Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
CHAPTER 2 - RATIONALE
| In this chapter:
|
In the 36 years (Head Start was established in 1965) that Head Start has been in operation, much has been learned about intervention programs for young children, their effectiveness, their long-term benefits, and their limitations. The National Head Start/Public School Early Childhood Transition Demonstration Project was designed to build on and push forward this body of knowledge. This chapter first summarizes some of the insights gained through research in early intervention and then discusses some of the key concerns and positive events that formed the impetus of this national demonstration project. A brief description of the National Transition Demonstration Project follows, including a discussion of program goals and key components. Finally, a brief overview of the National Transition Demonstration Study is presented, highlighting the new style of research that is operationalized within the study. The research design and the conceptual model underlying the evaluation are presented to provide a framework for the discussions of findings in subsequent chapters.
LESSONS FROM EARLY INTERVENTION RESEARCH TO DATE
In recent reviews of the status of early intervention research, Ramey and Ramey (1998, 1999) have reported that randomized, controlled trials of strong programs — i.e., those providing high quality, intensive early education to children and relying on developmental theory to guide the content of the intervention — have yielded significant benefits for children, often extending through adolescence and into young adulthood (Ramey, Campbell, Sparling & Ramey, 2000; Campbell, Ramey, Sparling, & Burchinal, 1999). In addition, the Rameys (Ramey & Ramey, 1992) identified six principles regarding successful early childhood interventions for at-risk children and their families:- Timing. Interventions beginning earlier and continuing longer tend to show greater benefits for participants than those beginning later and not lasting as long.
- Intensity. Programs that are more intensive (that is, more hours per day, more days per week, more weeks per year, and multi-year) produce greater positive effects than those that are less intensive. In addition, there is some evidence that children and parents who participate more actively (receive greater amounts of services and supports) show the greatest amount of progress.
- Direct intervention. The provision of services directly to children, enhancing their daily learning experiences, produces more positive and lasting results than the provision of indirect services (such as parent training or home-based services only).
- Breadth. Interventions that provide more comprehensive services typically show stronger effects that those that are more narrow in focus. Specifically, interventions that include both direct and indirect interventions produce the most robust effects.
- Individual differences. Some children appear to benefit more from interventions than do others, most likely as a function of the initial risk status of the family and the degree to which the program provides needed supports to compensate for risks.
- Environmental maintenance. The initial positive effects of early intervention are most likely to be sustained in later years when there are continuing supports, particularly the availability of good quality public education and community supports for low income families.
The National Transition Demonstration Project was designed to build upon this knowledge about effective early interventions. The local programs were to be comprehensive and multipronged. All were multi-year and coordinated with Head Start programs. Both direct child supports for education and health, as well as indirect supports to the families and school were provided. Further, the Transition Demonstration Programs extended throughout the school year, and in some sites included extended day services or summer programs for children.
IMPETUS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSITION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
| Impetus for this Transition Demonstration Project:
|
The Transition Demonstration Project effort was grounded in a desire to
foster the implementation of “unified child and family development
programs that span the early childhood years from preschool through [at
least] third grade.” (ACYF, 1991). These unified, two-generational
programs were seen as desirable and necessary based on several factors.
First, the current views about what “ready to learn” means go
well beyond traditional ideas of the child’s readiness, in terms of
reading readiness or social readiness (cf. Crnic & Lamberty, 1994; Kagan,
1994; Ramey & Ramey, 1994, 1999). The new perspectives on school readiness
recognize the importance of three additional factors: (1) the readiness
of schools to meet the needs of children who
enter at varying levels of development and progress at different rates;
(2) the readiness of families to support the
growth and development of their children as they move into and through the
formal educational years; and (3) the readiness of communities
to invest in education for children and families (Kagan, 1994). This more
comprehensive concept of “readiness for school” has led Head Start
programs, public schools, and communities to collaborate more closely in
the provision of a wide range of educational experiences and supports for
children.
Involvement of parents in the learning activities of children is assumed
to improve achievement and other educational outcomes for student. Students
whose parents are involved in their learning are more likely to remain in
school and are less likely to be retained in grades (e.g., Rubin, Olmsted,
Szegda, Wetherby, & Williams, 1983). They tend to make better grades,
achieve higher test scores, and show more positive attitudes and behavior
in school than those with less involved families (e.g., Peterson, 1989;
Gorges, 1995; Reynolds, 1996).
Increasingly, there is concern that many children do not receive optimal levels of parent involvement with schools or learning activities at home. Several factors of concern include: (1) the large number of single parent households and households that have two working parents; (2) parental uncertainty about how to help their children with school related tasks; and (3) linguistic and cultural barriers faced by immigrants and families that have limited English proficiency. One of the goals of the Transition Demonstration Program was to help promote parent involvement, taking into account the multiple challenges faced by many low income families.
