The Creative Curriculum for Preschool Action DVD, The Creative Curriculum for
Preschool Implementation Checklist, Setting Up a Classroom for 20 Preschool Children,
The Creative Curriculum for Preschool Development Continuum Assessment Toolkit for
Ages 3-5, 20 subscriptions to CreativeCurriculum.net, Power of Observation, Literacy:
The Creative Curriculum Approach, Mathematics: The Creative Curriculum Approach,
The Creative Curriculum Study Starters: A step-by-step guide to Project-Based
Investigations in Science and Social studies, Using the Creative Curriculum Learning
Games with Families: A Teacher’s Guide, A Parent’s Guide to Preschool, Reading Right from the Start and The Creative Curriculum Learning Games 48-60 months (Teaching
Strategies for Early Childhood, 2007). These materials coupled with the classroom furnishing and manipulative items already present in the program should afford the preschool children an environment that has abundant access to age-appropriate, play based materials.
106
Furthermore adoption of TCCP will address some of the needs identified in the remaining research questions regarding child assessment and increased parental involvement.
Professional Development to Support Recommended Curriculum The NAEYC indicates that for preschool programs to be high quality and developmentally appropriate stakeholders need to acknowledge the importance of on going professional development, support and mentoring (National Association for the Education of Young Children (a),
2009). The NAEYC also acknowledges in Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluations (2003) that the National Research Council advocates for extended professional development in order for effective curriculum implementation to occur. Furthermore, New Jersey’s Department of Education’s Preschool Teaching and
Learning Standards (2009) highlight that for a preschool program to be implemented in a manner that supports the preschool standards, continual professional development is necessary. This professional development should be focused on ensuring that teachers have an understanding on the implementation of the district chosen curriculum as well as an understanding of developmentally appropriate practices.
Concurring statements were made by all teachers interviewed during the
observation process indicating that upon adoption of the curriculum within their district
the teachers were afforded professional development opportunities. All teachers
interviewed acknowledged this opportunity as vital to their understanding of the
curriculum and instructional expectations of the program. Consequently an additional
and supplemental recommendation in regards to curriculum choice for the Mount
Ephraim school district is that the preschool teacher and the early childhood director
107 attend professional development opportunities on TCCP during the 2010-2011 year to ensure the knowledge and expertise needed to appropriately implement the program has been provided. The funding source for this training will be the IDEA entitlement grant for the 2010-2011 school year. Once initial training has been provided through Teaching
Strategies (the creators of TCCP) the Mount Ephraim school district can research shared services agreements with neighboring districts in order to possibly reduce the fiscal impact of future professional development opportunities.
Gross Motor Programming
Preschool children demonstrate significant physical growth and development during their preschool years which impacts on their progress in both the social and cognitive domains (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997); therefore, gross motor development is an area that needs to be considered when discussing the gestalt of child development and thus preschool programming. Gross motor play includes activities such as running, jumping and climbing and assists children in developing the various skills required to stay in good physical condition (Cryer, Harms, & Riley, 2003).
Gross Motor Play Recommendation Currently the gross motor component of the daily schedule for the Mount Ephraim preschool program involves the students participating in some form of gross motor, teacher led movement activity such as following dancing moves on a tape while remaining in the classroom setting. The current schedule of physical education classes in the elementary building affords the flexibility to allow the preschool children to utilize the gymnasium on a daily basis. While this facility flexibility is currently available, due to fiscal limitations for the 2010-2011 school year, staffing flexibility in the form of a physical education teacher is not currently available to
108 assist the preschool teacher with gross motor activities; however, the district will have the flexibility of providing the preschool teacher with consultative services of a physical therapist one time a week.
In response to the increase need for gross motor activities and an imbalance of age appropriate gross motor equipment for the preschool children, various age and size appropriate gross motor equipment will be purchased for the 2010-2011 school year utilizing funds from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) grant monies from the IDEA preschool funds. Examples of such equipment will include tricycles, balance beams, various sized balls, bean bags and parachutes.
Parental Involvement
Blankstein (2004) reports that educational research clearly demonstrates that
“support and involvement of students’ families and the community at large is fundamental to achievement in school” (p. 167). In addition, Dodge et al. (2004) recommend that developmentally appropriate preschool programs include a component of sharing knowledge with families regarding the skills and activities being introduced to their children through their educational programming. Furthermore, Marzano et al.
(2005) indicate that home environment is one of the three student level factors in the
“What Works in Schools” model for significantly increasing student achievement. The
NAEYC further elaborates on the necessity of parental involvement by indicating that parental involvement should not be limited to “scheduled events” but that a program/family relationship needs to be nurtured throughout all activities for a preschool program to be considered of high quality (National Association for the Education of
Young Children (a), 2009). Consequently, it is supported that parental involvement in a
109 child’s preschool program would positively impact on their achievement and thus a preschool program would benefit from having a parental involvement component infused into them.
