Sunteți pe pagina 1din 34

Writing a Synopsis Everything comes to him who hustles while he waits. ~ Henry Ford Your story is finished.

You know every twist and turn of the plot. You know your characters inside and out. Now how do you share all of that with an editor without her having to read the whole story! "he synopsis. #$ve placed some great synopsis how%to links and &ooks &elow. 'on$t miss the sample synopsis page link. something new. #t kind of takes the fear out of it and (ust makes it so much easier. "hat &eing the case # asked a num&er of authors to please share the synopsis with us that won them their contract with a &ig pu&lisher or landed them a well%known agent. )any of those authors always willing to help other writers agreed to share without a second thought. So click on the link &elow to read their synopses. *'on$t forget to check out the +uery page for samples of +uery letters., 'on$t use some fancy font or cute flowery paper. Stick with the same &asics you learned for manuscript formatting....an easy to read font like dark courier si-e ./ good twenty weight white paper. 0rint on front side only dou&le spaced unless the pu&lisher$s guidelines ask for something else. Some ask for single. 1ust make sure it$s easy to read. "hat$s important for someone who reads all day at work and often takes more reading home. how to write hints When it comes to the length of a synopsis longer isn$t &etter. 2 good length is to figure on a&out two synopsis pages for each hundred manuscript pages. 3f course depending on the plot you might find you can get &y with less or you might find you need more. "he key word here is 4need4. 3f course if the agent or pu&lishers says no more than five pages then no more than five pages. #f they ask for pink paper with a si-e ten font that$s what you give them. "heir wish is your command. Smile. 2 comparison of early childhood and elementary education students5 &eliefs a&out primary classroom teaching practices Nancy File 'ominic F. 6ullo 0urchase 'epartment of 7urriculum 8 #nstruction 9niversity of Wisconsin%)ilwaukee 0.3. :o; <.= )ilwaukee W# >=/?. 9S2 2ccepted .? 1anuary /??/. 2vaila&le online .. )arch /??/. Abstract Two professional preparation paths lead to teaching positions in the lower primary grades; their different histories and emphasis result in potentially conflicting paradigms. We examined the viewpoints of 119 pre-service teachers who were either at the beginning or near the end of their programs in early childhood !"!#$ or elementary education !%!#$. They completed a survey of their beliefs about primary classroom practices. !"!# students& compared to !%!# students& favored practices more consistent with the constructivist nature of 'ational Association for the !ducation of (oung "hildren 'A!("$ guidelines in several areas& including teaching strategies& expectations of the children& assessment strategies& and teacher- and child-directed activities. )ne significant difference was found between beginning students and student teachers& with student teachers favoring more fre*uent use of less developmentally appropriate behavior management strategies.

)oving up the 6rades@ +elationship

between ,reschool -odel and %ater .chool

.uccess
Ae&ecca 2. )arcon 9niversity of North Florida 2&stract Biew@ )arcon article from v< n. Conigan commentary on )arcon article )arcon response to Conigan commentary Editor$s introduction to the discussion 'iscussion@ 7ontri&ute to the discussion

Abstract A follow-up study of children who began school at age 4 (referred to as Year 1 in this study) was conducted to examine the influence of three different preschool models on later school success. These children from an urban school district were studied again in Year as they prepared to lea!e the primary grades and in Year " when they were scheduled to enter fourth grade if not pre!iously retained. The study examined report card grades# retention rates# and special education placement of 1"$ children at the end of their fifth year in school and 1%& children at the end of their sixth year in school. The sample was '"( African American and 4( female# with ) ( of the children *ualifying for subsidi+ed school lunch and )&( li!ing in singleparent families. Academically# girls surpassed boys at the end of Year # and this difference persisted into the next grade le!el. ,hildren whose preschool experience was more academically directed had been retained less often than peers. -o differences attributable to preschool model were found for special education placement. .y the end of children/s fifth year in school# there were no significant differences in academic performance of children who had experienced three different preschool models. .y the end of their sixth year in school# children whose

preschool experiences had been academically directed earned significantly lower grades compared to children who had attended child-initiated preschool classes. ,hildren/s later school success appears to ha!e been enhanced by more acti!e# childinitiated early learning experiences. Their progress may ha!e been slowed by o!erly academic preschool experiences that introduced formali+ed learning experiences too early for most children/s de!elopmental status. 0ntroduction 0n the ongoing debate o!er education reform designed to impro!e academic performance of American children# preschools are under increasing pressure to offer instruction in basic academic s1ills. This trend is especially pre!alent in programs that ser!e low-income children. ,ompensatory early childhood programs such as 2ead 3tart and state-sponsored pre1indergarten for low-income families and preschoolers with special needs are designed to help children ac*uire s1ills needed for later school success. Although the goal of school readiness is widely shared among early childhood educators# parents# and policy ma1ers# the strategies for achie!ing this goal !ary greatly. 4undamental philosophical and political differences in beliefs about the purpose of schooling# !alue orientations# and cultural priorities are central to the debate on how to best prepare young children for formal schooling (5essler# 1''1). 5indergarten retention rates ha!e increased (e.g.# 3hepard 6 3mith# 1'%%)# perhaps due to the downward shift in curriculum that introduces formal reading and mathematics instruction much earlier. 7scalating academic demands in 1indergarten ha!e

clearly affected preschool programs for e!en younger children. 8offin (1''4) noted a downward mo!ement of the debate between de!elopmental and academic orientations from elementary education to the preschool setting. 9hen preschool was :reconceptuali+ed as an appropriate beginning for primary schooling (especially for low-income children)#: public school programs for 4-year-olds grew in number (8offin# 1''4# p. 1;$). .eginning in the 1'%$s# leading early childhood experts expressed concern about the wisdom of o!erly didactic# formal instructional practices for young children (e.g.# 7l1ind# 1'%"< =igler# 1'%)). They feared that short-term academic gains would be offset by long-term stifling of children/s moti!ation and selfinitiated learning. >ater research suggests that these early concerns were warranted. ,ompared to children whose 1indergarten experience emphasi+ed child-initiated learning# primary-grade teachers rated children from didactic# teachercentered 1indergartens lower in conduct and wor1-study habits# and percei!ed them to be more distractible# less willing to follow directions# and less prosocial (2art# ,harlesworth# .urts# 6 ?e9olf# 1''&). 3tipe1# 4eiler# ?aniels# and @ilburn (1'' ) also found moti!ational differences fa!oring a child-initiated !iew of early education compared to a more formali+ed# didactic approach. They cautioned that early academic gains in reading s1ills associated with didactic instruction of preschoolers :come with some costs: that could ha!e long-term negati!e effects on achie!ement. ?eAries# Beese->earned# and @organ (1''1) expressed similar concerns# arguing that temporary benefits of highly didactic approaches with young children cannot be Custified in light of possible negati!e conse*uences for social de!elopment. Today# as 9alsh (1'%') predicted# the li1elihood

