7.1 Mock Dissertation: Chapter 2 Literature Review

Running head: EQUITY OF SC FUNDED 4K CLASSROOMS 1

EQUITY OF SC FUNDED 4K CLASSROOMS 2

Equity of South Carolina Funded Four-Year-Old Kindergarten Classrooms: Factors Affecting Kindergarten Readiness

Chapter Two

Literature Review Introduction

Parents register their child for kindergarten, hoping their child will meet academic achievement benchmarks necessary for school success. Unfortunately, limited access to high-quality early childhood programs and enriching learning experiences can often build an educational barrier to achievement even before a child steps into a formal classroom. Geography, race, and income are factors that contribute to inequitable access to high-quality early childhood education programs and often leads to academic achievement gaps that are difficult to close. Lawmakers’ policies surrounding the implementation of high-quality early childhood education programs to close the achievement gap of at-risk early learners sounds promising; however, the success of these programs is questionable. Research studies of segregated at-risk early childhood programs have found long-term academic readiness impact for these children is not significant (Bainbridge, Meyers, Tanaka, & Waldfogel, 2005; Bowne, Magnuson, Schindler, Duncan, & Yoshikawa, 2017; Clifford et al., 2005; Magnuson, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2005; Pelatti, Dynia, Logan, Justice, & Kaderavek, 2016). Early childhood education programs that limit access to only at-risk students increase the probability that academic achievement gaps will continue to widen. This access limitation decreases the opportunity for children to engage in a social environment that is composed of different ethnicities and socioeconomic levels necessary for them to learn from their peers who have different background experiences (Edwards, 2007; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Pianta et al., 2005; Reid & Ready, 2013; Schechter & Bye, 2007).

Early childhood education programs are designed to raise school readiness of children entering kindergarten; however, not all four-year-old children have the same access to early childhood education programs. Federal and state funding for early childhood education programs continue to be a priority; however, research is divided and often not conclusive on what constitutes necessary components of a high-quality early childhood program that impacts academic and social outcomes. Numerous research studies have analyzed structural components and requirements of early childhood education programs and the impact on student achievement; however, all of these studies have been unable to specify which elements lead to measurable kindergarten readiness (Bainbridge et al., 2005; Bowne et al., 2017; Clifford et al., 2005; Magnuson et al., 2005; Pelatti et al., 2016). The limited research studies available on the ethnic and socioeconomic diversity within early childhood education classrooms indicate the diversity of a class population positively impacts kindergarten readiness outcomes and the quality of the early childhood program (LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Pianta et al., 2005; Reid & Ready, 2013; Schechter & Bye, 2007). 

State policymakers across the United States, including South Carolina, continue to increase early childhood funding; however, in most states, this funding is limited to high-poverty families. Not only does South Carolina’s early childhood education funding system segregate children in four-year-old kindergarten based on socioeconomic conditions, the system only funds four-year-old programs in rural high-poverty counties. Therefore, all four-year-old children in South Carolina do not have equal access to quality early childhood education. The youngest of South Carolina’s at-risk children are being trapped in a cycle of educational gaps due to the early childhood education programs’ structural design, which reduces children’s exposure to peers from all ethnic and socioeconomic levels and background experiences. South Carolina's CERDEP kindergarten programs eliminate the sociocultural benefits of children being able to learn the necessary kindergarten readiness skills, including language and literacy, mathematics, social foundations, and physical well-being and motor development, from each other.  

South Carolina’s early childhood funding is available to public schools’ or private organizations’ four-year-old kindergarten programs that serve qualifying students with low socioeconomic poverty levels and who live in a low socioeconomic rural school district. This funding practice has created segregated classrooms within public and community-based early childhood learning programs. Unfortunately, the segregation of children limits their ability to learn from their peers, who may have had different background experiences (Vygotsky, 1978). Currently, there is limited research across the United States, and none in South Carolina, on the kindergarten readiness impact based on ethnic and socioeconomic composition or four-year-old kindergarten programs. All South Carolina parents deserve the right to send their child to a state-funded four-year-old kindergarten program. Parents also deserve to know a program's success rate on kindergarten readiness, so they can make an informed decision about the type of early childhood programs their child attends. 

Purpose of the Review

Researchers and early childhood experts continue to analyze the educational and social benefits of early childhood programs and structural components of these programs (i.e., location of the program, length of the program, and teacher certification). However, limited studies are available due to the lack of consistency between the assessment measures of kindergarten readiness across programs and states. The majority of studies have stopped short of analyzing the ethnic and economic variance within early childhood programs since many states and programs only serve at-risk children. Early childhood research supports the need for high-quality pre-kindergarten programs. However, the lack of reliable data on what program components are needed to impact kindergarten readiness has led to states earmarking money for early childhood and creating programs that may or may not impact student success. This research aimed to be a resource for school district leaders and policymakers to inform decisions about funding, designing, and implementing a high-quality early childhood program that prepares all students for kindergarten readiness and future academic success.

The following three questions guided the literature review and research. 1) How did students who attended a structured four-year-old kindergarten program perform on the Fall 2018 Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA) in the areas of language/literacy, mathematics, social foundations, physical well-being/motor development, and overall kindergarten readiness) as compared to students who did not attend a four-year-old kindergarten program? 2) In Fall 2018, how did CERDEP qualified students who attended a four-year-old kindergarten program in a public school setting perform on the kindergarten readiness assessment as compared to CERDEP students who attended a four-year-old kindergarten program housed in community centers (i.e., Head Start or First Step daycares)? 3) In Fall 2018, what were the differences in kindergarten readiness assessment scores between ethnic groups who attended a four-year-old kindergarten program?

Early childhood education literature is vast, and many articles, theories, and books extend beyond the scope of this research study. Therefore, this review focuses on Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning, along with Dewey’s social context of learning theory and how these theories contradict the current funding policies and structures of early childhood education programs. The chapter focuses on current research findings of the need and benefits of early childhood education programs, and research studies evaluation of the characteristics of high-quality early childhood programs and the potential impact on students’ readiness for kindergarten. The review addresses the limitations of current research on the relationship of publicly funded four-year-old programs on kindergarten readiness to ethnic and economic variance within each program. In conclusion, the chapter examines South Carolina’s current early childhood education program structure and funding systems. It reviews the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment that defines readiness in the areas of language and literacy, mathematics, social foundations, physical well-being and motor development, and overall kindergarten readiness. Through the review of the literature, early childhood program research have limited samples and lack uniform kindergarten readiness evaluation tools to provide policymakers and school district’s administrators the information needed to justify all children receiving access to early childhood programs, best site location for these programs, and the relationship between ethnicity and socioeconomic composition on kindergarten readiness. Additional research is needed to ensure state-funded pre-kindergarten programs are meeting the needs of the children and the families they serve. Parents deserve the most recent data for their community on which early childhood education program best fits the need of their child and gives their child the best opportunity to be kindergarten ready. 

