Table of Contents |
Head Start Children's Entry into Public School: A Report on the National head Start/Public School Early Childhood Transition Demonstration Study
Figure
2.1 The Transition Conceptual Model (Ramey & Ramey, 1992): Major Influences
on Children and Families During the Early School Years
This model is based on developmental systems theory and specifies context, inputs,
processes, and outcomes. 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 social and health
services, school programs, pre-school programs (including Head Start), and community
programs, resources and supports related to learning. 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 (e.g. housing, income, food, clothing, safety, transportation), health
and nutrition (e.g. physical health status, mental health status, health related
practice), safety and security (e.g. physical safety, social-emotional, financial),
self-concept (e.g. personal self description, cultural identity, empowerment),
motivation and values (e.g. family, school, community), social support (e.g.
family, peers, teachers, others), communication (e.g. listening skills, speaking
skills, reading skills, writing skills), and basic academic and work skills
(e.g. everyday living, social-emotional, school & academic, job). Resources
in the community context as well as these eight domains are portrayed as either
supportive influences and protective factors or stressors and risk factors.
(back)
Figure 3.1 Family Strengths
This bar chart shows the distribution of family strengths. It shows that 27%
of families reported zero strengths; 39% of families reported 1 strength; 22%
of families reported 2 strengths. The chart also shows that 9% reported 3 strengths;
3% reported 4 strengths, and 1% reported 5 or more strengths.(back)
3.2
Family Challenges
This bar chart shows the distribution of family challenges. It shows that 13%
reported zero challenges; 19% reported 1 challenge; 22% reported 2 challenges;
18% reported 3 challenges. The chart also shows that 14% reported 4 challenges;
8% reported 5 challenges; 4% reported 6 challenges; 2 percent reported 7 or
more challenges. (back)
Family types-Site A (n=227)
This bar chart shows the profiles of family types for Site A. It shows that 3% were recently homeless; 6% have a chronic health problem; 6% have the mother absent; 4% are highly mobile. The chart also shows that 2% speak a foreign language; 48% have single parent welfare, and 32% are resourceful. (back)
Figure 3.3 Examples of profiles of family types within sites
Family types-Site B (n=187)
This bar chart shows the profiles of family types for Site B. It shows that
2% were recently homeless; 4% have a chronic health problem; 5% have an absent
mother; 6% are highly mobile. The chart also shows that 0% speak a foreign language;
32% have single parent welfare, and 51% are resourceful. (back)
Figure 3.3 Examples of profiles of family types within sites
Family types-Site C (n=236)
This bar chart shows the profiles of family types for Site C. It shows that
3% were recently homeless; 3% have a chronic health problem; 5% have an absent
mother; 7% are highly mobile. The chart also shows that 0% speak a foreign language;
14% have single parent welfare, and 69% are resourceful. (back)
Figure 3.3 Examples of profiles of family types within sites
Family types-Site D (n=241)
This bar chart shows the profiles of family types for Site D. It shows that
2% were recently homeless; 5% have a chronic health problem; 3% have an absent
mother; 2% are highly mobile. The chart also shows that 43% speak a foreign
language; 12% have single parent welfare, and 34% are resourceful. (back)
Figure 3.3 Examples of profiles of family types within sites
Family types-Site E (n=157)
This bar chart shows the profiles of family types for Site E. It shows that
13% were recently homeless; 4% have a chronic health problem; 6% have an absent
mother; 10% are highly mobile. The chart also shows that 3% speak a foreign
language; 31% have single parent welfare, and 34% are resourceful. (back)
Figure 4.1 Language Problems
This bar chart shows the percentage of participants in language programs offered
for children and families. It shows that 60.5% of transition demonstration and
58.8% of comparison children and families participated in bilingual language
programs. The chart also shows that 78.7% of transition demonstration and 80%
of comparison children participated in ESL for children; 44.8% of transition
demonstration and 34.8% of comparison adults participated in ESL for adults. (back)
Figure 5.1 Implementation of Family Involvement Activities
This bar chart shows the ratings of implementation of the family involvement
component. One site had a rating of 1. Five sites had a rating of 2. Seven sites
had a rating of 3. Ten sites had a rating of 4. Four sites had a rating of 5,
and four sites had a rating of 6. (back)
Figure 5.2 Change in Degree of Implementation of Family Involvement Component on Program
Implementation Profile (self ratings)
This figure summarizes the self-ratings provided by sites on the Program Implementation
Profile concerning the degree of implementation of the family involvement component
at the beginning of the implementation and at the end. The average rating of
this component at Year 1 (1992-1993) was 4.8. The average rating at Year 5 (1996-1997)
was 8.0. (back)
Figure 5.3 Implementation of Education Activities (external ratings)
This figure shows the ratings of the implementation of education activities.
