Transitions and Alignment in Early Childhood and Education

1
Transitions and Alignment in Early Childhood and
Education

• Council of Chief State School Officers
• Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning
• Annie E. Casey Foundation
• November 4, 2005
• Sharon Lynn Kagan, Ed.D.
• National Center for Children Families
• Teachers College, Columbia University

2
Presentation Overview

• Part I Review of Transition Work
• Its Importance
• Past Efforts to Address Transitions
• Part II Alignment Work
• Background and Rationale
• Definitions
• Research Questions
• Limitations of the Study
• Method
• Results
• Implications and Recommendations

3
Part I Review of Transitions Work
4
Why is the Transition from Pre-Kindergarten to
Kindergarten Important?

• The transition from a familiar home or
  Pre-Kindergarten environment to Kindergarten can
  be difficult as children must adjust to new
  rules, new friends, and new ways of learning.
• The increased academic accountability in
  Kindergarten programs puts new academic demands
  on children.
• There are high costs associated with not ensuring
  continuity which include poor performance in
  school, difficulty making friends, and other
  mental health and adjustment problems.

5
Past Efforts to Address the Transition from
Pre-Kindergarten to Kindergarten

• Project Developmental Continuity (1974)
• Head Start Transition Project (1987)
• National Transition Study (1992)
• Chicago Longitudinal Study (1998)
• Abecedarian K-2 Transition (1999)

6
Project Developmental Continuity (1974)
The intervention/demonstration project designed
to increase the successful transition of children
from Pre-Kindergarten or home care to
Kindergarten through 7 required guidelines

• Administration- Linked decision-making structures
  between Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten
• Education- Coordinated curriculum planning
• Bilingual/Bicultural/Multicultural Education-
  Special attention to ELLs
• Services for Handicapped Children- Early
  diagnosis and coordinated planning
  Pre-Kindergarten through Kindergarten
• Parent Involvement- Coordinated parent
  involvement program, Pre-Kindergarten through
  Kindergarten
• Developmental Support Services- Coordinated
  nutrition, health, and social services
• Training- Ongoing training of teachers and parents

7
Project Developmental Continuity (1974)

• Project EVALUATION Findings
• The program model, as depicted by the 7
  guidelines, was not fully realized anywhere
• Local versions of the program had few impacts on
  parents and teachers
• Children's social competence was not generally
  enhanced by their participation in the program

8
Head Start Transition Project (1987)
The intervention project was designed to
facilitate smoother Head Start to Kindergarten
transitions through activities such as

• Distribution of new school procedures and
  schedules to parents
• Parent visits to tour new school and meet with
  teachers
• Individual meetings with parents and new school
  representative during first month of childs
  transition
• Joint staff meetings between Head Start staff and
  new school staff to provide names of new students
  and facilitate a smooth transfer of student
  records
• Visits of Kindergarten and students to Head Start
  classrooms and visits of Head Start students to
  Kindergarten classrooms
• Distribution of summer books lists and activity
  calendars to help children prepare for
  Kindergarten

9
Head Start Transition Project (1987)

• Project EVALUATION Findings
• Higher teacher estimates of kids readiness for
  Kindergarten
• Decreased stress experienced by child during
  first month of transition
• More parent involvement
• Transition activities helped maintain kids
  readiness skills during the summer months

10
Head Start Transition Project (1987)

• BUT
• Despite higher teacher estimates of kids
  readiness for Kindergarten, children were not
  actually academically prepared for school.
• These transition activities highlighted the
  disparity between the Head Starts child-oriented
  approach and the schools teacher-directed,
  structured approach.
• After the first month of school, levels of
  self-confidence, liking school and happinesshigh
  in the first monthdropped, especially for
  self-confidence and especially for children rated
  highest during the first month of school.

