| Citation: | Ramey, S. L., Ramey, C. T., Phillips, M. M., Lanzi, R. G., Brezausek, C., Katholi, C. R., Snyder, S., & Lawrence, F. (2000). Head Start childrenÕs entry into public school: A report on the national Head Start/Public School Early Childhood Transition Demonstration Study. Birmingham, Al: Civitan International Research, University of Alabama at Birmingham. |
Annotation:
This evaluation study is a multisite randomized controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of continuing Head Start services through the third grade in maintaining and enhancing the early gains of former Head Start children and their families. The intervention had four key program components: family support services; family involvement opportunities; health, nutrition, and mental health services for both children and their families; and educational programming for both children and their parents. Educational programming for parents included programs Òto promote strong parenting skills, educational and vocational growth for adult family members, and strong and stable family functioningÓ (pp. 2-3). About a third of sites provided parent resource rooms. The study collected a variety of data from children, families, school staffs, and school records. Child outcome measures included the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement. The study addressed 453 schools (219 demonstration and 234 control sites) and more than 5,600 classrooms in 31 local sites over a six-year period. In most sites, individual schools within a school district were assigned randomly to a treatment (demonstration) or control group; however, in six sites, entire school districts were randomly assigned as demonstration or control group sites. The demonstration group of schools or school districts received Transition Demonstration services, while the control group received typical educational and related services. For the most part, the studyÕs findings focus on implementation issues. As with a number of other large-scale demonstration programs, program features were implemented unevenly across sites and even within sites. All sites reported multiple obstacles to implementation. The study found that only about 20 percent of sites implemented Òvery strongÓ programs: ÒOf the 31 local sites, 6 were rated as very good to excellent in all features of their program, while 8 were judged as fair or weak in all aspectsÓ (p. 2). In terms of child outcomes, the study found that children in the treatment groups generally made good academic progress through third grade, with their largest gains in the first two years. At kindergarten entry, they scored an average of eight points below the national average in their reading scores on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement, but by the end of the second and third grade they performed at the national average. However, most effects for children in the treatment group did not differ significantly from those in the control group. The authors noted that several factors may have contributed to the fact that treatment group participants showed limited benefits relative to the control group: the mixed quality of program implementation, many control group schools use of program supports Òthat essentially mimicked thoseÓ in the treatment schools, and the fact that children in both treatment and control groups Òappeared to benefit tremendously from their school experiencesÓ (p. 9).
The Connection Collection: ©SEDL 2024