Two sites received a rating of 1; 4 sites received a rating of 2; 12 sites received
a rating of 3. The figure also shows that 11 sites had a rating of 4, and 2
sites had a rating of 5. (back)
Figure 5.4 Change in Degree of Implementation of Education Component on Program Implementation
Profile (self ratings)
This figure summarizes the self-ratings provided by sites on the Program Implementation
Profile concerning the degree of implementation of the education component at
the beginning and at the end of the five-year implementation. The average rating
of implementation at the beginning of the project (1992-1993) was 4.8. The average
rating in Year 5 (1996-1997) was 7.8.
(back)
Figure 5.5 Implementation of Social Activities
This figure presents the ratings of social service implementation completed
by the National Research Coordinating Team. No sites had a rating of one. Four
sites had a rating of 2; 7 sites had a rating of 3; 10 sites had a rating of
4. The figure also shows that 6 sites had a rating of 5, and 4 sites had a rating
of 6. (back)
Figure 5.6 Change in Degree of Implementation of Social Service Component on Program
Implementation Profile (self ratings)
This figure summarizes the self-ratings provided by sites on the Program Implementation
Profile concerning the degree of implementation of the social services component
at the beginning of the implementation and at the end. The average rating of
implementation at the beginning (1991-1993) was 5.2. The average rating at Year
5 (1996-1997) was 8.7. (back)
Figure 5.7 Implementation of Health, Mental Health, and Nutrition Services (external
rating)
This figure summarizes the NRCT ratings of implementation of the health component.
There were no sites given a rating of 1. Seven sites had a rating of 2; 2 sites
had a rating of 3; 11 sites had a rating of 4. The figure also shows that 8
sites had a rating of 5 and that 3 sites had a rating of 6. (back)
Figure 5.8 Change in Degree of Implementation of Health Component on Program Implementation
Profile (self ratings)
This figure summarizes the self-ratings by sites concerning the implementation
of the health component at the beginning and end of the five-year implementation.
The average implementation rating at Year 1 (1992-1993) was 4.7. The average
implementation rating at Year 5 (1996-1997) was 8.0. (back)
Figure 5.9 Comparisons of External and Self-assessment Ratings
This figure shows a comparison of the implementation of each of the four components.
For the social services component: 3 sites had an external rating greater than
their self rating; 3 sites had a NRCT rating equal to their self-rating, and
19 sites had a self rating greater than their external rating. For the family
involvement component: 2 sites had an external rating greater than their self
rating; 4 sites had a NRCT rating equal to their self rating, and 19 sites had
a self rating greater than their external rating. Regarding the health component:
3 sites had an external rating greater than their self rating; 7 sites had a
NRCT rating equal to their self rating, and 14 sites had a self rating greater
than their external rating. For the education component: 1 site had an external
rating greater than their self rating; 10 sites had a NRCT rating equal to their
self rating, and 14 sites had a self rating greater than their external rating.
(back)
Figure 6.1 Some of the Factors Influencing Variation in Implementation
This figure shows the three types of factors influencing variation in implementation
of transition demonstration programs. Baseline factors include community, population,
schools, and Head Start. Program factors include grantee, number of school districts,
number of schools, program philosophy, and resource allocation. External factors
include state/local initiatives and turnover/continuity in partnerships. (back)
Figure 6.2 Challenges Associated with Program Implementation
This figure shows the four different challenges associated with program implementation.
Challenges associated with characteristics of the community include family diversity,
community networks, removing barriers to access, and mobility of families. Challenges
associated with program design include staffing, effective partnerships, communication,
and documentation of program implementation. Challenges Associated with participating
systems/individuals include differences in policies between Head Start and public
schools, family involvement, family independence and empowerment, developmentally
appropriate practices, and family friendly school environments. Challenges associated
with characteristics of this demonstration initiative include understanding
and interpreting the Federal Register, limited resources, governing boards,
fulfilling evaluation design, reconciling local and national evaluation plans,
participation of comparison participants, and analytic complexity. (back)
Figure 8.1 Program Participation Treatment Group
This bar chart shows the years of participation in demonstration school by program
group. It shows that 87.2% of the comparison group had zero years of participation
in demonstration school; 13.1% of the transition demonstration group and 6.5%
of the comparison group had 1 year of participation; 11.7% of the transition
demonstration group and 3.2% of the comparison group had 2 years. The chart
also shows that 15.4% of the transition demonstration group and 2.5% of the
comparison group had 3 years in the demonstration school; 59.8% of the transition
demonstration group and 0.6% of the comparison group had 4 years of participation
in the demonstration school. (back)
Figure 8.2 Cross-over Patterns by Treatment Group
This bar chart shows that 68.4% of the transition demonstration group and 66%
of the comparison group remained in the same treatment condition; 8.8% of the
transition demonstration group and 8.7% of the comparison group changed treatment
condition; 22.8% of the transition demonstration group and 25.3% of the comparison
group left to attend school outside of the program.
