the educare chicago research-program partnership and...

The Educare Chicago Research-Program Partnershipand Follow-Up Study: Using Data on Program Graduates

to Enhance Quality Improvement Efforts

Amanda Stein, Karen Freel, Ann T. Hanson, and Debra Pacchiano

The Ounce of Prevention Fund Chicago, Illinois

Brenda Eiland-Williford

Educare Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

Early childhood education programs that have succeeded in raising the quality and outcomes of their

programs have done so, oftentimes, by championing a culture of continuous improvement. This

includes comprehensive formative evaluation and routines of data feedback and discussion that

support teaching staff to use child growth and classroom quality data to inform daily instructional

decisions and interactions with families. This article provides a case illustration of how leaders

and staff at 1 high-quality early childhood education program (Educare Chicago) use data and feed-

back from graduate children and families to inform and drive continuous quality improvement

through a Research-Program Partnership, which is a dynamic interchange between researchers,

program leadership, and practitioners. Research Findings: This article focuses on the utilization

of longitudinal Follow-Up Study data obtained from Educare Chicago children and families as they

transitioned into the elementary school system to inform early childhood program quality enhance-

ment efforts. Quantitative data on school type, school quality, and teacher ratings of children and

parents are included. The utilization of findings from qualitative data obtained from parents and

Educare program staff are also discussed. Practice or Policy: Follow-Up Study key findings and

program responses are described, in addition to the role of the Research-Program Partnership in

fostering both these exchanges and a deeper understanding of how to use data from program

graduates and their families. Implications for program practices specific to children and families’

transition to kindergarten, early mathematics instruction, and family engagement are discussed.

In the fields of early learning and education, the demand for the utilization of research-based

practices, data-driven decision making, and accountability is clear. These expectations not only

permeate the dialogue and debates of policymakers, administrators, and even frontline practi-

tioners but also pervade federal and state policies and the regulations and standards that provide

guidance on carrying out such mandates. For example, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

(PL 107-110) and the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 (PL 110–134)

both require the implementation of curricula, policies, practices, observational instruments,

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Amanda Stein, The Ounce of Prevention Fund, 4859

South Wabash Avenue, 2nd Floor, Chicago, IL 60615. E-mail: [email protected]

Early Education and Development, 24: 19–41

Copyright # 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1040-9289 print/1556-6935 online

DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2013.739542

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

and other strategies that have demonstrated effectiveness stemming from research. The Obama

Administration has declaratively pronounced program evaluation as a priority across agencies to

determine whether ‘‘programs are achieving their intended outcomes as well as possible and at

the lowest possible cost’’ and to further ‘‘strengthen the design and operation of programs’’

(Orszag, 2009, para. 1). In general, there is a growing expectation that early childhood programs

collect and report child-level results as a basis for individualizing services and documenting their

program-wide impact and improvement processes, in addition to using such data at all levels to

guide decision making (Snow & Van Hemel, 2008; U.S. Department of Education and U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, 2011).

WHAT COUNTS AS RESEARCH, EVIDENCE, OR DATA IN EARLYCHILDHOOD PROGRAMS?

The demand for data and evaluation is unprecedented, yet research indicates that education

stakeholders disagree on how evidence or research should be defined, acquired, interpreted,

and effectively utilized (Tseng, 2012). For example, in their review of 52 studies, Honig and

Coburn (2008) examined the ways in which school district staff responded to federal and state

policies mandating the use of research and data. They found that district personnel defined

‘‘evidence’’ as inclusive of social science research, student and school achievement data,

program evaluation findings, practitioner knowledge, expert opinions, and parent and com-

munity input. Yet other researchers have found that education leaders and policymakers most

readily associate ‘‘scientifically based research’’ with gold-standard randomized controlled trials

(Nelson, Leffler, & Hansen, 2009). A joint position statement from the National Association for

the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Association of Early Childhood

Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS=SDE) indicated that this view is too

narrow, stating that sources of usable evaluation data in early childhood should include child

or family progress monitoring measures or assessments, administrator ratings, program self-

assessments, implementation checklists, observational measures of practice, staff input, and

constituent feedback (NAEYC and NAECS=SDE, 2003).

WHY USE RESEARCH, EVIDENCE, OR DATA IN EARLY CHILDHOODPROGRAMS, AND HOW IS IT DONE?

According to Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, and Young (2003), data-based decision-making or

problem-solving approaches in education are grounded in the principle that ‘‘no student character-

istic (e.g., disability label, race, [socioeconomic status], neighborhood) dictates a priori what inter-

vention will work. Nor will a given intervention be effective for all students of a particular group’’

(p. 160). A variety of models exist to guide early childhood educators and administrators in this

effort to implement data-driven decision making at the individual child level (e.g., Coleman,

Buysse, & Neitzel, 2006; Gresham, 2007) and at the program, district, and state levels (e.g., Rous,

McCormick, Gooden, & Townley, 2007; Stedron, 2009). Even with these models, early childhood

educators tend to rely on intuition and informal observations rather than the collection and

systematic use of data to guide decision making (Sandall, Schwartz, & LaCroix, 2004).

20 STEIN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Furthermore, research has shown that even when assessment data are available, early child-

hood professionals often lack the preparation necessary to effectively interpret and use it (Horton

& Bowman, 2002; Scott-Little, Kagan, & Clifford, 2003; Stiggins, 1999). Yet optimal outcomes

for children and families will not be realized unless early childhood leaders and staff have the

capacity to understand and implement effective data utilization practices, including selecting

the appropriate type and format of data, to inform routine decision making about classroom

practice, work with families, professional development, and environmental and program

supports (Fuligni, Howes, Lara-Cinisomo, & Karoly, 2009; Kagan, 2003; Kincaid, Childs,

Blase, & Wallace, 2007; Schwartz & Olswang, 1996).

It is therefore critical to define the conditions and processes that facilitate the collection,

understanding, and use of formative assessment and evaluation data to make data-driven quality

improvement a consistent component of early childhood practice. This article provides a descrip-

tion of how one program, a national model of high-quality early childhood education emphasiz-

ing research-based practice and functional program evaluation, used data and feedback from

graduate children and families to inform and drive program change.

THE EDUCARE SCHOOL MODEL

In 2000, the Ounce of Prevention Fund opened the first Educare School on Chicago’s south side

to prepare vulnerable children and their families for success in school and in life. Now a national

network of 17 schools in diverse communities, Educare provides high-quality, full-day and

full-year early childhood education for children from birth to 5 years old (for more information,

see www.educareschools.org). The primary aim of each school is to prevent the achievement gap

between children in poverty and their more advantaged peers that is evident long before kinder-

garten entry (Halle et al., 2009; Hart & Risley, 1995; National Center for Education Statistics,

2001). Educare leaders therefore have a strategic focus on children’s achievement and organize

their systems, programmatic approaches, and professional development to support effective

teaching and family engagement. Each Educare School meets Early Head Start and Head Start

program performance standards and also implements a comprehensive set of evidence-based

core components that intentionally support high-quality teaching and family engagement (see

Table 1). Ongoing, independent evaluation of the nationwide network of Educare Schools

demonstrates that children in poverty who participate in the program, including dual language

learners, enter kindergarten ready for school, achieving near national norms on measures of

vocabulary, social-emotional development, and school readiness and well above typical scores

for children at risk of school failure (West, Malone, Hulsey, Aikens, & Tarullo, 2010; Yazejian

& Bryant, 2012).

