DOCSLIB.ORG

Effects of the North Carolina Pre-Kindergarten Program Findings Through Pre-K of a Small-Scale RCT Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effects of the North Carolina Pre-Kindergarten Program Findings Through Pre-K of a Small-Scale RCT Study NC Pre-K Program Evaluation Project Effects of the North Carolina Pre-Kindergarten Program Findings through Pre-K of a Small-Scale RCT Study 2017-2018 Statewide Evaluation Ellen Peisner-Feinberg, PhD, Sabrina Zadrozny, PhD, Laura Kuhn, PhD, & Karen Van Manen, PhD © February 2019 by Ellen S. Peisner-Feinberg, FPG Child Development Institute, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. We wish to acknowledge the members of our NC Pre-K Program Evaluation Team who provided invaluable support and effort to conduct this study. Research staff – Dr. Treshawn Anderson, Shannon Casey, Alexis Kokoska, Tom Leggett, Cristina Luna- Evans, Judith Owen, Andrea Reubens, Maria Sanchez, Stefanie Schwartz, and Gina Walker. Data collectors – Shaunna Barbee, Carol Carter, Laura Clay, Evadine Codd, Kristine Cortina, Kelly Downing, Lori Dwyer, Aaron Freeman, Isaura Godinez, Kate Hodge, Diana Knechtel, Martha Lee, Cyndee Lohr, Dr. Irina Mokrova, Rosemary McNiel, Cecilia Pepper, Jeremy Pienik, Quinny Sanchez Lopez, Karen Stewart, Tia Walt McCallum, Towanda White-Miller and Susan Wyland Witek. Statistical consultant – Dr. Margaret Burchinal. In addition, we offer our appreciation to all those who participated in and assisted with this study, including the children and families, and the teachers, administrators, and other staff in the pre-k programs, and the staff of the North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early Education, Department of Health and Human Services. Cover by Gina Harrison. Suggested citation: Peisner-Feinberg, E., Zadrozny, S., Kuhn, L., & Van Manen, K. (2019). Effects of the North Carolina Pre-Kindergarten Program: Findings through Pre-K of a Small-Scale RCT Study. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute. This study was funded by the North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early Education, Department of Health and Human Services. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the funding agency. Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 3 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Overview of the NC Pre-K Program .............................................................................................................. 5 Purpose of the NC Pre-K Evaluation – Randomized Controlled Trial Study .................................................. 6 Method ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Study Design ............................................................................................................................................. 7 Feasibility Study .................................................................................................................................... 7 Random Assignment Process ................................................................................................................ 7 Participants ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Children/Families .................................................................................................................................. 8 Teachers/Classrooms ............................................................................................................................ 9 Data Collection Procedures....................................................................................................................... 9 Measures ................................................................................................................................................. 10 Child Assessments ............................................................................................................................... 10 Teacher Surveys .................................................................................................................................. 10 Parent Surveys .................................................................................................................................... 11 Classroom Observations ..................................................................................................................... 11 State Administrative Data ................................................................................................................... 11 Analysis Approach ................................................................................................................................... 12 Weighting to Account for Potential Bias ............................................................................................. 12 Statistical Comparisons ....................................................................................................................... 12 Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 14 Descriptive Analyses ............................................................................................................................... 14 Treatment Effects – Full Sample ............................................................................................................. 14 Intent-to-Treat (ITT) – Full Sample ...................................................................................................... 15 Treatment-on-Treated (TOT) – Full Sample ........................................................................................ 15 Treatment Effects – DLL Subsample ....................................................................................................... 15 ITT - DLL Subsample ............................................................................................................................ 16 TOT - DLL Subsample ........................................................................................................................... 16 Program Characteristics .......................................................................................................................... 17 Trend Analyses ........................................................................................................................................ 