(back)
Figure 8.3 Drop Out Patterns by Treatment Group
This bar chart shows that79.2% of transition demonstration groups and 81.2%
of comparison groups remained in the study 3-4 years; 7.6% of transition demonstration
groups and 6.3% of comparison groups dropped out 1-2 years but returned; 13.2%
of transition demonstration groups and 12.6% of comparison groups lost to follow
up. (back)
Figure 9.1 Scaled Scores from Assessment Profile subscales, by treatment group and
over time
Observation of Classroom Learning Environment
This figure shows that in kindergarten, demonstration classrooms had a score
just under 54, and comparison classrooms had a score of approximately 52. In
first grade, demonstration classrooms had a score of approximately 49, and comparison
classrooms had a score of approximately 48. In second grade, demonstration classrooms
had a score just under 48, and comparison classrooms were slightly below that.
In third grade, demonstration classrooms remained at just under 48, and comparison
classrooms dropped to approximately 47. (The exact scores are not given in this
figure.) (back)
Figure 9.1 Scaled Scores
from Assessment Profile subscales, by treatment group and over time
Observation of Classroom Scheduling
This figure shows that in kindergarten, demonstration classrooms had a score
just above 50, and comparison classrooms had a score of approximately 49.5.
In first grade, demonstration classrooms had a score of approximately 47.5,
and comparison classrooms had a score just below 47. In second grade, demonstration
classrooms had a score just under 48, and comparison classrooms had a score
of approximately 47. In third grade, demonstration classrooms were at approximately
48, and comparison classrooms rose to just above 48. (The exact scores are not
given in this figure.) (back)
Figure 9.1 Scaled Scores from Assessment Profile subscales, by treatment group and
over time
Observation of Classroom Curriculum
This figure shows that in kindergarten, demonstration classrooms had a score
just under 45, and comparison classrooms had a score of approximately 44.5.
In first grade, demonstration classrooms had a score just under 45, and comparison
classrooms had a score of approximately 43.5. In second grade, demonstration
classrooms had a score of approximately 45.5, and comparison classrooms had
a score of approximately 45. In third grade, demonstration classrooms had a
score of approximately 47, and comparison classrooms had a score of approximately
46. (The exact scores are not given in this figure.) (back)
Figure 9.1 Scaled Scores from Assessment Profile subscales, by treatment group and
over time
Observation of Classroom Interacting
This figure shows that in kindergarten, demonstration classrooms had a score
of approximately 51, and comparison classrooms had a score just below that.
In first grade, demonstration classrooms had a score of just below 49, and comparison
classrooms were slightly below that. In second grade, demonstration classrooms
had a score just under 48, and comparison classrooms were at approximately 48.
In third grade, demonstration classrooms were at approximately 48.5, and comparison
classrooms were slightly below that. (The exact scores are not given in this
figure.)(back)
Figure 9.1 Scaled Scores from Assessment Profile subscales, by treatment group and
over time
Observation of Classroom Individualizing
This figure shows that in kindergarten, demonstration and comparison classrooms
both had a score under 47.5. In first grade, demonstration classrooms had a
score of approximately 49, and comparison classrooms had a score just above
47.5. In second grade, demonstration classrooms had a score of approximately
49.5, and comparison classrooms rose to approximately 50. In third grade, demonstration
classrooms were at approximately 49.5, and comparison classrooms were slightly
below that. (The exact scores are not given in this figure.) (back)
Figure 10.1 Percentage of families reporting increase in family income by treatment
condition and program year
This bar chart shows that in the first year, 19.6% of transition demonstration
families and 18.7% of comparison families reported an increase in family income.
In the second year, 25.1% of transition demonstration families and 25.7% of
comparison families reported an increase in family income. In the third year,
25.8% of transition demonstration families and 26.3% of comparison families
reported an increase in family income. In the fourth year, 25.5% of transition
demonstration families and 27.4% of comparison families reported an increase
in family income. (back)
Figure 10.2 Percentage of families reporting participation in at least one job training
course program in the past 12 months
This bar chart shows that in the first year, 25.9% of transition demonstration
families and 25.6% of comparison families reported participation. In the second
year, 9.1% of transition demonstration families and 8.2% of comparison families
reported participation. In the third year, 8.9% of both transition demonstration
families and comparison families reported participation. In the fourth year,
9.2% of transition demonstration families and 8.8% of comparison families reported
participation. (back)
Figure 10.3 Percentage of families reporting participating in at least one educational
program in the past 12 months
This bar chart shows that in the first year, 21.8% of transition demonstration
families and 19.8% of comparison families reported participation. In the second
year, 25.8% of transition demonstration families and 22.8% of comparison families
reported participation. In the third year, 24.5% of transition demonstration
families and 22.4% of comparison families reported participation. In the fourth
year, 22.4% of transition demonstration families and 21.1% of comparison families
reported participation. (back)
Figure 10.4 Percentage of families reporting participation in family income support
program (AFDC and/or SSI) in the past 12 months
This bar chart shows that in the first year, 77.8% of transition demonstration
families and 76.0% of comparison families reported participation. In the second
year, 71.9% of transition demonstration families and 69.2% of comparison families
reported participation. In the third year, 68.2% of transition demonstration
families and 65.5% of comparison families reported participation. In the fourth
year, 67.0% of transition demonstration families, and 63.6% of comparison families