Additionally, the State of New Jersey highlights the importance of a family/school partnership in order to “sustain and share goals for children” (Preschool Teaching and
Learning Standards, 2009, p. 4). The Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards (2009) indicate that school districts should have a wide range of family activities to foster these partnerships and recommends that districts create an advisory council to provide input on program design and governance as well as what kind of workshops to offer parents on developmental skills for their children. The establishment of this Early Childhood
Advisory Council is a mandate for former Abbott districts that employ a full day preschool program for all three and four year old children (Education Law Center (b),
2008, p. 2) and was going to be mandated under the preschool expansion initiative which was to begin during the 2009-2010 school year (New Jersey Department of Education
Preschool Program Implementation Guidelines, 2008) but never materialized due to lack of funding.
Parental Involvement Recommendation While the Preschool Expansion Initiative that would have mandated the establishment of an Early Childhood Advisory Council never came to fruition the Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards (2009) encourage the generation of said council. Therefore, a recommendation would be made for the establishment of the Mount Ephraim Early Childhood Advisory Council. The council would be open to all stakeholders such as parents/guardians of the preschool program, the teacher of the preschool program, an elementary school teacher, early childhood director
110 and community representative. In an attempt to ensure maximum parental participation in the council, meetings will be scheduled on the same evening, yet prior to large district events such as Back to School Night or the annual Evening of Excellence program.
A multiple media approach to communicating about the advisory council and parents is strongly recommended. The media forms utilized will include flyers home, information on the web site and use of the district wide communication system (Connect
Ed) to inform parents/guardians of upcoming meetings. After the initial year of implementation, parents could also be informed of the council at the time of preschool registration in addition to the aforementioned means.
The council meetings would provide a forum for parents to provide input to the district on issues concerning preschool children as well as input on preschool program design. In addition, the advisory council would be utilized to assist with topic selection for workshops that can be offered to parents regarding child development issues. Sample topics for these workshops could include: an overview of the Creative Curriculum, fine motor development in preschool children, speech/language acquisition by preschool children and transitions/expectations of kindergarten. In addition to the council meetings, the early childhood director would require the preschool teacher to have frequent home/school communication via newsletters and updated web pages to inform parents/guardians of the project based learning occurring in the classroom as well as what the parents can do in the home environment to support the school setting. This frequency of home/school communication would mirror the initiation of new “study topics” using
TCCP.
111
Currently the preschool teacher participates in district wide events such as Back to
School Night and fall/spring conferences. If the council met three times during the school year in addition to the aforementioned times that would provide parents with the potential for face to face interactions on an every other month basis. The current teacher contract for the Mount Ephraim teachers requires that teaching staff complete three
“evening responsibilities” which have historically involved the chaperoning of various band/chorus events at the middle school level. By establishing the meeting frequency at three times per year, the contractual obligations could afford the presence of the preschool teacher at the three meetings with no fiscal obligations on the part of the district.
Child Assessment
The NAEYC published a position statement in regards to assessment of preschool children in which they document their belief that assessment of a child’s strengths, needs and progress are an integral part of a preschool program (National Association for the
Education of Young Children (b), 2009). Assessment is essential for program planning and implementation (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) as well as monitoring a child’s progress (National Association for the Education of Young Children (a), 2009).
Assessment processes can take on a variety of formats such as: observations, work sampling, completion of developmental checklists or rating scales, and portfolios
(National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2003). Generation of sound assessment tools can be challenging due to the characteristically uneven development of skills among students as well as the impacts of culturally or linguistically diverse
112 backgrounds (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; National Association for the Education of
Young Children (a), 2009).
The State of New Jersey’s Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards (2009) supports NAEYC’s position and further elaborates that individual and group administered norm referenced tests are typically considered inappropriate tools to assess the development of children in preschool programs. The Preschool Teaching and Learning
Standards (2009) indicate that assessment techniques via developmental screeners should be coupled with observation to ensure appropriate documentation of a child’s abilities is occurring.
TCCP Assessment Recommendation TCCP requires on-going observation based assessment to assist in guiding instruction (Institute of Education Sciences (b), 2009) and includes a criterion-referenced developmental continuum for ages 3-5 and expanded forerunners that document the precursor abilities needed for the completion of a variety of skills (The Creative Curriculum for Preschool, 2005). The Developmental Continuum and Expanded Forerunners are utilized to describe emerging skills needed to complete a task as well as assist teachers in determining what individual children are capable of doing (The Creative Curriculum for Preschool, 2005). The Developmental Continuum and Expanded Forerunners affords the teacher the ability to assure that all children, including those with special needs or limited English abilities, have access to the “general curriculum, are working to attain the same high standards as their non-disabled peers, and are making progress” (The Creative Curriculum for Preschool, p.3).