There is a vast literature documenting the increased risk for poor school
performance among children from economically impoverished families (e.g.,
Byrd & Weitzman, 1994; Davis & McCaul, 1991; Duncan, 1993; Powell,
1995; Zill & Collins, 1996). Indeed, the concern about increased risk
faced by children in poverty was one of the original sources of impetus
for the Head Start program in the early 1960's.
There also are concerns that former Head Start children may not do well
as they progress through the elementary school years. Early childhood researchers
and practitioners have suggested that a “one-year inoculation”
(the typical length of most Head Start programs is about 8-9 months) is
insufficient to sustain early benefits (Kagan, 1991) if children then go
to poor quality schools. Others have speculated that a fade-out effect may
occur when there is lack of continuity in philosophy, methods, services,
and environment as children move from Head Start into the public schools
(Lombardi, 1992). Recent analyses indicate that former Head Start children
who enter inferior schools are indeed those most likely to show this “fade-out
effect,” while those who attend better quality schools do not (Currie
& Thomas, 1995, 1997). The Transition Demonstration Programs promoted
improved quality and continuity of curriculum and educational practices,
as well as offering supports to children and families.
Another impetus for the Transition Project was the belief that continuity
among environments provides positive benefits for children moving from Head
Start to public school. A national survey conducted a decade ago showed
most schools had only a few formal transition supports in place (Love, Logue,
Trudeau, & Thayer, 1992). In the late 1980s, ACYF funded a demonstration
initiative to promote specific activities to foster positive school transitions
for Head Start children and families. These programs implemented a variety
of activities, such as sharing information between Head Start and kindergarten
teachers, kindergarten classroom visits by Head Start children and parents,
and shared planning for children with special needs (Love, Logue, Trudeau,
& Thayer, 1992).
Review of earlier research has shown that some Head Start programs are associated
with gains in cognitive development, academic achievement, and social development
(McKey, Condelli, Ganson, Barrett, McConkey, & Plantz, 1985). Head Start
children are more likely to receive preventive and remedial services, including
medical and dental examinations, speech services, and vision screening or
examinations than other low-income children (Fosburg & Brown, 1984;
Hale, Seltz, & Zigler, 1990). Important changes in family functioning
have been noted (Leik & Chalkley, 1988), and families have reported
feeling more capable of supporting their children’s learning, spending
more time in learning activities, being more knowledgeable about age-appropriate
activities, and learning how to find assistance in their communities (Reedy,
1991). These point to the successes that Head Start programs can facilitate
through providing comprehensive supports to children and families. The Transition
Demonstration hoped to build on these successes by continuing these supports
through the early years of elementary school.
DESCRIPTION OF THE NATIONAL TRANSITION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
In 1991, Congress passed legislation authorizing the National Head Start/Public School Early Childhood Transition Demonstration Project. Specifically, each local Transition Demonstration Program was to address three major tasks:- The development of successful strategies in which Head Start programs,
parents, LEAs, and other community agencies join together to plan and
implement a coordinated and continuous program of comprehensive services
for low-income children and their families, beginning in Head Start and
continuing through the first four years of public school;
- The development of effective strategies to support the active involvement of families in the education of their children; and
- The testing of the hypothesis that the provision of continuous, comprehensive supports will maintain and enhance the early benefits of Head Start children and their families.
The key program components of the Transition Demonstration Program included:
- Family support services
- supportive social services, including special family service coordinators, to help facilitate positive family-school interactions and to assist in securing and coordinating services across agencies;
- comprehensive family strengths and needs assessments and individualized family support plans;
- Family involvement opportunities
- programs for families to increase their involvement in children’s school activities;
- local governing boards, established to guide program development and implementation and comprising parents, school, and community representatives;
- Health, nutrition, and mental health services
- essential health and nutrition services to ensure the physical and mental health of the entire family;
- appropriate health, nutrition, and mental health education activities for children and families to promote the physical and mental health of the entire family
- Educational programming
- developmentally appropriate curricula and educational practices in the classroom to individualize learning experiences for children;
- strong partnerships between Head Start programs and public schools to ensure continuity in educational experiences;
- parent education programs to promote strong parenting skills, educational and vocational growth for adult family members, and strong and stable family functioning;
- individual child transition plans to ensure the smooth transition of children from Head Start into public schools;
- activities to encourage the inclusion of children with disabilities (that is, special education students) in regular school programs.
- develop activities to promote cultural awareness and sensitivity among children, families, schools, and communities; and
- promote the inclusion of culturally relevant activities and the recognition and accommodation of diversity in the school and community.