reported participation. (back)
Figure 11.1 Volunteer activities reported by parents in demonstration, comparison,
and non-study schools
This bar chart shows that volunteers were reported to work with children in
the classroom in 46.8% of demonstration schools, 40.5% of comparison schools,
and 39.8% of non-study schools. Volunteers were reported to help other parents
become involved in 32.6% of demonstration schools, 27.4% of comparison schools,
and 25.6% of non-study schools. (back)
Figure 11.2 Parent participation in parent involvement opportunities offered by schools
This bar chart shows that parents participated in traditional activities in
98.6% of demonstration schools, 97.6% of comparison schools, and 99.5% of non-study
schools. The chart also shows that parents participated in non-traditional activities
in 88.5% of demonstration schools, 79% of comparison schools, and 84% of non-study
schools. (back)
Figure 11.3 Parent participation in volunteer opportunities offered by schools
This bar chart shows that parents helped children in the classroom in 49.6%
of demonstration schools, 47.3% of comparison schools, and 50.8% of non-study
schools. Parents helped other parents get involved in 43.6% of demonstration
schools, 39.5% of comparison schools, and 47.4% of non-study schools. (back)
Figure 11.4 Percentage of parents reporting learning interactions with the child in
the past week
This bar chart shows that parents read to their child in the past week in 78.6%
of demonstration schools, 79.2% of comparison schools, and 77.5% of non-study
schools. The chart also shows that parents taught reading, spelling, and math
to their child in 80.6% of the demonstration schools, 83.2% of the comparison
schools, and 79.6% of non-study schools. (back)
Figure 11.5 Percentage of parents reporting involvement in school governance activities
This bar chart shows that parents served on a committee, advisory board, or
council in 37.4% of demonstration schools, 30.5% of comparison schools, and
30.1% of non-study schools. The chart also shows that parents helped make decisions
about school policies or programs in 29.9% of demonstration schools, 27.1% of
comparison schools, and 24.3% of non-study schools. (back)
Figure 12.1 Academic performance of former Head Start children in the first four years of school (Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement, Rasch-Wright scores)
Letter
Word Identification (Test 22)
This line graph indicates
that at the first year of school former Head Start children's average Rasch-Wright
scores on the Letter Word Identification test was approximately 360; at the
second year of school their scores increased to approximately 430; at the third
year of school the scores increased to 450; and at the fourth year of school
their average score was approximately 455. (back)
Passage
Comprehension (Test 23)
This line graph shows that
at the first year of school former Head Start children's Rasch-Wright scores
on the Passage Comprehension test was approximately 390; at the second year
of school their scores increased to approximately 440; at the third year of
school their scores increased to approximately 460; and at the fourth year of
school their score was approximately 465. (back)
Math
Computation (Test 24)
This line graph shows that
at the first year of school former Head Start children's Rasch-Wright scores
on the Math Computation test was approximately 380; at the second year of school
their scores increased to approximately 445; at the third year of school their
score was approximately 450; and at the fourth year of school their score was
approximately 460. (back)
Applied
Problems (Test 25)
This line graph indicates
that former Head Start children's Rasch-Wright scores on the Applied Problems
test was approximately 430 the first year of school; by the second year of school
their scores increased to approximately 450; at the third year of school their
scores were approximately 460; and at the fourth year of school their scores
were approximately 465. (back)
Figure 12.2 Examples: rapid early rise in scores
Letter-Word Identification
This bar chart shows the
distance of estimated population mean from the national reference score in demonstration
and comparison group children at four different ages. The four examination points
were kindergarten, first grade, second grade, and third grade. One standard
error above the reference score was 5, and one standard error below the reference
score was -5. At age 6, demonstration groups were at approximately -22 and comparison
groups were at approximately -20. At age 7, demonstration and comparison groups
were at approximately -2. At age 8, demonstration groups were at approximately
-5, and comparison groups were at approximately -4. At age 9, demonstration
and comparison groups were at approximately -8. (The exact scores are not given
in this figure.)
Figure 12.2 Examples: rapid early rise in scores
Applied Problems
This bar chart shows the distance of estimated population mean from the national
reference score in demonstration and comparison group children at four different
ages. The four examination points were kindergarten, first grade, second grade,
and third grade. One standard error above the reference score was 6, and one
standard error below the reference score was -6. At age 6, demonstration and
comparison groups were at approximately -5. At age 7, demonstration groups were
at approximately -5, and comparison groups were at approximately -4. At age
8, demonstration groups were at approximately 1, and comparison groups were
slightly above that. At age 9, demonstration groups were at approximately 0,
and comparison groups were slightly above that. (The exact scores are not given
in this figure.)
Figure 12.2 Examples: rapid early rise in scores
Passage Comprehension
This bar chart shows the
distance of estimated population mean from the national reference score in demonstration
and comparison group children at four different ages. The four examination points
were kindergarten, first grade, second grade, and third grade. One standard
error above the reference score was 6, and one standard error below the reference
score was -6. At age 6, demonstration groups were at approximately -9, and comparison
groups were at approximately -10. At age 7, demonstration groups were at approximately
-5, and comparison groups were at approximately -4. At age 8, demonstration
groups were at approximately 1, and comparison groups were slightly below that.