EDUCARE CHICAGO RESEARCH-PROGRAM PARTNERSHIP (RPP)

Most relevant to the current article is that each Educare School—as part of the core feature of

using research-based practices and strategies (see Table 1)—establishes a local RPP. The

original design of Educare’s RPP was informed by the local evaluation partnerships developed

for the Early Head Start Impact Study (Love et al., 2005) and the principles of utilization-

focused evaluation (Patton, 2008) and participatory evaluation (Ryan & DeStefano, 2000).

USING DATA TO ENHANCE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Although there is variation in the structure and processes of local RPPs, each RPP connects

interdisciplinary program leadership and staff with a PhD-level Local Evaluation Partner, and

they together implement a dynamic, reciprocal data feedback and utilization cycle. Each RPP

supports routine, frequent examination of systems, practices, and attainment of goals for

program monitoring and continuous quality improvement at the child, family, program, and

agency levels (see Figure 1).

TABLE 1

Core Features of the Educare School Model

1. Provide full-day, full-year services.

2. Maintain high staff-to-child ratios and small class sizes.

3. Use research-based practices and strategies.

4. Provide continuity of care beginning at birth to help children develop secure relationships.

5. Provide onsite family engagement and support services to families.

6. Maintain high staff qualifications and embedded, intensive professional development.

7. Emphasize social-emotional development to promote positive approaches to learning and school readiness.

8. Provide an enhanced focus on early oral language and literacy.

9. Provide an enhanced focus on problem solving and numeracy.

10. Integrate the arts.

11. Start early, with an emphasis on prenatal services.

12. Implement an interdisciplinary approach.

13. Implement reflective supervision and practice throughout the program.

FIGURE 1 Educare Chicago Research-Program Partnership data feedback and utilization cycle.

22 STEIN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

RPP Membership and Roles

At Educare Chicago, the Local Evaluation Partner and the school’s Director of Program and

Curricula colead the RPP, together championing the importance of data gathering and utilization

for continuous improvement. Supervisors—including master teachers, curriculum specialists,

and family support leaders—also participate in the Chicago RPP, playing a critical role in the

dialogue and utilization of data to create and implement quality improvements across the

Educare School. In particular, these program leaders supervise, coach, and support the classroom

teaching teams and family support specialists who directly implement the program and educate

children and families.

RPP Data Feedback and Utilization Process

As noted in Figure 1, the RPP implements Educare’s data feedback and utilization cycle, includ-

ing monitoring data collection and assessment; discussing available data and identifying new

analyses or questions; and addressing implications for intervention planning, goal setting, and

staff and program development. Based on research noting the importance of providing data ‘‘with

sufficient frequency and in contexts that will inspire educators to develop, utilize, and disseminate

effective interventions’’ (Downs & Strand, 2006, p. 678), the RPP utilizes data from a variety of

quantitative and qualitative sources (e.g., standardized measures to compare children’s skills to

national norms, curriculum-based assessment, progress-monitoring tools, teacher=parent ratings,interviews, focus groups) to provide a fuller picture of program functioning and impact

(Scott-Little et al., 2003).

The relationships forged and knowledge developed through the Educare Chicago RPP pro-

vide a unique opportunity to monitor the continued progress of children and families after they

graduate from Educare. The following case example moves beyond the analysis of current

program data and focuses on how data about child and family experiences and outcomes during

the transition to kindergarten and through the third grade have led to change in Educare Chicago

program practices and policies.

CASE EXAMPLE: EDUCARE CHICAGO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLFOLLOW-UP STUDY

A unique feature of the Educare Chicago RPP is the collection of data to track the progress of

Educare children and families as they transition to kindergarten and advance through the primary

grades. This ongoing Educare Chicago Elementary School Follow-Up Study is a case illustration

of how researchers, practitioners, and school leaders can work collaboratively to use data for

program quality improvements. In the current article, we highlight aspects of the design,

implementation, and impact of the Educare Chicago Elementary School Follow-Up Study,

emphasizing how this unique, ongoing study has enhanced the effectiveness of early learning

experiences in Chicago’s Educare School.

The Educare Chicago Elementary School Follow-Up Study (henceforth, the Follow-Up

Study) was conceived as, and continues to be, an exploratory, descriptive study aimed at

examining the experiences and outcomes of children and families after they graduate from the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Educare Chicago program. An interest in following children into elementary school has long

been shared by Educare leadership and executives, board members, and staff from the Ounce

of Prevention Fund. In particular, these stakeholders were interested in whether the social-

emotional and academic gains children made during their enrollment at Educare were sustained

and grew through their primary school years.

With the research knowledge that gains made in early learning are more likely sustained when

children experience higher quality primary school environments and instruction (Reynolds,

2003), members of the Educare Chicago RPP team (which includes us) were also eager to learn

more about the kindergarten and primary grade expectations and environments that Educare

graduates experienced and how well parents were supported in partnering with primary grade

educators. Thus, the three main goals of this study were (a) to examine how effectively Educare

Chicago prepared young children and their families from low-income backgrounds for school

success, (b) to learn about the school environments and expectations of the primary grade

teachers, and (c) to discover implications from these findings to inform program improvement

decisions.

Based on these collaboratively developed aims, we designed the Follow-Up Study to explore

the following issues and questions:

1. Given the vast range of both school options and quality in Chicago’s urban public

school landscape, what schools did Educare parents explore for enrollment, and what

elementary schools did children attend? Information on the number of schools, types

of schools (e.g., neighborhood, charter, magnet, private), and quality of schools (i.e.,

the Illinois State Board of Education publishes an annual School Report Card with

quality indicators, including annual yearly progress percentages) was known anecdo-

tally, but there had been no systematic collection or analysis of this information prior

to the formalization of the Follow-Up Study.

2. How did children and their parents experience the transition into kindergarten?

Although the RPP team and Educare staff members knew that the kindergarten class-

room was likely to be quite different from an Educare School early learning class-

room, we did not know how well children would adjust or what difficulties

children might have in their adjustment to the new environment. Similarly, we sought

to understand how well parents adjusted to the elementary school environment and

whether they would continue to initiate communication with their child’s educators—a practice emphasized at Educare. In addition, we knew that parents would have

insights helpful to Educare’s program improvement efforts that would be based on

their perceptions of their child’s transition to kindergarten and what the kindergarten

teacher was communicating about their child’s readiness for school.

3. How prepared for kindergarten were Educare Chicago graduates academically, socio-

emotionally, and behaviorally? Prior to the Follow-Up Study, contact with parents

once their children transitioned to kindergarten was sporadic and infrequent. Even

when parents still had younger children enrolled in the Educare program, conversa-

tions about the older child who had graduated Educare were informal and not

recorded. Program staff therefore had no systematic information about the academic

achievement, social-emotional competence, or behavior of Educare Chicago

graduates in elementary school.

24 STEIN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

4. How prepared for kindergarten and elementary school were Educare Chicago

parents? Did parents continue to be involved in supporting their child’s learning

and development? Did parents continue to engage with their child’s elementary

school and communicate with educators about the child’s progress? Even with some

contact with parents of Educare Chicago graduates, it was difficult to gauge whether

parents retained and put into practice the value of remaining engaged with supporting

their child’s learning, staying involved in their child’s education, and actively

communicating with educators and other school staff to support their child’s school

success.