This continuum is accessible via a web-based computer program, entitled
CreativeCurriculum.net, which can be purchased during the 2010-2011 school year at a
113 per pupil price on a yearly basis and enables teachers to document children’s growth and progress through the developmental curriculum. During teacher interviews throughout the research process, it was discovered that other school districts that utilize alternate curriculum programs have found that CreativeCurriculum.net is comprehensive and easy to access and thus supplement their curriculum program with this assessment tool. TCCP recommends that a child’s progress is evaluated minimally three times during a school year in order to formalize a check point time (The Creative Curriculum for Preschool,
2005). The formalization of the process encourages the teacher and team of professionals working with a child the opportunity to summarize the child’s progress, and discuss any needs to be supported by the personnel (The Creative Curriculum for Preschool, 2005).
TCCP will only offer CreativeCurriculum.net for the remainder of the 2010-2011 school year while they launch a new assessment tool entitled Teaching Strategies Gold which is based upon a literature-based research review and measures the “38 objectives that are most predictive of school success and are expectations in most state learning standards” (Teaching Strategies for Early Childhood, 2010, p. 3) which will be organized into nine developmental or learning areas.
The Mount Ephraim school district currently utilizes teacher generated criterion referenced tools to document progress during the preschool program. However, completion of these tools are not formalized in regards to a set timeline or format.
Therefore, implementation of a formalized assessment timeline as well as a tool to demonstrate the developmental continuum, as provided in TCCP, would be beneficial for the Mount Ephraim preschool program and support the practices recommended for preschool programming in the New Jersey Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards.
114
Current assessment procedures in the Mount Ephraim school district are completed by the preschool teacher and then kept in her personal files but are not shared with the kindergarten teacher, unless requested. Institution of the use of a developmental continuum such as the one provided by CreativeCurriculum.net or Teaching Strategies
Gold would provide detailed information regarding where a child is functioning on the developmental continuum upon entering kindergarten.
The initial purchase of TCCP Resource Kit by the Mount Ephraim school district will include a subscription for twenty students on CreativeCurriculum.net which will sufficiently cover the students for the 2010-2011 school year based on current enrollment figures. In subsequent school years, consideration for subscription rates will need to be discussed when preparing the district budget.
Program Assessment
The NAEYC has indicated in Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and
Program Evaluations (2003) that a majority of early childhood programs do not consistently assess their program; NAEYC further indicates that program assessment is an integral component to ensuring high quality experiences are being offered noting
“program monitoring is an important tool for judging the quality of implementation and modifying how the program is being implemented” (p.14). The overarching goal of program assessment is the continual quality improvement of the educational services being provided to young children and their families.
Program evaluation components should utilize a variety of appropriate measures
that assess the intended and unintended results of the program (National Association for
the Education of Young Children (b), 2009). Mashburn et al. (2008) found that
115 classroom observational data coupled with rating scales could yield findings regarding teachers’ strengths and weaknesses. Thus, Mashburn et al. (2008) supports NAEYC’s position and stresses the importance of consistent, observational program monitoring to ensure that high quality interactions among emotional and instructional domains are occurring in preschool classrooms since quality interactions have been linked with future student based outcomes.
There are a variety of approaches and tools that can be utilized to assess a preschool program. One genre of tools utilized in program assessment is classroom environmental assessments in terms of both physical environment as well as student/teacher interactions.
The Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study (APPLES) (2007) documented that the Early Learning Improvement Consortium (ELIC) was responsible for collecting data and reporting findings on classrooms and children in New Jersey’s
Abbott preschool classrooms (Frede et al., 2007). When assessing these preschool classrooms the ELIC utilized an assessment battery that consisted of the ECERS – R,
SELA and PCMI (Frede et al., 2007). The ECERS – R was chosen due to well- established reliability and validity measures; the SELA demonstrated internal consistency utilizing Cronbach’s alpha of .87 and the PCMI had a Cronbach’s alpha of .86 (Frede et al., 2007). In addition, the New Jersey Department of Education listed these three assessment tools for consideration on the preschool expansion application in regards to curriculum and assessment implementation (New Jersey Department of Education
Division of Early Childhood Education Five Year Preschool Program Plan and
116
Instructions, n.d.). Therefore, the Department of Education acknowledges their validity and reliability regarding program assessment.
Program Assessment Recommendation Provided the assessment battery of the
ECERS-R, SELA and PCMI were utilized by ELIC to measure classroom quality coupled with the endorsement of these tools by the New Jersey Department of Education the recommendation for the Mount Ephraim Preschool Program is to implement the use of at least one environmental assessment tool on an annual basis to ensure a high quality program is being provided.
A five year program assessment approach is recommended, starting with district utilization of the ECERS-R and CLASS for program assessment. The ECERS – R is recommended as one of the initial assessment tool because it measures overall program quality. While the ECERS-R review overall program quality, research has demonstrated the importance of positive teacher-child interactions in regards to student achievement.
As a result, it is recommended that the Mount Ephraim school district also administer the
CLASS on a yearly basis.
Once the program receives scores of five or higher in each of the seven sub scales for two consecutive years on the ECERS - R, the recommendation is to move on to the administration of the PCMI and SELA. The district previously purchased the ECERS –
R and has retained a copy of the SELA and PCMI, so the only fiscal implications would be for the purchase of the CLASS and professional development on the administration of these assessment tools as well as analysis and interpretation of the data gathered utilizing the tool.