18 1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 19 Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 53 List of NC Pre-K Evaluation Reports ............................................................................................................ 53 Appendix 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 55 Technical Information for Analysis Approach ............................................................................................. 55 Constructions of Weights to Account for Potential Bias ........................................................................ 55 Baseline Non-equivalence & Inverse Probability of Treatment Weights (IPTW) ............................... 55 Selection Bias & Inverse Probability of Censoring Weights (IPCW) .................................................... 55 Statistical Comparison Models ............................................................................................................... 56 References .............................................................................................................................................. 60 2 List of Tables Table 1. Characteristics of Sample Teachers and Classrooms .................................................................... 21 Table 2. Child Outcome and Classroom Quality Measures ......................................................................... 22 Table 3. Child Language Proficiency Levels ................................................................................................. 23 Table 4. Outcome Scores for Full Sample ................................................................................................... 24 Table 5. Outcome Scores for DLL Subsample – English Measures ............................................................. 26 Table 6. Outcome Scores for DLL Subsample – Spanish Measures ............................................................ 27 Table 7. Classroom Quality Scores .............................................................................................................. 28 Table 8. ITT Results – Full Sample ............................................................................................................... 29 Table 9. TOT Results – Full Sample ............................................................................................................. 31 Table 10. ITT Results - DLL Subsample English Outcomes .......................................................................... 32 Table 11. ITT Results - DLL Subsample Spanish Outcomes ........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • North Carolina Colleges and Universities Approved Birth-Through-Kindergarten Teacher Education and Licensure Programs
    North Carolina Colleges and Universities Approved Birth-through-Kindergarten Teacher Education and Licensure Programs The Early Educator Support, Licensure and Professional Development (EESLPD) Unit under the Early Education Branch, Division of Child Development and Early Education, makes every effort to ensure that all contact information is current. Please send revisions to [email protected] , Manager of EESLPD Unit. Appalachian State University *#+ Barton College *# Campbell University *# Dr. Dionne Busio, Director Dr. Jackie Ennis, Dean Dr. Connie Chester, Coordinator Birth-Through-Kindergarten Program School of Education Teacher Education Program Department of Family Y Child Studies PO Box 5000 PO Box 546 151 College Street Wilson, NC 27893 Buies Creek, NC 27506 Boone, NC 28608 (252) 399-6434 (910) 893-1655 (828) 262-2019 (413) 265-5385 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Dr. Denise Brewer, Interim Chair Department of Family & Child Studies 151 College Street Boone, NC 28608 (P) (828) 262-3120 (F) (828) 265-8620 [email protected] Catawba College *# East Carolina University *# Elizabeth City State University *#+ Dr. Donna James, Coordinator Barbara Brehm, Coordinator Dr. Nicole Austin, Coordinator Birth-Kindergarten Education BS Birth through Kindergarten Teacher Education Birth-Kindergarten Education 2300 West Innes Street (252) 328-1322 1704 Weeksville Road Salisbury, NC 28144 [email protected] (preferred) Elizabeth City, NC 27909 (P) (704) 637-4772 (BK degree, Licensure Only, Lateral Entry, BK add-on) (252) 335-8761 (F) (704) 637-4744 [email protected] [email protected] Dr. Archana Hegde, Birth-Kindergarten Graduate Program (MAEd) 131 Rivers West Greenville, NC 27858-4353 Phone: (252) 328-5712 [email protected] (preferred) Elon University* Fayetteville State University *# Greensboro College *# Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • BS in Education
    B.S. in Education Early Childhood/Special Education (ECSE) Elementary/Special Education (EESE) Additional Program Requirements 1. Students must first be admitted to Towson University. Please note that a GPA of 3.0 or higher is required for program admittance. The Early Childhood/Special Education and Elementary Education/Special Education programs at TUNE only accepts applicants during the fall semester. 2. After completing the TU application, please submit via email a one-page, double-spaced essay explaining your reasons for entering the Early Childhood/Special Education program or the Elementary/Special Education pro- gram. The writing sample must be submitted to Toni Guidi at [email protected]. Please remember that seats in the cohorts are limited. It is never too early to apply to the program! About the Programs Class sizes are small and cohort membership fosters collaboration and partnership since progression through the program is uniform. ECSE students are eligible for dual certification in Early Childhood e(Pr K - Grade 3) and Special Education (Birth - Grade 3). EESE students are eligible for dual certification Elin ementary (Grades 1-6) and Special Education (Grades -1 8). Internships are completed locally in Harford and Cecil County schools. Students are guaranteed a screening interview by Harford County Public Schools. Toni Guidi, Program Coordinator Toni Guidi is a Clinical Instructor in the Department of Education. As a faculty member she has taught various graduate and undergraduate courses in the areas of curriculum and methods, formal tests and measurements, and behavior management. As well, she supervises interns as they complete their capstone experience in Harford County Professional Development Schools.