11
National Transition Study (1992)
The Study was designed to look at the national
status of transition programs and found

• Only 21 of districts report a wide range of
  transition activities
• One-third of districts report no organized
  transition activities at all
• Only 13 of schools have a formal written policy
  related to transition and continuity
• Only 10 of schools report systematic
  communication between old and new teachers about
  students

12
National Transition Study (1992)

• 32 of schools report that all incoming children
  and parents visit their new school before the
  start of school
• Common activities of transitions programs are
  orientation/visitation, information parents of
  rights and responsibilities, involving parents in
  classroom activities
• Less common activities include coordinating
  curricula, establishing communication between
  staff, and providing joint training for staff

13
Chicago Longitudinal Study (1998)
The Study, begun in 1986, was designed to look at
the short and long-term effects of the
Child-Parent Center, an early childhood
intervention program in Chicago which sought to
facilitate successful Pre-Kindergarten to
Kindergarten transitions through seven features

• A structured and diverse set of language-based
  instructional activities designed to promote
  academic and social success
• Low child to teacher ratios in Pre-Kindergarten
  (17 to 2) and Kindergarten (25 to 2)
• A multi-faceted parent program
• Outreach activities coordinated by a
  School-Community Representative
• On-going staff development for all center
  personnel
• Health and nutrition services
• A comprehensive school-age program

14
Chicago Longitudinal Study (1998)

Study Findings

• Enrollment in extended intervention (preschool to
  grades 2 or 3) was associated with significantly
  higher test scores in reading and math in grade
  3.
• Participation in the follow-up program for 2 or 3
  years was associated with significantly higher
  reading achievement in grade 7, but not higher
  math achievement.
• Children who participated in the early childhood
  intervention for 2 or 3 years were significantly
  less likely to be retained by either grade and
  were less likely to receive special education
  services.

15
Chicago Longitudinal Study (1998)

BUT

• The Chicago Longitudinal Study is a
  comprehensive, long-term interventionnot a
  transition project

16
Abecedarian J-2 Transition Program (1999)
Abecedarian is a comprehensive program of which
transition is one component transition efforts
included

• Home-School Resource teacher who worked with both
  the new school teacher and the parents to develop
  home learning activities
• Summer camp like program which emphasized reading
  and math activities

17
Abecedarian J-2 Transition Program (1999)

• OVERALL Program Findings
• Increased student academic achievement in math
  and reading
• Reduced grade retention

18
Abecedarian J-2 Transition Program (1999)

• But
• Positive effects of transition program decreased
  when program was not combined with high-quality
  preschool programs and additional follow-though
  transition programs during the K-2 years.

19
What does all this tell us?

• Transitions are not very easy to implement.
• Transitions are not heavily present, despite
  numerous efforts.
• Great deal of emphasis in many efforts on the
  activities of transition, not the substance.
• When it works, it works WITH a quality
  pre-school.
• Seems to be limited emphasis on
• Comprehensive programming
• Pedagogical alignment of standards, curriculum,
  and assessment

20
Part II Alignment Work
21
Overview of Part II

• II.a. Background and Rationale
• II.b. Definitions
• II.c. Research Questions
• II.d. Limitations of the Study
• II.e. Method
• II.f. Results
• II.g. Implications and Recommendations

22
II.a. Background and Rationale

• Context
• Hotness of ECE
• New focus on systems
• New focus on accountability
• Neglected focus on alignment
• Alignment is the sine qua non of quality

23
II.a. Background and Rationale

• Standards, curriculum, and assessment have been
  examined independent of one another
• Discussed in three very different bodies of
  literature, often by different scholars, with
  different degrees of attention (e.g., curriculum
  has received the lions share of attention over
  the years)
• Refocus on alignment, given the accountability
  movement.

24
II.a. Background and Rationale
Why Alignment is Crucial

• Without such alignment, it is impossible to
  gauge
• If that which we want young children to know and
  be able to do relates to what is being taught
  (the alignment of standards and curriculum)
• If that which is being assessed relates to either
  to what children should know (the standards) or
  what is being taught (the curriculum).
• Without such an analysis of alignment,
  assessments remain inaccurate (not to mention
  costly) indicators of often irrelevant
  information.

