The transition into school represents a major step in a child’s life.

This topic
aims to better identify the skills and abilities that contribute to school
readiness and to understand the role of parents as well as the best practices
for fostering an appropriate transition and school success.

Role of Early Childhood Education

Intervention Programs in Assisting Children
With Successful Transitions to School
The transition between early childhood and elementary school is widely
considered a crucial period in children’s development. 1 Early childhood
education programs are valuable interventions to assist children in
developing appropriate school-readiness skills to facilitate the transition to
formal schooling. Some of these programs are targeted at disadvantaged
children while others are provided for all children. There are important
questions concerning the benefits of early childhood education programs for
assisting children’s transition to formal schooling and the level of quality
required to produce these benefits.

Subject

Many reading specialists believe that early skills in reading and writing are
essential precursors to later success at learning to read, and becoming a
fluent reader is central to academic achievement in elementary school and
beyond. Prior to kindergarten, the majority of kindergartners today have had
at least one experience in out-of-home group care environments, which vary
from centre-based classroom settings, operating either full-time or part-time,
to private family daycare homes.2,3 Some programs are universally provided
in states or provinces while others are targeted at needy children and their
families. Variations in children’s emergent literacy skills when they enter
kindergarten may be related to the types of programs they experienced prior
to entry. Centre-based early childhood learning environments may be
beneficial for the development of all children, but especially for those from
higher-risk family environments.4

Problems

School readiness is a multi-faceted phenomenon comprising development in

the physical/health, social and emotional domains, as well as language
acquisition, literacy and cognition. 5 New perspectives on school readiness
recognize that schools also need to be ready to meet the varied needs of
children and their families.6 Several demographic trends within the past
decade may account for the proliferation of early childhood education
programs, particularly those targeted at low-income families. More families
are now living at or below the poverty line, come from minority groups and
are less likely to be two-parent households. There is substantial evidence
that low-income families provide less intellectual stimulation to their young
children compared with higher-income families. 6,7

Research Context

Most studies employ longitudinal designs, in which samples of children are

followed from early childhood through first or second grade. To help separate
the effects of early education programs from the normal increase in skills
that comes with children’s maturation, some studies randomly assign
children to participate in a preschool program and assign other children to a
control group that does not receive the program in question. This procedure
compensates for possible biases that may be introduced when program
participation is left wholly up to parents or program administrators. Families
that choose to have their children take part in one kind of early education
program usually differ in important ways from families that select other kinds
of programs or no program at all. Factors related to parents’ selection of an
early childhood education program may well influence children’s outcomes.
Along with the lack of adequate controls for selection factors, many studies
do not include a representative sample of parents, thereby reducing the
generalizability of the results. Finally, studies have primarily looked at the
role of centre-based early childhood education programs, but have not
adequately included other forms of non-parental care, such as family child
care.

Child outcomes for most studies are based on direct assessment of the
children before program entry and then at either program exit or at regular
time intervals using age cohorts of children. Follow-up involves testing the
same children either at kindergarten entry or in the spring of their
kindergarten year. Most child assessments consist of a variety of tests of
verbal, quantitative or psychomotor skills that can be compared to scores
from a larger population of children or based on criteria for what children
should know at different ages. It is desirable for tests to have sound
measurement properties, be easily administered and scored, and have been
used in previous large-scale studies.

An important distinction in comparing research studies is whether the

programs under investigation are expensive, small, targeted research and
demonstration efforts, or whether the evaluations involve large-scale,
government-funded, community-based programs. Many of the known effects
of early childhood education programs may be attributed to the intensity and
control available in model programs. In the few long-term studies that
compared model programs with large-scale public programs, model
programs were found to be more effective.8

Key Research Questions

The most important research question is whether early childhood education
programs are effective at preparing children for entry into formal schooling.
Related but still critical questions include whether the quality of the
preschool program contributes to children’s school readiness, the factors
that make a difference in producing a higher-quality program, and the key
quality ingredients, such as curricula. Some curricula focus more on
instructional activities, such as teaching children letters and numbers, while
others encourage more play-oriented and discovery-learning activities and
still others focus on whole-language and language-rich environments. Finally,
the underlying mechanisms in which children’s program participation is
linked to improved outcomes are not fully known, although direct instruction,
socialization experiences and increased involvement of parents in their
child’s education have been strongly implicated.

The benefits of early childhood education programs for disadvantaged

children have been reported in studies of the United States’ Head Start
program, which is designed to bring these children closer to their middle-
class peers upon entry to formal schooling. While studies found that Head
Start produced immediate, meaningful gains in cognitive development, social
behaviour, achievement motivation and health status, some gains appeared
to fade over time. However, the validity of the “fade out” effect has been
challenged for weaknesses in research methods, such as selective loss of
test scores for children in the comparison group who have been retained in
grade.8

Recent Research Results

In general, high-quality more intensive centre-based programs have shown

the strongest and most consistent effects.8,9 Randomized, controlled trials of
high-quality programs have yielded significant benefits for children, often
extending through adolescence and into young adulthood. 10,11 There is a
strong body of research pointing to the importance of early, intensive
language and literacy instruction in a language-rich environment that spans
developmental domains and that focuses on both expressive and receptive
vocabulary, literacy and numeracy.12Early childhood education programs that
also provide family support services appear to improve both child and family
outcomes.13,14 However, it would appear that no single curriculum model or
philosophy stands out as the most successful prototype of early childhood
interventions.15

Some studies that have included measures of children's social development

reported that children in high-quality preschool settings showed higher levels
of peer engagement, positive relationships with teachers, more frequent
pretend play and secure attachment.16 Other research has shown that Head
Start produced immediate positive gains in social behaviour and
achievement motivation17,18 as well as growth in social skills and reductions in
hyperactive behaviour.26

The contribution of quality in early childhood education classrooms to raising

children’s school readiness is significant but relatively modest. 19 High quality
in community child-care settings has been related to better child outcomes
in the short term, after controlling for child and family background
factors.2,20,21,22 There have also been some notable exceptions in which quality
was not related to children’s developmental outcomes, 23 but this finding
could be due to small samples of classrooms, a relatively restricted range of
quality across centres in the study, or both. 24 Recently, there has been
promising evidence that, despite some modest immediate effects for quality,
there are long-term effects that extend into the second grade, and that these
effects are strongest for children living in the most at-risk family
backgrounds.24

Results from the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES)
show that children from disadvantaged families do make gains in Head Start,
and that the quality of the Head Start programs in general is higher than
other centre-based preschool programs.25,26 Although Head Start children
make gains, particularly in vocabulary and early writing skills, they still trail
their peers nationally when they leave the program. Higher teacher salaries,
use of an integrated, developmentally appropriate curriculum such as
High/Scope, higher teacher educational qualifications and full-day
programming were factors linked to these gains. 26

In general, the majority of studies that have looked at age of entry (three vs.
four years of age) and duration (one vs. two years of the program) find that
starting an intervention program earlier is better for children, and that
children with longer exposure also do better. 27 Although one recent study
reported no effects from two years compared to one year of the intervention
on reading and mathematics achievement in grades one to three, 28 recent
results from a national probability sample of Head Start children revealed
that children who spent two years in the program showed stronger gains and
higher scores at graduation, compared with those who spent one year. 29

Conclusions

In general, there is sufficient evidence from both model demonstration

programs and large-scale studies to suggest that early childhood education
can assist children to enter school ready to learn. While studies of model
programs show greater effects than do those of publicly-funded, large-scale
programs, there is still evidence that these latter programs are beneficial,
particularly for children from disadvantaged families. However, early
childhood programs also boost the achievement of children from more
advantaged families. The evidence also supports the importance of quality in
early childhood education programs, the use of better-qualified teachers, and
full-day programs where children enroll at younger ages and stay in the
program longer. Finally, the methodological strengths and weaknesses of
studies in research design, sampling and measurement are often related to
the strength of the reported findings.

Implications

With the increased participation of all families in early childhood education

programs, rivalling the move of families a decade ago towards greater use of
kindergarten, it appears that “all boats are lifted,” that is, children from both
advantaged and disadvantaged families benefit. Despite greatly expanded
investment in preschool programs, the achievement gap between
advantaged and disadvantaged children remains. Although the benefits of
early childhood education programs may last beyond initial entry into formal
schooling, to obtain similar results, programs must be of high quality and
focused on didactic learning activities, such as teaching children letters and
numbers, while encouraging play-oriented and discovery-learning activities
in a language-rich and emotionally-supportive environment. Efforts to
improve early childhood education programs should encourage the use of an
integrated curriculum, bolstering program quality through adding resources
to lower-quality programs and upgrading teacher training and qualifications.
References