117
Funding for the professional development can occur either utilizing a portion of the district’s IDEA entitlement funds or with a shared service agreement with a neighboring district. During the interview and observation process, a neighboring district indicated that these tools have been consistently utilized for several years and a recommendation could be made for a shared service agreement to occur for professional development on these tools in order for the fiscal impact to be limited.
Conclusion
The NAEYC indicates that an effective system of early childhood education includes a reciprocal relationship among various components such as curriculum, child assessment and program evaluation (National Association for the Education of Young
Children (a), 2003). The curricular components requires adoption of a comprehensive curriculum that is well planned and challenging; use of assessment to determine a child’s strengths, progress and needs in a developmentally appropriate manner; continual program evaluation to ensure implementation of quality programming is occurring; and professional development for early childhood educators (National Association for the
Education of Young Children, 2003).
The Mount Ephraim school district’s preschool program currently requires some programmatic changes in order for the program to entail all aspects of a high quality program. The programmatic change recommendations that will be made to the Mount
Ephraim preschool program are summarized in the executive summary (Appendix C) and include: the purchase and adoption of a developmentally appropriate curriculum that encompasses appropriate programming for child assessment, an increase in gross motor play in the preschool as well as appropriate gross motor equipment to accompany the
118 needed play time, the establishment of an Early Advisory Council, program assessment completed on an annual basis to help guide the need for future programming changes and professional development opportunities on the curriculum as well as program assessment tools. These programmatic change recommendations will have a fiscal impact of on the school district during the initial year of changes. Subsequent years will also require some fiscal commitment from the district as summarized in Table 7.
Marzano et al. (2005) acknowledge that change of any magnitude can be difficult for a school district and effected personnel and that during the change process various leadership responsibilities will need to be utilized to ensure the change remains long lasting. Some of the programmatic change recommendations for the Mount
Ephraim school district could be considered second order in nature. Therefore, while managing this change initiative, the district will have to ensure that there is continual communication regarding the change process with all necessary stakeholders. However, once these changes are implemented the district will be offering a high quality preschool experience according to research-based developmentally appropriate practices for their pres school students.
119
Table 6 Summary of Programmatic Change Recommendations
Research Area Change Recommendation Fiscal Impact Timeline • Purchase and adopt The • Materials will be purchased • All materials will be Curriculum Creative Curriculum for utilizing 2009-2010 Preschool purchased and Approval Preschool (TCCP) by IDEA entitlement grant funds professional Recommendation Teaching Strategies • Professional development will development completed • Provide professional be provided utilizing a portion by June 2011 development for teacher and of the 2010-2011 Preschool early childhood director IDEA entitlement grant funds regarding new program • Preschool class will begin to • Physical therapist will be able • During 2010-2011 Gross Motor Play use gymnasium on a daily to provide consultative school year Recommendation basis; each session will be 30 services to preschool teacher minutes in duration within current contract • Purchase of age appropriate • Equipment will be purchased and size appropriate gross with preschool IDEA ARRA motor equipment monies • Establish Mount Ephraim • Not applicable due to current • Three meetings to occur Parental Early Childhood Council as contractual obligations for during 2010-2011 Involvement recommended in New Jersey evening meetings school year Recommendation Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards • TCCP encompasses • No fiscal impact during initial • To be initiated during Child Assessment CreativeCurriculum.net for year of curriculum use due to 2010-2011 school year Recommendation child assessment purposes resource kit purchase • Formal documentation utilizing The Expanded Forerunners of the Creative
120
Curriculum Developmental Continuum for Ages 3-5 three times a year • Initial assessment to be • Preschool IDEA funds can be • Professional Program completed annually utilizing utilized for professional development to occur in Assessment ECERS – R and CLASS; development or shared service fall/winter 2010 Recommendation once scores of 5 or above are agreement could be entered • Completion of received for two consecutive with neighboring district that assessment to occur in years in all subscales on the has previous experience with spring of 2011 ECERS – R assessment assessment tools for utilizing SELA and PCMI to professional development begin opportunities • Professional development on assessment devices will be needed by early childhood director
121
Table 7 Summary of Fiscal Impact Based on Programmatic Change Recommendations
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Curriculum $1600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Materials Purchase
Gross Motor Play $1200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Parental $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Involvement
Child Assessment $0.00 $600.00 $600.00 $600.00 $600.00
$101.00 (ECERS – $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Program R) Assessment $77.95 (CLASS)
$765.00 (TCCP for $0.00 SELA and PCMI $0.00 $0.00 Professional teacher) training needed; no Development $765.00 (TCCP for rates currently Administrator) available $1025.00(ECERS – R for Administrator) $670.00(CLASS for Administrator)
122
Total Fiscal Impact $6203.95 $600.00 $600.00 $600.00 $600.00
*Professional Development costs are for training opportunities only and do not include any costs due to lodging or travel.
