dr. ronald e. mcnair acknowledgements - University of St. Thomas

More documents

Recommendations

Info

UST McNair Scholars Program Research Journal their student’s progress through the planning element of the plan-do-review routine. Planning allows the child to select his or her activity while thinking through the actions he or she will take with the help of the teacher. After planning, children are given nearly two hours to carry out their activities individually, with small groups, and sometimes with the teacher. A group dialogue between the children and their teacher following work time provides space to reflect and review the previous two hours of activity. Children also reflect through other means such as drawing or writing. Throughout this process, the teacher interacts in a way that causes children to engage deeper within their learning. This interaction allows the teacher time to observe each student and encourage the child based on the teacher’s assessment of the child’s development. The High/Scope method emphasizes the individual through providing attention to each child’s level of development, culture, and so on. The method focuses on allowing the child to take an active role in his or her education by pursuing his or her interests (Follari, 2007). Research has proven the High/Scope model effective in long-term scenarios such as increasing graduation rates, influencing lower crime rates, and contributing to better employment outcomes (Bierman et al., 2008). The Creative Curriculum for Preschool. The Creative Curriculum for Preschool takes a holistic approach to working with the preschool age child with an educational focus on literacy, math, science, social studies, the arts, and technology (US Department of Education, 2009). Teaching Strategies, Inc., the founding organization of the Creative Curriculum, emphasizes the role of research in creating the curriculum (Teaching Strategies, Inc., 2011). The child may explore any of the eleven areas of interest within the classroom: blocks, dramatic play, toys and games, art, library, discovery, sand and water, music and movement, cooking, computers, and the outdoors (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Each area of interest is associated with specific outcomes of learning and corresponding interactions between the teacher and child (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). “Studies” supple - ment exploration of the areas of interest (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). A study refers to a project that examines an aspect of science or social studies, providing an outlet for children to practice math, literacy, and other 32 skills (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). The teacher observes children to guide their play and development, though emphasis is given to child assessment (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). The Creative Curriculum provides a method from which teachers can expand upon and modify to their classroom needs (Teaching Strategies, Inc., 2011). A 2009 report by the What Works Clearinghouse found that the Creative Curriculum had no discernable effects on oral language, print knowledge, phonological reasoning, or math skills, although Teaching Strategies, Inc. cites improved classroom quality and stronger academic and social-emotional skills when The Creative Curriculum is used (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). REVIEW OF RESEARCH: EFFECTIVENESS OF HEAD START Head Start requires frequent evaluation due to its status as a federal aid program (Follari, 2007). From its inception, Head Start has claimed commitment to research and evaluation, though the Head Start program was not thoroughly evaluated until 1998 when assessment was mandated for reauthorization (Love et al., 2005). Research prior to the 1998 study proved flawed and inconsistent (Love et al., 2005). The Nixon administration even considered phasing out the Head Start program after various studies illustrated Head Start was having a small effect (Zigler, Gordic, & Styfco, 2007). Still today, each reauthorization revives discussion around whether or not Head Start is meeting its intended goals and is effective in providing successful early childhood education and services to bridge the gap between children of various backgrounds (Follari, 2007). However, the lack of clearly defined goals by which Head Start operates has made assessment difficult (Zigler, Gordic, & Styfco, 2007). Assessing whether or not Head Start is successful in its vague goals has caused debate and confusion throughout its history (Zigler, Gordic, & Styfco, 2007). Little research was available to guide Head Start’s creators in formatting goals for educating lowincome children (Zigler, Gordic, & Styfco, 2007). This lack of solid foundation causes variability and inconsistency of quality in Head Start programs today (Zigler, Gordic, & Styfco, 2007). In the early 1990s, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), which oversees Head Start, increased the emphasis placed on research within Head Start’s program