    [Show full text]
  • Basics of University Pedagogy Learning Diary
    Basics of University Pedagogy learning diary Lam Huynh March 2019 1 Becoming a teacher From the first seminar, I learned about the purpose of this course are 1) pro- viding a guideline to become a better teacher and 2) our University of Oulu expected lecturers to have at least 25 credits on teaching curriculum. To myself, I want to become a teacher who has the ability to pass the knowl- edge to students as well as encourage critical thinking among my students. I also want to help students prepare the necessary skills for their working life. I would like to learn how to create an active learning environment, in which students can learn by discovering the knowledge by themselves. One of the main job for teachers is student assessment. The grading of students should reflect their learning outcome as a way to ensure the actual learning process. However, I surprised that the university refers to the high passing rate, due to the fact that the sooner students get their degree, the better the university gains. During the class, there is a discussion about certain people with \teacher genes" and that extrovert are better suit to become teachers than introvert. I disagreed with this fixed-mindset argument because I think a good teacher is the one who provides and encourages students to learn [3]. As a first-year doctoral student, in this Spring semester, I had a lecture by myself. The lecture content is good, but I feel extremely nervous, then I end up rushing through the lecture. After that, I think I can do better.
    [Show full text]
  • Northwestern Oklahoma State University Early Childhood Education Program General Education 63 Hours Includes Program Specific Gen
    Northwestern Oklahoma State University Early Childhood Education Program General Education 63 Hours Includes Program Specific Gen. Educ. And the Oklahoma 4X12 Gen. Educ. Requirements for certification. Major Coursework 60 Hours Hrs. Hrs. Orientation 1 Early Childhood Education 31 ____ UNIV 1011 Ranger Connection ____ EDUC 3013 EC Family & Community Relations ____ EDUC 3043 Found. of Math Methods (PK-3) Communication and Symbols 24 ____ EDUC 3313 Children’s Literature ____ EDUC 3413 Emergent Literacy (K-3) ____ ENGL1113 Composition I (Prerequisite for EDUC 4413) ____ ENGL 1213 Composition II ____ EDUC 3523 EC Development & Learning ____ SCOM 1113 Intro to Speech Comm. * ____ EDUC 4203 Elementary Creative Activities ____ ENGL 4173 English Usage * ____ EDUC 4413 Diag/Corr Reading Problems ____ MATH 1403 Contemporary Math or * ____ EDUC 4503 EC Curriculum Implementation MATH 1513 College Algebra * ____ EDUC 4532 EC Assessment ____ MATH 2233 Struct. Con. I Arithmetic * ____ EDUC 4543 EC Science and S.S. Methods ____ MATH 2433 Struct. Con. II Math * ____ EDUC 4582 EC Apprenticeship ____ MATH 2633 Geometry for Elem. Teachers Professional Education 15 Social and Political Economic Systems 12 (minimum grade of “C” in 3000-4000 level courses.) ____ FIN 1113 Personal Finance ____ EDUC 2010 Educational Seminar ____ HIST 1483 U.S. History to 1877 or ____ EDUC 2013 Child/Adolescent Psychology HIST 1493 U.S. History since 1877 (Prerequisite for EDUC 3322) ____ GEOG 1113 Fundamentals of Geography ____ EDUC 2103 Foundations of Education ____ POLS 1113
    [Show full text]
  • Students' Perceptions of University Education
    Research in Higher Education Journal Students’ perceptions of university education – USA vs. China Hongjiang Xu Butler University ABSTRACT As we continue in the global, competitive business environment, issues of globalization of education should not be overlooked. With study abroad programs for students and the internationalization of faculty, perceptions of students toward higher educational, particularly aspects of teaching and learning, from various cultural backgrounds will strongly influence educational systems. This research presents a comparative study, US versus China , of students’ perceptions toward higher education. Keywords: University education, student’s perceptions, higher education, educational orientation Student perceptions, Page 1 Research in Higher Education Journal INTRODUCTION Students from different education and culture background may have different perceptions towards higher education—particularly expectations related to teaching and learning. Students’ approach and orientation to education may further affect their academic decisions, expectations, and performance. Studies based on psychometric analysis and interviews have shown that there are two generalized types of educational orientation among students: a learning-oriented type and a grade-oriented type (Alexitch & Page, 1996; Katchadurian & Boli, 1985). The former focus primarily on values such as harmony, personal growth, the process of learning and intellectual competence, and this type of student espouses intrinsic values. The grade-oriented student primarily
    [Show full text]
  • The Pedagogy of Online Teaching and Learning