References
Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects on early childhood programs on cognitive and
school outcomes. Future of Children, 5 (3), 25-50. Retrieved on September 21,
2009 from ERIC database.
Baroody, A.J. (2000). Does mathematics instruction for three-to five-year-olds really
make sense? Young Children, 55 (4), 61-67. Retrieved on March 18, 2010 from
Education Research Complete.
Baxter, V. & Petty, K. (2008). Preschool curricula: Finding one that fits. Texas Child
Care, 32 (2), 34-39. Retrieved on March 10, 2009 from Education Research
Complete.
Blankstein, A. M. (2004). Principle #5 – Gaining active engagement from family and
community. In F. Zucker, S. Wagner, & J. Parnell (Eds.), Failure is not an option
(pp. 167-188). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Bodrova, E. & Leong, D.J. (2005). High quality preschool programs: What would
Vygotsky say? Early Education & Development, 16 (4), 435-444. Retrieved on
September 11, 2009 from Education Research Complete.
Bredekamp, S. & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early
childhood programs. Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education
of Young Children.
Bridge, H. (2001). Increasing parental involvement in the preschool curriculum: What a
n action research case study revealed. International Journal of Early Years
Education, 9 (1), 5-21. Retrieved on March 9, 2009 from Academic Search
Premier.
123 124
Brostrom, S. (2006). Curriculum in preschool. International Journal of Early
Childhood, 38 (1), 65-76. Retrieved on March 9, 2009 from Education Research
Complete.
Bus, A.G., van IJzendoorn, M.H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes
for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis of intergenerational transmission
of literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65 (1), 1-21. Retrieved on March
18, 2010 from Academic Search Premier.
Campbell, F.A., Ramey, C.T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002).
Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian project.
Applied Developmental Science, 6 (1), 42-57. Retrieved on March 3, 2010 from
Academic Search Premier.
Chambers, B., Chamberlain, A., Hurley, E.A., & Slavin, R.E. (2001). Curiosity corner:
Enhancing preschoolers’ language abilities through comprehensive reform.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association 4/10-4/14/01. Retrieved on March 11, 2010 from ERIC.
Chatham-Nelson, C. (2008). Challenges and best practices in implementing quality
preschool programs: In focus with Michigan and New Jersey. Children and
Social Policy, 2 (1), 10-14 Retrieved on June 22, 2009 from
http://www.erikson.edu/hrc.aspx .
Copple, C. (2003). Fostering young children’s representation, planning, and reflection:
A focus in three current early childhood models. Applied Developmental
Psychology, 24 (6), 763-771. Retrieved on October 23, 2009 from Academic
Search Premier.
125
Cryer, D., Harms, T., & Riley, C. (2003). All about the ECERS – R. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Curiosity corner summary of research: First year findings. (n.d.) Retrieved on March
12, 2010 from
http://www.successforall.com/_images/pdfs/410409000_cc_Research.pdf.
DEC/NAEYC. (2009). Early childhood inclusion: A summary. Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
Diamond, A., Barnett, W.S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program
improves cognitive control. Science, 318 (5855), 1387-1388. Retrieved on March
18, 2010 from Academic Search Premier.
Dixon, D. (1993). See how they grow: The early childhood years. Mystic, CT:
Twenty Third Publications.
Dodge, D. T., Heroman, C., Charles, J., & Maiorca, J. (2004). Beyond outcomes: How
ongoing assessment supports children’s learning and leads to meaningful
curriculum. Spotlight on Young Children and Assessment. Retrieved on
September 23, 2010 from
http://www.naeyc.org/search/apachesolr_multisitesearch/Spotlight+on+Young+C
hildren+and+Assessment+and+2004.
Education Law Center (a). (2008). Abbott preschool program. Retrieved on May 22,
2009 from http://www.startingat3.org/abbott/index.html .
Education Law Center (b). (2008). New Jersey state preschool program. Retrieved on
May 22,2009 from http://www.startingat3.org/state_laws/StatelawNJdetail.htm .
126
Epstein, A.S. (2003). How planning and reflection develop young children’s thinking
skills. Young Children, 58 (5), 28-36. Retrieved on April 27, 2009 from
Education Research Complete.
Epstein, A.S. (2009/2010). The what and how of early math learning. Highscope
Resource A Magazine for Educators, 28 (2), 5-9. Retrieved on September 22,2010
from http://www.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=532.
Frede, E., Jung, K., Barnett, W.S., Lamy, C.E., & Figueras, A. (2007). The Abbott
Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study. Retrieved on September 22, 2010
from http://nieer.org/docs/index.php?DocID=173.
Frede, E., Weber, M., Hornbeck, A., Stevenson-Boyd, J.S., & Colon A. (2005).
Preschool Classroom Mathematics Inventory . Available from the first author at
Gilliam, W. S. & Zigler, E.F. (2000). A critical meta-analysis of all evaluations of state-
funded preschool from 1977 to 1998: Implications for policy, service delivery
and program evaluation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15 (4), 441-473.