At age 9, demonstration groups and comparison groups were both at approximately
0. (The exact scores are not given in this figure.)
Figure 12.2 Examples: rapid early rise in scores
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
This bar chart shows the distance of estimated population mean from the national
reference score in demonstration and comparison group children at four different
ages. The four examination points were kindergarten, first grade, second grade,
and third grade. At age 6, demonstration groups were at approximately -6, and
comparison groups were at approximately -5. At age 7, demonstration groups were
at approximately -4, and comparison groups were at approximately -3. At age
8, demonstration groups were at approximately -5, and comparison groups were
at approximately -4. At age 9, demonstration groups were at approximately -5,
and comparison groups were at approximately -4. (The exact scores are not given
in this figure.)
Figure 12.2 Examples: rapid early rise in scores
Calculation
This bar chart shows the distance of estimated population mean from the national
reference score in demonstration and comparison group children at four different
ages. The four examination points were kindergarten, first grade, second grade,
and third grade. One standard error above the reference score was 6, and one
standard error below the reference score was -6. At age 6, demonstration groups
were at approximately -23, and comparison groups were at approximately -24.
At age 7, demonstration groups were at approximately -3, and comparison groups
were at approximately -2. At age 8, demonstration and comparison groups were
at approximately -2. At age 9, demonstration groups were at approximately -2,
and comparison groups were at approximately -1. (The exact scores are not given
in this figure.) (back)
Figure 12.3: Math-predicted quadratic growth curve with DC treatment
This line graph shows that at age 5, children in the treatment and comparison
groups had a score of approximately 395. At age 6, children in the treatment
and comparison groups had a score of approximately 415. At age 7, children in
the treatment group had score of approximately 435, and children in the comparison
group had a score slightly below that. At age 8, children in the treatment group
had a score of approximately 455 and children in the comparison group had a
score slightly below that. At age 9, children in the treatment group had a score
of approximately 475, and children in the comparison group had a score slightly
below that. At age 10, children in the treatment group had a score of approximately
495, and children in the comparison group had a score slightly below that. (The
exact scores are not shown in this figure.) (back)
Figure 12.4 Math - predicted quadratic growth curve and school climate
This figure shows the predicted growth curve for children in schools at the
25% and 75% on the school climate measure. At age 5, children in high school
climates had a score of approximately 395, and children in low school climates
had a score slightly below that. At age 6, children in high and low school climates
both had a score of approximately 415. At age 7, children in low school climates
had a score of approximately 435, and children in high school climates had a
score slightly below that. At age 8, children in low school climates had a score
of approximately 455, and children in high school climates had a score slightly
below that. At age 9, children in low and high school climates both had a score
of approximately 475. At age 10, children in high school climates had a score
of approximately 500, and children in low school climates had a score below
that. (The exact scores are not shown in this figure.) (back)
Figure 12.5: Math - predicted quadratic growth curve and school transition practices.
This figure shows the predicted group growth curve for children in schools at
the 25% and 75% on the transition practices measures. At age 5, children in
schools with low transition practices had a score of approximately 395, and
children in schools with high transition practices had a score slightly below
that. At age 6, children in schools with high and low transition practices both
had a score of approximately 415. At age 7, children in schools with high transition
practices had a score of approximately 440, and children in schools with low
transition practices had a score slightly below that. At age 8, children in
schools with high transition practices had a score of approximately 460, and
children in schools with low transition practices had a score slightly below
that. At age 9, children in schools with high and how transition practices both
had a score of approximately 480. At age 10, children in schools with low transition
practices had a score of approximately 498, and children in schools with high
transition practices had a score of approximately 495. (The exact scores are
not shown in this figure.) (back)
Figure 12.6: Math - predicted quadratic growth curve for children in high and low poverty
schools.
This figure shows the predicted group growth curve for children in schools at
the 25% and 75% on the poverty measure. At age 5, children in schools with low
poverty had a score of approximately 398, and children in schools with high
poverty had a score of approximately 394. At age 6, children in schools with
a low poverty level had a score of approximately 415, and children in schools
with a high poverty level had a score slightly below that. At age 7, children
in schools with a low poverty level had a score of 440, and children in schools
with a high poverty level had a score slightly below that. At age 8, children
in schools with a low poverty level had a score of approximately 460, and children
in schools with a high poverty level had a score slightly below that. At age
9, children in schools with a low poverty level had a score of approximately
480, and children in schools with a high poverty level had a score slightly
below that. At age 10, children in schools with a low poverty level had a score
of approximately 498, and children in schools with a high poverty level had
a score of approximately 496. (The exact scores are not shown in this figure.) (back)
Figure 12.7: Reading - predicted growth curve with DC
treatment.
