Getting Ready for Readiness:
A Case Study

by Laura J. Colker

Children like Jamal are the focus of the national education goal for readiness, which calls for a commitment to restructuring traditional approaches to education. As Dr. Lilian Katz's compelling article notes, there are two factors at work in effecting appropriate change: (1) supporting families in their efforts to get children ready for school, and (2) supporting schools in their efforts to help children learn.

Although we, as a nation, have a long way to go toward supporting families in their efforts to ensure that their children are ready for school, we do have accepted models of approaches that work. Head Start, for example, can be considered one of the true educational and federal success stories of all time (Stewart and Robinson, 1990).

Head Start is administered locally by more than 1,200 community-based organizations and school systems with funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Its programs include health, education, parent involvement, and social service components designed to meet the comprehensive needs of low-income young children within the context of the family.

Those who look to Head Start for guidance in implementing the readiness goal cite the research on related early childhood development efforts that "demonstrate convincingly that the educational attainments and life opportunities of low income and minority children can be dramatically improved by interventions parallel to those carried out in day-to-day Head Start programs" (Collins and Kinney, 1989).

Exciting new approaches that build on the strengths of programs like Head Start in elementary schools are now being initiated in several districts across the nation. This article describes a program in the District of Columbia public schools that addresses the needs of children who, like Jamal, are not being reached by traditional schooling.

In 1987, the District of Columbia Public Schools' Office of Educational Accountability and Planning launched a 3-year longitudinal study to gain a better understanding of why learning deficits were occurring in the primary grades. To illustrate, a class of children whose average social development level was 96.61 on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale at the end of prekindergarten had an average score of only 91.54 at the end of kindergarten the following year (District of Columbia Public Schools, 1989). Even more disturbing was the fact that 14 percent of first-grade students in the school system were retained at grade level annually. A full one-third of first-grade boys were failing each year (Marcon, 1990).

To help determine why such failures were happening, researchers attempted to link educational practices with educational outcomes. They concluded that academically oriented, teacher-directed classrooms produced children who did not fare well in the school system. Conversely, children in more active, child-initiated settings that, like Head Start, focused on the development of social competence, fared better in all domains, including the academic. In this regard, Marcon (1990) wrote, "Choosing to foster cognitive development over social, affective, and motor development can only lead to later difficulties" (p. vii). The results of the 3-year study were summarized as follows:

A clear and consistent theme emerges. The extension of formal education experiences downward does little to promote academic preparation in our children and can actually hinder children's later school achievement and overall development . . . Results clearly support implementation of more active, child-initiated learning experiences at both the pre-primary and primary level . . . To do otherwise virtually guarantees continuation of high first-grade retention rates and further impairment of our children . . . (Marcon, 1990, pp. vi-vii).

Confronted with a situation in which an unacceptable number of children were, in Dr. Katz's terms, "unready to learn what . . . schools want them to learn," the Office of Early Education in the District of Columbia Public Schools joined forces with The National Day Care Association, a Head Start grantee, and Teaching Strategies, Inc., a private materials development and training firm, to try to break this cycle of failure and promote readiness. Funded by HHS under the 1990 Discretionary Grants Program, this 3-year effort has the following objectives:

• To work with Head Start parents to enlist their support for their children's learning and to continue to support them as their children move into the public school system.
  
  
• To identify and implement effective strategies to ease the transition from Head Start to the public schools.
  
  
• To develop and implement a developmentally appropriate curriculum for kindergarten and first and second grades.
  
  
• To ease the requirements to assess and test children during the early school years.
  
  
• To document and disseminate effective strategies for implementing developmentally appropriate practices in the public school curriculum for kindergarten through second grade.

Five of the District's 123 elementary schools were selected as potential experimental sites for this effort. The two criteria for participation were the existence of a District of Columbia Public Schools Head Start program operating on-site and the stewardship of a strong principal. Project staff met with the faculty at each potential site and, based on the perceived enthusiasm of the staff for the proposed project, selected two schools as experimental sites. Due to a limited evaluation budget, no control schools were identified.

In the first year of operation, which focused on planning and strategizing, staff:

• Established a steering group representing all organizations in the collaborative effort. This group met monthly to discuss problems and identify approaches that would support project goals more effectively.
  
  
• Conducted seminars for elementary school principals to introduce them to current issues in early childhood education and to enlist their support in bringing about change.
  
  
• Conducted monthly workshops for participating Head Start and prekindergarten teachers.
  
  
• Provided monthly technical assistance to the participating Head Start and prekindergarten classrooms.
  
  
• Provided training for parents on how children learn and on the value of a developmental approach.

As the project enters its second year, the focus is on the development and gradual implementation of a curriculum and assessment strategy for grades K-2. The basis for bringing about change is The Creative Curriculum for Early Childhood, an established preschool and kindergarten curriculum developed by Teaching Strategies staff that is already being used by the participating Head Start centers and prekindergarten programs. The Curriculum is an environmentally based approach to instruction. Teachers are given guidance about how to set up and use interest areas such as the blocks area, the house corner, the library area, the sand and water area, and the outdoors to extend and enrich children's learning. The curriculum provides a framework for planning but does not define specific content for teachers to follow. Rather, it supports teachers in building content around the interests and experiences of their children so that learning takes place in a meaningful context.

In adapting this curriculum for use in the primary grades, the focus will be on supporting children's growth in language and literacy, math and logic, science, social studies, creative art, music, and dramatic play while retaining an environment that promotes active learning and parental involvement. The plan is to marry the learning goals for children in grades K-2 with successful Head Start practices. Education, in this context, is an upward pull from early childhood education rather than the downward push described in Dr. Katz's article.

Despite the fact that all participants in this project believe that extending Head Start's approach to child-initiated programming upward into the primary grades will help children flourish, accomplishing this goal in a real-world setting is not a straightforward process. Major barriers that exist within the school system and the community drive home the point that change does not come easily.

Beyond the anticipated problems inherent in a limited budget and a staff whose responsibilities already extend beyond reasonable boundaries, other unanticipated problems have developed. For example, central to making the project work is the need for team-building. But in trying to put this concept into practice, it soon became apparent that most members of the project team did not have a firm understanding of what team-building actually meant or what it required of them individually or as a group. Further, school principals were expected to be team-builders at their schools (indeed, schools were chosen because their principals had a reputation for strong, effective leadership), yet they were faced with conflicting demands on their time. Early childhood education is but one of an elementary school principal's priorities, and only rarely do principals have the luxury of placing it at the top of the list.

In this same vein, although all participants have been committed to this project, defining commitment operationally so that all participants have a shared vision has been a slow, evolutionary process. In hindsight, it is apparent that school staff did not have an adequate understanding of what would be required of them to make the project succeed. Many teachers tended to underestimate the time burden that would be placed on them for training and technical assistance. Neither they nor the school system were adequately prepared to find substitute teachers who could cover for classroom teachers during needed training sessions. In addition, the presence of substitutes and "pull-out" resource teachers for art or music or library time introduced others into the equation—some of whom did not share the project teachers' commitment to developmental appropriateness in general and to this project in particular.

Another problem has centered on the issue of control. While teachers report a strong feeling of control over their own classrooms, outside of this domain many teachers seem to feel they have very little say in how things are done. Unlike some other reform efforts, this project has demanded team-building and peer interaction. Teachers are encouraged to share thoughts and engage one another in a professional dialogue about teaching practices. Extending the art of teaching beyond individual classroom walls has been both uncomfortable and difficult for some participants.

Individual sensitivities to philosophical issues have also posed problems. For example, how does one best approach experienced teachers who have been practicing what they have always believed to be good teaching methods with the news that their ways need to be changed? And, what do you do when people publicly support the concept of developmental appropriateness but do not realize this means making changes in practice as well as rhetoric? And how do you convince parents who are test-oriented that a program that supports social competence will actually help their children do better academically?

Each of these problems may be minor individually, but together they pose a major challenge. Change does not come about because educators review research and prescribe an appropriate plan of action. Change comes about because fears are addressed, egos are massaged, and people are convinced of the value of making the change. And once convinced, they need to be supported in their efforts.

Having learned these lessons, sometimes in painful ways, project staff rethought many of their assumptions and approaches used during the first year to see if problems that surfaced could be addressed more effectively. As a result, the following changes were instituted:

• Training is now being offered as an afterschool course rather than as a release-time activity. As noted, one of the most frustrating aspects of the first year's program was trying to arrange time for teachers to receive needed training. For one thing, there simply was not enough money to hire substitutes; nor was there a sufficient pool of available substitute teachers to facilitate the training effort. A number of other exciting—but competing—offerings were also available to teachers at the same time training for this project was scheduled. Teachers often had to choose between receiving training for this project and other activities that were of interest to them, such as emerging literacy. To accommodate this problem, project training is now offered as a course that does not conflict with other offerings or require the use of substitute teachers. In addition, teachers are extended the opportunity to receive graduate or recertification credit for their participation in the course. As a result of this change in approach, all 22 teachers in the participating schools have enrolled in the training course. In fact, this course has become so popular that teachers from nonparticipating schools in the District of Columbia have inquired about enrolling in it.
  
  
• Technical assistance is now scheduled at the teacher's request, rather than according to a predetermined project schedule. This accommodation gives teachers more control and removes the feeling that they are being checked up on. Now when staff observe a classroom, the teacher feels these observations are truly team-building rather than judgmental in nature.
  
  
• Teachers are asked to keep journals of their experiences. Journals enable them to keep notes to discuss with trainers at a later time, to vent their feelings, and to document the successes and frustrations they experience on a day-to-day basis. Journals are collected monthly and receive a personal response from one of the trainers. It is anticipated that these journals will become a living history of the project.
  
  
• During the summer between the first and second project years, teachers from the participating schools were hired as paid consultants to review the revised version of the Creative Curriculum for Early Childhood in terms of how well it fit the realities of their classrooms. Everyone benefited from this strategy. Project staff were able to see firsthand what the teachers' concerns were and take them into account as they began writing the version of the curriculum for grades one and two. Even more important, teachers serving in a consultative role tended to feel that their opinions were valued by project staff; as a result, they became invested in the project to an extent not envisioned during the first year.

This evolutionary process of teambuilding has led to positive preliminary results one-third of the way through the project. Many teachers feel the program validates what they have known instinctively to be appropriate for young children. Teachers in Head Start and prekindergarten say that as a result of last year's efforts, they are seeing child-initiated learning taking place at the beginning of the year—something they hardly would have believed possible a year ago. Teachers report that the Creative Curriculum for Early Childhood and their training have helped them to address parental concerns. Support from school principals has grown, too, as they see enthusiasm emanating from their teachers. Perhaps most telling of all is this comment made by one of the participating prekindergarten teachers: "I'm no longer tired at the end of the day."

Establishing a developmentally appropriate program takes time. Implementing the readiness goal in the District of Columbia's public schools—and in schools across the country—calls for participants to band together with a shared vision to support parents, teachers, and administrators if children are ultimately to benefit.

Collins, R. C. and P. F. Kinney (November 1989). Head Start Research and Evaluation: Background and Overview. Technical paper prepared for the Head Start Bureau, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ED 315 158.

District of Columbia Public Schools (September 1989). Early Learning and Identification Study, 1987-1988. Washington, DC: District of Columbia Public Schools.

Dodge, D. T. and L.J. Colker (January 1992). The Creative Curriculum for Early Childhood, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, Inc.

Marcon, R. A. (December 1990). Early Learning and Identification: Final Report of the Three-Year Longitudinal Study. Washington, DC: District of Columbia Public Schools.

Stewart A. C. and D. H. Robinson (February 15, 1990). The Head Start Program: Background Information and Issues. Washington, DC: Report for Congress.

Laura J. Colker is the Education Specialist for the ERIC Document Reproduction, Service. She also serves as the Documentarian for the District of Columbia Public Schools' readiness project described in this article.

This article was originally published in ERIC Review, volume 2 number 1, 1992, pp. 7-11. The ERIC Review is published three times a year by ACCESS ERIC with support from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OEIR). For more information about the ERIC Review or for a free subscription to the ERIC Review, contact:

ACCESS ERIC
800-538-3742 or 800 LET-ERIC
E-mail: accesseric@accesseric.org
URL: http://www.eric.ed.gov

Return to the Virtual Library page.
Return to the ReadyWeb Home Page.