Kesha Berg Public Policy Enhancing Early Childhood Education planning (Love et al., 2005). Action by the ACF to expand research coincided with mandates made by Congress to carry out several studies regarding Head Start children’s performance and progress during and after enrollment (Love et al., 2005). The Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) study began in 1997 and will continue through 2013 to better determine Head Start’s strengths and effectiveness, as well as areas where the program is unsuccessful or lacking (Follari, 2007). The study follows a representative group of children and their families through Head Start and beyond (Love et al., 2005). The completed study will consist of five cohorts of Head Start enrollees from all fifty states and the District of Colombia (Office of Head Start, 2011). Each child is assessed three to four times one-on-one for language, literacy, and math skills to determine his or her school readiness (Office of Head Start, 2011). FACES has already revealed Head Start does narrow the gap between Head Start preschoolers and preschoolers who attended an alternative early childhood education program both academically and socially (Follari, 2007). Particularly, students whose development was significantly behind norms when they entered preschool saw the greatest improvements (Love et al., 2005). Head Start children made the most significant gains in cognitive development in the areas of vocabulary and early writing (Follari, 2007). However, Head Start students, on average, still remain below the national averages for abilities at their age, scoring lower on standardized tests (Follari, 2007). Additionally, the FACES study has shown the improvements made during a child’s Head Start years often fade after two years (Follari, 2007). This finding illustrates Head Start’s inability to produce sustained benefits, an area of great importance (Follari, 2007). Head Start is offered in both full-day and half-day settings across the country (Love et al., 2005). This is cited as one reason why lasting effects are not seen; three to four hours of classroom time per day does not allow much time to correct the child’s development and make gains (Zigler, Gordic, & Styfco, 2007). However, the National Head Start Association claims Head Start is actually providing long-term benefits such as decreases in the amount of grade repetition, special education placements, and dropouts (NHSA, 2011). Similar findings have been reported from the Head Start Impact Study (HSIS). HSIS was carried out by an independent research panel and aimed at assessing the impact of Head Start on participants and identifying the source of the impacts (Love et al., 2005). The study was begun in 2002 to answer two questions: (1) What differences does Head Start make to the key outcomes of development and learning of the nation’s low-income children? and (2) Under what circumstances does Head Start work best and for which children (Love et al., 2005, p. 7)? The HSIS compared 3 and 4 year old Head Start children with 3 and 4 year old Head Start eligible children who were enrolled in an alternative program or were cared for by their parents through the spring of their first grade year (Love et al., 2005). With data collection running from 2002 to 2006, the HSIS involved roughly 5000 3 and 4 year olds from 84 Head Start programs across the nation (Office of Head Start, 2011). Head Start programs were used in areas where Head State applicants outnumbered enrollees (Office of Head Start, 2011). Child assessments, interviews, parent and teacher ratings, and observations of Head Start and alternative settings were used to assess the impact of Head Start (Love et al., 2005). Of the 4 year olds assessed, Head Start preschoolers outperformed non-Head Start preschoolers in multiple areas of development (Love et al., 2005). In 2005, results illustrated that cognitively the Head Start preschoolers were better able to identify words, name letters, and spell (Love et al., 2005). The Head Start three year olds assessed showed even greater results than their non-Head Start counterparts (Love et al., 2005). They, too, were better able to identify words and letters, draw a design, use varied vocabularies, name colors, and respond to oral communication (Love et al., 2005; Puma et al., 2010). The Head Start 3 year olds also showed reductions in behavior problems and hyperactivity (Love et al., 2005). Overall, the Head Start children showed signs of better health and parent relationships (Love et al., 2005; Puma et al., 2010). Black students and students with special needs were identified as making the most substantial gains (Puma et al., 2010). Deviance from the success seen in HSIS came primarily from non-English speaking homes, families with young mothers, and mothers with high levels of depression symptoms (Love et al., 2005; Puma et al., 2010). However, when data from the HSIS was produced again in 2010, there were no impacts found on children’s cognitive, social, or emotional development (Haskins & Barnett, 2010). Researchers concluded, based on Head Start’s poor effectiveness, reform 33
Page 1 and 2: DR. RONALD E. MCNAIR Ronald E. McNa
Page 3 and 4: ABSTRACT The purpose of the present
Page 5 and 6: Oluwademilade Adediran Psychology M
Page 21 and 22: ABSTRACT Early childhood education
Page 23 and 24: Kesha Berg Public Policy Enhancing
Page 33: Kesha Berg Public Policy Enhancing
Page 43 and 44: ABSTRACT Human immunodeficiency vir
Page 45 and 46: Mondraya Howard Pharmacy HIV-1 Resi
Page 47 and 48: Mondraya Howard Pharmacy HIV-1 Resi
Page 49 and 50: ABSTRACT Food waste in the United S
Page 51 and 52: Bridgette Kelly Environmental Scien
Page 63 and 64: ABSTRACT This research discusses he
Page 65 and 66: Chia Lee Public Health Health care
Page 75 and 76: Mai-Eng Lee Social Work Teachers’
Page 83 and 84: APPENDIX B INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Back

dr. ronald e. mcnair acknowledgements - University of St. Thomas

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?