Search results

The Kidsteps II Project tested the efficacy of the Second Step Early Learning (SSEL) curriculum in improving children's social-emotional skills (SE), executive functioning (EF), and school readiness skills in preschool relative to usual curricular frameworks, and the predictive power of the intervention on kindergarten readiness and kindergarten success. Kidsteps II, a 4-year study funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, included 67 classrooms randomly assigned to one of two, two-year cohorts. In each cohort, half of the classrooms were randomly assigned to receive the SSEL curriculum (intervention condition), and half continued usual practices (control/comparison condition). Teachers in intervention classrooms were provided with training and implementation support for two years. Teachers in both conditions completed social skills rating scales on participating children at the beginning and end of the year (n=1497). Parent reports of children's social skills were also obtained for 725 children. Four-year-old children entering kindergarten the following year (n=978) were individually tested on social skills, executive functioning, and academic skills at the beginning and end of their pre-k year. Additional classroom observation and coded lesson plans documented fidelity, implementation, classroom climate, and classroom quality. Intervention teachers also completed weekly measures of curriculum implementation. Pre-k children from the first three years of the study were followed into kindergarten, and kindergarten teachers completed social skills rating scales and academic readiness mid-year, and school records were obtained for kindergarten screening scores, special services received during kindergarten, and promotion to first grade. The study addressed the following questions:

• Does SSEL improve children's social emotional skills, executive functioning, and school readiness skills as measured by teachers and independent assessors in preschool compared to classrooms not using SSEL?
• Do children participating in SSEL classrooms have stronger school system administered kindergarten readiness screenings, better kindergarten teacher-rated social skills and academic competency, and higher 1st grade promotion compared to children entering from comparison classrooms?
• To what extent are kindergarten readiness screenings and kindergarten teacher's ratings of social skills and academic competence mediated by preschool children's social emotional skills and executive functioning?
• Is there an effect of SSEL on preschool classroom climate?

The Office of Head Start Program Information Report (PIR) provides comprehensive data on the services, staff, children, and families served by Head Start and Early Head Start programs nationwide. All grantees and delegates are required to submit PIR for Head Start and Early Head Start Programs. PIR data is compiled for use at the federal, regional, state, and local level.

The PIR collects data on child, staff, and family demographics and program characteristics including data on physical health, mental health, disabilities, and family services. All of this data is aggregated and reported by each program to the Office of Head Start.

The National Center for Early Development and Learning (NCEDL) Multi-State Study of Pre-Kindergarten examined the pre-kindergarten programs of six states: California, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Kentucky, and Georgia. For this study, pre-kindergarten (pre-k) included center-based programs for four-year-olds that are fully or partially funded by state education agencies and that are operated in schools or under the direction of state and local education agencies.

The study had two primary purposes:

1. To describe the variations of experiences for children in pre-kindergarten and kindergarten programs in school-related settings (public schools and state-funded pre-k classrooms in community-based settings), and

2. To examine the relationships between variations in pre-kindergarten/kindergarten experiences and children's outcomes in early elementary school.

The study addressed six primary groups of research questions:

1. What is the nature and distribution of education and experience of teachers and teacher assistants in pre-k public school programs?

2. What is the nature and distribution of global quality and specific practices in key areas such as literacy, math, and teacher-child relationships in a diverse sample of pre-k public school programs for four-year-olds as well as in a similarly diverse sample of kindergarten classes?

3. How do quality and practices vary as a result of child and teacher characteristics (e.g., child gender, race, home language, family income, and teacher's years of education) and classroom, program, community, and state structural variables (e.g., teacher-child ratio, funding base of the program, teacher salary, and degree of state regulation) for children with different demographic characteristics (e.g., race, gender, home language, and family income)?

4. Do quality and practice vary in relation to combinations of these variables? For example, are quality and practice a function of family poverty and teacher pay or education?

5. Can children's outcomes at the end of their pre-kindergarten year be predicted by the children's experiences in pre-k programs? Are the various dimensions of quality and/or practice differentially related to outcomes? Are these relationships constant across a population of children with different characteristics (e.g., race, gender, home language, and family income)?

6. Do pre-kindergarten program quality and practices predict children's transitions to kindergarten and children's skills at the end of the kindergarten year? Are these transitions moderated by children's characteristics, like race, gender, and family income?

The six states in the study were selected based on the significant amount of resources they have committed to pre-k initiatives. States were also selected to maximize the diversity in geography, program settings (public school or community), program intensity (full day versus part day), and educational requirements for teachers. Within each state, a random sample of 40 centers/schools was selected. One classroom in each center/school was selected at random for observation, and four children in each classroom were selected for individual assessment. The children were followed from the beginning of pre-k through the end of kindergarten. In five of the six states, families were also visited in their homes.

1. Classroom Services and Specific Instructional Practices

   Within the 40 classrooms in each participating state, carefully trained data collectors conducted classroom observations twice each year, while additional surveys were used to gather information from administrators/principals, teachers, and parents. Data were gathered on program services, (e.g., healthcare, meals, and transportation), program curriculum, teacher training and education, teachers' opinions of child development, and their instructional practices on subjects such as language, literacy, mathematics concepts, and social-emotional competencies. Data were also collected as to what types of steps were taken to aid children in their transitions from pre-k to kindergarten.

2. Children

   Within each participating pre-k classroom, four randomly selected children were assessed using a battery of individual instruments to measure language, literacy, mathematics, and related concept development, as well as social competence. A panel of expert reviewers aided the researchers in selecting a variety of standardized and nonstandardized assessments. The pre-k child assessments were conducted in the fall and spring of 2001-2002. The same children were followed into kindergarten and assessed in the fall and spring of 2002-2003 to examine whether specific practices employed by pre-k teachers made a difference in their transitions to kindergarten.

3. Families

   In individual home-based interviews, information on socio-economic, socio-cultural, and familial contexts were obtained through open-ended questions, structured ratings, and videotaped parent-child interactions. Specifically, parents were asked about (1) family life as it relates to socio-economic status and socio-cultural environment, (2) family educational practices and beliefs about the comparative roles of school and family in educating children, (3) the nature and quality of the home-school relationship, and (4) their own ratings of their children's psychological development and social competence.

Demographic information collected includes race, gender, family income, and mother's education level.

The above information pertains to the Main Child Level Public-Use Version and the Main Child Level Restricted-Use Version. From these main datasets, subsets were created at the classroom level for Pre-Kindergarten (Pre-K Classroom Level Public-Use Version and Pre-K Classroom Level Restricted-Use Version) and for Kindergarten (Kindergarten Classroom Level Public-Use Version and Kindergarten Classroom Level Restricted-Use Version).

The National Center for Early Development and Learning (NCEDL) combined the data of two major studies in order to understand variations among state-funded pre-kindergarten (pre-k) programs and in turn, how these variations relate to child outcomes at the end of pre-k and in kindergarten. The Multi-State Study of Pre-Kindergarten and the State-Wide Early Education Programs (SWEEP) Study provide detailed information on pre-kindergarten teachers, children, and classrooms in 11 states. By combining data from both studies, information is available from 721 classrooms and 2,982 pre-kindergarten children in these 11 states.

Pre-kindergarten data collection for the Multi-State Study of Pre-Kindergarten took place during the 2001-2002 school year in six states: California, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, New York, and Ohio. These states were selected from among states that had committed significant resources to pre-k initiatives. States were selected to maximize diversity with regard to geography, program settings (public school or community setting), program intensity (full-day vs. part-day), and educational requirements for teachers. In each state, a stratified random sample of 40 centers/schools was selected from the list of all the school/centers or programs (both contractors and subcontractors) provided to the researchers by each state's department of education.

In total, 238 sites participated in the fall and two additional sites joined the study in the spring. Participating teachers helped the data collectors recruit children into the study by sending recruitment packets home with all children enrolled in the classroom. On the first day of data collection, the data collectors determined which of the children were eligible to participate. Eligible children were those who (1) would be old enough for kindergarten in the fall of 2002, (2) did not have an Individualized Education Plan, according to the teacher, and (3) spoke English or Spanish well enough to understand simple instructions, according to the teacher.