1. Pianta RC, Rimm-Kauffman SE, Cox MJ. Introduction: An ecological approach to kindergarten
transition. In: Pianta RC, Cox MJ, eds. The transition to kindergarten. Baltimore, Md: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing; 1999:3-12.
2. Zill N, Collins M, West J, Hausken EG. Approaching kindergarten: A look at preschoolers in the
United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey;
1995. NCES 95-280. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/95280.pdf. Accessed November 30,
2004.
3. Hofferth SL, Shauman KA, Henke RR, West J. Characteristics of children’s early care and education
programs: Data from the 1995 National Household Education Survey. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for
Education Statistics; 1998. NCES 98-128. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98128.pdf.
Accessed November 30, 2004.
4. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (ECCRN). The relation of child care to cognitive and
language development. Child Development 2000;71(4);960-980.
5. Goal One Technical Planning Group. The Goal One Technical Planning Subgroup report on school
readiness. In: National Education Goals Panel, ed. Potential strategies for long-term indicator
development: Reports of the technical planning subgroups. Washington, DC: National Education
Goals Panel; 1991:1-18. Report no. 91-0.
6. Zill N, Moore KA, Smith EW, Stief T, Coiro MJ. The life circumstances and development of children
in welfare families: A profile based on national survey data. In: Chase-Lansdale PL, Brooks-Gunn J,
eds. Escape from poverty: What makes a difference for poor children? New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press; 1995:38-59.
7. Dickinson DK, Tabors PO, eds. Beginning literacy with language:Young children learning at home
and school. Baltimore, Md: Paul H. Brookes Publishing; 2001.
8. Barnett WS. Long-term effects on cognitive development and school success. In: Barnett WS,
Boocock SS, eds. Early Care and Education for Children in Poverty: Promises, programs, and long-
term results. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; 1998:11-44.
9. Burchinal MR, Roberts JE, Nabors LA, Bryant DM. Quality of center child care and infant cognitive
and language development. Child Development 1996;67(2):606-620.
10. Campbell FA, Ramey CT. Effects of early intervention on intellectual and academic achievement:
A follow-up study of children from low-income families. Child Development 1994;65(2):684-698.
11. Schweinhart LJ, Barnes HV, Weikart DP. Significant benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool
Study through age 27. Ypsilanti, Mich: High/Scope Press; 1993.
12. Whitehurst GJ, Lonigan CJ. Child development and emergent literacy. Child
Development 1998;69(3):848-872.
13. Seitz, V. Intervention programs for impoverished children: A comparison of educational and family
support models. In: Vasta R, ed. Annals of Child Development: A research annual. Vol. 7.
Philadelphia, Pa: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 1990:73-103.
14. Halpern R. Community-based early intervention. In: Meisels SJ, Shonkoff JP, eds. Handbook of
early childhood intervention. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1990:469-498.
15. Reynolds AJ, Mann E, Meidel W, Smokowski P. The state of early child intervention: Effectiveness,
myths and realities, new directions. Focus 1997;19(1):5-11.
16. Howes C, Phillips DA, Whitebook M. Thresholds of quality: Implications for the social development
of children in center-based care. Child Development 1992;63(2):449-460.
17. Love J, Ryer P, Faddis B. Caring environments: Program quality in California’s publicly funded child
development programs. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation; 1992.
18. McKey RH, Condelli L, Ganson H, Barrett BJ, McConkey C, Plantz MC. The impact of Head Start on
children, families and communities. Final report of the Head Start evaluation, synthesis and
utilization project. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 1985.
(Contract No. 105-81-C-026).
19. Peisner-Feinberg ES, Burchinal MR. Relations between preschool children’s child-care experiences
and concurrent development: The Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly1997;43(3):451-477.
20. Bryant DM, Burchinal M, Lau LB, Sparling JJ. Family and classroom correlates of Head Start
children’s developmental outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 1994;9(3-4):289-304.
21. Phillips D, McCartney K, Scarr S. Child care quality and children’s social
development. Developmental Psychology 1987;23(4):537-543.
22. Whitebook M, Howes C, Phillips D. Who Cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in
America: Final report of the National Child Care Staffing Study. Berkerley, Calif: Child Care
Employee Project; 1989. Available at: http://www.ccw.org/pubs/whocares.pdf. Accessed
November 30, 2004.
23. Kontos S, Fiene R. Child care quality: Compliance with regulations and children's development:
The Pennsylvania Study. In: Phillips DA, ed. Quality in child care: What does research tell
us? Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children; 1987:57-59.
24. Peisner-Feinberg ES, Burchinal MR, Clifford RM, Culkin ML, Howes C, Kagan SL, Yazejian N. The
relation of preschool child-care quality to children’s cognitive and social developmental
trajectories through second grade. Child Development 2001;72(5):1534-1553.
25. Zill N, Resnick G, Kim K, McKey RH, Clark C, Pai-Samant S, Connell D, Vaden-Kiernan M, O'Brien R,
D'Elio MA. Head Start FACES: Longitudinal findings on program performance. Third progress
report. Washington, DC: Administration on Children, Youth and Families, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services; 2001. Available
at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/reports/perform_3rd_rpt/perform_3rd_rpt.pdf.
Accessed February 1, 2005.
26. Zill N, Resnick G, Kim K, O’Donnell K, Sorongon A, McKey RH, Pai-Samant S, Clark C, O’Brien R,
D’Elio MA. Head Start FACES 2000: A whole child perspective on program performance.
Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services; 2003. Available
at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/reports/faces00_4thprogress/
faces00_4thprogress.pdf. Accessed February 1, 2005.
27. White KR. Efficacy of early intervention. Journal of Special Education 1985-1986;19(4):401-416.
28. Reynolds AJ. One year of preschool intervention or two: Does it matter? Early Childhood Research
Quarterly 1995;10(1):1-31.
29. Zill N, Resnick G. Emergent literacy of low-income children in Head Start: Relationships with child
and family characteristics, program factors and classroom quality. In: Dickinson D, Neuman SB.,
eds. Handbook of Early Literacy Research. Vol. II; 2005. Guilford Press. In Press.