1. LOOKING AT QUALITY PROGRAMS AND CHILDREN KATHY R. THORNBURG ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER EARLY AND EXTENDED LEARNING Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education May 2012 1

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

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

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

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

6. Missouri School Readiness Study 6

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? 7

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 –45% female –11% with special needs –30% eligible for free/reduced lunch –59% White –29% Black –6% Multiracial –4% Latino/Hispanic –2% Asian 8

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

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 10 Program Personnel Administra tor Education and Training Staff Education Education Specializat ion Annual Training Program Content Learning Environme nt Program Curriculu m Program Manageme nt Family Involveme nt Business and Administra tive 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 11

12. Programs and Children Program Quality Number of Programs Number of Children Low973 Medium19209 High1068

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. 13

14. Findings 14

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 15

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

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! 17

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. 18

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

20. Average Gains in Vocabulary for Children in Poverty 20

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

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

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) 23

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

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

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

27. We can make a difference! 27