    Teaching at an Internet Distance: the Pedagogy of Online Teaching and Learning The Report of a 1998-1999 University of Illinois Faculty Seminar Table of Contents 1) Origin and Objectives of Seminar ................................................................................. 3 2) The Present Status of Online Instruction...................................................................... 7 A Survey of Online Programs and Resources ................................................................. 8 Adverse Faculty Reaction.............................................................................................. 15 3) A Survey of Online Teaching and Learning................................................................ 17 Types of Online Education ............................................................................................ 18 Types of Online Students ............................................................................................... 20 4) Good Teaching ............................................................................................................ 22 5) Online Pedagogy.......................................................................................................... 25 6) Teaching Evaluation.................................................................................................... 32 A Survey of Online Evaluation Literature ..................................................................... 32 A Suggested Evaluation Program.................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • TOWSON UNIVERSITY EDUCATION PROGRAM PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR POLICY INTRODUCTION and RATIONALE the Teacher Education Executive Boar
    TOWSON UNIVERSITY EDUCATION PROGRAM PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR POLICY INTRODUCTION and RATIONALE The Teacher Education Executive Board (TEEB) has a responsibility to the education community to ensure that individuals whom Towson University recommends to the State of Maryland for certification are highly qualified to join the education profession. Those entering the teaching profession are required to have strong academic preparation, mastery of pedagogy, and other professional competencies. The profession also requires non-academic professional behaviors, such as interpersonal skills, which are as critical to success as those in the academic domain. The goal of this Professional Behavior Policy is to help candidates know and demonstrate professional behaviors in a school environment. This document sets forth the essential professional behaviors for the entire education unit. A professional behavior policy serves several important functions, including, but not limited to: (a) providing information to those considering teaching careers that will help such students in their career decision-making; (b) serving as the basis for feedback provided to students throughout their teaching program regarding their progress toward mastery of all program objectives; and (c) serving as the basis for the final assessment of attainment of graduation requirements and recommendation for certification. All candidates in education programs are expected to demonstrate that they are prepared to work with students and adults in educational settings. This preparation results from the combination of successful completion of Towson University coursework, field/internship experiences, and the demonstration of professional behaviors that all educators should possess. The professional behaviors and conduct deemed compatible with Towson University and/or schools are outlined below.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Three Pedagogies in Higher Education
    Chapter Three Pedagogies in Higher Education Introduction In this chapter, I explore the literature on the nature of teaching and learning in higher education. I suggest that new ways of teaching and learning need to be found that critically engage students in rich learning environments. As mature and more diverse types of students enter higher education, it is vital that the traditional role of the educator as one who offers content knowledge is broadened so that teaching is aimed at developing students’ capacity to create their own understandings and insights through participation, negotiation and dialogue. Zukas and Malcolm (2002) highlight five identities of the educator in their review of the literature on pedagogy in higher and adult education. I intend to use these five identities as a framework to explore a range of understandings of pedagogic work in the literature on higher education. I argue that current versions of pedagogy in higher education have separated teaching from research and that a new form of pedagogy that involves practice-based research needs to be promoted. I will briefly explore what the literature has to say about professional development of teachers in higher education. Pedagogy in higher education Pedagogy is often referred to as the activities of educating, or instructing or teaching, the activities that impart knowledge or skill. The Oxford English dictionary (2002) defines pedagogy as the profession, science or theory of teaching. Watkins and 46 Mortimore (1999, p. 1) refer to ‘pedagogy’ as derived from French and Latin adaptations of the Greek word for ‘boy’ and ‘leader’, meaning a man having oversight of a child.
