Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
PART 3: FINDINGS
8. Report of Investigations of the Comparability of Groups Prior to Outcome Analyses
9. Change in Schools and Classrooms
10. Change in Family Well-Being, Strengths, and Challenges
11. Parent Involvement in Children’s Learning and in Schools
12. Children’s Academic and Social Outcomes
OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY FINDINGS
The chapters included in Part 3: Findings summarize the results of
an array of analyses designed to answer the research questions regarding changes
in children, families, classrooms, schools, and communities as a result of
participation in the Transition Demonstration Program. Initial analyses were
undertaken to identify key characteristics of the groups that would be included
in outcome analyses -- that is, the demonstration and comparison groups, the
two cohorts of children and families, and the group of families who were lost
to follow-up during the study period. These initial analyses, reported in
Chapter 8, have supported a number of important assumptions that underlie
subsequent analyses. First, the children and families in the two treatment
groups -- demonstration and comparison -- did not differ significantly when
the National Transition Demonstration Study began. Second, the children and
families in Cohort 1 (1991-1992) did not significantly differ from those in
Cohort 2 (1992-1993). Accordingly, for final analyses and presentation, the
two cohorts have been combined.
Study sample maintenance was good: 87 percent of the children and families originally enrolled in the study provided endpoint data in at least one of the final two years. Children and families who were lost to follow-up (mostly due to moving) did not significantly differ in their entry characteristics from those who remained in the study. Further, the rates of attrition were similar for the Transition Demonstration and comparison groups.
Treatment dosage (years of participation in the Transition Demonstration) and group crossover effects were of concern. Approximately 60 percent of those in the demonstration received the full four years of intervention. At the same time, 25 percent received only two or fewer years of intended treatment. Program dropout was attributable to the high mobility of this sample. Because of this variation in length of participation, number of years in the Transition Demonstration was considered in analyses of outcomes. In addition, 13 percent of those assigned to the comparison group received at least one year of schooling in a Transition Demonstration school. This crossover also was considered in analyses of outcomes.
The remaining chapters present findings about changes in schools and classrooms
(Chapter 9), families (Chapter 10), parent involvement (Chapter 11), and
children’s school progress (Chapter 12). Key findings are highlighted
here.
Children’s academic achievement, social development,
and school adjustment
What do Head Start children look like?
Overall, these former Head Start children showed remarkably positive progress
and school adjustment by all indicators. Despite entering kindergarten with
scores somewhat below national norms, performance in both reading and math
showed early significant gains, to the point that children performed at national
averages by the end of second and third grades. Teacher ratings of overall
academic adjustment and test scores of receptive language skills indicated
somewhat lower levels of progress, although children performed well within
the normal range. Children’s social skills, as rated by teachers, also
place them at national norms during the kindergarten year and the subsequent
three years in public school.
| [D] |
Both parents and children confirmed this picture of good school progress
for the overwhelming majority of former Head Start children. Their impressions
of children’s overall school adjustment, academic performance, social
development, liking school, and motivation to do well in school -- a high
value for this group of children and parents -- are consistently positive
as a group. A small subgroup of children, however, reported early impressions
of school (spring of kindergarten) that were less favorable. For these children
(7 percent of the total), their school progress was much less favorable
both academically and socially. Indeed, the children with early non-optimal
school impressions were at very high risk for special education placement
(24% in special education by third grade).
Participation in the Transition Demonstration Program did not significantly
elevate children’s academic or social outcomes above
this very favorable picture. Analyses that explored whether characteristics
of the children or families interacted with intervention benefits, such
that certain groups may have benefitted more or less, did not yield any
pattern of consistent results. In general, children from families with higher
levels of resources entered school with higher levels of skills and maintained
this advantage throughout the first four years in school. Children from
immigrant families showed exceptionally high social skills and rapid gains
in language and literacy skills. The children who fared the most poorly
-- although still showing steady progress -- were those from families that
received cash assistance, and those whose parents were not as likely to
be in the work force and whose fathers were not active in the children’s
lives.