that children will experience a highly didactic# teacher-centered approach has increased as preschool is absorbed into public schools where a narrowly focused# externally imposed curriculum ma1es the preschool experience e!en more li1e elementary school. Although it was once belie!ed that any well-implemented preschool program would achie!e positi!e results (e.g.# >a+ar# ?arlington# @urray# Boyce# 6 3nipper# 1'%;)# a growing research base suggests otherwise (see @arcon# 1'''# for a re!iew of research on different preschool approaches). Df particular interest in the present study was sustainability of an earlier preschool approach/s influence on academic performance. 3e!eral researchers ha!e found that later school success declined when the inter!ention was discontinued. 4or example# @iller and ?yer (1') ) found a drop in school achie!ement for children who entered a nondidactic program following a direct instruction preschool experience. 3imilarly# when the highly didactic ?irect 0nstructional 3ystem for the Teaching of Arithmetic and Beading (?03TAB) was discontinued after third grade# children/s pre!iously high achie!ement in reading and mathematics declined (.ec1er 6 8ersten# 1'%;). 7arly academic success fostered by a child-initiated approach has been documented by a number of different researchers (e.g.# .urts# 2art# ,harlesworth# 6 ?e9olf# 1''&< @arcon# 1''&# 1'''< 9ei1art# 7pstein# 3chweinhart# 6 .ond# 1')%). 3ome long-term benefits of this approach ha!e been found for school achie!ement (e.g.# @iller 6 .i++ell# 1'%4) as well as for social beha!ior and general school competence (e.g.# 3chweinhart 6 9ei1art# 1'')< 3chweinhart# 9ei1art# 6 >arner# 1'%"). >ittle is 1nown# howe!er# about the long-term effect of early inter!ention

that combines didactic# teacher-centered strategies with childinitiated learning experiences. 0n the short term# this combination approach has !arying outcomes# with some research fa!oring the strategy# especially for lower functioning children (e.g.# @ills# ?ale# ,ole# 6 Een1ins# 1'' ). A preponderance of the research e!idence# howe!er# has failed to support the combination approach (e.g.# ?eAries et al.# 1''1< @arcon# 1'''< Ffannenstiel 6 3chattgen# 1'')< Bawl 6 D/Tuel# 1'%;). 5nowing how later school success of these children compares with that of children exposed to other preschool models would be useful in determining the effecti!eness of a combination strategy. A second area of interest in the present study in!ol!ed sex differences in later school success. Academically# studies of low-income children ha!e found that girls did better than boys in pre-1indergarten (e.g.# @arcon# 1''')# 1indergarten (e.g.# .urts et al.# 1''&< @arcon# 1''&)# and in first grade (e.g.# Beynolds# 1'%'). .oys do notably better in both the short and long term when their early learning experiences ha!e been more child initiated rather than more didactic in nature (e.g.# @arcon# 1''&< @iller 6 .i++ell# 1'%4). 3uccessful transition between grade le!els may also be moderated by sex. Farents and principals belie!e boys ha!e more difficulty than girls in ma1ing the transition from third to fourth grade (@ayfield# 1'%&). 4urthermore# differences in school competence (especially rates of nonpromotion) among African American children may be intensified by negati!e attitudes and beha!iors toward school exhibited as early as fourth grade by African American boys (Bowan# 1'%'). 4urther examination of sex differences in later school success of low-income children and possible interaction

with preschool model would add to our understanding of the often difficult transition from the primary to the later elementary school grades. The present study pro!ides follow-up data for one cohort of lowincome# minority children who had attended two years of school (preschool and 1indergarten) prior to entering first grade. These children had experienced one of three different types of preschoolG child-initiated# academically directed# or a :combination: approach. 0n this earlier *uasi-experimental study# @arcon (1''') compared the three different approaches for their effect on children/s de!elopment and mastery of basic s1ills at the end of preschool. 4indings indicated that children whose preschool experiences had been child-initiated demonstrated greater mastery of basic s1ills at the end of preschool than did children in programs where academics were emphasi+ed and s1ills were directly taught. At the end of preschool# children in the :combination: model did significantly poorer on all measures except self-help and de!elopment of social coping s1ills compared to children in either the childinitiated or academically directed models. Freschool girls outperformed boys in all areas except gross motor de!elopment and playHleisure s1ills. This follow-up study examines the transition from children/s fifth to sixth year in school (third to fourth grade for most of these children). .ased on earlier findings for these children and results of other research studies (e.g.# @iller 6 .i++ell# 1'%4< 3chweinhart 6 9ei1art# 1'')< 3chweinhart# 9ei1art# 6 >arner# 1'%")# it was thought that any difference in later school success attributable to preschool model would fa!or the child-initiated early learning approach. ,hildren who had experienced :combination: preschool curricula were

expected to be least successful# whereas later school performance of those who had attended didactic# teachercentered preschools was expected to be intermediary. 3ex differences in school achie!ement fa!oring girls were expected to persist because boys# in general# do not perform as well in the early years of school (Bichardson# 5oller# 6 5at+# 1'%")# and African American boys# unli1e boys in general# do not typically show a rise in school achie!ement following the elementary school years (Follard# 1''&). The type of preschool experience was expected to ha!e a greater effect on later school achie!ement of boys than on girls. @ethod Farticipants ,hildren who began school at age 4 (referred to as Year 1 in this study) were studied again in Year (when they were expected to be in third grade if not pre!iously retained) and Year " (when they were expected to be in fourth grade if not pre!iously retained) of their educational experience. This sample of urban students included 1"$ Year children (@ age I 1$)." months# 3? I &.') in "1 schools and 1%& Year " children (@ age I 11'.% months# 3? I &.") in )$ schools. The initial sample had been randomly selected proportional to enrollment of 4-year-olds in subdistricts within the school system. 7ach subdistrict was represented by at least one classroom for each of the three models studied. This stratified sample was geographically dispersed across the city and was representati!e of socioeconomic# administrati!e# and local !ariations within the school system (see @arcon# 1'';# for a description of random

selection and stratification procedures used in the original cohort study). This follow-up sample from the original cohort was '"( African American and 4( female. @ost children () () *ualified for subsidi+ed school lunch based on low family income# and )&( of the children li!ed in single-parent families. ?ata from both Years and " were a!ailable for a subsample of the children (n I 1&') in "4 schools. 3ubsample children did not differ significantly from the larger follow-up sample in any demographic characteristics. Beco!ery rate from preschool to fourth grade was "4( of the original sample. Although this attrition rate was high# it was not unexpected# and attrition was comparable across the preschool models# (;) I 1.%$# p I .41. The reco!ered follow-up sample was not significantly different from the original preschool sample in terms of gender (p I .';)# age (p I .%;)# parent in!ol!ement (p I .&4)# o!erall adapti!e beha!ior (p I .1")# social and wor1 habits (p I .;&)# or physical de!elopment (p I .1 ) in preschool. Freschool grades of children in the reco!ered followup sample were# howe!er# &( lower than the original sample (p I .$;). ,ompared to the original preschool sample# the reco!ered follow-up sample had more African American and fewer 9hite children# (&) I 1 .&4# p I .$1# who were poorer# (1) I 1;."$# p J .$$1# and more li1ely to li!e in single-parent families# (1) I 4.%&# p I .$&. These differences were consistent with school districtwide changes in enrollment patterns following pre-1indergarten and 1indergarten when children of many middle-class families lea!e the public school system.