25
II.b. Definitions

• 1. Alignment- Focuses on the context and pedagogy
  of instruction.
• 2. Transition and Continuity- Focuses on the
  activities that support children and their
  families as they move from one setting to
  another.

26
II.b. Definitions
Two types of alignment are defined in this work
1. Horizontal alignment- Synchronization
among standards, assessments, and curricula
within a given age level (e.g., Pre-Kindergarten
and Kindergarten). 2. Vertical alignment-
Synchronization among standards, assessments, and
curricula between given age levels (e.g.,
Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten).
27
II.c. Research Questions

• Within pre-kindergarten programs, is the content
  of standards, curricula, and assessments aligned
  (horizontal alignment)?
• Within kindergarten programs, is the content of
  standards, curricula, and assessments aligned
  (horizontal alignment)?
• Between pre-kindergarten and kindergarten
  programs, is the content of standards, curricula,
  and assessments aligned (vertical alignment)?
• What factors inhibit and/or enhance horizontal
  and vertical alignment in early childhood
  programs?
• What is the relationship between
  pre-kindergarten-to-kindergarten
  transition/continuity activities and the
  alignment of early learning standards,
  curriculum, and assessment?

28
II.d. Limitations of the Study

• The study
• Makes no claim at generalizability
• Makes absolutely no comment on the nature of the
  implementation of the standards, curricula, or
  assessments and
• Begins with a perspective that credits a
  comprehensive approach to early childhood
  development.

29
II.e. Method Site Selection
30
II.e. Method Data Sources

• 23 Documents
• Informal dialogue
• US Census and 2003 KIDS COUNT

31
II.e. Method 23 Instruments
32
II.e. Method Analytic Framework
33
II.e. Method Analysis Metric

• Horizontal Alignment
• I. Pre-Kindergarten
• Greenpoint Standards Curriculum Assessments
• Morning Side Standards Curriculum Assessments
• Westville Standards Curriculum Assessments
• Wood Hill Standards Curriculum Assessments
• II. Kindergarten
• Greenpoint Standards Curriculum Assessments
• Morning Side Standards Curriculum Assessments
• Westville Standards Curriculum Assessments
• Wood Hill Standards Curriculum Assessments

34
II.e. Method Analysis Metric

• Vertical Alignment
• Greenpoint Standards Pre-Kindergarten Kindergart
  en
• Curriculum Pre-Kindergarten Kindergarten
• Assessments Pre-Kindergarten Kindergarten
• Morning Side Standards Pre-Kindergarten Kinderga
  rten
• Curriculum Pre-Kindergarten Kindergarten
• Assessments Pre-Kindergarten Kindergarten
• Westville Standards Pre-Kindergarten Kindergarte
  n
• Curriculum Pre-Kindergarten Kindergarten
• Assessments Pre-Kindergarten Kindergarten
• Wood Hill Standards Pre-Kindergarten Kindergarte
  n
• Curriculum Pre-Kindergarten Kindergarten
• Assessments Pre-Kindergarten Kindergarten

35
II.f. Results

• Pre-Kindergarten Horizontal Alignment
• Standards Curriculum
  Assessment
• Greenpoint PAF CC
  PAF
• Morning Side HS CC CC
• Westville PAF DD
  PAF
• Wood Hill PAF CC PAF

36
II.f. Results

• Kindergarten Horizontal Alignment
• Standards Curriculum Assessment
• Greenpoint Marie Clay FP, D
  Marie Clay/Math
• Morning Side CTBFR DD
  DRA
• Westville DD DD
  DRA
• Wood Hill DD DD NA
• Note denotes lack of alignment
• denotes alignment
• CTBFR CT Blueprint for Readiness DRA
  Developmental Reading Assessment DD District
  Developed FP Fountas Pinell PAF
  Pre-kindergarten Assessment Framework HS Head
  Start Child Outcomes Framework CC Creative
  Curriculum NA Not Applicable.