Theoretical Framework

The commitment of policymakers to early childhood education is based on the concern about the “many homes that failed to provide sufficient intellectual stimulation to satisfy children’s natural curiosity and imagination” (Wood, 2007, p. 120). Over the last two decades, there has been an increase in public funding for at-risk early childhood education programs with the expansion of public prekindergarten programs from half-day to full-day (Artz & Welsch, 2016). Providing four-year-old students a learning environment consistently with established learning standards and expectations supports both Dewey’s and Vygotsky’s beliefs that education must “be an active and context-specific process” (Glassman, 2001, p. 3). Early childhood classroom learning centers are based on Dewey’s belief that “the human condition is enhanced when individuals engage in the everyday activity of their social community in a thoughtful and positive way” (Glassman, 2001, p. 3). 

            As perspectives on early childhood education evolve, current views are shifting towards Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory that recognizes complex relationships between the child, the home, early childhood institutions, and society (Wood, 2007). Edwards’s (2007) study found the following: 

Since the late 1980s, the early childhood curriculum literature has been drawing more frequently on arguments related predominately to the Vygotskian conception of knowledge development. Here, references to the social and cultural nature of the developmental process, the role of peers and adults in learning, and the popular notion of the Zone of Proximal Development abound. (p. 84)

Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory provides an understanding of how children’s own background experiences and those of their peers impact their ability to operate in the classroom (Edwards, 2007). The sociocultural theory focuses on how ethnic and socioeconomic beliefs and attitudes within a classroom or program impact instruction and learning.

The social interactions provided in an early childhood classroom can impact the development of cognition (Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky (1978) believes the environment in which children grow up will influence how they think and what they think. Cognitive functions are affected by the beliefs, values, and tools of intellectual adaptation of the society in which a person develops. Young children need exposure to play and learning through social interactions with their peers and teachers. Children need interactions with peers that have varying experiences and ability levels to challenge and promote problem-solving and critical thinking skills. As well as promote kindergarten readiness skills in the areas of language and literacy, mathematics, social foundations, and physical well-being and motor development.

Early Childhood Education Program Overview

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2019), the percentage of four-year-old children enrolled in a preschool kindergarten program was 68% in 2017. State funding for pre-kindergarten has increased from $200 million in 1988 to $7.5 billion in 2018 (Education Commission of the States, 2019; National Center for Children in Poverty, 2000). The continued increase in state funding is due to research confirming the effects of environmental enrichment and high-quality experiences in the development of young children (Clifford et al., 2005). In 2015, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stated, “I believe that every single child deserves the opportunity for a strong start in life through high-quality preschool” (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Following the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), many states’ policymakers made early childhood a priority, especially for children who may be at risk for later school failure. Limited research is available on how states’ at-risk funding for early childhood education programs has eliminated economic diversity within the classrooms, and the impact this system has on closing the academic achievement gap of children who are from low socioeconomic backgrounds. The U.S. Department of Education (2015) recognized, “Significant new investments in high-quality early education are necessary to help states, local communities, and parents close the school readiness gaps between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers” (p. 1). Research indicates that most states have focused on early childhood programs serving disadvantaged children and aiming to minimize achievement gaps. However, this focus contradicts the U.S. Department of Education’s (2015) research showing “that all children who participate in high-quality preschool programs have better health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes than those who do not participate” (p. 1). The substantial amount of public funding directed at early childhood education programs has increased the need for additional research on the performance of students who attend four-year-old kindergarten programs versus those who do not. Research is needed to determine the kindergarten readiness impact of limiting ethnic and socioeconomic composition within early childhood education programs.

Early Childhood Education Program Enrollment

           The surge of interest in early childhood education programs comes from the expanding awareness of the importance of children’s school readiness and the increasing numbers of single-parent homes or both parents working outside of the home (Clifford et al., 2005). State lawmakers believe that if parents are unable to provide environmental enrichment and high-quality experiences to their young children, then it is the state’s responsibility to provide early childhood programs. Research in neuroscience supports early education specialists’ beliefs about the early learning years being a critical stage for children to learn the foundational social and cognitive skills needed for future learning and success. One such study is Shonkoff and Phillips’ (2000) research, which confirms the positive effects of environmental enrichment on neuronal connections made in early childhood education impacts learning into adulthood. 

Vygotsky (1978) suggested that children arrive in kindergarten with varied cognitive or social knowledge and skills due to diverse home experiences. All children have different learning experiences and exposures; therefore, all would benefit from early childhood programs. Pelatti et al. (2016) research indicate that all children need exposure to high-quality early childhood programs to develop the background knowledge and skills necessary for school readiness. LoCasale-Crouch et al. (2007) research support that children who have high-quality preschool classroom experiences will enter kindergarten with better language development, reading skills, and math skills. 

Moss (2008) states, “The globalized discourse of lifelong learning emphasizes that learning begins at birth, rather than at some later date coinciding with school entry age” (p. 225). Early childhood education is an essential foundation for developing dispositions and attitudes towards learning. “There is a growing body of research indicating that child outcomes improve as a direct result of high-quality experiences in early education classrooms” (LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007, p. 3). Glassman (2001) believes that all children will benefit from engaging in everyday activities through social play to support cognitive and social development. Early childhood education programs have the potential to give children a jump start to kindergarten and even adulthood by supporting both educational and social behaviors. Therefore, early childhood education programs have the potential to be a robust early intervention in addressing kindergarten readiness for all children.

Diversity in Early Childhood Education

Strong research evidence suggests that academic achievement in elementary and secondary school is impacted by the quality of early childhood education children receive. With increasing awareness of the importance of early childhood education, the relationship between family income and access to high-quality early education programs comes into question. Currie (2001) contends that equalizing allocations for early childhood education programs “may be a more cost-effective way of promoting equity than compensating for unequal outcomes” (p. 216). Likewise, Furstenberg, Brooks-Funn, and Morgan’s (1987) research show that children from disadvantaged families who start school have lower performance than other students. Unfortunately, a cyclical pattern of inequality in education and income may attribute to a lack of access to quality early childhood programs (Bainbridge et al., 2005) as well as a lack of access to an early childhood setting that incorporates opportunities for interactions with children from different backgrounds. 

Bainbridge et al. (2005) research study demonstrate a persistent pattern of inequality in access to early childhood for minority students and low-income households. Bainbridge et al. (2005) analyzed the October Current Population Survey (CPS) education supplement to review school attendance of three-to-five-year olds annually from 1968 to 2000. Bainbridge et al. (2005) research also revealed significant gaps in three- and four-year-old early education enrollment due to socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Helburn and Howes (1996) found evidence that parents, especially ones with limited education or low socioeconomic status, struggle to evaluate the quality of child care centers, and many end up selecting low-quality programs that may be harmful to their children. Leaving the choice of early education and care of young children to parents who have limited resources to evaluate the quality of early childhood education programs increases the inequalities in children’s readiness for school and potential secondary school outcomes. Parents from limited educational homes or low socioeconomic backgrounds have limited options for early childhood education programs to enroll their children. Many times these programs are only for at-risk students even though research has started to show limited diversity within early childhood programs can negatively affect academic achievement and students’ kindergarten readiness (Reid & Ready, 2013). States may be able to improve early childhood outcomes if they develop, publicize, and enforce early childhood education program standards and expectations (Currie, 2001). Increasing the ethnic and economic diversity within the classrooms to provide opportunities for direct peer impact on learning (Reid & Ready, 2013) may also improve early childhood outcomes. 

“Early inequality in education threatens to breed further inequality” (Bainbridge et al., 2005, p. 724). Currie (2001) found that children from low-income families are more susceptible to the effects of poor-quality early childhood education programs and would gain the most from high-quality programs. Unfortunately, the gaps in access to high-quality early childhood education “may contribute to a cyclical pattern of inequality in education and income” (Bainbridge et al., 2005, p. 725). State policymakers understand the concern that many disadvantaged children are not prepared to start school and the potential impact on economic growth and development, which has led to expansions in early childhood education funding (Magnuson et al., 2005). However, research is lacking on the overall impact of limiting early childhood programs to only students of poverty. 

Often pre-kindergarten programs are seen as a powerful intervention in addressing school readiness. Providing young children access to high-quality educational experiences in early childhood programs can minimize academic and social gaps often associated with children raised in low-income households due to their limited exposure to diverse language (Pelatti et al., 2016). Early intervention has been “defined as a community of individuals who share a common interest – provision of appropriate services to young children at risk for or with disabilities and their families” (Johnson et al., 1994, p. 281). Early education programs for children being identified at-risk due to poverty, child abuse, or parent education level have received an increase in funding. Reynolds, Mann, Miedel, and Smokowski (1997) suggest three assumptions underlying the need for early childhood intervention programs, especially for the economically disadvantaged. The first assumption is that the environmental conditions of poverty negatively impact child development. Poverty is often associated with under-achievement in school, poor attendance, and low educational attainment. The second assumption is that high-quality educational and social enrichment may allow children of poverty to start school ready to learn and may close the achievement gap between their performance and their more economically advantaged peers. The third assumption is that the impact of the intervention will be short-term and long-term through measures of cognitive development, school achievement, educational attainment, and motivation to succeed. All three of Reynolds’s et al. (1997) assumptions are based on the need for at-risk students to be exposed to a high-quality learning environment. Students need opportunities to engage in social interactions with teachers and peers to learn problem-solving and critical thinking skills (Glassman, 2001). High-quality early childhood education programs are the key to ensuring all children have equal access to learning opportunities and experiences.

Although there is research available on the impact of segregating low socioeconomic students, there is limited research on the positive impact of heterogeneously grouping all students so they can learn from each other (LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Pianta et al., 2005; Reid & Ready, 2013; Schechter & Bye, 2007). In support of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and the need for diversity in a classroom, Reid and Ready (2013) found “educational researchers have exploited the advantages of multilevel modeling and found the effect of school socioeconomic composition on children’s learning equals or even rivals the impact of children’s family background in a given year of schooling” (p.1084). The impact of socioeconomic diversity on cognitive, social, and behavioral skills within early childhood education programs need further exploration. The research study by Schechter and Bye (2007) found prekindergarten students from low socioeconomic households were more successful if they enrolled in an early childhood program with a variety of socioeconomic levels than if they enrolled in programs with peers from the same socioeconomic level. Reid and Ready (2013) found the “causal pathways that connect classrooms socioeconomic status and learning are not well understood, particularly in early childhood” (p. 1085). Therefore, additional research studies centered around the impact of ethnic and socioeconomic diversity on kindergarten readiness are needed. 

Schechter and Bye’s (2007) research study of two preschool programs in Connecticut indicates that children from low-income families who participated in an economically integrated preschool had language scores significantly higher than their counterparts who attended a preschool for only low-income families. Even though both groups of children started the fall with equivalent language scores, the students in the economically integrated school had spring scores significantly higher than their counterparts. “It is suggested that the language skills of these more advantaged peers may have had a positive impact on the language learning environment in the economically integrated preschools” (Schechter & Bye, 2007, p. 144). Just as Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory suggested, Schechter and Bye’s (2007) research highlighted the importance of a diverse composition of students in early childhood classrooms and the requirement of these classes to incorporate activities where students can learn from each other’s experiences and background knowledge. Reid and Ready’s (2013) research study suggests that all children in an integrated socioeconomic early childhood education program learn more than a classroom primarily composed of children from low-income backgrounds. The research studies by Reid and Ready (2013) and Schechter and Bye (2007) show a relationship between achievement skills and integrated socioeconomic classrooms; however, both studies had a limited population since most early childhood programs studied were only for at-risk students.

Benefits of Early Childhood Education 

Current literature defines the benefits of early childhood education; however, research studies struggle to define the components of a high-quality early childhood education program with sustained academic readiness (Bainbridge et al., 2005; Bowne et al., 2017; Clifford et al., 2005; Magnuson et al., 2005; Pelatti et al., 2016). Early childhood education programs provide developmentally appropriate and enriching social and academic environments (Bowne et al., 2017). Moss and Haydon (2008) defined education in its broadest sense:

A broad concept that understands education as fostering and supporting the general well-being and development of children and young people, and their ability to interact effectively with their environment and to live a good life: education as a process of upbringing and increasing participation in the wider society. This might be termed ‘education-in-its-broadest sense,’ similar in many respects to the Continental concept and tradition of social pedagogy. (p. 2)

A greater awareness that early childhood is a critical developmental period has led to the aim of promoting high-quality children’s experiences in early childhood education programs that aim to focus on healthy social/behavior development and learning (Biddle, Crawford, & Seth-Purdie, 2017). Biddle’s et al. (2017), Bowne’s et al. (2017), Moss and Haydon’s (2008) research supports the need for high-quality early childhood education programs which incorporates Vygotsky’s sociocultural belief of “engaging children in cooperative learning and joint discovery activities” (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996).

Early childhood programs are essential to enhancing life chances for children and their families, to promote early interventions, and to tackle social exclusion (Alakeson, 2004). There is also mounting evidence that high-quality early childhood education programs help prepare children for school. Ansari, Pianta, Whittaker, Vitiello, and Ruzek’s (2019) research found, “children of all backgrounds – and especially those from low-income and disadvantaged homes – who attended high-quality early childhood programs at age 4 enter kindergarten more ready academically” (p. 3). LoCasale-Crouch et al. (2007) research states, “children in higher-quality preschool classrooms enter school with better language development, math skills, and reading skills” (p. 4). Neither of these research studies incorporated an analysis of the socioeconomic and ethnic composition within the programs to determine if the identification of high-quality classrooms and academic readiness was dependent on a heterogeneous grouping. Neither research studies confirmed what structural components were mandatory for an early childhood program to be high-quality. 

Pre-Kindergarten Structural Components and Site Location Research

  Hustedt and Barnett’s (2011) research found, “most children in the United States now have their first school experiences in preschool rather than in kindergarten” (p. 42). Pre-kindergarten refers to center-based three- or four-year-old kindergarten programs that are fully or partially funded by state education agencies. State pre-kindergarten initiatives vary from state to state; however, they all share some common characteristics. First, all pre-kindergarten programs are voluntary. Second, programs are funded and directed by each state education department that identifies early learning standards that range from academic content, social/emotional development, motor development, and language development (Hustedt & Barnett, 2011). Over the last few decades, there has been an increase in public funding for early childhood education programs to better prepare students for school. Most states are now funding one year of full-day public four-year-old kindergarten for at-risk students (Ansari et al., 2019). Given the explosion of state-funded early childhood education programs, there is a need to understand what developmental benefits these programs have and if the benefits lead to kindergarten readiness. 

Research studies have been conducted across the nation to evaluate and analyze the effectiveness of state-funded pre-kindergarten programs. Ansari et al. (2019) study evaluated 1,213 pre-K children from low-income families who lived in a large, culturally, and linguistically diverse county. The variables in the study included whether the child received informal or structured early childhood programs at the age of three. The study collected children’s characteristics (age, gender, race/ethnicity) and their parents’ capacity and resources (years of education, home language, income-to-needs ratio). The study also considered other household characteristics (parents' age, household size, number of children in the home) and the children’s academic, socio-emotional, and executive functioning test scores (fall and spring). Results of Ansari’s et al. (2019) study indicated that after adjusting for child, family, and household factors, participation in early childhood education programs at the age of three was associated with stronger language, literacy, and math achievement upon school entry. However, these academic associations did not persist over time. Ansari et al. (2019) study did not consider the demographic and socioeconomic diversity within the classrooms studied to determine if the diversity within the classroom impacted the achievement gains of the students. 

Although federal and state governments have funded preschool programs to raise school readiness skills of children entering kindergarten, little research has documented the quality of these programs related to the program characteristics that are mandated by law. Numerous literature studies have examined the program design, classroom behaviors, and teacher predictors of quality in early childhood. However, very few studies have focused on these same categories of predictors of classroom quality for state-funded at-risk pre-kindergarten programs, which have eliminated ethnic and socioeconomic diversity in many classrooms. State and local policymakers are searching for kindergarten readiness data to support the continued funding of early childhood programs. They are looking for features of interest, including whether the programs are full- or part-day, housed in school or community settings, universal or targeted groups of students, or staffed by certified teachers or individuals with less formal training. Lawmakers have limited access to research studies analyzing the impact of the ethnic and socioeconomic diversity within the early childhood education programs on academic readiness. 

Both Clifford et al. (2005) and Pianta et al. (2005) research indicated that classrooms with a saturation of poverty had lower achievement and lower-quality programs. Both studies evaluated state-level research obtained from the National Center for Early Development and Learning’s (NCEDL) Multi-State Study of Pre-Kindergarten to determine the impact of structural components on student readiness. Clifford et al. (2005) research considered structural components of early childhood education programs such as length of program day and the education level required to teach pre-kindergarten, which varied across the states studied. Pianta et al. (2005) research evaluated pre-kindergarten programs through teacher and classroom observations for classroom quality and teacher-child interactions. However, Pianta et al. (2005) study did not use specific test data to determine the success or effectiveness of the program. Both of these studies were designed to impact early childhood policy on structural features of prekindergarten programs; however, neither Clifford et al. (2005) nor Pianta et al. (2005) research evaluated the readiness outcomes based on the ethnic or socioeconomic diversity within the classroom. Neither study considered that ethnic or socioeconomic diversity of a program could attribute to the differences between highly successful programs and those not meeting the academic benchmarks with their students. 

Pianta et al. (2005) and Clifford et al. (2005) selected six states (California, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, New York, and Ohio) for participation in their research studies due to the differing approaches to program standards, length of the program day, teacher credentialing requirements, and program location. Four of the states (California, Illinois, Kentucky, and Ohio) targeted their pre-school towards children considered at-risk for academic failures. The other two states targeted quality early childhood programs for all students; therefore, they had a diverse ethnic and socioeconomic composition of students within their program. Both Clifford et al. (2005) and Pianta et al. (2005) utilized the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R) to measure global classroom process quality. Both Clifford et al. (2005) and Pianta et al. (2005) studies found all states had an average class size of 18, which meets the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) accreditation standards. Over 68% of teachers sampled held at least a bachelor’s degree. More than half of the pre-k programs were off public school grounds; however, the majority of the samples were part-time programs, with 60% of these programs not offering after-school or extended care options. Clifford et al. (2005) study found that poor children were more likely to be taught by teachers with lower qualifications, which may explain the persistent gaps in achievement that are evident as children enter kindergarten. Clifford et al. (2005) findings showed the four states “with a high concentration of poor children in most classes were pre-dominantly African American or Latino, which illustrates the difficult task of disentangling race and ethnicity from socioeconomic backgrounds” (p. 140-141). Pianta et al. (2005) results showed that classrooms with at least 60% of at-risk students rated lower in quality in terms of Teaching and Interactions and Provisions for Learning from the ECERS-R. Sociocultural theorists would suggest that the lower rating on interactions between students and teachers predict a lower quality environment for student learning since children need to be actively involved in collaborative learning tasks. Classrooms located in a school building or classrooms with at least 60% of students in poverty were offered less time in free choice center settings. Clifford et al. (2005) and Pianta et al. (2005) research recognizes the deficiencies of classes composed of a majority of children from low socioeconomic households.

Given states' high structural program standards (i.e., ratio, class size, teacher education), data from Clifford et al. (2005) study shows these structural components did not guarantee high-quality early childhood education programs. However, some other large scale studies of early childhood programs, such as The Cost, Quality, and Outcomes study (Peisner-Feinberg et al., 1999) and the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (ACYF, 2001, 2003), show structural components being an equalizer in early childhood education. Potential bias from these two studies should be considered since both were from agencies outside public schools receiving federal and state funds. Research studies by Ansari et al. (2019), Clifford et al. (2005), and Pianta et al. (2005) indicate the variability seen across programs appear to stem from classrooms using teacher-initiated activities in high-poverty classrooms; whereas, the heterogeneous classrooms had a more child-centered approach (Marcon, 2002). Current research highlights that the saturation of poverty in the classroom is related to lower classroom quality even though early childhood education programs were designed to address the educational and socio-emotional needs of children from low-income backgrounds. State’s policies and procedures in regards to student selection and structural features of programs related to classroom, teacher, and child characteristics may create unintended consequences. More research is needed to determine if a lack of ethnic and economic diversity is impacting the potential benefits of early childhood education programs. 

Quality Thresholds of Early Childhood Education Programs

After decades of early childhood education program evaluations, policymakers and educators have promoted the need to fund high-quality early childhood programs. State policymakers have listened and have increased funding for early childhood education programs; however, with the increase in funding comes greater scrutiny on whether these programs are improving school readiness, especially for the most at-risk students. In order to evaluate the state-funded preschool programs, states are focusing on structural dimensions of program quality such as site location, class sizes, teacher education, and child-teacher ratios. Due to the expense of reducing class size or child-teacher ratio requirements, more research is needed to show if there is a correlation between these structural requirements and actual kindergarten readiness. Currently, there is minimal evidence on the association between structural indicators and children’s academic progress.

Bowne et al. (2017) research study showed that child-teacher ratio and class size were associated with more positive outcomes for cognitive and achievement results for children with very low child-teacher ratios (7.5:1 and lower) and small class sizes (15 or less). In contradiction to Bowne et al. (2017) research, LoCasale-Crouch et al. (2007) study found that the structural features of standardized programmatic components were not clear indicators of program quality. LoCasale-Crouch et al. (2007) found the majority of the classrooms with the most at-risk students did not have access to high-quality classrooms where students were engaged in learning and information processing in a positive and engaging climate. High-quality preschool programs should enhance the early learning experiences for all children and develop the background knowledge and skills necessary for school readiness (Pelatti et al., 2016). Current literature acknowledges that structural components are not the only variables in creating a high-quality early childhood education program; classroom diversity and sociocultural learning opportunities can positively impact the learning outcomes (Clifford et al., 2005; Pelatti et al., 2016; Pianta et al., 2005; Reid & Ready, 2013; Schechter & Bye, 2007). 

Impact of Publicly Funded Early Childhood Education Programs

Over the last two decades in the United States, many states have dedicated funding for early childhood programs targeted to meet the needs of children at-risk for school failure. The trend of offering more publicly funded early childhood education programs is growing with the expansion of public kindergarten programs from half-day to full-day and the introduction of pre-school programs. Pre-kindergarten programs are seen as a powerful intervention in addressing school readiness. Research supports that children who have had high-quality preschool classroom experiences will enter kindergarten more school ready with better language development, reading skills, and math skills (LoCasale-Crouch, 2007).

Consistent with research studies by Bowne et al. (2015), Coley, Lombardi, Sims, and Votruba-Drzal (2013), Pelatti et al. (2016), and Pianta et al. (2005), data indicate that the structural components of early childhood education programs do not significantly impact cognitive skills development. Coley et al. (2013) research shows a significant difference in Australia’s children's cognitive development where government funding supports all children receiving early childhood education versus the United States children’s cognitive development where government funding targets at-risk populations. Australia’s universal preschool access and the heterogeneous mixture of children from all ethnic and socioeconomic levels may attribute to the sustained cognitive readiness outcomes as compared to the United States. The diverse classroom provides engaging social interactions between peers, which leads to collaborative learning strategies to build a higher level of understanding (Vygotsky, 1978). 

South Carolina’s Early Childhood Education Program

Early childhood education funding in South Carolina first started with the “South Carolina Child Development Education Pilot Program (CDEPP) that began under Proviso 1.75 of the 2006-07 Appropriations Act for the trial and plaintiff districts in the Abbeville et al. v. State of South Carolina lawsuit” (South Carolina Department of Education, 2018a, p. 1). Since that time, the South Carolina General Assembly has expanded the authorization and funding for many of the state’s at-risk four-year-olds to have an opportunity to attend a full-day educational program if they live in a low socioeconomic rural school district. South Carolina’s Supreme Court ruled in November 2014 that “the state has failed in its duty to provide a minimally adequate education to children in the state’s poorest rural school districts” (Click & Hinshaw, 2014, p. 1). After a twenty-one-year battle, South Carolina’s Supreme Court acknowledged South Carolina’s education funding mechanism violated the state and federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection (Click & Hinshaw, 2014). In 2014, South Carolina’s legislature enacted Act No. 284, Section 3, which created the South Carolina Child Early Reading Development and Education Program (CERDEP). South Carolina’s CERDEP is a full day, four-year-old kindergarten program for at-risk children. Funding is allocated to the eligible children in the first eight trial school districts, then the remaining plaintiff school districts, and if funding is still available to all remaining qualified children in South Carolina (South Carolina Department of Education, 2018a). As of 2019, South Carolina has only funded four-year-old programs to the eight trial school districts and the remaining 38 plaintiff districts; this leaves 39 districts with no state funding. 

Children residing in the CERDEP’s district qualify for attendance if the “family’s income documentation shows an annual income of 185% or less of the federal poverty guidelines as determined by the United States Department of Health and Human Services or a statement of Medicaid eligibility” (South Carolina Department of Education, 2018a, p. 2). Parents have the option to send their children to an approved public school or community-centered provider. South Carolina policy does not require the four-year-old kindergarten programs to admit students who fall outside of the income level requirements. Therefore, there is a discrepancy between classroom diversity based on an organization’s commitment to serving all students or just the ones qualified to receive state funds.

South Carolina has established minimum structural components of the state-funded early childhood education programs. SC CERDEP providers guarantee that the early childhood education program will consist of six and one-half hours of instructional time daily for a minimum of 180 days a year. Providers may not charge tuition or fees solely to enroll or attend the four-year-old kindergarten program. The minimum early childhood education program is defined in the law and “requires teachers to have a minimum two-year degree in early childhood, education assistant with in-service training in early childhood education, and a maximum twenty students with a teacher/student ratio of 1:10” (South Carolina Department of Education, 2018a, p. 9-10). All state-funded early childhood education programs must teach the Early Learning Standards; however, no training or evaluation tools have been established to ensure all programs utilize these standards or best practices. 

Kindergarten Readiness Assessment

In 2014-2015, South Carolina “statue 59-155-150 required all publicly funded schools to administer a kindergarten readiness assessment to all five-year-old kindergarten students within the first forty-five days of school” (South Carolina Department of Education, 2018a, p. 16). In Fall 2017, South Carolina began implementation of the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA). “The KRA was created in the partnership of the nonprofit education agency WestEd, Johns Hopkins University, the Ohio Department of Education, and the Maryland State Department of Education” (South Carolina Education Oversight Committee, 2019, p. 9). KRA results provide a measure of a child’s mastery of content and skills that have been identified as expectations for children entering kindergarten. 

           Language and literacy. The language and literacy domain of KRA measures skills such as reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Children are provided opportunities to show their skills in letter identification, letter sounds, rhyming, syllables, beginning sounds, answering questions, and making predictions from interactive read-alouds. Students must also identify objects using positional words. This portion of the assessment also requires students to copy a word and write their first name. 

           Mathematics. The mathematics’ domain of KRA provides students an opportunity to count objects, sort objects into categories, compare using more than, less then, or equal, create patterns, and problem solves using basic addition. Students are asked to match numbers to a group of objects. This portion of the assessment also requires students to order objects using different criteria such as far/near or heavy/light. 

           Social foundations. The social foundations' domain of KRA is an observation tool with a rubric to measure a student’s interactions with peers and adults. Children are observed during play to evaluate students’ ability to plan, coordinate roles, and cooperate with their peers. Students are observed in the classroom, hallways, cafeteria, and playground to evaluate their ability to wait patiently, taking turns, using proper table manners, and solving problems. Using a rubric, teachers will measure a child’s ability to follow the rules, ask for help, and task persistence.

           Physical well-being and motor development. The physical well-being and motor development domain of KRA evaluates students’ ability to demonstrate locomotor skills with control, coordination, and balance during active play. Students are asked to perform tasks such as run, hop, and jump. This portion of the assessment also evaluates students’ ability to wash hands independently, dress after toileting (zipping, snapping or buttoning clothing), and put on their jacket or backpack. The KRA rubric requires teachers to observe and rate students on their pencil grasp, drawing, and cutting with scissors. 

Maryland and Ohio KRA Data Analysis

           Both Maryland and Ohio have administered the KRA yearly since 2014-2015. Ohio, like South Carolina, administers KRA to all kindergarteners each year. Ohio releases disaggregated data based on gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, English Language Learners, and students with disabilities; however, Ohio does not collect data on whether students participated in structured four-year-old kindergarten programs or not. Based on ethnicity, Ohio’s KRA data shows that 47% of white students demonstrated full kindergarten readiness as compared to 39.8% of Asians, 25.9% of African-Americans, and 24.1% of Hispanic students (Ohio Department of Education, 2019). Only 27.2% of economically disadvantaged Ohio students demonstrated kindergarten readiness as compared to 56.2% of non-economic students (Ohio Department of Education, 2019). Disaggregated data by domains shows that low-income students’ average scale score was a 261 in Language/Literacy, 260.4 in Mathematics, 270.1 in Social Foundations, and 268.0 in Physical Well-Being/Motor Development (Ohio Department of Education, 2019). However, their non-economic advantaged peers’ average domain scores were 270.0 in Language/Literacy, 269 in Mathematics, 279.8 in Social Foundations, and 275.6 in Physical Well-Being/Motor Development (Ohio Department of Education, 2019). Since Ohio did not collect data on prior educational experiences, the data shows the subgroups of students who need additional assistance; however, their data is limited to providing insight into pre-kindergarten programs benefits. 

Maryland’s process has evolved from assessing all students to now offering districts the option of sampling or universal assessment of kindergartners. Maryland is the first state to release a Kindergarten Readiness Assessment Report that analyzes readiness by demographics, academic risk factors, as well as readiness by prior care (Maryland State Department of Education, 2019). Maryland’s 2018-2019 data reflects that 33% or low-income students demonstrated full kindergarten readiness as compared to 58% of mid- to high-income students (Maryland State Department of Education, 2019, p. 8). Mid- to High-income students outperformed low-income students in all KRA domains as well. Low-income students’ scale composite average score for kindergarten readiness was a 264; domain scores were 264 in Language/Literacy, 263 in Mathematics, 269 in Social Foundations, and 272 in Physical Well-Being/Motor Development (Maryland State Department of Education, 2019, p. 54). Mid- to High-income students’ scale composite average score for kindergarten readiness was a 272; domain scores were 272 in Language/Literacy, 272 in Mathematics, 276 in Social Foundations, and 278 in Physical Well-Being/Motor Development (Maryland State Department of Education, 2019, p. 54). “The highest percentage of children entering kindergarten came from Public Pre-K (40%) and Home Informal Care (23%) followed by Child Care Centers (14%) and Non-public Nursery (13%)” (Maryland State Department of Education, 2019, p. 8). Disaggregated data shows that 71% of students who came from private pre-kindergarten programs demonstrated full kindergarten readiness as compared to 45% public Pre-K programs and 33% home/informal care and 32% Head Start (Maryland State Department of Education, 2019, p. 9). Maryland’s private pre-kindergarten students’ scale composite score for kindergarten readiness was a 277; domain scores for this group was a 277 in Language/Literacy, 277 in Mathematics, 280 in Social Foundations, and 282 in Physical Well-Being/Motor Development (Maryland State Department of Education, 2019, p. 54). Public school prekindergarten students’ scale composite average score for kindergarten readiness was a 268; domain scores were 268 in Language/Literacy, 267 in Mathematics, 272 in Social Foundations, and 275 in Physical Well-Being/Motor Development (Maryland State Department of Education, 2019, p. 54). Maryland’s analysis did not dive into the ethnic or socioeconomic composition of students in each of the prior care options. Therefore, comparisons on how private pre-kindergarten and public pre-kindergarten students perform are challenging since the public could be mostly low-income students versus private being mostly mid- to high-income students. 

South Carolina KRA Data

KRA is still relatively new in South Carolina since the first implementation was in 2017-2018. The South Carolina State Department of Education is still in the infancy stage of collecting data and determining how to utilize the data it has collected. Currently, South Carolina has not released statewide KRA scale score data for composite kindergarten readiness or domain scores. The state did release the 2018 percentage of all students demonstrating readiness at 37% composite, as well as the domain areas of 33% Language/Literacy, 29% Mathematics, 49% Social Foundations, and 52% Physical Well-Being/Motor Development (South Carolina Education Oversight Committee, 2019). South Carolina also analyzed demonstrating readiness percentages based on CERDEP and Non-CERDEP districts; however, the state did not analyze these subdivisions by ethnicity or socioeconomic levels, location of CERDEP services, or prior learning care. CERDEP districts' KRA data showed that only 38% of students demonstrated overall kindergarten readiness as compared to 41% of students in non-CERDEP districts. By domains, CERDEP districts had 36% of students demonstrate readiness in Language/Literacy, 28% in Mathematics, 50% in Social Foundations, and 54% in Physical Well-being/Motor Development. Whereas, non-CERDEP districts’ domain scores of demonstrating readiness was 37% Language/Literacy, 31% Mathematics, 53% Social Foundations, and 57% Physical Well-Being/Motor Development (South Carolina Education Oversight Committee, 2019). The South Carolina Department of Education and local school districts have numerous data points to allow for a more in-depth analysis of KRA results; however, at this time, no additional research has been published. 

South Carolina school districts receive individual student score reports, teacher reports, and school reports with KRA domain and overall readiness scale scores as well as a level of readiness summary report. Score reports include demographic information such as gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. In 2017, districts started collecting individual student data about whether a child attended a four-year-old childhood education program; if they did, what type of program. Even though student and program data is now available, no research has been conducted to measure the effectiveness of current four-year-old kindergarten programs. South Carolina policymakers and administrators need KRA data research to plan and structure early childhood programs effectively. Research is needed to evaluate the impact of prekindergarten programs in South Carolina and to compare CERDEP students’ readiness levels based on the location of the program they attended. Research also needs to compare the kindergarten readiness scores within programs based on the ethnic and socioeconomic composition of four-year-old kindergarten programs.

Summary

Early childhood education research provides evidence that “academic achievement in primary and secondary school depends at least in part on the early education children receive” (Bainbridge et al., 2005, p. 725). This chapter has reviewed a variety of early childhood education research studies and relevant literature for an understanding of the needs, diversity, and benefits of early childhood education programs, as well as the quality, characteristics, and impact of early childhood education programs on kindergarten readiness. Most research to date has centered around the structural components which set apart one early childhood education program from another; however, research data consistently returns inconsistent evidence on the impact of these structural components on kindergarten readiness. One fairly consistent association between all of the studies in this chapter is the negative relationship of program quality and the percentage of at-risk (poverty) children in the classroom; hence, the higher saturation of poverty in a classroom is related to lower quality educational programs. More research is needed to evaluate the relationship of publicly funded four-year-old kindergarten programs on kindergarten readiness to ethnicity and socioeconomic variance within each classroom. 

While states are promoting their educational focus on early interventions for at-risk children, policymakers have created a homogeneous grouping of low socioeconomic levels of students within these early childhood classrooms. Ultimately, in South Carolina, this has led to not only socioeconomic segregation but also segregation of ethnic races in four-year-old kindergarten classrooms. By eliminating the ethnic and economic diversity in these classrooms, South Carolina has diminished the “social and cultural nature of the developmental process and the role of peers assisting each other in learning through Vygotsky’s notion of the Zone of Proximal Development” (Edwards, 2007, p. 84). 

Vygotsky's sociocultural theory highlighted the importance of peer interactions and differing peer abilities. Collaborative learning and modeling are strategies supported by Vygotsky to facilitate a “higher level of understanding under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). Brown, Jones, LaRusso, and Aber’s (2010) study found, “children experience classrooms through their relationships with their teachers and with their peers, and together children and teachers contribute to a dynamic and enduring set of interactions characterized by regular and consistent patterns” (p. 154). Sociocultural theory suggests that all children benefit from social interactions to build not only social skills but also enhance cognitive skills such as problem-solving and critical thinking. More research centered around sociocultural opportunities within early childhood programs is needed to evaluate whether students perform better on kindergarten readiness assessments if they are in culturally diverse classrooms.

The research in this study focused on a rural South Carolina county that qualifies to receive public funds for students who meet the at-risk income level for four-year-old kindergarten programs through CERDEP. Four-year-old kindergarten programs were analyzed using the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA) achievement performance data in the areas of language/literacy, mathematics, social foundations, and physical well-being/motor development as well as overall readiness. This study will be able to be replicated by other counties and districts across South Carolina to evaluate the effectiveness of four-year-old kindergarten programs within their community to ensure all students are kindergarten-ready. School district leaders and state policymakers can use the research to provide evidence of needed changes in funding or structural components to ensure all students have access to a high-quality early childhood education program that prepares them for kindergarten success. Ultimately, the study would be a tool for parents and community members to identify the early childhood programs which positively impact kindergarten readiness and helps minimize the educational achievement gaps between all populations. 

References

Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. (2001). Head Start program

performance measures: Third progress report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services.

Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. (2003). Head Start FACES 2000:A

whole child perspective on program performance fourth progress report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 46.

Alakeson, A. (2004). A 2020 vision for early years: Extending choice; improving life

chances. London: The Social Market Foundation.

Allen, M. J., Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Monterey, CA:

Brooks/Cole.

Ansari, A., Pianta, R. C., Whittaker, J. V., Vitiello, V. E., & Ruzek, E. A. (2019). Starting

early: The benefits of attending early childhood education programs at age 3. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 403-434. doi:10.3102/0002831218817737

Bainbridge, J., Meyers, M. K., Tanaka, S., & Waldfogel, J. (2005). Who gets an early

education? Family income and the enrollment of three- to five-year-olds from 1968 to 2000. Social Science Quarterly, 86(3), 724-745. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00326.x

Biddle, N., Crawford, H., & Seth-Purdie, R. (2017). Risk burden, participation in early

childhood education and care, and child outcomes. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42(1), 49-59.

Bowne, J. B., Magnuson, K. A., Schindler, H.S., Duncan, G. J., & Yoshikawa, H. (2017).

A meta-analysis of class sizes and ratios in early childhood education programs: Are thresholds of quality associated with greater impacts on cognitive, achievement, and socioemotional outcomes? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(3), 407-428. DOI:10:3102/0162373716689489

Brown, J. L., Jones, S. M., LaRusso, M. D., & Aber, J. L. (2010). Improving classroom

quality: Teacher influences and experimental impacts of the 4rs program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 153-167. DOI:10.1037/a0018160

Click, C., & Hinshaw, D. (2014, November 14). SC Supreme Court finds for poor

districts in 20-year-old school equity suit. The State, pp. 1A, 2A.

Clifford, R. M., Barbarin, O., Chang, F., Early, D., Bryant, D., Howes, C., … Pianta, R.