Retrieved on October 22, 2009 from ERIC database.
Ginsburg, H.P. & Amit, M. (2008). What is teaching mathematics to young children? A
theoretical perspective and case study. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 29 (4), 274-285. Retrieved on March 3, 2010 from Academic Search
Premier.
Gloucester City Schools. (n.d.). Early childhood center . [Brochure].
Gormley, Jr., W.T., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B. (2005). The
effects of universal pre-k on cognitive development. Developmental
127
Psychology, 41 (6), 872-884. Retrieved on September 23, 2009 from Academic
search Premier.
Hammill, D.D. (2004). What we know about correlates of reading. Exceptional
Children, 70 (4), 453-468. Retrieved on March 15, 2010 from ERIC databse.
Hohman, M. & Weikart, D. P. (1995). Educating young children: Active learning
practices for preschool and child care programs. Ypsilanti, Michigan:
High/Scope Press. Retrieved on March 31, 2010 from
http://www.ecdgroup.com/download/gh1eycxi.pdf .
Howard, E. C. & Wiley, M. (2008). Defining quality. Children and Social Policy, 2 (1),
15-21. Retrieved on June 22, 2009 from http://www.erikson.edu/hrc.aspx.
Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R., & Barbarin, O.
(2008). Ready to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-
kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23 (1), 27-50.
Retrieved on March 3, 2010 from Academic Search Premier.
Hyson, M. (2002). Three perspectives on early childhood assessment. Young Children,
57 (1), 62-64. Retrieved on October 23, 2009 from Education Research Complete.
Institute of Education Sciences (a). (2009). What works clearinghouse: Curiosity
corner. Retrieved on October 23, 2009 from
http://ies/ed/gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_curisosity_010609.pdf .
Institute of Education Sciences (b). (2009). What works clearinghouse: The creative
curriculum for preschool. Retrieved on October 23, 2009 from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_creativecurriculum_081109.pdf .
128
Institute of Education Sciences. (2008). What works clearinghouse: Tools of the mind.
Retrieved on April 27,2009 from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/early_ed/tools/.
Jacobson, L. (2004). Research updates lives of Perry preschoolers. Education Week, 24
(13), 1-3. Retrieved on August 27, 2009 from Academic Search Premier.
Justice, L.M., Mashburn, A.J., Hamre, B.K., & Pianta, R.C. (2008). Quality of language
and literacy instruction in preschool classrooms serving at-risk pupils. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 23 (1), 51-68. Retrieved on October 21, 2009
from Academic Search Premier.
Kantor, R. (1988). Creating school meaning in preschool curriculum. Theory Into
Practice, 27 (1), 25-35. Retrieved on October 28, 2008 from Academic Search
Premier.
Lamy, C., Barnett, W.S., & Jung, K. (2005). The effects of New Jersey’s Abbott
Preschool program on young children’s school readiness. Retrieved on
September 22, 2010 from http://nieer.org/research/topic.php?TopicID=1024.
LaParo, K.M., Pianta, R.C., & Stuhlman, M. (2004). The classroom assessment scoring
system: Findings from the prekindergarten year. The Elementary School Journal,
104 (5), 410-426.
Mardell-Czudnowski, C. & Goldenberg, D. S. (2000). A new test for assessing preschool
motor development: DIAL – 3. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 17 (1), 78-
94. Retrieved on August 15, 2009 from Academic Search Premier.
Martella, J. (2008). Measure what matters. Children and Social Policy, 2 (1), 7-9.
Retrieved on June 22, 2009 from http://www.erikson.edu/hrc.aspx .
129
Marzano, R.J., Waters, T. & McNulty, B.A. (2005). Doing the right work. In J. Houtz
(Ed.), School leadership that works from research to results (pp. 76-97). Aurora,
Colorado: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Masbhurn, A.J., Pianta, R.C., Hamre, B.K., Downer, J.T., Barbarin, O.A., Bryant, D.,
Burchinal, M., Early, D.M., & Howes, C. (2008). Measures of classroom quality
in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social
skills. Child Development, 79 (3), 732-749. Retrieved on September 22,2010
from SocINDEX with Full Text.
May, D. C. & Welch, E. (1985). The effects of developmental placement on young
children’s cognitive and social-emotional development. Early Child Development
and Care, 22 (2-3), 195-209. Retrieved on April 19, 2009 from ERIC databse.
Metropolitan State College of Denver. (2010). Tools of the Mind. Retrieved on
September 10,2010 from www.toolsofthemind.org .
National Association for the Education of Young Children (a). (2009). Developmentally
appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth
through age 8. Retrieved on September 22,2010 from
http://www.naeyc.org/positionstatements/dap.
National Association for the Education of Young Children (a). (2003). Early childhood
curriculum, assessment and program evaluation. Retrieved on August 2, 2009
From http://www.naeyc.org/positionstatements/cape .