37
Standards
Greenpoint
Curriculum
Assessment
38
Standards
Morningside
Curriculum
Assessment
39
Standards
Westville
Curriculum
Assessment
40
Standards
Wood Hill
Curriculum
Assessment
41
II.f. Results

• There was a much stronger focus on developing the
  whole child (fostering cognitive, social,
  emotional, and physical growth) in the
  pre-kindergarten documents than the kindergarten
  documents.
• In general, there was tremendous emphasis on
  language and cognitive development and virtually
  no emphasis on physical and motor development in
  the kindergarten documents social and emotional
  development also received little attention.
• Greater horizontal alignment existed among the
  standards, curricula, and assessments within
  pre-kindergarten than kindergarten. In part,
  this seemed to be due to the fact that among the
  pre-kindergartens there was greater reliance on
  packaged curricula, which often were linked to
  assessments.

42
II.f. Results

• Some, though far less, horizontal alignment
  existed at the kindergarten level. This occurred
  in communities that developed their own standards
  and curriculum.
• There was virtually no vertical alignment of
  pre-kindergarten and kindergarten programs
  standards, curricula, or assessments.
• There is great ambiguity surrounding the
  definitional and operational differences between
  alignment (of standards, curriculum, and
  assessment) and transition/continuity activities.

43
II.g. Implications/Recommendations
The study makes recommendations in several areas

• The context for change
• Defining and measuring alignment
• Advancing the alignment agenda with multiple
  players and
• Future research.

44
II.g. Implications/Recommendations

• The context for change
• Increase discourse on and study of the nature of
  standards, curriculum, and assessment are needed,
  given a commitment to the development of the
  whole child.
• Understand the degree to which model programs
  that focus on diverse dimensions of reform affect
  pedagogy in general and the alignment of
  standards, curriculum, and assessment in
  particular.

45
II.g. Implications/Recommendations

• Defining and measuring alignment
• Increase synchronicity the definition,
  parameters, and measurement of alignment.
• Bring scholars and practitioners together to
  discern a workable definition of alignment.
• Develop measurement strategies to ensure
  consistent approaches are used for assessing
  alignment.

46
II.g. Implications/Recommendations

• Advancing the alignment agenda with multiple
  players
• Include in all standards, curriculum, and
  assessment documents, trainings, and publications
  the need for horizontal and vertical content
  alignment.
• A content review of all its documents should be
  made to discern the degree of their alignment.
• Provide technical assistance efforts should give
  more emphasis to vertical and horizontal
  alignment of standards, curriculum, and
  assessment.
• Recommendations could be made to communities to
  conduct their own alignment analysis,

47
II.g. Implications/Recommendations

• Advancing the alignment agenda with multiple
  players (continued)
• Additional efforts should be made by the
  philanthropic community to support more attention
  to issues related to pedagogical alignment and to
  the inclusion of parents in the process of the
  development and implementation of standards,
  curriculum, and assessment.
• It is imperative that when communities develop
  standards, curriculum, and assessments, they take
  both horizontal and vertical alignment into
  consideration.
• The implementation of aligned standards,
  curriculum, and assessment must be regarded as a
  process, not simply a product or document.
• Resources need to be allocated not only for
  development, but for implementation.

48
II.g. Implications/Recommendations

• Future research
• A similar study could look at vertical and
  horizontal alignment might be proposed in an
  array of communities in different states.
• More outcome-oriented work could be advanced by
  introducing an empirical study comparing students
  in settings where the standards, curriculum, and
  assessments are aligned to students in settings
  where they are not.
• An implementation analysis could examine the
  degree to which aligned standards, curricula, and
  assessments are actually being implemented.

49
II.g. Implications/Recommendations

• Future research (continued)
• A study could look at the costs associated with
  the development and implementation of an aligned
  system of standards, curriculum, and assessment
  at the pre-kindergarten and kindergarten levels.
• The non-attention to physical and motor
  development and the lack of alignment of
  pre-kindergarten and kindergarten standards,
  curricula, and assessments, must be addressed
  through either the production or the promulgation
  of research related to the importance of these
  domains and alignment to childrens development.

50

• Success!!!

Transitions
Continuity
Alignment