This line graph shows that at age 5, children in the treatment and comparison
groups had a score of approximately 358. At age 6, children in the treatment
and comparison groups had a score of approximately 390. At age 7, children in
the treatment group had score of approximately 419, and children in the comparison
group had a score slightly below that. At age 8, children in the treatment group
had a score of approximately 455 and children in the comparison group had a
score slightly below that. At age 9, children in the treatment group had a score
of approximately 480, and children in the comparison group had a score slightly
below that. At age 10, children in the treatment group and comparison groups
both had a score of approximately 500. (The exact scores are not shown in this
figure.) (back)
Figure 12.8: Reading - predicted quadratic growth curve and school climate.
This figure shows the predicted growth curve for children in schools at the
25% and 75% on the school climate measure. At age 5, children in high school
climates had a score of approximately 359, and children in low school climates
had a score slightly below that. At age 6, children in high and low school climates
both had a score of approximately 390. At age 7, children in low school climates
had a score of approximately 425, and children in high school climates had a
score slightly below that. At age 8, children in low school climates had a score
of approximately 450, and children in high school climates had a score slightly
below that. At age 9, children in low and high school climates both had a score
of approximately 480. At age 10, children in high school climates had a score
of approximately 500, and children in low school climates had a score below
that. (The exact scores are not shown in this figure.) (back)
Figure 12.9: Reading - predicted quadratic growth curve and school transition practices.
This figure shows the predicted group growth curve for children in schools at
the 25% and 75% on the transition practices measures. At age 5, children in
schools with low transition practices had a score of approximately 359, and
children in schools with high transition practices had a score of approximately
352. At age 6, children in schools with high transition practices had a score
of approximately 390, and children in schools with low transition practices
had a score slightly below that. At age 7, children in schools with high transition
practices had a score of approximately 425, and children in schools with low
transition practices had a score of approximately 420. At age 8, children in
schools with high transition practices had a score of approximately 455, and
children in schools with low transition practices had a score of approximately
450. At age 9, children in schools with high and low transition practices both
had a score of approximately 480. At age 10, children in schools with low transition
practices had a score of approximately 500, and children in schools with high
transition practices had a score of approximately 490. (The exact scores are
not shown in this figure.) (back)
Figure 12.10: Reading - predicted quadratic growth curve for children in high and low
poverty schools.
This figure shows the predicted group growth curve for children in schools at
the 25% and 75% on the poverty measure. At age 5, children in schools with low
poverty had a score of approximately 358, and children in schools with high
poverty had a score of approximately 357. At age 6, children in schools with
a low poverty level had a score of approximately 385, and children in schools
with a high poverty level had a score slightly below that. At age 7, children
in schools with a low poverty level had a score of 420, and children in schools
with a high poverty level had a score slightly below that. At age 8, children
in schools with a low poverty level had a score of approximately 450, and children
in schools with a high poverty level had a score slightly below that. At age
9, children in schools with a low poverty level had a score of approximately
480, and children in schools with a high poverty level had a score slightly
below that. At age 10, children in schools with a low poverty level had a score
of approximately 500, and children in schools with a high poverty level had
a score slightly below that. (The exact scores are not shown in this figure.) (back)
Figure 12.11: Language - predicted quadratic growth curve and school transition practices.
This figure shows the predicted group growth curve for children in schools at
the 25% and 75% on the transition practices measures. At age 5, children in
schools with high transition practices had a score of approximately 74, and
children in schools with low transition practices had a score slightly below
that. At age 6, children in schools with high and low transition practices both
had a score of approximately 80. At age 7, children in schools with high and
low transition practices both had a score of approximately 88. At age 8, children
in schools with high and low transition practices both had a score of approximately
95. At age 9, children in schools with high transition practices had a score
of approximately 100, and children in schools with low transition practices
both had a score slightly below that. At age 10, children in schools with high
transition practices had a score of approximately 104, and children in schools
with low transition practices had a score slightly below that. (The exact scores
are not shown in this figure.) (back)
Figure 12.12: Language - predicted quadratic growth curve for children in high and
low poverty schools.