National Association for the Education of Young Children (b). (2003). Early childhood
curriculum, assessment and program evaluation: Position statement with
expanded resources. Retrieved on September 23, 2010 from
130
http://www.naeyc.org/positionstatements/cape.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (n.d.) Executive summary:
Early childhood mathematics: Promoting good beginnings. Retrieved on March
3, 2010 from
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/Mathematics_Exec.pdf .
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1995). School readiness.
Retrieved on September 24, 2010 from
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PSREADY98.PDF .
National Association for the Education of Young Children (b). (2009). Where we stand
on curriculum, assessment and program evaluation. Retrieved on September 22,
2010 from http://www.naeyc.org/positionstatements/cape.
National Institute for Early Education Research (a). (2007). A growing consensus:
Public investment in early care and education is an efficient way to strengthen our
future workforce. Preschool Matters, 5 (5), 3. Retrieved on September 22, 2010
from http://nieer.org/psm/.
National Institute for Early Education Research. (2004). New “Tools of the Mind”
curriculum aims to boost memory, self-control, and literacy. Preschool Matters,
2(2). Retrieved on May 14, 2010 from http://nieer.org/psm/index.php?article=59 .
National Institute for Early Education Research (b). (2007). Rx for behavior problems in
pre-k. Preschool Matters, 5 (5), 4-5. Retrieved on September 22,2010 from
http://nieer.org/psm/.
National Institute for Early Education Research. (2009). What leads to literacy?
Preschool Matters, 7 (1), 10-11. Retrieved on September 22, 2010 from
131
http://nieer.org/psm/.
New Jersey department of education division of early childhood education five-year
Preschool program plan and instructions. (n.d.).
New Jersey department of education preschool program implementation guidelines
(August 2008). Retrieved on September 4, 2008 from
http://www.nj.gov/education/ece/expansion .
New Jersey department of education preschool teaching and learning standards. (2009).
Retrieved on March 1, 2009 from
http://www.nj.gov/education/cccs/2009/PreSchool.doc.
Parent Aware. (n.d.). Guide to the curriculum approval process. Retrieved on October
1, 2009 from http://www.parentawareratings.org/providers-
educators/download/Guide_curriculum_approval_process_final.pdf.
Pierce, P. R. (1952). Chicago’s preschool program. The Elementary School Journal,
53, (3), 138-143. Retrieved on April 19, 2009 from Education Research
Complete.
Preschool Classroom Mathematics Inventory (1/10/06).
Roskos, K.A., Christie, J.F., & Richgles, D.J. (2003). The essentials of early literacy
instruction. Young Children, 58 (2), 52-59. Retrieved on April 27,2009 from
Education Research Complete.
School Matters. (2010). Mount Ephraim Borough. Retrieved on August 25, 2010 from
http://www.schoolmatters.com/schools.aspx/q/page=dp/did=7615 .
Schuele, C.M., Roberts, J.E., Fitzgerald, J., & Moore, P.L. (1993). Assessing emergent
literacy in preschool classrooms. Day Care and Early Education, 21 (2), 13-21.
132
Retrieved on March 18, 2010 from ERIC database.
Schweinhart, L.J. & Weikart, D.P. (1998). Why curriculum matters in early childhood
education. Educational Leadership, 55 (6), 57-60. Retrieved on March 15, 2010
from Academic Search Premier.
Schweihnart, L.J. , Weikart, D.P. & Hohmann, M. (2002). The high/scope preschool
curriculum: What is it? Why use it? Journal of At-Risk Issues, 8 (1), 13-16.
Retrieved on March 9, 2009 from ERIC database.
Schweinhart, L.J., Weikart, D.P. & Larner, M.B. (1986). Consequences of three
preschool curriculum models through age 15. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 1 (1), 15-45. Retrieved on September 1, 2009 from ERIC database.
Scott-Little, C., Kagan S.L. & Frelow, V.S. (2003). Standards for preschool children’s
learning and development: Who has standards how were they developed, and
how are they used? Retrieved on August 1, 2009 from www.serve.org
Seng, S. (1998). Thinking about thinking skills in a preschool curriculum. Retrieved on
March 9, 2009 from ERIC database.
Shasta County Office of Education. (1989). Preschool curriculum framework.
Retrieved on March 9, 2009 from ERIC database.
Smith, S. Davidson, S., & Weisenfeld, G. (2001). Supports for Early Literacy
Assessment for early childhood program serving preschool-age children . New
York: New York University.
State of New Jersey Department of Education Division of Early Childhood
133
Education (2006). Curriculum and assessment Bank Street Developmental
Interaction Approach. Retrieved on April 27, 2010 from
http://www.nj.gov/education/ece/curriculum/desc/bank.htm.
State of New Jersey Department of Education. (n.d.). Mary Bray 2008-2009 school
report card. Retrieved on August 25, 2010 from
http://education.state.nj.us/rc/rc09/dataselect.php?c=07&d=3420&s=030<=CD
&st=CD.
State of New Jersey. (2006). Department of education NJ department of education District
Factor Group (DFG) for school districts. Retrieved on August 25, 2010 from
http://www.nj.gov/education/finance/sf/dfg.shtml .