NATIONAL TRANSITION DEMONSTRATION STUDY
This Transition Demonstration Project is distinctive in two important ways. First, research was included as an integral component of the program, providing information about the project’s success in achieving its goals and objectives. Each local Transition Demonstration Program was required to conduct an evaluation locally to measure program impact. Second, there was a National Study -- a multi-site, randomized, and longitudinal study -- to yield an overall, systematic evaluation of this national project. Accordingly, all local evaluation teams participated in the national study as partners. This dual research strategy permits a valuable unique understanding of program variation and participant variation in relation to program impact.New Research Approaches
The dual local/national research design specified within the National Transition
Demonstration Project reflects a new style of research recommended in 1990
by the Advisory Panel for the Head Start Evaluation Design Project. The
panel was convened to further future research about the effectiveness of
Head Start programs. The Advisory recommended ACYF implement an integrated
and coordinated set of research and evaluation studies designed to address
the questions of which Head Start practices
maximize benefits for children and families, how participants with different
characteristics benefit and under what circumstances, and how gains are
sustained after the Head Start experience (ACYF, 1990). The Panel also recommended
that:
- The diversity of children, families, and communities be recognized;
- Different outcomes relating to children, families, communities, and institutions be included;
- Multiple indicators and measures that can be readily understood by multiple audiences be used;
- Program variation be explored in relation to differential outcomes; and
- Research efforts build on the strengths of Head Start programs. These recommendations are operationalized in the request for proposal for the National Transition Demonstration Study. For further description about this new approach to evaluating multi-pronged educational evaluations via partnerships, see Ramey and Ramey (1997).
RESEARCH DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
The National Transition Demonstration Study is a multi-site, randomized trial designed to test the overall hypothesis that the delivery of continuous, comprehensive services in Head Start and continuing through third grade can maintain and enhance the early gains of former Head Start children and their families (ACYF, 1991). Each site was to identify two clusters of Head Start/elementary school units serving similar types and numbers of children and families and then randomly select one cluster to become the Treatment (demonstration) group and the other to become the Comparison (control) group. The demonstration group would receive the Transition Demonstration services, while the Comparison group received typical services. This design minimizes (but does not eliminate) the possibility of bias (such as providing the Transition Demonstration only in certain types of schools or to certain types of participants) and strengthens the scientific merit of the study. (Note: the study design varied somewhat across sites.aTwo groups of former Head Start children and their families were recruited at 31 sites to participate in the study. The first group (Cohort 1) includes 3,540 children and families, enrolled as they entered kindergarten in the fall of 1992; the second group (Cohort 2) includes 3,975 families whose children entered kindergarten in the fall 1993. Table 1 summarizes the sample of children and families that were available for analysis in the national study. The procedures used to create this analysis sample are outlined in Technical Report 1.
| Demonstration Group |
Comparison Group |
Total |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Cohort 1 (Fall, 1992) | 1,889 | 1,651 | 3,540 |
| Cohort 2 (Fall, 1993) | 2,039 | 1,936 | 3,975 |
| Total | 3,928 | 3,587 | 7,515 |
| Cohort 1 | Cohort 2 | Combined Cohorts |
|---|---|---|
| 26 |
44 |
70 |
| 49 |
52 |
101 |
| 47 |
57 |
104 |
| 56 |
48 |
104 |
| 90 |
51 |
141 |
| 83 |
68 |
151 |
| 94 |
93 |
187 |
| 102 |
87 |
189 |
| 93 |
106 |
199 |
| 94 |
115 |
209 |
| 94 |
118 |
212 |
| 97 |
126 |
223 |
| 83 |
154 |
237 |
| 118 |
125 |
243 |
| 126 |
121 |
247 |
| 118 |
132 |
250 |
| 140 |
120 |
260 |
| 127 |
135 |
262 |
| 125 |
138 |
263 |
| 136 |
131 |
267 |
| 112 |
157 |
269 |
| 137 |
138 |
275 |
| 157 |
160 |
317 |
| 160 |
159 |
319 |
| 107 |
215 |
322 |
| 168 |
172 |
340 |
| 116 |
241 |
357 |
| 191 |
187 |
378 |
| 203 |
192 |
395 |
| 291 |
333 |
624 |
| 3,540 |
3,975 |
7,515 |
Table 2 presents the sample size at each of the 31 sites. Local sites
recruited samples that ranged from 70 to 624 families (both cohorts combined).
It is important to note that the number of families involved in the demonstration
group within the research study does not represent the total number of
families receiving services from the local programs. There were three
important reasons for this difference. First, a key feature of the program
design was the provision of services to all children in the classroom, regardless
of whether they were previously enrolled in Head Start or not. Second, the
size of the local programs differed considerably, and it was not always
feasible to enroll all former Head Start children in the national study.