This figure shows the predicted group growth curve for children in schools at
the 25% and 75% on the poverty measure. At age 5, children in schools with low
poverty had a score of approximately 74, and children in schools with high poverty
had a score of approximately 73. At age 6, children in schools with a low poverty
level had a score of approximately 80, and children in schools with a high poverty
level had a score slightly below that. At age 7, children in schools with a
low poverty level had a score of 88, and children in schools with a high poverty
level had a score slightly below that. At age 8, children in schools with a
low poverty level had a score of approximately 94, and children in schools with
a high poverty level had a score slightly below that. At age 9, children in
schools with a low poverty level had a score of approximately 99, and children
in schools with a high poverty level had a score slightly below that. At age
10, children in schools with a low poverty level had a score of approximately
102, and children in schools with a high poverty level had a score of approximately
100. (The exact scores are not shown in this figure.) (back)
Figure 12.13: Parent SSRS - predicted quadratic growth curve with DC treatment
This line graph shows that at age 5, parents rated children in the treatment
group at approximately 88.5 and children in the comparison groups at approximately
88. At age 6, parents rated children in the treatment group at approximately
90.5 and children in the comparison groups at approximately 89. At age 7, parents
rated children in the treatment group at approximately 92.5 and children in
the comparison group at approximately 91. At age 8, parents rated children in
the treatment group at approximately 94.5 and children in the comparison group
had a score of approximately 93. At age 9, parents rated children in the treatment
group at approximately 96.5, and children in the comparison group at approximately
95. At age 10, parents rated children in the treatment group at approximately
97.8 and children in the comparison group at approximately 97. (The exact scores
are not shown in this figure.) (back)
Figure 12.14 Percentage of children with positive school impressions: Kindergarten
and third grade
This bar chart summarizes children's positive appraisals of schools. It shows
that approximately 78% of children in kindergarten and approximately 63% of
children in third grade said that they like school; approximately 70% of children
in kindergarten and approximately 45% of children in third grade said that they
do well in school; approximately 71% of children in kindergarten and 55% of
children in third grade said that they get along well with other children. The
chart also shows that approximately 80% of children in kindergarten and approximately
92% of children in third grade said that school is important to them; approximately
82% of children in kindergarten and approximately 95% of children in third grade
said that school is important to their parents; approximately 85% of children
in kindergarten and approximately 90% of children in third grade said that they
try hard in school; approximately 82% of children in kindergarten and approximately
98% of children in third grade said that their teacher helps them. (The exact
percentages are not given in this figure.) (back)
Figure 12.15 Academic performance of children with more and less positive ratings of
school in kindergarten
Woodcock-Johnson Math
This bar chart shows that in the first year, children with more positive ratings
had a score of approximately 85%, and children with less positive ratings in
kindergarten had a score of approximately 81%. In the second year, children
with more positive ratings had a score of approximately 95%, and children with
less positive ratings had a score of approximately 90%. In the third year, children
with more positive ratings had a score of approximately 98%, and children with
less positive ratings had a score of approximately 92%. In the fourth year,
children with more positive ratings had a score of approximately 100%, and children
with less positive ratings had a score of approximately 95%. (The exact percentages
are not given in this figure.)
Figure 12.15 Academic performance of children with more and less positive ratings of
school in kindergarten
Woodcock-Johnson Reading
This bar chart shows that in the first year, children with more positive ratings
had a score of approximately 92%, and children with less positive ratings in
kindergarten had a score of approximately 90%. In the second year, children
with more positive ratings had a score of approximately 97%, and children with
less positive ratings had a score of approximately 95%. In the third year, children
with more positive ratings had a score of approximately 98%, and children with
less positive ratings had a score of approximately 96%. In the fourth year,
children with more positive ratings had a score of approximately 97%, and children
with less positive ratings had a score of approximately 95%. (The exact percentages
are not given in this figure.) (back)
Figure 12.16 Teacher ratings of children's performance
Social skills
This bar chart shows the teacher ratings of children's social skills for children
with more and less positive ratings in kindergarten. In the first year, children
with more positive ratings were rated by teachers at approximately 99%, and
children with less positive ratings in kindergarten were rated by teachers at
approximately 95%. In the second year, children with more positive ratings were
rated by teachers at approximately 99%, and children with less positive ratings
were rated by teachers at approximately 96%. In the third year, children with
more positive ratings were rated by teachers at approximately 98%, and children
with less positive ratings were rated by teachers at approximately 90%. In the
fourth year, children with more positive ratings were rated by teachers at approximately
97%, and children with less positive ratings were rated by teachers at approximately
95%. (The exact percentages are not given in this figure.)
Figure12.16 Teacher ratings
of children's performance
Academic Competence
This bar chart shows the teacher ratings of children's academic competence for
children with more and less positive ratings in kindergarten. In the first year,
children with more positive ratings were rated by teachers at approximately
91%, and children with less positive ratings in kindergarten were rated by teachers
at approximately 85%. In the second year, children with more positive ratings
were rated by teachers at approximately 91%, and children with less positive
ratings were rated by teachers at approximately 87%. In the third year, children
with more positive ratings were rated by teachers at approximately 90%, and
children with less positive ratings were rated by teachers at approximately
85%. In the fourth year, children with more positive ratings were rated by teachers
at approximately 90%, and children with less positive ratings were rated by
teachers at approximately 84%. (The exact percentages are not given in this
figure.) (back)
Figure 12.17 Special education placements of children with more and less positive ratings
of school
This bar chart shows that in kindergarten, 13 children with more positive ratings
were placed in special education, and 11 children with less positive ratings
were placed in special education. In third grade, 14 children with more positive
ratings were placed in special education, and 26 children with less positive
ratings were placed in special education. (back)
Figure 12.18 Percentage of special education placements by year in school and initial
treatment condition
This bar chart shows that in the first year, 9.8% of demonstration group children
and 8.5% of comparison group children were placed in special education. In the
second year, 12.5% of demonstration group children and 10.7% of comparison group
children were placed in special education. In the third year, 16.1% of demonstration
group children and 12.7% of comparison group children were placed in special
education. In the fourth year, 19.2% of demonstration group children and 15.3%
of comparison group children were placed in special education. (back)
Figure 12.19 Year of placement by initial treatment condition
This bar chart shows percentages of the children placed in special education
by the year that the placements were made. In the first year, 37.9% of children
in the demonstration group and 40% of children in the comparison group were
placed in special education. In the second year, 23.6% of children in the demonstration
group and 22.7% of children in the comparison group were placed in special education.