Pre-kindergarten data collection for the SWEEP Study took place during the 2003-2004 school year in five states: Massachusetts, New Jersey, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. These states were selected to complement the states already in the Multi-State Study of Pre-K by including programs with significantly different funding models or modes of service delivery. In each of the five states, 100 randomly selected state-funded pre-kindergarten sites were recruited for participation in the study from a list of all sites provided by the state.

In total, 465 sites participated in the fall. Two sites declined to continue participation in the spring, resulting in 463 sites participating in the spring. Participating teachers helped the data collectors recruit children into the study by sending recruitment packets home with all children enrolled in the classroom. On the first day of data collection, the data collectors determined which of the children were eligible to participate. Eligible children were those who (1) would be old enough for kindergarten in the fall of 2004, (2) did not have an Individualized Education Plan, according to the teacher, and (3) spoke English or Spanish well enough to understand simple instructions, according to the teacher.

Demographic information collected across both studies includes race, teacher gender, child gender, family income, mother's education level, and teacher education level.

The researchers also created a variable for both the child-level data and the class-level data which allows secondary users to subset cases according to either the Multi-State or SWEEP study.

This study spans several years of data collection by the Learning Mathematics for Teaching (LMT) project. This project's main purpose was to develop a suite of instruments measuring K-8 teachers' Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (MKT). These instruments are typically used to evaluate content-focused mathematics professional development. Over the years, this project piloted these measures in several contexts to establish psychometric properties of the instruments:

• With a nationally representative sample of middle school mathematics teachers in 2005 and again in 2006. The same sample was surveyed at both time points.
• With a nationally representative sample of elementary school teachers in 2008.
• With smaller samples of grade 4-8 teachers on specific mathematical topics (e.g., a form on rational number, a form on proportional reasoning).

The specific research questions varied with the sample. For the later pilots, we were interested in the psychometric properties of the measures and teacher scores' relationship to other teacher characteristics, such as their mathematical background and years of experience.

MT21 is a cross-national study of the preparation of middle school mathematics teachers. Countries participating included Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), South Korea (Korea), Bulgaria, Germany, Mexico, and the United States. Data were collected from teachers in their first and last year of preparation by sampling institutions in each country. Future teachers were asked about their backgrounds, course-taking and program activities, knowledge relevant to their teaching (mathematical and pedagogical), and beliefs and perspectives on content and pedagogy.

The 1995 Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) data revealed that countries with higher achievement have teachers who teach substantially different content than that of their less accomplished counterparts (see Schmidt et al., 1996; Schmidt et al., 2001). The 1996 Report of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future argued that what teachers know and do in the classroom matters for pupil learning. It also argued that teacher education might be a viable policy tool to improve the quality of education (National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996). United States reform efforts are consistent with this line of thought. They have introduced standards to measure teacher quality as it relates to student achievement. This, in turn, led to accountability concerns regarding teacher preparation programs (INTASC, 1995; Murray, 2000; Leithwood, Edge and Jantzi, 1999; NCATE, 2000).

The MT21 Project was designed to answer the following question: how shall we prepare our future teachers to teach a more rigorous curriculum to all students? Several assumptions were made going into this work: the concepts and models defining teacher preparation are not fixed across the world. Recognizing and understanding this diversity to develop a cross-national study of teacher preparation poses a complex and challenging problem. It is hoped that the resulting international data would not only serve to provide policy insights but would also bring about change by making visible contrasts with other countries in terms of teacher preparation in the United States.

In 2000, the Kentucky General Assembly passed historic early childhood legislation (Kentucky's KIDS [Kentucky Invests in Developing Success] NOW Initiative) of which a component included the development of a seamless professional development system. The professional development system includes core content, articulation, credentials, scholarships and a training framework. This comprehensive professional development system, along with other initiative components in assuring maternal and child health, supporting families, enhancing early care and education, and establishing a support structure, have moved the field of early childhood care and education forward in the state and improved child and family outcomes.

This study was designed to build on the KIDS NOW Initiative by conducting research investigating the degree to which a statewide unified professional development system impacted the educational level of early care and education providers and subsequent classroom quality. It focused on three major predictors of professional development outcomes:

1. Individual teacher characteristics, including learning readiness, education (level and type), training experience, attitudes towards training, personality (conscientiousness, self-efficacy), job satisfaction (perceptions of support)
2. Characteristics of the program administrator, including administrator education and administrator support of professional development
3. Characteristics of the teacher's work setting, including program administration, and policies and procedures, and classroom setting (Child Care, Head Start, or Public Preschool)

The impact of these three predictors was measured on two major outcomes: (a) professional development outcomes, as measured by job status, learning and transfer of learning, and (b) organizational outcomes, as measured by program quality, child outcomes and staff retention.