METHOD

To answer these questions and provide a rich description of the issues, we designed the Follow-Up

Study using a combination of quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data included teacher

surveys that asked for ratings of a child’s readiness at grade entry and exit as well as level of parent

participation, grades, type of school attended, and standardized assessments. Qualitative data

included parent interviews and focus groups. We did not build a comparison=control group into

this exploratory study. The primary purpose of this study was not to contrast the elementary school

progress and achievement of Educare graduates with that of children who had not attended

Educare Chicago but rather to examine issues related to school readiness and the transition from

early education to the K–12 school system, to follow the course of Educare children’s achieve-

ment, and to learn from parents about their perceptions and experiences of their child’s school

readiness and continued efforts to support their child’s learning and development.

Participants

The study population consisted of children who attended and transitioned into kindergarten from

Educare Chicago starting in the fall of 2005 and their parent(s). Each year thereafter, children

and families were recruited for participation in the Follow-Up Study at the time of their

transition to kindergarten and were then followed longitudinally with data collected on an annual

basis. The first cohort of graduates that transitioned to kindergarten in the fall of 2005 included

45 children, 34 of whose parents consented to participate in the Follow-Up Study. Although

cohorts of children and families continue to be added to the Follow-Up Study sample as they

transition out of Educare Chicago, this article focuses on six cohorts of children whose parents

consented to their participation and provided data (n¼ 172). In Spring 2011, the sixth cohort of

children finished their kindergarten year and the first cohort of children finished fifth grade in

elementary school. The second column of Table 2 provides the initial cohort sample size,

defined as the number of children whose parents consented to participate in the Follow-Up Study

during their transition or last year in Educare Chicago. The third column lists the recruitment

percentage, which was calculated by dividing the number of children whose parents consented

by the total number of Educare children transitioning to kindergarten in that particular year.

Throughout the study, the research team worked with Educare family support staff to obtain

up-to-date contact information on participating families, which resulted in the relatively high

retention rate of 74% or more as shown in the fourth column of Table 2. Contact with families


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

in the Follow-Up Study is annual (at a minimum), with the level of participation fluctuating

within a cohort from year to year.

Educare Chicago is also an Early Head Start and Head Start program; therefore, all families

eligible for enrollment were at or below the federal poverty level for each year of program

participation. Educare Chicago is located in a primarily African American community, and all

children in this Follow-Up Study sample were African American (with the exception of one

child of Hispanic ethnicity) and spoke English as their primary language. Table 3 details the

demographic information on the Follow-Up Study sample of children and families from Cohorts

1 through 6. We collected these data while children were enrolled in Educare. The data include

only those children whose parents provided consent for participation in the study. We did not

collect archival data on children whose parents did not consent to participate in the Follow-Up

Study.

Design and Procedures

Table 4 presents the study design and data collection schedule. Additional details are provided

here.

Kindergarten through second grade. During the kindergarten, first-, and second-grade

years, we individually interviewed the parents once in the fall=winter. In addition, we asked chil-dren’s teachers to fill out a short survey about the child’s and family’s preparedness for the cur-

rent grade; the child’s and family’s readiness for the following school year; the child’s general

level of functioning in literacy, math, and social skills; as well as information about parent

involvement. We collected information about grades, special education status (i.e., whether

the child had an individualized education program), retention, and attendance from the school

district and via school report cards.

Third grade. At the end of the child’s third-grade year, we asked parents to come to the

study offices with their child. We typically scheduled between three and five parents and

children to arrive at the same time. During this visit, research staff members administered the

standardized assessments listed in Table 4, which had previously been administered with each

TABLE 2

Educare Chicago Elementary School Follow-Up Study Cohort Year, Sample Size, Recruitment

Percentage, and Participation Retention Rate

Cohort number

(Kindergarten Year)

Initial sample size for educare

transition year (N)

Recruitment

percentage

Participant retention

rate (%)

Cohort 1 (2005–2006) 34 76 79

Cohort 2 (2006–2007) 24 73 74

Cohort 3 (2007–2008) 31 84 90

Cohort 4 (2008–2009) 26 68 100

Cohort 5 (2009–2010) 31 78 97

Cohort 6 (2010–2011) 26 76 100

26 STEIN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

child soon before he or she left Educare for kindergarten. While the children were being indi-

vidually assessed, other research staff members conducted a focus group with the parents and

also asked parents to complete a rating of their child’s social-emotional competencies. We asked

third-grade teachers to fill out the annual teacher survey and complete a rating of students’ social

skills identical to the survey completed by parents. We then obtained school performance data,

including scores on the state-required Illinois Standards Achievement Test. In the fourth, fifth,

and subsequent grades (upcoming), we obtained school performance data only. Because of

resource and budget limitations, we did not continue interviews with parents, direct child

assessments, and teacher surveys and ratings beyond the third-grade year.

Measures

Parent interviews and focus groups. The parent interviews and focus groups used a semi-

structured interview guide that focused on parents’ perceptions in a variety of areas, including

their child’s transition and adjustment to kindergarten, experiences with their child’s elementary

school and teachers, involvement in school activities, ways in which they supported their child’s

education and learning, how well they thought their child was prepared for school, and what

TABLE 3

Educare Chicago Elementary School Follow-Up Study Child and Family Demographics

Maternal education level (%)

Cohortnumber

(Kindergarten

Year)

Child

gender

(%male)

Children

on

an IEP

Maternal

age at child birth

(M,range)

Less than

high school

High school or

equivalent

Some

college

Bachelor’s

degreeor more

Cohort1

(2005–

2006)

36 0 25,13–43 11 11 78 0

Cohort2

(2006–

2007)

42 0 21,15–33 15 15 54 15

Cohort3

(2007–

2008)

42 3 22,10–37 8 8 44 40

Cohort4

(2008–

2009)

45 6 23,12–40 3 17 59 21

Cohort5

(2009–

2010)

24 7 23,14–38 6 15 67 12

Cohort6

(2010–

2011)

31 7 25,15–48 0 7 77 16

Note. IEP¼ individualized education program.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

thoughts they had about how Educare Chicago could better prepare its graduates and their fam-

ilies for elementary school and the transition into kindergarten. We conducted one-on-one parent

interviews annually from kindergarten through second grade. We structured parent focus groups

TABLE 4

Educare Chicago Elementary School Follow-Up Study Measures and Timeline

Measure Construct Source Timing

Standardized assessments of student achievement

Devereux Student

Strengths Assessment

Rating of student’s

social-emotional

competence and

behavior

Parent and teacher Spring of third gradea

Peabody Picture

Vocabulary Test–4

Receptive vocabulary and

concept development

Reliable assessor Spring of third gradeb

Woodcock–Johnson III

Tests of Achievement:

Applied Problems

Early math skills

development

Reliable assessor Spring of third gradeb

Illinois Standards

Achievement Test

Illinois standardized

test—math and reading

beginning in the third

grade and each year

thereafter

School Annually

Other measures

Individual parent

interview

Child’s preparedness for

kindergarten, transition

to kindergarten;

parent’s focus on and

engagement with

child’s learning, parent–

child relationship

Parent Annually, kindergarten

through second grade

FFocus group Parent’s focus on and

engagement with

child’s learning, parent–

child relationship

Parent Spring=summer of third

grade

Teacher survey Child’s readiness for

current and upcoming

grade in school, special

education identification,

grade retention, parental

involvement

Teacher Annually, kindergarten

through third grade

School performance data Grades, IEP status,

retention status,

attendance

School Annually

Note. IEP¼ individualized education program.aIn the fall and spring prior to kindergarten entry, Educare teachers completed the Devereux Early Childhood Assess-

ment (a preschool companion measure to the Devereux Student Strengths Assessment).bThis measure was also completed in the fall and spring prior to kindergarten entry, before the child transitioned from

Educare Chicago.

28 STEIN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

(third grade) to be in small groups to allow parents to dialogue about their responses to questions

and experiences.

During the first year of interviews, parents expressed that they also wanted to tell us about

significant events in their lives—some positive and some negative. Recognizing that these

events had a bearing on parents’ abilities to focus on their children’s education and on child out-

comes, we added questions to the interview protocol that invited parents to tell us about their

lives, about specific events that might have occurred in the past year, and about whether these

events affected their ability to support their children in school.

Teacher survey. We adapted the Teacher Survey from the Chicago Child-Parent Center

Longitudinal Study (Reynolds, Bezruczko, & Hagemann, 1997) for use in the Educare Chicago

Elementary School Follow-Up Study. The annual Teacher Survey was used to collect teacher

ratings of children’s school readiness overall and in specific academic areas, for the current

grade and the next grade.

School administrative data. We collected child grades, special education status, retention,

attendance, and Illinois Standards Achievement Test scores at all grade levels directly from the

child’s school=teacher or parent (e.g., usually from a report card) or via a data request to the

primary school district serving Educare Chicago graduates, which was most often Chicago Pub-

lic Schools.

Direct child assessments. Mirroring the assessments given in the spring prior to Educare

students transitioning to Kindergarten, research staff directly assessed children at the end of

third grade with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–4 (Dunn & Dunn, 2007) and the

Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement: Applied Problems (Woodcock, McGrew, &

Mather, 2001). Parents and teachers completed the Devereux Student Strengths Assessment

for children (LeBuffe, Shapiro, & Naglieri, 2009).

RESULTS AND PROGRAM RESPONSE

This section is organized by the four major research questions. For each research question, we

present findings followed by a discussion of the resulting Educare program response or quality

improvement effort. The Educare Chicago RPP team partnered with and supported school lead-

ership and staff in generating these program responses through its data feedback and utilization

process, which included summarizing, analyzing, and reviewing both current program data and

Follow-Up Study data; discussing the implications and meaning of the data; generating a plan

for modifications or program quality improvements; and monitoring and evaluating implemen-

tation. The cohorts with available data and the sample size for each type of data collected are

reflected in the findings discussed here.

What Elementary Schools Did Educare Children Attend?

Key findings. Analysis of the first cohort of children in the Follow-Up Study highlighted

several characteristics of the elementary schools that Educare Chicago graduates attended. Most

notably, 45% of the 29 different schools that Educare children attended were on the State of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Illinois’s Academic Watch List, with 57% of Educare graduates attending these low-performing

elementary schools. We were able to use several proxy variables to obtain data about the quality

of schools attended by Educare Chicago graduates. Table 5 compares these Chicago Public

Schools neighborhood schools to charter and magnet schools attended by the first five cohorts

of Educare Chicago graduates and illustrates how charter and magnet schools surpassed neigh-

borhood schools on every quality indicator. It is important to note that Table 5 also shows that

the annual yearly progress for the neighborhood schools that Educare Chicago graduates

attended was quite poor at just 4%. Reynolds, Ou, and Topitzes (2004) found that the most

significant factor predicting later positive educational attainment and lower juvenile arrest was

attendance at a high-quality elementary school following participation in preschool.

Program response. Educare program staff significantly bolstered their transition activities

and efforts with parents before the second cohort of children transitioned into kindergarten in

order to increase the number of children attending high-quality elementary schools. In ensuing

years, the transition into kindergarten became a year-long process that included several connec-

ted events scheduled throughout the school year. These new transition activities were based on

the quantitative Follow-Up Study findings described previously, as well as qualitative data from

parent interviews and on-the-ground knowledge of parent experiences from Educare program

staff. New transition activities included the following:

. contact with charter and magnet schools in the area, with a focus on those attended by

previous Educare graduates, regarding specific directions on application and enrollment

processes so that parents had multiple options to select appropriate, higher quality

schools for their child to attend;

. several transition events with parents that explained the array of school types available to

them, provided information on the schools parents were considering, helped parents

TABLE 5

Comparison of School Quality Indicators for Schools Attended by Educare Chicago Graduates

School quality indicator

CPS neighborhood schools

(N¼ 25)

CPS charter and magnet schools

(N¼ 14)

Attendance (%) 93.2 95.1

Povertya(%) 96.6 77.3

Student mobility rateb 30 13.9

Special educationa(%) 12.1 10.8

Meeting adequate yearly progress (%) 4% (1 out of 25 schools) 50% (7 out of 14 schools)

Meets ISAT in readingc(%) 50.1 74

Meets ISAT in mathc(%) 67.8 85.5

Note. ISAT¼ Illinois Standards Achievement Test.aThe percentage of students living in poverty and the percentage of students receiving special education services are

important because those students generally have greater educational and supportive needs that may require additional

resources.bThe student mobility rate is based on the number of students who enroll in or leave a school during that particular

school year. In schools with high mobility rates, all children may be affected because of continual readjustments of school

staff to accommodate the influx of new students.cThe ISAT measures elementary school students’ performance against the Illinois Learning Standards using both

multiple choice and open-ended items. Starting in third grade, students complete the Reading and Math ISAT annually.

30 STEIN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

identify high-quality elementary schools that best met their child’s and family’s needs,

provided comparisons between schools based on indicators of quality data, and assisted

parents with application and enrollment forms for their chosen school options; and

. an annual special event for parents whose children would be transitioning to kindergar-

ten in the fall to have the opportunity to engage with kindergarten teachers, other

elementary school leaders and staff, and already-transitioned families (specifically, fam-

ilies in the Follow-Up Study) to hear about kindergarten learning expectations, get tips

on how parents can support their children during this transition, and hear ideas for sus-

taining learning at home.

Follow-Up Study data from subsequent cohorts indicated that a decreased number of parents

enrolled their children in local Chicago Public Schools neighborhood schools and an increased

number of families enrolled their children in higher quality schools such as magnet, charter, or

gifted center schools. Table 6 shows the change in school choice and enrollment across the six

cohorts.

How Did Educare Children and Their Parents Experience the Transition IntoKindergarten?

Key findings. Parents in the Follow-Up Study highlighted how their children transitioned

from Educare with excitement for kindergarten, a positive attitude toward learning, and the

ability to get along with classmates. They also reported that Educare Chicago was instrumental

in ensuring that their child was prepared for kindergarten socioemotionally, behaviorally, and

academically. However, the interviews also uncovered many of the challenges families and

children face in adjusting to a new school environment. Once the kindergarten year was in full

swing, parents and children experienced a stressful and long-term adjustment period stemming

from the contrasts between the kindergarten academic environment and the Educare child- and

family-centered environment. Specifically, parents reported that the kindergarten classroom

TABLE 6

Types of Elementary Schools in Which Educare Graduates Are Enrolled and Attending Kindergarten

School type

Cohort 1

(N¼ 32)

Cohort 2

(N¼ 26)

Cohort 3

(N¼ 33)

Cohort 4

(N¼ 32)

Cohort 5

(N¼ 28)

Cohort 6

(N¼ 26)

Total

(N¼ 177)

CPS neighborhood

school

21 (66%) 14 (54%) 16 (47%) 18 (56%) 11 (39%) 10 (38%) 90 (51%)

CPS charter, contract

school

3 (9%) 7 (27%) 11 (33%) 8 (25%) 9 (32%) 15 (58%) 53 (30%)

CPS magnet, gifted,

classical school

5 (16%) 5 (19%) 5 (17%) 6 (19%) 6 (21%) 1 (4%) 28 (16%)

Private, religious,

non-CPS school

3 (9%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 2 (7%) 0 (0%) 5 (3%)

Note. CPS¼Chicago Public Schools.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

routine required substantial self-direction and that teachers had extremely high expectations for

independent learning and sustained focus.

Program response. The alignment of preschool to kindergarten and through third grade

has enjoyed a recent focus in research and policy (Bogard & Takanishi, 2005; Reynolds,

2003; Reynolds & Temple, 2008). Such alignment has the potential to mitigate the wrenching

transitions parents described (Reynolds, Magnuson, & Ou, 2010) and has been associated with

better student outcomes (Marietta, 2010). Alignment efforts in which the early childhood

programs and elementary schools are not co-located, such as in the Child-Parent Centers

(Reynolds, 2003), requires dedicated time between willing and committed partners (e.g., see

‘‘A Cohesive Educational Experience and Other Challenging Issues,’’ regarding efforts

between Educare Chicago and two charter elementary schools). Such an alignment with the

many Chicago public elementary schools attended by Educare graduates was unfeasible; thus,

the program response focused on preparing parents for the transition and incorporating

age-appropriate methods in the classroom that would better prepare children for the elementary

school environment. Educare Chicago staff used the key findings from the Follow-Up Study

to create more focused and useful transition materials, workshops, activities, and experiences

for children and parents. New transition strategies in the year prior to kindergarten included

the following:

. explaining to parents the differences between kindergarten’s more academically centered

environment and Educare’s more child-centered environment;

. describing to parents the demands and stressors these differences will place on

their child (e.g., increased levels of self-direction, independence, and sustained

attention);

. highlighting specific ways in which parents can interact with and support their child both

directly and through partnership and regular communication with the child’s teacher and

other school staff;

. enhancing Educare classroom instruction and activities to better promote children’s

abilities to sustain attention, focus on detail, and gain exposure to and practice with

the types of expectations of their future kindergarten classroom (e.g., independent

learning and work); and

. offering exposure to and practice with the similarities and differences between the

child’s current classroom and future kindergarten classroom.

Through this process of examining data to develop processes that facilitate children’s and

families’ transitions to kindergarten, Educare leadership identified the need to seek out opportu-

nities to engage in dialogue and learn from leaders and staff at nearby elementary schools to

better understand the school’s educational programming and family engagement practices, thus

continuing to build the knowledge necessary to design the most helpful transition supports. Such

transition supports offered as a result of data from the Follow-Up Study have been shown to

build long-term patterns of parent involvement (Kraft-Sayre & Pianta, 2000) and have been

associated with higher academic achievement at the end of the kindergarten year (Schulting,

Malone, & Dodge, 2005). The RPP team and Educare staff continue to consider strategies to

incorporate this important and substantive feedback in age-appropriate and family friendly ways

at Educare.

32 STEIN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

How Prepared for Kindergarten Were Educare Graduates Both Academically andBehaviorally?

Key findings. Data from the first two cohorts’ kindergarten grades indicated that math pro-

ficiency was not as high as literacy proficiency (see Table 7). Although kindergarten teachers

rated Educare Cohorts 1 and 2 as prepared ‘‘overall’’ on the teacher survey, the proficiency

scores (generated from grades on report cards) told a slightly different story. Table 7 reflects

the literacy and math proficiency levels in kindergarten for Cohorts 1 and 2. Parent interviews

reinforced this early finding, in that parents reported that children struggled more with math in

kindergarten than with other subjects.

Program response. A meta-analytic study by Duncan et al. (2007) showed that early math

skills had the greatest predictive power for later academic success, followed by reading and then

attention skills. Furthermore, a report for the National Research Council (Cross, Woods, &

Schweingruber, 2009) on early math concluded that although all young children have the

capability to become competent in mathematics, that potential was not realized because oppor-

tunities to learn mathematics were lacking in early childhood settings, homes, and communities.

It was clear that a program response to math learning was needed, equal to efforts being made to

boost and strengthen literacy instruction and outcomes. Furthermore, the Follow-Up Study

demonstrated that the math proficiency levels in kindergarten for the first two cohorts reinforced

what the Educare classroom teachers and leadership staff were discovering from their classroom

curriculum-based assessment data: the need to launch a new initiative to increase math achieve-

ment. The resulting multiyear Early Math Initiative focused on achieving this through family

engagement and professional development. The family engagement component included (a)

helping parents understand the importance of early math, (b) working with parents to incorporate

math learning into their home activities to enhance classroom math learning, and (c) providing

parents with guided take-home math activities.

The Early Math Initiative’s professional development component included a partnership with

the Erikson Institute, a leading graduate school in early childhood education, to implement a set

TABLE 7

Kindergarten Literacy and Math Proficiency Levels for Follow-Up Study Cohorts 1 and 2

Subject areaGrades indicating meeting or exceeding

proficiency (%)Grades indicating approaching or below

proficiency (%)

Cohort 1 (N¼ 22)

Literacy 54 46

Math 27 73

Cohort 2 (N¼ 18)

Literacy 67 33

Math 50 50

Note. As there are different grading methods at different elementary schools, Follow-Up Study research staff

developed a coding system for grades that resulted in the categories of exceeding, meeting, approaching, and below

proficiency.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

of activities focused on strengthening the mathematical pedagogical content knowledge and

math instruction skills of Educare teaching staff. Activities included the following:

. engaging in an intensive, year-long training of preschool teachers and family support

staff on core math concepts;

. using core math concepts in lesson planning;

. monitoring children’s progress in mathematical knowledge and skills;

. providing coaching support for teachers on the use of new math content knowledge,

instructional skills, and the use of children’s progress data to plan and execute

high-quality math lessons across teaching formats (e.g., individual, small group, large

group); and

. collecting and analyzing the current research literature to conceptually extend core math

concepts for children younger than 3, including pilot teaching and coaching of birth-to-3

math core concepts in infant and toddler classrooms.

The Early Math Initiative continues with intensive staff training, coaching of preschool

teachers, and the development of the birth-to-3 core math concepts as well as math materials

and activities for families.

How Prepared for Kindergarten and Elementary School Were Parents? And, DidParents Continue to Be Involved with Their Child’s Elementary School and withCommunicating with Educators about Their Child’s Progress?

Key findings. A substantial majority of Educare parents were consistently rated—across

time and grade levels—as supportive of their child’s learning and involved in their child’s learn-

ing at school, as documented by teacher survey ratings of parent involvement. Teacher ratings

indicated that the majority of Educare parents participated in activities at the school, returned

forms and communications, picked up their child’s report card, and initiated a visit to the school

and conversation with the teacher. What is interesting is that qualitative findings from the parent

interviews and focus groups indicated that, in general, parents experienced fewer opportunities

to be involved or engaged at their child’s elementary schools as they experienced at Educare.

Furthermore, there was often a stark contrast between the close, open relationships they had

had with Educare Chicago staff (both teaching and family support staff) and the interactions

and communication they experienced with staff at their child’s current school.

