Looking at Quality Programs and children Kathy R. Thornburg Assistant commissioner early and extended learning

1. Looking at Quality Programs and childrenKathy R. ThornburgAssistant commissionerearly and extended learning Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education May 2012

2. Socioeconomic Status Socioeconomic status is one of the strongest predictors of performance differences in children at the beginning of 1st grade.

3. What is the Answer? Supporting families of young children and early childhood professionals who work with them. Provide high quality early learning programs.

4. Early Vocabulary Predicts Later Reading Achievement • Age 3 vocabulary predicts 4th grade vocabulary (Hart & Risley, 1995; Walker et al., 1994; NICHD, 2005) • Kindergarten vocabulary predicts 7th grade reading comprehension and decoding skills (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001) • 4th grade vocabulary predicts 12th grade reading achievement (Snow et al., 1991)

5. Kindergarten teachers speak . . .December 27, 2004

6. Missouri School Readiness Study

7. Research Question Do preschool children who attend higher quality programs show greater gains in school readiness than their peers who attend lower quality programs?

8. Study Description • 38 programs (32 centers and 6 homes) • 66 classrooms • 350 children ages 3½ to 5 were assessed in fall 2008 and spring 2009 • 59% White • 29% Black • 6% Multiracial • 4% Latino/Hispanic • 2% Asian • 45% female • 11% with special needs • 30% eligible for free/reduced lunch

9. Child Measures • Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 4th Ed. Receptive vocabulary • Test of Early Reading Ability, 3rd Ed. Early literacy skills, including print concepts, alphabetic knowledge • Uppercase Alphabet Identification Knowledge of uppercase letters • Woodcock Johnson III Applied Problems Counting, addition, subtraction

10. More Child Measures • Basic Shapes and Colors Identification Knowledge of shapes and colors • Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) Social skills and behavioral concerns (rated by teacher) • Motor Skills Assessment Fine and gross motor skills Program Personnel • Administrator Education and Training • Staff Education • Education Specialization • Annual Training Program Content • Learning Environment • Program Curriculum Program Management • Family Involvement • Business and Administrative Practices

11. Program Quality Measures (QRS) Program Personnel • Administrator Education and Training • Staff Education • Education Specialization • Annual Training Program Content • Learning Environment • Intentional Teaching Program Management • Family Involvement • Business and Administrative Practices

12. Programs and Children

13. Analyses No differences among the 3 groups at the pretest related to: • gender • age • percentage of children with special needs • percentage of children in poverty Differences in percentage of minority children and number of monthly absences—they were controlled for in the analyses.

14. Findings

15. All Children in Low vs. High Quality Programs Compared to their peers in low quality programs, children in high quality programs showed greater gains on the following measures: • DECA Total Protective Factors • DECA Initiative • DECA Self-Control • DECA Attachment

16. Average Gains on Measures of Social and Emotional Development for All Children

17. Good news . . . No differences were found among the three groups on colors and shapes because most children knew many of the colors and shapes—there was not much room for improvement!

18. Children in Low vs. High Quality Programs by Poverty Status Children in poverty in high quality vs. low quality programs showed greater gains on: • PPVT-4 • TERA Alphabet subtest • Gross Motor • DECA Total Protective Factors • DECA Initiative • DECA Self-Control Poverty was measured by free/reduced lunch status.

19. Average Gains in Measures of Social Skills for Children in Poverty

20. Average Gains in Vocabulary for Children in Poverty

21. Average Gains in Knowledge of Letters/Sounds for Children in Poverty

22. Average Gains in Gross Motor Skills for Children in Poverty

23. Children Not in Poverty Children not in poverty in high vs. low quality programs showed greater gains on: TERA Meaning subtest DECA Total Protective Factors DECA Initiative DECA Self-Control These children showed fewer gains on: Fine motor skills (0-10) (low quality—5.6 to 7.9; high quality—5.4 to 7.0) Gross motor skills (0-22) (low quality—9.6 to 15.3; high quality—13.1 to 16.4)

24. Average Gains in Social and Behavioral Skills for Children Not in Poverty

25. Average Gains in Print Awareness/Comprehension Skills for Children Not in Poverty

26. Next big question . . . • How does this fit with the Birth to 3rd Grade Initiative? • Missouri has a Birth to 3rd grade assessment system plan that includes observations for quality in K, 1st and 2nd grades • We need to assess children’s progress, teacher knowledge and skills, and program quality

27. We can make a difference!