The research questions guiding this research were focused on determining the degree to which (1) a unified professional development framework initiated at the state level results in positive child outcomes, and (2) the educational level of early care and education providers enhances the quality of classroom environments. Specifically:

• What components of a professional development framework are more effective in encouraging and supporting individuals to remain in early care and education settings?
• What components of a professional development framework are more effective in supporting early care and education professionals in enhancing classroom quality and child outcomes?
• Are there specific factors that impact early care and education professionals' ability to participate in professional development activities at various levels?
• Does the level and intensity of professional development experiences impact classroom quality and child outcomes?
• What personnel factors have the highest impact on quality classroom environments and child outcomes?
• What is the interaction between the personnel, professional development, and program variables on classroom quality and child outcomes?

The Partnership Impact Research Project is a three-year study designed to assess the nature of early education partnerships among Head Start, pre-kindergarten (pre-k), child care, and early care and education programs and their influence on child care quality and access to services. The project analyzes qualitative data in an existing database that was collected by the Quality in Linking Together (QUILT) Early Education Partnerships initiative. The QUILT database was designed to provide training and technical assistance in the development and sustainment of partnerships to professionals across the nation, including early care and education providers and state leaders. It is divided into two sections: state-level and local provider-level information. Both sections contain narratives, factual data, and documents. Additionally, the project collected new quantitative and qualitative data from randomly selected child care and Head Start providers in Ohio to study the influence of partnerships on the quality of and access to services.

The Partnership Impact Research Project explored questions about partnerships and their impact on child care and parents while attempting to determine whether state actions could influence both the development of provider-level partnerships and the processes partnerships engage in to sustain their work. Specifically, the study was designed to address the following objectives:

1. Conduct a qualitative analysis of data in an existing database to assess the nature of partnerships and state actions to support partnerships.
2. Conduct a longitudinal study that uses a quasi-experimental design and involves original data collection at three points in time to learn about the impact of partnerships on child care center quality, child care classroom quality, and accessibility of services for parents.
3. Develop detailed reports and research briefs, tailored to specific audiences such as legislators, administrators, and providers, that translate research findings into practical information that addresses questions frequently asked about child care partnerships.
4. Disseminate research reports and briefs through established networks of policy makers and practitioners, using their organizations' Web sites and publications.

The six datasets associated with this data collection are summarized below:

1. Child Care Center Data -- contains information on a variety of aspects about a child care center from the director's point of view with many focused questions aimed at the preschool population and an overview of the child care center as a whole. This dataset provides information about the population being served, services provided, teacher ratios, teacher training and education, annual budgets, funding sources, and other major aspects of a child care center in order to achieve an understanding of quality.
2. Child Care Center Partnership Data -- contains information about the child care partnership with the Head Start Agency that provides their services. There are five sections: funding sources, origins of the partnership, resources, nature of the partnership, and benefits/challenges. Information about how the partnership began, what the centers' role is, what services are provided, and a variety of general questions that inform others about the nature of the partnership are available in this dataset.
3. Head Start Background Data -- contains background information about a Head Start Agency that partners with child care centers and other information related to budget, funding sources, number of children served, and Head Start program organization.
4. Head Start Partnership Data -- a companion to the Head Start Background data, this dataset contains information about the specific partnership with each child care center the agency is involved with. There are four sections: background information, teacher training/professional development, services, and director information. Additionally, information on how the partnership began, what the agency's role is, what services are provided, and other general questions about the partnership is available.
5. Parent Data -- contains information on parents' views of the child care center that their preschooler attends. This dataset provides information about the population being served including home/school connection, how a parent views the classroom and the care being provided by the center, and the services available to both the child and parent through the center.
6. Teacher Data -- contains information about teachers' views of the child care center where they are employed. This dataset provides information about the population being served, services provided, teacher ratios, teacher training and education, and teacher experience in order to achieve an understanding of quality.