For these sites, a representative sample was invited to participate. Finally,
as in all research, families were free to decline to participate in the
research but still continue to receive services through the program –
although only a small percentage of invited families did not volunteer to
participate.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
The National Transition Demonstration Study has collected data from a variety of sources and in a variety of ways, providing multiple perspectives on the progress of children, families, schools, and communities over the course of the Transition Demonstration Project. The data collection strategies, described more extensively in a previous report, the Interim Report on the National Head Start/Public School Early Childhood Transition Demonstration Study (1996), have included:- Interviews with family members, conducted by trained, community-based individuals, using standardized assessment tools and a few instruments developed specifically for this study;
- Direct assessments of children, administered by trained child examiners, relying on standardized tests of achievement and children’s self-report of their school experiences;
- Standardized ratings completed by teachers concerning individual children, classrooms, and school environments;
- Reports by principals on school climate and use of transition supports;
- Direct observation of classrooms, using standardized assessment procedures;
- Annual 3-day local site visits conducted by multidisciplinary teams to provide systematic and qualitative data about program implementation and local site challenges and accomplishments;
- Review and abstraction of records, including children’s school records and project-specific program documentation and reports;
- Content analysis and systematic coding of open-ended and qualitative information collected during interviews with family members, project directors, and other key informants within each site; and
- Collection of community-level aggregated data from public information sources, such as United States Census data and national school databases.
- The specific sources of information used in analyses reported in the chapters to follow are described in the relevant chapters. An overview of the data collection process by instrument, informant, domain, and data collection period is presented in Appendix B.
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
The conceptual model that underlies the National Transition Demonstration Study is presented in Figure 2.1 (next page). This model is based on developmental systems theory and specifies context, inputs, process, and outcomes. On the left side of the figure, child inputs are portrayed as being embedded within and influenced by the family's inputs. Both the child and family are influenced by the community context and community resources, including the availability and quality of social services, child care supports, school systems, and health services. Further, positive transition outcomes for children and families are expected to relate systematically to what is happening within eight major functional domains, including: survival resources to meet the child's and family's needs; health and nutrition; safety and security; self-concept; values and motivation to do well in school; social support to facilitate transitions to and through school; communication skills; and basic academic, social and work skills.
These eight domains essentially may be used to characterize the child's
and family's status (in terms of both strengths and needs) when children
enter kindergarten. The elements of the Transition Demonstration Program
were specified to help programs identify the strengths and service needs
of families and children, providing a basis for Individualized Family
Plans and Individualized Child Transition Plans. Ultimately, the services
provided by the Transition Demonstration Program in the areas of family
support services, health and nutrition, education, and family involvement,
are expected to facilitate the adjustment of children and families to
elementary school; to generate a comprehensive web of support for children,
families and schools during the early years of elementary school; and
to enhance positive expectations by children and families regarding future
learning.
|
The potential outcomes for children, families, schools, and communities are specified at the far right of the model. These include:
- children have positive feelings about school, teachers, parents, and peers;
- children show good progress in physical, social emotional, and intellectual development;
- parents and key adults express positive attitudes toward school and actively promote children’s learning;
- teachers and school personnel appreciate and provide programs adapted to children’s individual development and cultural/linguistic diversity; and
- mutually supportive relationships occur among families, school personnel, service providers, and communities.
An earlier Interim Report (1996) presented preliminary information about the child and family inputs in the eight major functional domains. This report is concerned with the elements of the model that have been shaded: the community context, the processes of Transition Demonstration Program implementation, and the provision of comprehensive supports for children and families during the early years of elementary school. This report also discusses the outcomes that occurred for children and families.
aThe 31 sites employed a variety of randomization strategies in meeting the requirements of the RFP. These randomization strategies fall into three basic categories: (back)
1. Schools were randomly assigned to demonstration or Comparison condition. A total of 14 sites utilized this strategy. Within one of those sites, the research team also randomly selected classrooms within the school (after the school had been assigned its treatment condition).
2. Schools were grouped and then randomly assigned to treatment condition. In 10 sites the research team grouped schools into clusters or pairs based on demographic characteristics. Sites that utilized clusters then randomly assigned a cluster of schools to either demonstration or Comparison condition. Sites that paired schools most often randomly chose one school within the pair to be the demonstration school and assigned the other school in the pair to be the Comparison school.)
3. School districts were randomly assigned to treatment condition. In 6 sites the school district was the unit of randomization, with whole school districts being randomly assigned to serve as demonstration or Comparison. Schools within that district then were designated as demonstration or Comparison based on the district’s assignment.
One site randomly assigned families to demonstration or Comparison groups as the children entered kindergarten. Demonstration children in that site all attended a single new school, established by the participating school district to serve as a demonstration school for best practices in developmentally appropriate educational programming and parent involvement.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |