Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research (PCER) Program
The 2005 OSEP National Early Childhood Conference
February 8, 2005
Caroline Ebanks
James Griffin
Institute of Education
Sciences
AcknowledgementsPCER 2002 and 2003 Researchers
RTI PCER 2002 National Evaluation Coordinator
Ina Wallaceand Holly Rhodes
Mathematica Policy Research PCER 2003 National Evaluation Coordinator
John Love
Institute of Education Sciences (IES)
IES Statutory Mission
• Condition and progress of education in the United States
• Education practices that improve academic achievement & access to education opportunities
• The effectiveness of Federal and other education programs
Institute of Education Sciences
N a tio n a l C e n te r fo r E d u c a tio n S ta tis tic s
N a tio n a l C e n te r fo r E d u c a tio n R e se a rc h
N a tio n a l C e n te r fo r E d u c a tio n E v a lu a tio n
N a tio n a l C e n te r fo r S p e c ia l E d u c a tio n R e se a rc h
O ffic e o f th e D ire c to r N a tio n a l B o a rd fo r E d u c a tio n S c ie n c e s
Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research
• Immediate Program Goals– Provide practitioners with evidence for selecting
preschool curricula– Support rigorous evaluations of preschool curricula using
random assignment
• Additional Goals– Support complementary research studies to supplement
the evaluation– Build capacity for collaboration between researchers and
practitioners
PCER: General Framework
• Three year longitudinal studies across the transition
from preschool to kindergarten and first grade
• Grantees were funded to implement curricula and conduct complementary research studies at each project site
• Focus on supporting school readiness, especially for disadvantaged children
• Common core of evaluation data collected by an outside contractor
Basic Design of Evaluation
• Two groups of grantees (PCER 2002 and PCER 2003) implementing a variety of preschool curricula
• Randomly assigned either schools, classrooms, or children to the treatment condition
• Baseline and three follow-up assessments—end of preschool, end of kindergarten, and end of first grade
Primary Research Questions
• What outcomes do specific curricula produce?
• Are outcomes sustained over time?
Secondary Research Questions
• What is the relationship between level of implementation and participation and curriculum effectiveness?
• How are experiences in kindergarten and first grade related to child outcomes?
PCER Project Cohorts
IES
Cohort 1: PCER 2002
National Evaluator:
RTI
7Grantees
Cohort 2: PCER 2003
National Evaluator:
MPR
5Grantees
Basic Design Features
• 14 Experimental Curricula
• 12 Grantees in 13 geographic locations
-California-Florida-Georgia-Kansas-Missouri-New Hampshire-New Jersey
-New York-North Carolina-Tennessee-Texas-Virginia-Wisconsin
PCER Curricula
• PCER 2002 Curricula
– Bright Beginnings (TN)– Creative Curriculum (NH, NC,GA,
TN)– Doors to Discovery (TX)– Early Literacy and Learning Model
(ELLM) (FL)– Ladders to Literacy (NH)– Let’s Begin with the Letter People
(TX)– Pre-K Mathematics with DLM
Express Math (CA/NY)– Project Approach (WI)
• PCER 2003 Curricula
– Curiosity Corner (FL, NJ, KS)
– The Language Focused Curriculum (VA)
– Literacy Express (FL-FSU)
– Open Court with DLM Early Childhood (FL-FSU)
– Project Construct (MO)
– Ready, Set, Leap! (Newark, NJ)
PCER 2002 CohortGrantee Research Site(s)
Dale Farran
Vanderbilt University
Tennessee
Cheryl Fountain
University of North Florida
Florida (Bay, Jacksonville, and Miami)
Richard Lambert
UNC Charlotte
Georgia and
North Carolina
Susan Landry
University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston
Houston, Texas
Doug Powell
Purdue University
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Jeff Priest
University of New Hampshire
New Hampshire
Prentice Starkey
University of California, Berkeley
California and New York
PCER 2002 Sites and Curricula
Research Site CurriculumTennessee Creative Curriculum vs.
Bright Beginnings vs. Comparison
Florida Early Literacy and Learning Model vs.
Comparison
North Carolina/Georgia Creative Curriculum vs. Comparison
Texas Doors to Discovery vs. Let’s Begin with the Letter People vs. Comparison
Wisconsin Project Approach vs. Comparison
New Hampshire Creative Curriculum with Ladders to Literacy vs. Comparison
California/New York Pre-K Mathematics vs. Comparison
PCER 2003 Cohort
Grantee Research Site(s)
Bette Chambers
Success for All Foundation
Florida, Kansas, New Jersey
Anne Cunningham
University of California, Berkeley
Newark, New Jersey
Laura Justice
University of Virginia
Virginia (Culpeper and Wise counties)
Christopher Lonigan
Florida State University
Florida (Taylor and Leon counties)
Kathy Thornburg
University of Missouri
Missouri
PCER 2003 Sites and Curricula
Research Site Curriculum
Florida, New Jersey, Kansas
Curiosity Corner vs. Comparison
Newark, New Jersey Ready, Set, Leap! vs. Comparison
Virginia The Language Focused Curriculum vs. Comparison
Florida Literacy Express vs. Open Court/DLM vs. Comparison
Missouri Project Construct vs. Comparison
Grantees’ Complementary Research
• FSU (Chris Lonigan): Implementation of Open Court/DLM and Literacy Express
• NC/GA (Richard Lambert): Implementation of Creative Curriculum, 4th edition
• UNH (Jeff Priest): Implementation of Ladders to Literacy
Cross-Site Study Sample Size• Total sample size
– 2913 children and 317 classrooms
• PCER 2002:
– 1,686 Children and 180 Classrooms
• PCER 2003:
– 1,227 Children and 137 Classrooms
Types of Measures in the Cross-Site Study
• Child Assessments
• Classroom Observations
• Teacher interviews
• Teacher reports of child behavior
• Parent interviews
Overview
• Preschool program type
• Demographics
• Academic Outcomes
• Social Outcomes
• Teacher Characteristics
Types of Preschool Programs in the PCER 2002 Cohort
Head StartPublic SchoolPrivate Pre-K50%
44%
6%
Types of Preschool Programs in the PCER 2003 Cohort
Head StartPublic SchoolPrivate Pre-K
65%
23% 12%
Demographics
From the Parent Interview
Children’s Age (in years)
4
4.5
5
2002 Cohort 2003 Cohort
TreatmentControl
Children’s Gender (% Male)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2002 Cohort 2003 Cohort
Treatment
Control
Race/Ethnicity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2002 2003
White (non-Hispanic) African American Hispanic/Latino Other
Disability Status (% Yes)(Parent report)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2002 Cohort 2003 Cohort
TreatmentControl
Maternal Employment Status
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2002 2003
Other
Not Working
Part-Time
Full-Time
Maternal Educational Level
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
< HS HS Some postHS
BA orhigher
PCER 2002PCER 2003
Sample Comparisons: Poverty Indicators
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Medicaid (Child) AFDC/TANF
PCER 2002PCER 2003FACESECLS-K
PCER Sample Comparisons-Child
PCER 2002 PCER 2003 FACES ECLS-K
Gender (% Male) 53% 48% 51% 50%
Race/Ethnicity
-White (non Hispanic) 30% 36% 31% 57%
-African American (non-Hispanic)
44% 52% 26% 14%
-Asian/Pacific Islander 2% 1% 1% 7%
-Hispanic/Latino 17% 5% 30% 18%
-American Indian/Eskimo
0.4% 1% 2% 2%
-Other 6% 6% 18% 3%
Disability Status 15% 19% 9% --
Teacher Education
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2002Treatment
2003Control
2003Treatment
2003Control
BA/BS or >< BA/BSHS or less
Academic Outcomes
From the Child Assessment
-Baseline Data-
Child Math Assessment (CMA) Composite
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
2002 Cohort 2003 Cohort
Child Math Assessment (CMA)Composite score,
by treatment status
00.05
0.10.15
0.20.25
0.30.35
0.40.45
0.5
PCER 2002 PCER2003
TreatmentControl
Woodcock Johnson-III: Applied Problems
80
85
90
95
100
2002 Cohort 2003 Cohort
Woodcock Johnson-III: Applied Problems, by treatment status
80
85
90
95
100
PCER 2002 PCER 2003
TreatmentControl
Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA): Reading Quotient
80
85
90
95
100
2002 Cohort 2003 Cohort
Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA): Reading Quotient,
by treatment status
80
85
90
95
100
PCER 2002 PCER 2003
TreatmentControl
Woodcock-Johnson-III: Letter Word Identification
90
95
100
105
2002 Cohort 2003 Cohort
Woodcock-Johnson-III: Letter Word Identification,
by treatment status
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
PCER 2002 PCER 2003
TreatmentControl
Woodcock-Johnson-III: Spelling
85
90
95
100
2002 Cohort 2003 Cohort
Woodcock-Johnson-III: Spelling,by treatment status
80
85
90
95
100
PCER 2002 PCER 2003
TreatmentControl
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) III
80
85
90
95
2002 Cohort 2003 Cohort
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) III,
by treatment status
80
85
90
95
100
PCER 2002 PCER 2003
TreatmentControl
Test of Language Development (TOLD): Grammatical
Understanding
5
6
7
8
9
10
2002 Cohort 2003 Cohort
TOLD: Grammatical Understanding,
by treatment status
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCER 2002 PCER 2003
TreatmentControl
Social Outcomes
From Teacher Report Form
-Baseline Data-
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS): Social Skills
90
95
100
105
2002 Cohort 2003 Cohort
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS): Social Skills,
by treatment status
90
95
100
105
PCER 2002 PCER 2003
TreatmentControl
SSRS: Problem Behaviors
90
95
100
105
2002 Cohort 2003 Cohort
SSRS: Problem Behaviors, by treatment status
90
95
100
105
PCER 2002 PCER 2003
TreatmentControl
Preschool Learning Behaviors Scale (PLBS)
45
47
49
51
53
55
2002 Cohort 2003 Cohort
Preschool Learning Behaviors Scale (PLBS),
by treatment status
45
47
49
51
53
55
PCER 2002 PCER 2003
TreatmentControl
What we can learn from PCER
• Which curricula appear to better support school readiness
• The type of support teachers need in order to effectively implement curricula
Additional Benefits of PCER
• Support collaboration between practitioners and researchers which can produce:
– Research that is more relevant to practice– Researchers and practitioners who understand
how to be good collaborating partners– Model for other education research programs
PCER: Contact Information
• Program Officers:– Caroline Ebanks, PhDE-mail: [email protected]
– James Griffin, PhDE-mail: [email protected]
• PCER Websites:– PCER 2002: http://pcer.rti.org/– PCER 2003: www.pcer-mpr.info