Classroom educational practices
There was limited evidence that Transition Demonstration classrooms exhibited
higher levels of developmentally appropriate practices. Demonstration classrooms
had significantly, but only slightly higher ratings, based on annual classroom
observations. Specifically, Transition Demonstration classrooms, compared
to comparison classrooms, had better arrangement and availability of classroom
materials and environments, as well as somewhat better scheduling, planning,
and variety of classroom activities. Observations of classroom practices
across grade levels confirmed that the classrooms were complex, varied,
and dynamic, both within and across sites.
Parent involvement in education
Former Head Start parents report being very involved with their children’s
learning at home, in terms of providing supportive environments and routines
(such as having regular bedtimes for children and family meals), engaging
in learning activities on a regular basis (such as reading or storytelling
and discussing what their child learned in school), and communicating with
teachers frequently. This self-report of high parental involvement counters
the negative stereotype of “uninvolved” low-income families.
Although there was no difference, parents in the Transition Demonstration Program reported that, overall, they had more opportunities to be involved in the schools and their children’s education. In addition to the traditional parent involvement opportunities that were widely available to parents in all schools (such as teacher-parent conferences, open houses, social activities for children and parents, PTA meetings), significantly more non-traditional opportunities (such as home visits from school personnel, family educational activities, parent discussion groups, parent resource rooms, and home lending libraries) were offered to families in the Transition Demonstration versus comparison schools.
Health, safety, and health care
Overall, former Head Start children appeared to be remarkably healthy when they entered kindergarten, and almost all reported having satisfactory health care coverage and regular health care providers. Only 12 percent of caregivers reported that they had no health insurance for their children. At the end of the Transition Demonstration Study, only 40 percent of the families indicated that their children were covered by Medicaid, and more than a third (36%) were covered by insurance obtained as an employment benefit. With the exception of reported rates of asthma (nearly double the national averages), children’s patterns of illnesses, injuries, and disabilities was generally typical of the nation. The reported rates of engaging in safety behaviors -- such as using a seatbelt or child restraint consistently and having smoke or fire detectors in the home -- were also reported by families at rates that are typical nationally.
Changes in family well-being
Although providing comprehensive, individualized supports for families was a high priority for all of the 31 local Transition Demonstration programs, the level of participation in job training, employment counseling, educational programs, cash or cash alternative assistance programs, and mental health counseling programs cannot be attributed to participation in the Transition Demonstration Program. Service use patterns varied by family type. For example, the Single Parent Welfare families were more than two and a half times as likely to participate in job training programs as were the Resourceful families (Part 2 - Page V). Highly Mobile, Recently Homeless, and Single Parent Welfare families were also more likely to participate in educational programs. Foreign Language families were strikingly less likely to participate in external supportive programs.
Demonstration and comparison families overwhelmingly indicated that the majority of health, social, emotional, educational and behavioral needs of their children were met and services were obtained when needed. Demonstration families were more likely to report that “someone from the school” helped them obtain services, usually Transition Demonstration caseworkers, while comparison families more often indicated they obtained needed services on their own. This funding is compatible with the belief that when . If supportive personnel are available, families take advantage of and benefit from their supports and referrals.
Systemic change
There was strong and substantial evidence in many sites that important systemic
changes did occur. These included changes in the ways that Head Start and
public schools collaborated to meet the needs of children, in school policies
to reduce barriers to parent participation, and in policies and practices
of community agencies to sustain a more coordinated and accessible service
delivery system for families during the transition-to-school years. In the
majority of the participating communities, school districts, and Head Start
programs, these changes were reported to be facilitated directly by the
Transition Demonstration Program. What remains to be learned is to what
extent these consortia of community agencies, Head Start programs, and local
school partners will continue after the Federal funding for the Transition
Demonstration Program has ended.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |