|
|
|
Readiness for School: Solutions #1 |
|
|
READINESS FOR SCHOOL: SOLUTIONS #1
Programs and Curricula With Links to Evidence
Updated in October 2008 This page currently describes eleven programs/curricula. More to come. Stay tuned! Titles are presented in alphabetical order.
Carolina Abecedarian Project
FPG Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
“The Abecedarian project was a carefully controlled scientific study of the potential benefits of early childhood education for poor children. Children from low-income families received full-time, high-quality educational intervention in a childcare setting from infancy through age 5. Each child had an individualized prescription of educational activities. Educational activities consisted of ‘games’ incorporated into the child's day. Activities focused on social, emotional, and cognitive areas of development but gave particular emphasis to language. Children's progress was monitored over time with follow-up studies conducted at ages 12, 15, and 21. The young adult findings demonstrate that important, long-lasting benefits were associated with the early childhood program.” Findings and policy implications are explained at the FPG Center’s website. The National Education Association’s review states that “(a) children in high-quality programs are projected to make roughly $143,000 more over their lifetimes than those who didn't take part in the program; (b) mothers of children who were enrolled can also expect greater earnings -- about $133,000 more over their lifetimes; and (c) school districts can expect to save more than $11,000 per child because participants are less likely to require special or remedial education.”
Home page: http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~abc/
Major findings: http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~abc/#major_findings
Research design:
http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/abcdesign.htm
Advocates for Youth review – Scroll to section II (Community Based Programs):
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/ScienceSuccessES.htm
American Youth Policy Forum review – Family involvement: Scroll down for the list of programs; click at the right for the full text.
http://www.aypf.org/pressreleases/pr22.htm
American Youth Policy Forum review – Raising Minority Achievement:
http://www.aypf.org/publications/rmaa/index.html
Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy review:
http://www.evidencebasedprograms.org/Default.aspx?tabid=33
Child Trends review:
http://www.childtrends.org/Lifecourse/programs/CarolinaAbecedarianProgram.htm
Foundation for Child Development review (PK-3 Education: Programs and Practices That Work, 2006) see page 7:
http://www.fcd-us.org/resources/resources_show.htm?doc_id=447398
Promising Practices Network Review:
http://www.promisingpractices.net/program.asp?programid=132&benchmarkid=26
National Education Association Cost-Benefit Analysis:
http://www.nea.org/earlychildhood/abecedarian2.html
NIEER Benefit-Cost Analysis:
http://nieer.org/docs/index.php?DocID=56
PreK Now’s Economic Analysis –Scroll to Pre-K Now National Reports and click on Dollars and Sense (see page 8 in the manuscript):
http://www.preknow.org/resource/reports/preknowreports.cfm?WT.mc_ID=PreKreports
RAND Corporation review, Effective Program – Scroll down at the right:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9145/index1.html
SEDL Review – Readiness: School, Family, and Community Connections (See p. 38 in the manuscript; p. 49 in the PDF):
http://www.sedl.org/connections/research-syntheses.html
Child-Parent Center (CPC) Program
Department of Early Childhood Education, Chicago Public Schools. The Waisman Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison conducted the longitudinal study of the Child-Parent Center (CPC) program and described CPC as “a center-based early intervention that provides comprehensive educational and family-support services to economically disadvantaged children. . . . The CPC program was established in 1967 through funding from Title I of the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. It is the second oldest (after Head Start) federally funded preschool program in the United States. . . . . Seven major features of the program are: (a) a structured and diverse set of language-based instructional activities designed to promote academic and social success; (b) low child-to-teacher ratios in preschool and kindergarten . . . ; (c) a multi-faceted parent program that includes participating in parent room activities, volunteering in the classroom, attending school events, and enrolling in educational courses for personal development, all under the supervision of the Parent-Resource Teacher; (d) outreach activities coordinated by the School-Community Representative including resource mobilization, home visitation, and enrollment of children most in need; (e) ongoing staff development for all center personnel; (f) health and nutrition services including health screening, speech therapy, shared nursing services, and free breakfasts and lunches; and (g) a comprehensive school-age program from first to third grade supporting children's transition to elementary school through reduced class sizes, teachers’ aides in each class, extra instructional supplies, and coordination of activities by the freestanding Curriculum-Parent Resource Teacher.” Child Parent Centers are located in or near low-income elementary schools and are currently funded through No Child Left Behind Chapter I funds. CPC programs enroll the majority of their children at age 3 and provide two continuous years of service prior to kindergarten.
Child-Parent Center home page: http://www.ecechicago.org/programs/ece/cpc.html
Overview and components – Waisman Center:
http://www.waisman.wisc.edu/cls/PROGRAM.HTM
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine – research study:
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/8/730
American Youth Policy Forum brief on Chicago Longitudinal Study:
http://www.aypf.org/forumbriefs/2001/fb061801.htm
American Youth Policy Forum review – Family involvement: Scroll down for the list of programs; click at the right for the full text.
http://www.aypf.org/pressreleases/pr22.htm
American Youth Policy Forum review—Raising Minority Achievement: Scroll down at the left.
http://www.aypf.org/publications/rmaa/index.html
Center for Cost-Benefit Studies review, Teachers College – Click on the first title (see pp. 4, 5, and 17 in the manuscript):
http://www.cbcse.org/pages/cost-benefit-studies/leeds-national-benefit-cost-studies.php
Chicago Longitudinal Study, Waisman Center: Selected publications and reports:
http://www.waisman.wisc.edu/cls/effects.htm
Foundation for Child Development review – (PK-3 Education: Programs and
Practices That Work, 2006) – Click at the right and see page 10:
http://www.fcd-us.org/resources/resources_show.htm?doc_id=447398
Journal of the American Medical Association evaluation -- Summary by the National Association for Education of Young Children:
http://www.naeyc.org/ece/research/intervention.asp
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention -- Model Program: http://www.dsgonline.com/mpg2.5//TitleV_MPG_Table_Ind_Rec.asp?id=52
PreK Now’s Economic Analysis –Scroll to Pre-K Now National Reports and click on Dollars and Sense (see page 6 in the manuscript):
http://www.preknow.org/resource/reports/preknowreports.cfm?WT.mc_ID=PreKreports
Promising Practice Network review:
http://www.promisingpractices.net/program.asp?programid=98
RAND review -- Effective program: Scroll at the right
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9145/index1.html
SEDL Review – Readiness: School, Family, and Community Connections (See p. 41 in the manuscript; p. 52 in the PDF):
http://www.sedl.org/connections/research-syntheses.html
DARE to be You: A Program for Working With Children From Age 2 Through Adolescence
Colorado State University, Cortez, Colorado The DARE to be You program is a 15-20 hour training and curriculum that is provided for working with youth ages two through 18. DARE to be You can be used to enhance existing programs or build new youth programs. . . . DARE to be You builds skills in: D = Decision making/problem solving; A =Assertiveness, communication, social skills; R = Responsibility, role modeling; and E = Esteem for self and others, empathy development. . . . Training includes interactive activities; methods for structuring positive work, play, and learning environments; strategies for everyday situations; and development of positive role models. . . . Training is designed around the special needs of each community: (a) community team training for a cross-section of people who work with youth in the community; (b) K-12 curriculum for schools, after-school programs, youth groups, and other groups that involve school aged youth: (c) training for preschool and Head Start teachers and daycare providers; (d) training for teen/peer leaders; (e) family program for parents and their preschool youth (and siblings); and (f) family programs for youth involved in juvenile diversion programs.” Research cited at the web site shows that preschool youth showed a doubling of development attainment over control peers, and, in a five-year study of 800 families, parents showed lasting increases in parental competence and satisfaction, increases in appropriate control techniques (discipline), and decreases in harsh punishment. Results for youth of other ages and for teachers are also described.
Home page: http://www.coopext.colostate.edu/DTBY/
Components – Preschool and other: http://www.coopext.colostate.edu/DTBY/components.html
Curriculum descriptions – Preschool and other: http://www.coopext.colostate.edu/DTBY/curric.html
Supplies required for replication – Preschool, K-2, and other: http://www.coopext.colostate.edu/DTBY/order.html
Publications: http://www.coopext.colostate.edu/DTBY/publications.html
Research: http://www.coopext.colostate.edu/DTBY/research.html
Awards: http://www.coopext.colostate.edu/DTBY/awards.html
Evidence-Based Program Database – CLEX, The Ohio State University: View All.
http://altedmh.org/ebpd/search.php
Harvard Family Research Project – Family Strengthening Interventions. Programs included in this study are listed in Appendix A, with selected child outcomes:
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/fine/resources/research/lessons.html
Helping America’s Youth review (ages 2-5):
http://guide.helpingamericasyouth.gov/programdetail.cfm?id=319
Natl Asso of State MH Program Directors Research Institute review – Scroll to Matrix of Children’s Evidence-Based Interventions and see page 18 on the chart:
http://www.nri-inc.org/reports_pubs/pub_list.cfm?getby=Evidence%2DBased%20Practices
National Center for Children in Poverty review: Resources to Promote Social and Emotional Health -- See Figure 1 and extended description (with evaluation results) on page 26:
http://www.nccp.org/pub_rps05.html
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention -- Model Program:
http://www.dsgonline.com/mpg2.5//TitleV_MPG_Table_Ind_Rec.asp?id=319
Oregon Mental Health and Addiction Services review – Scroll down:
http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/mentalhealth/ebp/practices.shtml#complete
Promising Practices Network review (Ages 2-5):
http://www.promisingpractices.net/program.asp?programid=100
RAND review, Effective Program – Scroll down at the right:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9145/index1.html
SAMHSA National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices:
http://nrepp.samhsa.gov/programfulldetails.asp?PROGRAM_ID=79
Topics in Early Childhood Education – Analysis of Efficacious Adoption Potential (see pages 70-71):
http://www.challengingbehavior.org/explore/publications_docs/comprehensive_josesh_strain.pdf
Virginia Best Practices in School-Based Violence Prevention (Age 2-5):
http://www.pubinfo.vcu.edu/vabp/program_details.asp?id=418
Dialogic Reading: Preschool and Kindergarten
Based on the Research of Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst and Others. Materials are published by Pearson Early Learning and the Committee for Children As stated by the What Works Clearinghouse, “ Dialogic Reading is an interactive shared picture book reading practice designed to enhance young children’s language and literacy skills. During the shared reading practice, the adult and the child switch roles so that the child learns to become the storyteller with the assistance of the adult, who functions as an active listener and questioner. . . . Dialogic Reading is a practice that does not have a single developer responsible for providing information or materials.” Several publishers distribute materials based on Dialogic Reading. One of these is Read Together, Talk Together (Pearson Early Learning), which is described as “is a dialogic reading program based on research by Grover J. Whitehurst, Ph.D. and written in collaboration with the National Center for Learning Disabilities.” Another, from the Committee for Children (Seattle, Washington), is the Woven Word program, which “uses a well-researched shared-reading technique called dialogic reading to promote children’s emergent literacy skills.” Links to these two sources are shown below.
Overview in The Reading Teacher (abstract):
http://www.reading.org/publications/journals/rt/v59/i6/abstracts/RT-59-6-Doyle.html
Center for Early Literacy in Learning (CELL) review – Relative Effectiveness of Dialogic, Interactive, and Shared Reading Interventions
http://www.earlyliteracylearning.org/productscr.php
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education review– Abstract:
http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/1/82
Research and Training Center on Early Childhood Development – Several reviews of Dialogic Reading:
http://www.researchtopractice.info/productBridgesPLIell.php
What Works Clearinghouse review:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/early_ed/dial_read/
Read Together, Talk Together: Pearson Learning Group
http://www.pearsonschool.com/index.cfm?locator=PSZ16i&PMDbSiteId=2781&PMDbSolutionId=
6724&PMDbSubSolutionId=6733&PMDbCategoryId=3289&PMDbProgramId=22109&level=4
Woven Word, Committee for Children, Seattle – Click at the left:
http://www.cfchildren.org/
Early Reading First
U.S. Department of Education
Early Reading First was created by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. “The program supports the development of early childhood centers of excellence that focus on all areas of development, especially on the early language, cognitive, and pre-reading skills that prepare children for continued school success and that serve primarily children from low-income families. . . . Funds must be used to: (a) enhance children’s language, cognitive, and early reading skills through professional development for teachers; (b) provide early language and reading development and instructional materials as developed from scientifically based reading research; (c) provide preschool-age children with cognitive learning opportunities in high quality language and literature-rich environments; (d) use screening assessments to effectively identify preschool children who may be at risk of reading failure; and (e) improve existing early childhood programs by integrating scientifically based reading research into all aspects of the program.” . . . . In 2007, the Institute of Education Sciences published the National Evaluation of Early Reading First (ERF). “This study represents a collaborative effort of ERF grantees, unfunded ERF applicants, preschools, teachers and other preschool staff, parents, researchers, data collection experts, and IES staff. . . . The study uses a regression-discontinuity design to assess the impact of Early Reading First funding and program support for preschools on the language and literacy preparedness of preschool children. . . . The final evaluation sample was composed of a treatment group, which consisted of 4-year-olds attending preschool in 28 of 30 grantee sites, whereas the comparison group consisted of children attending preschool in 37 of the 67 unfunded applicant sites that had the highest application scores and that agreed to participate in the study. Approximately three classrooms were selected from each participating site with probabilities proportional to the number of eligible students in each class. The study team randomly selected approximately eleven 4-year-old students per classroom whose parents had provided written consent for participation in the study.” . . . .Among the results are the following: >> “Nearly all Early Reading First teachers (98 percent) reported using at least one assessment tool for children in their classes. A majority (64 percent) reported using more than one assessment instrument with children in their classes >> “Researchers used the Teaching and Interactions subscale of the ECERS (Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised). The average score on the ECERS-R Teaching and Interactions subscale in the spring was 5.8 for Early Reading First classrooms (slightly higher than 5.7 average score in the fall), with all but 5 classrooms scoring at least a ‘good’ or 5 on the subscale. >> “Overall, the researchers found that Early Reading First had positive impacts on the hours of teachers’ professional development during the 12 months preceding the spring 2005 survey and that it increased the proportion of teachers receiving professional development through mentoring. >> “Overall, the researchers found that Early Reading First had a statistically significant positive effect on children’s print and letter knowledge but no statistically discernable impact on phonological awareness or oral language. They find no evidence of negative impacts on children’s social-emotional skills.” ExpectMore.gov (which reports on the performance of every Federal program) currently rates Early Reading First as “moderately effective” and has established new performance measures in the areas of significant literacy gains and program efficiency.
Overview and related information – U.S. Department of Education:
http://www.ed.gov/programs/earlyreading/index.html
Legislation
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg5.html
ExpectMore.gov review:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10003322.2006.html
National Evaluation of Early Reading First -- Final Report to Congress, 2007:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20074007/index.asp
High/Scope Perry Preschool Project High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, Ypsilanti, Michigan. “The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study, which was initiated in the early 1960s, is now widely regarded as a landmark study establishing the human and financial value of high-quality preschool education. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the High/Scope model, in which teachers help children plan, carry out, and review their own educational activities. . . . This study — perhaps the most well-known of all High/Scope research efforts — examines the lives of 123 African Americans born in poverty and at high risk of failing in school. From 1962–1967, at ages 3 and 4, the subjects were randomly divided into a program group who received a high-quality preschool program based on High/Scope's participatory learning approach and a comparison group who received no preschool program. In the study's most recent phase, 97% of the study participants still living were interviewed at age 40. Additional data were gathered from the subjects' school, social services, and arrest records. The study found that adults at age 40 who had the preschool program had higher earnings, were more likely to hold a job, had committed fewer crimes, and were more likely to have graduated from high school than adults who did not have preschool.” The High/Scope website includes access to the complete report of this study and a paper that summarizes the age-40 results of the study. The HighScope Educational Research Foundation currently operates a demonstration preschool and offers professional development that includes preschool programming. High/Scope home page: http://www.highscope.org Overview of Lifetime Effects (2005) and click for full text and related materials: http://www.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=282 High/Scope’s Demonstration Preschool: http://www.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=109 American Youth Policy Forum review – Family Involvement: Scroll down for the list of programs; click at the right for the full text. http://www.aypf.org/pressreleases/pr22.htm American Youth Policy Forum review -- Raising Minority Achievement: Scroll down at the left http://www.aypf.org/publications/rmaa/index.html Blueprints for Violence Prevention review: http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/promisingprograms.html Center for Cost-Benefit Studies review, Teachers College – Click on the first title (see pp. 4, 5, and 17 in the manuscript): http://www.cbcse.org/pages/cost-benefit-studies/leeds-national-benefit-cost-studies.php Child Trends Lifecourse Review: http://www.childtrends.org/Lifecourse/programs/HighScope-PerryPreschoolProgram.htm Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy review: http://www.evidencebasedprograms.org/Default.aspx?tabid=32 Evidence-Based Program Database – CLEX, The Ohio State University: View All http://altedmh.org/ebpd/search.php Harvard Family Research Project – Family Strengthening Interventions: Programs included in this study are listed in Appendix A http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/fine/resources/research/lessons.html Helping America’s Youth Review: http://guide.helpingamericasyouth.gov/programdetail.cfm?id=338 Natl Asso of State MH Program Directors Research Institute review – Scroll to Matrix of Children’s Evidence-Based Interventions and see page 21 on the chart:
http://www.nri-inc.org/reports_pubs/pub_list.cfm?getby=Evidence%252DBased%20Practices
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs guide: http://www.dsgonline.com/mpg2.5//TitleV_MPG_Table_Ind_Rec.asp?id=338 Oregon Mental Health and Addiction Services review – Scroll down: http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/mentalhealth/ebp/practices.shtml#complete Phi Delta Kappa Research Bulletin, 2002: http://www.pdkintl.org/research/rbulletins/resbul32.htm PreK Now’s Economic Analysis –Scroll to Pre-K Now National Reports and click on Dollars and Sense (see page 4 in the manuscript): http://www.preknow.org/resource/reports/preknowreports.cfm?WT.mc_ID=PreKreports Promising Practices Network Review: http://www.promisingpractices.net/program.asp?programid=128 RAND review, Effective program – Scroll down at the right: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9145/index1.html Safe and Sound/CASEL review – See Program Ratings (pages 37-48): http://www.casel.org/pub/safeandsound.php SAMHSA Model Program - Scroll down: http://modelprograms.samhsa.gov/model.htm SEDL Review – Readiness: School, Family, and Community Connections (See p. 51 in the PDF): http://www.sedl.org/connections/research-syntheses.html Virginia Best Practices in School-Based Violence Prevention: http://www.pubinfo.vcu.edu/vabp/program_details.asp?id=125
Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) HIPPY USA®, New York City.
“HIPPY is a parent involvement, school readiness program that helps parents prepare their three, four, and five year old children for success in school and beyond. . . . HIPPY helps parents empower themselves as their children’s first teacher by giving them the tools, skills and confidence they need to work with their children in the home. The program was designed to bring families, organizations and communities together and remove any barriers to participation that may include limited financial resources or lack of education. . . . All HIPPY programs around the world follow the HIPPY model: a developmentally appropriate curriculum, with role play as the method of teaching, staffed by home visitors from the community, supervised by a professional coordinator and with home visits interspersed with group meetings as the delivery methods. A model HIPPY site serves up to 180 children with one coordinator and 12-18 part-time home visitors. . . . Each of the four features of the HIPPY model was chosen and developed in a certain way to allow participation from parents who might otherwise not get involved with their children’s education. Although HIPPY is for any parent who wants educational enrichment for his/her child, the HIPPY model was designed to remove barriers to participation, due to lack of education, poverty, social isolation and other issues.”
Home page: http://www.hippyusa.org/
HIPPY model: http://www.hippyusa.org/Model/model.html
HIPPY USA research summaries:
http://www.hippyusa.org/Research/research_summary.html
Chapin Hall paper on State implementation – HIPPY and three other programs are discussed throughout the text (free sign-in):
http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1433&L2=61&L3=129
Child Trends Lifecourse -- Effective Program:
http://www.childtrends.org/Lifecourse/programs/HomeInstructionPreschool.htm
Cost/Benefit Analysis -- Washington State Institute for Public Policy: Summary Report. See Table 1
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=04-07-3901
Intercultural Development Research Association review:
http://www.idra.org/Texas_IDRA_PIRC.htm/About/HIPPY/
OJJDP and Center for Substance Abuse Prevention review --Strengthening America’s Families:
http://www.strengtheningfamilies.org/html/programs_1999/22_HIPPY.html
RAND review, Effective program – Scroll down at the right:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9145/index1.html
SEDL Review – Readiness: School, Family, and Community Connections (See p. 47 in the PDF):
http://www.sedl.org/connections/research-syntheses.html
Starting a HIPPY Program: http://www.hippyusa.org/Model/starting_program.html
Infant Health and Development Program: Results at 18 Years of Age
National Center for Children and Families, Teachers College, Columbia University, and Department of Maternal and Child Health, Harvard School of Public Health As described by the National Center for Children and Families, “begun in 1985, this study has followed nearly 1,000 low birth-weight, preterm infants through adolescence. Its aim is to evaluate the impact of educational and family support services and high-quality pediatric care in the first three years of life on reducing the incidence of developmental delays. In collaboration with researchers in public health at Harvard University, the National Center for Children and Families has continued to study the effects of this program on the cognitive development, behavior competence and health status of these children, who are now teenagers.” . . . As stated by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, “an 18-year follow-up study of the Infant Health and Development Program, published in the March 2006 issue of Pediatrics, provides the best evidence to date of the sustained, positive effects of early educational intervention on children’s long-term outcomes. This large, multi-site, randomized trial expands on earlier investigations — that were smaller and more limited in scope — to support the value of early intervention programs and the need to extend educational enrichment activities to a broader range of children. The IHDP intervention served lower- and higher-weight preterm infants, who tend to be at risk for serious health and developmental problems.” National Center for Children and Families overview: http://www.policyforchildren.org/earlycare03.html Robert Wood Johnson Foundation overview and link to full text of Pediatrics (2006) article (results at 18 years of age): http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia=144&id=15135 Helping Low Birth Weight, Premature Babies: The Infant Health and Development Program (1997) -- For purchase, Stanford University Press http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?book_id=2612 Child Trends Lifecourse review: http://www.childtrends.org/Lifecourse/programs/InfantHealthDev.htm National Center for Children in Poverty – Summaries of interim research findings: http://www.researchforum.org/project_publications_169.html Promising Practices Network review: http://www.promisingpractices.org/program.asp?programid=136 Nurse-Family Partnership
Denver, Colorado
“Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) is a national nonprofit organization committed to producing enduring improvements in the health and well being of low-income, first-time parents and their children. . . . NFP supports communities in implementing a cost-effective, evidence-based nurse home visitation program to improve pregnancy outcomes, child health and development, and self-sufficiency for eligible, first-time parents. . . . Nurse-Family Partnership sites are supported by a team of public health policy and administration, nursing, education and program evaluation professionals at the National Office who collaborate with Public/Private Ventures, based in Philadelphia, Invest in Kids, based in Denver, and other partners in the 20 states where Nurse-Family Partnership is currently established. . . . Site development professionals help local, regional, and State community leaders through an assessment and planning process, to build community support, prepare for implementation, and plan for sustainability of the local program. Nurse educators prepare registered nurses to deliver Nurse-Family Partnership home visits, using a competency model of instruction and building on registered nurses’ professional education. Using data collected by local sites, the Nurse-Family Partnership Reporting Team provides detailed reports that help the sites improve the effectiveness of their programs. . . . Outcomes from the 15-year followup of the Elmira NY trial found benefits to children in the program-control study, including “a 48% reduction in child abuse and neglect; a 59% reduction in arrests; and a 90% reduction in adjudications as PINS (person in need of supervision) for incorrigible behavior. Benefits to Mothers included 61% fewer arrests; 72% fewer convictions; and 98% fewer days in jail.”
Home page:
http://www.nursefamilypartnership.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home
Research: http://www.nursefamilypartnership.org/content/index.cfm?fuseaction=showContent&contentID=4
&navID=4
Searchable map of implementation sites:
http://www.nursefamilypartnership.org/content/index.cfm?fuseaction=showMap&navID=17
Blueprints for Violence Prevention review: http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/modelprograms.html
Chapin Hall paper on State implementation – Nurse-Family Partnership and three other programs are discussed throughout the text (free sign-in):
http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1433&L2=61&L3=129
Child Trends Lifecourse review:
http://www.childtrends.org/Lifecourse/programs/NurseHomeVisitingProgram.htm
Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy review:
http://www.evidencebasedprograms.org/Default.aspx?tabid=35
Evidence-Based Program Database – CLEX, The Ohio State University: View All
http://altedmh.org/ebpd/search.php
Helping America’s Youth review:
http://guide.helpingamericasyouth.gov/programdetail.cfm?id=368
Natl Asso of State MH Program Directors Research Institute review – Scroll to Matrix of Children’s Evidence-Based Interventions and see page 21 on the chart:
http://www.nri-inc.org/reports_pubs/pub_list.cfm?getby=Evidence%2DBased%20Practices
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention review:
http://www.dsgonline.com/mpg2.5//TitleV_MPG_Table_Ind_Rec.asp?id=368
Oregon Mental Health and Addiction Services review – Scroll down:
http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/mentalhealth/ebp/practices.shtml#complete
Promising Practices Network review:
http://www.promisingpractices.net/program.asp?programid=16
RAND review, Effective Program – Scroll down at the right:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9145/index1.html
SAMHSA Model Program – Scroll down:
http://modelprograms.samhsa.gov/model.htm
Virginia Best Practices in School-Based Violence Prevention:
http://www.pubinfo.vcu.edu/vabp/program_details.asp?id=121
Implementation services and site development:
http://www.nursefamilypartnership.org/content/index.cfm?fuseaction=showContent&contentID=
9&navID=9
Parents as Teachers
Parents as Teachers National Center Inc, St. Louis, Missouri. “Parents as Teachers is the overarching program philosophy of providing parents with child development knowledge and parenting support. . . . The four-part intervention model known as Born to Learn delivers its mission-based program through intermediaries (parent educators) to the ultimate recipients (parents), while Professional Development is delivered directly to end users. . . . Although several vehicles are used to implement the mission-based programs, the network is an organized affiliation of many organizations and people with a common mission. This combination of delivery vehicles allows the National Center to have the greatest and broadest impact. . . . Most often the Born to Learn model is implemented into the structure of an existing organization or program such as Title I, school districts, Even Start, Head Start or Early Head Start, Healthy Families America, Family Resource Centers and other state and nonprofit agencies. Families served may have children up to kindergarten entry. . . . Since mid-2005, Meld has been part of the Parents as Teachers National Center family of services, strengthening families through facilitated parent education and support groups. . . .With field-tested publications, Meld provides ongoing, hands-on help for family service providers and the parents they serve. In addition to training for professionals who work with families, Meld publications provide information regarding child development, child guidance, health, family management, and personal growth. . . . . Over the past several years, Parents as Teachers has developed quality standards and self-assessment process for the Born to Learn programs. . . . Research shows that positive outcomes for families and children are the result of interventions that are faithful to the model.” About 3,000 sites in the U.S. and around the world offer Parents as Teachers services. Home page: http://www.parentsasteachers.org Meld: http://www.parentsasteachers.org/site/pp.asp?c=ekIRLcMZJxE&b=1703959 Awards: http://www.parentsasteachers.org/site/pp.asp?c=ekIRLcMZJxE&b=811337 Study of impact on school readiness and later school achievement – Click at the end of the page for the full text: http://www.parentsasteachers.org/site/pp.asp?c=ekIRLcMZJxE&b=2638703 Chapin Hail paper on State implementation – Parents as Teachers and three other programs are discussed throughout the text (free sign-in): http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1433&L2=61&L3=129 Child Trends review: http://www.childtrends.org/Lifecourse/programs/ParentsAsTeachers.htm Education Programs That Work, U.S. Department of Education, 1995: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EPTW/eptw11/index.html Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency prevention review (Strengthening America’s Families): http://www.strengtheningfamilies.org/html/programs_1999/27_PAT.html Promising Practices Network review: http://www.promisingpractices.net/program.asp?programid=88 RAND review: See pages 33, 36, 42-40, and 66 in the manuscript and Appendix A. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG341/ SEDL Review – Readiness: School, Family, and Community Connections (See p. 36 in the manuscript; p. 48 in the PDF): http://www.sedl.org/connections/research-syntheses.html How to implement a Parents as Teachers Born to Learn program: http://www.parentsasteachers.org/site/pp.asp?c=ekIRLcMZJxE&b=1703533
Reggio Emilia Approach: The Hundred Languages of Children Developed in the Town of Reggio Emilia, Italy. Conveyed in the U.S. by the Merrill-Palmer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, and the North American Reggio Emilia Alliance, Roswell, Georgia
As stated by The Merrill-Palmer Institute at Wayne State University, “the early childhood program of Reggio Emilia, Italy, is world-renowned for its innovative approach to education. . . . The organization of the physical environment is crucial to Reggio Emilia's early childhood program, and is often referred to as the child's ‘third teacher.’ . . . The curriculum is characterized by many features advocated by contemporary research on young children, including real-life problem-solving among peers, with numerous opportunities for creative thinking and exploration. Teachers often work on projects with small groups of children, while the rest the class engages in a wide variety of self-selected activities typical of preschool classrooms. . . . . As children proceed in an investigation, generating and testing their hypotheses, they are encouraged to depict their understanding through one of many symbolic languages (The 100 Languages of Children), which include drawing, sculpture, dramatic play, and writing. They work together toward the resolution of problems that arise. Teachers facilitate and then observe debates regarding the extent to which a child's drawing or other form of representation lives up to the expressed intent. Revision of drawings (and ideas) is encouraged, and teachers allow children to repeat activities and modify each other's work in the collective aim of better understanding the topic.” Reggio Emilia was recognized by Newsweek (1991) and has also received the Danish LEGO Prize; an award from the Kohl Foundation of Chicago; the Hans Christian Anderson Prize; and recognition by the Mediterranean Association of International Schools. Making Learning Visible: Children as Individual and Group Learners is a three-phase project of Project Zero at Harvard University. “The first phase, a collaboration between Project Zero and the Municipal Infant-Toddler Centers and Preschools of Reggio Emilia, Italy, examined how to document and assess individual and group learning. The second phase explored these ideas with American preschool, elementary, and middle school teachers. In Phase 3 the project is expanding the research and reach of these ideas.”
North American Reggio Emilia Alliance:
http://www.reggioalliance.org/
Reggio Emilia-Based Schools in the U.S. and elsewhere:
http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/reggio/reggio.cgi
Reggio Emilia books and guides from the Learning Materials Workshop, Burlington, Vermont – Click at the left:
http://www.learningmaterialswork.com/
Professional development – Merrill-Palmer Institute, Wayne State University:
http://www.mpi.wayne.edu/earlychildhood.htm
Bringing Learning to Life: The Reggio Approach to Early Childhood Education – Teachers College Press
http://store.tcpress.com/0807742961.shtml
Journal articles – Bibliography from the Clearinghouse on Early Education and Parenting:
http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/poptopics/reggio/biblioej.html
Reggio Emilia and Project Zero studies, Harvard University: Overview
http://www.pz.harvard.edu/Research/MLV.htm
Making Learning Visible: Children As Individual and Group Learners – Research by Project Zero/Harvard and Reggio Children, 2001 (for purchase): http://www.pz.harvard.edu/ebookstore/detail.cfm?pub_id=107
Making Teaching Visible: Documenting Individual and Group Learning as Professional Development – Research by Project Zero and Reggio Children, 2003 (for purchase):
http://pzweb.harvard.edu/ebookstore/detail.cfm?pub_id=133
Reflections and Impressions From Reggio Emilia. Early Childhood Research and Practice (2001). N. B. Hertzog:
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v3n1/hertzog.html
Three Approaches from Europe: Waldorf, Montessori, and Reggio Emilia. Early Childhood Research and Practice (2002). C. P. Edwards:
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/edwards.html
Values of the Reggio Emilia Approach to Childhood Education – From the Innovative Teacher Project, San Francisco:
http://www.innovativeteacherproject.org/reggio/values.php
This information is an attempt to gather wide-ranging information in one place, to convey what others have accomplished, and to make valuable resources readily accessible. Information is presented in the language of the developer, publisher, distributor, or author. The Southeast Regional Resource Center has no ownership of anything described in this library.
Readers should review the copyright and distribution policies shown at the websites of the sources. SERRC is not the source of any document in this library, but simply conveys information to show the availability of these resources.
The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position of policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and no endorsement of the U.S. Department of Education should be inferred. Information from sources funded by the U.S. Department of Education is likely to have been vetted by the Department; information from other sources is unlikely to have been vetted.
|
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 10 October 2008 )
|
|
|