At age 4# all children had attended free# full-school-day preschool in the same urban school district# with approximately %4( of the sample ha!ing been enrolled in pre-1indergarten and 1"( in 2ead 3tart. 7ligibility for pre-1indergarten was based solely on age and residency# whereas 2ead 3tart eligibility had an additional federal re*uirement of low family income. All preschool teachers of children in this study# both pre1indergarten and 2ead 3tart# held a bachelor/s degree or higher. Their median pre-1indergarten or 2ead 3tart teaching experience was approximately 1$ years. As pre!iously classified (see :@easures and Frocedures: section for details)# approximately &&( of children in this follow-up sample had attended preschool classes that followed a child-initiated approach# & ( attended academically directed preschool classes# and the remaining &;( had been enrolled in middle-ofthe-road preschool classes that combined the other two preschool approaches. -o 2ead 3tart classes in this school district used an academically directed approach. 5indergarten in this school district was predominantly academic in focus# with all but a handful of teachers indicating a strong belief that academic preparation was a more important goal of 1indergarten than children/s socioemotional growth (@arcon# 1''$# 1''&). All first-grade teachers in this school district emphasi+ed academics# with approximately two-thirds using a highly didactic# academically directed approach (@arcon# 1''$). @easures and Frocedures Freschool @odel. The Fre-5 3ur!ey of .eliefs and Fractices (see @arcon# 1'''# for instrument and details) was used to classify children/s early learning experiences based on fi!e theoretical differences between early childhood modelsG (1)

scope of de!elopmental goals# (;) conception of how children learn# (&) amount of autonomy gi!en to the child# (4) conception of teacher/s role# and ( ) pro!ision of possibilities for learning from peers. Three groupings identified through cluster analysis using 9ard/s method were selected as examples of the di!ergent preschool models operating in this urban school system. Dne group was composed of child de!elopment-oriented teachers who facilitated learning by allowing children to acti!ely direct the focus of their learning. These child-initiated preschool classrooms were referred to as @odel ,0. Another group represented more academically oriented teachers who preferred more direct instruction and teacher-directed learning experiences for preschoolers. These academically directed preschool classrooms were referred to as @odel A?. The third group represented teachers whose beliefs and practices fell in between the other two opposing models by endorsing a combination approach. These middle-of-the-road preschool classrooms were referred to as @odel @. 0n the original study# accuracy of model classification based upon sur!ey response was affirmed by independent classroom obser!ers# and findings were congruous with other research demonstrating strong consistency between outside raters/ obser!ations of early childhood instructional acti!ities and teachers/ self-reported beliefs and practices (e.g.# ,harlesworth# 2art# .urts# @osley# 6 4leege# 1''&< 2yson# 2irsch-Fase1# 6 Bescorla#1''$< 5agan 6 3mith# 1'%%< Aartuli# 1'''). 0n the original study# @odel ,0 and @odel A? classifications were easily !erified by independent classroom obser!ers# but these same obser!ers had some difficulty categori+ing @odel @ practices in se!eral classrooms. @odel @ teachers appeared to

be closer to @odel ,0 in goals but more li1e @odel A? in teacher initiation of acti!ities. ,ompared to @odel ,0 teachers# the @odel @ teacher was notably more engaged in leading groups of children in less-indi!iduali+ed acti!ities for longer periods of time. ,ompared to @odel A? teachers# the @odel @ teacher allowed children greater access to classroom materials# encouraged more peer interaction# and initiated fewer teacherdirected cogniti!e acti!ities that were not well integrated with other de!elopmental domains. These @odel @ teachers were not# howe!er# using a Aygots1ian approach to foster children/s early learning and de!elopment. @odel @ teachers were best described as professionals who sought to blend notions of child de!elopment with their school system/s competency-based curriculum. Their basis for doing so was most li1ely pragmatic. Beport ,ards. ?ata were collected from teachers and school records at the end of Year and Year ". The school district/s 7lementary 3chool Frogress Beport (report card) was used to compare children/s classroom performance with the district/s expectations for s1ills mastery. >i1e many urban school districts# a competency-based curriculum (,.,) was in place throughout most of the school system# and children were expected to demonstrate mastery of specific reading and arithmetic s1ills before ad!ancing to the next grade le!el. ,., defined a s1ill as being mastered when a child could perform it upon re*uest and pro!ided teachers with three mastery assessment tas1s for each reading and arithmetic obCecti!e (see @c,lure 6 >eigh# 1'%1# for details of this school system/s ,.,). 4or research purposes# Frogress Beport grades were con!erted to the standard -point numeric scaleG $ I 4# 1 I ?# ; I ,# & I .# and 4 I A. 7ach child/s o!erall grade point a!erage

(8FA) was calculated. 8rades in each of 11 subCect areas were also con!erted to numeric scoresG arithmetic# reading# language# spelling# handwriting# social studies# science# art# music# healthHphysical education (F7)# and citi+enship. ,iti+enship grades pro!ided a global assessment of a child/s deportment while attending school. 3chool records and teacher report pro!ided information on the child/s eligibility for subsidi+ed school lunch and the number of parents or guardians li!ing at home with the child (scored as 1 or ;). Besults 3chool ,ompetenceG 3pecial 7ducation Flacement and Betention Year . ?uring the primary grades (first# second# and third grades)# this school district was more inclined to use retention in grade rather than special education ser!ices for children who experienced academic difficulties. .y Year # less than 1( of this random sample had recei!ed special education ser!ices# whereas ;$( had been retained in grade. -o significant differences in special education placement were found for preschool model or sex. 3pecial education placement during the primary grades was not related to family income as measured by eligibility for subsidi+ed school lunch (p I .44) or to the child/s li!ing in a single-parent family (p I .4&). .oys were more li1ely to ha!e been retained prior to Year (&4() than were girls (1$()# (1# - I 1"1) I 1&.')# p J .$$1. 3imilarly# teachers were li1ely to recommend more boys (;&() than girls (11() for retention at the end of Year # (1# - I 1" ) I 4.;%# p I .$4. Although no significant difference in retention

rate attributable to preschool model was found for girls (p I . 41)# @odel A? boys had a significantly lower rate of retention prior to third grade than did boys who had attended other types of preschool# (;# n I )1) I ).;$# p I .$&. D!erall# fewer children who had attended @odel A? preschools had been retained prior to third grade (1$()# (;# - I 1"1) I . $# p I .$"# compared to retention rates of ;4( and ;"( for @odels ,0 and @# respecti!ely. There were no significant differences attributable to preschool model in teachers/ recommendations for retention at the end of Year (p I .) ). Dther demographic factors (family income# single-parent families) that could contribute to retention in grade were examined. >ower-income children were more li1ely than higherincome children to ha!e been retained prior to third grade# (1# I 1"$) I ).$;# p I .$1. Although no significant difference in retention rate at the end of Year was found between children who did or did not *ualify for subsidi+ed lunch (p I .14)# teachers recommended far fewer children who did not *ualify for subsidi+ed lunch for retention than was expected statistically. ,hildren who li!ed in single-parent !ersus two-parent families did not differ in retention rates prior to Year (p I .1%). At the end of Year # howe!er# teachers were somewhat less li1ely to recommend retention for children who were growing up in twoparent families# (1# - I 1&&) I ;.44# p I .1;. Year ". .ecause children were of the age to be lea!ing the primary grades# this school district was now more inclined to recommend special education ser!ices for children who experienced academic difficulties# (1# - I 1&') I .1"# p I .$;. 0n Year "# the number of children who recei!ed special

education ser!ices increased to %( of the sample. -o significant differences in special education placement were found for preschool model or sex. 3pecial education placement following the primary grades was somewhat related to family income# (1# - I 1"") I ;. ;# p I .11. Dnly half as many children who did not *ualify for subsidi+ed lunch as expected statistically were recei!ing special education ser!ices. 3pecial education placement in Year " was not related to growing up in a singleparent family (p I .&1). Fossibly due to increases in special education placement# teachers/ recommendations for retention at the end of Year " (1$() decreased in comparison with retention recommendations made at the end of Year (1"(). -o significant differences were found in recommended retention at the end of Year " for preschool model# sex# or family income. Teachers were more li1ely to recommend children from singleparent families for retention at the end of Year " than children li!ing in two-parent families# (1# - I 14') I 4.; # p I .$4. Year Beport ,ards A & x ; (Freschool @odel x 3ex) analysis of co!ariance (A-,DAA) was used to test for differential effects of preschool model on children/s grades# sex differences# and possible Freschool @odel x 3ex interactions at the end of Year in school. The co!ariate used to control for possible economic differences between children was eligibility for subsidi+ed school lunch (based on family income and si+e). Although a direct measure of family income would ha!e been a more desirable co!ariate# it was not a!ailable. 7ligibility for subsidi+ed school lunch should be highly correlated with family income and is a widely used estimate of family income in public school e!aluation research. All reported means ha!e been

adCusted for the co!ariate. @issing scores were not imputed. The academic performance of children who were :on schedule: at the end of Year (third grade)# as well as performance of children who had been retained prior to third grade# was examined in this follow-up study. Freschool @odel. -o significant main effect for preschool model was found in Year o!erall 8FA or any specific subCect area for either :on schedule: or :retained: children. A statistical trend toward significant differences between preschool models was found for Year citi+enship grades# 4 (;# 1 &) I ;.""# p I . $). D!erall# @odel A? children recei!ed citi+enship grades that were "( and 1'( lower than @odel ,0 and @odel @ children# respecti!ely. ,iti+enship grades reflect children/s deportment in school. At the end of Year # children from the three different preschool models were performing academically at a comparable le!el. Teachers did# howe!er# see the school beha!ior of children who had attended academically directed preschools as being notably poorer than that of peers. 3ex ?ifferences. A significant sex difference was found in o!erall Year 8FA# 4 (1# 1 &) I 4.$ # p I .$ # with girls earning a 1$( higher 8FA than boys. 7ffect si+e for this difference was moderate (.&4). As seen in 4igure 1# girls earned higher grades in each of the 11 subCect areas. A significant difference was found for citi+enship grades# 4 (1# 1 &) I 1;.;"# p I .$$1# with teachers rating girls/ school beha!ior ;4( :better: than that of boys. 7ffect si+e for the difference in citi+enship grades was large (. %). At the end of Year # girls were outperforming boys in school.

4igure 1 0nteractions. -o significant Freschool @odel x 3ex interactions were found for o!erall 8FA or any of the 11 subCect areas for either :on schedule: or :retained: children. -o statistical trends toward significant group differences were found. The smallest gap between performance of boys and girls appeared for @odel @ children (boys/ 8FA was only ;( lower than girls/ 8FA). 0n four subCect areas (language# spelling# art# and music)# @odel @ boys recei!ed somewhat higher grades than did @odel @ girls. A similar pattern was not present in the other two preschool models. Year 3ummary. 4or children who had attended preschool and 1indergarten prior to entering first grade# there was no significant difference in academic performance attributable to preschool model at the end of children/s fifth year in school. 8irls outperformed boys in school# but this difference was less noticeable among children who had attended :combination: preschool classes. Teachers rated boys/ school beha!ior lower than girls/ beha!ior. ,ompared to peers# children who had attended academically directed preschool classes also were rated lower in beha!ior compared to peers at the end of their fifth year in school. Year " Beport ,ards Freschool @odels. As shown in Table 1 and 4igure ;# a trend towards statistical significance between preschool models was found in Year " o!erall 8FA (p I .$)). 8FA for @odel ,0 was 4( higher than @odel @ and 14( higher than @odel A?. The

difference between @odels ,0 and A? was moderate (effect si+e I .&%). 0n all subCect areas except music# @odel A? children displayed the lowest grades of the three preschool models. 0n all but three subCect areas (language# social studies# and music)# @odel ,0 had the highest grades compared to peers who had other types of preschool experiences. 3cience grades of @odel @ children e*ualed those of @odel ,0. Fost hoc Tu1ey/s 23? (p J .$1) indicated that @odels ,0 and @ earned significantly higher healthHF7 grades than did @odel A?. .y the end of Year "# academic performance of children who had attended academically directed preschool classes was beginning to decline. Although not statistically significant# their school beha!ior continued to be rated somewhat lower than that of peers< @odel A? citi+enship grades were 14( and '( lower than @odels ,0 and @# respecti!ely. Table 1 Year " Beport ,ardsG Freschool @odel (F@) and 3ex ?ifferences (8H.)K Freschool @odel 8irls .oys A-,DAA ,0 @ A? 8FA @ ;. " ;.4" ;.; ;. ' ;.; F@G 4 (;# 1)") I ;."%# p I .$) 3? .%; .%; .)4 .)% .)% 8H.G 4 (; #1)") I '.11# p I .$$& Arithmetic @ ;.;" ;.1% 1.%) ;.;4 1.'" F@G 4 (;# 1)&) I ;.1%# p I .11" 3? 1.1$ 1.;$ 1.$$ 1.$4 1.1" 8H.G 4 (;# 1)&) I &.$$# p I .$% Beading @ ;.&& ;.11 ;.$; ;.& 1.'" F@G 4 (;# 1);) I 1.&$# p I .;) 3? 1.11 1.;1 1.$% 1.11 1.14 8H.G 4 (;# 1);) I .4$# p I .$;

>anguage@ ;.;% ;.;' ;.1$ ;.&" ;.$% F@G 4 (;# 1)4) I .";# p I. 4 3? 1.1& 1.1" .'4 1.1; 1.$; 8H.G 4 (;# 1)4) I &.$"# p I .$% 3pelling @ ;. " ;.&% ;.;$ ;.") ;.$' F@G 4 (;# 1)4) I 1.;;# p I .&$ 3? 1.;) 1.& 1.;' 1.;) 1.;) 8H.G 4 (;# 1)4) I '.;;# p I .$$& 2andwriting @ ;. ' ;.&' ;.&) ;. " ;.&4 F@G 4 (;# 1) ) I . ';# p I .4$ 3? .'% .'% 1.$$ .'" 1.$1 8H.G 4 (;# 1) ) I ;.1&# p I .1 3ocial 3tudies @ ;.&) ;.4% ;.$) ;.4' ;.1; F@G 4 (;# 1);) I ;.1)# p I .11) 3? 1.1$ 1.1; 1.$ 1.1; 1.$& 8H.G 4 (;# 1);) I . # p I .$; 3cience @ ;. ) ;. ) ;.;) ;."$ ;.&4 F@G 4 (;# 1)$) I 1.%&# p I .1" 3? 1.$) 1.$1 .%) .'% .'% 8H.G 4 (;# 1)$) I &.&$# p I .$) Art @ ;.%' ;.)& ;.)$ ;.)" ;.)' F@G 4 (;# 1 %) I 1.$ # p I . & 3? .) .) .)% .) .)% 8H.G 4 (;# 1 %) I .$"# p I .%1 @usic @ ;.); ;.)% ;.)4 ;.% ;."4 F@G 4 (;# 1 &) I .$'# p I .'1 3? .'1 .%1 .%1 .%% .)% 8H.G 4 (;# 1 &) I ;.&%# p I .1; 2ealthHF7 @ &.$ ;.'$ ;.4; ;.'; ;."" F@G 4 (;# 1 %) I ). '# p I .$$1 3? .') .)& .'" .%; 1.$1 8H.G 4 (;# 1 %) I &." # p I .$ % ,iti+enship @ ;. ) ;.44 ;.;; ;.%; ;.$$ F@G 4 (;# 1 ;) I 1.;;# p I .&$ 3? 1.1' 1.& 1.; 1.$% 1.;% 8H.G 4 (;# 1 ;) I ;$.1&# p J .$$1 K-oteG @eans adCusted for family income (eligibility for subsidi+ed lunch) co!ariate. 4igure ;

3ex ?ifferences. As shown in Table 1 and 4igure &# a significant sex difference was found in o!erall 8FA (p I .$$&)# with girls recei!ing 1&( higher grades than boys. 7ffect si+e for this difference was moderate (.44). 8irls earned higher grades in all of the 11 subCect areas except art. These differences were statistically significant for reading# spelling# social studies# and citi+enship. 7ffect si+es for sex differences were moderate to large# with the greatest effect si+e seen in citi+enship grades (.)"). A trend toward statistically significant differences between girls and boys was found in four other subCect areasG arithmetic# language# science# and healthHF7. At the end of Year "# girls continued to outperform boys in school. 4igure & 0nteractions. -o significant Freschool @odel x 3ex interactions were found for o!erall 8FA or any of the 11 subCect areas in Year ". A possible interaction between preschool model and sex was found for Year " music grades# 4 (;# 1 &) I ;. '# p I .$%. Lnli1e other boys# @odel A? boys earned somewhat higher grades in music ("() than did @odel A? girls. 2owe!er# at the end of children/s sixth year in school# the smallest gap between school performance of boys and girls appeared for @odel ,0 children. The 8FA of @odel ,0 boys was only '( lower than that of girls# whereas a 1"( and 14( difference between girls/ and boys/ 8FA was found for @odels @ and A?# respecti!ely. Year " 3ummary. 3chool performance of those who had attended academically directed preschool classes was beginning to decline by the end of children/s sixth year in school. 8irls still

outperformed boys in school# but this difference was now less noticeable among children who had attended child-initiated preschool classes. Teachers continued to rate school beha!ior of boys lower than that of girls. Although no significant differences attributable to preschool approach were found in beha!ior at the end of the sixth year in school# teachers continued to rate beha!ior of children with academically directed preschool experiences somewhat lower than their peers. Transition from Year to Year " A & x ; x ; (Freschool @odel x 3ex x Year) repeated measures multiple analysis of co!ariance (@A-,DAA) with year as the repeated !ariable was used to test for differential effects of preschool model on children/s grades# sex differences# and possible Freschool @odel x 3ex interactions across time (Year to Year "). As with pre!ious analyses# the co!ariate used to control for possible influence of economic differences between children was eligibility for subsidi+ed school lunch. @issing scores were not imputed. @ain 7ffect for Year. Although children/s grades generally dropped as they left the primary grades and entered the later elementary school grades# no significant main effect for year was found in the subsample/s o!erall 8FA# 4 (1# 1&;) I .%%# p I .& . Analyses of each subCect area yielded only one significant main effect for year< subsample children/s grades in language decreased %( from Year to Year "# 4 (1# 1&1) I 4.)%# p I .$&. 7ffect si+e for this difference was small (.1"). 0nteractions across Years. Df greater interest in children/s transition from the primary to the later elementary school grades

was how an earlier preschool model or children/s sex or both might differentially affect school performance across years. Therefore# two-way interactions (Freschool @odel x Year< 3ex x Year) and the possibility of a three-way interaction (Freschool @odel x 3ex x Year) were examined more closely. As shown in Table ; and 4igure 4# there was a significant interaction between preschool model and year for 8FA (p I . $;). The 8FA of @odel ,0 children increased "(# while 8FA decreased 4( and %( for @odels @ and A?# respecti!ely. A similar pattern of @odel ,0 increases and @odels @ and A? decreases was found in " of the 11 subCect areasG reading# language# spelling# science# healthHF7# and citi+enship. 0n an additional three subCect areas (arithmetic# art# and handwriting)# @odel ,0 grades either remained constant or increased. @odel @ grades increased in only one subCect area# music. @odel A? grades increased in only one subCect area# handwriting. 4inally# all three preschool models showed a drop in children/s social studies grades from Year to Year ". Table ; A-,DAA 0nteractions for Freschool @odel and 3exG Year to Year " @odel x Year 3ex x Year 3ex x Year @odel x 3ex x Year 8FA 4 (;# 1&;) I 4.; # p I .$; 4 (1# 1&;) I .4$# p I . & 4 (;# 1&;) I .1;# p I .%' Arithmetic 4 (;# 1&$) I &.&)# p I .$4 4 (1# 1&$) I .$)# p I .)' 4 (;# 1&$) I .&;# p I .); Beading 4 (;# 1&$) I &.1'# p I .$4 4 (1# 1&$) I .$)# p I .)' 4 (;# 1&$) I .;)# p I .)"

>anguage4 (;# 1&1) I ;.&4# p I .1$ 4 (1# 1&1) I .$"# p I .%$ 4 (;# 1&1) I ." # p I . & 3pelling 4 (;# 1&1) I &.&%# p I .$4 4 (1# 1&1) I 4.1)# p I . $4 4 (;# 1&1) I .1"# p I .% 2andwriting 4 (;# 1&1) I .)1# p I .4' 4 (1# 1&1) I .1&# p I .); 4 (;# 1&1) I.'&# p I .4$ 3ocial 3tudies 4 (;# 1;') I .1 # p I .%" 4 (1# 1;') I .$$# p I .' 4 (;# 1;') I .11# p I .'$ 3cience 4 (;# 1;)) I .%1# p I .4 4 (1# 1;)) I .$1# p I .'1 4 (;# 1;)) I 1.)'# p I .1) Art 4 (;# 1$') I .&4# p I .); 4 (1# 1$') I .1;# p I .)& 4 (;# 1$') I .%"# p I .4& @usic 4 (;# '%) I .1;# p I .%' 4 (;# '%) I .;4# p I ."; 4 (;# '%) I .&)# p I .&) 2ealthHF7 4 (;# 11;) I .&1# p I .$$" 4 (1# 11;) I &.; # p I .$) 4 (;# 11;) I 1.;"# p I .;' ,iti+enship 4 (;# 111) I ;.'1# p I .$" 4 (1# 111) I .$)# p I .%$ 4 (;# 111) I &.$4# p I .$ 4igure 4 As shown in Table ;# four subCect area Freschool @odel x Year interactions were significantG arithmetic# reading# spelling# and healthHF7. 3tatistical trends toward significant interactions were found for language and citi+enship. Dnly one 3ex x Year interaction was found to be significant. 8irls/ grades in spelling increased &(# and boys/ grades decreased. A somewhat similar pattern was found for healthHF7 grades (p I .$))# with boys/ grades decreasing "( and girls/ grades remaining constant in healthHF7. This 3ex x Year interaction pattern# howe!er# was not typical of other subCect areas.

4igure shows increases or decreases in boys/ and girls/ grades across years for each preschool model. As seen in Table ;# citi+enship was the only subCect area to show a significant threeway interaction between preschool model# children/s sex# and year (p I .$ ). @odel ,0 boys and girls had similar increases in citi+enship grades across years (%( and "(# respecti!ely). The o!erall decrease in @odel @ citi+enship grades was due primarily to a 1'( drop in boys/ grades< @odel @ girls decreased only slightly (;(). ,iti+enship grades of @odel A? boys increased ;"(# while girls/ citi+enship grades decreased )(. The source of boys/ impro!ement was due primarily to fewer failing Year " citi+enship grades among boys whose school deportment had been pre!iously unacceptable. 7!en with this impro!ement# howe!er# @odel A? boys remained 11( behind @odel ,0 boys in Year " citi+enship grades. And# although impro!ed# these Year " citi+enship grades for @odel A? boys still remained lower than citi+enship grades of girls (&&(# &;(# and 1%( lower compared to @odels ,0# @# and A? girls# respecti!ely). 4igure ?iscussion As predicted# preschool model did ha!e an influence on children/s later school achie!ement. ,hildren whose preschool experience was child initiated faired better than peers in the transition from the primary to the later elementary school grades. -ot only were their o!erall grades following the

transition significantly higher# their school performance impro!ed or held constant in all but two subCect areas (music# social studies) despite increased academic demands of the next grade le!el. ,ontrary to predictions# children from preschool classes where teachers had attempted to combine distincti!e approaches were performing better in school than expected. .y the end of their fifth year in school# they had :caught up: to classmates from other preschool models. Belati!e to peers# the position of children with combination approach preschool experiences was intermediary following the transition. 4indings regarding later school success were somewhat mixed for children who had more didactic# academically directed preschool experiences. Although fewer of these children had been retained during the primary grades# children from this preschool model were least successful in ma1ing the transition to the later elementary school grades. 8rades of children from academically directed preschool classrooms declined in all but one subCect area (handwriting) following the Year " transition. 9hat contributed to the lower rates of retention prior to third grade among children whose earlier preschool experiences had been academically directedM Dne possibility is greater continuity between the preschool experience and what children encountered in this public school/s 1indergartens and primary grades. After preschool# these children were li1ely to enter a moderately academic 1indergarten with more formal instruction practices in reading and arithmetic (@arcon# 1''&). 0n fact# only ;$( would ha!e experienced a more socioemotional-oriented 1indergarten in this school district# and !irtually none of the first-grade classrooms that children entered would ha!e resembled less academically focused preschools. @odel A?

children most li1ely had an easier transition to the primary grades. A second possibility in!ol!es family-related influences on early grade retention. >ower-income children in this followup study were more li1ely to ha!e been retained prior to third grade. ,hildren eligible for 2ead 3tart came from the lowestincome homes and in the setting of this study were li1ely to be growing up in single-parent families. -o children eligible for 2ead 3tart in this study were enrolled in @odel A? classes. Thus# lower retention of @odel A? children could be more related to family income factors than to type of preschool experience. A third possibility is that grade-le!el placements may not fully reflect academic performance in a competencybased system of promotion that emphasi+es basic reading and arithmetic s1ills. 0f mastery of critical s1ills in these two subCects was not demonstrated# children were automatically retained regardless of their performance in other subCect areas. >i1ewise# children who demonstrated mastery of critical reading and arithmetic obCecti!es were able to ad!ance regardless of performance in other subCect areas. @eeting basic competency re*uirements of the primary grades may not be sufficient to sustain later academic performance when :pulling it all together: re*uires more than Cust :adding up the pieces: children ha!e ac*uired along the way. ,hildren with academically directed preschool experiences may ha!e missed out on the more integrati!e experiences of peers in other preschool models. 4uture research to in!estigate each of these possibilities is needed. .y the end of the primary grades# there was little difference in the academic performance of children who had experienced three different preschool models. This finding was consistent

with the de!elopmental assumption that# by the end of third grade# most children will ha!e attained the basic academic s1ills. 7arlier limitations associated with a combination approach had been o!ercome# and children were generally academically comparable and on :e!en footing: when they entered the transition to the later elementary school grades. 9hat happened on the other side of this transitionM 9hy did academic performance of children from academically directed preschool classes begin to declineM The difference between their school grades and those of children from child-initiated preschools was not Cust statistically significantNthe 14( difference in grades was of practical significance with children differing by more than a third of a standard de!iation in o!erall grades. Ferhaps the answer can be found in new demands characteristic of the later elementary school grades. Through the primary grades# children are learning to read. An academically directed approach typically emphasi+es the act of reading o!er comprehension. .eginning in fourth grade# children are reading to learn< comprehension is critical. 0n fourth grade# they encounter more abstract concepts that do not necessarily match up with their e!eryday experiences. Additionally# fourth-grade teachers expect children to be more independent in the learning process# to assume more responsibility for their learning# and to show greater initiati!e. Ferhaps teachers foster this independence by stepping bac1 somewhat and shifting their instructional approach to be less didactic. 0t is at this point that moti!ation and self-initiated learning become crucial for children/s later school success. This is the point at which 7l1ind (1'%") and =igler (1'%)) worried that short-term academic gains produced by o!erly didactic# formal instructional practices for young children would be offset by long-term stifling of children/s

moti!ation. 0mportant lessons about independence and selfinitiati!e are being learned in the early childhood years. D!erly teacher-directed approaches that tell young children what to do# when to do it# and how to do it most li1ely curtail de!elopment of initiati!e during the preschool years. According to de!elopmentalist ,onstance 5amii (1') # 1'%4)# such an approach produces passi!e students who wait to be told what to thin1 next. Therefore# it is not really surprising that children whose preschool experience may ha!e curtailed initiati!e would find the transition to the later elementary school grades more difficult. The foundation of critical thin1ing may be found in early childhood experiences that foster curiosity# initiati!e# independence# and effecti!e choice. As predicted# earlier sex differences in school achie!ement fa!oring girls persisted both at the end of the primary grades and following the transition to the later elementary school years. 8oing into the transition# the smallest gap between boys/ and girls/ academic performance was seen among children who had attended preschool classes where teachers used a :combination: approach. Dn the other side of the transition# the smallest gap between the sexes was seen in children who had child-initiated preschool experiences. 9hen academic demands increased# boys whose earliest school experiences in!ol!ed acti!e# self-initiated learning appeared to be better able to meet these new demands. Although sex differences did not# as predicted# moderate the effect of preschool model across time# the closing of the academic gap between boys and girls following the primary grades was interesting. African American boys do not typically follow the academic pattern of boys in general by surpassing

girls following the elementary school years. @ight the boys in this predominantly African American sample whose preschool experience was acti!e and child initiated brea1 the pattern and pull ahead of girls# or at least stay close to girls# at the next maCor educational transitionM @iller and .i++ell/s findings (1'%4) suggest that this outcome is a distinct possibility. And# if so# what is the underlying mechanism by which to account for such a possibilityM 2ow do cultural factors interact with and moderate the influence of !arious preschool modelsM The passi!ity re*uired of children in an o!erly academically directed approach may be especially difficult for young African American boys. 0n the preschool years# girls/ earlier maturation may ha!e allowed them to better process the !erbal instruction typical of didactic# academically directed instruction# whereas boys/ generally slower rate of neurological de!elopment may ha!e re*uired a more acti!e# :hands on: approach found in nondidactic# child-initiated early learning experiences. >essons learned in the preschool years assuredly carry o!er into children/s later school careers. The next academic transition# when children lea!e elementary school# will be especially interesting for understanding sex differences in academic performance of these low-income children. ,aution is warranted when interpreting this study/s findings. 4irst# and foremost# it is important to remember that the *uasiexperimental design used in this research does not establish causality. Although parents did not choose their child/s teacher or preschool model# neither did the researcher randomly assign children to preschool model at the beginning of this longitudinal study. This was a field study reflecting typical educational practices where children attend their neighborhood school.

3econd# because the research design is correlational# other inter!ening !ariables between preschool and fourth grade most li1ely contribute to these findings. 4or example# schools attended# as well as teachers and classmates# undoubtedly affect children/s later school achie!ement. Additionally# the influence of family characteristics shown to positi!ely affect educational outcomes of African American children (>uster 6 @cAdoo# 1''") were not ade*uately examined in this study of intact groups. Dnly effects of family income and number of parents were in!estigated. 4uture research would be strengthened by greater attention to other family characteristics# such as parental beliefs# that are 1nown to influence children/s de!elopment (3igel# 1'% ). Third# the follow-up sample did differ somewhat from the original in that it consisted of more minority children who were poorer and more li1ely to li!e in single-parent families than the sample originally studied. This difference# along with high attrition# was expected in a city where middleclass children often lea!e the public school system after 1indergarten and children from highly mobile# lower-income families often relocate to a neighboring state. .ecause policy ma1ers were interested in action research that could benefit children enrolled in their own school district# children who left this school system were not followed. ?ata from those who left the public schools would be interesting to examine. 2owe!er# it is unli1ely that these new data would ha!e altered findings regarding the influence of preschool model because approximately e*ual numbers of children from each model were lost. 4inally# use of indi!idual children as the statistical unit of analysis# rather than school or classroom means# could limit generali+ability of findings due to potential interdependence of grades for children in the same classroom. Lnfortunately# e!en

nested analysis of potentially nonindependent obser!ations does not guarantee that statistical assumptions of independence of error will be met (2op1ins# 1'%;). The large number of schools (and hence of teachers) in this follow-up study reduces the possible effect of any particular teacher/s grading practices on these findings. ,oncern about interdependence of grades assigned to children in the same classroom is also somewhat reduced by the competency-based grading system used in this school district. 0t is important to remember that the large number of schools and teachers sampled in this study enhances# but does not guarantee# generali+ability of this study/s findings. ,hildren/s later school success appears to be enhanced by more acti!e# child-initiated learning experiences. Their long-term progress may be slowed by o!erly academic preschool experiences that introduce formali+ed learning experiences too early for most children/s de!elopmental status. Fushing children too soon may actually bac1fire when children mo!e into the later elementary school grades and are re*uired to thin1 more independently and ta1e on greater responsibility for their own learning process.
Aeferences :ecker Wesley 7. 8 6ersten Aussell. *.DE/,. 2 follow%up of follow through@ "he later effects of the direct instruction model on children in fifth and si;th grades. 2merican Educational Aesearch 1ournal .D*., F>%D/. E1 /F. DD=. :urts 'iane 7.G Hart 7raig H.G 7harlesworth AosalindG 8 'eWolf )ichele. *.DD=,. 'evelopmental appropriateness of kindergarten programs and academic outcomes in first grade. 1ournal of Aesearch in 7hildhood Education E*., /=%=.. E1 <D= HF=. 7harlesworth AosalindG Hart 7raig H.G :urts 'iane 7.G )osley 1eanG 8 Fleege 0amela 3. *.DD=,. )easuring the developmental appropriateness of kindergarten teachers$ &eliefs and practices. Early 7hildhood Aesearch Iuarterly E*=, />>%/FH. E1 <F< FE<. 'eBries AhetaG Aeese%Cearned HalcyonG 8 )organ 0amela. *.DD.,. Sociomoral development in direct% instruction eclectic and constructivist kindergartens@ 2 study of children$s enacted interpersonal understanding. Early 7hildhood Aesearch Iuarterly H*<, <F=%>.F. E1 <<. EF=.