    [Show full text]
  • Kindergarten Knoll at a Child’S University
    Kindergarten Knoll at A Child’s University Program Overview The Curriculum The full-day kindergarten Powered by a nationally respected and award-winning early childhood program designed for A Child’s curriculum, the Kindergarten Knoll at A Child’s University provides each University utilizes a variety child with the essential foundation they need for the important school of top-rated, award-winning years ahead. The specific components of the curriculum include: curricula that align with National • Full Day Kindergarten Accreditation standards as well • Open Year Round as all of the CORE components • Low Teacher To Child Ratio of the Rhode Island Early • Nationally Recognized andAward-Winning Curriculum Learning Standards. This Early Readers • Nationally Accredited Early Learning Environment (By NAEYC) ensures each child is learning in Sadlier decodable leveled texts used in reading groups • Enrichment Programs That Supplement The Curriculum accordance with national and • Small Class Size state developmental guidelines. Mathematics Programs • Electronic Daily Reports and Pictures Emailed Daily To Parents Sadlier Progress In Mathematics Sorting, Geometry, Patterns, Positions, Tables/Graphs, Fractions, Program Addition, Subtraction, Money, Time, Measurement, Numbers to 100 Highlights Writing Program • Full Day Kindergarten Being A Writer - Developmental Studies Center • Open Year Round • Low Teacher to Child Ratio Technology • Nationally Recognized and ABC Mouse, Tablet Station Award-Winning Curriculum • Nationally Accredited Phonics Program
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Texas's Targeted Pre-Kindergarten Program on Academic Performance
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES THE EFFECTS OF TEXAS'S TARGETED PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAM ON ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE Rodney J. Andrews Paul Jargowsky Kristin Kuhne Working Paper 18598 http://www.nber.org/papers/w18598 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 December 2012 We gratefully acknowledge that this research was made possible through data provided by the University of Texas at Dallas Education Research Center. The conclusions of this research do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Texas Education Agency, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, or the State of Texas. This research was supported by the National Center for the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER) funded through Grant R305A060018 to the American Institutes for Research from the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer- reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2012 by Rodney J. Andrews, Paul Jargowsky, and Kristin Kuhne. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. The Effects of Texas's Targeted Pre-Kindergarten Program on Academic Performance Rodney J. Andrews, Paul Jargowsky, and Kristin Kuhne NBER Working Paper No. 18598 December 2012 JEL No. H52,I20,I21,I28,J38 ABSTRACT There has been a resurgence in research that investigates the efficacy of early investments as a means of reducing gaps in academic performance.
    [Show full text]
  • The Building Blocks of High-Quality Early Childhood Education Programs
    CALIFORNIA POLICY BRIEF The Building Blocks of High-Quality Early Childhood Education Programs By Marjorie Wechsler, Hanna Melnick, Anna Maier, and Joseph Bishop When it comes to early childhood education programs, quality is Abstract critical. High-quality preschool gives children a strong start on the This brief identifies important path that leads to college or a career. Research shows that all children elements of high-quality early benefit from high-quality preschool, with low-income children and childhood education programs as 1 indicated by research and professional English learners benefiting the most. A substantial number of studies standards. These include: demonstrate the benefits of high-quality pre-k programs. These include • Early learning standards and long-term research on Perry Preschool, the Abecedarian Project, and curricula that address the whole the Chicago Child-Parent Centers, as well as ongoing studies of the child, are developmentally appropriate, and are effectively preschool programs in Tulsa and Boston and New Jersey’s Abbott implemented. Preschool Program, among others. Economists also have shown the • Assessments that consider children’s benefits of early education investments, which generate approximately academic, social-emotional, and physical progress and contribute to $7 for every dollar invested.2 However, the potential of preschool can instructional and program planning. only be realized if programs are of high quality. • Well-prepared teachers who provide engaging interactions and classroom This brief summarizes the substantial body of research on environments that support learning. programs demonstrating positive results, as well as the • Ongoing support for teachers, including coaching and mentoring. professional standards for early education, identifying important • Support for English learners and elements of quality.
    [Show full text]
  • (ECE) - BS 120 Total Credits Required AY 2020-2021
    EP_ECE_BS THE UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION (ECE) - BS 120 Total Credits Required AY 2020-2021 Name: ID Number: Advisor Signature (AttacHed witH Intent to Graduate Form) Date: Note to all students: This 2-sided worksheet is a snapshot of your entire curriculum. You must work with your advisor each term to discuss requirements to keep you on course for timely progress to complete this major. Official requirements for graduation are listed in the University Catalog. GENERAL EDUCATION GUIDELINES: General education is 40 credits. Each of the 12 outcomes (A1-D1) must be met by at least 3 credits. A single course may meet more than one outcome, but cannot be double counted towards the 40 credit total. One course must be a Grand Challenge (G). No more than 12 credits can have the same course code (note- HPR courses may have more than 12 credits). General education courses may also be used to meet requirements of the major or minor when appropriate. Courses meeting the following outcomes must be taken prior to admittance in to the ECE major: A2 Social & Behavioral Science; B1 Writing Effectively; & B3 MatHematical, statistical or computational strategies. General Education Credit Count General Education Outcome Audit At least 3 credits in eacH outcome Course At least 40 credits; no more than 12 credits with the KNOWLEDGE same course code A1. STEM Course Cr. Course Cr. A2. Social & Behavioral Sciences A3. Humanities A4. Arts & Design COMPETENCIES B1. Write effectively B2. Communicate effectively B3. Mathematical, statistical, or computational strategies B4.
    [Show full text]