Teaching Strategies for Early Childhood. (2010). Teaching strategies GOLD FAQ.
Retrieved on September 13, 2010 from
http://www.teachingstrategies.com/page/GOLDFAQ.cfm.
Teaching Strategies for Early Childhood. (2007). The bookshop, the creative
curriculum for preschool fourth edition classroom resource kit. Retrieved on
September 22, 2010 from
http://www.teachingstrategies.com/book/creative-curriculum-classroom-kit.cfm.
Temple, J.A. & Reynolds, A.J. (2007). Benefits and costs of investments in preschool
education: Evidence from the child-parent centers and related programs.
Economics of Education Review, 26 (1), 126-144. Retrieved on September 11,
2009 from Academic Search Premier.
The Creative Curriculum for Preschool. (2005). The expanded forerunner of the
creative curriculum developmental continuum for ages 3-5. Washington, D.C.:
Teaching Strategies, Inc.
134
Thompson, R.A. (2008). Connecting neurons, concepts and people brain development
and its implications. Preschool Policy Brief, (17). Received on September
22,2010 from http://nieer.org/docs/index.php?DocID=249 .
Tools of the Mind Pre-K Preschool. (2010). What makes tools unique? Retrieved on
September 10, 2010 from www.toolsofthemind.org.
Weikart, D. P. & Schweinart, L.J. (1986). Three preschool curriculum models:
Academic and social outcomes. Principal, 66 (1), 62-68. Retrieved on April 19,
2009 from ERIC database.
United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
(2009). Good start, grow smart initiative. Retrieved on June 22, 2009 from
www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/family/part/childcare_part_start.html
Vanderkam, L. (September 2, 2009). The secret of school success. USA Today.
Yarosz, D.J & Barnett, W.S. (2001). Who reads to young children?: Identifying
predictors of family reading activities. Reading Psychology, 22 (1), 67-81.
Retrieved on March 3, 2010 from Academic Search Premier.
Zan, B. (2005). NAEYC accreditation and high quality preschool curriculum. Early
Education & Development, 16 (1), 85-102. Retrieved on March 12, 2009 from
Education Research Complete.
135
Appendix A
Preschool teacher interview
Name:______
School:______
Position:______
Years in current position:______
Curriculum used:______
Years of experience with curriculum:______
What are the strengths of the current preschool curriculum?
What are the weaknesses of the current preschool curriculum?
How well does this curriculum address the following domains:
Cognitive
Gross Motor
Personal/Social
Language
How easy or difficult are the products provided by the company to implement?
How much professional development was required to initially implement this program?
What assessment tools are offered with the curriculum in order to document the child’s present levels of academic and functional performance?
Please discuss the administration procedures of these tools.
136
How much professional development was required to obtain the necessary efficiency in administering these tools?
What form of daily anecdotal notes does this curriculum require?
What materials are included with this curriculum that facilitate an effective home/school communication system?
137
Appendix B
Kindergarten Teacher Interview
Name:______
School:______
Position:______
Years in current position:______
Years of experience with children that have been utilized using the ______curriculum:______
What are the strengths of the current preschool curriculum?
What are the weaknesses of the current preschool curriculum?
How well prepared do the students appear to come to kindergarten in the following domains:
Cognitive
Gross Motor
Personal/Social
Language
What curricular materials are utilized in kindergarten?
Language Arts Literacy
Math
Social Studies
Science
138
Please explain how these curricula are vertically aligned to consider between the kindergarten and preschool settings.
Language Arts Literacy
Math
Social Studies
Science
What form of assessment does the current preschool implement to document the child’s present levels of academic and functional performance?
How do you utilize the information obtained from these assessments at the kindergarten level?
139
Appendix C
Executive Summary for Programmatic Change Recommendations for the Mount Ephraim Preschool Program
Curriculum Approval Recommendation
• Purchase and adopt The Creative Curriculum for Preschool (TCCP) by Teaching Strategies • Provide professional development for teacher and early childhood director regarding new program
Gross Motor Play Recommendation
• Begin to use gymnasium on a daily basis; each session will be 30 minutes in duration • Purchase of age appropriate and size appropriate gross motor equipment
Parental Involvement Recommendation
• Establish Mount Ephraim Early Childhood Council as recommended in New Jersey Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards. It is recommended that the following stakeholders be involved in this council: early childhood supervisor, parents, preschool teacher, and community members.
Child Assessment Recommendation
• Utilize the child assessment program provided in TCCP (currently CreativeCurriculum.net, next year Teaching Strategies GOLD) • Formal documentation of children’s progress utilizing The Expanded Forerunners of the Creative Curriculum Developmental Continuum for Ages 3-5 three times a year
Program Assessment Recommendation
• Initial assessment to be completed annually utilizing ECERS – R and CLASS; once scores of 5 or above are received for two consecutive years in all subscales on the ECERS – R assessment utilizing SELA and PCMI to begin • Professional development on assessment devices will be needed by early childhood director