Elkind 'avid. *.DEH,. Formal education and early childhood education@ 2n essential difference. 0hi 'elta Jappan HF*D, H=.%H=H. E1 ==F >?>. 6offin Stacie 6. *.DD<,. 7urriculum models and early childhood education@ 2ppraising the relationship. New York@ )errill. Hart 7raig H.G 7harlesworth AosalindG :urts 'iane 7.G 8 'eWolf )ichele. *.DD= )arch,. "he relationship of attendance in developmentally appropriate or inappropriate kindergarten classrooms to first and second grade &ehavior. 0oster session presented at the &iennial meeting of the Society for Aesearch in 7hild 'evelopment New 3rleans C2. Hopkins Jenneth '. *.DE/,. "he unit of analysis@ 6roup means versus individual o&servations. 2merican Educational Aesearch 1ournal .D*., >%.E. E1 /F. DD?. Hyson )arion 7.G Hirsch%0asek JathyG 8 Aescorla Ceslie. *.DD?,. "he classroom practices inventory@ 2n o&servational instrument &ased on N2EY7$s guidelines for developmentally appropriate practices for <% and >%year%old children. Early 7hildhood Aesearch Iuarterly >*<, <F>%<D<. E1 </= ><?. Jagan 'ona ). 8 Smith Jenneth. *.DEE,. :eliefs and &ehaviours of kindergarten teachers. Educational Aesearch =?*., /H%=>. Jamii 7onstance. *.DF>,. 3ne intelligence indivisi&le. Young 7hildren =?*<, //E%/=E. E1 ./. //.. Jamii 7onstance. *.DE<,. 2utonomy@ "he aim of education envisioned &y 0iaget. 0hi 'elta Jappan H>*H, <.?%<.>. E1 /D= .=>. Jessler Shirley 2. *.DD.,. 2lternative perspectives on early childhood education. Early 7hildhood Aesearch Iuarterly H*/, .E=%.DF. E1 <=. HDD. Ca-ar #rvingG 'arlington AichardG )urray HarryG Aoyce 1ac+uelineG 8 Snipper 2nn. *.DE/,. Casting effects of early education@ 2 report from the 7onsortium for Congitudinal Studies. )onographs of the Society for Aesearch in 7hild 'evelopment <F*/%= Serial No. .D>,. E1 /HH ?>F. Custer "om 8 )c2doo Harriette. *.DDH,. Family and child influences on educational attainment@ 2 secondary analysis of the HighKScope 0erry 0reschool data. 'evelopmental 0sychology =/*., /H%=D. E1 >/< D/?. )arcon Ae&ecca. *.DD?,. Early learning and early identification@ Final report of the three year longitudinal study. Washington '7@ 'istrict of 7olum&ia 0u&lic Schools. E' ==. D=<. )arcon Ae&ecca. *.DD/,. 'ifferential effects of three preschool models on inner%city <%year%olds. Early 7hildhood Aesearch Iuarterly F*<, >.F%>=?. E1 <>E .?<. )arcon Ae&ecca. *.DD=,. Socioemotional versus academic emphasis@ #mpact on kindergartners$ development and achievement. Early 7hild 'evelopment and 7are DH E.%D.. E1 <FE .<<. )arcon Ae&ecca. *.DDD,. 'ifferential impact of preschool models on development and early learning of inner%city children@ 2 three cohort study. 'evelopmental 0sychology =>*/, =>E%=F>. E1 >E/ <>.. )ayfield )argie #. *.DE=,. 3rientation to school and transitions of children &etween primary grades. 2l&erta 1ournal of Educational Aesearch /D*<, /F/%/E<. E1 /D/ .?.. )c7lure Carry 8 Ceigh 1. *.DE.,. 2 sampler of competency%&ased education at its &est. #n Auth S. Nickse 8 Carry )c7lure *Eds., 7ompetency%&ased education@ :eyond minimum competency testing *pp. ED%D<,. New York@ "eachers 7ollege 0ress. E' /?H HF>.

)iller Couise :. 8 :i--ell Aondeall 0. *.DE<,. Cong%term effects of four preschool programs@ Ninth% and tenth%grade results. 7hild 'evelopment >>*<, .>F?%.>EF. E1 =?> FFH. )iller Couise :. 8 'yer 1ean C. *.DF>,. Four preschool programs@ "heir dimensions and effects. )onographs of the Society for Aesearch in 7hild 'evelopment <?*>%H Serial No. .H/,. E1 .=E >.D. )ills 0aulette E.G 'ale 0hilip S.G 7ole Jevin N.G 8 1enkins 1oseph A. *.DD>,. Follow%up of children from academic and cognitive preschool curricula at age D. E;ceptional 7hildren H.*<, =FE%=D=. E1 <DF H=<. 0fannenstiel 1udy 8 Schattgen Sharon F. *.DDF )arch,. Evaluating the effects of pedagogy informed &y constructivism@ 2 comparison of student achievement across constructivist and traditional classrooms. 0aper presented at the annual meeting of the 2merican Educational Aesearch 2ssociation 7hicago. 0ollard 'iane S. *.DD=,. 6ender achievement and 2frican%2merican students$ perceptions of their school e;perience. Educational 0sychologist /E*<, =<.%=>H. Aawl Auth J. 8 3$"uel Frances S. *.DE/,. 2 comparison of three prereading approaches for kindergarten students. Aeading #mprovement .D*=, /?>%/... E1 /HD F<H. Aeynolds 2rthur 1. *.DED,. 2 structural model of first%grade outcomes for an ur&an low socioeconomic status minority population. 1ournal of Educational 0sychology E.*<, >D<%H?=. E1 <?< H?/. Aichardson Stephen 2.G Joller HeleneG 8 Jat- )indy. *.DEH,. Factors leading to differences in the school performance of &oys and girls. 1ournal of 'evelopmental and :ehavioral 0ediatrics F*., <D%>>. Aowan 1oseph C. *.DED,. "he effect of gender on non%promotion of :lack males. 9npu&lished manuscript. E' =.= <>H. Schweinhart Cawrence 1. 8 Weikart 'avid 0. *.DDF,. "he HighKScope preschool curriculum comparison study through age /=. Early 7hildhood Aesearch Iuarterly ./*/, ..F%.<=. E1 >>< =>?. Schweinhart Cawrence 1.G Weikart 'avid 0.G 8 Carner )ary :. *.DEH,. 7onse+uences of three preschool curriculum models through age .>. Early 7hildhood Aesearch Iuarterly .*., .>%<>. E1 ==< ED.. Shepard Corrie 2. 8 Smith )ary Cee. *.DEE,. Escalating academic demand in kindergarten@ 7ounterproductive policies. Elementary School 1ournal ED*/, .=>%.<>. E1 =E/ H.F. Sigel #rving E. *.DE>,. 0arental &elief systems@ "he psychological conse+uences for children. Hillsdale N1@ Erl&aum. Stipek 'e&orahG Feiler AachelleG 'aniels 'eniseG 8 )il&urn Sharon. *.DD>,. Effects of different instructional approaches on young children$s achievement and motivation. 7hild 'evelopment HH*., /?D%//=. E1 >?. EFD. Bartuli Sue. *.DDD,. How early childhood teacher &eliefs vary across grade level. Early 7hildhood Aesearch Iuarterly .<*<, <ED%>.<. E1 H=. <>E. Walsh 'aniel 1. *.DED,. 7hanges in kindergarten@ Why here! Why now! Early 7hildhood Aesearch Iuarterly <*=, =FF%=D.. E1 <?/ E<>. Weikart 'avid 0.G Epstein 2nn S.G Schweinhart Cawrence 1.G 8 :ond 1ames ". *.DFE,. "he Ypsilanti preschool curriculum demonstration pro(ect@ 0reschool years and longitudinal results *)onographs of the HighKScope Educational Aesearch Foundation <,. Ypsilanti )#@ HighKScope 0ress. E' .>H F>H.

Ligler Edward. *.DEF,. Formal schooling for four%year%olds! No. 2merican 0sychologist </*=, /><%/H?. E1 =>> ./<.

S-ar putea să vă placă și