Another key finding was that the majority of Educare parents described positive parenting

attitudes, practices, and beliefs. The parents reported a willingness to communicate with teachers

about their child and described specific ways in which they tried to support their child’s learning

in the home. The interview and focus group data indicated that the majority of parents continued

to reflect on their parenting style and how it affected their child in elementary school. For

example, parents reported concerns for their child’s social-emotional development given the

stressors in their families, schools, and communities and provided examples of how they tried

to buffer their child from those stressors to protect the child’s development. Parents described

how they valued education as a ‘‘way to a better future’’ for their child, tried to support their

child’s learning by being available to assist with homework, and recognized the positive impact

34 STEIN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

on their child of communicating with their child’s teacher. Parents credited learning these values

and strategies for supporting their child—and, in particular, how to effectively communicate

with educators and school personnel—to their experiences with Educare staff. A large body

of evidence now exists that demonstrates the role of strong home–school connections and parent

responsibility for children’s learning in promoting positive outcomes for children (Harvard

Family Research Project, 2006; Rodriguez & Tamis-LeMonda, 2011), which gives even greater

value to the Follow-Up Study findings and Educare staff efforts with families (described below).

The parent interviews and focus groups also identified common and persistent stressors that

families experienced. Financial and relationship stresses (including loss of extended family or

coparenting support through death or incarceration) were pivotal in that, if relieved, parents

reported a strengthened focus on parenting and supporting their child in school. Isolated parents

who experienced these stressors were less likely to navigate them successfully, less able to be sup-

portive of their child or advocate for their child when needed, and less likely to attend to their par-

enting behavior. These findings provided evidence of the importance of connecting parents to one

another in hopes of forming long-lasting bonds and social networks (Small, 2009). Furthermore,

Reynolds et al. (2010) noted that many children are entering schools at higher risk than students

entering 10 years ago and recommended a decade, starting at birth, of continuous services, includ-

ing a strong parent support component in order to provide the optimal level of support for children’s

learning and development. They further pointed out that intervention at any stage of development

(infancy, preschool, school age) alone cannot prevent children from future underachievement.

Qualitative findings from the Follow-Up Study indicated that parents of children with special

needs often experienced time delays and other barriers that prevented their children from

continuing to receive the needed special education services in elementary school. When these

children were attending Educare, Educare staff assisted parents through the process of qualifying

for and accessing special education services and supports as well as establishing an individua-

lized and appropriate education plan. After their children’s graduation from Educare, many par-

ents with children with identified special needs felt that they continued to need additional

support and advocacy to get needed services, a trend confirmed in the research literature (Healy,

Keesee, & Smith, 1985; Kayama, 2010).

Program response. Educare Chicago staff and the RPP team recognized that these

Follow-Up Study findings gave further credence to the family-centered approach and onsite fam-

ily engagement and support opportunities offered by Educare. Therefore, program activities

centered on continuing to bolster partnerships with families, supports to help families be better

able to navigate multiple life stressors, and opportunities for continued learning. Specifically,

these included the following:

. increased family engagement efforts, including more opportunities for parents to learn

about specific strategies to support and develop the knowledge and skills necessary

for their child to be school ready;

. training in the Brazelton Center’s Touchpoints approach to parent–professional interac-

tions, which orients program staff to view parents as equal partners with knowledge and

skills to be shared with the program (Sparrow, 2011);

. a plan for Educare’s Disabilities Coordinator to become more involved in planning tran-

sition activities, in searching for schools that have adequate special education resources,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

and in finding advocacy and parent support networks and organizations that can assist

parents in elementary school and beyond; and

. the provision of learning opportunities for current and graduate Educare parents to learn

about the six protective factors that can help build stronger families (Horton, 2003).

With a growing literature base and a clearer understanding of the ‘‘how’’ of family engage-

ment and its associated outcomes (Barnard, 2004; Fantuzzo, McWayne, & Perry, 2004; Harvard

Family Research Project, 2006), an exploration and planning process across the Ounce of Pre-

vention Fund is under way to develop and implement a comprehensive new framework focused

on family, school, and community engagement. The Ounce and Educare Chicago leadership are

also exploring innovative strategies for parents to connect with and learn from one another—to

form social networks that provide parents with a broader set of resources and social capital

(Small, 2009). The finding related to continued, persistent stressors and isolation for families

is a challenging and complex issue with few easy solutions. Continued analysis of this pattern

with further cohorts and larger sample sizes may help isolate other factors that could help ident-

ify families who need more targeted strategies and interventions while at Educare.

DISCUSSION

A Cohesive Educational Experience and Other Challenging Issues

An overarching lesson learned from the cumulative experiences of Educare families as they tran-

sitioned to kindergarten and beyond was the importance of providing students with the highest

levels of need with a cohesive educational experience, beginning at birth and continuing into

elementary school and beyond, mirroring the efforts of preschool to elementary school align-

ment (Bogard & Takanishi, 2005; Marietta, 2010; Reynolds, 2003; Reynolds & Temple,

2008). To help address this need, the Ounce of Prevention Fund and its directly operated

Educare Chicago School, including members of the Educare Chicago RPP team, formed a

new partnership with the University of Chicago’s Urban Education Institute (UEI), which oper-

ates two nearby University of Chicago Charter Schools (UCCS) to align standards, curriculum,

pedagogy, assessments, and family engagement practices from birth to college, with an initial

focus on the first 8 years of life.

In 2010, the Ounce of Prevention Fund, Educare Chicago, UEI, and UCCS staff began this

important new work through a series of professionally facilitated meetings and site visits to build

mutual understanding of shared vision and goals and the trust among staff to pursue them.

UCCS and Educare Chicago also successfully arranged to coordinate admissions policies and

procedures in a way that allowed kindergarten-bound Educare students to transition directly into

one of UCCS’s two elementary charter schools if the parent chose either of these schools for

their child’s elementary education. Almost 90% of Educare families with age-eligible children

chose to participate in this coordinated admissions process and have the option of enrolling in

one of the two UCCS schools in Fall 2014. The Follow-Up Study indicated that prior to the

development of coordinated admissions processes, 37 Educare graduates had enrolled at UCCS

via the charter school lottery system. This partnership will also allow school staff involved in

this birth-to-college partnership to intentionally focus on aligning supports and services for

36 STEIN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

children with special needs or children who have been identified as potentially benefitting from

special education services in the primary grades.

Although this will be a multiyear, intensive collaboration, the combined vision is to build a

seamless demonstration model of public education for children and their families that begins at

birth and creates success in school, college, and life. The overarching goal is to align and create

instructional approaches and academic and social supports to accelerate student learning while

honoring and building upon the strengths of the families served. As this model continues to be

developed, we will analyze Follow-Up Study data for the subgroup of children who transition

from Educare to the two UCCS schools to provide data and insights on the impact of this

birth-to-college model.

Despite this promising new model, Educare Chicago staff recognize that there are too many

low-performing schools in local neighborhoods and that some graduates will continue to tran-

sition into schools that will not adequately support the academic, social, and behavioral gains

children have made at Educare. The partnership with University of Chicago’s UEI and UCCS

programs offers just one solution to this stark reality but will not reach all of Educare’s

kindergarten-bound children and families. It is important to note that a primary objective of

the birth-to-college partnership is to document and disseminate both written and video-based

products that clearly describe components of this work, delineate lessons learned, and articulate

implications for best practice and systems and policy change with the ultimate goal of advancing

the replication of this model. Nonetheless, Educare program staff recognize the necessity of

locating additional elementary schools interested in working to create deeper transition align-

ments that will support the successful growth and development of children and their families

from birth through elementary school and beyond.

Educare program staff also realize that a part of the difficulty with transitioning from an early

childhood program to an elementary school setting stems from entering classrooms that have

more children per teacher and subsequently less individualized teacher guidance and interaction

than in Educare classrooms. Dedication to maintaining a high-quality birth-to-5 program and

school cannot necessarily mitigate these two factors. In addition, early education pedagogy

informs them that children learn best in environments that offer choices; incorporate a variety

of learning opportunities; and provide individual, small-group, and large-group experiences

throughout the day (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). Leadership and teaching staff struggle with

how to keep that learning environment intact and still prepare children for the demands of sitting

longer and attending independently to classroom assignments and activities in kindergarten.

Alumni Parents as a Resource

The sample of graduate parents, or alumni, as they are increasingly called, has become an unin-

tended resource and opportunity for Educare Chicago and the Ounce of Prevention Fund.

Through the study, this sample of families has remained connected to Educare long past their

child’s tenure in the school. Most parents credited Educare with helping their child and them-

selves be better prepared for elementary school and weathering the challenges they encountered.

The parents also retained many fond memories of the staff, events, and other parents while their

child or children attended Educare. During the interviews and focus groups, many parents voiced

a desire to give back, to volunteer in ways that could help current parents and children, from


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

helping to orient new parents to Educare to supporting transitioning parents. Continued contact

with the parents through the interviews, focus groups, and the annual parent event also rein-

forced the Educare message of staying connected to their child’s school and teacher and staying

informed about how the child is experiencing school and achieving in school. Providing support

in elementary school that builds on the foundation established during the birth-to-5 years at Edu-

care can be effective in supporting student gains among low-income children (Layzer, Goodson,

Bernstein, & Price, 2001). Plans to incorporate alumni parents into activities at Educare with

current parents and to capitalize on their desire to offer their expertise and experience to other

parents are still in development. Whatever activities result, they will be another example of

quality improvements to Educare Chicago as result of data from the Follow-Up Study.

CONCLUSION

The requirement for data-based decision making in education and, more recently, in early childhood

education, is ubiquitous (Orszag, 2009; Snow & Van Hemel, 2008). The RPP model practiced at

Educare Chicago was described, and the Educare Chicago Elementary School Follow-Up Study illu-

strated how the partnership worked to improve program practices by using data collected on the

elementary school experiences and progress of children who had graduated from Educare. Explora-

tory and largely descriptive, the Follow-Up Study benefitted Educare Chicago in many ways and

informed specific areas of program improvement, including activities to support parents’ knowledge

about school quality and the application process to apply for enrollment in higher quality options;

classroom activities and explorations for children in the months prior to their transition to

kindergarten; an early math professional development initiative for teachers of infants, toddlers,

and preschoolers; and an understanding of the need to better support children’s approaches to learning

and how to partner more effectively with parents during critical transition points. The Educare pro-

gram leadership views the Follow-Up Study as a constructive catalyst for new thinking and practices.

The Follow-Up Study data also revealed areas that continue to challenge Educare’s program

improvement. Identification of services and specialized supports for families with limited resources

to navigate complex life stressors, continued advocacy support for special needs children, and the

provision of a cohesive educational experience into elementary school and beyond for all Educare

graduates continue to be challenges with no simple solutions. However, the RPP serves as a venue in

which these issues can be discussed and clarified. Resultant strategies and interventions can then be

attempted and analyzed for results that will lead to further refinements or other solutions.

Findings from the Educare Chicago Elementary School Follow-Up Study and the associated

program responses generated through a collaborative, data-driven RPP offer a useful model for

early childhood education practitioners, programs, and policymakers for effectively evaluating

and utilizing data on students and families who have entered elementary school. This can serve

as a model for how to use both K–3 student program data and parent qualitative data to inform

practices in the early years.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work described in this article has been generously funded by the W. Clement & Jessie V.

Stone Foundation and the Alvin H. Baum Family Fund. We would like to express our deepest

38 STEIN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

gratitude for the tremendous efforts and contributions of the Educare Chicago Elementary

School Follow-Up Study research staff (Jacqueline Robinson, Edith Brown, and Todd Jackson)

and the collaboration, thoughtfulness, and hard work of Educare Chicago leadership and staff.

Finally, we would like to thank our research participants, the Educare Chicago graduates and

their families, for their valuable time, insights, and opinions.

REFERENCES

Barnard, W. M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment. Children & Youth ServicesReview, 26, 39–62. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2003.11.002

Bogard, K., & Takanishi, R. (2005). PK-3: An aligned and coordinated approach to education for children 3 to 8 years

old. Social Policy Report, 19(3), 3–23. Retrieved from the Society for Research in Child Development website: http://

www.srcd.org/documents/publications/SPR/spr19-3.pdf

Coleman, M., Buysse, V., & Neitzel, J. (2006). Recognition and response: An early intervening system for young

children at-risk for learning disabilities. Retrieved from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Frank Porter

Graham Child Development Institute website: http://www.recognitionandresponse.org/images/downloads/2006

fpgsynthesis_recognitionandresponse.pdf

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs (3rd

ed.) Washington, DC.

Cross, C. T., Woods, T. A., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2009).Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths towardexcellence and equity. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Downs, A., & Strand, P. S. (2006). Using assessment to improve the effectiveness of early childhood education. Journal

of Child and Family Studies, 15, 671–680. doi:10.1007/s10826-006-9080-7

Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., . . . Japel, C. (2007). Schoolreadiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428–1446. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428

Dunn, L., & Dunn, D. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. (4th ed.) Minneapolis, MN.

Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., & Perry, M. (2004). Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their relations to

behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low-income children. School Psychology Review, 33, 467–480.

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and

implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157–171.

doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00072

Fuligni, A. S., Howes, C., Lara-Cinisomo, S., & Karoly, L. (2009). Diverse pathways in early childhood professional

development: An exploration of early educators in public preschools, private preschools, and family child care

homes. Early Education & Development, 20, 507–526. doi:10.1080/10409280902783483

Gresham, F. M. (2007). Evolution of the response-to-intervention concept: Empirical foundations and recent develop-

ments. In S. Jimerson, M. Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response-to-intervention: The science

and practice of assessment and intervention, (pp. 10–24). New York, NY: Springer Science.

Halle, T., Forry, N., Hair, E., Perper, K., Wandner, L., Wessel, J., & Vick, J. (2009). Disparities in early learning and

development: Lessons from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Birth Cohort (ECLS-B). Retrieved from the

Child Trends website: http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends-2009_07_10_ES_DisparitiesEL.pdf

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children.

Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Harvard Family Research Project. (2006). Family involvement in early childhood education. Family Involvement Makes

a Difference, 1, 1–8. Retrieved from the Harvard Family Research Project website: http://www.hfrp.org/

publications-resources/browse-our-publications/family-involvement-in-early-childhood-education

Healy, A., Keesee, P. D., & Smith, B. J. (1985). Early services for children with special needs: Transactions for familysupport. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Honig, M. I., & Coburn, C. (2008). Evidence-based decision-making in school district central offices: Toward a policy

research agenda. Educational Policy, 22, 578–608. doi:10.1177/0895904807307067

Horton, C. (2003). Protective factors literature review: Early care and education programs and the prevention of childabuse and neglect. Retrieved from the Center for the Study of Social Policy website: http://www.strengtheningfami-

liesillinois.org/mirror/downloads/Literature%20Review_Horton.pdf


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Horton, C., & Bowman, B. (2002). Child assessment at the preprimary level: Expert opinion and state trends. Retrievedfrom the Erikson Institute website: http://www.erikson.edu/default/research/researchpubs.aspx

Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 (P.L. 110–134), 42 U.S.C. x 9801 et seq.

Kagan, S. L. (2003). Children’s readiness for school: Issues in assessment. International Journal of Early Childhood, 35,

114–120. doi:10.1007/BF03174437

Kayama, M. (2010). Parental experiences of children’s disabilities and special education in the U.S. and Japan:

Implications for school social work. Social Work, 55, 117–125. doi:10.1093/sw/55.2.117

Kincaid, D., Childs, K., Blase, K. A., & Wallace, F. (2007). Identifying barriers and facilitators in implementing

school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 174–184. doi:10.1177/

10983007070090030501

Kraft-Sayre, M. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2000). Enhancing the transition to kindergarten: Linking children, families and

schools. Charlottesville: University of Virginia, National Center for Early Development & Learning.

Layzer, J. I., Goodson, B. D., Bernstein, L., & Price, C. (2001). National evaluation of family support programs: Volume

A. The meta-analysis. Final report. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration

for Children & Families, Office of Research, Planning, & Evaluation website: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/

abuse_neglect/fam_sup/reports/famsup/fam_sup_vol_a.pdf

LeBuffe, P. A., Shapiro, V. B., & Naglieri, J. A. (2009). Devereux Student Strengths Assessment: A measure of

social-emotional competencies of children in kindergarten through eighth grade. Lewisville, NC: Kaplan Early

Learning.

Love, J. M., Kisker, E. E., Ross, C., Raikes, H., Constantine, J., Boller, K., . . . Vogel, C. (2005). The effectiveness of

Early Head Start for 3-year old children and their parents: Lessons for policy and programs. Developmental

Psychology, 41, 885–901. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.885

Marietta, G. (2010). Lessons in early learning: Building an integrated pre-K–12 system in Montgomery County,Maryland. Retrieved from the Foundation for Child Development website: http://www.fcd-us.org/resources/

lessons-early-learningbuilding-integrated-pre-k-12-system-montgomery-county-public-school

National Association for the Education of Young Children, & National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in

State Departments of Education. (2003). Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation: Positionstatement with expanded resources. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/CAPEexpand.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). America’s kindergartners: Findings from the Early Childhood

Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (Publication No. 2001-070R). Retrieved from http://nces.

ed.gov/pubs2000/2000070.pdf

Nelson, S. R., Leffler, J. C., & Hansen, B. A. (2009). Toward a research agenda for understanding and improving use of

research evidence. Retrieved from the Education Northwest website: http://educationnorthwest.org/content/about

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107–110), 20 U.S.C. x 6301 et seq.Orszag, P. (2009, October 7). Re: Increased emphasis on program evaluation [Memorandum]. Retrieved from the Office

of Management and Budget website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/

m10-01.pdf

Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. (4th ed.) San Francisco, CA.

Reynolds, A. J. (2003). The added value of continuing early intervention into the primary grades. In A. J. Wang, & H. J.

Walberg (Eds.), Early childhood programs for a new century (pp. 163–196). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League

of America Press.

Reynolds, A. J., Bezruczko, N., & Hagemann, M. (1997). Chicago longitudinal study of children in the Chicago publicschools: User’s guide (Version 5). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison and Chicago Public Schools.

Reynolds, A. J., Magnuson, K., & Ou, S. (2010). Preschool-to-third grade programs and practices: A review of research.

Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 1121–1131. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.10.017Reynolds, A. J., Ou, S., & Topitzes, J. (2004). Paths of effects of early childhood intervention on educational attainment

and delinquency: A confirmatory analysis of the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Child Development, 75, 1299–1328.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00742.x

Reynolds, A. J., & Temple, J. A. (2008). Cost-effective early childhood development programs from preschool to third

grade. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 109–139. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091411

Rodriguez, E. T., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2011). Trajectories of the home learning environment across the first five

years: Associations with children’s vocabulary and literacy skills at pre-kindergarten. Child Development, 82,

1058–1075. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01614.x

40 STEIN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Rous, B., McCormick, K., Gooden, C., & Townley, K. F. (2007). Kentucky’s early childhood continuous assessment and

accountability system: Local decisions and state supports. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27, 19–33.

doi:10.1177/02711214070270010201

Ryan, K. E., & DeStefano, L. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation as a democratic process: Promoting inclusion, dialogue, and

deliberation (No. 85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sandall, S. R., Schwartz, I. S., & LaCroix, B. (2004). Interventionists’ perspectives about data collection in integrated

early childhood classrooms. Journal of Early Intervention, 26, 161–174. doi:10.1177/105381510402600301

Schulting, A. B., Malone, P. S., & Dodge, K. A. (2005). The effect of school-based kindergarten transition policies and

practices on child academic outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 41, 860–871. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.860

Schwartz, I. S., & Olswang, L. B. (1996). Evaluating child behavior change in natural settings: Exploring alternative

strategies for data collection. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16, 82–101.

doi:10.1177/027112149601600108

Scott-Little, C., Kagan, S. L., & Clifford, R. M. (Eds.). (2003). Assessing the state of state assessments: Perspectives on

assessing young children. Retrieved from the University of North Carolina Greensboro, SERVE CENTER website:

http://www.serve.org/FileLibraryDetails.aspx?id=77

Small, M. L. (2009). Unanticipated gains: Origins of network inequality in everyday life. New York, NY: Oxford Uni-

versity Press.

Snow, C. E., & Van Hemel, S. B. (Eds.). (2008). Early childhood assessment: Why, what, and how? A report of the

National Research Council of the National Academies. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Sparrow, J. (2011). Child justice, caregiver empowerment, and community self-determination. In B. S. Fennimore, & A.

L. Goodwin (Eds.), Promoting social justice for young children (pp. 35–46). New York, NY: Springer.

Stedron, J. (2009). A look at Maryland’s early childhood data system. Retrieved from the National Conference of State

Legislatures website: http://www.ncsl.org/documents/educ/MDReport.pdf

Stiggins, R. (1999). Evaluating classroom assessment training in teacher education programs. Educational Measurement:

Issues and Practice, 18(1), 23–27. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1999.tb00004.x

Tseng, V. (2012). The uses of research in policy and practice. Social Policy Report, 26(2), 1–24. Retrieved from the

Society for Research in Child Development website: http://www.srcd.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=vie-

w&id=232&Itemid=658

U.S. Department of Education, & U.S. Department of Health, & Human Services. (2011). Race to the Top–Early Learn-

ing Challenge program: Executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/rtt-elc-draft-

execsumm-070111.pdf

West, J. L., Malone, L., Hulsey, N., Aikens, L., & Tarullo, L. (2010). ACF-OPRE Report: Head Start children go to

kindergarten. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children

and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation website: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/

hs_kindergarten.pdf

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL:

Riverside.

Yazejian, N., & Bryant, D. M. (2012). Educare implementation study findings—August 2012. Retrieved from the

University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute website: http://

www.fpg.unc.edu/sites/default/files/resources/reports-and-policy-briefs/FPG%20Demonstrating%20Results%20-%20

August%202012%20-%20Final.pdf


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 1

0:01

23

Nov

embe

r 20

13

the educare chicago research-program partnership and...

Documents