1 / 35

Classroom Quality and Time Allocation in Tulsa’s Early Childhood Programs

Classroom Quality and Time Allocation in Tulsa’s Early Childhood Programs. Deborah Phillips, William T. Gormley, and Amy Lowenstein Georgetown University Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development Boston, MA, March 30, 2007. Introduction.

amy-daugherty
Download Presentation

Classroom Quality and Time Allocation in Tulsa’s Early Childhood Programs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Classroom Quality and Time Allocation in Tulsa’s Early Childhood Programs Deborah Phillips, William T. Gormley, and Amy Lowenstein Georgetown University Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development Boston, MA, March 30, 2007

  2. Introduction • Several states have established universal pre-Kindergraten (UPK) programs in recent years • UPK established in Oklahoma in 1998 • Reaches more 4-year-olds than any other program (U.S. GAO, 2004) • Rigorous classroom quality requirements • Impressive learning gains documented for 4-year-olds in Oklahoma’s UPK program (Gormley, Gayer, Phillips, & Dawson, 2005) • What accounts for these learning gains?

  3. Focus • Classroom quality (Classroom Assessment Scoring System [CLASS]) and time allocation (Emerging Academics Snapshot) • Tulsa pre-K vs. Tulsa Head Start • Tulsa pre-K vs. national sample of school-based pre-K • Tulsa Head Start vs. national Head Start sample • Predictors of Tulsa pre-K classroom quality and time allocation

  4. Expectations: Program Quality • School-based preschool programs are of higher quality than child care programs(Goodson & Moss, 1992; Phillips, Voran, Kisker, Howes, & Whitebook, 1994) • Head Start programs fall in middle of spectrum(Barnett et al., 2005; Goodson & Moss, 1992) • Pre-K programs characterized by wide variation in quality and time allocation (Clifford et al., 2005; Early et al., 2006)

  5. Expectations: Key Elements of Quality • Child-centered, flexible instructional practices • Time spent on explicit subject matter learning • Clear and efficient time management and classroom organization • Opportunities for child-teacher conversation • Warm classroom climate (Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001; Howes & Ritchie, 2002; Stipek & Byler, 2003)

  6. Expectations: Predictors of Pre-K Quality • Teacher education and training • BA plus early childhood training related to quality (Pianta et al., 2005) • Neither BA degree alone nor state certification in 4-year-old education related to quality (Early et al., 2006) • Teacher experience • Years of experience teaching 4-year-olds related to global quality, as assessed by ECERS-R (Pianta et al., 2005) • Curricular choices • Are some curricula more effective than others?

  7. Methods • Classroom observations: Feb.-May, 2006 • 77 pre-K classrooms run by Tulsa Public Schools (TPS) • 28 4-year-old Head Start classrooms run by Community Action Project (CAP) of Tulsa County • Observers: 8 University of Tulsa students • Observed from student arrival until lunch

  8. Methods • Observation instruments • Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS, Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2004) • Instructional support, Emotional support, Classroom management • 11 dimensions • 7-point scale: Low (1), High (7) • Emerging Academics Snapshot, Child Engagement section (Ritchie, Howes, Kraft-Sayre, & Weiser, 2002) • Time individual children spend engaged in any of 15 activities (e.g., reading, math, science) • Teacher background information • Questionnaire

  9. Methods • Intra-Tulsa comparisons: Difference of means, t-tests • Tulsa-National comparisons: Difference of means, t-tests • 11-state study, National Center for Early Development and Learning (NCEDL) • Predictors of pre-K quality, time allocation: OLS regression

  10. Conclusions: Classroom Quality and Time Allocation • Tulsa pre-K devotes more time to practicing letters and sounds and math than Tulsa Head Start • Tulsa pre-K scores higher on Instructional Support than national sample of school-based pre-K • Tulsa pre-K devotes more time to reading, math, and science than national sample of school-based pre-K • Tulsa Head Start scores higher on Instructional Support than national sample of Head Start programs • Tulsa Head Start devotes more time to reading, math, and science than national sample of Head Start programs

  11. Conclusions: Predictors of Classroom Quality and Time Allocation • Teachers who speak Spanish: Stronger emotional support • New teachers: Lower student engagement, more time on student reading, less time on expressive language skills • Experienced teachers: Stronger classroom management, more time on student reading • Direct Instruction curriculum: Stronger classroom management • Waterford Curriculum: More time practicing letters and sounds • TPS Framework: Less time on student reading • Tulsa Reads: Less time reading to students, more time practicing letters and sounds

  12. Center for Research on Children in the U.S. (CROCUS) http://www.crocus.georgetown.edu/

More Related