(2005). What is pre-kindergarten? Characteristics of public pre-kindergarten programs. Applied Developmental Science, 9(3), 126-143. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0903_1

Coley, R. L., Lombardi, C. M., Sims, J., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2013). Early education and

care experiences and cognitive skills development: A comparative perspective between Australian and American children. Family Matters, 93, 36-49. Retrieved from https://search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn=768724417777514;res=IELHSS

Currie, J. (2001). Early childhood education programs. Journal of Economic Perspectives

15(2), 213-238. Retrieved from https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.15.2.213

Education Commission of the States. (2019). Trends in pre-k education funding in 2017-

2018. Denver, CO: Parker, E., Keily, T., Atchison, B., & Mullen, J.

Edwards, S. (2007). From developmental-constructivism to socio-cultural theory and

practice: An expansive analysis of teachers’ professional learning in early childhood education. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 5(1), 83-106. DOI: 10.1177/1476718X07072155

Furstenberg, F., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Morgan, S. P. (1987). Adolescent mothers in later

life. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752810

Glassman, M. (2001). Dewey and Vygotsky: Society, experience, and inquiry in

educational practice. Educational Researcher, 30(4), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X030004003

Helburn, S., & Howes, C. (1996). Child care cost and quality. The Future of Children,

6(2), 62-82. DOI:10.2307/1602419

Hustedt, J. T., & Barnett, W. S. (2011). Private providers in state pre-k: Vital partners.

Young Children, 66(6), 42-48.

Johnson, J. J., Gallagher, R. J., Montagne, M. J., Jordan, J. B., Gallagher, J. J., Hutiner, P.

L., & Karnes, M. B. (Eds.) (1994). Meeting early intervention challenges: Issue from birth to three (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and

development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 191-206. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Holbrook_Mahn/publication/233858618_Sociocultural_Approaches_to_Learning_and_Development-A_Vygotskian_Framework/links/0fcfd50c3d30ccc22e000000.pdf

Lascarides, V., & Hinitz, B. (2000). History of early childhood education. New York,

NY: Routledge.

LoCasale-Crouch, J., Konold, T., Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D.,

… Barbarin, O. (2007). Observed classroom quality programs and associations with teacher, program, and classroom characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 3-17. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.05.001

Magnuson, K., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2007). Does prekindergarten improve school

preparation and performance? Economics of Education Review, 26, 33-51. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.09.008

Marcon, R. A. (2002) Moving up the grades: Relationship between preschool model and

later school success. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 5(1). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/marcon.html

Maryland State Department of Education. (2019). Ready for kindergarten: Maryland’s

Early Childhood Comprehensive Assessment System. Baltimore, MD: Author. Retrieved from https://earlychildhood.marylandpublicschools.org/system/files/filedepot/4/kra_2018-19_technical_report.pdf

McMillan, J. (2004). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer. Boston,

MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Moss, P. (2008). What future for the relationship between early childhood education and

care and compulsory schooling? Research in Comparative and International Education, 3(3), 224-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2008.3.3.224

Moss, P., & Haydon, G. (2008). Every child matters and the concept of education.

London: Institute of Education University of London.

National Center for Children in Poverty. (2000). Map and track 2000: State initiatives for

young children and families. New York: Author.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). The condition of education 2019.

Washington, DC: Author.

Ohio Department of Education. (2019). State Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA)

data 2018-2019 [Data file]. Retrieved from https://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/download

Peizener-Feinberg, E. S., Burchinal, M. R., Clifford, R. M., Culkin, M. L., Howes, C.,

Kagan, S. L., … Rustici, J. (1999). The children of the cost, quality, and outcomes study go to school: Public report. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, FPG Child Development Center.

Pelatti, C. Y., Dynia, J. M., Logan, J. A. R., Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. (2016).

Examining quality in two preschool settings: Publicly funded early childhood education and inclusive early childhood education classrooms. Child Youth Care Forum, 45, 829-849. DOI:10.1007/s10566-016-9359-9

Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R., Early, D., & Barbarin, O.

(2005). Features of pre-kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed classroom quality and child-teacher interactions? Applied Developmental Science, 9(3), 144-159. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0903_2

Ready at Five. (2019). Readiness matters 2019 [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from

https://www.readyatfive.org/school-readiness-data/readiness-matters-2019/1655-readinessmatters-2019-powerpoint.html

Reid, J., & Ready, D. (2013). High-quality preschool: The socioeconomic composition of

preschool classrooms and children’s learning. Early Education and Development. 24, 1082-1111. DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2012.757519

Reynolds, A. J., Mann, E., Miedel, W., & Smokowski, P. (1997). The state of early

childhood intervention: Effectiveness, myths and realities, new directions. Focus 19(1). University of Wisconsin-Madison: Institute for Research and Poverty.

Schechter, C., & Bye, B. (2007). Preliminary evidence for the impact of mixed-income

preschools on low-income children’s language growth. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(1), 137-146. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.11.005

Shonkoff, J., & Phillips, D. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science

of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

South Carolina Department of Education. (2018a). CERDEP guidelines.

Columbia, SC: Author.

South Carolina Department of Education. (2018b). School headcount by gender and

ethnicity d45_2018_19 [Data File]. Retrieved from https://ed.sc.gov/data/other/student-counts/active-student-headcounts/

South Carolina Department of Education. (2018c). School headcount by grade

d45_2018_19 [Data File]. Retrieved from https://ed.sc.gov/data/other/student-counts/active-student-headcounts/

South Carolina Department of Education. (2019). Precode manual (DRAC No. SCDE-

08-0005). Columbia, SC: Office of Assessment.

South Carolina Education Oversight Committee. (2019). Analysis of Kindergarten

Readiness Assessment (KRA) results: School year 2018-2019. Columbia, SC: Author.

Spatz, C. (2019). Exploring statistics: Tales of distributions. Conway, AR: Outcrop

Publishers.

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). A matter of equity: Preschool in America.

Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved

October 12, 2019, from https://www.ed.gov/essa

Vasagar, J. (2012, June 27). Michael Gove’s Masai inspiration. [blog post]. Retrieved

from https://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2012/jun/27/michaelgove-kenya

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes.

(M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souherman, Eds. and Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory. (n.d.) Retrieved from

http://www.ceebl.manchester.ac.uk/events/archive/aligningcollaborativelearning/Vygotsky.pdf

WestEd Standards Assessment and Accountability Services. (2014). Ready for

kindergarten: Kindergarten Readiness Assessment technical report fall 2014. Retrieved from https://ed.sc.gov/tests/tests-files/pre-k-and-kindergarten-readiness-assessments/kra-technical-report-2014/

WestEd Standards Assessment and Accountability Services. (2019). Kindergarten

Readiness Assessment South Carolina: Technical report 2018-2019. Retrieved from https://ed.sc.gov/tests/tests-files/pre-k-and-kindergarten-readiness-assessments/kra-sc-technical-report-2018-19/

Wood, E. (2007). Reconceptualising child-centred education: Contemporary directions in

policy, theory, and practice in early childhood. FORUM 49(1&2), 119-134. http://doi.org/10.2304/forum.2007.49.1.119