In the third year, 20.2% of children in the demonstration group and 19.5% of
children in the comparison group were placed in special education. In the fourth
year, 18.3% of children in the demonstration group and 17.8% of children in
the comparison group were placed in special education. (back)
Figure 12.20 In-class, partial day out of class, and full day out of class placement by school treatment condition, by year in school (back)
Figure 12.21 Distributions of special education, retained, and promoted children by
initial treatment conditions
This pie graph shows that in the demonstration group, 70% were promoted but
not placed in special education; 9% were placed in special education; 5% were
retained and placed in special education, and 6% were retained only. In the
Comparison group, 73% were promoted but not placed in special education; 16%
were placed in special education; 4% were retained and placed in special education,
and 7% were retained. (back)
Figure 12.22 Patterns of performance by children in special education and retained
in grade.
Woodcock-Johnson Broad Reading
This figure shows that in kindergarten, promoted children had a score of approximately
92; special education and retained children both had scores of approximately
88. In first grade, promoted children had a score of approximately 100; special
education children had a score of approximately 85, and retained children had
a score slightly below that. In second grade, promoted children had a score
of approximately 102, special education children had a score of approximately
86, and retained children had a score slightly below that. In third grade, promoted
children had a score of approximately 100; special education children had a
score of approximately 85, and retained children had a score just below that.
(The exact scores are not given in this figure.)
Figure12.22 Patterns of
performance by children in special education and retained in grade.
Woodcock-Johnson Broad Math
This figure shows that in kindergarten, promoted children had a score of approximately
85; special education and retained children both had scores of approximately
78. In first grade, promoted children had a score of approximately 99; special
education children had a score of approximately 83, and retained children had
a score slightly below that. In second grade, promoted children had a score
of approximately 101, special education children had a score of approximately
84, and retained children had a score slightly below that. In third grade, promoted
children had a score of approximately 101; special education children had a
score of approximately 85, and retained children had a score just below that.
(The exact scores are not given in this figure.)
Figure12.22 Patterns of
performance by children in special education and retained in grade.
(SSRS) Teacher Academic Rating
This figure shows that in kindergarten, promoted children had a score of approximately
94; special education children had a score of approximately 81, and retained
children had a score of approximately 77. In first grade, promoted children
had a score of approximately 93; special education children had a score of approximately
80, and retained children had a score of approximately 79. In second grade,
promoted children had a score of approximately 92, special education children
had a score of approximately 81, and retained children had a score of approximately
82. In third grade, promoted children had a score of approximately 91; special
education children had a score of approximately 81, and retained children had
a score of approximately 82. (The exact scores are not given in this figure.)
Figure12.22 Patterns of
performance by children in special education and retained in grade.
(SSRS) Social Skills-Family
This figure shows that in kindergarten, promoted children had a score of approximately
91; special education children had a score of approximately 87, and retained
children had a score of approximately 88. In first grade, promoted children
had a score of approximately 93; special education and retained children had
a score of approximately 89. In second grade, promoted children had a score
of approximately 95, special education and retained children had a score of
approximately 90. In third grade, promoted children had a score of approximately
96; special education children had a score of approximately 91, and retained
children had a score of approximately 90. (The exact scores are not given in
this figure.)
Figure 12.22 Patterns of
performance by children in special education and retained in grade.
(SSRS) Social Skills-Teacher
This figure shows that in kindergarten, promoted children had a score of approximately
102; special education children had a score of approximately 93, and retained
children had a score of approximately 91. In first grade, promoted children
had a score of approximately 101; special education and retained children had
a score of approximately 92. In second grade, promoted children had a score
of approximately 100, special education children had a score of approximately
92, and retained children had a score of approximately 93. In third grade, promoted
children had a score of approximately 99; special education children had a score
of approximately 92, and retained children had a score of approximately 93.
(The exact scores are not given in this figure.) (back)
This image depicts the continous comprehensive Head Start-Like Services for the Transition Demonstration Program. These services include family services, health and nutrition, education (developmentally appropriate practices, inclusion), and parent involvement. (back)
This image depicts a model similar to the transition conceptual model. Child is found at the center of the model, the child is surrounded by family and then eight functional domains. The eight domains are basica academic and work skills, survival resources, health and nutrition, safety and security, self-concept, motivation and values, social support, and communication. (back)
This image indicates that growth and change in children and families has a bi-directional relationship with successful transitions throughout schooling, which include the following: children have good 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, communities. (back)
This image indicates that successful transitions throughout schooling include the following: children have good 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; mutually supportive relationships occur among families, school personnel, service providers, communities. (back)
| Table of Contents |